The sickest video of returning from space ever

You know what else gets you banned on any forum? Multiple infractions of low content, inflammatory remarks, and personal attacks after myriads of warnings!  Enjoy your vacation.  Take a walk around the block. Breathe the fresh air deeply. The sky is manna for the eyes, as the Hazal say.

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?

Yes, but it has nothing to do with rockets. So, STFU

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 19, 2016, 02:44:54 AM

Get your own house in order before commenting on mine.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 19, 2016, 05:00:20 AM

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

Get back on your busy job and stop posting bullshit in a flat earth forum, you faux texan.

Quote from: totallackey on July 20, 2016, 01:46:00 PM

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

Quote

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.

Yeah, right. Anyone can edit a fucking wikipedia article sparky.

Go learn something.

They are not used interchangeably in matters of physics, of which rocket science is part.

Quote from: totallackey on July 20, 2016, 01:46:00 PM

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 do know how to read - I've been doing it many more years than you've been alive - assuming you are not an AnI^[1] like the PL Mk IV!

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!

Have fun!

[1] AnI = Artificial-non-Intelligence

It is relevant Geoff, because:

CoP must be behind CoG.

That is why.

Always.

So, GFY.

Feel free to have a drink prior.

That way, it is a little less discomforting.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 20, 2016, 10:35:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 20, 2016, 01:46:00 PM

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 do know how to read - I've been doing it many more years than you've been alive - assuming you are not an AnI^[1] like the PL Mk IV!

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!

Have fun!

[1] AnI = Artificial-non-Intelligence

It is relevant Geoff, because:
CoP must be behind CoG.
That is why.
Always.

I told you to explain the difference between CoM and CoG - still not a word on that. WHY?

By the way if a rocket or airplane does have the CoM or CoG behind the CoP it can be corrected with dynamic stability control.
That situation applies to most modern large rockets.
In aircraft it is only used in highly manoeuvrable fighters as an airplane with a high degree of aerodynamic stability is less manoeuvrable.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 20, 2016, 10:35:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 20, 2016, 01:46:00 PM

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 do know how to read - I've been doing it many more years than you've been alive - assuming you are not an AnI^[1] like the PL Mk IV!

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!

Have fun!

[1] AnI = Artificial-non-Intelligence

CoP must be behind CoG.

Now can you explain to us why? I'll give you a hint. It involves forces, moments and rotation points.

If you can then we explain why a dynamic control system such as a gimbal engine can still maintain control.

Is it just a coincidence that as soon as Papa Legba get's banned Totallackey pops up with four posts in a row?

Quote from: totallackey on July 23, 2016, 05:14:59 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 20, 2016, 10:35:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 20, 2016, 01:46:00 PM

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 do know how to read - I've been doing it many more years than you've been alive - assuming you are not an AnI^[1] like the PL Mk IV!

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!

Have fun!

[1] AnI = Artificial-non-Intelligence

It is relevant Geoff, because:
CoP must be behind CoG.
That is why.
Always.

I told you to explain the difference between CoM and CoG - still not a word on that. WHY?

By the way if a rocket or airplane does have the CoM or CoG behind the CoP it can be corrected with dynamic stability control.
That situation applies to most modern large rockets.
In aircraft it is only used in highly manoeuvrable fighters as an airplane with a high degree of aerodynamic stability is less manoeuvrable.

If  know how to contact him  , you could ask Papa, I'm sure he'd have an answer, not that I'd think it worth reading. 

^Bull shit as there will be zero effort exerted toward any level of understanding.

CoM =/= CoG.

And you know it, as does all the rest of the sock puppets.

The attempt at equivalency finds it birth in the same recesses of the mind from which arose the love fest over sticky gauges.

Quote from: totallackey on July 23, 2016, 05:14:59 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 20, 2016, 10:35:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 20, 2016, 01:46:00 PM

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 do know how to read - I've been doing it many more years than you've been alive - assuming you are not an AnI^[1] like the PL Mk IV!

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!

Have fun!

[1] AnI = Artificial-non-Intelligence

CoP must be behind CoG.

Now can you explain to us why? I'll give you a hint. It involves forces, moments and rotation points.

If you can then we explain why a dynamic control system such as a gimbal engine can still maintain control.

Not in a rocket, hayseed.

It was this sock puppet trying to push this fucking bull shit in the first place.

A rocket is no different to any other object that is subject to different forces.

Lets make this simple.

If the CoP is behind the CoG the forces resulting from aerodynamics will tend to damp out any instability in the rocket.

If the CoP is ahead of the CoG the aerodynamic forces will tend to increase instability. So in order to increase stability a force must be applied opposite to the instable force. Hence use of a gimbal engine.

Simple analysis of forces at work

A rocket is no different to any other object that is subject to different forces.

Lets make this simple.

If the CoP is behind the CoG the forces resulting from aerodynamics will tend to damp out any instability in the rocket.

If the CoP is ahead of the CoG the aerodynamic forces will tend to increase instability. So in order to increase stability a force must be applied opposite to the instable force. Hence use of a gimbal engine.

Simple analysis of forces at work

Perfect.

A rocket is no different to any other object that is subject to different forces.

Lets make this simple.

If the CoP is behind the CoG the forces resulting from aerodynamics will tend to damp out any instability in the rocket.

If the CoP is ahead of the CoG the aerodynamic forces will tend to increase instability. So in order to increase stability a force must be applied opposite to the instable force. Hence use of a gimbal engine.

Simple analysis of forces at work

No. If the CoP is ahead of CoG, the rocket will simply crash. Period. End of story. No amount of active control is capable of overcoming these forces.

Now stop trying to peddle bullshit.

Quote from: Mainframes on July 24, 2016, 05:36:38 AM

A rocket is no different to any other object that is subject to different forces.

Lets make this simple.

If the CoP is behind the CoG the forces resulting from aerodynamics will tend to damp out any instability in the rocket.

If the CoP is ahead of the CoG the aerodynamic forces will tend to increase instability. So in order to increase stability a force must be applied opposite to the instable force. Hence use of a gimbal engine.

Simple analysis of forces at work

Perfect bullshit.

Fixed that for you.

Clearly Mr. Muppet here is the wisest of us all. Why is everybody ignoring him?

Clearly Mr. Muppet here is the wisest of us all. Why is everybody ignoring him?

They know they are busted. I am going to keep reminding them they are busted.

Try to peddle crapola as if it is fact. You are going to get busted.

And I will keep pointing this out. Period. End of sentence. Spayyze sexx is a fraud.

Because of CoP/CoG.

Actually, COP can be in front of COM just fine.

Actually, COP can be in front of COM just fine.

CoM is not equivalent to CoG.

Nice try though.

okay, COP can be infront of COG just fine.

okay, COP can be infront of COG just fine.

No. It can't.

"The conditions for a stable rocket are that the center of pressure must be located below the center of gravity."

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstab.html

And when spayyze sex states a rocket is firing its engines in order to land on the end where the engines are located, it is selling everyone a bill of goods.

ETA: This is NOT A QUESTION OF AERODYNAMICS!!! This is a question of STABILITY, leading to the use of control systems to provide the aerodynamics! Without CoP behind (or below) CoG, it does not matter what type of control system is used. The rocket will be unstable and crash.

At what point will the COP and COG be when it loses controll? Will it be sudden? Or will it be gradual? Because if it is gradual, then it could be controlled by other surfaces.

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on July 24, 2016, 03:20:13 PM

okay, COP can be infront of COG just fine.

No. It can't.

"The conditions for a stable rocket are that the center of pressure must be located below the center of gravity."

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstab.html

And when spayyze sex states a rocket is firing its engines in order to land on the end where the engines are located, it is selling everyone a bill of goods.

ETA: This is NOT A QUESTION OF AERODYNAMICS!!! This is a question of STABILITY, leading to the use of control systems to provide the aerodynamics! Without CoP behind (or below) CoG, it does not matter what type of control system is used. The rocket will be unstable and crash.

Watch the end and report back.

Quote from: totallackey on July 24, 2016, 03:40:16 PM

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on July 24, 2016, 03:20:13 PM

okay, COP can be infront of COG just fine.

No. It can't.

"The conditions for a stable rocket are that the center of pressure must be located below the center of gravity."

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstab.html

And when spayyze sex states a rocket is firing its engines in order to land on the end where the engines are located, it is selling everyone a bill of goods.

ETA: This is NOT A QUESTION OF AERODYNAMICS!!! This is a question of STABILITY, leading to the use of control systems to provide the aerodynamics! Without CoP behind (or below) CoG, it does not matter what type of control system is used. The rocket will be unstable and crash.

Watch the end and report back.

That is some fine CGI! Thanks for sharing!

Reds Rhetoric filmed it himself. Try again, but this time put more education in your post.

Reds Rhetoric filmed it himself. Try again, but this time put more education in your post.

Reds Rhetoric claims he filmed it himself.

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on July 24, 2016, 03:20:13 PM

okay, COP can be infront of COG just fine.

No. It can't.

"The conditions for a stable rocket are that the center of pressure must be located below the center of gravity."

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstab.html

And when spayyze sex states a rocket is firing its engines in order to land on the end where the engines are located, it is selling everyone a bill of goods.

ETA: This is NOT A QUESTION OF AERODYNAMICS!!! This is a question of STABILITY, leading to the use of control systems to provide the aerodynamics! Without CoP behind (or below) CoG, it does not matter what type of control system is used. The rocket will be unstable and crash.

Stop being so ignorant! You claim "This is NOT A QUESTION OF AERODYNAMICS!!! This is a question of STABILITY"! Aerodynamics is largely about stability!

Yes, "This is a question of STABILITY, leading to the use of control systems to provide" stability and automatic control systems can readily provide stability even when the system is aerodynamically unstable without the control system.

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:

Another problem is that the vehicles are aerodynamically 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 center 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!

And in case a fuss-pot like yourself questions the difference between CoM and CoG. The only difference if when "g" varies significantly over the dimensions of the object under consideration. And, I would venture to claim that it is actually CoM that is the relevant one for vehicle stability.

Whatever YOU claim you are completely wrong! You just sprout words, I give evidence from people many times more knowledging than you or your alter ego Puppies Legbone.

Quote from: sokarul on July 24, 2016, 03:55:16 PM

Reds Rhetoric filmed it himself. Try again, but this time put more education in your post.

Reds Rhetoric claims he filmed it himself.

Sorry you have to resort to such childish behavior when presented with evidence that goes against your pretend beliefs.

CoM =/= CoG.

No, they aren't the same thing, but in a uniform gravitational field, they are usually in the same place:
http://study.com/academy/lesson/understanding-the-center-of-mass-center-of-gravity.html

Quote from: totallackey on July 23, 2016, 05:14:59 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 20, 2016, 10:35:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 20, 2016, 01:46:00 PM

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 do know how to read - I've been doing it many more years than you've been alive - assuming you are not an AnI^[1] like the PL Mk IV!

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!

Have fun!

[1] AnI = Artificial-non-Intelligence

CoP must be behind CoG.

Now can you explain to us why? I'll give you a hint. It involves forces, moments and rotation points.

If you can then we explain why a dynamic control system such as a gimbal engine can still maintain control.

No you can't. Because you have no clue. Because active and or passive control merely keeps things in order during flight as long as (read this carefully):

CoP remains behind CoG
Once this relationship is altered, the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

Stop peddling nonsense. You do not know what you are talking about.

It doesn't have to.