Funny thing happened (again) on way to touchdown

Lost track of how many times elon musk tested the reverse thrust landing rockets but according to these guys 3rd times apparently a charm; still loved.

Indeed people say they know its real cause they were there, saw them take off.

But the re-landing so far has been out at see and the vid feed is peculiarly lost again during touchdown. Why might that be?

a reply to: Artesia

I'm going to go with you don't understand basic physics so feel the need to keep making stupid threads.

That's why rockets don't work.

a reply to: Artesia

SpaceX landings with people watching.

a reply to: Artesia

Here is video from Scott Manley - who explains why the camera often cuts out in final stages of landing

www.youtube.com...

Space X latest launch - CRS 17 on May 4 booster landing was captured That was because drone ship was close to shore

Can see landing in this video

www.youtube.com...

Then of course are the booster landings back at Cape Canaveral - How do you explain that ?

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Artesia

SpaceX landings with people watching.

IDK what the deal is with Elon's rocket's and what the real stat's are because he either misquotes them (often) or they are not what they supposedly are. In the video above he mentions it's the first time that a rocket has been this big (in the heavy or "super heavy" class) and mentions that it has 5 million lbs of thrust and the payload quote isn't really correct as it is relative to where it is being sent (LEO vs Moon vs Mars, etc).

I've looked for stats on his rockets and I've found different numbers on just about every source, all within about 20% of each other, but still, big differences when talking about 5 million lbs. Now the Saturn V had about 60% more thrust than his 5 million lb quote at 7.9 million lbs of thrust.

Now IDK how Elon can be so unaware of previous numbers as he doesn't seem like the type to be unaware of these things. I'm wondering if he is discounting the Saturn V and doesn't believe in it, like it was fake (like the total thrust was fake, only a fraction was needed for the "hoax") or what.

Almost everytime this guy talks it seems like he is an ill prepared actor who thinks he'll just "wing it", like he kind of remembers most of the numbers and things surrounding what he is talking about, but mixes up super important details that no one in his position would forget or mix up. IDK why he does this, maybe he thinks everyone else is too stupid to catch on that he either doesn't know what he is talking about or just doesn't care.

a reply to: Artesia

oh joy - another thread with a dishonest " premise " that is falsified in the second reply

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The quote is talking about currently active launchers.

As for all of the different numbers given, the systems have been tweaked steadily over the course of development, through things like "densifying" the fuel (making it really cold) re working the ratios of the turbopumps, or entirely more developed versions of the same engine. Then there is that different missions and intended orbits require different thrust profiles, meaning that one mission may not require the maximum thrust, and the thrust can also differ by altitude due to the density of the surrounding atmosphere. Yet another thing is the shape of the engine bell can completely change the thrust profile.

It wasn't until about last year that the Falcon 9 design was "done", as in the majority of the design was frozen and no new iterations were planned. Normally you don't see such rapid innovation in a single launch system, and there is a lot of new and old numbers floating around being misquoted due to context that really muddies the waters.

Here is a decent overview of the development of the Falcon 9, with a decent overview at the end on the Merlin engines it uses.
theclimategap.com...

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

can you give cites for the different reportage of thust and payload ??

i only ask - because musks companies have built serveral rockets over the space of several years - and designs evolve // are improved on - lessons learned implimented etc etc

the best analogy is would you claim iphones are fake or suspicios - because the reported preformances of the various models are different ?????

a reply to: dfnj2015

please address what he // she said - not how they said it

your lack of critiscism of the OP is noted

and just to put the boot in :

video of musks platforms - landing at KSC [ on land ] with witnesses - and no cut outs



thread over ?

originally posted by: Artesia
...But the re-landing so far has been out at see and the vid feed is peculiarly lost again during touchdown. Why might that be?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
and just to put the boot in :

video of musks platforms - landing at KSC [ on land ] with witnesses - and no cut outs

[yvid]u0-pfzKbh2k[/

thread over ?

Crisis actors working an easy gig in front of a green screen?
“You can tell it’s real cause it looks so fake”

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

guess i'm a crisis actor, because I saw a landing live.

a reply to: Artesia

So does the "fake" video include all the failed attempts …..??

CRS 16 - ISS resupply mission - booster ditched in ocean

www.youtube.com...

Falcon heavy test flight - center booster crash landing

www.youtube.com...

If the video are "fake: why show the crash landings