Jesus christ you're so far gone... Somebody ripped off somebody else's shitty movie therefore the movie really happened...
Repeat the experiment. Launch a rocket that comes back down and lands itself without falling over from like 50 feet dude. You cant fucking do it. Better yet, build a rocket that you can drop off your roof and land on a little target in a swimming pool right underneath you, standing up. Just drop it and have it land without having to deal with the launch. Nobody can do that, so there's no reason to believe it can be done at all man. That's science. Fake SpaceX is subsidized by NASA. Their videos are complete shit!
They send dogs to school to be obedient, not smarter than their masters. Just something to think about.
So nobody can make automated drones? Self landing rockets are the same idea. The rocket has systems in place to make minor adjustments to keep it upright and land in the right area.
Also heres a video of a guy making a DIY rocket that is almost able to land itself. Keep in mind this is one guy making a cardboard rocket. Through out his youtube series he gives a pretty good explanation on how to build this rocket yourself so you can do it.
Yeah I don't even have to watch the video, I know about that guy. He wishes he was Elon Musk. The funny part is the rockets bounce and fall over. The technology should exist in terms of small models before you can do it on a large scale. This goes back to the problem with landing the moon return module, they don't explain what kind of physical instrument determines your orientation between moving heavenly bodies. You can say it's "done by computer" but there has to be a physical instrument, like the ABS sensor in your car, feeding data to the computer. Drones and giant rockets going to space and landing on boats standing up are a freakin world apart man. The mental gymnastics it takes to believe in any of this stuff is staggering.
Yeah they bounce and fall over because they are a lot lighter. It can actually be harder to do small scale tests because of that reason, as a proof of concept though it works out pretty well because it's a pretty basic thing to understand that if something weighs thousands of pounds it's going to be a lot more stable than something that is only a few pounds. A thousand pound rocket isn't really going to bounce when it hits the ground like a cardboard/pvc rocket would.
They do have sensors on them. Do you not know about things like gyroscopes, accelerometers, gps, range finders, etc? Those are things you can get in your average drone the only difference in the ones used in large scale rockets is they are more precise as well as are the code used to control the rocket. As for how you would calculate that if you were to want to go to the moon for instance, you would simply have to do the math and relay what the rocket would need to do to get to the location it needs to go, since gps wouldn't work outside of earth, and then automated systems would take over after that.
I find it really amazing that they even managed to make it on the moon with just analog controls. From breaking the atmosphere to landing in a kinda specific area (so that they didn't need to correct for the second part of the calculation)
They had to calculate the entrie path through!
God damn we are good at using science to get our way.
Cant land a cardboard tube like that, and a gyroscope works for a plane, not a space bound vehicle. Why not just admit that you cant defend your point to somebody whos drunker than you, It's amazing they did it with analog controls because they DIDNT DO IT...
"They have sensors on them" HAHA Just keep repeating things you're told, NASA SAYS THEY CANNOT GO BACK TO THE MOON. Have fun calculating fictional BULLSHIT if that's what you're about. Hey, friend, it's amazing because it never happened. I really hope you sleep good. Keep imagining star trek is reality.
Gyroscopes have nothing to do with gravity or atmospheric pressure so why would you think they won't work in space? Let alone why be sceptical that they even have sensors on them?
The reason why NASA hasn't been back to the moon is because since the Cold War there hasn't been much reason to go back and political differences. George W. Bush wanted NASA to go to the moon for the constellation project in 2010, but Obama cancelled it instead wanting Nasa to land on an asteroid, then Trump cancelled that plan. Right now NASA is aiming at landing on the moon again by 2024 as per Trump's and Pence's request. NASA never said they can't go back to the moon.
Also why be skeptical of the math behind it? It's one thing to be skeptical of the actual events, but it's another thing entirely to be skeptical of math. Do you think concepts like velocity, gravity, drag, wind speed, etc. are all fake?
IIN That I think war is natural
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Jesus christ you're so far gone... Somebody ripped off somebody else's shitty movie therefore the movie really happened...
Repeat the experiment. Launch a rocket that comes back down and lands itself without falling over from like 50 feet dude. You cant fucking do it. Better yet, build a rocket that you can drop off your roof and land on a little target in a swimming pool right underneath you, standing up. Just drop it and have it land without having to deal with the launch. Nobody can do that, so there's no reason to believe it can be done at all man. That's science. Fake SpaceX is subsidized by NASA. Their videos are complete shit!
They send dogs to school to be obedient, not smarter than their masters. Just something to think about.
--
xxLucifer
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So nobody can make automated drones? Self landing rockets are the same idea. The rocket has systems in place to make minor adjustments to keep it upright and land in the right area.
Also heres a video of a guy making a DIY rocket that is almost able to land itself. Keep in mind this is one guy making a cardboard rocket. Through out his youtube series he gives a pretty good explanation on how to build this rocket yourself so you can do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4HfGVRU_xY
--
SmokeEverything
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yeah I don't even have to watch the video, I know about that guy. He wishes he was Elon Musk. The funny part is the rockets bounce and fall over. The technology should exist in terms of small models before you can do it on a large scale. This goes back to the problem with landing the moon return module, they don't explain what kind of physical instrument determines your orientation between moving heavenly bodies. You can say it's "done by computer" but there has to be a physical instrument, like the ABS sensor in your car, feeding data to the computer. Drones and giant rockets going to space and landing on boats standing up are a freakin world apart man. The mental gymnastics it takes to believe in any of this stuff is staggering.
--
xxLucifer
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yeah they bounce and fall over because they are a lot lighter. It can actually be harder to do small scale tests because of that reason, as a proof of concept though it works out pretty well because it's a pretty basic thing to understand that if something weighs thousands of pounds it's going to be a lot more stable than something that is only a few pounds. A thousand pound rocket isn't really going to bounce when it hits the ground like a cardboard/pvc rocket would.
They do have sensors on them. Do you not know about things like gyroscopes, accelerometers, gps, range finders, etc? Those are things you can get in your average drone the only difference in the ones used in large scale rockets is they are more precise as well as are the code used to control the rocket. As for how you would calculate that if you were to want to go to the moon for instance, you would simply have to do the math and relay what the rocket would need to do to get to the location it needs to go, since gps wouldn't work outside of earth, and then automated systems would take over after that.
--
Anonymous Post Author
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I find it really amazing that they even managed to make it on the moon with just analog controls. From breaking the atmosphere to landing in a kinda specific area (so that they didn't need to correct for the second part of the calculation)
They had to calculate the entrie path through!
God damn we are good at using science to get our way.
--
SmokeEverything
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Cant land a cardboard tube like that, and a gyroscope works for a plane, not a space bound vehicle. Why not just admit that you cant defend your point to somebody whos drunker than you, It's amazing they did it with analog controls because they DIDNT DO IT...
"They have sensors on them" HAHA Just keep repeating things you're told, NASA SAYS THEY CANNOT GO BACK TO THE MOON. Have fun calculating fictional BULLSHIT if that's what you're about. Hey, friend, it's amazing because it never happened. I really hope you sleep good. Keep imagining star trek is reality.
--
xxLucifer
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Gyroscopes have nothing to do with gravity or atmospheric pressure so why would you think they won't work in space? Let alone why be sceptical that they even have sensors on them?
The reason why NASA hasn't been back to the moon is because since the Cold War there hasn't been much reason to go back and political differences. George W. Bush wanted NASA to go to the moon for the constellation project in 2010, but Obama cancelled it instead wanting Nasa to land on an asteroid, then Trump cancelled that plan. Right now NASA is aiming at landing on the moon again by 2024 as per Trump's and Pence's request. NASA never said they can't go back to the moon.
Also why be skeptical of the math behind it? It's one thing to be skeptical of the actual events, but it's another thing entirely to be skeptical of math. Do you think concepts like velocity, gravity, drag, wind speed, etc. are all fake?