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

  • 478 Replies
  • 25098 Views
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #240 on: December 28, 2015, 09:48:34 AM »


In the meantime a brilliant shot of the engin gimbaling like made seconds before touchdown.

*

Heiwa

  • 8735
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #241 on: December 28, 2015, 10:18:38 AM »
If its very simple then show your equations then?
There is no equation or equations. There is an energy balance described at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#F9 .
You need fuel/energy to fly around in space and if you haven't, you'll not arrive home.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #242 on: December 28, 2015, 10:25:06 AM »
So you can't show us? Thought so. Just you saying it's not possible with not an ounce of evidence to prove it. That's all you had to say.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40496
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #243 on: December 28, 2015, 12:26:08 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.
Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

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.
Why not?  As a shareholder in Ariane, you must have some idea of how meticulously every aspect of a flight is calculated, planned, simulated, analyzed, simulated again and analyzed again.  What makes you think that SpaceX is any less meticulous in their preparations, especially for such high profile technology?

BTW, touch down speed was at about 2 m/s, not zero.

And steering with the hypersonic grid fins in the very thin air above 20 000 m altitude? It is a joke!
Why?  The Russians and Americans use grid fins on several weapons systems for years.  Besides, the grid fins were added on the 5th return test flight to add a finer degree of control in steering the booster during and after reentry.

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.
That was the purpose of the several burns after second stage separation.

But the girl presenting the show was cute. The Russians are using the same trick when they send off their rockets from Bajkonur.
What tricks does Ariane use when they send off their rockets from French Guiana?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Heiwa

  • 8735
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #244 on: December 28, 2015, 10:35:34 PM »


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.
That was the purpose of the several burns after second stage separation.

Before Elon tried the barge hoax - the rocket first stage continued after separation out to sea to land on a little barge floating there that nobody could watch. On a video we could see how it failed; rocket slipping on the deck and then EXPLODING producing smoke. All fake CGI. Never happened. The fakers  like FIREBALLS and smoke. It impresses the viewers.

Now Elon tried the night landing hoax - the rocket first stage flipped 180 horizontally and carried out a Boost back burn to fly back (!) over land again where it had started and stop there at high altitude and then to drop straight down, more burns, for a touch down at 2 m/s speed in the middle of the night. Just shown on a fake video as usual.

Simple calculations show that you cannot carry the fuel to do these burns. Actually the first Boost back burn - stopping movement in one direction out to sea, move back in the other direction and stop above land again is impossible as it requires plenty fuel that you cannot carry with you.

Reason for the hoaxes is to allow SpaceX to collect money for trips to the International Space Station - another hoax. The ISS does not exist!

But it is fun to watch. I like the cute girls getting excited about it.

« Last Edit: December 28, 2015, 11:54:16 PM by Heiwa »

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #245 on: December 29, 2015, 12:41:55 AM »
What do we see inthe sky that claims to be the ISS and what about people returning from it?

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #246 on: December 29, 2015, 01:17:20 AM »
So space x are making the launches cheeper so they can make more money? ??? How does that work then ?

And no you have shown us no calculations.  Maby you should. Yes?

?

ergovivo

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #247 on: December 29, 2015, 02:34:55 AM »
You can carry the fuel to go any distance, the amount just increases exponentially.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #248 on: December 29, 2015, 05:19:58 AM »
Heiwa what is you opinions on the blue origin reusable rocket? Is thst fake?
What about your favourite company Ariane with their adeline reusable stage? Will that be fake to?
« Last Edit: December 29, 2015, 05:34:19 AM by Pythagoras »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40496
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #249 on: December 29, 2015, 05:32:48 AM »
Simple calculations show that you cannot carry the fuel to do these burns. Actually the first Boost back burn - stopping movement in one direction out to sea, move back in the other direction and stop above land again is impossible as it requires plenty fuel that you cannot carry with you.
Would you care to show your "simple calculations", because, from what I've heard, SpaceX is incurring about a 30% payload penalty for saving enough fuel to land the booster.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Heiwa

  • 8735
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #250 on: December 29, 2015, 05:51:15 AM »
Simple calculations show that you cannot carry the fuel to do these burns. Actually the first Boost back burn - stopping movement in one direction out to sea, move back in the other direction and stop above land again is impossible as it requires plenty fuel that you cannot carry with you.
Would you care to show your "simple calculations", because, from what I've heard, SpaceX is incurring about a 30% payload penalty for saving enough fuel to land the booster.

My "simple calculations" are presented at my webpage http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#F9 , free of charge, no ads, just fun. And a cute girl!!!!!!

A real payload penalty should be 1 000% because you need plenty fuel/energy to land the booster (or first stage) and then there is no energy left to go further.

Actually, no 50 tons rocket can be sent up to 200 000 m altitude and then return intact by braking during the free fall return down. Just study basic physics and dynamics and you'll understand.


*

Heiwa

  • 8735
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #251 on: December 29, 2015, 06:07:21 AM »
But the girl presenting the show was cute. The Russians are using the same trick when they send off their rockets from Bajkonur.
What tricks does Ariane use when they send off their rockets from French Guiana?
No tricks. They/we (me being a share holder) just send a 1-3 ton payload into orbit. Easy. Using a one stage, very simple, two engines rocket.

Nothing like SpaceX that sends 56-58 tons payload up using two stages of which 55 tons is fuel burnt to recover the first stage with nine engines. Complete madness. BUT it is logical. NASA has faked space travel since 1962 and is running out of steam. NASA needs new useful idiots to take over. Elon is #1. Great fun. I wonder how long it will last.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #252 on: December 29, 2015, 06:09:33 AM »
So its okey for Ariane to have a reusable stage but not space x?

*

Heiwa

  • 8735
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #253 on: December 29, 2015, 06:12:06 AM »
So its okey for Ariane to have a reusable stage but not space x?
Only useful idiots ask such questions.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #254 on: December 29, 2015, 06:14:45 AM »
Only people on the wrong side of the argument constantly dodge questions and refuse to provide evidence, in your case equations.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2015, 06:16:52 AM by Pythagoras »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40496
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #255 on: December 29, 2015, 06:27:45 AM »
Simple calculations show that you cannot carry the fuel to do these burns. Actually the first Boost back burn - stopping movement in one direction out to sea, move back in the other direction and stop above land again is impossible as it requires plenty fuel that you cannot carry with you.
Would you care to show your "simple calculations", because, from what I've heard, SpaceX is incurring about a 30% payload penalty for saving enough fuel to land the booster.

My "simple calculations" are presented at my webpage http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#F9 , free of charge, no ads, just fun. And a cute girl!!!!!!
Then you shouldn't have any trouble providing the relevant quote from your site.

A real payload penalty should be 1 000% because you need plenty fuel/energy to land the booster (or first stage) and then there is no energy left to go further.
You do realize that most of the fuel was used on the way up, so you wind up trying to land significantly less mass than you launch.  Not to mention the fact that atmospheric drag, which is a bad thing on the way up, actually becomes a good thing on the way down.

Actually, no 50 tons rocket can be sent up to 200 000 m altitude and then return intact by braking during the free fall return down. Just study basic physics and dynamics and you'll understand.
Evidently you're the one who needs to study the relevant physics and dynamics because atmospheric reenty has been a reality for many years.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Heiwa

  • 8735
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #256 on: December 29, 2015, 06:38:56 AM »

You do realize that most of the fuel was used on the way up, so you wind up trying to land significantly less mass than you launch.  Not to mention the fact that atmospheric drag, which is a bad thing on the way up, actually becomes a good thing on the way down.


Yes, you need plenty fuel/energy/mass to get off the ground - most of it is lost on the way up - and atmospheric drag is of course a problem. Apart from gravity. But atmospheric drag - and gravity -  is not a good thing on the way down. I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#F9 . What goes up will come down. But not land intact at 0 m/s speed.

Suggest you focus on topic and do not troll this thread with off topic stupid comments.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #257 on: December 29, 2015, 06:58:07 AM »
But presumably you belive Ariane can build a reusable stage?

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #258 on: December 29, 2015, 07:09:47 AM »
Not to mention the fact that atmospheric drag, which is a bad thing on the way up, actually becomes a good thing on the way down.

Oh yeah? "Atmospheric drag becomes a good thing"?? :D :D

Ask the various meteors made of hard rock and burning up to dust for BILLIONS of years already that...

Nothing survives the atmospheric friction (drag), only fantasy farytale fictional shpayze dinkies that Elon Musk, NASA, ESA and all the other clowns claim to send up and let re-enter the atmosphere...
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #259 on: December 29, 2015, 07:12:14 AM »
Not to mention the fact that atmospheric drag, which is a bad thing on the way up, actually becomes a good thing on the way down.

Oh yeah? "Atmospheric drag becomes a good thing"?? :D :D

Ask the various meteors made of hard rock and burning up to dust for BILLIONS of years already that...

Nothing survives the atmospheric friction (drag), only fantasy farytale fictional shpayze dinkies that Elon Musk, NASA, ESA and all the other clowns claim to send up and let re-enter the atmosphere...

And how fast are they going compared to space x?

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #260 on: December 29, 2015, 07:22:07 AM »
Not to mention the fact that atmospheric drag, which is a bad thing on the way up, actually becomes a good thing on the way down.

Oh yeah? "Atmospheric drag becomes a good thing"?? :D :D

Ask the various meteors made of hard rock and burning up to dust for BILLIONS of years already that...

Nothing survives the atmospheric friction (drag), only fantasy farytale fictional shpayze dinkies that Elon Musk, NASA, ESA and all the other clowns claim to send up and let re-enter the atmosphere...

And how fast are they going compared to space x?

Irrelevant; the faster the object goes, the higher the frictional force, but also the shorter the time exposed to that force.

"Slower" objects experience less frictional force per time unit, but that's compensated by a longer exposure time.

Any shpayze dinky toy should "land" completely burnt and encrusted with molten metal, yet in the happy-peppy footage we always see brand clean thingies.

Thus they can never have re-entered atmosphere and experienced 9.8 m/s2 for minutes. It's so stupidly fake that it's hilarious to see you defending those clowns. :D :D
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #261 on: December 29, 2015, 07:28:16 AM »
You think speed is irrelivant? And you are lecturing me on what can and can't be done?
Not to mention the fact that atmospheric drag, which is a bad thing on the way up, actually becomes a good thing on the way down.

Oh yeah? "Atmospheric drag becomes a good thing"?? :D :D

Ask the various meteors made of hard rock and burning up to dust for BILLIONS of years already that...

Nothing survives the atmospheric friction (drag), only fantasy farytale fictional shpayze dinkies that Elon Musk, NASA, ESA and all the other clowns claim to send up and let re-enter the atmosphere...

And how fast are they going compared to space x?

Irrelevant; the faster the object goes, the higher the frictional force, but also the shorter the time exposed to that force.

"Slower" objects experience less frictional force per time unit, but that's compensated by a longer exposure time.

Any shpayze dinky toy should "land" completely burnt and encrusted with molten metal, yet in the happy-peppy footage we always see brand clean thingies.

Thus they can never have re-entered atmosphere and experienced 9.8 m/s2 for minutes. It's so stupidly fake that it's hilarious to see you defending those clowns. :D :D

So if you think thst it's just exposure time that matters then I guess an object going at 10 mph would be burnt to a crisp because it's exposed to re entry for even longer.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #262 on: December 29, 2015, 07:39:16 AM »
You think speed is irrelivant? And you are lecturing me on what can and can't be done?
Not to mention the fact that atmospheric drag, which is a bad thing on the way up, actually becomes a good thing on the way down.

Oh yeah? "Atmospheric drag becomes a good thing"?? :D :D

Ask the various meteors made of hard rock and burning up to dust for BILLIONS of years already that...

Nothing survives the atmospheric friction (drag), only fantasy farytale fictional shpayze dinkies that Elon Musk, NASA, ESA and all the other clowns claim to send up and let re-enter the atmosphere...

And how fast are they going compared to space x?

Irrelevant; the faster the object goes, the higher the frictional force, but also the shorter the time exposed to that force.

"Slower" objects experience less frictional force per time unit, but that's compensated by a longer exposure time.

Any shpayze dinky toy should "land" completely burnt and encrusted with molten metal, yet in the happy-peppy footage we always see brand clean thingies.

Thus they can never have re-entered atmosphere and experienced 9.8 m/s2 for minutes. It's so stupidly fake that it's hilarious to see you defending those clowns. :D :D

So if you think thst it's just exposure time that matters then I guess an object going at 10 mph would be burnt to a crisp because it's exposed to re entry for even longer.

You present v=constant, which is impossible with a=9.8 m/s2.

Everything burns up, indeed. The ridiculous footage of floating "re-entered" shpayze thingies without a single scratch or crispy crust shows you how fake it all is.

But just keep defending silly stories and clownesque craziness; you making a fool of yourself is very funny. :D
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #263 on: December 29, 2015, 07:47:20 AM »
It's surface is covered in soot for starters. And as for falling at 9.8m/s2 did it ever occur to you that the engins were used to slow it down as did friction with the atmosphere? What was the maximum speed the stage reached during re entry?

*

sokarul

  • 18208
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #264 on: December 29, 2015, 08:43:28 AM »
You think speed is irrelivant? And you are lecturing me on what can and can't be done?
Not to mention the fact that atmospheric drag, which is a bad thing on the way up, actually becomes a good thing on the way down.

Oh yeah? "Atmospheric drag becomes a good thing"?? :D :D

Ask the various meteors made of hard rock and burning up to dust for BILLIONS of years already that...

Nothing survives the atmospheric friction (drag), only fantasy farytale fictional shpayze dinkies that Elon Musk, NASA, ESA and all the other clowns claim to send up and let re-enter the atmosphere...

And how fast are they going compared to space x?

Irrelevant; the faster the object goes, the higher the frictional force, but also the shorter the time exposed to that force.

"Slower" objects experience less frictional force per time unit, but that's compensated by a longer exposure time.

Any shpayze dinky toy should "land" completely burnt and encrusted with molten metal, yet in the happy-peppy footage we always see brand clean thingies.

Thus they can never have re-entered atmosphere and experienced 9.8 m/s2 for minutes. It's so stupidly fake that it's hilarious to see you defending those clowns. :D :D




So if you think thst it's just exposure time that matters then I guess an object going at 10 mph would be burnt to a crisp because it's exposed to re entry for even longer.

You present v=constant, which is impossible with a=9.8 m/s2.

Everything burns up, indeed. The ridiculous footage of floating "re-entered" shpayze thingies without a single scratch or crispy crust shows you how fake it all is.

But just keep defending silly stories and clownesque craziness; you making a fool of yourself is very funny. :D

Terminal velocity says objects can stop accelerating while falling in atmosphere.

Fixed quote.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2015, 10:11:56 AM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #265 on: December 29, 2015, 09:28:07 AM »
You think speed is irrelivant? And you are lecturing me on what can and can't be done?
Not to mention the fact that atmospheric drag, which is a bad thing on the way up, actually becomes a good thing on the way down.

Oh yeah? "Atmospheric drag becomes a good thing"?? :D :D

Ask the various meteors made of hard rock and burning up to dust for BILLIONS of years already that...

Nothing survives the atmospheric friction (drag), only fantasy farytale fictional shpayze dinkies that Elon Musk, NASA, ESA and all the other clowns claim to send up and let re-enter the atmosphere...

And how fast are they going compared to space x?

Irrelevant; the faster the object goes, the higher the frictional force, but also the shorter the time exposed to that force.

"Slower" objects experience less frictional force per time unit, but that's compensated by a longer exposure time.

Any shpayze dinky toy should "land" completely burnt and encrusted with molten metal, yet in the happy-peppy footage we always see brand clean thingies.

Thus they can never have re-entered atmosphere and experienced 9.8 m/s2 for minutes. It's so stupidly fake that it's hilarious to see you defending those clowns. :D :D

So if you think thst it's just exposure time that matters then I guess an object going at 10 mph would be burnt to a crisp because it's exposed to re entry for even longer.

You present v=constant, which is impossible with a=9.8 m/s2.

Everything burns up, indeed. The ridiculous footage of floating "re-entered" shpayze thingies without a single scratch or crispy crust shows you how fake it all is.

But just keep defending silly stories and clownesque craziness; you making a fool of yourself is very funny. :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Heiwa

  • 8735
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #266 on: December 29, 2015, 10:43:57 AM »
Hm, topic is SpaceX's return (to) flight and (first) landing success.

It should be recalled that the SpaceX rocket departed from Florida in direction East over the Atlantic to put some satellites in orbit at 700 000 m altitude at great velocities. Previously SpaceX had tried to recover the first stage by landing it on an old, rusty barge outside Florida but it failed. The first stage then slipped of the rolling and pitching barge and exploded in a FIREBALL before sinking into the sea.

So this time we were told that the rocket first stage actually managed to stop its eastward flight at 1700 m/s speed above the Atlantic after delivering the second stage and then flow back (!) westward to Florida at unknown speed, where it stopped (!) again at 200 000 m altitude ... where it dropped straight down by gravity to land. No barge!

The first part of the return trip after separation from the second stage, stopping, going back to Florida, stopping again at 200 000 m altitude took about 135 seconds using the rocket engines aboard - Boost back burns.

The vertical free fall took 300 seconds and were slowed down by Entry and Landing burns. So instead of crashing at > 1000 m/s speed the first stage landed intact at 2 m/s speed on land. Not on a slippery barge.

Simple calculations show that you cannot stop a rocket going one way to go back again and then drop down from 200 000 m altitude and land using rocket engines aboard. There is not enough fuel aboard. So it seems Elon Musk faked it ... again.


Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #267 on: December 29, 2015, 10:46:07 AM »
Once again show us your simple calculations. And no, they are not on your "popular" website.

*

Heiwa

  • 8735
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #268 on: December 29, 2015, 11:15:39 AM »
Once again show us your simple calculations. And no, they are not on your "popular" website.
Calculations? According SpaceX the rocket first stage stopped over the Atlantic and flow back to Florida, where it dropped back from 200 000 m altitude and landed - using its own rocket engines. Just watch the SpaceX webcast show. The whole trip from lift off, separation of second stage, stopping over the Atlantic, going back to Florida and dropping down to land/touch down took less than 10 minutes, i.e. lift off to separation took 150 seconds, stopping and going back to Florida took 135 seconds and dropping straight down to Florida and touch down took 300 seconds.
An analysis of the fuel consumption of the trip is on my website. The result is that the rocket first stage would have run out of fuel early and crashed. Only twirps believe you can send up a rocket in space and then bring it back and land.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #269 on: December 29, 2015, 11:17:12 AM »
Once again. No such calculations exist on you "popular" website.  Can you point me to the relevant section or post it hear?