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

Heiwa would lose at checkers against a 9 year old.

Dammit, meant tic-tac-toe against a three year old.

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?

Why don't you ask them on the SpaceX subReddit?
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

Quote from: Heiwa on March 01, 2017, 08:07:25 PM

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?

Why don't you ask them on the SpaceX subReddit?
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

No, it is better to ask you to verify my figures. If the empty rocket has mass say 24 tons and it drops from the sky I think you need 10 tons of fuel for a landing burn applied at the absolute right time/direction.
To slow down 34 tons entering the atmosphere at high speed I think you need 20 tons of fuel for an entry burn.  Also applied at the absolute right time/direction.
But before that you must bring the 54 tons rocket back over the landing area and for that you need 30 tons of fuel. Also applied at the absolute right time/direction. So it seems you need 60 tons of fuel to recover the rocket first stage from space.

But that 60 tons of fuel has to be launched into space from ground and for that you probably need at least 150 tons of extra fuel.  And if total fuel to bring the second stage into space is 420 tons, it seems 50% of it is used to recover the first stage. It doesn't sound right.
I am really thankful if you can clarify matters.

Because you'd get eaten alive if you posted your nonsense over there and you know it!

Because you'd get eaten alive if you posted your nonsense over there and you know it!

That and he gets banned on most sites because his constant self-promotion and arguments from incredulity are seen as trolling.

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2017, 06:08:56 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 01, 2017, 08:07:25 PM

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?

Why don't you ask them on the SpaceX subReddit?
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

No, it is better to ask you to verify my figures which are based on no understanding of rocket science whatsoever. If the empty rocket has mass say 24 tons and it drops from the sky I think (but not being a rocket scientist, I'm only guessing here - it could be 10 kilos for all I know) you need 10 tons of fuel for a landing burn applied at the absolute right time/direction.
To slow down 34 tons entering the atmosphere at high speed I think (well, when I say "think" I really mean "plucking any arbitrary number from thin air"...) you need 20 tons of fuel for an entry burn.  Also applied at the absolute right time/direction.
But before that you must bring the 54 tons rocket back over the landing area and for that you need 30 tons of fuel (Or 75 billion.  Or 2?  I'm no rocket scientist, remember). Also applied at the absolute right time/direction. So it seems you need 60 tons of fuel (because in my world 20 tons plus 30 tons equals 60 tons.  Did I mention I am not a rocket scientist?  You can add mathematician to that) to recover the rocket first stage from space.

But that 60 tons of fuel has to be launched into space from ground and for that you probably (Who knows? Certainly not me.  I'm winging it here.  Have you read my website?) need at least 150 tons of extra fuel (depending on the day of the week. It could be more).  And if total fuel to bring the second stage into space is 420 tons, it seems 50% of it is used to recover the first stage. It doesn't sound right (probably because it isn't).
I am really thankful if you can clarify matters.

Matters clarified.  See amended post above.  It is just possible that you really do not have enough information to conclude that "it doesn't sound right".  Why does it not sound right?  Have you looked at the fuel burn rates of each engine?  The fuel capacity of the vehicle?  The power output of the engines?

What do you think happened between the very public lift-off and the very public landing?

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2017, 06:08:56 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 01, 2017, 08:07:25 PM

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?

Why don't you ask them on the SpaceX subReddit?
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

No, it is better to ask you to verify my figures.

Why would it be better to ask some random guy on the internet when you can ask the guys that actually work with the rocket? 

But that 60 tons of fuel has to be launched into space from ground and for that you probably need at least 150 tons of extra fuel.  And if total fuel to bring the second stage into space is 420 tons, it seems 50% of it is used to recover the first stage. It doesn't sound right.
I am really thankful if you can clarify matters.

It doesn't sound right because you keep going about it the wrong way.  I keep telling you, it isn't a matter of taking extra propellant, it's a matter of taking a small enough payload so that you can have some propellant left over. 

Let's say that you have a container ship that can carry 50,000 tonnes of cargo of 5000 miles on a full tank of fuel.  Now let's say that you have a load that you need to take to a port that's 5000 miles away, but the port is too small to have any refueling services.  If you take the full load of 50,000 tonnes then you can only carry enough fuel to get to your destination, but you don't have any fuel left to get you back home.  But, say that you only take 25,000 tonnes instead.  Since lighter load require less fuel, that you now have just enough fuel to make it to your destination and back home.

That's just what SpaceX is doing with the Falcon 9 booster recovery.  They're taking a smaller payload and using the left over propellant to recover the booster.

What do you think happened between the very public lift-off and the very public landing?

Thanks for asking. I think all of it was standard 1960's NASA Hollywood show. A rocket disappears up in the sky behind some clouds. And later something drops down ... and lands. The public is impressed. Magic! Show!
 
All CGI or 1960's trick filming.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 08:21:59 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2017, 06:08:56 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 01, 2017, 08:07:25 PM

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?

Why don't you ask them on the SpaceX subReddit?
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

No, it is better to ask you to verify my figures.

Why would it be better to ask some random guy on the internet when you can ask the guys that actually work with the rocket? 

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 08:21:59 AM

But that 60 tons of fuel has to be launched into space from ground and for that you probably need at least 150 tons of extra fuel.  And if total fuel to bring the second stage into space is 420 tons, it seems 50% of it is used to recover the first stage. It doesn't sound right.
I am really thankful if you can clarify matters.

It doesn't sound right because you keep going about it the wrong way.  I keep telling you, it isn't a matter of taking extra propellant, it's a matter of taking a small enough payload so that you can have some propellant left over. 

Let's say that you have a container ship that can carry 50,000 tonnes of cargo of 5000 miles on a full tank of fuel.  Now let's say that you have a load that you need to take to a port that's 5000 miles away, but the port is too small to have any refueling services.  If you take the full load of 50,000 tonnes then you can only carry enough fuel to get to your destination, but you don't have any fuel left to get you back home.  But, say that you only take 25,000 tonnes instead.  Since lighter load require less fuel, that you now have just enough fuel to make it to your destination and back home.

That's just what SpaceX is doing with the Falcon 9 booster recovery.  They're taking a smaller payload and using the left over propellant to recover the booster.

LOL. What drug is you on?

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2017, 11:15:58 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 08:21:59 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2017, 06:08:56 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 01, 2017, 08:07:25 PM

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?

Why don't you ask them on the SpaceX subReddit?
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

No, it is better to ask you to verify my figures.

Why would it be better to ask some random guy on the internet when you can ask the guys that actually work with the rocket? 

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 08:21:59 AM

But that 60 tons of fuel has to be launched into space from ground and for that you probably need at least 150 tons of extra fuel.  And if total fuel to bring the second stage into space is 420 tons, it seems 50% of it is used to recover the first stage. It doesn't sound right.
I am really thankful if you can clarify matters.

It doesn't sound right because you keep going about it the wrong way.  I keep telling you, it isn't a matter of taking extra propellant, it's a matter of taking a small enough payload so that you can have some propellant left over. 

Let's say that you have a container ship that can carry 50,000 tonnes of cargo of 5000 miles on a full tank of fuel.  Now let's say that you have a load that you need to take to a port that's 5000 miles away, but the port is too small to have any refueling services.  If you take the full load of 50,000 tonnes then you can only carry enough fuel to get to your destination, but you don't have any fuel left to get you back home.  But, say that you only take 25,000 tonnes instead.  Since lighter load require less fuel, that you now have just enough fuel to make it to your destination and back home.

That's just what SpaceX is doing with the Falcon 9 booster recovery.  They're taking a smaller payload and using the left over propellant to recover the booster.

LOL. What drug is you on?

So you can't find anything wrong with my explanation and yet still choose to disagree.  Good to know.

Quote from: Val Strasser on March 02, 2017, 11:02:15 AM

What do you think happened between the very public lift-off and the very public landing?

Thanks for asking. I think all of it was standard 1960's NASA Hollywood show. A rocket disappears up in the sky behind some clouds. And later something drops down ... and lands. The public is impressed. Magic! Show!
 
All CGI or 1960's trick filming.

Excellent answer.  Why would they do that?  And do you really think that the technology exists to put on a CGI display, outdoors, in public that would convince onlookers that they have "witnessed" a space launch and recovery?  Do you not think that it would be easier to actually launch and recover a space vehicle?  Have you any idea as to the technology required to produce such a CGI event IN PUBLIC?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 11:40:58 AM

Quote from: Val Strasser on March 02, 2017, 11:02:15 AM

What do you think happened between the very public lift-off and the very public landing?

Thanks for asking. I think all of it was standard 1960's NASA Hollywood show. A rocket disappears up in the sky behind some clouds. And later something drops down ... and lands. The public is impressed. Magic! Show!
 
All CGI or 1960's trick filming.

Excellent answer.  Why would they do that?  And do you really think that the technology exists to put on a CGI display, outdoors, in public that would convince onlookers that they have "witnessed" a space launch and recovery?  Do you not think that it would be easier to actually launch and recover a space vehicle?  Have you any idea as to the technology required to produce such a CGI event IN PUBLIC?

Well, it seems that SpaceX cannot produce any data about the fuel consumed to carry out the recovery - probably of the order >200 tons - and the software and hardware to do the manoeuvers - apply the forces at the right locations, times, directions in space. SpaceX just says the can do it at hypersonic speeds. The boost-back burn includes a 180° flip to stop horizontal movement away from the landing area of a rocket full of fuel ... at hypersonic speed! ... and then to stop above the landning area for dropping down ny gravity. Well, let's see the software/hardware that can do it ... automatically ... and a printout of the course of the complete recovery and how the mass is reduced, etc, etc.

Well, it seems that SpaceX cannot produce any data about the fuel consumed to carry out the recovery - probably of the order >200 tons - and the software and hardware to do the manoeuvers - apply the forces at the right locations, times, directions in space. SpaceX just says the can do it at hypersonic speeds. The boost-back burn includes a 180° flip to stop horizontal movement away from the landing area of a rocket full of fuel ... at hypersonic speed! ... and then to stop above the landning area for dropping down ny gravity. Well, let's see the software/hardware that can do it ... automatically ... and a printout of the course of the complete recovery and how the mass is reduced, etc, etc.

Why should they? They are not trying to prove anything to you!

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 05:48:30 PM

Well, it seems that SpaceX cannot produce any data about the fuel consumed to carry out the recovery - probably of the order >200 tons - and the software and hardware to do the manoeuvers - apply the forces at the right locations, times, directions in space. SpaceX just says the can do it at hypersonic speeds. The boost-back burn includes a 180° flip to stop horizontal movement away from the landing area of a rocket full of fuel ... at hypersonic speed! ... and then to stop above the landning area for dropping down ny gravity. Well, let's see the software/hardware that can do it ... automatically ... and a printout of the course of the complete recovery and how the mass is reduced, etc, etc.

Why should they? They are not trying to prove anything to you!

Well, if you say that you can steer a rocket backwards at hypersonic speeds from space fully automatically only using main rocket engines at the end to, let's see the the autopilot system incl. gyros, sensors, GPS, transverse rocket engines for positioning, etc, etc. SpaceX refers to research done by some universities but, as I describe at my website, it is pure pseudoscience.
Let's start with the boost-back burn! How is it done? And how much fuel is used? And what is the trajectory in 3D space?

Well, if you say that you can steer a rocket backwards at hypersonic speeds from space fully automatically only using main rocket engines at the end to, let's see the the autopilot system incl. gyros, sensors, GPS, transverse rocket engines for positioning, etc, etc. SpaceX refers to research done by some universities but, as I describe at my website, it is pure pseudoscience.

Why do I have such a hard time believing that any engineer worth their salt would call existing and proven technologies such as autopilots, gyroscopes, sensors, GPS and gimbaled rocket engines "pure pseudoscience"?

Let's start with the boost-back burn! How is it done? And how much fuel is used? And what is the trajectory in 3D space?

Have you asked any of the SpaceX people on the SpaceX subReddit?  It seems that they would be able to answer those questions better than any of us here, but I have a feeling that the answer would be something along the lines of "it depends on the specific mission parameters".
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Well, if you say that you can steer a rocket backwards at hypersonic speeds from space fully automatically only using main rocket engines at the end to, let's see the the autopilot system incl. gyros, sensors, GPS, transverse rocket engines for positioning, etc, etc. SpaceX refers to research done by some universities but, as I describe at my website, it is pure pseudoscience.

Why do I have such a hard time believing that any engineer worth their salt would call existing and proven technologies such as autopilots, gyroscopes, sensors, GPS and gimbaled rocket engines "pure pseudoscience"?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Let's start with the boost-back burn! How is it done? And how much fuel is used? And what is the trajectory in 3D space?

Have you asked any of the SpaceX people on the SpaceX subReddit?  It seems that they would be able to answer those questions better than any of us here, but I have a feeling that the answer would be something along the lines of "it depends on the specific mission parameters".
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

Well, to be perfectly frank with you any info given by SpaceX sounds like the noise you hear from the cages at a zoo. I describe it at my website.

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Well, if you say that you can steer a rocket backwards at hypersonic speeds from space fully automatically only using main rocket engines at the end to, let's see the the autopilot system incl. gyros, sensors, GPS, transverse rocket engines for positioning, etc, etc. SpaceX refers to research done by some universities but, as I describe at my website, it is pure pseudoscience.

Why do I have such a hard time believing that any engineer worth their salt would call existing and proven technologies such as autopilots, gyroscopes, sensors, GPS and gimbaled rocket engines "pure pseudoscience"?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Let's start with the boost-back burn! How is it done? And how much fuel is used? And what is the trajectory in 3D space?

Have you asked any of the SpaceX people on the SpaceX subReddit?  It seems that they would be able to answer those questions better than any of us here, but I have a feeling that the answer would be something along the lines of "it depends on the specific mission parameters".
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

Well, to be perfectly frank with you any info given by SpaceX sounds like the noise you hear from the cages at a zoo. I describe it at my website.

Heiwa the five-year old professional engineer!

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 10:29:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Well, if you say that you can steer a rocket backwards at hypersonic speeds from space fully automatically only using main rocket engines at the end to, let's see the the autopilot system incl. gyros, sensors, GPS, transverse rocket engines for positioning, etc, etc. SpaceX refers to research done by some universities but, as I describe at my website, it is pure pseudoscience.

Why do I have such a hard time believing that any engineer worth their salt would call existing and proven technologies such as autopilots, gyroscopes, sensors, GPS and gimbaled rocket engines "pure pseudoscience"?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Let's start with the boost-back burn! How is it done? And how much fuel is used? And what is the trajectory in 3D space?

Have you asked any of the SpaceX people on the SpaceX subReddit?  It seems that they would be able to answer those questions better than any of us here, but I have a feeling that the answer would be something along the lines of "it depends on the specific mission parameters".
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

Well, to be perfectly frank with you any info given by SpaceX sounds like the noise you hear from the cages at a zoo. I describe it at my website.

Heiwa the five-year old professional engineer!

It shouldn't be too difficult  to provide a print out the following data every second during the recovery of the first stage as shown above:

mass (kg), altitude (m), speed (m/s), direction re vertical down (°), position re landing site (m), rocket fuel in the tanks (kg), dispersions, etc.

Also indicated should be start and end times of the boost-back, entry and landning burns and the rocket forces applied (N).

With that data I am ready to discuss.

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Well, if you say that you can steer a rocket backwards at hypersonic speeds from space fully automatically only using main rocket engines at the end to, let's see the the autopilot system incl. gyros, sensors, GPS, transverse rocket engines for positioning, etc, etc. SpaceX refers to research done by some universities but, as I describe at my website, it is pure pseudoscience.

Why do I have such a hard time believing that any engineer worth their salt would call existing and proven technologies such as autopilots, gyroscopes, sensors, GPS and gimbaled rocket engines "pure pseudoscience"?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Let's start with the boost-back burn! How is it done? And how much fuel is used? And what is the trajectory in 3D space?

Have you asked any of the SpaceX people on the SpaceX subReddit?  It seems that they would be able to answer those questions better than any of us here, but I have a feeling that the answer would be something along the lines of "it depends on the specific mission parameters".
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

Well, to be perfectly frank with you any info given by SpaceX sounds like the noise you hear from the cages at a zoo. I describe it at my website.

Translation: I call it pseudoscience because I don't understand it.  I am the great Heiwa, just look at my website and its hundreds of visitors!  If I don't understand it then it must not work!  Have you seen my website?

It shouldn't be too difficult  to provide a print out the following data every second during the recovery of the first stage as shown above:

mass (kg), altitude (m), speed (m/s), direction re vertical down (°), position re landing site (m), rocket fuel in the tanks (kg), dispersions, etc.

Also indicated should be start and end times of the boost-back, entry and landning burns and the rocket forces applied (N).

With that data I am ready to discuss.

Some of that data is available in the launch videos.  It's been pointed out that some video simulations have been produced using that available data, such as this one:


However, some of that telemetry is probably being withheld for at least one of two reasons:

1) National security.  Let's face it, any rocket that can be used to launch a satellite into orbit can also be used to drop a bomb just about anywhere on the planet.  You really don't want to publish too much information on how to build an ICBM, do you?

2) Trade secret.  SpaceX is in the satellite launching business.  It wouldn't be too smart of them to give away too much to the competition, would it?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 10:29:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Well, if you say that you can steer a rocket backwards at hypersonic speeds from space fully automatically only using main rocket engines at the end to, let's see the the autopilot system incl. gyros, sensors, GPS, transverse rocket engines for positioning, etc, etc. SpaceX refers to research done by some universities but, as I describe at my website, it is pure pseudoscience.

Why do I have such a hard time believing that any engineer worth their salt would call existing and proven technologies such as autopilots, gyroscopes, sensors, GPS and gimbaled rocket engines "pure pseudoscience"?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Let's start with the boost-back burn! How is it done? And how much fuel is used? And what is the trajectory in 3D space?

Have you asked any of the SpaceX people on the SpaceX subReddit?  It seems that they would be able to answer those questions better than any of us here, but I have a feeling that the answer would be something along the lines of "it depends on the specific mission parameters".
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

Well, to be perfectly frank with you any info given by SpaceX sounds like the noise you hear from the cages at a zoo. I describe it at my website.

Translation: I call it pseudoscience because I don't understand it.  I am the great Heiwa, just look at my website and its hundreds of visitors!  If I don't understand it then it must not work!  Have you seen my website?

Thanks for post. But you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM to understand how Elon Musk, aka No Le K$um does his magic tricks.
It is easy. Send a rocket beind the clouds. Then start your CGI live on TV show including footage taken by a camera on the rocket showing the ground below ... coming closer and closer = landing after a couple of minutes. And then some pictures of something 10 miles away = a rocket has landed.
Next year No Le K$um will do same thing coming from the Moon.
And 2020 we will se happy people coming back from Mars.

Just enjoy the stupid show. But do not ask any questions how it is done. It is just CGI.

Quote from: frenat on March 03, 2017, 05:25:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 10:29:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Well, if you say that you can steer a rocket backwards at hypersonic speeds from space fully automatically only using main rocket engines at the end to, let's see the the autopilot system incl. gyros, sensors, GPS, transverse rocket engines for positioning, etc, etc. SpaceX refers to research done by some universities but, as I describe at my website, it is pure pseudoscience.

Why do I have such a hard time believing that any engineer worth their salt would call existing and proven technologies such as autopilots, gyroscopes, sensors, GPS and gimbaled rocket engines "pure pseudoscience"?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Let's start with the boost-back burn! How is it done? And how much fuel is used? And what is the trajectory in 3D space?

Have you asked any of the SpaceX people on the SpaceX subReddit?  It seems that they would be able to answer those questions better than any of us here, but I have a feeling that the answer would be something along the lines of "it depends on the specific mission parameters".
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

Well, to be perfectly frank with you any info given by SpaceX sounds like the noise you hear from the cages at a zoo. I describe it at my website.

Translation: I call it pseudoscience because I don't understand it.  I am the great Heiwa, just look at my website and its hundreds of visitors!  If I don't understand it then it must not work!  Have you seen my website?

Thanks for post. But you really have to study removed self promotion to understand how Elon Musk, aka No Le K$um does his magic tricks.
It is easy. Send a rocket beind the clouds. Then start your CGI live on TV show including footage taken by a camera on the rocket showing the ground below ... coming closer and closer = landing after a couple of minutes. And then some pictures of something 10 miles away = a rocket has landed.
Next year No Le K$um will do same thing coming from the Moon.
And 2020 we will se happy people coming back from Mars.

Just enjoy the stupid show. But do not ask any questions how it is done. It is just CGI.

I've seen your website plenty to know it is filled with arguments from incredulity and not much else.  I will not add to your paltry hit counts just to view more logical fallacies.  There are plenty of search bots to do that.  I'm guessing about 80% or more of your hits are from search engines.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 11:13:48 PM

It shouldn't be too difficult  to provide a print out the following data every second during the recovery of the first stage as shown above:

mass (kg), altitude (m), speed (m/s), direction re vertical down (°), position re landing site (m), rocket fuel in the tanks (kg), dispersions, etc.

Also indicated should be start and end times of the boost-back, entry and landning burns and the rocket forces applied (N).

With that data I am ready to discuss.

Some of that data is available in the launch videos.  It's been pointed out that some video simulations have been produced using that available data, such as this one:


However, some of that telemetry is probably being withheld for at least one of two reasons:

1) National security.  Let's face it, any rocket that can be used to launch a satellite into orbit can also be used to drop a bomb just about anywhere on the planet.  You really don't want to publish too much information on how to build an ICBM, do you?

2) Trade secret.  SpaceX is in the satellite launching business.  It wouldn't be too smart of them to give away too much to the competition, would it?

The very short boost-back burn backwards hypersonic salto is really impressive - unbelievable - like the 17 seconds entry burn - and then ... the rocket slows down in free fall  and ... at subsonic speed there is a landing burn ... and two seconds before touch down the landing legs are deployed. Please, the video simulation is getting worse and worse.

As I always say:

It shouldn't be too difficult  to provide a print out the following data every second during the recovery of the first stage as shown above:

mass (kg), altitude (m), speed (m/s), direction re vertical down (°), position re landing site (m), rocket fuel in the tanks (kg), dispersions, etc.

Also indicated should be start and end times of the boost-back, entry and landning burns and the rocket forces applied (N).

With that data I am ready to discuss.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 06:14:20 AM

Quote from: frenat on March 03, 2017, 05:25:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 10:29:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Well, if you say that you can steer a rocket backwards at hypersonic speeds from space fully automatically only using main rocket engines at the end to, let's see the the autopilot system incl. gyros, sensors, GPS, transverse rocket engines for positioning, etc, etc. SpaceX refers to research done by some universities but, as I describe at my website, it is pure pseudoscience.

Why do I have such a hard time believing that any engineer worth their salt would call existing and proven technologies such as autopilots, gyroscopes, sensors, GPS and gimbaled rocket engines "pure pseudoscience"?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Let's start with the boost-back burn! How is it done? And how much fuel is used? And what is the trajectory in 3D space?

Have you asked any of the SpaceX people on the SpaceX subReddit?  It seems that they would be able to answer those questions better than any of us here, but I have a feeling that the answer would be something along the lines of "it depends on the specific mission parameters".
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

Well, to be perfectly frank with you any info given by SpaceX sounds like the noise you hear from the cages at a zoo. I describe it at my website.

Translation: I call it pseudoscience because I don't understand it.  I am the great Heiwa, just look at my website and its hundreds of visitors!  If I don't understand it then it must not work!  Have you seen my website?

Thanks for post. But you really have to study removed self promotion to understand how Elon Musk, aka No Le K$um does his magic tricks.
It is easy. Send a rocket beind the clouds. Then start your CGI live on TV show including footage taken by a camera on the rocket showing the ground below ... coming closer and closer = landing after a couple of minutes. And then some pictures of something 10 miles away = a rocket has landed.
Next year No Le K$um will do same thing coming from the Moon.
And 2020 we will se happy people coming back from Mars.

Just enjoy the stupid show. But do not ask any questions how it is done. It is just CGI.

I've seen your website plenty to know it is filled with arguments from incredulity and not much else.  I will not add to your paltry hit counts just to view more logical fallacies.  There are plenty of search bots to do that.  I'm guessing about 80% or more of your hits are from search engines.

Thanks! Just copy/paste any my arguments from incredulity with explanations and send them to me ... and I will fix them.
Search engines? But I have 100's of hits/day from all over the world. Why should they do it?

1/3 of my visitors read about the NASA/SpaceX space hoaxes.

Another 1/3 of my visitors read about fake a-bombs and 911 propaganda = same shit.

And 1/3 actually read about how not to improve safety at sea. Very popular today is http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm about the US/Israeli/Italian mafia trying to recycle a wreck in a dry-dock full of water. I wonder how long it will last. What poor sods are down in that shitty wreck cutting steel? It is sad.

As I always say:

It shouldn't be too difficult  to provide a print out the following data every second during the recovery of the first stage as shown above:

mass (kg), altitude (m), speed (m/s), direction re vertical down (°), position re landing site (m), rocket fuel in the tanks (kg), dispersions, etc.

Also indicated should be start and end times of the boost-back, entry and landning burns and the rocket forces applied (N).

With that data I am ready to discuss.

First of all, why do you need data for every second?  Secondly, what's wrong with the telemetry data that's already been provided in the launch videos and simulations?  If you're a smart engineer, then you should be able to figure out quite a lot from that little bit.  After all, others already have.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 06:33:10 AM

As I always say:

It shouldn't be too difficult  to provide a print out the following data every second during the recovery of the first stage as shown above:

mass (kg), altitude (m), speed (m/s), direction re vertical down (°), position re landing site (m), rocket fuel in the tanks (kg), dispersions, etc.

Also indicated should be start and end times of the boost-back, entry and landning burns and the rocket forces applied (N).

With that data I am ready to discuss.

First of all, why do you need data for every second?  Secondly, what's wrong with the telemetry data that's already been provided in the launch videos and simulations?  If you're a smart engineer, then you should be able to figure out quite a lot from that little bit.  After all, others already have.

Well, a typical recovery after separation takes only 6 minutes or 360 seconds so I only ask for 360 lines of data.
The software must record data every 1/100th of a second or 100 times more than what I ask for.
The telemetry data is just a clock and altitude ... for the ascent. The question is the salto descent after separation. As it doesn't look real to me, I just ask for some data about the trajectory coming home.

National security? No - enemy ICBMs do not do saltos before wiping out NY or Chicago.

Trade secrets? I feel the only trade secret SpaceX has is that all is 100% fake.

And it will not last. Poor No El K$um will probably be involved with some serious accident soon according my favourite lady looking in her glass ball.

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2017, 06:48:23 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 06:33:10 AM

As I always say:

It shouldn't be too difficult  to provide a print out the following data every second during the recovery of the first stage as shown above:

mass (kg), altitude (m), speed (m/s), direction re vertical down (°), position re landing site (m), rocket fuel in the tanks (kg), dispersions, etc.

Also indicated should be start and end times of the boost-back, entry and landning burns and the rocket forces applied (N).

With that data I am ready to discuss.

First of all, why do you need data for every second?  Secondly, what's wrong with the telemetry data that's already been provided in the launch videos and simulations?  If you're a smart engineer, then you should be able to figure out quite a lot from that little bit.  After all, others already have.

Well, a typical recovery after separation takes only 6 minutes or 360 seconds so I only ask for 360 lines of data.
The software must record data every 1/100th of a second or 100 times more than what I ask for.
The telemetry data is just a clock and altitude ... for the ascent. The question is the salto descent after separation. As it doesn't look real to me, I just ask for some data about the trajectory coming home.

Since you aren't likely to ever be one of their customers, I doubt that they care in the slightest what you think.

National security? No - enemy ICBMs do not do saltos before wiping out NY or Chicago.

Irrelevant.  National security tends to run on the somewhat paranoid side.

Trade secrets? I feel the only trade secret SpaceX has is that all is 100% fake.

Then I guess that they don't have to worry about competition from you.  On the other hand, ULA and Arianspace probably do believe that it's 100% real and they are the competition from whom they need to protect their trade secrets.

And it will not last. Poor No El K$um will probably be involved with some serious accident soon according my favourite lady looking in her glass ball.

Well, how can anyone argue with such a reliable source as that?

And please stop with the immature name calling.  It does nothing to help your arguments (and trust me, your arguments need all the help that they can get) and just makes you look like you're butthurt for some reason.  What's wrong, is the competition form SpaceX hurting your Airbus stock value?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 07:09:12 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2017, 06:48:23 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 06:33:10 AM

As I always say:

It shouldn't be too difficult  to provide a print out the following data every second during the recovery of the first stage as shown above:

mass (kg), altitude (m), speed (m/s), direction re vertical down (°), position re landing site (m), rocket fuel in the tanks (kg), dispersions, etc.

Also indicated should be start and end times of the boost-back, entry and landning burns and the rocket forces applied (N).

With that data I am ready to discuss.

First of all, why do you need data for every second?  Secondly, what's wrong with the telemetry data that's already been provided in the launch videos and simulations?  If you're a smart engineer, then you should be able to figure out quite a lot from that little bit.  After all, others already have.

Well, a typical recovery after separation takes only 6 minutes or 360 seconds so I only ask for 360 lines of data.
The software must record data every 1/100th of a second or 100 times more than what I ask for.
The telemetry data is just a clock and altitude ... for the ascent. The question is the salto descent after separation. As it doesn't look real to me, I just ask for some data about the trajectory coming home.

Since you aren't likely to ever be one of their customers, I doubt that they care in the slightest what you think.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 07:09:12 AM

National security? No - enemy ICBMs do not do saltos before wiping out NY or Chicago.

Irrelevant.  National security tends to run on the somewhat paranoid side.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 07:09:12 AM

Trade secrets? I feel the only trade secret SpaceX has is that all is 100% fake.

Then I guess that they don't have to worry about competition from you.  On the other hand, ULA and Arianspace probably do believe that it's 100% real and they are the competition from whom they need to protect their trade secrets.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 07:09:12 AM

And it will not last. Poor No El K$um will probably be involved with some serious accident soon according my favourite lady looking in her glass ball.

Well, how can anyone argue with such a reliable source as that?

And please stop with the immature name calling.  It does nothing to help your arguments (and trust me, your arguments need all the help that they can get) and just makes you look like you're butthurt for some reason.  What's wrong, is the competition form SpaceX hurting your Airbus stock value?

No, SpaceX is just a big joke. I am only curious how long it will last. Of course Mu$k is supported by NASA to privatize the hoax but ... will Donald Trump play along? I assume Donald wants his cut of the cake and his friends also must have a slice .. so Mu$k may be on his way ... somewhere?
There is no bis like the space bis I know. Are you musical? Do you understand music? This Mu$k shit ... is not music. He/it smells. SHIT.   

I am happy I just have to smell the garbage. From far away.

Quote from: frenat on March 03, 2017, 06:16:54 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 06:14:20 AM

Quote from: frenat on March 03, 2017, 05:25:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 10:29:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Well, if you say that you can steer a rocket backwards at hypersonic speeds from space fully automatically only using main rocket engines at the end to, let's see the the autopilot system incl. gyros, sensors, GPS, transverse rocket engines for positioning, etc, etc. SpaceX refers to research done by some universities but, as I describe at my website, it is pure pseudoscience.

Why do I have such a hard time believing that any engineer worth their salt would call existing and proven technologies such as autopilots, gyroscopes, sensors, GPS and gimbaled rocket engines "pure pseudoscience"?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Let's start with the boost-back burn! How is it done? And how much fuel is used? And what is the trajectory in 3D space?

Have you asked any of the SpaceX people on the SpaceX subReddit?  It seems that they would be able to answer those questions better than any of us here, but I have a feeling that the answer would be something along the lines of "it depends on the specific mission parameters".
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/

Well, to be perfectly frank with you any info given by SpaceX sounds like the noise you hear from the cages at a zoo. I describe it at my website.

Translation: I call it pseudoscience because I don't understand it.  I am the great Heiwa, just look at my website and its hundreds of visitors!  If I don't understand it then it must not work!  Have you seen my website?

Thanks for post. But you really have to study removed self promotion to understand how Elon Musk, aka No Le K$um does his magic tricks.
It is easy. Send a rocket beind the clouds. Then start your CGI live on TV show including footage taken by a camera on the rocket showing the ground below ... coming closer and closer = landing after a couple of minutes. And then some pictures of something 10 miles away = a rocket has landed.
Next year No Le K$um will do same thing coming from the Moon.
And 2020 we will se happy people coming back from Mars.

Just enjoy the stupid show. But do not ask any questions how it is done. It is just CGI.

I've seen your website plenty to know it is filled with arguments from incredulity and not much else.  I will not add to your paltry hit counts just to view more logical fallacies.  There are plenty of search bots to do that.  I'm guessing about 80% or more of your hits are from search engines.

Thanks! Just copy/paste any my arguments from incredulity with explanations and send them to me ... and I will fix them.

Not worth it to copy/paste your entire website.  If you as an engineer can't recognize your multiple logical fallacies then I have no faith you will ever fix them.  And I am NOT going to give you more hits so you can claim your paltry numbers are "popular".

Search engines? But I have 100's of hits/day from all over the world. Why should they do it?

1/3 of my visitors read about the NASA/SpaceX space hoaxes.

Another 1/3 of my visitors read about fake a-bombs and 911 propaganda = same shit.

And 1/3 actually read about how not to improve safety at sea. Very popular today is http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm about the US/Israeli/Italian mafia trying to recycle a wreck in a dry-dock full of water. I wonder how long it will last. What poor sods are down in that shitty wreck cutting steel? It is sad.

And Heiwa proves he doesn't read responses.  It was explained before that EVERY time you post a link to your website that it triggers bots from search engines to crawl your site.  There are many search engines and each contributes to your hits.  I thought you were smart enough to see the correlation but apparently I gave you too much credit.