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

Quote from: rabinoz on February 27, 2017, 02:47:15 PM

Quote from: BarackObama on February 27, 2017, 01:56:13 PM

Quote from: BillClinton on February 27, 2017, 08:14:41 AM

Bill Clinton here.
I can confirm that the launch will actually just be a hologram.

Barack Obama here, I can confirm what bill is saying.

Youse ain't foolin' no dinkum Ozzie wid all 'dat guff! You're both hippacritters, like all 'dem DemonCrackers, like 'illary.

I'm waitin' till I git 'da real alternate facks from Trumpeter's next Trumpet - Me, I 'ears 'e's renamed Twitter an' Tweets to Trumpeter an' Trumpets.

An' upped 'da limit to 160 so 'e can still Trumpet 'doze miss'l nummers!

From wun 'oo 'nose dese 'tings!

<<  spell checker keeps trying to turn it into English >>

I'm Barack Obama
And I approve this message

I was nearly going to cite you for impersonating a really great person, but since you show such impeccable taste,  you must be genuine  .

And now that Trumper has made America Grate Again we can all rest easy - especially those of us almost 10,000 miles away!

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 09:35:04 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2017, 08:40:33 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 06:05:12 PM

The n-body problem!

What about the n-body problem? 

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 06:05:12 PM

The gravity forces vary all the time, when you try to move between heavenly bodies, so the trajectory of any spacecraft cannot be predicted.

Why not?  Are you saying that gravitational forces are not predictable?

No! On Earth they are easy to predict as gravity is constant, but in space between moving heavenly bodies the gravity forces cannot be predicted as the gravity changes all the time.

Newton and Einstein would disagree with you.

Of course not. They are dead and cannot participate in the discussion.

Quote from: markjo on February 27, 2017, 06:12:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 09:35:04 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2017, 08:40:33 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 06:05:12 PM

The n-body problem!

What about the n-body problem? 

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 06:05:12 PM

The gravity forces vary all the time, when you try to move between heavenly bodies, so the trajectory of any spacecraft cannot be predicted.

Why not?  Are you saying that gravitational forces are not predictable?

No! On Earth they are easy to predict as gravity is constant, but in space between moving heavenly bodies the gravity forces cannot be predicted as the gravity changes all the time.

Newton and Einstein would disagree with you.

Of course not. They are dead and cannot participate in the discussion.

But their works describing how to predict the gravitational influences of celestial bodies live on.  It seems to me that an engineer would know such things.

Quote from: markjo on February 27, 2017, 06:12:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 09:35:04 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2017, 08:40:33 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 06:05:12 PM

The n-body problem!

What about the n-body problem? 

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 06:05:12 PM

The gravity forces vary all the time, when you try to move between heavenly bodies, so the trajectory of any spacecraft cannot be predicted.

Why not?  Are you saying that gravitational forces are not predictable?

No! On Earth they are easy to predict as gravity is constant, but in space between moving heavenly bodies the gravity forces cannot be predicted as the gravity changes all the time.

Newton and Einstein would disagree with you.

Of course not. They are dead and cannot participate in the discussion.

would
wo͝od,wəd
verb

2.
(expressing the conditional mood) indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation.
"he would lose his job if he were identified"

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 03:35:24 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 27, 2017, 06:12:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 09:35:04 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2017, 08:40:33 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 06:05:12 PM

The n-body problem!

What about the n-body problem? 

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 06:05:12 PM

The gravity forces vary all the time, when you try to move between heavenly bodies, so the trajectory of any spacecraft cannot be predicted.

Why not?  Are you saying that gravitational forces are not predictable?

No! On Earth they are easy to predict as gravity is constant, but in space between moving heavenly bodies the gravity forces cannot be predicted as the gravity changes all the time.

Newton and Einstein would disagree with you.

Of course not. They are dead and cannot participate in the discussion.

But their works describing how to predict the gravitational influences of celestial bodies live on.  It seems to me that an engineer would know such things.

Yes - but their works cannot predict the trajectory of a spacecraft moving between celestial bodies like stars, planets and moons.
If they could, I would not organize a Challenge to do it. You should really study my website about it.

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2017, 05:29:20 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 03:35:24 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 27, 2017, 06:12:18 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 09:35:04 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 26, 2017, 08:40:33 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 06:05:12 PM

The n-body problem!

What about the n-body problem? 

Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 06:05:12 PM

The gravity forces vary all the time, when you try to move between heavenly bodies, so the trajectory of any spacecraft cannot be predicted.

Why not?  Are you saying that gravitational forces are not predictable?

No! On Earth they are easy to predict as gravity is constant, but in space between moving heavenly bodies the gravity forces cannot be predicted as the gravity changes all the time.

Newton and Einstein would disagree with you.

Of course not. They are dead and cannot participate in the discussion.

But their works describing how to predict the gravitational influences of celestial bodies live on.  It seems to me that an engineer would know such things.

Yes - but their works cannot predict the trajectory of a spacecraft moving between celestial bodies like stars, planets and moons.
If they could, I would not organize a Challenge to do it. You should really study my website about it.

You should really take my challenge and win €1M - if you can!

Yes - but their works cannot predict the trajectory of a spacecraft moving between celestial bodies like stars, planets and moons.
If they could, I would not organize a Challenge to do it.

If you can use Newton's law of universal gravitation or Einstein's theory of general relativity to predict the gravitational influences of celestial bodies, then why shouldn't you be able to use that information to predict the trajectory of a spacecraft traveling between those bodies?  It's okay to admit that such calculations are beyond your ability, but it's just plain silly to claim that it's impossible when others have been doing it for many years.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 06:58:22 AM

Yes - but their works cannot predict the trajectory of a spacecraft moving between celestial bodies like stars, planets and moons.
If they could, I would not organize a Challenge to do it.

If you can use Newton's law of universal gravitation or Einstein's theory of general relativity to predict the gravitational influences of celestial bodies, then why shouldn't you be able to use that information to predict the trajectory of a spacecraft traveling between those bodies?  It's okay to admit that such calculations are beyond your ability, but it's just plain silly to claim that it's impossible when others have been doing it for many years.

Well, it is a more difficult than yabusame, if you know what I mean. Yabusame is fun, i.e. only you galopping at full speed sitting on a horse down a path  and hitting three  small targets with arrows shot from your bow. I loved trying it, when I lived in Japan.
Space travel is more complicated. The targets are smaller but also moving at higher speeds than you.

I haven't seen anyone even writing software how to do it.

Note I don't say it is impossible. I just point out noone has done it. Not even Newton or Einstein. I know you haven't tried my Challenge? Why? Aren't you up to describe two simple space trips and the fuel required? You always sound like an eternal loser with your stupid comments.

Space travel is more complicated. The targets are smaller but also moving at higher speeds than you.

Hmm...  From what I've heard, the moon is a pretty big target.  It just looks small because it's so far away.

I haven't seen anyone even writing software how to do it.

I've pointed you to several books on how to do it. 

Note I don't say it is impossible. I just point out noone has done it.

No.  You keep insisting that it can't be done.

Not even Newton or Einstein. I know you haven't tried my Challenge? Why? Aren't you up to describe two simple space trips and the fuel required?

Because those space trips are not simple.  In fact, those space trips are very difficult even to just plan, let alone carry out.  But that doesn't mean that they can't be or haven't been done.

I don't bother with your "challenge" because I know that even if you were put on a rocket and sent to Mars and back you would still not be satisfied.

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2017, 07:10:56 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 06:58:22 AM

Yes - but their works cannot predict the trajectory of a spacecraft moving between celestial bodies like stars, planets and moons.
If they could, I would not organize a Challenge to do it.

If you can use Newton's law of universal gravitation or Einstein's theory of general relativity to predict the gravitational influences of celestial bodies, then why shouldn't you be able to use that information to predict the trajectory of a spacecraft traveling between those bodies?  It's okay to admit that such calculations are beyond your ability, but it's just plain silly to claim that it's impossible when others have been doing it for many years.

Well, it is a more difficult than yabusame, if you know what I mean. Yabusame is fun, i.e. only you galopping at full speed sitting on a horse down a path  and hitting three  small targets with arrows shot from your bow. I loved trying it, when I lived in Japan.
Space travel is more complicated. The targets are smaller but also moving at higher speeds than you.

I haven't seen anyone even writing software how to do it.

Note I don't say it is impossible. I just point out noone has done it. Not even Newton or Einstein. I know you haven't tried my Challenge? Why? Aren't you up to describe two simple space trips and the fuel required? You always sound like an eternal loser with your stupid comments.

As you have no connection with the space industry then it's no surprise that you not seen any software being written.

I haven't seen anyone even writing software how to do it.

Because you haven't looked.

Here's a game you can play:

https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=7

See if any of the calculations behind it are wrong.

Have a chat with this lady:



She wrote quite a bit of it.

I haven't seen anyone even writing software how to do it.

Try looking a little harder.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gmat/files/GMAT/GMAT-R2016a/

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 07:28:38 AM

I know you haven't tried my Challenge? Why? Aren't you up to describe two simple space trips and the fuel required?

Because those space trips are not simple.  In fact, those space trips are very difficult even to just plan, let alone carry out.  But that doesn't mean that they can't be or haven't been done.

I don't bother with your "challenge" because I know that even if you were put on a rocket and sent to Mars and back you would still not be satisfied.

Thanks. Yes, human space trips are not simple. I couldn't agree more. Yes, they are very difficult even to just plan, let alone carry out. I couldn't agree much more.

But does it mean that they can't be or haven't been done, as you suggest?

That's where my Challenge comes in. Just tell me how much fuel you need for the trips and I give you €1M.

I know, of course, that only assholes say they have been in space and know how to do it, and it does not please me any longer. The show is no more fun!

The new asshole in charge is Robert X. Lightfoot, Jr. as Acting (LOL) Administrator of the NAXA nominated by POTUS D Trump a month ago. I introduce him at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm .

Imagine that the FIRST executive decision by D. Trump was to appoint a CLOWN. And media missed it.

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2017, 07:49:00 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 07:28:38 AM

I know you haven't tried my Challenge? Why? Aren't you up to describe two simple space trips and the fuel required?

Because those space trips are not simple.  In fact, those space trips are very difficult even to just plan, let alone carry out.  But that doesn't mean that they can't be or haven't been done.

I don't bother with your "challenge" because I know that even if you were put on a rocket and sent to Mars and back you would still not be satisfied.

Thanks. Yes, human space trips are not simple. I couldn't agree more. Yes, they are very difficult even to just plan, let alone carry out. I couldn't agree much more.

But does it mean that they can't be or haven't been done, as you suggest?

That's where my Challenge comes in. Just tell me how much fuel you need for the trips and I give you €1M.

I know, of course, that only assholes say they have been in space and know how to do it, and it does not please me any longer. The show is no more fun!

The new asshole in charge is Robert X. Lightfoot, Jr. as Acting (LOL) Administrator of the NAXA nominated by POTUS D Trump a month ago. I introduce him at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm .

Imagine that the FIRST executive decision by D. Trump was to appoint a CLOWN. And media missed it.

This thread isn't about your challenge or your opinion of NASA administrators.  It's about SpaceX publicly launching a Falcon 9 rocket and recovering the booster in front of a live audience.  Let's stay on topic, please.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 10:37:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2017, 07:49:00 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 07:28:38 AM

I know you haven't tried my Challenge? Why? Aren't you up to describe two simple space trips and the fuel required?

Because those space trips are not simple.  In fact, those space trips are very difficult even to just plan, let alone carry out.  But that doesn't mean that they can't be or haven't been done.

I don't bother with your "challenge" because I know that even if you were put on a rocket and sent to Mars and back you would still not be satisfied.

Thanks. Yes, human space trips are not simple. I couldn't agree more. Yes, they are very difficult even to just plan, let alone carry out. I couldn't agree much more.

But does it mean that they can't be or haven't been done, as you suggest?

That's where my Challenge comes in. Just tell me how much fuel you need for the trips and I give you €1M.

I know, of course, that only assholes say they have been in space and know how to do it, and it does not please me any longer. The show is no more fun!

The new asshole in charge is Robert X. Lightfoot, Jr. as Acting (LOL) Administrator of the NAXA nominated by POTUS D Trump a month ago. I introduce him at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm .

Imagine that the FIRST executive decision by D. Trump was to appoint a CLOWN. And media missed it.

This thread isn't about your challenge or your opinion of NASA administrators.  It's about SpaceX publicly launching a Falcon 9 rocket and recovering the booster in front of a live audience.  Let's stay on topic, please.

Yes, you are 100% right. So a rocket has delivered a satellite in orbit in space and the owner says he can recover the rocket. Fair enough.  But how?

The rocket is at high speed flying away from the launch area and it is suggested by the owner that the rocket flips 180° in space and fires a boost back burn to return to the area above the launch area. Why not? Of course you have to stop going away and start going back. But how? If you ask you are told you are an idiot.

And then, after having returned above the launch area, the rocket still in space drops down on the launch area. Gravity! It goes faster and faster so the owner has planned he can recover the rocket by slowing it down! An entry burn. Why not? But how? If you ask you are told you are an idiot.

And so on. If you ask for details you are told you are an idiot ... and asked to look at some strange videos showing a thing appearing out of clouds and 10 seconds later ladning.

And that's it. Footage of a thing and you are supposed to believe it was a rocket landing from space.

Sorry, in my biz it doesn't work. http://heiwaco.com

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2017, 11:22:30 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 10:37:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2017, 07:49:00 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 07:28:38 AM

I know you haven't tried my Challenge? Why? Aren't you up to describe two simple space trips and the fuel required?

Because those space trips are not simple.  In fact, those space trips are very difficult even to just plan, let alone carry out.  But that doesn't mean that they can't be or haven't been done.

I don't bother with your "challenge" because I know that even if you were put on a rocket and sent to Mars and back you would still not be satisfied.

Thanks. Yes, human space trips are not simple. I couldn't agree more. Yes, they are very difficult even to just plan, let alone carry out. I couldn't agree much more.

But does it mean that they can't be or haven't been done, as you suggest?

That's where my Challenge comes in. Just tell me how much fuel you need for the trips and I give you €1M.

I know, of course, that only assholes say they have been in space and know how to do it, and it does not please me any longer. The show is no more fun!

The new asshole in charge is Robert X. Lightfoot, Jr. as Acting (LOL) Administrator of the NAXA nominated by POTUS D Trump a month ago. I introduce him at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm .

Imagine that the FIRST executive decision by D. Trump was to appoint a CLOWN. And media missed it.

This thread isn't about your challenge or your opinion of NASA administrators.  It's about SpaceX publicly launching a Falcon 9 rocket and recovering the booster in front of a live audience.  Let's stay on topic, please.

Yes, you are 100% right. So a rocket has delivered a satellite in orbit in space and the owner says he can recover the rocket. Fair enough.  But how?

The rocket is at high speed flying away from the launch area and it is suggested by the owner that the rocket flips 180° in space and fires a boost back burn to return to the area above the launch area. Why not? Of course you have to stop going away and start going back. But how? If you ask you are told you are an idiot.

And then, after having returned above the launch area, the rocket still in space drops down on the launch area. Gravity! It goes faster and faster so the owner has planned he can recover the rocket by slowing it down! An entry burn. Why not? But how? If you ask you are told you are an idiot.

And so on. If you ask for details you are told you are an idiot ... and asked to look at some strange videos showing a thing appearing out of clouds and 10 seconds later ladning.

And that's it. Footage of a thing and you are supposed to believe it was a rocket landing from space.

Sorry, in my biz it doesn't work. http://heiwaco.com

It does say something about your intelligence when you scream fake at every video out of necessity.

The rocket is at high speed flying away from the launch area and it is suggested by the owner that the rocket flips 180° in space and fires a boost back burn to return to the area above the launch area. Why not? Of course you have to stop going away and start going back. But how?

By not using all of the fuel for the initial boost phase.  You use cold nitrogen thrusters to point the booster in the right direction and use 3 of 9 engines to burn some of the left over propellant.

And then, after having returned above the launch area, the rocket still in space drops down on the launch area. Gravity! It goes faster and faster so the owner has planned he can recover the rocket by slowing it down! An entry burn. Why not? But how?

You use one of the 9 engines to burn some more of the left over propellant.

And so on. If you ask for details you are told you are an idiot ... and asked to look at some strange videos showing a thing appearing out of clouds and 10 seconds later ladning.

No, you are told that you are an idiot when you ask for details and then call the people rude names when they try provide you with those details.

And that's it. Footage of a thing and you are supposed to believe it was a rocket landing from space.

Why shouldn't you believe it?

Sorry, in my biz it doesn't work. http://heiwaco.com

This isn't your biz.  This is the aerospace biz and the rules are different than in the sea biz.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 07:28:38 AM

I haven't seen anyone even writing software how to do it.

Because you haven't looked.

Here's a game you can play:

https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=7

See if any of the calculations behind it are wrong.

Have a chat with this lady:



She wrote quite a bit of it.

That's a dude.

Edit: p.s. it doesn't stack up, you say? Photo evidence 'it' does!

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2017, 07:10:56 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 06:58:22 AM

Yes - but their works cannot predict the trajectory of a spacecraft moving between celestial bodies like stars, planets and moons.
If they could, I would not organize a Challenge to do it.

If you can use Newton's law of universal gravitation or Einstein's theory of general relativity to predict the gravitational influences of celestial bodies, then why shouldn't you be able to use that information to predict the trajectory of a spacecraft traveling between those bodies?  It's okay to admit that such calculations are beyond your ability, but it's just plain silly to claim that it's impossible when others have been doing it for many years.

Well, it is a more difficult than yabusame, if you know what I mean. Yabusame is fun, i.e. only you galopping at full speed sitting on a horse down a path  and hitting three  small targets with arrows shot from your bow. I loved trying it, when I lived in Japan.
Space travel is more complicated. The targets are smaller but also moving at higher speeds than you.

I haven't seen anyone even writing software how to do it.

Note I don't say it is impossible. I just point out noone has done it. Not even Newton or Einstein. I know you haven't tried my Challenge? Why? Aren't you up to describe two simple space trips and the fuel required? You always sound like an eternal loser with your stupid comments.

If you're so sure it can't be done prove it by taking my Challenge and win €1M in the process! Otherwise you just sound like a doddering fool.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 12:28:43 PM

The rocket is at high speed flying away from the launch area and it is suggested by the owner that the rocket flips 180° in space and fires a boost back burn to return to the area above the launch area. Why not? Of course you have to stop going away and start going back. But how?

By not using all of the fuel for the initial boost phase.  You use cold nitrogen thrusters to point the booster in the right direction and use 3 of 9 engines to burn some of the left over propellant.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 12:28:43 PM

And then, after having returned above the launch area, the rocket still in space drops down on the launch area. Gravity! It goes faster and faster so the owner has planned he can recover the rocket by slowing it down! An entry burn. Why not? But how?

You use one of the 9 engines to burn some more of the left over propellant.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 12:28:43 PM

And so on. If you ask for details you are told you are an idiot ... and asked to look at some strange videos showing a thing appearing out of clouds and 10 seconds later ladning.

No, you are told that you are an idiot when you ask for details and then call the people rude names when they try provide you with those details.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 12:28:43 PM

And that's it. Footage of a thing and you are supposed to believe it was a rocket landing from space.

Why shouldn't you believe it?

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 12:28:43 PM

Sorry, in my biz it doesn't work. http://heiwaco.com

This isn't your biz.  This is the aerospace biz and the rules are different than in the sea biz.

Question remains how much fuel was used for the various manoeuvers - lift off into space, boost back burn, entry burn and landing burn. To suggest that Mr. No El K$um used some fuel that happened to be left over doesn't sound right.

Question remains how much fuel was used for the various manoeuvers - lift off into space, boost back burn, entry burn and landing burn.

That depends on the mission.  The first thing you need to know is the size of the payload and what kind of orbit its going into.  That will determine how much propellant the booster needs and how much propellant might be left over.  Once you have an idea of how much propellant you have left over, then you can decide where you can land.  If you have enough propellant left over, then you can return to the launch site, otherwise you need to perform a barge recovery which requires less propellant.

To suggest that Mr. No El K$um used some fuel that happened to be left over doesn't sound right.

To suggest that you're a successful engineer, let alone a qualified rocket scientist, doesn't sound right either.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:15:06 PM

Question remains how much fuel was used for the various manoeuvers - lift off into space, boost back burn, entry burn and landing burn.

That depends on the mission.  The first thing you need to know is the size of the payload and what kind of orbit its going into.  That will determine how much propellant the booster needs and how much propellant might be left over.  Once you have an idea of how much propellant you have left over, then you can decide where you can land.  If you have enough propellant left over, then you can return to the launch site, otherwise you need to perform a barge recovery which requires less propellant.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:15:06 PM

To suggest that Mr. No El K$um used some fuel that happened to be left over doesn't sound right.

To suggest that you're a successful engineer, let alone a qualified rocket scientist, doesn't sound right either.

Question remains how much extra fuel A was used to recover the booster from space and how much extra fuel B was required to to put the fuel A into space.

According my calculations A+B is much more than the fuel required to put the payload into orbit, which means that a twice as big rocket was used than needed.

Furthermore the soft- and hardware to remotely land the rocket don't exist so ... the whole thing is a hoax and all the footage is CGI.

I really wonder why SpaceX produce it? It is criminal!

Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2017, 06:14:49 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:15:06 PM

Question remains how much fuel was used for the various manoeuvers - lift off into space, boost back burn, entry burn and landing burn.

That depends on the mission.  The first thing you need to know is the size of the payload and what kind of orbit its going into.  That will determine how much propellant the booster needs and how much propellant might be left over.  Once you have an idea of how much propellant you have left over, then you can decide where you can land.  If you have enough propellant left over, then you can return to the launch site, otherwise you need to perform a barge recovery which requires less propellant.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:15:06 PM

To suggest that Mr. No El K$um used some fuel that happened to be left over doesn't sound right.

To suggest that you're a successful engineer, let alone a qualified rocket scientist, doesn't sound right either.

Question remains how much extra fuel A was used to recover the booster from space and how much extra fuel B was required to to put the fuel A into space.

The real question that remains is why someone claiming to be an engineer would be posting content similar to that posted by immature adolescents.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 28, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 07:28:38 AM

I haven't seen anyone even writing software how to do it.

Because you haven't looked.

Here's a game you can play:

https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=7

See if any of the calculations behind it are wrong.

Have a chat with this lady:



She wrote quite a bit of it.

That's a dude.

Edit: p.s. it doesn't stack up, you say? Photo evidence 'it' does!

Is that why you turned gay? Your inability to differentiate the sexes.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 01, 2017, 12:20:29 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2017, 06:14:49 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:15:06 PM

Question remains how much fuel was used for the various manoeuvers - lift off into space, boost back burn, entry burn and landing burn.

That depends on the mission.  The first thing you need to know is the size of the payload and what kind of orbit its going into.  That will determine how much propellant the booster needs and how much propellant might be left over.  Once you have an idea of how much propellant you have left over, then you can decide where you can land.  If you have enough propellant left over, then you can return to the launch site, otherwise you need to perform a barge recovery which requires less propellant.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:15:06 PM

To suggest that Mr. No El K$um used some fuel that happened to be left over doesn't sound right.

To suggest that you're a successful engineer, let alone a qualified rocket scientist, doesn't sound right either.

Question remains how much extra fuel A was used to recover the booster from space and how much extra fuel B was required to to put the fuel A into space.

The real question that remains is why someone claiming to be an engineer would be posting content similar to that posted by immature adolescents.

I just try to inform people what I think via Internet/my website. I get a lot of good feedback via e-mail by polite people giving their names, etc. Only on strange forums of all kind anonymous, stupid, sick fascists attack me. I am used to it since I started questioning fake government propaganda 1996. 21 years ago. Time flies.

Quote from: Boots on March 01, 2017, 12:48:07 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 01, 2017, 12:20:29 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2017, 06:14:49 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:15:06 PM

Question remains how much fuel was used for the various manoeuvers - lift off into space, boost back burn, entry burn and landing burn.

That depends on the mission.  The first thing you need to know is the size of the payload and what kind of orbit its going into.  That will determine how much propellant the booster needs and how much propellant might be left over.  Once you have an idea of how much propellant you have left over, then you can decide where you can land.  If you have enough propellant left over, then you can return to the launch site, otherwise you need to perform a barge recovery which requires less propellant.

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:15:06 PM

To suggest that Mr. No El K$um used some fuel that happened to be left over doesn't sound right.

To suggest that you're a successful engineer, let alone a qualified rocket scientist, doesn't sound right either.

Question remains how much extra fuel A was used to recover the booster from space and how much extra fuel B was required to to put the fuel A into space.

The real question that remains is why someone claiming to be an engineer would be posting content similar to that posted by immature adolescents.

I just try to inform people what I think via Internet/my website. I get a lot of good feedback via e-mail by polite people giving their names, etc. Only on strange forums of all kind anonymous, stupid, sick fascists attack me. I am used to it since I started questioning fake government propaganda 1996. 21 years ago. Time flies.

You just commit every logical fallacy in the book plus invent some new ones. Very immature.

If you really want to convince anyone of anything you should grow up and start acting like the professional you claim to be!

Question remains how much extra fuel A was used to recover the booster from space and how much extra fuel B was required to to put the fuel A into space.

According my calculations A+B is much more than the fuel required to put the payload into orbit, which means that a twice as big rocket was used than needed.

Is there a possibility that your non-rocket scientist calculations may be wrong?

Furthermore the soft- and hardware to remotely land the rocket don't exist so ...

Are you sure about that?  Is it possible some rocket scientists have developed such software and, heaven forfend, forgot to tell you?

the whole thing is a hoax and all the footage is CGI.

Given that the lift off and recovery happened in public, I would suggest recovery of the rocket would be easier to achieve than producing a convincing CGI display, outdoors.  But what do I know?  I'm not a CGI scientist.  Just like you aren't a rocket scientist.

Quote from: Antirockballtheorist on February 28, 2017, 04:32:36 PM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 28, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 07:28:38 AM

I haven't seen anyone even writing software how to do it.

Because you haven't looked.

Here's a game you can play:

https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=7

See if any of the calculations behind it are wrong.

Have a chat with this lady:



She wrote quite a bit of it.

That's a dude.

Edit: p.s. it doesn't stack up, you say? Photo evidence 'it' does!

Is that why you turned gay? Your inability to differentiate the sexes.

Surely if lacking gender discernment ability, being gay would be as impossible as being heterosexual. How would one know?

Question remains how much extra fuel A was used to recover the booster from space and how much extra fuel B was required to to put the fuel A into space.

None.  The fuel tanks were filled to their designed capacities.

According my calculations A+B is much more than the fuel required to put the payload into orbit, which means that a twice as big rocket was used than needed.

This is why you're such a shit engineer.  It isn't "extra fuel".  It's fuel that you could use to either carry a heavier payload to orbit or carry a smaller payload to orbit and recover the booster.

Furthermore the soft- and hardware to remotely land the rocket don't exist so ... the whole thing is a hoax and all the footage is CGI.

There are all sorts of autonomous vehicles - UAVs, self-driving cars, robots, and so on.  Why should autonomous rockets be such a stretch?

I really wonder why SpaceX produce it? It is criminal!

If you're so sure that it's criminal, then call the police.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 01, 2017, 12:20:29 PM

Question remains how much extra fuel A was used to recover the booster from space and how much extra fuel B was required to to put the fuel A into space.

None.  The fuel tanks were filled to their designed capacities.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 01, 2017, 12:20:29 PM

According my calculations A+B is much more than the fuel required to put the payload into orbit, which means that a twice as big rocket was used than needed.

This is why you're such a shit engineer.  It isn't "extra fuel".  It's fuel that you could use to either carry a heavier payload to orbit or carry a smaller payload to orbit and recover the booster.

Good - so what was the designed capacity of the fuel tanks and how much fuel was (1) used to deliver the second stage into orbit and how much for the (2) boost back, (3) entry and (4) landing burns? And what kind of software was used to steer the fuel tanks back to ground and fire the three extra burns at the right times?