Elon's Reusable Rockets faked? Am I really the crazy one?


#21

I want to know how they relight the wocket engine to slow for landing when it has a supersonic wind blowing up its clacker!


#22

They don’t, because it is impossible.

Aerodynamic heating from atmospheric friction is an exponential function, and above Mach 6.5 all metals quickly melt.

Besides, Musk’s rockets are not even correctly streamlined for going forwards at supersonic velocities, let alone backwards, and are incapable of claimed performance.

This will help you understand why:

And we haven’t got to the problems of centre of mass being behind centre of pressure yet - that’s a killer.

As is the idea of having nine engines, which is just stupid as it increases weight and complexity whilst drastically reducing Thermodynamic efficiency…

All this has been known since 1957, so the whole history of space exploration is a lie.

Musk is just the latest liar to get his nose in the trough.


#23

The hypersonic grid fins (often referred to as lattice fins by real aerospace engineers) are a joke too.

This link provides basic info but is good enough:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0261.shtml

Note that lattice fins work well at subsonic velocities, do not work at all at transonic velocities, work poorly at low supersonic velocities, and only reach peak efficiency again at high supersonic velocities.

This is due to the need for correct shockwave formation within the lattice stucture.

Thus, the silly $pace$ex doohickeys would be uncontrollable through much of their flight regime.

But their problems do not end there…

Aerodynamic heating at high supersonic velocities will quickly cause the leading edges of the fins to ablate, thus resulting in shockwave deformation within the lattice structure and consequent loss of control.

So the last thing you’d do is make your hypersonic fail fins out of aluminium, which melts at 600C, then paint the damn things too!

Yet that’s what $pace$ex claimed in their first launch…

Check out the mad fake video:

Note that the fail-fins actually catch fire at one point - lol!

It is painfully obvious that at no time was any aerospace engineer consulted during the imagineering of Musk’s ridiculous fireworks - it was just a bunch of sci-fi geeks and special effects twonks making it all up as they went along…

They probably thought having the fins burst into flames would look cool, rather than being damning evidence of fakery.

Idiots.

Edit to include more technical info:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Meeting%20Proceedings/RTO-MP-AVT-135/MP-AVT-135-35.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiJm-32ienaAhWMBsAKHWr8BQU4ChAWMAJ6BAgHEAE&usg=AOvVaw1FNUAgfYXIqkLHO4Y8_lfl


#24

Great stuff but maybe ease up on the " whole history of space exploration is a lie" I like my GPS, Satellite internet and many other benefits of the Space Age?
Be careful you don’t get lumped in with the Flat Earth Brigade :slight_smile:


#26

Nah, I’m more than happy to discuss satellites.
I can see them up in the sky every night.
I can download satellite images.
My broadband is via geosynchronous satellite.
I have no difficulty in believing that centrifugal force can balance gravitational attraction.

I thank you for your assisting in debunking the webounding wockets but you haven’t convinced me that all space accomplishments are faked.


#29

Then how do you explain this thing?

From what I can make out, it was travelling south east, and as a plane leaving a contrail flies past on the left at the start of the video, we have a handy reference for speed and altitude…

I cannot see it being higher than 40,000 feet and 500mph Max.

It is also clearly not gaining in altitude throughout, either.

Here are some more videos of it:

Note that not one video contains a sonic boom, even though it is allegedly reaching speeds of up to 3,000mph.

Here is a video of Concorde making a Sonic boom, whilst travelling at a clearly higher altitude for comparison:

Now, the fake $pace$ex doohickey was allegedly carrying ten iridium satellites…

Yet it was going nowhere near space…

But I don’t see iridium complaining that their satellites were not delivered.

In fact they’ve paid $536 million for eight launches, so they’re perfectly happy with whatever the hell it is they got in return…

Money laundering, anyone?

Conspiracy to defraud perhaps?

Ever get the feeling you’ve been had?


#30

I honestly have no idea what that Iridium launch Bizzaro was all about.
Perhaps they were trying out some special effects.
I don’t class Iridium alongside the respectable satellite operators,
Same as I don’t count SpaceX among the respectable rocket companies.

BUT, you’ll have to try really hard to convince me that satellites don’t exist.
Skies are very clear here in Oz and I only need to watch the night sky for a short while before I see one.
My GPS works anywhere on the planet.

But enough of that…this thread is about rebounding rockets.

Gee, I wonder why they never warn Florida residents that a filthy great big used rocket with many tons of explosive fuel is headed their way at supersonic speed.
And it’s on AUTOPILOT!
I mean…what could possibly go wron


#34

Here’s yet another fundamental principle of aerodynamics that $pace$ex violate:

https://www.nar.org/nar-products/rocket-stability/

And that’s whilst the rocket is enveloped by a fluid medium: remove that fluid medium and any deviation in force vector will result in a phenomenon called Inertia Coupling…

Which I won’t even bother linking to - suffice to say it’s disastrous.

It’s genuinely embarrassing that anyone with the slightest education believes this nonsense.


#35

Well at least when Ewon’s wocket is headed towards the residents of Florida it is (allegedly) flying arse first with those big heavy motors leading the way.
Problem I see is that old fashioned rocket, aircraft, and bomb designers make the front of their devices with pointed noses.

I’d love to see Ewon’s wocket in a wind tunnel!

Interesting discussion over here… https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/8oouby/elons_reusable_rockets_faked_am_i_really_the/


#36

My point is that as Musk’s fireworks must fly both forwards AND backwards, the COM/COP balance can never be correctly tuned.

Look at the Falcon Heavy for example - the weight of 27 engines and associated gimbal motors, fuel pumps etc. were allegedly balanced by one Tesla roadster in the nosecone.

It is nonsensical, as your discussion with brainwashed sci-fi idiots on Reddit shows.

Btw, grid fins do work at subsonic velocities, though they are mainly used for packaging reasons on large ordinance such as the MOAB as they can fold flat to the casing, facilitating release as it is simply pushed out the back of a transport aircraft.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0261.shtml

However, grid fins do not work at all in the transonic regime, which is problematic for Musk’s claims to say the least.

Anyway, here is a video showing how to create free body diagrams:

Ask the idiots on Reddit to make a free body diagram of a rocket in a vacuum, surrounded by zero working mass, and show you where the force pairings between the rocket and its environment occur…

Get them to do something a real engineer would for once in their sad sack sci-fi fanboy lives.


#37

Want to see how easy it is to poke huge holes in Musk’s rocketry nonsense?

Check this:

https://www.quora.com/On-the-SpaceX-Falcon-9-how-many-engines-gimbal-for-directional-control-just-the-center-one-On-the-Heavy-will-it-be-all-three-center-engines

Notice how in the diagram it suggests the silly fake Merlin engine has a regenerative nozzle/combustion chamber cooling system?

Well, scroll down to the photos of the useless fraudulent object and note that there is zero evidence of any kind of regenerative cooling system at all…

None whatsoever.

Problem is, a regenerative cooling system is quite a big deal on long range rockets - without one you’ll cook your engine within seconds.

But hey, Elon don’t need em - because MENTAL I guess?

Also note that 27 engines would mean 54 heavy duty fuel pumps and 108 engine gimbal motors+actuator arms…

All at the exact opposite end of the rocket from where the centre of mass should be…

But yeah - all this stuff is real, despite its violent assault on every single law of physics and principle of aerodynamics ever.

Why?

Cuz Elon sez so?

He is MENTAL and so is anyone who believes his embarrassing Pseudoscientific claptrap.


#38

It is not just IDIOTS on Reddit.
It is also full time paid Musk shills.
Even the fudging moderators admit to being on the payroll.


#39

A lot of the shills aren’t even real people imo. This is the best article on the subject I have found, written by an expert in the field, and personal experience tells me these bots are not 5 years in the future, they are here right now:

If you intend to continue arguing with these things, insist they create a free body diagram showing all force pairings the rocket makes with its environment - this sends them bonkers and they will begin to make many insane claims, like inertia is a force, Newton’s 3rd law is F1=-F1 and thus interchangeable with his 2nd law, conservation of momentum is m1v1=(m1v1+m1v1), gravity is not one of the four forces of flight, etc, etc…

I even had one of them state that the laws of Thermodynamics are “fake physics”!

It can be pretty funny, but bear in mind they are programmed never to admit mistakes or give up arguing, and you will probably end up getting banned.

Edit to include evidence that musk has over seven million bot followers on Twitter and even uses them to manipulate shareholders meetings:


#40

Time to enrage the muskbot shills via the laws of Thermodynamics…

SpaceX rockets allegedly use ‘cold gas thrusters’ to orient themselves in the vacuum of space for re-entry:

Okay, now let’s see what Thermodynamics has to say about the behaviour of gases in a vacuum, eh?

Hmm - seems that an experiment was done in 1850 proving that a gas does no work when introduced to a vacuum, and that said experiment was one of the foundations of the laws of Thermodynamics…

Look:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false

As Joule himself said, “In this process the gas does not develop mechanical power, i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas”

This result is known as Joule, or Free, Expansion:

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html

And it was the basis for the formulation of this gas law:

Work = external Pressure x Change in Volume.

And, as the external Pressure in a vacuum is ZERO, any gas introduced therein will do ZERO work.

Want a definition of Work? Okay:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

Zero Work = Zero Force; Zero Force = Zero Motion - FACT.

Yeah, so that’s Musk’s ‘cold gas thrusters’ dead in the water ain’t it?

Unless he’s found a way of defying the laws of Thermodynamics and creating free energy devices…

Anyone think that’s likely?

Well, anyone human or sane, that is - bots and psychopaths don’t count…

And bots and psychopaths are the only supporters Musk has when it comes down to it.

Edit to include the physics definition of ‘vacuum’, for the really slow kids at the back of the class:


#41

I think you are forgetting about Newton’s third law.

This explains why rocket motors or even Nitrogen thrusters do indeed work in space.
However, the power of Nitrogen thrusters is extremely low and useful only for gentle corrections of attitude.

For correcting an imbalance of the wocket during landing the effects would be trivial.
Also it can be seen quite frequently in the SpaceX videos that both of the thrusters on diametrically opposite sides are firing at the same time.
WTF???


#42

If that is the case, then draw a free body diagram demonstrating the cold gas thrusters creating a force pairing with a mass external to the rocket.

Because if they cannot do that then they cannot fulfil the dictates of Newton’s third law and no motion will be produced.

Besides, citing NASA on Newton’s third law is a bad idea, as it is well known they get it wrong - please read:


#43

I have no difficulty in believing that a rocket such as this would work perfectly well in space.
https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstomp.html

I’m sorry but if you want to disprove Newton’s 3rd law you will have to do a bit better than this.


#44

What a bizarre statement!

I am not trying to disprove Newton’s third law, I am merely trying to apply it correctly to gas jet propulsion.

And, as I have already shown that NASA get the subject dead wrong, your continued use of their citations is mystifying.

If you are still confused, here is how it really works:

http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm

Or you could just draw a free body diagram, bearing in mind that a rockets exhaust is a force exerted by the body and thus cannot be included in said diagram:


#45

The gas ejected by a rocket motor or by a nitrogen thruster has mass.
Blow up a balloon and let it go and you can see the effect.

The rockets reaction to the expelled mass can most definitely be applied to the free body diagram.

Taking the example of the cannon.
If you load the cannon with gunpowder but do not load a cannonball then there will still be a reactive force but much smaller.


#46

The fact that a gas has mass does not affect the fact that a gas develops no mechanical power as it expands into a vacuum:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false

And there can be no reaction to the exhausts action if there is no external mass for it to react against, as would be the case in a vacuum.

Also, the main cause of recoil in a cannon is from atmospheric mass, this has been well understood for years:

http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html

However, it seems you are simply going to ignore all the scientific laws and citations I have provided, so I see little point in continuing this debate.

If you believe Musk’s rockets are being controlled by magical free energy devices that is your prerogative - I, however, prefer to believe the laws of Thermodynamics over the claims of a proven criminal fraudster.