Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success

Quote

There's no landing; all objects entering the atmosphere simply burn up to dust.

The fact that there was a landing witnessed by thousands and will be more to follow makes it hard to agree with you.

also

based on what do you say this?

Oh, you can find "thousands" who "saw" "planes" "morphing into" the WTC towers. There are "thousands" who claim to have been "abducted by aliens", "thousands" who claim to have been targeted by "terrorists" and equally "thousands" who claim the Earth is a flat dish.

What does that prove? That there are "thousands" of compulsive liars in the world.

Physics simply refutes all this bullcrap. There's no escape from burning up to dust. Every day thousands of rocks do just that; meteors, a.k.a. falling stars.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on December 26, 2015, 09:39:11 PM

Quote

There's no landing; all objects entering the atmosphere simply burn up to dust.

The fact that there was a landing witnessed by thousands and will be more to follow makes it hard to agree with you.

also

based on what do you say this?

Oh, you can find "thousands" who "saw" "planes" "morphing into" the WTC towers. There are "thousands" who claim to have been "abducted by aliens", "thousands" who claim to have been targeted by "terrorists" and equally "thousands" who claim the Earth is a flat dish.

What does that prove? That there are "thousands" of compulsive liars in the world.

Physics simply refutes all this bullcrap. There's no escape from burning up to dust. Every day thousands of rocks do just that; meteors, a.k.a. falling stars.

  what physics say it's not possible? And in regards to the thousands seeing it. You can count that as millions over the years thst have seen rocket launches. Also every space x launch from now on will attempt a recovery. I wonder how many more people thst will meet watch it. Will you go and see for yourself or just sit at home with your fingers over your eyes going la la la it's not real if I don't see it?

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on December 27, 2015, 12:24:02 PM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on December 26, 2015, 09:39:11 PM

Quote

There's no landing; all objects entering the atmosphere simply burn up to dust.

The fact that there was a landing witnessed by thousands and will be more to follow makes it hard to agree with you.

also

based on what do you say this?

Oh, you can find "thousands" who "saw" "planes" "morphing into" the WTC towers. There are "thousands" who claim to have been "abducted by aliens", "thousands" who claim to have been targeted by "terrorists" and equally "thousands" who claim the Earth is a flat dish.

What does that prove? That there are "thousands" of compulsive liars in the world.

Physics simply refutes all this bullcrap. There's no escape from burning up to dust. Every day thousands of rocks do just that; meteors, a.k.a. falling stars.

  what physics say it's not possible? And in regards to the thousands seeing it. You can count that as millions over the years thst have seen rocket launches. Also every space x launch from now on will attempt a recovery. I wonder how many more people thst will meet watch it. Will you go and see for yourself or just sit at home with your fingers over your eyes going la la la it's not real if I don't see it?

Topic is the SpaceX return flight almost a week ago. It is a very funny story. At high hypersonic and low zero speeds up and down. Maybe people watched it but ... nobody heard anything. Listen!

The Falcon 9 rocket created a first sonic boom 1 minute 5 seconds after lift off at 8 000 m altitude, when it accelerated above 340 m/s speed. Nobody heard it.
Then the first and second stages separated and the first stage slowed down to 0 speed at 200 000 m altitude due to some Boost back burns without any sonic boom when slowing down.
Then the first stage dropped down and accelerated above 340 m/s speed again without any sonic boom heard and ... going to fast was slowed down again - an Entry burn - at 130 000 m altitude.
But the rocket speed increased again above 340 m/s speed - no sonic boom heard - and approached ground at hypersonic speed >1 100 m/s. A final Landing burn was required.
 And 20 seconds later the speed was 0! No sonic booms heard. The rocket had landed. Something standing in smoke on ground shown on TV was the landing rocket.
I have never seen anything more ridiculous. How can anyone believe such nonsense?

Plenty of fottage showes sonic booms. You saying they don't does not mean they didnt

Plenty of fottage shoes sonic booms. You saying they don't does not mean they didnt

What the hell is fottage shoes?

Every fottage I watch contains a sonic boom.

Every fottage I watch contains a sonic boom.

Ridiculous. A black screen with a fireball shot from 9 miles. Rubbish.

Quote from: Pythagoras on December 27, 2015, 02:22:21 PM

Every fottage I watch contains a sonic boom.

Ridiculous...Rubbish.

Like your claims.

Earth is flat because a flat earther says so!

Quote from: Pythagoras on December 27, 2015, 02:22:21 PM

Every fottage I watch contains a sonic boom.

Ridiculous. A black screen with a fireball shot from 9 miles. Rubbish.

Why is it rubbish?  What should we see in your "professional" opinion?

Quote from: Pythagoras on December 27, 2015, 02:12:51 PM

Plenty of fottage shoes sonic booms. You saying they don't does not mean they didnt

What the hell is fottage shoes?

Oh, come, come!  You expect a Vulcan to have perfect English spelling?  I guess you're spot on in Vulcan!  I think you are like "V'tosh ka'tur"!

Quote from: Heiwa on December 27, 2015, 02:41:46 PM

Quote from: Pythagoras on December 27, 2015, 02:22:21 PM

Every fottage I watch contains a sonic boom.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Ridiculous. A black screen with a fireball shot from 9 miles. Rubbish.

Why is it rubbish?  What should we see in your "professional" opinion?

The video maker is watching a launch and 'recovery' from 10 miles away in pitch dark and we only see a fireball - the exhaust. A certain time after launch a fireball is seen slowly approaching ground and it is suggested it was the rocket landing again.

SpaceX on the other hand was filming the 'landing' close-up. Suddenly a rocket is appearing from nowhere and ... standing on the ground. If it was the same rocket that was sent up remains to be verified.

Why am I not convinced? The alleged trajectory of the rocket (first stage) is impossible in the given time. The rocket is flying away from the launch pad at hypersonic speed, is turned back (how? _ boost back LOL) and slowed down to zero speed, then drops down, reaches hypersonic speed again but is slowed down (entry burn), reaches hypersonic speed another time and is finally slowed down from >1000 m/S hypersonic speed to 0 in less than 20 seconds (landing burn) and ... lands. Hole in one. Steering by hypersonic grid fins full of holes. A joke. Magic! I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#F9 .

Hey look!  The Heiwa bot needs more ad revenue!  Make sure you go to the site.  God knows he won't post any details here.

Hey look!  The Heiwa bot needs more ad revenue!  Make sure you go to the site.  God knows he won't post any details here.

Hm, no ads on my web site and very few visitors from FE forum studying my funny space travel site. But >1500 visitors from Estonia during the weekend studying a more serious page - in Estonian. It seems somebody in Estonia linked to me.

But frenat - do you really believe that a 20 tons rocket dropping down from the sky at >1100 m/s speed - three times the speed of sound - can stop in 20 seconds and land on ground? Intact? Steered by some fins with holes in them?

It was a funny show, though. The girl was cute and excited, the boys didn't really look professional and the 'old' engineer didn't look like an engineer. I link to the show on my web site. If you haven't seen it, see it!

But frenat - do you really believe that a 20 tons rocket dropping down from the sky at >1100 m/s speed - three times the speed of sound - can stop in 20 seconds and land on ground? Intact? Steered by some fins with holes in them?

Do you think that 5.5g of deceleration is unreasonable for a nearly empty rocket?

Quote from: Heiwa on December 27, 2015, 07:58:20 PM

But frenat - do you really believe that a 20 tons rocket dropping down from the sky at >1100 m/s speed - three times the speed of sound - can stop in 20 seconds and land on ground? Intact? Steered by some fins with holes in them?

Do you think that 5.5g of deceleration is unreasonable for a nearly empty rocket?

Yes. Pocket parking a big rocket dropping down at hypersonic speed and braking by a landing burn at the last moment is not realistic. You must know the mass of the rocket after all the initial burns, its hypersonic speed and direction, its exact location above ground, etc, and then apply the thrust in exactly the right direction and duration for ... touch down at 0 speed. Not possible.

And steering with the hypersonic grid fins in the very thin air above 20 000 m altitude? It is a joke!

The whole trajectory of the 435 seconds stunt is also impossible. Average speed is >800 m/s but halfway it is almost 0. At the start of the stunt you are a fair distance - 50 kms - away from the landing zone and heading away from it. How to return? Not possible.

But the girl presenting the show was cute. The Russians are using the same trick when they send off their rockets from Bajkonur.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 27, 2015, 02:20:35 PM

Quote from: Pythagoras on December 27, 2015, 02:12:51 PM

Plenty of fottage shoes sonic booms. You saying they don't does not mean they didnt

What the hell is fottage shoes?

Oh, come, come!  You expect a Vulcan to have perfect English spelling?  I guess you're spot on in Vulcan!  I think you are like "V'tosh ka'tur"!

You probably believe he is something like that. I bet you're sat there in your star trek suit.
You people live for fantasy and are so naive it's comical and sad at the same time.

Have you got calculations to show it's imposible or just your misguided opinion once again?

Have you got calculations to show it's imposible or just your misguided opinion once again?

Are you asking me? Yes, I have the calculations. You know where to look for them.

And non of those prove it not to be possible. So try again.

You literally just state a load of numbers in random order mixed in with opinion on why you think it's imposible. Not a single equation to show why it's not possible.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3yg6mn/reasonably_accurate_simulation_of_the_orbcomm_2/

Brilliant realistic simulation tying together the audio from the live feed and the telemetry from the craft with a visualisation of its trajectory and orientation during landing.

And non of those prove it not to be possible. So try again.

You literally just state a load of numbers in random order mixed in with opinion on why you think it's imposible. Not a single equation to show why it's not possible.

You are just jealous. Pls study my article again.

Quote from: frenat on December 27, 2015, 07:46:42 PM

Hey look!  The Heiwa bot needs more ad revenue!  Make sure you go to the site.  God knows he won't post any details here.

Hm, no ads on my web site and very few visitors from FE forum studying my funny space travel site. But >1500 visitors from Estonia during the weekend studying a more serious page - in Estonian. It seems somebody in Estonia linked to me.

But frenat - do you really believe that a 20 tons rocket dropping down from the sky at >1100 m/s speed - three times the speed of sound - can stop in 20 seconds and land on ground? Intact? Steered by some fins with holes in them?

It was a funny show, though. The girl was cute and excited, the boys didn't really look professional and the 'old' engineer didn't look like an engineer. I link to the show on my web site. If you haven't seen it, see it!

I really believe YOU and your page are ignorant.  All of your pages are full of arguments from incredulity and little actual math.  I really believe that you have been caught multiple times changing your challenge pages to avoid awarding the money you don't have to those that have met your requirements.  I really believe that you are incapable of actually arguing your point here so you constantly push/spam your own site.  You and your site are a joke.  At least you provided some humor to some Estonian surfers.

I can assure you with a reputation such as yours I have nothing to be jealous of. And again no. Where are your equations showing how much fuel is required to complete the landing what about the friction the craft encounters while falling through the atmosphere. Where are your structural calculations showing as you say how flimsy the grid fins are?

I can assure you with a reputation such as yours I have nothing to be jealous of. And again no. Where are your equations showing how much fuel is required to complete the landing what about the friction the craft encounters while falling through the atmosphere. Where are your structural calculations showing as you say how flimsy the grid fins are?

My reputation is very good and I have nothing to hide. I use my own name at my website and name/photo at FE forum and anyone can contact me about any errors, etc., if any.  I do not hide behind a stupid pseudonym allowing me to insult people.

All my calculations are shown in my papers. Equations used are the basic ones.

And the result is always the same: You cannot carry the fuel/energy with you to land any space ship anywhere after departure Earth.

You get too heavy. You do not get off the ground. Or you crash on arrival. You cannot carry the fuel/energy with you to brake or slow down. Thus you have to fake it.  Yuri Gagarin and his commie friends started it. And now Elon Musk is collecting billions from US tax payers to carry on the hoax.

Don't blame me! I just play the music and laugh. 95+% of the Americans suffer from cognitive dissonance. They cannot accept that they are mentally sick and brainwashed with silly info.

I can assure you your reputation is not a good one.

Then post your equations for us to see. It shouldn't be that hard should it? Your refusal to continue to show any equations or evidence is suspect to say the least.

I can assure you your reputation is not a good one.

Then post your equations for us to see. It shouldn't be that hard should it? Your refusal to continue to show any equations or evidence is suspect to say the least.

You can? But I don't know you, so I do not consider you serious.

The equations are at my web site. Cannot copy/paste all of it every time.

Anyway, topic is SpaceX's return flight that I consider 100% fake for reasons given here and at my site. Try to focus on topic instead of other things? I am a nice, reputable person but it is not the topic here.

Imagine a spaceship first stage, after having delievered its second stage, flips over to a horizontal position, while continuing upwards, then fires its rocket engines to stop the horizontal displacement in one direction to bring it back above the launch pad in the other direction to stop there and then flipping 90° dropping with the bottom towards the ground 200 000 m below.

If it drops freefall it will hit ground at a very high hypersonic speed within minutes. But the owners say they can fire the rocket engines to stop the fall. Only problem is that there is no fuel to do it. Basic. It is almost an axiom. You cannot bring the energy with you to stop a fall in a gravity field.

Show us the equation that shows their will be no fuel left to slow down for landing. Just one equation. It's not on your "popular" (lol) website iv looked.

Show us the equation that shows their will be no fuel left to slow down for landing. Just one equation. It's not on your "popular" (lol) website iv looked.

It is very simple. An energy balance. We know, e.g. the kinetic energy of the first stage when it approaches the landing stage for a touch down at 0 speed. In order to stop the first stage moving at high speed, you must apply a force during a certain time in the opposite direction and the only way to do it is fireing the rocket engine. It requires fuel/energy but all calculations show that the fuel/energy available cannot do the job. The first stage crashes.

All space travel is the same. It is very easy to accelerate a space ship to high speeds at high altitudes BUT you can never brake, stop and land. It is all explained at my popular website with >1000 visitors today (mainly looking at another page about the M/S Estonia - a seagoing ship - sinking 1994). Imagine that 1000+ people are reading about a 21 years old accident at sea at my web site. But maybe 100 study my space travel web site. All seem happy! It doesn't cost anything and I provide valid information.

If its very simple then show your equations then?