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

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 06:47:00 AM

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".

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 06:47:00 AM

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.

Quote from: frenat on March 03, 2017, 08:49:30 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 06:47:00 AM

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".

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 06:47:00 AM

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.

Were those words too big for you?  I'll try to make it simpler for your "engineering" mind.  A single posting of your website link creates multiple hits from search engine bots.  But thanks for proving I did give you too much credit.

http://observer.com/2017/02/spacex-will-fly-a-rocket-back-to-earth-in-broad-daylight-this-weekend/



Liftoff is scheduled for Saturday February 18th at 10:01AM ET from NASA’s historic Kennedy Space Center. The rocket will blaze a fiery trail through the Florida sky and touch down minutes later.

Read more...

Previous rocket landings have either been off-shore or at night. This will be the first in daylight and on land. Skeptics are welcome to go watch!!

Bill Clinton here. I've said it again and again me and the Clinton administration have been making it up that the earth is round for years. This spaceX launch will be using project bluebeam with cemtrails mixed in the air to create a hologram to fool the world about space travel.

I'm Bill Clinton and I approve of this message.

I'm Bill Clinton and I approve of this message.

You're an idiot and you can't be banned fast enough.

No, SpaceX is just a big joke.

Then why is the rest of the satellite launch industry taking them so seriously?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 08:13:56 AM

No, SpaceX is just a big joke.

Then why is the rest of the satellite launch industry taking them so seriously?

They don't. SpaceX is just a privatized NASA, so you cannot joke about them. But essentially all they do is fake - Shuttle, ISS, Falcon 9, etc, etc. Just a lot of wasted money.

It will be interesting to see what Mr. Trump will do about it. Keep the show going? It is not difficult to fake a two persons private trip around the Moon or a trip to Mars. But why fake it?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 08:13:56 AM

No, SpaceX is just a big joke.

Then why is the rest of the satellite launch industry taking them so seriously?

I'll give you one guess....

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2017, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 08:13:56 AM

No, SpaceX is just a big joke.

Then why is the rest of the satellite launch industry taking them so seriously?

They don't. SpaceX is just a privatized NASA, so you cannot joke about them. But essentially all they do is fake - Shuttle, ISS, Falcon 9, etc, etc. Just a lot of wasted money.

Does that list include the Ariane 5?

It will be interesting to see what Mr. Trump will do about it. Keep the show going? It is not difficult to fake a two persons private trip around the Moon or a trip to Mars. But why fake it?

It looks like Trump wants NASA, and others, to keep the show going by going back to the moon.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/the-trump-administration-has-unleashed-a-lunar-gold-rush/

When a travesty such as this occurs in a thread it still continues to function as a live thread but intelligent conversation is almost non-existent. It pretty much becomes a vegetable. It would be better off dead!

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 03:06:51 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2017, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 08:13:56 AM

No, SpaceX is just a big joke.

Then why is the rest of the satellite launch industry taking them so seriously?

They don't. SpaceX is just a privatized NASA, so you cannot joke about them. But essentially all they do is fake - Shuttle, ISS, Falcon 9, etc, etc. Just a lot of wasted money.

Does that list include the Ariane 5?

No, not as far as I can read what I write. Ariane 5 is provided by Arianespace SA - a serious French private company.

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2017, 05:24:17 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 03:06:51 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2017, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 08:13:56 AM

No, SpaceX is just a big joke.

Then why is the rest of the satellite launch industry taking them so seriously?

They don't. SpaceX is just a privatized NASA, so you cannot joke about them. But essentially all they do is fake - Shuttle, ISS, Falcon 9, etc, etc. Just a lot of wasted money.

Does that list include the Ariane 5?

No, not as far as I can read what I write. Ariane 5 is provided by Arianespace SA - a serious French private company.

Nope.  Not even close.

Repartition of Arianespace capital

Arianespace is a subsidiary of Airbus Safran Launchers, which holds 74% of its share capital; the balance is held by 17 other shareholders from the European launcher industry.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 08:13:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2017, 05:24:17 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 03:06:51 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2017, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 08:13:56 AM

No, SpaceX is just a big joke.

Then why is the rest of the satellite launch industry taking them so seriously?

They don't. SpaceX is just a privatized NASA, so you cannot joke about them. But essentially all they do is fake - Shuttle, ISS, Falcon 9, etc, etc. Just a lot of wasted money.

Does that list include the Ariane 5?

No, not as far as I can read what I write. Ariane 5 is provided by Arianespace SA - a serious French private company.

Nope.  Not even close.

Quote from: http://www.arianespace.com/service-and-solutions/

Repartition of Arianespace capital

Arianespace is a subsidiary of Airbus Safran Launchers, which holds 74% of its share capital; the balance is held by 17 other shareholders from the European launcher industry.

Yes - it is a French private company (SA) owned by Airbus Safran Launchers and European partners. Something wrong? Nothing secret there? And I am a shareholder of Airbus NV that owns Airbus Safran Launchers. Airbus NV is a public company. Like Safran.

Not like SpaceX! Owned by a clown!

Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2017, 09:34:03 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 08:13:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2017, 05:24:17 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 03:06:51 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2017, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 08:13:56 AM

No, SpaceX is just a big joke.

Then why is the rest of the satellite launch industry taking them so seriously?

They don't. SpaceX is just a privatized NASA, so you cannot joke about them. But essentially all they do is fake - Shuttle, ISS, Falcon 9, etc, etc. Just a lot of wasted money.

Does that list include the Ariane 5?

No, not as far as I can read what I write. Ariane 5 is provided by Arianespace SA - a serious French private company.

Nope.  Not even close.

Quote from: http://www.arianespace.com/service-and-solutions/

Repartition of Arianespace capital

Arianespace is a subsidiary of Airbus Safran Launchers, which holds 74% of its share capital; the balance is held by 17 other shareholders from the European launcher industry.

Yes - it is a French private company (SA) owned by Airbus Safran Launchers and European partners. Something wrong? Nothing secret there? And I am a shareholder of Airbus NV that owns Airbus Safran Launchers. Airbus NV is a public company. Like Safran.

How can a company be private when it's owned by a publicly traded multinational conglomerate?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 04, 2017, 10:57:59 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2017, 09:34:03 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 08:13:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2017, 05:24:17 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 03:06:51 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2017, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 03, 2017, 08:13:56 AM

No, SpaceX is just a big joke.

Then why is the rest of the satellite launch industry taking them so seriously?

They don't. SpaceX is just a privatized NASA, so you cannot joke about them. But essentially all they do is fake - Shuttle, ISS, Falcon 9, etc, etc. Just a lot of wasted money.

Does that list include the Ariane 5?

No, not as far as I can read what I write. Ariane 5 is provided by Arianespace SA - a serious French private company.

Nope.  Not even close.

Quote from: http://www.arianespace.com/service-and-solutions/

Repartition of Arianespace capital

Arianespace is a subsidiary of Airbus Safran Launchers, which holds 74% of its share capital; the balance is held by 17 other shareholders from the European launcher industry.

Yes - it is a French private company (SA) owned by Airbus Safran Launchers and European partners. Something wrong? Nothing secret there? And I am a shareholder of Airbus NV that owns Airbus Safran Launchers. Airbus NV is a public company. Like Safran.

How can a company be private when it's owned by a publicly traded multinational conglomerate?

That's how it works in Europe. Question was however how much fuel (kg) SpaceX used to land its rocket and how much fuel (kg) was used to bring that fuel up into space in USA. You don't have any answer to that simple question!

As it is not possible to bring hundreds of tons of extra fuel up into space to land a heavy rockets with it - the fuel is transformed into forces that are applied to bring the rocket safely back - the whole thing is simply a ... hoax!

I am amazed the Mr. Musk gets away with it. But he will not last long!

Question was however how much fuel (kg) SpaceX used to land its rocket and how much fuel (kg) was used to bring that fuel up into space in USA. You don't have any answer to that simple question!

You're an engineer and you think that fuel consumption is a simple question?

As it is not possible to bring hundreds of tons of extra fuel up into space to land a heavy rockets with it - the fuel is transformed into forces that are applied to bring the rocket safely back - the whole thing is simply a ... hoax!

How many times do I have to tell you that it isn't a question of taking extra fuel?  Rather it's a matter of carrying a small enough payload where you don't need to burn all of the fuel in the booster.

I am amazed the Mr. Musk gets away with it. But he will not last long!

That's because you think that being a naval engineer makes you smarter than his rocket scientists.  It doesn't.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 04, 2017, 07:06:03 PM

Question was however how much fuel (kg) SpaceX used to land its rocket and how much fuel (kg) was used to bring that fuel up into space in USA. You don't have any answer to that simple question!

You're an engineer and you think that fuel consumption is a simple question?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 04, 2017, 07:06:03 PM

As it is not possible to bring hundreds of tons of extra fuel up into space to land a heavy rockets with it - the fuel is transformed into forces that are applied to bring the rocket safely back - the whole thing is simply a ... hoax!

How many times do I have to tell you that it isn't a question of taking extra fuel?  Rather it's a matter of carrying a small enough payload where you don't need to burn all of the fuel in the booster.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 04, 2017, 07:06:03 PM

I am amazed the Mr. Musk gets away with it. But he will not last long!

That's because you think that being a naval engineer makes you smarter than his rocket scientists.  It doesn't.

Well, space travel is very simple. Imagine that you are travelling horizontally in space at 1000 m/s speed (and 150 000 m altitude) and you shall apply a force to stop, i.e. delta v = 1000.

You have just separated from a 50 tons second stage and shall return to ground where you started far away. Every second you are 1000 m further away from where you started. Only way to brake in space is using your rocket engine!

So you fire your rocket engine with exhaust velocity 3000 m/s in the opposite direction of flight. It means that, if your mass before firing the rocket was say 90 tons, the mass is only about 65 tons afterwards, i.e. you use 25 tons of fuel just to stop. Say that you apply the force during 30 seconds. Then the fuel consumption is 833 kg/s. Easy isn't it?

During those 30 seconds you have still moved 15 000 m away from your landing area and your speed is only 0. So you have to spend more fuel to return to above your base far away. And you are still high up in space starting dropping down so vertical speed will now increase a lot. How much fuel is required to stop the vertical drop?

So how much extra fuel did Mr. Musk use to stop his booster rocket to land? 70 tons?

And how much extra fuel is required to put 70 tons of extra fuel in space? 140 tons?

IMHO opinion it seems you need 100's of tons of extra fuel to land a little rocket with dry mass say 23 tons.

I assume the SpaceX rocket scientists calculated the fuel consumption before departure to ensure a safe return, so to present the info should be easy. Rocket science is very simple!

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 03:11:17 PM

When a travesty such as this occurs in a thread it still continues to function as a live thread but intelligent conversation is almost non-existent. It pretty much becomes a vegetable. It would be better off dead!

Case in point:

Well, space travel is very simple.

Rocket science is very simple!

No.  Rocket science is pretty much the exact opposite of very simple.  An engineer would know that.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 04, 2017, 10:49:10 PM

Rocket science is very simple!

No.  Rocket science is pretty much the exact opposite of very simple.  An engineer would know that.

Hm, so how much extra fuel A is required for the boost-back, entry and landing burns of a SpaceX rocket ... and how much extra fuel B is required to put the extra fuel A in space?
According SpaceX:

"In order to make the Falcon 9 reusable and return to the launch site, extra propellant (i.e. fuel) and landing gear must be carried on the first stage, requiring around a 30 percent reduction of the maximum payload to orbit in comparison with the expendable Falcon 9."

But the maximum payload is only 22.8 tons for very low orbits and 30% of it is only 7 tons. 7 tons of fuel cannot do much to recover the rocket. And the four landing legs have mass about 3 tons!

It seems the SpaceX rocket scientists haven't got a clue of what they are talking about. It supports my conclusion that the whole thing is a racket = no rocket, no payload, no recovery = all 100% CGI.

Just look at the teflon CEO of SpaceX. How can anyone take that clown serious?

I'm bored, so I found this thread and read the first 10 pages of it. This was so amusing, I decided to participate!

Of course, Heiwa is the undeniable comedy hero of this thread, and most of the comments I make, will be addressed to him.

A little background:

My father was an aerospace engineer at Goddard. I work for Nvidia, for their Mental Ray 3D rendering group (part of the reason why I started reading this thread is because I was curious to find out what folks think is and isn't possible with CGI). My first degree, however, was in mechanical engineering (don't worry folks, I'm not going to be employing high-level math in the trolling of Heiwa).

[1] Heiwa, I went on your website. I didn't read a lot of your space-related material, because it was far too long, and most of it were your dubious calculations, followed by your incredulous commentary. I did read your comments in this thread. I enjoyed the ones where you attempted to prove the impossibility of space (and SpaceX) travel, through mass and fuel estimates. I remember calculating the totals for one of your comments, where every single one of your estimates had an error margin of 10 tons. I added up all the margins, to come up with an error margin of +/- 80 tons. Considering the fact that you could build another Falcon 9, by simply using the max limits of your estimates, would you, at least, allow the POSSIBILITY that your math doesn't pan out?

[2] You've mentioned the popularity of your website's content, in multiple comments. Here are the SimilarWeb traffic aggregator stats for your website (6 month parsing): https://www.similarweb.com/website/heiwaco.com#overview . There were 154 visitors to your website in the last 6 months. Considering your website only partially deals with space (the rest of it deals with more terrestrial conspiracy theories), how could hundreds of people download your SpaceX material every day? Unless, of course, SimilarWeb is also owned by Elon Musk, and organization's stats about your website are a hoax perpetrated by Musk's minions, to keep you down.

[3] Your website mentions Musk's Tesla hoax. I live in Dallas, buddy. Teslas are on the roads (or maybe I'm Elon Musk himself, trying to undermine your credibility! Who knows?! Even I don't...)

[4] I know, I said I wouldn't do math, but I'm about to... Before I begin, I want to ask Heiwa about some of the lesser-known, less Wikipedia'able calculations he would have had to do, as a starting point. Since you leave, at least 80%, of the math, from your website, I'm going to need to know what methods you used:

(a) For Langfield's Modified Newtonian Mechanics, did you use the base or scalar modifier?
(b) What was your per-ton Jordowsky ratio? 1 or 2?

Before you point me to your website, I searched your single endless page of conspiracy theories, for either (a) or (b), and found nothing elaborating on it. There is no wrong answer, sir. Just let me know.

Quote from: markjo on March 05, 2017, 08:43:20 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 04, 2017, 10:49:10 PM

Rocket science is very simple!

No.  Rocket science is pretty much the exact opposite of very simple.  An engineer would know that.

Hm, so how much extra fuel A is required for the boost-back, entry and landing burns of a SpaceX rocket ... and how much extra fuel B is required to put the extra fuel A in space?
According SpaceX:

Quote

"In order to make the Falcon 9 reusable and return to the launch site, extra propellant (i.e. fuel) and landing gear must be carried on the first stage, requiring around a 30 percent reduction of the maximum payload to orbit in comparison with the expendable Falcon 9."

But the maximum payload is only 22.8 tons for very low orbits and 30% of it is only 7 tons. 7 tons of fuel cannot do much to recover the rocket. And the four landing legs have mass about 3 tons!

It seems the SpaceX rocket scientists haven't got a clue of what they are talking about. It supports my conclusion that the whole thing is a racket = no rocket, no payload, no recovery = all 100% CGI.

Just look at the teflon CEO of SpaceX. How can anyone take that clown serious?

How can anyone take you seriously when you think that reducing the payload by 7 tons saves 7 tons of propellant?  I would contend that reducing the payload by 30% reduces the propellant required by around 30%.  That would be a lot more than 7 tons.

I'm bored, so I found this thread and read the first 10 pages of it. This was so amusing, I decided to participate!

Of course, Heiwa is the undeniable comedy hero of this thread, and most of the comments I make, will be addressed to him.

A little background:

My father was an aerospace engineer at Goddard. I work for Nvidia, for their Mental Ray 3D rendering group (part of the reason why I started reading this thread is because I was curious to find out what folks think is and isn't possible with CGI). My first degree, however, was in mechanical engineering (don't worry folks, I'm not going to be employing high-level math in the trolling of Heiwa).

[1] Heiwa, I went on your website. I didn't read a lot of your space-related material, because it was far too long, and most of it were your dubious calculations, followed by your incredulous commentary. I did read your comments in this thread. I enjoyed the ones where you attempted to prove the impossibility of space (and SpaceX) travel, through mass and fuel estimates. I remember calculating the totals for one of your comments, where every single one of your estimates had an error margin of 10 tons. I added up all the margins, to come up with an error margin of +/- 80 tons. Considering the fact that you could build another Falcon 9, by simply using the max limits of your estimates, would you, at least, allow the POSSIBILITY that your math doesn't pan out?

[2] You've mentioned the popularity of your website's content, in multiple comments. Here are the SimilarWeb traffic aggregator stats for your website (6 month parsing): https://www.similarweb.com/website/heiwaco.com#overview . There were 154 visitors to your website in the last 6 months. Considering your website only partially deals with space (the rest of it deals with more terrestrial conspiracy theories), how could hundreds of people download your SpaceX material every day? Unless, of course, SimilarWeb is also owned by Elon Musk, and organization's stats about your website are a hoax perpetrated by Musk's minions, to keep you down.

[3] Your website mentions Musk's Tesla hoax. I live in Dallas, buddy. Teslas are on the roads (or maybe I'm Elon Musk himself, trying to undermine your credibility! Who knows?! Even I don't...)

(1) Thanks for visiting my website. It is difficult to calculate rocket fuel consumptions so I do a lot of comparisons starting with Apollos 1969+. NASA figures vary with 100's of tons and I always wonder how they lifted off ground.  The payload (the third stage + lunar/service/command modules is the heavieest ever blasted out of EPO ... and my conclusion is all Moon trips were fake. Even NASA admits such rockets do not exist today and my finding is they were all fake 50 years ago.

Similar with the very heavy Shuttle 1980-2010 or so using very little fuel to get into ISS orbit ... and also using fuel for re-entry ... flying backwards.  My findings are that all Shuttles were fake. They were too heavy to get off the ground. What was seen disappearing behind the clouds was just an empty mock-up.

And as the Shuttles were used to build the International Space Station, ISS, it is fake too.

And now NASA pays SpaceX to fly to the fake ISS. So SpaceX is fake too. The  recoveries are nonsense. No way you can carry the fuel into space and burn it to land.

My conclusion is that it is only possible to put satellites in orbits around Earth ... and that's it. No satellite can land again.

(2) My website statistics! There is a little box at the bottom of each page.  Just now 2315230 = total visitors since the box was added many years ago. Right now I have about 500 visitors day. Over the weekend >100 people downloaded http://heiwaco.com/punkt14.htm , which is a page I wrote almost 20 years ago. It is in Swedish! Anyway, I am not in conspiracy theories. My biz is safety at sea. Only criminals of all kind covering up incidents at sea and embezzlement of public or insurance money call me a creator of conspiracy theories.

(3) Electric cars are fairly popular here in France but few Teslas. Too expensive, etc. I drive a petrol Opel since many years. Interesting GM just sold Opel/Vauxhall to PSA. They all build electric cars. Maybe it is part of Donald Trump's planto make America great again? Anyway, Donald should put Elon Musk in jail at once to make America great again.

PS - Just copy/paste what you think is wrong at my site ... and I might fix it. Plenty people have helped me that way.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 05, 2017, 10:26:51 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 05, 2017, 08:43:20 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 04, 2017, 10:49:10 PM

Rocket science is very simple!

No.  Rocket science is pretty much the exact opposite of very simple.  An engineer would know that.

Hm, so how much extra fuel A is required for the boost-back, entry and landing burns of a SpaceX rocket ... and how much extra fuel B is required to put the extra fuel A in space?
According SpaceX:

Quote

"In order to make the Falcon 9 reusable and return to the launch site, extra propellant (i.e. fuel) and landing gear must be carried on the first stage, requiring around a 30 percent reduction of the maximum payload to orbit in comparison with the expendable Falcon 9."

But the maximum payload is only 22.8 tons for very low orbits and 30% of it is only 7 tons. 7 tons of fuel cannot do much to recover the rocket. And the four landing legs have mass about 3 tons!

It seems the SpaceX rocket scientists haven't got a clue of what they are talking about. It supports my conclusion that the whole thing is a racket = no rocket, no payload, no recovery = all 100% CGI.

Just look at the teflon CEO of SpaceX. How can anyone take that clown serious?

How can anyone take you seriously when you think that reducing the payload by 7 tons saves 7 tons of propellant?  I would contend that reducing the payload by 30% reduces the propellant required by around 30%.  That would be a lot more than 7 tons.

Well, SpaceX itself says they must reduce payload 30% to get the extra fuel in space to carry out the recovery stunt. If the max payload to LEO is 22.8 tons it seems they must knock off 7 tons of it and replace it with fuel and landing legs to recover the rocket. Question remains - how much extra fuel is required for recovery? And how to apply these forces in the right directions at hypersonic speeds?

[4] I know, I said I wouldn't do math, but I'm about to... Before I begin, I want to ask Heiwa about some of the lesser-known, less Wikipedia'able calculations he would have had to do, as a starting point. Since you leave, at least 80%, of the math, from your website, I'm going to need to know what methods you used:

(a) For Langfield's Modified Newtonian Mechanics, did you use the base or scalar modifier?
(b) What was your per-ton Jordowsky ratio? 1 or 2?

Before you point me to your website, I searched your single endless page of conspiracy theories, for either (a) or (b), and found nothing elaborating on it. There is no wrong answer, sir. Just let me know.

Well, I explain my findings at my website starting with the principle of Archimedes, FEA/FEMs, basic rocket science etc. Just copy/paste what you do not understand and I will explain.

Quote from: CuriosityRover on March 05, 2017, 11:15:39 AM

[4] I know, I said I wouldn't do math, but I'm about to... Before I begin, I want to ask Heiwa about some of the lesser-known, less Wikipedia'able calculations he would have had to do, as a starting point. Since you leave, at least 80%, of the math, from your website, I'm going to need to know what methods you used:

(a) For Langfield's Modified Newtonian Mechanics, did you use the base or scalar modifier?
(b) What was your per-ton Jordowsky ratio? 1 or 2?

Before you point me to your website, I searched your single endless page of conspiracy theories, for either (a) or (b), and found nothing elaborating on it. There is no wrong answer, sir. Just let me know.

Well, I explain my findings at my website starting with the principle of Archimedes, FEA/FEMs, basic rocket science etc. Just copy/paste what you do not understand and I will explain.

You are only being dishonest here. Everyone can clearly see that.
He asked you 2 questions, and properly labeled them (a) & (b). Now, I'm certainly no engineer, but even I can see his questions you purposely avoided.

Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2017, 07:53:54 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on March 04, 2017, 07:06:03 PM

Question was however how much fuel (kg) SpaceX used to land its rocket and how much fuel (kg) was used to bring that fuel up into space in USA. You don't have any answer to that simple question!

You're an engineer and you think that fuel consumption is a simple question?

Quote from: Heiwa on March 04, 2017, 07:06:03 PM

As it is not possible to bring hundreds of tons of extra fuel up into space to land a heavy rockets with it - the fuel is transformed into forces that are applied to bring the rocket safely back - the whole thing is simply a ... hoax!

How many times do I have to tell you that it isn't a question of taking extra fuel?  Rather it's a matter of carrying a small enough payload where you don't need to burn all of the fuel in the booster.

Quote from: Heiwa on March 04, 2017, 07:06:03 PM

I am amazed the Mr. Musk gets away with it. But he will not last long!

That's because you think that being a naval engineer makes you smarter than his rocket scientists.  It doesn't.

Well, space travel is very simple. Imagine that you are travelling horizontally in space at 1000 m/s speed (and 150 000 m altitude) and you shall apply a force to stop, i.e. delta v = 1000.

You have just separated from a 50 tons second stage and shall return to ground where you started far away. Every second you are 1000 m further away from where you started. Only way to brake in space is using your rocket engine!

So you fire your rocket engine with exhaust velocity 3000 m/s in the opposite direction of flight. It means that, if your mass before firing the rocket was say 90 tons, the mass is only about 65 tons afterwards, i.e. you use 25 tons of fuel just to stop. Say that you apply the force during 30 seconds. Then the fuel consumption is 833 kg/s. Easy isn't it?

During those 30 seconds you have still moved 15 000 m away from your landing area and your speed is only 0. So you have to spend more fuel to return to above your base far away. And you are still high up in space starting dropping down so vertical speed will now increase a lot. How much fuel is required to stop the vertical drop?

So how much extra fuel did Mr. Musk use to stop his booster rocket to land? 70 tons?

And how much extra fuel is required to put 70 tons of extra fuel in space? 140 tons?

IMHO opinion it seems you need 100's of tons of extra fuel to land a little rocket with dry mass say 23 tons.

I assume the SpaceX rocket scientists calculated the fuel consumption before departure to ensure a safe return, so to present the info should be easy. Rocket science is very simple!

Isn't braking on reentry done in large part by air resistance, and not with a reaction engine?

Quote from: CuriosityRover on March 05, 2017, 11:15:39 AM

I searched your single endless page of conspiracy theories, for either (a) or (b), and found nothing elaborating on it. There is no wrong answer, sir. Just let me know.

Just copy/paste what you do not understand and I will explain.

It's not a matter of misunderstanding - the information required is NOT on your website.  Perhaps you would like to post what you think supports your assertions here?

Well, SpaceX itself says they must reduce payload 30% to get the extra fuel in space to carry out the recovery stunt. If the max payload to LEO is 22.8 tons it seems they must knock off 7 tons of it and replace it with fuel and landing legs to recover the rocket. Question remains - how much extra fuel is required for recovery? And how to apply these forces in the right directions at hypersonic speeds?

I can't help but to wonder if there is a language barrier or something that is preventing you from understanding what I'm trying to say. 

Let's try it like this:

Anders, did you know that for a Kerosene-LOX rocket (such as the Falcon 9) to put a payload into LEO, about 94% of the total mass of the rocket must be propellant?  That means that of the entire mass of the rocket, only 6% of it is payload, rocket engines, fuel tanks, plumbing, guidance, and so on.  That means that for every 6 kg of payload, you need 94 kg of propellant.  So if you reduce your payload by 7 tons, then you can save about 100 tons of propellant that you can use to land the booster.

You probably ignored this the first few times that it was presented, but here's an article that tries to explain the implications (and tyranny) of the rocket equation:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition30/tryanny.html