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

  • 478 Replies
  • 55029 Views
*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #330 on: December 31, 2015, 08:38:09 AM »
Ariane are developing a reusable stage. You saying they are not will not change that. As for the rest hear is the list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reusable_launch_system
No. Airbus NX might encourage young engineers to develop ideas of all kind incl. reusable rockets but 99.99% of these projects end up in failures. It doesn't cost much and everybody learns a lot from it.
A company with a 99.99% failure rate doesn't sound like a very good investment to me.  I suggest that you dump your stock as soon a possible.
Hm, it seems big Airbus invests at little in very small companies run by inventors without money to see what happens, i.e. they fail after a while in most cases. All tax deductible. Actually Airbus is very profitable ... building civilian airplanes. The space biz is minimal but profitable. I have just increased my stake in the company.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #331 on: December 31, 2015, 08:39:33 AM »
Sonic booms only occur where there is air at low altitudes and around 340 m/s speed. So there must have been a sonic boom just after start but then the rocket was over the Atlantic heading for the Azores and orbit at 700 000 m altitude. After separation at 80 000 m altitude the rocket first stage changed direction while slowing down and heading back to land, where it stopped at 200 000 m altitude and zero speed just above the launch pad and in no air and changed direction again = down.
How the first stage managed to turn 180° at supersonic speed between 80 000 and 200 000 m altitude is one of the mysteries of the whole SpaceX return recovery.
And then the first stage dropped straight down going faster and faster again and passing the speed of sound again. There was a reentry burn at 130 000 m altitude in nor air to slow down the drop but after that  it went faster and faster again. Now the famous hypersonic grid fins were flapped out to steer the rocket. We were back in very thin air.
To arrive in time you must have arrived at supersonic speed >1 150 m/s at about 17 000 m altitude only 30 seconds before touch down, when the Landing burn started. Maybe you had 340 m/s speed just 10 seconds before touch down = sonic boom. One rocket engine was burning full thrust 70 tons to stop the first stage and maybe the combination exhaust ejected at 5 000 m/s speed prevented a sonic boom. Maybe a sonic boom was created by the supersonic grid fins?
According my calculations one engine on full trust cannot have been sufficient to stop the first stage. To avoid a crash you need to fire four or five engines at full trust but there is a problem. You do not have the fuel for it. It would be interesting if SpaceX could inform how you stop anything doing 1 150 m/s speed in 30 seconds. And how much fuel was used.
Please show your calculations here.
The calculations are at my website.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #332 on: December 31, 2015, 08:41:39 AM »
Sonic booms only occur where there is air at low altitudes and around 340 m/s speed. So there must have been a sonic boom just after start but then the rocket was over the Atlantic heading for the Azores and orbit at 700 000 m altitude. After separation at 80 000 m altitude the rocket first stage changed direction while slowing down and heading back to land, where it stopped at 200 000 m altitude and zero speed just above the launch pad and in no air and changed direction again = down.
How the first stage managed to turn 180° at supersonic speed between 80 000 and 200 000 m altitude is one of the mysteries of the whole SpaceX return recovery.
And then the first stage dropped straight down going faster and faster again and passing the speed of sound again. There was a reentry burn at 130 000 m altitude in nor air to slow down the drop but after that  it went faster and faster again. Now the famous hypersonic grid fins were flapped out to steer the rocket. We were back in very thin air.
To arrive in time you must have arrived at supersonic speed >1 150 m/s at about 17 000 m altitude only 30 seconds before touch down, when the Landing burn started. Maybe you had 340 m/s speed just 10 seconds before touch down = sonic boom. One rocket engine was burning full thrust 70 tons to stop the first stage and maybe the combination exhaust ejected at 5 000 m/s speed prevented a sonic boom. Maybe a sonic boom was created by the supersonic grid fins?
According my calculations one engine on full trust cannot have been sufficient to stop the first stage. To avoid a crash you need to fire four or five engines at full trust but there is a problem. You do not have the fuel for it. It would be interesting if SpaceX could inform how you stop anything doing 1 150 m/s speed in 30 seconds. And how much fuel was used.
Please show your calculations here.
The calculations are at my website.
Link please

And the UK person in the ISS?

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #333 on: December 31, 2015, 08:50:06 AM »
Sonic booms only occur where there is air at low altitudes and around 340 m/s speed. So there must have been a sonic boom just after start but then the rocket was over the Atlantic heading for the Azores and orbit at 700 000 m altitude. After separation at 80 000 m altitude the rocket first stage changed direction while slowing down and heading back to land, where it stopped at 200 000 m altitude and zero speed just above the launch pad and in no air and changed direction again = down.
How the first stage managed to turn 180° at supersonic speed between 80 000 and 200 000 m altitude is one of the mysteries of the whole SpaceX return recovery.
And then the first stage dropped straight down going faster and faster again and passing the speed of sound again. There was a reentry burn at 130 000 m altitude in nor air to slow down the drop but after that  it went faster and faster again. Now the famous hypersonic grid fins were flapped out to steer the rocket. We were back in very thin air.
To arrive in time you must have arrived at supersonic speed >1 150 m/s at about 17 000 m altitude only 30 seconds before touch down, when the Landing burn started. Maybe you had 340 m/s speed just 10 seconds before touch down = sonic boom. One rocket engine was burning full thrust 70 tons to stop the first stage and maybe the combination exhaust ejected at 5 000 m/s speed prevented a sonic boom. Maybe a sonic boom was created by the supersonic grid fins?
According my calculations one engine on full trust cannot have been sufficient to stop the first stage. To avoid a crash you need to fire four or five engines at full trust but there is a problem. You do not have the fuel for it. It would be interesting if SpaceX could inform how you stop anything doing 1 150 m/s speed in 30 seconds. And how much fuel was used.
Please show your calculations here.
The calculations are at my website.
Link please

And the UK person in the ISS?

http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm

As far as I am concerned nobody is in the ISS. It is just an empty silver colored satellite - some sort a balloon - deployed to impress any viewer. I have seen it several times and taken photos of it. Just a bright spot - like a star.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #334 on: December 31, 2015, 09:07:39 AM »

How the first stage managed to turn 180° at supersonic speed between 80 000 and 200 000 m altitude is one of the mysteries of the whole SpaceX return recovery.

It's not a mystery. It's in a vacume when it does the turn and does this using cold gas jets.

As for the amount of fuel used it isn't a secret. The landing requires between 25-30% of avaliable fuel.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2015, 09:14:40 AM by Pythagoras »

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #335 on: December 31, 2015, 09:09:10 AM »
Sonic booms only occur where there is air at low altitudes and around 340 m/s speed. So there must have been a sonic boom just after start but then the rocket was over the Atlantic heading for the Azores and orbit at 700 000 m altitude. After separation at 80 000 m altitude the rocket first stage changed direction while slowing down and heading back to land, where it stopped at 200 000 m altitude and zero speed just above the launch pad and in no air and changed direction again = down.
How the first stage managed to turn 180° at supersonic speed between 80 000 and 200 000 m altitude is one of the mysteries of the whole SpaceX return recovery.
And then the first stage dropped straight down going faster and faster again and passing the speed of sound again. There was a reentry burn at 130 000 m altitude in nor air to slow down the drop but after that  it went faster and faster again. Now the famous hypersonic grid fins were flapped out to steer the rocket. We were back in very thin air.
To arrive in time you must have arrived at supersonic speed >1 150 m/s at about 17 000 m altitude only 30 seconds before touch down, when the Landing burn started. Maybe you had 340 m/s speed just 10 seconds before touch down = sonic boom. One rocket engine was burning full thrust 70 tons to stop the first stage and maybe the combination exhaust ejected at 5 000 m/s speed prevented a sonic boom. Maybe a sonic boom was created by the supersonic grid fins?
According my calculations one engine on full trust cannot have been sufficient to stop the first stage. To avoid a crash you need to fire four or five engines at full trust but there is a problem. You do not have the fuel for it. It would be interesting if SpaceX could inform how you stop anything doing 1 150 m/s speed in 30 seconds. And how much fuel was used.
Please show your calculations here.
The calculations are at my website.

We have looked. There are no such calculations.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #336 on: December 31, 2015, 09:11:51 AM »
Sonic booms only occur where there is air at low altitudes and around 340 m/s speed. So there must have been a sonic boom just after start but then the rocket was over the Atlantic heading for the Azores and orbit at 700 000 m altitude. After separation at 80 000 m altitude the rocket first stage changed direction while slowing down and heading back to land, where it stopped at 200 000 m altitude and zero speed just above the launch pad and in no air and changed direction again = down.
How the first stage managed to turn 180° at supersonic speed between 80 000 and 200 000 m altitude is one of the mysteries of the whole SpaceX return recovery.
And then the first stage dropped straight down going faster and faster again and passing the speed of sound again. There was a reentry burn at 130 000 m altitude in nor air to slow down the drop but after that  it went faster and faster again. Now the famous hypersonic grid fins were flapped out to steer the rocket. We were back in very thin air.
To arrive in time you must have arrived at supersonic speed >1 150 m/s at about 17 000 m altitude only 30 seconds before touch down, when the Landing burn started. Maybe you had 340 m/s speed just 10 seconds before touch down = sonic boom. One rocket engine was burning full thrust 70 tons to stop the first stage and maybe the combination exhaust ejected at 5 000 m/s speed prevented a sonic boom. Maybe a sonic boom was created by the supersonic grid fins?
According my calculations one engine on full trust cannot have been sufficient to stop the first stage. To avoid a crash you need to fire four or five engines at full trust but there is a problem. You do not have the fuel for it. It would be interesting if SpaceX could inform how you stop anything doing 1 150 m/s speed in 30 seconds. And how much fuel was used.
Please show your calculations here.
The calculations are at my website.
Link please

And the UK person in the ISS?

http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm

As far as I am concerned nobody is in the ISS. It is just an empty silver colored satellite - some sort a balloon - deployed to impress any viewer. I have seen it several times and taken photos of it. Just a bright spot - like a star.
Please post your pictures.  Where are the live broadcasts from?

Why should anyone accept you have enough knowledge to comment on this topic?

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #337 on: December 31, 2015, 09:20:08 AM »

It's not a mystery. It's in a vacume when it does the turn and does this using cold gas jets.


:D :D

There is no gas under space conditions and thrusters, boosters, rockets and burners do not (do) work.

Quote
The landing requires between 25-30% of avaliable fuel.

This is not even an answer. 25-30% of what? "Available fuel"? :D That's a physical term?

How much fuel do you reckon it takes to fight an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2? :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 #338 on: December 31, 2015, 09:24:09 AM »

It's not a mystery. It's in a vacume when it does the turn and does this using cold gas jets.


:D :D

There is no gas under space conditions and thrusters, boosters, rockets and burners do not (do) work.

Quote
The landing requires between 25-30% of avaliable fuel.

This is not even an answer. 25-30% of what? "Available fuel"? :D That's a physical term?

How much fuel do you reckon it takes to fight an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2? :D
Why don't gas jets work on a vacume

And yes 25 30% of fuel is reserved for landing what's hard to understand.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #339 on: December 31, 2015, 09:38:31 AM »

It's not a mystery. It's in a vacume when it does the turn and does this using cold gas jets.


:D :D

There is no gas under space conditions and thrusters, boosters, rockets and burners do not (do) work.

Quote
The landing requires between 25-30% of avaliable fuel.

This is not even an answer. 25-30% of what? "Available fuel"? :D That's a physical term?

How much fuel do you reckon it takes to fight an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2? :D
Why don't gas jets work on a vacume

Has been repeatedly explained in the "Skateboard-topic".

There are no "gas jets" with ~ 0 P and ~ 3 K. Every substance is solid or superfluid (H, He) under those conditions. I let you google a phase diagram yourself.

On the quote below; if fuel is required to fight the gravitational pull to get away from Earth,evenly fuel is required to decelerate and fight the same pull that attracts an imaginary spacy thingy acceleratibg it with the same 9.8 m/s2.

Not to mention that that whole trick is useless; the atmospheric friction would burn anything to dust, just like the many meteors traversing that atmosphere every day.
Quote

And yes 25 30% of fuel is reserved for landing what's hard to understand.
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 #340 on: December 31, 2015, 09:41:14 AM »
And I'm sure it has been repeatedly debunked in the skateboard thread. As for the fuel remaining I realy can understand what problem you have with it.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #341 on: December 31, 2015, 09:49:23 AM »
Sonic booms only occur where there is air at low altitudes and around 340 m/s speed. So there must have been a sonic boom just after start but then the rocket was over the Atlantic heading for the Azores and orbit at 700 000 m altitude. After separation at 80 000 m altitude the rocket first stage changed direction while slowing down and heading back to land, where it stopped at 200 000 m altitude and zero speed just above the launch pad and in no air and changed direction again = down.
How the first stage managed to turn 180° at supersonic speed between 80 000 and 200 000 m altitude is one of the mysteries of the whole SpaceX return recovery.
And then the first stage dropped straight down going faster and faster again and passing the speed of sound again. There was a reentry burn at 130 000 m altitude in nor air to slow down the drop but after that  it went faster and faster again. Now the famous hypersonic grid fins were flapped out to steer the rocket. We were back in very thin air.
To arrive in time you must have arrived at supersonic speed >1 150 m/s at about 17 000 m altitude only 30 seconds before touch down, when the Landing burn started. Maybe you had 340 m/s speed just 10 seconds before touch down = sonic boom. One rocket engine was burning full thrust 70 tons to stop the first stage and maybe the combination exhaust ejected at 5 000 m/s speed prevented a sonic boom. Maybe a sonic boom was created by the supersonic grid fins?
According my calculations one engine on full trust cannot have been sufficient to stop the first stage. To avoid a crash you need to fire four or five engines at full trust but there is a problem. You do not have the fuel for it. It would be interesting if SpaceX could inform how you stop anything doing 1 150 m/s speed in 30 seconds. And how much fuel was used.
Please show your calculations here.
The calculations are at my website.
Link please

And the UK person in the ISS?

http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm

As far as I am concerned nobody is in the ISS. It is just an empty silver colored satellite - some sort a balloon - deployed to impress any viewer. I have seen it several times and taken photos of it. Just a bright spot - like a star.
Please post your pictures.  Where are the live broadcasts from?

Why should anyone accept you have enough knowledge to comment on this topic?

You have to study the information at my website, incl. CV, etc, and then verify it yourself. I publish under my own name and invite the readers to comment and correct any errors. My speciality is safety at sea and travel at sea ... but travel in space is fairly similar.

The pictures are from the SpaceX webcast - I provide the links, etc.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #342 on: December 31, 2015, 10:45:43 AM »
Can you show me some comparisons between travel at sea and space travel?

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #343 on: December 31, 2015, 10:57:08 AM »

It's not a mystery. It's in a vacume when it does the turn and does this using cold gas jets.


:D :D

There is no gas under space conditions and thrusters, boosters, rockets and burners do not (do) work.

Quote
The landing requires between 25-30% of avaliable fuel.

This is not even an answer. 25-30% of what? "Available fuel"? :D That's a physical term?

How much fuel do you reckon it takes to fight an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2? :D
Why don't gas jets work on a vacume

Has been repeatedly explained in the "Skateboard-topic".

There are no "gas jets" with ~ 0 P and ~ 3 K. Every substance is solid or superfluid (H, He) under those conditions. I let you google a phase diagram yourself.

On the quote below; if fuel is required to fight the gravitational pull to get away from Earth,evenly fuel is required to decelerate and fight the same pull that attracts an imaginary spacy thingy acceleratibg it with the same 9.8 m/s2.

Not to mention that that whole trick is useless; the atmospheric friction would burn anything to dust, just like the many meteors traversing that atmosphere every day.
Quote

And yes 25 30% of fuel is reserved for landing what's hard to understand.
Is heat transfer instantaneous?  No.  So your gas is not at that temperature.

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #344 on: December 31, 2015, 11:20:26 AM »

It's not a mystery. It's in a vacume when it does the turn and does this using cold gas jets.


:D :D

There is no gas under space conditions and thrusters, boosters, rockets and burners do not (do) work.

Quote
The landing requires between 25-30% of avaliable fuel.

This is not even an answer. 25-30% of what? "Available fuel"? :D That's a physical term?

How much fuel do you reckon it takes to fight an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2? :D
Why don't gas jets work on a vacume

Has been repeatedly explained in the "Skateboard-topic".

There are no "gas jets" with ~ 0 P and ~ 3 K. Every substance is solid or superfluid (H, He) under those conditions. I let you google a phase diagram yourself.

On the quote below; if fuel is required to fight the gravitational pull to get away from Earth,evenly fuel is required to decelerate and fight the same pull that attracts an imaginary spacy thingy acceleratibg it with the same 9.8 m/s2.

Not to mention that that whole trick is useless; the atmospheric friction would burn anything to dust, just like the many meteors traversing that atmosphere every day.
Quote

And yes 25 30% of fuel is reserved for landing what's hard to understand.
Is heat transfer instantaneous?  No.  So your gas is not at that temperature.

Yes, under those circumstances and in the absence of an enclosing medium (like atmosphere is) it is near-instantaneous. The atmosphere has a blanketing, soft effect. Space is black and white.

At the moment a gas molecule is exposed to the vast nothingness of space it turns solid. No escape from that vastly empty environment. No delays, no transient effects; just black and white.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #345 on: December 31, 2015, 11:39:57 AM »

It's not a mystery. It's in a vacume when it does the turn and does this using cold gas jets.


:D :D

There is no gas under space conditions and thrusters, boosters, rockets and burners do not (do) work.

Quote
The landing requires between 25-30% of avaliable fuel.

This is not even an answer. 25-30% of what? "Available fuel"? :D That's a physical term?

How much fuel do you reckon it takes to fight an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2? :D
Why don't gas jets work on a vacume

Has been repeatedly explained in the "Skateboard-topic".

There are no "gas jets" with ~ 0 P and ~ 3 K. Every substance is solid or superfluid (H, He) under those conditions. I let you google a phase diagram yourself.

On the quote below; if fuel is required to fight the gravitational pull to get away from Earth,evenly fuel is required to decelerate and fight the same pull that attracts an imaginary spacy thingy acceleratibg it with the same 9.8 m/s2.

Not to mention that that whole trick is useless; the atmospheric friction would burn anything to dust, just like the many meteors traversing that atmosphere every day.
Quote

And yes 25 30% of fuel is reserved for landing what's hard to understand.
Is heat transfer instantaneous?  No.  So your gas is not at that temperature.

Yes, under those circumstances and in the absence of an enclosing medium (like atmosphere is) it is near-instantaneous. The atmosphere has a blanketing, soft effect. Space is black and white.

At the moment a gas molecule is exposed to the vast nothingness of space it turns solid. No escape from that vastly empty environment. No delays, no transient effects; just black and white.

Sorry, but under what mechanism (other than radiation) does a molecule cool down in space?
And, besides, many gases stay at gas form at the temperature of space, due to the very low pressure.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #346 on: December 31, 2015, 12:05:55 PM »
I notice no-one answered this:

Now; when these elusive 'sonic booms' occurred was the SpaceX fraud-rokkit allegedly under manouevre?

Please do so.

It is important.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #347 on: December 31, 2015, 12:09:03 PM »
What do you mean under manoeuvre?

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #348 on: December 31, 2015, 12:26:29 PM »
What do you mean under manoeuvre?

LOL!!!

You knew everything there was to know about the SpaceX fraud-rokkit earlier, yet now you seem to have forgotten even the most basic aeronautical terms.

That's because you know what's coming, don't you?

I grew up with this shit, Mr. Shpokk; I don't care what Idiots think, I KNOW this can only be fraud.

And you know why I know this is fraud...

But let's play the game a while longer, eh?

Was the SpaceX fraud-rokkit being steered whilst it made its unknown number of sonic booms?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #349 on: December 31, 2015, 12:35:56 PM »
The whole descent was controled so one would assume so. I'm guessing now you will tell me this is Impossible.

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #350 on: December 31, 2015, 12:50:02 PM »

It's not a mystery. It's in a vacume when it does the turn and does this using cold gas jets.


:D :D

There is no gas under space conditions and thrusters, boosters, rockets and burners do not (do) work.

Quote
The landing requires between 25-30% of avaliable fuel.

This is not even an answer. 25-30% of what? "Available fuel"? :D That's a physical term?

How much fuel do you reckon it takes to fight an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2? :D
Why don't gas jets work on a vacume

Has been repeatedly explained in the "Skateboard-topic".

There are no "gas jets" with ~ 0 P and ~ 3 K. Every substance is solid or superfluid (H, He) under those conditions. I let you google a phase diagram yourself.

On the quote below; if fuel is required to fight the gravitational pull to get away from Earth,evenly fuel is required to decelerate and fight the same pull that attracts an imaginary spacy thingy acceleratibg it with the same 9.8 m/s2.

Not to mention that that whole trick is useless; the atmospheric friction would burn anything to dust, just like the many meteors traversing that atmosphere every day.
Quote

And yes 25 30% of fuel is reserved for landing what's hard to understand.
Is heat transfer instantaneous?  No.  So your gas is not at that temperature.

Yes, under those circumstances and in the absence of an enclosing medium (like atmosphere is) it is near-instantaneous. The atmosphere has a blanketing, soft effect. Space is black and white.

At the moment a gas molecule is exposed to the vast nothingness of space it turns solid. No escape from that vastly empty environment. No delays, no transient effects; just black and white.
No, it is not near instantaneous.  It can't be.  It can only lose heat via radiation and that is a slower process.  Plus, single molecules can not "turn solid".  Solid implies attachment to other molecules.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #351 on: December 31, 2015, 12:50:56 PM »
one would assume so.

'One would assume so...'?

Look how far you are fallen from your ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, backed by THOUSANDS OF WITNESSES!!!

Reduced to 'assumptions' by one simple question...

LOL!!!

Whatever; you say this:

The whole descent was controled

So, I ask: what was 'controlling' it during the sonic booms?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #352 on: December 31, 2015, 12:56:22 PM »
Rcs thrusters and fins. Is that hard for you to understand? As for witnesses on the ground, what has that got to do with knowing what was controlling the craft.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #353 on: December 31, 2015, 01:03:16 PM »
Space x speaks for itself. Go watch a landing one day. You might learn something.

It is not so easy. A launch is one thing. The rocket flies away and disappears in the sky and is normally never seen again. A rocket landing is completely different and only one (topic) has been performed so far ... in the middle of the dark night ... with any independent observers several miles away. Amateur video photographers only recorded a small fireball in the air ... far away ... slowly coming down. If it were a landing nobody knows.  The trajectory of rocket from launch to landing is unfortunately secret and cannot be verified by outside experts. The US National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 and company privacy rules prevent verifications.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Landing from helicopter
Why is the fireball so small in this vid? The videos from the ground show the fireball nearly as big as the rocket. The video you post here is clearly not the event, this is probably cgi anyway.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #354 on: December 31, 2015, 01:08:46 PM »
1st there was no fireball it was just the flame exhust. And to answer your question the shots taken from the ground just show the smoke cloud bieng lit up by the flame and this shot is looking down from a different perspective.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #355 on: December 31, 2015, 01:09:45 PM »
Rcs thrusters

Please provide evidence of where the RCS thrusters were placed & how they functioned.

and fins

Grid Fins you mean?

Funny, cos one of the established problems of 'grid fins' is that they DO NOT function at transonic velocities due to shockwave build-up.

So, as sonic booms occur at transonic velocities, your 'assumption' that the descent of your shpayze-rokkit would be 'controlled' is looking rather unlikely.

Of course, when the stabilising fins of any missile malfunction, what occurs is known as a 'tumble'; i.e. it falls arse over tip, loses control & crashes...

Guess SpaceX are 'special', eh?

LOL!!!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #356 on: December 31, 2015, 01:21:40 PM »
1stly falcon 9 will always fall engins 1st because of its low center of gravity so it would be encredibly hard for it to tumble as you discribe. Look at diagrams of falcon to see where the rcs thrusters are. And provide me with evidence that rcs doesn't work the way they do. You are the one thst says they don't work not me.

In what sense do you mean grid fins don't work at transonic speeds.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Tune in for SpaceX's return to flight and first landing success
« Reply #357 on: December 31, 2015, 01:32:28 PM »
In what sense do you mean grid fins don't work at transonic speeds.

In the sense that THEY DO NOT WORK AT TRANSONIC SPEEDS.

Anyone can google this...

Except you, it seems, Mr. Shpokk?

Highly Illogical, Captain
« Last Edit: December 31, 2015, 01:35:38 PM by Papa Legba »
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!


?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.