SpaceX Will Fly a Rocket Back to Earth in Broad Daylight This Weekend

I cant see a single coherent calculation on that thing you call a website.  Perhaps you could can screen shot the relevant bit and shown us all.

I cant see a single coherent calculation on that thing you call a website.  Perhaps you could can screen shot the relevant bit and shown us all.

Well, my calculations are coherent with plenty people studying them at my website daily. Anyway, spacetravel is fun. Most of it is fake. You can only put satellites into orbits. And that's it. Isn't it fun? Le On Ksum is one of the clowns.

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 21, 2017, 06:43:47 PM

I cant see a single coherent calculation on that thing you call a website.  Perhaps you could can screen shot the relevant bit and shown us all.

Well, my calculations are coherent with plenty people studying them at my website daily. Anyway, spacetravel is fun. Most of it is fake. You can only put satellites into orbits. And that's it. Isn't it fun? Le On Ksum is one of the clowns.

I can't see a single one. Can you screen shot the relevant bit for me or copy past it because I can not make out anything on that thingives you call a website. It shouldn't be that hard seeing as you obviously have all the relevant data and calculations. Thanks I appreciate it.

 More amazing footage of the launch and landing. At theach 1.57 mark you can hear the multiple sonic booms.

 More amazing footage of the launch and landing. At theach 1.57 mark you can hear the multiple sonic booms.

Same rubbish as before. No coherent numbers of any kind. Plenty people looking at screens, LOL.

I haven't posted it in response to you. Just some really cool footage and sounds of the landing. If you would like to discuss things further with me then all you need to do is show some of your calculations. Until then I think we are done. I won't hold my breath.

Evidently you need extra fuel to recover the rocket and that extra fuel must be transported into space ... as payload ... requiring a bigger rocket to start with ... costing extra money.

No.  You just carry a smaller payload so that don't have to burn all of the fuel and can have some left over for recovery.

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 21, 2017, 06:58:59 PM

 More amazing footage of the launch and landing. At theach 1.57 mark you can hear the multiple sonic booms.

Same rubbish as before. No coherent numbers of any kind. Plenty people looking at screens, LOL.

The usual conspiratard mantra:

"I demand evidence"
"This evidence?"
"No, other evidence that I'm hoping doesn't exist and doesn't make me look like a dick".
"This evidence then?"
"Didn't you hear me? I don't want evidence that proves me wrong..."

and so on and so on..

Quote from: Heiwa on February 21, 2017, 06:22:41 PM

Evidently you need extra fuel to recover the rocket and that extra fuel must be transported into space ... as payload ... requiring a bigger rocket to start with ... costing extra money.

No.  You just carry a smaller payload so that don't have to burn all of the fuel and can have some left over for recovery.

No, the normal payload - a few tons - is just the capsule/satellite that you put in orbit. If you intend to recover the rocket (1st stage) in space, you have to carry extra fuel on the rocket to do three burns - boost back, entry and landing. That extra fuel in turn requires a bigger rocket with more fuel to start with. According my calculations you need 60 tons of fuel to steer the rocket back to base and to put that extra 60 tons in space you need a couple of extra hundred tons to start with. It is simple rocket science.

If you intend to manoeuver a rocket in space using your rocket engine, you must carry the fuel with you from the start. But it is not possible! You always get too heavy! Compare Apollo 11 1969. Total fakery due to the fuel. They did it in a Hollywood studio instead.

I explain all at my website. It is so funny.

Don't get upset about it. Most Americans are so stupid they don't even know how to open a beer can (try opposite side is written at the bottom) so they believe anything.

Can you show me any source that says space x carrys different amounts of fuel on board depending on flight profile and different landing technique. Any at all.

Can you show me any source that says space x carrys different amounts of fuel on board depending on flight profile and different landing technique. Any at all.

If you study my analysises of SpexC space trips the conclusion is that plenty of it is total fakery, incl. recovery of first stage rockets, trips to Mars, sending capsules to the ISS, etc, etc. All the info is at http://heiwaco.com . If you find anything wrong there, just tell me. I publish my findings in my own name and I am easy to contact.

BTW - do you have the balance sheet of SpaceX? Does it make any money?

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 22, 2017, 03:10:15 AM

Can you show me any source that says space x carrys different amounts of fuel on board depending on flight profile and different landing technique. Any at all.

If you study my analysises of SpexC space trips the conclusion is that plenty of it is total fakery, incl. recovery of first stage rockets, trips to Mars, sending capsules to the ISS, etc, etc. All the info is at http://heiwaco.com . If you find anything wrong there, just tell me. I publish my findings in my own name and I am easy to contact.

BTW - do you have the balance sheet of SpaceX? Does it make any money?

But then someone else just comes along and does it!

And Mr Heiwa's reaction? He claims that since he said it could not be done it must be all a fake!

Sounds exactly like all these flat earthers we see here. If something provides evidence against the flat earth, it must be fake.
Mr Heiwa's version:  If something is actually done that Mr Heiwa says can't be done, it must be fake.

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 22, 2017, 03:10:15 AM

Can you show me any source that says space x carrys different amounts of fuel on board depending on flight profile and different landing technique. Any at all.

If you study my analysises of SpexC space trips the conclusion is that plenty of it is total fakery, incl. recovery of first stage rockets, trips to Mars, sending capsules to the ISS, etc, etc. All the info is at http://heiwaco.com . If you find anything wrong there, just tell me. I publish my findings in my own name and I am easy to contact.

BTW - do you have the balance sheet of SpaceX? Does it make any money?

So you actually have no evidence to suggest they use different amounts of fuel for different flight profiles. You just assume? Using what experiance and qualifications exactly? Can you not understand that perhaps they just reduce the payload as stated by every source?

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 03:51:30 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 22, 2017, 03:10:15 AM

Can you show me any source that says space x carrys different amounts of fuel on board depending on flight profile and different landing technique. Any at all.

If you study my analysises of SpexC space trips the conclusion is that plenty of it is total fakery, incl. recovery of first stage rockets, trips to Mars, sending capsules to the ISS, etc, etc. All the info is at http://heiwaco.com . If you find anything wrong there, just tell me. I publish my findings in my own name and I am easy to contact.

BTW - do you have the balance sheet of SpaceX? Does it make any money?

So you actually have no evidence to suggest they use different amounts of fuel for different flight profiles. You just assume? Using what experiance and qualifications exactly? Can you not understand that perhaps they just reduce the payload as stated by every source?

I present plenty evidence at my website http://heiwaco.com . Just visit it, copy/paste what you think is wrong and we can discuss.

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 22, 2017, 04:42:56 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 03:51:30 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 22, 2017, 03:10:15 AM

Can you show me any source that says space x carrys different amounts of fuel on board depending on flight profile and different landing technique. Any at all.

If you study my analysises of SpexC space trips the conclusion is that plenty of it is total fakery, incl. recovery of first stage rockets, trips to Mars, sending capsules to the ISS, etc, etc. All the info is at http://heiwaco.com . If you find anything wrong there, just tell me. I publish my findings in my own name and I am easy to contact.

BTW - do you have the balance sheet of SpaceX? Does it make any money?

So you actually have no evidence to suggest they use different amounts of fuel for different flight profiles. You just assume? Using what experiance and qualifications exactly? Can you not understand that perhaps they just reduce the payload as stated by every source?

I present plenty evidence at my website http://heiwaco.com . Just visit it, copy/paste what you think is wrong and we can discuss.

I've already told you. I can't find anything of any relevance on that thing.

 Expendable falcon 9 full thrust has a payload to GTO of 8300 kg but only a payload of  5,500 reusable.

Quote from: markjo on February 21, 2017, 07:20:08 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 21, 2017, 06:22:41 PM

Evidently you need extra fuel to recover the rocket and that extra fuel must be transported into space ... as payload ... requiring a bigger rocket to start with ... costing extra money.

No.  You just carry a smaller payload so that don't have to burn all of the fuel and can have some left over for recovery.

No, the normal payload - a few tons - is just the capsule/satellite that you put in orbit. If you intend to recover the rocket (1st stage) in space, you have to carry extra fuel on the rocket to do three burns - boost back, entry and landing. That extra fuel in turn requires a bigger rocket with more fuel to start with.

You do understand that smaller payloads require less fuel than larger payloads, don't you?  Falcon 9 can place a smaller payload into orbit and save some of its fuel to recover the booster or it can use all of its fuel to put a larger payload into orbit.  I really don't understand why you can't get that.

According my calculations you need 60 tons of fuel to steer the rocket back to base and to put that extra 60 tons in space you need a couple of extra hundred tons to start with. It is simple rocket science.

Sorry but numbers getting pulled out of your ass are not a valid calculations.

If you intend to manoeuver a rocket in space using your rocket engine, you must carry the fuel with you from the start. But it is not possible! You always get too heavy!

Or, you can plan ahead and budget for the extra fuel needed.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 04:49:36 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 22, 2017, 04:42:56 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 03:51:30 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 22, 2017, 03:10:15 AM

Can you show me any source that says space x carrys different amounts of fuel on board depending on flight profile and different landing technique. Any at all.

If you study my analysises of SpexC space trips the conclusion is that plenty of it is total fakery, incl. recovery of first stage rockets, trips to Mars, sending capsules to the ISS, etc, etc. All the info is at http://heiwaco.com . If you find anything wrong there, just tell me. I publish my findings in my own name and I am easy to contact.

BTW - do you have the balance sheet of SpaceX? Does it make any money?

So you actually have no evidence to suggest they use different amounts of fuel for different flight profiles. You just assume? Using what experiance and qualifications exactly? Can you not understand that perhaps they just reduce the payload as stated by every source?

I present plenty evidence at my website http://heiwaco.com . Just visit it, copy/paste what you think is wrong and we can discuss.

I've already told you. I can't find anything of any relevance on that thing.

Hm - have you really studied http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM ? Anything wrong there?

Or have you studied http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#F9 ? Just copy/paste what you do not understand.

I look forward to explain everything to you.

Everything is wrong with it and I can copy past that much onto this site so let's start with your understanding of the fuel required. Do you know they fully fuel the rocket every launch and that it is the maximum payload that is reduced in order to facilitate the landing? Or do you not belive that?

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 22, 2017, 04:56:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 04:49:36 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 22, 2017, 04:42:56 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 03:51:30 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 22, 2017, 03:10:15 AM

Can you show me any source that says space x carrys different amounts of fuel on board depending on flight profile and different landing technique. Any at all.

If you study my analysises of SpexC space trips the conclusion is that plenty of it is total fakery, incl. recovery of first stage rockets, trips to Mars, sending capsules to the ISS, etc, etc. All the info is at http://heiwaco.com . If you find anything wrong there, just tell me. I publish my findings in my own name and I am easy to contact.

BTW - do you have the balance sheet of SpaceX? Does it make any money?

So you actually have no evidence to suggest they use different amounts of fuel for different flight profiles. You just assume? Using what experiance and qualifications exactly? Can you not understand that perhaps they just reduce the payload as stated by every source?

I present plenty evidence at my website http://heiwaco.com . Just visit it, copy/paste what you think is wrong and we can discuss.

I've already told you. I can't find anything of any relevance on that thing.

Hm - have you really studied <a website> ? Anything wrong there?

Or have you studied <yet another page>? Just copy/paste what you do not understand.

I look forward to explain everything to you.

Plenty errors have been identified. Very popular.  Nothing changed.

Everything is wrong with it and I can copy past that much onto this site so let's start with your understanding of the fuel required. Do you know they fully fuel the rocket every launch and that it is the maximum payload that is reduced in order to facilitate the landing? Or do you not belive that?

My understanding is that the payload of a rocket launch is just the satellite put in orbit. It normally has mass a few tons and to put it in orbit requires hundreds of tons of rocket fuel. Normally the rocket is not recovered. It burns up dropping back through the atmosphere.

Mr. Le On Ksum on the other hand suggests that he can recover the rocket so it lands on Earth again and for that extra fuel is required for a Boost-back burn, an Entry burn and a Landing burn. It would appear that you need 60-70 tons of fuel for these three burns to save the rocket and another 150-200 tons of fuel to put that fuel in space in the first place. Summing up total fuel consumption to put a satellite in orbit increases 200-300% = you need a much bigger rocket. If you manage the hoax at all! The fuel must produce forces at the right location, time, direction and duration during the trip in 3D space and it is ... impossible.

Basic rocket science principles therefore suggest that you cannot bring enough fuel with you for any space trip except putting a satellite in orbit. What rocket science is I explain at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#RS . You can study it at no cost in Sweden!
 

Basic rocket science principles therefore suggest that you cannot bring enough fuel with you for any space trip except putting a satellite in orbit.

Basic common sense suggests that smaller payloads require less fuel to put into orbit.  Do you agree with that statement?

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 10:05:39 AM

Basic rocket science principles therefore suggest that you cannot bring enough fuel with you for any space trip except putting a satellite in orbit.

Basic common sense suggests that smaller payloads require less fuel to put into orbit.  Do you agree with that statement?

Yes - pls study my website about it. However, the payload cannot ever return to and land on Earth or anywhere in space. It is going much too fast

My simple message is that no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth.

I pay anyone €1M proving me wrong.

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2017, 10:29:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 10:05:39 AM

Basic rocket science principles therefore suggest that you cannot bring enough fuel with you for any space trip except putting a satellite in orbit.

Basic common sense suggests that smaller payloads require less fuel to put into orbit.  Do you agree with that statement?

Yes - pls study my website about it.

Good.  Then would you agree that if you use a booster designed for a larger payload (let's say, 22,800kg) to launch a smaller payload instead (maybe 9600kg), then you could have some fuel left over that you could then use for recovery?

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 10:35:21 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2017, 10:29:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 10:05:39 AM

Basic rocket science principles therefore suggest that you cannot bring enough fuel with you for any space trip except putting a satellite in orbit.

Basic common sense suggests that smaller payloads require less fuel to put into orbit.  Do you agree with that statement?

Yes - pls study my website about it.

Good.  Then would you agree that if you use a booster designed for a larger payload (let's say, 22,800kg) to launch a smaller payload instead (maybe 9600kg), then you could have some fuel left over that you could then use for recovery?

Yes. Problem is of course how to convert that fuel into a force to assist recovery. The force must be applied in the right direction at the right location/time/duration, etc, etc. and as you are moving really fast all the time it is difficult ... or, IMO impossible. Compare Apollo 11. So they fake it.

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2017, 11:07:42 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 10:35:21 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2017, 10:29:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 10:05:39 AM

Basic rocket science principles therefore suggest that you cannot bring enough fuel with you for any space trip except putting a satellite in orbit.

Basic common sense suggests that smaller payloads require less fuel to put into orbit.  Do you agree with that statement?

Yes - pls study my website about it.

Good.  Then would you agree that if you use a booster designed for a larger payload (let's say, 22,800kg) to launch a smaller payload instead (maybe 9600kg), then you could have some fuel left over that you could then use for recovery?

Yes. Problem is of course how to convert that fuel into a force to assist recovery. The force must be applied in the right direction at the right location/time/duration, etc, etc. and as you are moving really fast all the time it is difficult ... or, IMO impossible. Compare Apollo 11. So they fake it.

Yes it's hard. Hard is not the same as impossible and you have shown no reason why its impossible. You didn't even understand that they didn't have to add more fuel to the rocket for recovery flights compared to expendable until i pointed they out to you.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 11:31:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2017, 11:07:42 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 10:35:21 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2017, 10:29:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 10:05:39 AM

Basic rocket science principles therefore suggest that you cannot bring enough fuel with you for any space trip except putting a satellite in orbit.

Basic common sense suggests that smaller payloads require less fuel to put into orbit.  Do you agree with that statement?

Yes - pls study my website about it.

Good.  Then would you agree that if you use a booster designed for a larger payload (let's say, 22,800kg) to launch a smaller payload instead (maybe 9600kg), then you could have some fuel left over that you could then use for recovery?

Yes. Problem is of course how to convert that fuel into a force to assist recovery. The force must be applied in the right direction at the right location/time/duration, etc, etc. and as you are moving really fast all the time it is difficult ... or, IMO impossible. Compare Apollo 11. So they fake it.

Yes it's hard. Hard is not the same as impossible and you have shown no reason why its impossible. You didn't even understand that they didn't have to add more fuel to the rocket for recovery flights compared to expendable until i pointed they out to you.

Of course they have to add plenty fuel to the rocket to enable recovery ... so the rocket becomes much more heavy at departure. But it does not help them. All is fantasy! The fuel must be converted to forces and the forces must be applied in the right directions at the right times, etc, etc, and it is not possible. Particularly not by Mr. Le On Ksum who is a big joke. Not even fun.

Why do you insist the opposite?

He doesn't even get that by the time it starts to descend the vast majority of the fuel isn't in there any more, so it takes less fuel to stop it on landing.

Heiwa doesn't understand it, therefore it is impossible.

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 22, 2017, 11:45:59 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 11:31:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2017, 11:07:42 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 10:35:21 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2017, 10:29:45 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 10:05:39 AM

Basic rocket science principles therefore suggest that you cannot bring enough fuel with you for any space trip except putting a satellite in orbit.

Basic common sense suggests that smaller payloads require less fuel to put into orbit.  Do you agree with that statement?

Yes - pls study my website about it.

Good.  Then would you agree that if you use a booster designed for a larger payload (let's say, 22,800kg) to launch a smaller payload instead (maybe 9600kg), then you could have some fuel left over that you could then use for recovery?

Yes. Problem is of course how to convert that fuel into a force to assist recovery. The force must be applied in the right direction at the right location/time/duration, etc, etc. and as you are moving really fast all the time it is difficult ... or, IMO impossible. Compare Apollo 11. So they fake it.

Yes it's hard. Hard is not the same as impossible and you have shown no reason why its impossible. You didn't even understand that they didn't have to add more fuel to the rocket for recovery flights compared to expendable until i pointed they out to you.

Of course they have to add plenty fuel to the rocket to enable recovery ... so the rocket becomes much more heavy at departure.

No.  The rocket is fueled up as if it was going to deliver a 22,800 kg payload but it's only carrying a 9600 kg payload, so the weight at departure is actually 13,200 kg lighter at departure than if it was fully loaded.

But it does not help them. All is fantasy! The fuel must be converted to forces...

Yes, that's what they have rocket engines for.

... and the forces must be applied in the right directions at the right times, etc, etc. ...

Yes, that's why they have triple redundant flight computers and inertial guidance with a GPS overlay.

... and it is not possible.

Eight successful landings would seem to suggest otherwise.

Particularly not by Mr. Le On Ksum who is a big joke. Not even fun.

*sniff* *sniff* Do I detect the faint odor of jealously?  What's wrong, is competition from SpaceX affecting the value of your Arianespace stocks?

Why do you insist the opposite?

Because the available evidence says that you are wrong.

I don't think he understands that the rocket is not carrying it's full potential in payload. The next launch is carrying a much much heavier payload to a higher orbit. That's why it will not be recovered. Incidentally it will be the last boster not to be recovered. The next version  of falcon 9 slated for later this year will have a bigger capacity and any that are to heavy to allow for recovery will go onto falcon heavy.

So now we have shown you a error in your so called calculations let's move on to the next.

 Do you use densified lox in your equations or standard lox?