Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)

  • 59 Replies
  • 6531 Views
Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« on: March 31, 2017, 07:10:22 AM »
24:24  Why did she need to point out that Planet Earth is a sphere?  Just kinda caught my attention the way she said it.  Also does anyone know what is up with the rocket on the right?  It seems to have two cameras on and I'm trying to make sense of where they are placed and how the earth is shaped.  Just doesn't make any sense.  Looks like two different rockets also.




I'd also like to point out that this rocket didn't go under the horizon?  Are they for real?  Also both of these rockets took off relatively in the same area (Kennedy Space Station and Cape Canaveral) and landed on the same platform. (Of Course I Still Love You)


Maybe I don't know much about satellites. So I'm not sure on this one. Help?

P.S. She did say they "may lose" the communications..so there is that.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 07:54:31 AM by Evilwave Heddy »

Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2017, 08:36:33 AM »
What are you trying to get at? Sounds like you are trying for a conspiracy that isn't there.

Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2017, 12:07:30 PM »
What are you trying to get at? Sounds like you are trying for a conspiracy that isn't there.
I'm sure a Flat Earther can brew something up.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2017, 03:34:04 PM »
Looks like they were able to recover part of the fairing as well:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-recovery-idUSKBN1722LD
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2017, 09:31:53 AM »
Well, at separation the speed is >2200 m/s at 65000 m altitude (time 21.36 in video) and the first stage (to be recovered) is still moving upwards into space, but when it goes flat/horizontal we can see the round horizon of the Earth in the background (time 25.00).
There is no boost-back burn to slow down the horizontal speed vector, but it would appear that the first stage is starting dropping down towards Earth then. Then there is a 20 seconds entry burn (25.30-25.50), when passing 50000 m altitude to slow down vertical motion a little for a touch down on the barge right below at time 28.20 in the video.
So the 50000 m vertical descent took about 150 seconds after the end of the entry burn, i.e. average speed 333 m/s or the speed of sound. Assuming constant braking during landing (LOL) the vertical speed was 666 m/s at time 25.50 and altitude 50000 m (dropping down from say 73000 m altitude). Just dropping from 50000 m would increase the speed 100’s of m/s. We don’t know the duration of the landing burn, but at time 28.20 the rocket (or whatever) is standing on the barge. 30 seconds before touch down the speed may be 133 m/s at 2000 m altitude. 
How the rocket managed to slow down from 666 m/s vertical speed to 0 in 150 seconds is difficult to understand for me, even if there was a 30 seconds late landing/brake burn. Imagine, if the vertical speed was 133 m/s 30 seconds before touchdown, and you misjudged the altitude by 2000 m. You would hit the barge at high speed.
 
Time    Altitude (m)   Speed (m/s)      
25.50   50000              666      
26.20   32000              533      
26.50   18000              400      
27.20    8000               267      
27.50    2000               133      
28.20          0                 0      
            
My conclusion is that the whole recovery landing/video is fake.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2017, 09:36:05 AM by Heiwa »

?

Kami

  • 1158
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2017, 09:43:18 AM »
Imagine a ship went into a harbor and misjudged the distance to the pier by 2000m. It would hit the pier at a high speed. Solution: Do not misjudge distances by 2 kilometers! (This is actually a good general rule to life, no matter whether you are in a boat, car, plane or rocket).

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2017, 10:20:54 AM »
Imagine a ship went into a harbor and misjudged the distance to the pier by 2000m. It would hit the pier at a high speed. Solution: Do not misjudge distances by 2 kilometers! (This is actually a good general rule to life, no matter whether you are in a boat, car, plane or rocket).

Thanks for your advice. Imagine, if the speed boat is doing 260 knots or more than four nautical miles per minute, and there is pier a nautical mile away in your way. You will hit it after 15 seconds.

Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2017, 04:57:55 PM »
Well this thread's about to go to crap. Thanks Heiwa..

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2017, 02:15:48 AM »
. . . . . . . .
How the rocket managed to slow down from 666 m/s vertical speed to 0 in 150 seconds is difficult to understand for me, even if there was a 30 seconds late landing/brake burn. Imagine, if the vertical speed was 133 m/s 30 seconds before touchdown, and you misjudged the altitude by 2000 m. You would hit the barge at high speed.
 
Why would you even make a ridiculous statement like "even if there was 30 seconds late landing/brake burn"?
You might make that sort of error, but how would the on-board computers make errors of more than a small fraction of a second?

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2017, 03:02:18 AM »
. . . . . . . .
How the rocket managed to slow down from 666 m/s vertical speed to 0 in 150 seconds is difficult to understand for me, even if there was a 30 seconds late landing/brake burn. Imagine, if the vertical speed was 133 m/s 30 seconds before touchdown, and you misjudged the altitude by 2000 m. You would hit the barge at high speed.
 
Why would you even make a ridiculous statement like "even if there was 30 seconds late landing/brake burn"?
You might make that sort of error, but how would the on-board computers make errors of more than a small fraction of a second?

Well, a 23 tons heavy XspaceS rocket is free fall dropping from 50 000 m altitude with a start velocity downwards of >660 m/s after an 'entry burn' (LOL) and shall land straight below at 0 m/s touch down speed after 150 seconds of vertical landing.

Only ways to stop and steer the heavy junk are some hypersonic flaps up top and a rocket engine at the bottom and ... on board computers ... and a video camera facing down.
 
I know Lone Skum has spent 15 years planning it and ... when he is going to show it ... the sat.com. link doesn't work and we see ... nothing ... but suddenly a rocket standing on a barge.

Maybe there was a landing burn to soften the impact but, no details are provided, as usual.

Lone Skum is a criminal fraud. I describe  him at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . I do not wonder how US media ignore him. They are part of the show.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2017, 03:27:26 AM »
Its funny and sickening at the same time.

All those people that are selling this absolute shit to the ever gullible public either know there's no  after life and no god to answer to or they're just too money hungry to give it any real thought.
They may even think they're not harming anyone by just doing a bit of acting.

It doesn't matter to be honest, because all in all they aren't evil. They're just puppets caught up in a world of shenanigans.

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2017, 05:54:40 AM »
. . . . . . . .
How the rocket managed to slow down from 666 m/s vertical speed to 0 in 150 seconds is difficult to understand for me, even if there was a 30 seconds late landing/brake burn. Imagine, if the vertical speed was 133 m/s 30 seconds before touchdown, and you misjudged the altitude by 2000 m. You would hit the barge at high speed.
 
Why would you even make a ridiculous statement like "even if there was 30 seconds late landing/brake burn"?
You might make that sort of error, but how would the on-board computers make errors of more than a small fraction of a second?

Well, a 23 tons heavy XspaceS rocket is free fall dropping from 50 000 m altitude with a start velocity downwards of >660 m/s after an 'entry burn' (LOL) and shall land straight below at 0 m/s touch down speed after 150 seconds of vertical landing.

Only ways to stop and steer the heavy junk are some hypersonic flaps up top and a rocket engine at the bottom and ... on board computers ... and a video camera facing down.
 
I know Lone Skum has spent 15 years planning it and ... when he is going to show it ... the sat.com. link doesn't work and we see ... nothing ... but suddenly a rocket standing on a barge.

Maybe there was a landing burn to soften the impact but, no details are provided, as usual.

Lone Skum is a criminal fraud. I describe  him at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . I do not wonder how US media ignore him. They are part of the show.
Translation: I don't understand it and I put zero effort towards trying to understand it ao it must be fake!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2017, 07:06:32 AM »
. . . . . . . .
How the rocket managed to slow down from 666 m/s vertical speed to 0 in 150 seconds is difficult to understand for me, even if there was a 30 seconds late landing/brake burn. Imagine, if the vertical speed was 133 m/s 30 seconds before touchdown, and you misjudged the altitude by 2000 m. You would hit the barge at high speed.
 
Why would you even make a ridiculous statement like "even if there was 30 seconds late landing/brake burn"?
You might make that sort of error, but how would the on-board computers make errors of more than a small fraction of a second?

Well, a 23 tons heavy XspaceS rocket is free fall dropping from 50 000 m altitude with a start velocity downwards of >660 m/s after an 'entry burn' (LOL) and shall land straight below at 0 m/s touch down speed after 150 seconds of vertical landing.

Only ways to stop and steer the heavy junk are some hypersonic flaps up top and a rocket engine at the bottom and ... on board computers ... and a video camera facing down.
 
I know Lone Skum has spent 15 years planning it and ... when he is going to show it ... the sat.com. link doesn't work and we see ... nothing ... but suddenly a rocket standing on a barge.

Maybe there was a landing burn to soften the impact but, no details are provided, as usual.

Lone Skum is a criminal fraud. I describe  him at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . I do not wonder how US media ignore him. They are part of the show.
Anders, I'm not sure if I understand your objections.  You freely admit that it's possible to launch satellites into orbit.  Well, that's exactly what SpaceX is doing.  Or are you claiming that SpaceX did not launch the SES-10 satellite into orbit like they said that they did?

I really have no idea as to why you think that SpaceX is obligated to provide some of the details that you keep demanding to you or anyone else (other than maybe the relevant regulating bodies).  I would think that all of the proof that you need would be in fact that SpaceX has so many satisfied customers.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Kami

  • 1158
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #13 on: April 02, 2017, 07:27:49 AM »
Nono, you do not understand. SpaceX does send satellites into orbit, they just fake landing the first stage. They claim to land it to be able to offer space missions cheaper. So they make a huge profit, by offering spaceflights for less money.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2017, 08:29:33 AM »
. . . . . . . .
How the rocket managed to slow down from 666 m/s vertical speed to 0 in 150 seconds is difficult to understand for me, even if there was a 30 seconds late landing/brake burn. Imagine, if the vertical speed was 133 m/s 30 seconds before touchdown, and you misjudged the altitude by 2000 m. You would hit the barge at high speed.
 
Why would you even make a ridiculous statement like "even if there was 30 seconds late landing/brake burn"?
You might make that sort of error, but how would the on-board computers make errors of more than a small fraction of a second?

Well, a 23 tons heavy XspaceS rocket is free fall dropping from 50 000 m altitude with a start velocity downwards of >660 m/s after an 'entry burn' (LOL) and shall land straight below at 0 m/s touch down speed after 150 seconds of vertical landing.

Only ways to stop and steer the heavy junk are some hypersonic flaps up top and a rocket engine at the bottom and ... on board computers ... and a video camera facing down.
 
I know Lone Skum has spent 15 years planning it and ... when he is going to show it ... the sat.com. link doesn't work and we see ... nothing ... but suddenly a rocket standing on a barge.

Maybe there was a landing burn to soften the impact but, no details are provided, as usual.

Lone Skum is a criminal fraud. I describe  him at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . I do not wonder how US media ignore him. They are part of the show.

Anders, I'm not sure if I understand your objections.  You freely admit that it's possible to launch satellites into orbit.  Well, that's exactly what SpaceX is doing.  Or are you claiming that SpaceX did not launch the SES-10 satellite into orbit like they said that they did?

I really have no idea as to why you think that SpaceX is obligated to provide some of the details that you keep demanding to you or anyone else (other than maybe the relevant regulating bodies).  I would think that all of the proof that you need would be in fact that SpaceX has so many satisfied customers.

Hm, satisified customers? Anyway, as I always say since Sputnik 1957, sending satellites one way into orbits is possible and that is all space companies can do. The satellites cannot land after being put in orbit. They are going too fast and too high up. They all burn up when dropping down through the atmosphere. So no humans can fly up into orbits as they  cannot re-enter, slow down and land.

XpaceS says it sends up satellites. Why not? But when it says it can recover the rocket for re-use by landing on a barge, I have my doubts, explained in another popular thread. Reason is that you need plenty extra fuel for the boost-back, entry and landings burns to land the rocket on the barge and you need more extra fuel to bring that fuel up in space and ... you get too heavy to get off the ground. So CEO Mr. No El $Sum stating he can do it is a simple liar! The whole company is suspect. I cannot understand why US media don't say so and FBI arrests (and jails) the management.

Anyway, the last demonstration was a disappointment. The last three minutes were not recorded on any footage. We were shown an empty barge and POUFF - there was a rocket standing on the barge. No witnesses around. Not even a drone filming it.

My most popular web page explains in all - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . It is read by 100's of people daily.

Of course Mr. $Sum says he can also build electric cars - Texla - but it has been done since 100  years and many European companies build much better than Texla. 

Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2017, 11:49:55 AM »
. . . . . . . .
How the rocket managed to slow down from 666 m/s vertical speed to 0 in 150 seconds is difficult to understand for me, even if there was a 30 seconds late landing/brake burn. Imagine, if the vertical speed was 133 m/s 30 seconds before touchdown, and you misjudged the altitude by 2000 m. You would hit the barge at high speed.
 
Why would you even make a ridiculous statement like "even if there was 30 seconds late landing/brake burn"?
You might make that sort of error, but how would the on-board computers make errors of more than a small fraction of a second?

Well, a 23 tons heavy XspaceS rocket is free fall dropping from 50 000 m altitude with a start velocity downwards of >660 m/s after an 'entry burn' (LOL) and shall land straight below at 0 m/s touch down speed after 150 seconds of vertical landing.

Only ways to stop and steer the heavy junk are some hypersonic flaps up top and a rocket engine at the bottom and ... on board computers ... and a video camera facing down.
 
I know Lone Skum has spent 15 years planning it and ... when he is going to show it ... the sat.com. link doesn't work and we see ... nothing ... but suddenly a rocket standing on a barge.

Maybe there was a landing burn to soften the impact but, no details are provided, as usual.

Lone Skum is a criminal fraud. I describe  him at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#EM . I do not wonder how US media ignore him. They are part of the show.

Anders, I'm not sure if I understand your objections.  You freely admit that it's possible to launch satellites into orbit.  Well, that's exactly what SpaceX is doing.  Or are you claiming that SpaceX did not launch the SES-10 satellite into orbit like they said that they did?

I really have no idea as to why you think that SpaceX is obligated to provide some of the details that you keep demanding to you or anyone else (other than maybe the relevant regulating bodies).  I would think that all of the proof that you need would be in fact that SpaceX has so many satisfied customers.

Hm, satisified customers? Anyway, as I always say since Sputnik 1957, sending satellites one way into orbits is possible and that is all space companies can do. The satellites cannot land after being put in orbit. They are going too fast and too high up. They all burn up when dropping down through the atmosphere. So no humans can fly up into orbits as they  cannot re-enter, slow down and land.

XpaceS says it sends up satellites. Why not? But when it says it can recover the rocket for re-use by landing on a barge, I have my doubts, explained in another popular thread. Reason is that you need plenty extra fuel for the boost-back, entry and landings burns to land the rocket on the barge and you need more extra fuel to bring that fuel up in space and ... you get too heavy to get off the ground. So CEO Mr. No El $Sum stating he can do it is a simple liar! The whole company is suspect. I cannot understand why US media don't say so and FBI arrests (and jails) the management.

Anyway, the last demonstration was a disappointment. The last three minutes were not recorded on any footage. We were shown an empty barge and POUFF - there was a rocket standing on the barge. No witnesses around. Not even a drone filming it.

My most popular web page explains in all - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . It is read by 100's of people daily.

Of course Mr. $Sum says he can also build electric cars - Texla - but it has been done since 100  years and many European companies build much better than Texla.

There were no witnesses because the barge is out in the middle of the ocean. However on one of their other missions in February, Falcon 9 landed on land..and there were many different perspectives.



« Last Edit: April 02, 2017, 12:04:10 PM by Evilwave Heddy »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2017, 02:15:33 PM »
XpaceS says it sends up satellites. Why not? But when it says it can recover the rocket for re-use by landing on a barge, I have my doubts, explained in another popular thread. Reason is that you need plenty extra fuel for the boost-back, entry and landings burns to land the rocket on the barge and you need more extra fuel to bring that fuel up in space and ... you get too heavy to get off the ground.
And Achilles can never win a race against a tortoise when the tortoise has a head start right?  I mean, Achilles can reach where the tortoise was, but the tortoise moved during that time, so Achilles has to catch up to that point, by which time the tortoise has moved yet further.


So CEO Mr. No El $Sum stating he can do it is a simple liar! The whole company is suspect. I cannot understand why US media don't say so and FBI arrests (and jails) the management.
???  Jail him for what?  The paying customer's payloads are going into their intended orbits, so what does anyone have to complain about?  Are you butthurt that SpaceX is doing the same thing that ArianeSpace is doing, but cheaper?  Is SpaceX success bad for your stock portfolio?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2017, 03:13:24 PM »
Well, at separation the speed is >2200 m/s at 65000 m altitude (time 21.36 in video) and the first stage (to be recovered) is still moving upwards into space, but when it goes flat/horizontal we can see the round horizon of the Earth in the background (time 25.00).
There is no boost-back burn to slow down the horizontal speed vector, but it would appear that the first stage is starting dropping down towards Earth then. Then there is a 20 seconds entry burn (25.30-25.50), when passing 50000 m altitude to slow down vertical motion a little for a touch down on the barge right below at time 28.20 in the video.
So the 50000 m vertical descent took about 150 seconds after the end of the entry burn, i.e. average speed 333 m/s or the speed of sound. Assuming constant braking during landing (LOL) the vertical speed was 666 m/s at time 25.50 and altitude 50000 m (dropping down from say 73000 m altitude). Just dropping from 50000 m would increase the speed 100’s of m/s. We don’t know the duration of the landing burn, but at time 28.20 the rocket (or whatever) is standing on the barge. 30 seconds before touch down the speed may be 133 m/s at 2000 m altitude. 
How the rocket managed to slow down from 666 m/s vertical speed to 0 in 150 seconds is difficult to understand for me, even if there was a 30 seconds late landing/brake burn. Imagine, if the vertical speed was 133 m/s 30 seconds before touchdown, and you misjudged the altitude by 2000 m. You would hit the barge at high speed.
 
Time    Altitude (m)   Speed (m/s)      
25.50   50000              666      
26.20   32000              533      
26.50   18000              400      
27.20    8000               267      
27.50    2000               133      
28.20          0                 0      
            
My conclusion is that the whole recovery landing/video is fake.


My conclusion is what a great engineering achievement ....and what a total idiot you are!
If there are any fakes around you are first in line.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2017, 03:17:03 PM by Lonegranger »

Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2017, 04:25:40 PM »
24:24  Why did she need to point out that Planet Earth is a sphere?  Just kinda caught my attention the way she said it.  Also does anyone know what is up with the rocket on the right?  It seems to have two cameras on and I'm trying to make sense of where they are placed and how the earth is shaped.  Just doesn't make any sense.  Looks like two different rockets also.
She's talking about why they lose the feed. As the rocket is coming back down, the line-of-sight is now beyond the horizon and they lose connection with it.

What looks like two different rockets? The one that lands on the ship vs. the one that went up? It's been through a lot.
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2017, 05:02:12 PM »

Maybe there was a landing burn to soften the impact but, no details are provided, as usual.

Why should they provide details?
They know how to do it. They do do it and it works.
You don't know how to do it. You can't do it and you bitch about it.

Thousands of people observe it. Numerous videos are taken by amateur's and professionals.
Yet you claim it's all CGI of some such stupidity.

Situation normal.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2017, 05:37:53 PM »

Maybe there was a landing burn to soften the impact but, no details are provided, as usual.

Why should they provide details?
They know how to do it. They do do it and it works.
You don't know how to do it. You can't do it and you bitch about it.
Of course it's pretty much the same type of landing burn that Blue Origin does withe their New Shepard booster, except that SpaceX is doing it with a much larger booster.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #21 on: April 02, 2017, 06:02:07 PM »

Maybe there was a landing burn to soften the impact but, no details are provided, as usual.

Why should they provide details?
They know how to do it. They do do it and it works.
You don't know how to do it. You can't do it and you bitch about it.

Thousands of people observe it. Numerous videos are taken by amateur's and professionals.
Yet you claim it's all CGI of some such stupidity.

Situation normal.

Hm, thousands of people observe it? What? Pictures on a screen. No witnesses at sea. Not even a camera. Just a picture of a barge without a rocket and POUFF - a barge with a rocket on deck ... on a screen. And boring Mr. $Sum explaining that it took him 15 years to accomplish it. According basic rocket scientific principles you need 50-60 tons of fuel to recover a 23 tons rocket and you need another 100-150 tons of fuel to put that fuel in space but when you ask how much fuel is used the answer is that the payload <10 tons is only reduced 30%, bla, bla, bla. Magic? No!
The cheering crowds in the background at XspaceS HQ watching screens are just paid actors. Next launch will sooner or later be with humans going to the fake space station. That's where the stolen money is going. I wonder how long it will last. It is not even fun. 

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #22 on: April 02, 2017, 06:37:37 PM »
Hm, thousands of people observe it? What? Pictures on a screen. No witnesses at sea. Not even a camera. Just a picture of a barge without a rocket and POUFF - a barge with a rocket on deck ... on a screen. And boring Mr. $Sum explaining that it took him 15 years to accomplish it. According basic rocket scientific principles you need 50-60 tons of fuel to recover a 23 tons rocket and you need another 100-150 tons of fuel to put that fuel in space but when you ask how much fuel is used the answer is that the payload <10 tons is only reduced 30%, bla, bla, bla. Magic? No!
The cheering crowds in the background at XspaceS HQ watching screens are just paid actors. Next launch will sooner or later be with humans going to the fake space station. That's where the stolen money is going. I wonder how long it will last. It is not even fun.
  8) 8) How silly of me! And I thought that Cape Canaveral was on land!  Still live and learn from the  ;D master  ;D  8) 8)

I guess at 8:00 min on, that might look like blue clear water to you, but . . . . . . . . .  :o :o :o
Yes, Heiwa , they can do it and you can't!

Run off and play with your toy boats in your bathtub. A rubber ducky or two might help.

Heiwa can't understand how nuclear weapons work, so they must be impossible!
Heiwa can't understand how reentry can work, so it must be impossible!
Heiwa can't understand how "the sling-shot boost" can work, so it must be impossible!
Heiwa can't understand how a rocket can land, so it must be impossible!

The common factor here seems to be "Heiwa can't understand how" - that seems significant to me.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #23 on: April 02, 2017, 07:00:33 PM »
Hm, thousands of people observe it? What? Pictures on a screen. No witnesses at sea. Not even a camera. Just a picture of a barge without a rocket and POUFF - a barge with a rocket on deck ... on a screen. And boring Mr. $Sum explaining that it took him 15 years to accomplish it. According basic rocket scientific principles you need 50-60 tons of fuel to recover a 23 tons rocket and you need another 100-150 tons of fuel to put that fuel in space but when you ask how much fuel is used the answer is that the payload <10 tons is only reduced 30%, bla, bla, bla. Magic? No!
The cheering crowds in the background at XspaceS HQ watching screens are just paid actors. Next launch will sooner or later be with humans going to the fake space station. That's where the stolen money is going. I wonder how long it will last. It is not even fun.
  8) 8) How silly of me! And I thought that Cape Canaveral was on land!  Still live and learn from the  ;D master  ;D  8) 8)

I guess at 8:00 min on, that might look like blue clear water to you, but . . . . . . . . .  :o :o :o
Yes, Heiwa , they can do it and you can't!

Run off and play with your toy boats in your bathtub. A rubber ducky or two might help.

Heiwa can't understand how nuclear weapons work, so they must be impossible!
Heiwa can't understand how reentry can work, so it must be impossible!
Heiwa can't understand how "the sling-shot boost" can work, so it must be impossible!
Heiwa can't understand how a rocket can land, so it must be impossible!

The common factor here seems to be "Heiwa can't understand how" - that seems significant to me.

Hm, according XpaceS the payload is only reduced 30% - extra fuel! - to recover a 23 tons empty rocket shell dropping down from space by gravity and for it a boost-back, an entry and a landing burn are required ... each using 1 ton of fuel???
I call it magic.
But as I say, the big money is sending fake humans to the fake space station, i.e. just sending a fake rocket behind some clouds, say it is full of US asstronutters and collect billions. Plenty actors employed for that magic trick. As I understand it. But it is easy! Rocket science is 99% pseudoscience, i.e. you can invent anything you like, media publish it as Fake News ... and there we are.
Easy to understand.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #24 on: April 02, 2017, 07:27:24 PM »
Hm, according XpaceS the payload is only reduced 30% - extra fuel! - to recover a 23 tons empty rocket shell dropping down from space by gravity and for it a boost-back, an entry and a landing burn are required ... each using 1 ton of fuel???
I call it magic.
OK, you call it magic, I'll call it knowing what you are doing.
And we'll call it quits.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #25 on: April 02, 2017, 10:56:51 PM »
Hm, according XpaceS the payload is only reduced 30% - extra fuel! - to recover a 23 tons empty rocket shell dropping down from space by gravity and for it a boost-back, an entry and a landing burn are required ... each using 1 ton of fuel???
I call it magic.
OK, you call it magic, I'll call it knowing what you are doing.
And we'll call it quits.

Well, if you can recover a rocket with nine, liquid fuel engines at the small cost of a 30% reduction in payload, you must be a magician.
That's why Arianspace doesn't do it. They just use cheap, solid fuel rockets to put satellites in space. Like the Russians. 

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2017, 05:31:10 AM »
Hm, according XpaceS the payload is only reduced 30% - extra fuel! - to recover a 23 tons empty rocket shell dropping down from space by gravity and for it a boost-back, an entry and a landing burn are required ... each using 1 ton of fuel???
I call it magic.
OK, you call it magic, I'll call it knowing what you are doing.
And we'll call it quits.

Well, if you can recover a rocket with nine, liquid fuel engines at the small cost of a 30% reduction in payload, you must be a magician.
Or a rocket scientist.  It's a piss poor engineer that can't tell the difference.


That's why Arianspace doesn't do it. They just use cheap, solid fuel rockets to put satellites in space. Like the Russians.
Actually, Arianspace and the Russians use liquid fuel rockets to put satellites in space.  They might occasionally use solid fuel strap on boosters, but the cores are almost always very expensive liquid fuel rockets.  This is why recovering the very expensive (around 70% of the cost of the entire rocket) first stage booster is such a big deal.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2017, 06:11:50 AM »
24:24  Why did she need to point out that Planet Earth is a sphere?  Just kinda caught my attention the way she said it.  Also does anyone know what is up with the rocket on the right?  It seems to have two cameras on and I'm trying to make sense of where they are placed and how the earth is shaped.  Just doesn't make any sense.  Looks like two different rockets also.


I'd also like to point out that this rocket didn't go under the horizon?  Are they for real?  Also both of these rockets took off relatively in the same area (Kennedy Space Station and Cape Canaveral) and landed on the same platform. (Of Course I Still Love You)

Maybe I don't know much about satellites. So I'm not sure on this one. Help?

P.S. She did say they "may lose" the communications..so there is that.

There is no communication error; it is completely a nonsence where you look on it.



After that first "fiasco", because the landing were proven as "fake", this time they hidden the time of landing. This is a bullshit. What are they thinking hiding to?

Where is landing? abracadabra and hokus pokus, then rocket is landed. Bullshit.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 06:41:54 AM by İntikam »
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2017, 09:53:02 AM »
24:24  Why did she need to point out that Planet Earth is a sphere?  Just kinda caught my attention the way she said it.  Also does anyone know what is up with the rocket on the right?  It seems to have two cameras on and I'm trying to make sense of where they are placed and how the earth is shaped.  Just doesn't make any sense.  Looks like two different rockets also.


I'd also like to point out that this rocket didn't go under the horizon?  Are they for real?  Also both of these rockets took off relatively in the same area (Kennedy Space Station and Cape Canaveral) and landed on the same platform. (Of Course I Still Love You)

Maybe I don't know much about satellites. So I'm not sure on this one. Help?

P.S. She did say they "may lose" the communications..so there is that.

There is no communication error; it is completely a nonsence where you look on it.



After that first "fiasco", because the landing were proven as "fake", this time they hidden the time of landing. This is a bullshit. What are they thinking hiding to?

Where is landing? abracadabra and hokus pokus, then rocket is landed. Bullshit.

In relation to that video.
1:13 He seems to think the "fins" are at the bottom of the rocket. LMFAO.  That's a really bad start to the video.

3:12 He says "That is part of the rocket for sure", but when the pixels disappear they don't match up with the landed rocket. (So it could be anything)

4:02 This guy doesn't understand pixels. Another "lol" moment for me.

4:13  He claims the rocket on the left hasn't landed?  Refer back to 1:13 of the video

0:33 Sums this video up really.  He can't debunk these videos, that's why. "I'm just gonna show you how I can debunk this video because it had a camera error in it." (Which was probably caused by the intensity of a rocket landing closing by)

I genuinely want to know why SpaceX would do this to their camera's (Pixelations and stuff), knowing full well that there are conspiracy theorists out there that will do their best to debunk this type of stuff.  If they really wanted to legitimize this type of stuff then why not just do what they do in big movies?  CGI.  That way you won't have these conspiracy theorists all over this. But why don't they use CGI?  Because this is the real deal.

I'm also disappointed in you intikam that you actually fell for this nonsense.  But then again you do have a picture of Shaquille O'Neal.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 10:15:01 AM by Evilwave Heddy »

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Space-X SES-10 Launch and landing (Anyone catch this?)
« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2017, 10:18:40 AM »
Hm, according XpaceS the payload is only reduced 30% - extra fuel! - to recover a 23 tons empty rocket shell dropping down from space by gravity and for it a boost-back, an entry and a landing burn are required ... each using 1 ton of fuel???
I call it magic.
OK, you call it magic, I'll call it knowing what you are doing.
And we'll call it quits.

Well, if you can recover a rocket with nine, liquid fuel engines at the small cost of a 30% reduction in payload, you must be a magician.
That's why Arianspace doesn't do it. They just use cheap, solid fuel rockets to put satellites in space. Like the Russians.
Why would you make this claim without checking?  You do realize once a solid fuel rocket is started it can't be stop and the thrust is not able to be throttled?

Do you even try anymore?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.