Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS

For arguments sake, let's say you are right and they pulled this off. Aren't you a bit annoyed they sent a sex doll up there instead of an actual person?

The decision to send a person was not up to SpaceX.  NASA said that SpaceX and Boeing must each make an unmanned test flight to the ISS before they would allow any people to fly.  It's really that simple.

This video shows the complexity behind rendezvous and docking.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

As you can see, it’s a matter of timing, focusing on the periapsis and apoapsis at the appropriate times, then negating the speed relative to the orbit of the target, then accelerating directly to the target, then slowing down, and then fine tuning the thrust once you are close.

It’s not “magic” or beyond our realm of possibility to do this.

And before FEers come in here saying it’s unrealistic, yes, it’s made at 1:10 the scale of Earth, so you see the curvature of the planet earlier, and you don’t need as much fuel / speed to get out of the atmosphere in the game.

That having been said, the mechanics and physics behind the game are as accurate as you can get.

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2019, 05:51:42 PM

For arguments sake, let's say you are right and they pulled this off. Aren't you a bit annoyed they sent a sex doll up there instead of an actual person?

The decision to send a person was not up to SpaceX.  NASA said that SpaceX and Boeing must each make an unmanned test flight to the ISS before they would allow any people to fly.  It's really that simple.

Space X is supposedly private owned. Why are they subservient to the likes of NASA?

Unless of course Space X is just another branch of the same entity.

The plot thickens....

Quote from: markjo on March 06, 2019, 11:25:51 AM

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2019, 05:51:42 PM

For arguments sake, let's say you are right and they pulled this off. Aren't you a bit annoyed they sent a sex doll up there instead of an actual person?

The decision to send a person was not up to SpaceX.  NASA said that SpaceX and Boeing must each make an unmanned test flight to the ISS before they would allow any people to fly.  It's really that simple.

Space X is supposedly private owned. Why are they subservient to the likes of NASA?

Unless of course Space X is just another branch of the same entity.

The plot thickens....

Who else is going to give them a 6 billion dollar contract? Last time I checked, Australia doesn't have a space station.

Quote from: markjo on March 06, 2019, 11:25:51 AM

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2019, 05:51:42 PM

For arguments sake, let's say you are right and they pulled this off. Aren't you a bit annoyed they sent a sex doll up there instead of an actual person?

The decision to send a person was not up to SpaceX.  NASA said that SpaceX and Boeing must each make an unmanned test flight to the ISS before they would allow any people to fly.  It's really that simple.

Space X is supposedly private owned. Why are they subservient to the likes of NASA?

Unless of course Space X is just another branch of the same entity.

The plot thickens....

Hmmm. A privately owned company that adheres to the terms of a contract  so that it gets paid ... what a novel concept.

You really will use any flimsy attempt at an argument to try to contort the way things work into your invented world, won't you?

Quote from: markjo on March 06, 2019, 11:25:51 AM

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2019, 05:51:42 PM

For arguments sake, let's say you are right and they pulled this off. Aren't you a bit annoyed they sent a sex doll up there instead of an actual person?

The decision to send a person was not up to SpaceX.  NASA said that SpaceX and Boeing must each make an unmanned test flight to the ISS before they would allow any people to fly.  It's really that simple.

Space X is supposedly private owned. Why are they subservient to the likes of NASA?

SpaceX is privately owned but gets to do a lot of launches for NASA, as does Arianespace and Roscosmos.
What is special about SpaceX getting this work - have got a bias against SpaceX?

Before asking "Why are they subservient to the likes of NASA?" It might be wise to ask "Are they subservient to the likes of NASA?"

In this situation it is not that SpaceX is "subservient to . . . . NASA".
It's simply that if a company wants a contract with another entity that company abides by the conditions set down by that entity.

In this case NASA will not certify a company to carry US people or a US company to carry any people unless the vehicle had been demonstrated to fly safely without people.

I, for one, would not want it any other way.

How high does this fictional rocket go before it jettisons this so called airliner sized tube to somehow regain fuel to burn to arrest a fall onto a silly barge just anchored somewhere in the ocean, as we are led to believe?

How high does this fictional rocket go before it jettisons this so called airliner sized tube to somehow regain fuel to burn to arrest a fall onto a silly barge just anchored somewhere in the ocean, as we are led to believe?

Considering that in your model you don't know how high your dome is and therefore where the atmosphere ends, why would you care what the separation altitude is? For all you know, it works splendidly as long as it pushes against atmosphere and doesn't bump into your dome. Unless you have some calculations as to why it's size and altitude would be an issue in your model, it just does what it does.

Space X is supposedly private owned. Why are they subservient to the likes of NASA?

Because they want NASA to pay them to take people up.
That isn't being subservient, that is getting business.

Now how about you try explaining why you think this is magically impossible?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 01:24:28 AM

How high does this fictional rocket go before it jettisons this so called airliner sized tube to somehow regain fuel to burn to arrest a fall onto a silly barge just anchored somewhere in the ocean, as we are led to believe?

Considering that in your model you don't know how high your dome is and therefore where the atmosphere ends, why would you care what the separation altitude is? For all you know, it works splendidly as long as it pushes against atmosphere and doesn't bump into your dome. Unless you have some calculations as to why it's size and altitude would be an issue in your model, it just does what it does.

I can only question stuff on the nonsense that mainstream put out.
You didn't answer the question. I wonder why?

How high does this fictional rocket go before it jettisons this so called airliner sized tube to somehow regain fuel to burn to arrest a fall onto a silly barge just anchored somewhere in the ocean, as we are led to believe?

Do you serious expect anyone to bother taking much time with your request when you post that sort of trash?

But I have not seen a "crew Dragon" launch video with telemetry as yet but here is an earlier launch the gives speed and elevation.

Launch & Landing of 25th SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket with Thaicom 8 by Space Videos

On that launch stage 1 engine cut-off was at about 3:06 in the video when:
SPEED  = 8338 km/hr and ALTITUDE = 66.4 km and the re-entry burn would start a little after STAGE 2 STARTUP.
At 3:33 it is announced that "stage 1 has entered its 'flip' " and from 3:45 both stage 1 returning and stage 2 continuing into orbit.
Stage 1 finally lands at about 9:05.

But stage 1 does NOT "somehow regain fuel to burn to arrest a fall". Why would you ask such a question?
Stage 1 simply uses the fuel that was not burnt when its engines were cut-off at 3:06 as stated above.
Most liquid fuelled rocket engines can be throttled over a limited range and cut-off before all the fuel is burned - there is no magic involved!

You can believe what you like but that's what happened.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 01:24:28 AM

How high does this fictional rocket go before it jettisons this so called airliner sized tube to somehow regain fuel to burn to arrest a fall onto a silly barge just anchored somewhere in the ocean, as we are led to believe?

Do you serious expect anyone to bother taking much time with your request when you post that sort of trash?

But I have not seen a "crew Dragon" launch video with telemetry as yet but here is an earlier launch the gives speed and elevation.

Launch & Landing of 25th SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket with Thaicom 8 by Space Videos

On that launch stage 1 engine cut-off was at about 3:06 in the video when:
SPEED  = 8338 km/hr and ALTITUDE = 66.4 km and the re-entry burn would start a little after STAGE 2 STARTUP.
At 3:33 it is announced that "stage 1 has entered its 'flip' " and from 3:45 both stage 1 returning and stage 2 continuing into orbit.
Stage 1 finally lands at about 9:05.

But stage 1 does NOT "somehow regain fuel to burn to arrest a fall". Why would you ask such a question?
Stage 1 simply uses the fuel that was not burnt when its engines were cut-off at 3:06 as stated above.
Most liquid fuelled rocket engines can be throttled over a limited range and cut-off before all the fuel is burned - there is no magic involved!

You can believe what you like but that's what happened.

So the so called tube went into a so called near as damn it vacuum, right?

Felix supposedly only went to 128,000 feet and that was termed as a near vacuum by the silly screen numbers put out to us.

So it once again begs the massive question of, why didn't the Earth spin under it and leave it well of course by the time it came back down pumping fire from its arse end?

No need to use the old Earth atmosphere drags it along stuff, because if that was a reality it would be negated in short order.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 07, 2019, 04:39:43 AM

You can believe what you like but that's what happened.

So the so called tube went into a so called near as damn it vacuum, right?

Yes.

Felix supposedly only went to 128,000 feet and that was termed as a near vacuum by the silly screen numbers put out to us.

Yes but nowhere near as close to where the rocket was at nearly 218,000 feet!

So it once again begs the massive question of, why didn't the Earth spin under it and leave it well of course by the time it came back down pumping fire from its arse end?

Why shoud it? That was already explained in an earlier post. You must have a memory like a sieve.

No need to use the old Earth atmosphere drags it along stuff, because if that was a reality it would be negated in short order.

As I explained before there's "No need to use the old Earth atmosphere drags" because that has nothing to do with it.
But to repeat, the rocket was launched relative to the moving earth and never "lost" that velocity.
So there is none of your stupid rubbish about the Earth spinning under it!

But one thing you should note is the the earth's surface is only crawling along compared to the 8338 km/hr  the first stage was going.

You seem totally self-indoctrinated and incapable of absorbing new ideas. Why do you bother asking questions if you totally the answers?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 04:57:57 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 07, 2019, 04:39:43 AM

You can believe what you like but that's what happened.

So the so called tube went into a so called near as damn it vacuum, right?

Yes.

Quote from: sceptimatic

Felix supposedly only went to 128,000 feet and that was termed as a near vacuum by the silly screen numbers put out to us.

Yes but nowhere near as close to where the rocket was at nearly 218,000 feet!

Quote from: sceptimatic

So it once again begs the massive question of, why didn't the Earth spin under it and leave it well of course by the time it came back down pumping fire from its arse end?

Why shoud it? That was already explained in an earlier post. You must have a memory like a sieve.

Quote from: sceptimatic

No need to use the old Earth atmosphere drags it along stuff, because if that was a reality it would be negated in short order.

As I explained before there's "No need to use the old Earth atmosphere drags" because that has nothing to do with it.
But to repeat, the rocket was launched relative to the moving earth and never "lost" that velocity.
So there is none of your stupid rubbish about the Earth spinning under it!

But one thing you should note is the the earth's surface is only crawling along compared to the 8338 km/hr  the first stage was going.

You seem totally self-indoctrinated and incapable of absorbing new ideas. Why do you bother asking questions if you totally the answers?

If your Earth is spinning at close to 1000 mph then it's going fast compared to anyone trying to leave it.
Let me make this clear.
If I was on a massive spring on the back of a speeding truck going 100 mph and that spring released me into the air vertically plumb, I'm going to land back down onto the deck  and seeing the truck in the distance.

So don't give me this nonsense about a so called rocket doing the same thing with the so called spinning Earth under it coming back down to a point not far away from where it went up, because it's utter utter garbage.

I know this keeps getting brought up but it needs to because it's so ludicrous.

I generally laugh when I see the way this thing is shown to come down swinging onto the barge.
The navy have issues landing jets on a big aircraft carrier and yet this thing just saunters down vertically with a few swings and lands near perfect on a steady barge out at sea. 

Quote from: rabinoz on March 07, 2019, 05:24:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 04:57:57 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 07, 2019, 04:39:43 AM

You can believe what you like but that's what happened.

So the so called tube went into a so called near as damn it vacuum, right?

Yes.

Quote from: sceptimatic

Felix supposedly only went to 128,000 feet and that was termed as a near vacuum by the silly screen numbers put out to us.

Yes but nowhere near as close to where the rocket was at nearly 218,000 feet!

Quote from: sceptimatic

So it once again begs the massive question of, why didn't the Earth spin under it and leave it well of course by the time it came back down pumping fire from its arse end?

Why shoud it? That was already explained in an earlier post. You must have a memory like a sieve.

Quote from: sceptimatic

No need to use the old Earth atmosphere drags it along stuff, because if that was a reality it would be negated in short order.

As I explained before there's "No need to use the old Earth atmosphere drags" because that has nothing to do with it.
But to repeat, the rocket was launched relative to the moving earth and never "lost" that velocity.
So there is none of your stupid rubbish about the Earth spinning under it!

But one thing you should note is the the earth's surface is only crawling along compared to the 8338 km/hr  the first stage was going.

You seem totally self-indoctrinated and incapable of absorbing new ideas. Why do you bother asking questions if you totally the answers?

If your Earth is spinning at close to 1000 mph then it's going fast compared to anyone trying to leave it.
Let me make this clear.
If I was on a massive spring on the back of a speeding truck going 100 mph and that spring released me into the air vertically plumb, I'm going to land back down onto the deck  and seeing the truck in the distance.

So don't give me this nonsense about a so called rocket doing the same thing with the so called spinning Earth under it coming back down to a point not far away from where it went up, because it's utter utter garbage.

I know this keeps getting brought up but it needs to because it's so ludicrous.

I generally laugh when I see the way this thing is shown to come down swinging onto the barge.
The navy have issues landing jets on a big aircraft carrier and yet this thing just saunters down vertically with a few swings and lands near perfect on a steady barge out at sea. 

Terrible analogy.  What is causing you to jump up and miss the vehicle if you did?  Air Resistance right?  The more truthful answer is you would be behind your launch spot only equal to the force of the air resistance slowing your horizontal movement shared with the train.  If you applied just the right force towards the front of the train  you would overcome that air resistance slowing you down right?   The rocket is moving at magnitudes of speed greater then the initial velocity of the spinning Earth so why couldn’t it catch up (overcome air resistance)?  The barge is a couple hundred miles out to sea if I recall anyway so it’s not trying to land at the same location anyway.  The rocket isn’t launched completely straight up (it quickly tilts to the east) for obvious reasons as it wants to ultimately release an orbit capable capsule so your analogy is completely, utterly, useless. 

Why can’t something flying at speeds magnitudes faster then any spin land anywhere it wanted to if it had enough fuel and enough altitude?

Terrible analogy

Perfect analogy.

"Perfectly plumb"...
Terrible analogy.
Learn about vectors.

Quote from: JCM on March 07, 2019, 07:41:41 AM

Terrible analogy

Perfect analogy.

This reasoning is exactly why no one comes to your aid in defending your notions.  Even in your world with your rules, your analogy makes zero sense. 

Explain how an object with enough speed, altitude, fuel, and ability to change direction can’t hit a target anywhere it wants to?  Forget the mind blowing vertical landing it does live in HD in front of millions via satellite, TV, and personal videos by amateurs of their non barge landings. (With this in mind, SpaceX 1st stages are not landing anywhere in the world, they are landing only a couple hundred miles away.)

"Perfectly plumb"....

Yep.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 08:12:26 AM

Quote from: JCM on March 07, 2019, 07:41:41 AM

Terrible analogy

Perfect analogy.

This reasoning is exactly why no one comes to your aid in defending your notions.  Even in your world with your rules, your analogy makes zero sense. 

Explain how an object with enough speed, altitude, fuel, and ability to change direction can’t hit a target anywhere it wants to?  Forget the mind blowing vertical landing it does live in HD in front of millions via satellite, TV, and personal videos by amateurs of their non barge landings. (With this in mind, SpaceX 1st stages are not landing anywhere in the world, they are landing only a couple hundred miles away.)

A couple of hundred miles away?
Why?
Are you telling me it lands on a barge a couple of hundred miles out to sea in a big choppy ocean and can land nice and simple on this barge that must surely be bouncing around like crazy.
Or have you decided to let loose of your sense and opt for your sci-fi goggles?

Quote from: JCM on March 07, 2019, 08:56:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 08:12:26 AM

Quote from: JCM on March 07, 2019, 07:41:41 AM

Terrible analogy

Perfect analogy.

This reasoning is exactly why no one comes to your aid in defending your notions.  Even in your world with your rules, your analogy makes zero sense. 

Explain how an object with enough speed, altitude, fuel, and ability to change direction can’t hit a target anywhere it wants to?  Forget the mind blowing vertical landing it does live in HD in front of millions via satellite, TV, and personal videos by amateurs of their non barge landings. (With this in mind, SpaceX 1st stages are not landing anywhere in the world, they are landing only a couple hundred miles away.)

A couple of hundred miles away?
Why?
Are you telling me it lands on a barge a couple of hundred miles out to sea in a big choppy ocean and can land nice and simple on this barge that must surely be bouncing around like crazy.
Or have you decided to let loose of your sense and opt for your sci-fi goggles?

By your next ridiculous argument, how do cruise ships sail hundreds of miles across the ocean and people manage to walk around this incredibly unsteady ship and have dinner without their wine glasses and everything tipping over immediately no matter the sea conditions? Don’t you think the weather and sea conditions are taken into account if they want to try a barge landing?  What’s your next silly analogy?

Why can’t an object that has enough altitude, fuel, and ability to change direction hit a target?

A couple of hundred miles away?
Why?

Why land on the barge instead of land back at Cape Canaveral launch site? That’s easy.  Just re-using the first stage costs the potential payload by up to 30% depending on where the landing attempt is made!  To land on the barge it takes less fuel! Landing on the barge rather then spending extra fuel to land back at the launch site gives  them 15% payload capacity! Don’t you think if you were able to make 15% more money selling payload capacity you would try it, as crazy as landing on a barge might sound?   Side note, if it was all fake...  why would they try it at all?  Following the money leads to the truth pretty frequently as it does here in this as well.

This is the difference between private space flight and the ridiculously inefficient NASA shuttle which cost 400 million per launch regardless of the payload!

Sceptimatic, do you believe 737s travel at 1600 mph?

Quote from: markjo on March 06, 2019, 11:25:51 AM

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2019, 05:51:42 PM

For arguments sake, let's say you are right and they pulled this off. Aren't you a bit annoyed they sent a sex doll up there instead of an actual person?

The decision to send a person was not up to SpaceX.  NASA said that SpaceX and Boeing must each make an unmanned test flight to the ISS before they would allow any people to fly.  It's really that simple.

Space X is supposedly private owned. Why are they subservient to the likes of NASA?

Because NASA is a customer of SpaceX and customers like NASA have very specific requirements.  If SpaceX won't meet all of their customer's requirements, then SpaceX doesn't get paid.  Is that really so hard to understand?

If your Earth is spinning at close to 1000 mph then it's going fast compared to anyone trying to leave it.

Here's a fun fact for you.  I doubt that you ever paid that much attention, but most launches are to the east.  This means that you get to use that nearly 1000 mph spin of the earth to get a head start on the 17,500 mph speed that you need to reach orbit.

Quote from: Stash on March 07, 2019, 01:34:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 01:24:28 AM

How high does this fictional rocket go before it jettisons this so called airliner sized tube to somehow regain fuel to burn to arrest a fall onto a silly barge just anchored somewhere in the ocean, as we are led to believe?

Considering that in your model you don't know how high your dome is and therefore where the atmosphere ends, why would you care what the separation altitude is? For all you know, it works splendidly as long as it pushes against atmosphere and doesn't bump into your dome. Unless you have some calculations as to why it's size and altitude would be an issue in your model, it just does what it does.

I can only question stuff on the nonsense that mainstream put out.
You didn't answer the question. I wonder why?

I wonder why you can't answer how high your dome is. How high is it?

I can only question stuff on the nonsense that mainstream put out.

No you can "question" anything, including things which are not nonsense at all, which you frequently do.

You didn't answer the question. I wonder why?

Your question was addressed, but you ignore it. I wonder why?

If your Earth is spinning at close to 1000 mph then it's going fast compared to anyone trying to leave it.

No it isn't, as the object is also going at 1000 archaic units per hour.

If I was on a massive spring on the back of a speeding truck going 100 mph and that spring released me into the air vertically plumb

But it doesn't. Instead it just pushes you up, adding to your momentum.
How about we make it easier. If you are standing in a train or on a plane travelling at a high speed, and you jump up, you land where you started.
You can easily do this test yourself which shows your claims to be nonsense.

To go vertically plump, you would need to be pushed backwards.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 03:26:39 AM

I can only question stuff on the nonsense that mainstream put out.

No you can "question" anything, including things which are not nonsense at all, which you frequently do.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 03:26:39 AM

You didn't answer the question. I wonder why?

Your question was addressed, but you ignore it. I wonder why?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 07:28:00 AM

If your Earth is spinning at close to 1000 mph then it's going fast compared to anyone trying to leave it.

No it isn't, as the object is also going at 1000 archaic units per hour.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 07:28:00 AM

If I was on a massive spring on the back of a speeding truck going 100 mph and that spring released me into the air vertically plumb

But it doesn't. Instead it just pushes you up, adding to your momentum.
How about we make it easier. If you are standing in a train or on a plane travelling at a high speed, and you jump up, you land where you started.
You can easily do this test yourself which shows your claims to be nonsense.

To go vertically plump, you would need to be pushed backwards.

So relative to the ground, if i jump on the spot in a plane, I have smashed every single world record for long jumping. Hell, I could walk the long jump.

Where is my medal? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 03:26:39 AM

I can only question stuff on the nonsense that mainstream put out.

No you can "question" anything, including things which are not nonsense at all, which you frequently do.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 03:26:39 AM

You didn't answer the question. I wonder why?

Your question was addressed, but you ignore it. I wonder why?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 07:28:00 AM

If your Earth is spinning at close to 1000 mph then it's going fast compared to anyone trying to leave it.

No it isn't, as the object is also going at 1000 archaic units per hour.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 07, 2019, 07:28:00 AM

If I was on a massive spring on the back of a speeding truck going 100 mph and that spring released me into the air vertically plumb

But it doesn't. Instead it just pushes you up, adding to your momentum.
How about we make it easier. If you are standing in a train or on a plane travelling at a high speed, and you jump up, you land where you started.
You can easily do this test yourself which shows your claims to be nonsense.

To go vertically plump, you would need to be pushed backwards.

to test the train/ plane theory would requires him to go outside...

So relative to the ground, if i jump on the spot in a plane, I have smashed every single world record for long jumping. Hell, I could walk the long jump.

Where is my medal? 

You assume no one has ever jumped forward on a plane.

Yes, if there was a category for jumps relative to the ground while in a moving vehicle, the distances would be greater than jumps while not in a moving vehicle.

You wouldn't hold the record though.

In fact, the late Stephen Hawking has a better jump than you.