Jump to content

Branson faking his trip into space


Seeker
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Captainlove said:
2 hours ago, peter said:

Also a G suit and a pressure suit does the same job. Maintains blood pressure and breathing at altitude and high G turns.

Really ,are you sure?  Just in that short passage I can see two assumptions on your behalf that are fundamentally incorrect

and now you think it's fake because they use a totally different delivery system than that of a conventional  rocket ,

I can't argue with that then

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Weedo said:

According to this video I posted on the now-closed thread, they refer to it as sub orbital space, and they are "technically in space", at 10:30 into the video. 

 

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/W2u8KaGZ2Y8V/

 

They also claim that they were going at the speed of sound, which also begs the question of where the BOOM is of the sound barrier breaking. I've experienced it before, it's like a bomb explodes over your head, even if it's far away. Also the way it is filmed doesn't look like that thing is going faster than 300 kmh, if we assume it's real. 

 

This to me sounds even more ridiculous than the covid lies. 

I kind of like that guy in the vid. He dont like bullshitters very much. He points to the CGI of the plane. And when you look close yes it dont look real

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, peter said:

Really ,are you sure?  Just in that short passage I can see two assumptions on your behalf that are fundamentally incorrect

and now you think it's fake because they use a totally different delivery system than that of a conventional  rocket ,

I can't argue with that then

You sound like a troll, I not feeding you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, peter said:

It's obviously fake she would need a G suit and so would all the passengers 🤣

 

I know .... fake as fuck!

Same as this video of all the passengers eating cheese platers and drinking bubbly at mach 2 ....

 

 

Concorde .... 50-60 year old tech!

Edited by ink
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

G suits are for having fun with extreme acceleration in fighter planes, really tight turns that would make you pass out.

Branson and crew didn't get anywhere near those G forces so suits not needed.

Ditto Concorde.

 

And anyway, have you forgotten there is no such thing as gravity? Only density exists...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ink said:

 

I know .... fake as fuck!

Same as this video of all the passengers eating cheese platers and drinking bubbly at mach 2 ....

 

 

Concorde .... 50-60 year old tech!

Concorde doesnt atempt to go in an arch to wards space at  at mach 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gregory-peccary said:

G suits are for having fun with extreme acceleration in fighter planes, really tight turns that would make you pass out.

Branson and crew didn't get anywhere near those G forces so suits not needed.

Ditto Concorde.

 

And anyway, have you forgotten there is no such thing as gravity? Only density exists...

So mach 3 in a small craft going up a steep arch towards space wouldnt cause any G then. ROFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Captainlove said:

Concorde doesnt atempt to go in an arch to wards space at  at mach 3

 

Well .... they didn't (according to the video) go in much of an arch and it wasn't at mach 3.

 

They dropped at approx 46000 ft and it took 30 seconds to arch and the highest speed , at that point, was 1.6 mach .... which brought them to 54000 ft (going then upwards)

 

Concorde .... with a full passenger listing, all able to eat .... could climb at 5000 ft per minute.

 

I do not consider this realm a 'ball' .... nor do I think it 'flat' .... But the way information is presented is important, else it just reads as stupid misinformation!

 

I think 'Branson' could well have done as shown .... 'Musk' and his 'car in space' is a load shit and so were the 'moon landings'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ink said:

 

Well .... they didn't (according to the video) go in much of an arch and it wasn't at mach 3.

 

They dropped at approx 46000 ft and it took 30 seconds to arch and the highest speed , at that point, was 1.6 mach .... which brought them to 54000 ft (going then upwards)

 

Concorde .... with a full passenger listing, all able to eat .... could climb at 5000 ft per minute.

 

I do not consider this realm a 'ball' .... nor do I think it 'flat' .... But the way information is presented is important, else it just reads as stupid misinformation!

 

I think 'Branson' could well have done as shown .... 'Musk' and his 'car in space' is a load shit and so were the 'moon landings'.

The footage i watched showed the mach metre at mach 3 even if it was for a short time. I watched the live stream.

 

Concorde could climb at:

4,000 feet per minute
 
The four Olympus engines launched Concorde into a 20-degree pitch attitude, climbing at 4,000 feet per minute. With that high angle of attack during takeoff, and an 11 degree pitch attitude during approach, the SST's pilots needed some nifty tech to look outside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Captainlove said:

The footage i watched showed the mach metre at mach 3 even if it was for a short time.

 

Not in the 'arch' you are on about.

At the point in this screen shot .... they state that the 'trim' has finished and it is pointing directly up. 1.6 mach.

 

472264742_Screenshotfrom2021-07-1619-00-14.png.50bb889a5370ca0762c482e48f5560d5.png

 

9 minutes ago, Captainlove said:

Concorde could climb at:

 

Rate of climb at S/L 1,525 m (5,000 ft)/min

 

https://www.heritageconcorde.com/airframe-performance

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ink said:

 

Not in the 'arch' you are on about.

At the point in this screen shot .... they state that the 'trim' has finished and it is pointing directly up. 1.6 mach.

 

472264742_Screenshotfrom2021-07-1619-00-14.png.50bb889a5370ca0762c482e48f5560d5.png

 

 

Rate of climb at S/L 1,525 m (5,000 ft)/min

 

https://www.heritageconcorde.com/airframe-performance

 

 

Concorde in flight excerpt,
We are quickly at 0.70 Mach when the flight engineer begins moving fuel aft. As Concorde comes into its element, performance improves. No more burble and the rate of climb increases to 4,000 fpm. Out of 16,500 feet, we are accelerating to the barber pole (Vmo) and indicating 395 knots/0.80 Mach. Bannister points out a small and unusual Mach meter by my left leg. It has brackets to show minimum and maximum Mach for a given altitude and configuration. (Later, when we are indicating about 1.6 Mach, I check this meter to find the minimum speed for this altitude, weight and c.g. is 1.10 Mach.)

Out of 25,000 feet we are climbing 3,000 fpm and indicating 393knots/0.91Mach. We level for a minute to demonstrate Concorde's ability to fly with a jammed control. Should this happen, the pilot can push a small button in the center of the ram's horn controls and fly the airplane by using small pressures. Bannister estimates the pressures to be around 10 to 15 pounds but this force is read by a strain gauge and sensors that transmit the input to the elevons -- basically, a backup fly-by-wire system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, ink said:

 

Not in the 'arch' you are on about.

At the point in this screen shot .... they state that the 'trim' has finished and it is pointing directly up. 1.6 mach.

 

472264742_Screenshotfrom2021-07-1619-00-14.png.50bb889a5370ca0762c482e48f5560d5.png

 

 

Rate of climb at S/L 1,525 m (5,000 ft)/min

 

https://www.heritageconcorde.com/airframe-performance

 

 

First photo shows craft at mach 3.1       Second photo shows craft in a arch climb.

20210716_192844.jpg

20210716_193021.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Captainlove said:

First photo shows craft at mach 3.1

 

Yes at T+ 57 sec .... not in the 'arch' which you stated was a mach 3.

 

9 minutes ago, Captainlove said:

Second photo shows craft in a arch climb

 

Yes at T+ 17 sec .... at mach 1.4

 

So .... the meme is incorrect.

mach 2 does not require a fighter pilot suit and you could wear specs at mach 3 in level flight.

 

I consider all which is put out by the likes of Musk, Branson, NASA etc to be utter shit .... but .... some things just make alternative thoughts look silly!

 

Did Concorde exist?

Well .... I saw it fly above me and heard the boom quite often .... don't know what speed it went (speed of sound they say but that changes with the medium sound travels through)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ink said:

 

Yes at T+ 57 sec .... not in the 'arch' which you stated was a mach 3.

 

 

Yes at T+ 17 sec .... at mach 1.4

 

So .... the meme is incorrect.

mach 2 does not require a fighter pilot suit and you could wear specs at mach 3 in level flight.

 

I consider all which is put out by the likes of Musk, Branson, NASA etc to be utter shit .... but .... some things just make alternative thoughts look silly!

 

Did Concorde exist?

Well .... I saw it fly above me and heard the boom quite often .... don't know what speed it went (speed of sound they say but that changes with the medium sound travels through)

 

Concorde is real I have been on it,and seen it many times, and in level flight as you say no G suit is required. But the virgin craft was accelerating fast up to mach 3 in a climb,this is completely different situation.

Edited by Captainlove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Captainlove said:

But the virgin craft was accelerating fast up to mach 3 in a climb,this is completely different situation.

 

Plugging the information from your images into a acceleration calculator .... I get a g-force of 1.43 between the two data points.

What do you get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ink said:

 

Plugging the information from your images into a acceleration calculator .... I get a g-force of 1.43 between the two data points.

What do you get?

I used this calculation  and got  1.38 sounds low to me but trust the maths g-Acceleration Calculator - Linear Motion

Calculation of the g-force at accelerating or braking in a straight line motion. 1 g is the average gravitational acceleration on Earth, the average force, which affects a resting person at sea level. 0 g is the value at zero gravity. 1 g = 9.80665 m/s² = 32.17405 ft/s². To reach this value at a linear acceleration, you must accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 2.74 seconds. When braking, the start speed is higher than the end speed, the g-value will become negative.
Enter three values at start speed, end speed, time and acceleration. The fourth value will be calculated.

 

Start speed: m/smphkm/hknc
End speed:
Time: h m s
Acceleration: g

Round to   0   1   2   3   4   5   decimal places.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Captainlove said:

I used this calculation  and got  1.38 sounds low to me but trust the maths g-Acceleration Calculator - Linear Motion

Calculation of the g-force at accelerating or braking in a straight line motion. 1 g is the average gravitational acceleration on Earth, the average force, which affects a resting person at sea level. 0 g is the value at zero gravity. 1 g = 9.80665 m/s² = 32.17405 ft/s². To reach this value at a linear acceleration, you must accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 2.74 seconds. When braking, the start speed is higher than the end speed, the g-value will become negative.
Enter three values at start speed, end speed, time and acceleration. The fourth value will be calculated.

 

Start speed:   m/smphkm/hknc  
End speed:    
Time: h m s  
Acceleration:   g  


Round to   0   1   2   3   4   5   decimal places.

I know i used linear motion which isn't totally right. But couldnt work out climb into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, peter said:

Only when bullshit is concerned

As your so smart, maybe you could calculate the amount of G the crew felt in a climb. I await your answer. also not sure this forum is for you,maybe you would be more at home with spouting bile on facebook or twitter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...