The sickest video of returning from space ever

Quote from: markjo on July 18, 2016, 02:43:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2016, 02:16:36 PM

Stupid is as stupid does...Do you honestly think the quoted text describes CoP/CoG as being null and void due to active control?

Do you honestly think that active stability controls can't overcome a certain amount of instability caused by CoP/CoG issues? 

How stable do you think this thing was?

Depends on how much you think your pretty plane relates to rocketry and the topic at hand...

I got a clue for you: IT DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING THING TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING.

Actually, it has quite a lot to do with actively stabilizing an otherwise very unstable design.

Depends on how much you think your pretty plane relates to rocketry and the topic at hand...

I got a clue for you: IT DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING THING TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING.

Jesus, you are fucking dense or something.

Do you believe that the centre-of-pressure and centre-of-gravity don't have to be accounted for with regards to airplanes and jets?

Get your own house in order before commenting on mine.

If you are referring to his vacuum chamber,   I should point out he  hasn't  pretended to have finished it and made a video.    You have.
 
Did you do a screen shot of your email out box yet?   

I have explained the delay, I apologize but business is business, things happen especially in this industry. Things break, mishaps occur, work spikes and is not constant . One week it's dead, the next week you have no time to think.

I feel you are attempting to project the issue else where in attempt of covering your untruthfulness. This is a very common occurrence in the guilty.

Just admit you have lied so we can move on, instead of insulting peoples intelligence by continuing to lie or blaming others. If you truly want creditability then you need to be truthful. Or just post things up in the public. I have sent things to people privately, yet I have also posted things publicly.

If you reach a point where you post too much info then stop. That is understandable. Such as when papa asks me for my company names and other very personal things, I simply say no. My stipulation is he post something about himself and so forth. Yes I want to see who he is and if he is qualified to say anything he does, at the same time, I don't feel it's fair to post up such personal info to a highly possible deranged individual without knowing something about them. This is one thing I give Anders credit for...even though he is nutty and his business is fake, he still has his personal address and number out for all to see. That would make me quite nervous.

My whole point, if you truly have not lied there are many ways to show your information. Pieces of it even, the rest via private communication or what not. However, as the evidence is beginning to strongly suggest, you are lying...please just stop. It insults peoples intelligence and removes any creditability to anything you state. I would hate for you to say a valid truthful point and not be heard because of lost creditability

As far as I know, grid fins are supposed to give the Falcon a dart-like aerodynamic shape. A dart is pretty aerodynamically stable. I know because I've landed darts in KSP and messing with them, you can get them to change your landing location. With the grid fins you can have more precise landings. I think you can see how that's worked out. 5 landings in less than one year.

Go SpaceX!

As far as I know, grid fins are supposed to give the Falcon a dart-like aerodynamic shape. A dart is pretty aerodynamically stable. I know because I've landed darts in KSP and messing with them, you can get them to change your landing location. With the grid fins you can have more precise landings. I think you can see how that's worked out. 5 landings in less than one year.

Go SpaceX!

Go star trek.

Quote from: MrDebunk on July 19, 2016, 01:46:54 PM

As far as I know, grid fins are supposed to give the Falcon a dart-like aerodynamic shape. A dart is pretty aerodynamically stable. I know because I've landed darts in KSP and messing with them, you can get them to change your landing location. With the grid fins you can have more precise landings. I think you can see how that's worked out. 5 landings in less than one year.

Go SpaceX!

Go star trek.

Some people can't tell the difference between Science Fiction (Star Trek), Space Cowboys and Indians (Star Wars) and Science Reality (NASA,  Space-X, etc).
           Like Sceppy and his ilk.

And some people can
           Like MrDebunk, etc

OP should have the ability to lock a thread.

All of you, SHUT UP

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2016, 04:35:45 AM

You win stupidity of the year award. It does not even come close to interpreting in the fashion you state. The CoP/CoG relationship in rocketry remains intact and cannot be nullified. Unless you find something that states SPECIFICALLY this is the case, you are all busted. So GFY collective selves.

I already know you will not find anything of the sort in writing.

The "CoP/CoG relationship" in most modern rocket is such that without "dynamic stability control" they would be unstable.

And THAT is what I and others have been trying to hammer into you all along.

I think you have the wrong person wining your prestigious award! You win the "You win stupidity of the year award." hands down.

Do you really claim "I already know you will not find anything of the sort in writing"?

What does page 9 of Apollo Documents tn_d-5869_1970023342.pdf look like?

Now it does not contain the exact words "The CoP/CoG relationship", but how do YOU interpret the following words:

Quote

Another problem is that the vehicles are aerodynamlcally unstable during most of the propelled flight in the atmosphere. As an example, Figure 6 is a plot of the center of pressure and the center of mass for the first phase of the Saturn V and shows that the vehicle is unstable except for a short period of time around the 60th flight second.

from page 9 of the above document! and here is the figure:

Surely, even you are smart enough to interpret this "plot of the enter of pressure and the center of mass".

In that figure you can see clearly see that the Centre of Pressure (CoP) is forward of the Centre of Mass (CoG) for almost all the flight. In other words the Saturn V is purely reliant on the vectored thrust from the gimballed engines for stability - ie dynamic stability!

If you have some other interpretation of all of this, please explain it carefully.

Carefully read the following: You do not know how to read. Center of Mass =/= Center of Gravity in any sense of the terms, at least as far as physics is concerned.

Carefully read the following: You do not know how to read. Center of Mass =/= Center of Gravity in any sense of the terms, at least as far as physics is concerned.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass#Center_of_gravity

In the study of the dynamics of aircraft, vehicles and vessels, forces and moments need to be resolved relative to the mass center. That is true independent of whether gravity itself is a consideration. Referring to the mass-center as the center-of-gravity is something of a colloquialism, but it is in common usage and when gravity gradient effects are negligible, center-of-gravity and mass-center are the same and are used interchangeably.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 19, 2016, 06:05:26 AM

If you have some other interpretation of all of this, please explain it carefully.

Carefully read the following: You do not know how to read. Center of Mass =/= Center of Gravity in any sense of the terms, at least as far as physics is concerned.

I said "if you have some other interpretation of all of this, please explain it carefully"!

Since you are so knowledgeable, maybe you can explain the difference between "Center of Mass" and "Center of Gravity" and then explain why the difference is relevant to any object as small as a rocket!


[1] AnI = Artificial-non-Intelligence

So here's where we left your bullshit:

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 16, 2016, 10:20:18 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 16, 2016, 07:38:53 AM

how do they drive the turbines?

You tell me; you're the fake 'expert'.

Anyhoo; you are avoiding the point.

Again:

How do you 're-ignite' a gas that's already been ignited?

How did it get 'de-ignited' in the first place?

The gas generators run on a very rich fuel mix so not all of the fuel gets burned.  The fuel rich exhaust is fed into the engine nozzle extension (well past the combustion chamber and throat) where it may or may not burn on its own.

Did you ever notice the dark gasses coming out of the F-1 engine when the Saturn V takes off?  That's the fuel rich exhaust from the gas generator just before it re-ignites.

Sadly for you, here is a a video of teh NASA rokkit enjynerrz stating at 3:50 that yes, teh sparklers ARE to ignite excess hydrogen from teh rokkit enjynnz:



Here is a hydrogen safety sheet stating that hydrogen dissipates harmlessly in open air:

http://arhab.org/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf

So yeah; setting fire to it would seem to be the least safe thing to do, especially as it would potentially cause premature ignition; you know, before the correct rate of flow was established in teh combuschun chaymbah?

Which could make the whole thing blow to bits?

Which happened all the time in early rocket tests?

Which is why they never, ever, had sparks shooting everywhere beneath their rockets during ignition?

LOL!!!

You are all busted, a-fucking-gain!

The sparklers are there to ignite the silly fake model engines...

Because they do not have 'combustion chambers' & are not part of a 'shpayze-rokkit'...

They are shitty stage-props; big bunsen burners, at best.

Toodle-pip, Losers!

They already had the right flow rate. The hydrogen was already spewing out at the correct amount, then they lit it.

They already had the right flow rate. The hydrogen was already spewing out at the correct amount, then they lit it.

Yeah; with the sparklers.

And 'spewing out'; is that a technical term?

Anyhoo; hi Mainframes/sokarul/whoever!

Still a retarded autistic shill I see?

Responding with completely retarded shill-garbage within 4 minutes I see?

On your shitty shill-run forum I see?

That you think no-one else can see I see?

Yeah; quite the fucking genius aintcha, sperglord?

Let's deal with this horseshit too:

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2016, 04:32:26 AM

Depends on how much you think your pretty plane relates to rocketry and the topic at hand...

I got a clue for you: IT DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING THING TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING.

Jesus, you are fucking dense or something.

Do you believe that the centre-of-pressure and centre-of-gravity don't have to be accounted for with regards to airplanes and jets?

The centre of lift of an airplane wing & the centre of pressure of a rocket are two completely different things.

Only a retarded sock-puppet shill would try to confuse them.

This is the THIRD time I've had to tell you on this fucking thread alone btw...

Which'd get you banned off any normal forum.

But as you shills run this one I guess you'll just wait a few pages & try again...

Because shills.

I guess Papa Legba is pretty funny.

I guess Papa Legba is pretty funny sad.

Fixed.

Imagine that Papa Legba is speaking from a muppets character (your pick) it makes it so much more hilarious. Especially when he says "lol" I imagine the muppet shouting the word "lol" instead of the letters lol.

The centre of lift of an airplane wing & the centre of pressure of a rocket are two completely different things.

And I didn't think the PL Mk IV AI had the "Sense of Humour" module installed yet! 
Not that you aren't occasionally right.

And now imagine that muppet voice echoing, and overlapping each other slightly.

What's happened to Totally Lacking? Has he been sacked now that the Mafioso chief head-kicker is back out of jail.

Toodle-pip, Losers!

Mind you Sandokhan still holds the Gold Medal for Copy Pasta.

By the way Papa. How come all these modern rockets (even Saturn V) are stable even though we know that through most of the flight the CoM/CoP relationship is wrong for passive aerodynamic stability.

Maybe Totally Crappy has decided it's too hard! Maybe you can help him out.

Okay Mr. Muppet, whatever you say...

Ok Mr. Muppet, whatever you say...

Ok Mr. Muppet, whatever you say...

he he he.

Here are your lies again:

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2016, 04:32:26 AM

Depends on how much you think your pretty plane relates to rocketry and the topic at hand...

I got a clue for you: IT DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING THING TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING.

Jesus, you are fucking dense or something.

Do you believe that the centre-of-pressure and centre-of-gravity don't have to be accounted for with regards to airplanes and jets?

The centre of lift of an airplane wing & the centre of pressure of a rocket are two completely different things.

Only a retarded sock-puppet shill would try to confuse them.

This is the THIRD time I've had to tell you on this fucking thread alone btw...

Which'd get you banned off any normal forum.

But as you shills run this one I guess you'll just wait a few pages & try again...

Because shills.

Plus this:

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 16, 2016, 10:20:18 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 16, 2016, 07:38:53 AM

how do they drive the turbines?

You tell me; you're the fake 'expert'.

Anyhoo; you are avoiding the point.

Again:

How do you 're-ignite' a gas that's already been ignited?

How did it get 'de-ignited' in the first place?

The gas generators run on a very rich fuel mix so not all of the fuel gets burned.  The fuel rich exhaust is fed into the engine nozzle extension (well past the combustion chamber and throat) where it may or may not burn on its own.

Did you ever notice the dark gasses coming out of the F-1 engine when the Saturn V takes off?  That's the fuel rich exhaust from the gas generator just before it re-ignites.

Sadly for you, here is a a video of teh NASA rokkit enjynerrz stating at 3:50 that yes, teh sparklers ARE to ignite excess hydrogen from teh rokkit enjynnz:



Here is a hydrogen safety sheet stating that hydrogen dissipates harmlessly in open air:

http://arhab.org/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf

So yeah; setting fire to it would seem to be the least safe thing to do, especially as it would potentially cause premature ignition; you know, before the correct rate of flow was established in teh combuschun chaymbah?

Which could make the whole thing blow to bits?

Which happened all the time in early rocket tests?

Which is why they never, ever, had sparks shooting everywhere beneath their rockets during ignition?

LOL!!!

You are all busted, a-fucking-gain!

The sparklers are there to ignite the silly fake model engines...

Because they do not have 'combustion chambers' & are not part of a 'shpayze-rokkit'...

They are shitty stage-props; big bunsen burners, at best.

Toodle-pip, Losers!

Does anybody else find it helarious that he deletes his own posts? Almost like he is ashamed of them.

OH MY GOSH! It suddenly hit me tat Papa Legba has been a genius this whole time! Everybody, LISTEN TO HIS WISDOM! HE IS THE KEY TO OUR SALVATION!

Stupid fucking sock-puppet fraud who is also the new mod 'Ski' as well as about a fucking million other shitbag IDs here, why don't you just --?

Everybody hates you; I guaran-fucking-tee that...

Back to facts & science; two things you hate & fear you autistic fuckwit shill...

Here are your lies again:

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2016, 04:32:26 AM

Depends on how much you think your pretty plane relates to rocketry and the topic at hand...

I got a clue for you: IT DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING THING TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING.

Jesus, you are fucking dense or something.

Do you believe that the centre-of-pressure and centre-of-gravity don't have to be accounted for with regards to airplanes and jets?

The centre of lift of an airplane wing & the centre of pressure of a rocket are two completely different things.

Only a retarded sock-puppet shill would try to confuse them.

This is the THIRD time I've had to tell you on this fucking thread alone btw...

Which'd get you banned off any normal forum.

But as you shills run this one I guess you'll just wait a few pages & try again...

Because shills.

Plus this:

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 16, 2016, 10:20:18 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 16, 2016, 07:38:53 AM

how do they drive the turbines?

You tell me; you're the fake 'expert'.

Anyhoo; you are avoiding the point.

Again:

How do you 're-ignite' a gas that's already been ignited?

How did it get 'de-ignited' in the first place?

The gas generators run on a very rich fuel mix so not all of the fuel gets burned.  The fuel rich exhaust is fed into the engine nozzle extension (well past the combustion chamber and throat) where it may or may not burn on its own.

Did you ever notice the dark gasses coming out of the F-1 engine when the Saturn V takes off?  That's the fuel rich exhaust from the gas generator just before it re-ignites.

Sadly for you, here is a a video of teh NASA rokkit enjynerrz stating at 3:50 that yes, teh sparklers ARE to ignite excess hydrogen from teh rokkit enjynnz:



Here is a hydrogen safety sheet stating that hydrogen dissipates harmlessly in open air:

http://arhab.org/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf

So yeah; setting fire to it would seem to be the least safe thing to do, especially as it would potentially cause premature ignition; you know, before the correct rate of flow was established in teh combuschun chaymbah?

Which could make the whole thing blow to bits?

Which happened all the time in early rocket tests?

Which is why they never, ever, had sparks shooting everywhere beneath their rockets during ignition?

LOL!!!

You are all busted, a-fucking-gain!

The sparklers are there to ignite the silly fake model engines...

Because they do not have 'combustion chambers' & are not part of a 'shpayze-rokkit'...

They are shitty stage-props; big bunsen burners, at best.

Toodle-pip, Losers!

I think every time he sends death threats to me, it is just his way of expressing his need for love. EVERYBODY! ALL HE NEEDS IS LOVE!