A Chinese Rocket Is Wildly Careening Toward Earth This Weekend

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Yes, and yes. This thread and a few others like it are exactly the value that ATS brings to everyone. We can digest new incoming information, and present it in tangible forms for people to read. Even though some of the posts (like mine sometimes) can be out there, the raw information conversion for mass consumption is far beyond what anyone/anywhere else can match.

I hope the new owners see that.

Just to stay on topic, and prevent me from making a separate post:
I wonder how much of the original rocket piece survived re-entry?

a reply to: Guyfriday

Well, you're getting into my forte with that theory. For something as large as the rocket to launch a space station platform and then retain enough fuel to implement control literally boggles the mind. Without control, the chaotic nature of the atmosphere would make any attempt to hit a target an exercise in futility. I mean, look, I could always be wrong... have been many times... but being as this is the field I excelled in during my post-grad academic career, I simply don't see it being even remotely possible.

Typically, rocketry that is expected to return is launched with a specific trajectory that places it in the middle of an ocean, so being off by a thousand miles is no biggie. That's where China apparently messed up: they launched this thing with no consideration as to what would happen to the rocket after it was discarded. I'm actually a little shocked that they did so when the possibility of it impacting mainland China was very real.

The entire Indian Ocean in general is too small a target to expect it to hit. If it did go down there, it was a lucky break.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I did back up a full orbit, and then followed it around to the south. I posted that finding:

Here

After I backed up in the orbit, my coordinates would have put it down well south and east of the alleged splash point. I'm seeing a whole bunch of conflicting data which is going to take a while to sort out. Some of it is probably innocent enough (i.e. time zones, etc), but some of the other data is more concerning (i.e. zulu times showing different locations at the same time, etc.). I do know many of the prediction models were using modeled orbital paths without real-time data; they used a start time they viewed somewhere and an altitude and started their model from there. The models I was looking at were real-time.

Based on the alleged location of the splash site, there definitely is video, but it will take time to get that video through the wall of secrecy from where it was captured. The video itself is likely not sensitive, but the method of capture darn sure is. What I'm struggling to reconcile at the moment is, why the initial "official" splash location was almost identical to the actual splash location, but several orbits different (which isn't possible, due to the rotation of the Earth).

BTW, thank you for your observations about firewalled data, because that is indeed what I was looking at, and no, I could not list the sources (they would have been 404'd for others, and I would have been in trouble for giving them).

I will continue to look into this. It's a puzzle at the moment. I'm glad no one was injured, and there was apparently no land damage. However, the fact there were as many eyes on this core stage as there were is very telling. (not sure why yet, but that's part of the puzzle).

I'm not too surprised at all they didn't have a plan.
These are the same folks that sent one of these, or very similar, into a neighborhood a short ways away due to a botched launch. Not even a thought to a self destruct contingency it seems.
"Not my problem now.."a reply to: TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Generally, this is correct.

The major difference is, the de-orbit process is started long before the actual de-orbit sequence. So, there is time to orient the object which will de-orbit properly, as well as control the exact point, and angle, at which the vehicle re-enters the atmosphere. All of these factors are critical. This is one of the reasons the Apollo CM's were very small and shaped a certain way. This was also one of the major leaps forward in the Shuttle program.

With the Chinese core booster, it wasn't really supposed to attain orbit, but they didn't know (or care), and it did. Once in orbit, they had no means to orient it properly or control the descent from orbit (bad on them). Even if they had maneuvering thruster capability, the vehicle was so wildly out of control there would have been no way to correct it with all the outside influences acting upon it. So, it was like an out of control boomerang sailing through LEO.

The maddening thing about all of this is, there were numerous ways the Chinese could have prevented this. But because of their inferior technology they failed to do this. Most core boosters separate well before this one did, and the reason is they have an intermediate stage which lifts the vehicle so the core booster doesn't have to do it. This intermediate stage just burns up in the atmosphere. This booster had to take the vehicle all the way to orbit, so they couldn't risk detonating it for fear of harming the orbital vehicle (their space station assembly). Really bad plan, and just perfect evidence of their inferior technology and science.

I just watched the Canelo fight. Is this thing still up in the air!?

originally posted by: Chadwickus

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Mid-path at perigee on the previous orbit would be about 3,500 miles NE of Perth, AU. (Southern Ocean). Is that what you all are seeing?

That's about the best I got.

Did you mean SE of Perth?

Thanks for catching that! No, actually I meant NW of Perth, in the (southern) Indian Ocean. Sorry, I was typing fast. My bad.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Partly a lack of technology and partly a lack of safety sense I would suggest.

I burned more adrenaline during the three months that I spent in China than I burn in a decade here at home. Flying on their domestic airlines gives you stories to tell your grandchildren

a reply to: Guyfriday

Unlikely, if you look at the orbital path, it was very unstable. It also skipped at least once (possibly twice), hence the delay. This thing was all over the place, altitude wise. There was no precision in this re-entry at all. It just came down where it came down. Plus, hitting something as small as an aircraft carrier would be next to impossible with a non-aerodynamic vehicle which this was. Once it entered the atmosphere it was completely out of control...unlike the Space Shuttle (and to a lesser extent the Soyuz modules).

One of the most amazing things about Apollo that many people don't understand is how far away from the carriers some of the Apollo capsules actually splashed down. On the TV people got the impression they splashed down right next to the carriers, when in fact they were actually pretty far away, sometimes 100 miles or more.

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

Heh...been there, done that! Lived in that part of the world for several years!

Scary stuff, some of those old planes.

LOLOLOLOL!!!

Okay...everyone got their tinfoil conspiracy hats on?????

I just noticed, the splash site is just 400 nm due north of Diego Garcia!! (possibly even closer than that!)

I'm making nothing of this other than stating an apparent fact, but wow, what a coincidence!

In any case, for anyone wondering if there's video of this...you can bet your bottom dollar there absolutely IS!

LOLOL!!

Too funny!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Wow
That sure is some coincidence......

Nothing at all going on in that part of the world....

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

OK, I must have missed that. So you think it likely came down on the previous orbit North of Australia? Or am I misunderstanding you? The thread moved pretty fast and I was only able to catch it for short periods. Besides, I had very little to add; while I understand the mathematics involved, I did not have the data access you did and you are obviously more adept at this kind of analysis than I.

I don't expect there to be released video for quite some time (if at all; that's some pretty secretive technology we're discussing). I did expect to see official confirmation that the rocket "splashed down at coordinates xxx yyy in the xyz area on May 8th at hh:mm local/UTC time." We didn't get that; we got confusion. Perhaps you're right and the reports were looking at simulations and not real-time data, and some people couldn't understand that. But I feel it was pretty lax of NASA to not put out preliminary data quickly enough to dispel any such misinformation.

Thank you again for being our eyes behind the firewall; as shooterbrody said, this is what makes ATS great. I hope you will post your final information for us when you are able to make a final conclusion. I for one would like to know where this thing went plop, and I trust your insight more than I trust the official stories. Either can make mistakes, but at least I am certain any mistakes you might make are UNintentional.

TheRedneck

a reply to: shooterbrody

LOLOLOLOL!!

Yeah, nothing at all!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in their radar room.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Beware underestimating Chinese technology. They're actually ahead of us in many areas.

If anything, I would look toward China simply not caring. To them, the rest of the world is dishonorable and unimportant. That's why, in the early days of the Chinese virus, China stopped all domestic travel from Wuhan, but continued to allow international travel.

They simply do not care about anyone except themselves. Everyone else is just someone they can use to further China's ambitions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That's actually the reason for multi-stage rockets. The first stage just gets the rocket going up at sufficient velocity to exit the atmosphere, then drops off without ever achieving orbit. It's fairly straightforward establishing a trajectory for such a projectile, almost like shooting a gun. The next stage(s) are designed to separate into orbit, but also to burn up on re-entry. They can be made smaller and lighter because all the extreme force occurs in the first stage.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Okay, so a little explanation is required here...

The perigee orbits were all south, far south, below the equator. Everything north of the equator was climbing toward apogee. So, when I said my data wasn't computing, what I was meaning was the time stamp would have put the vehicle up near Spain headed toward N. Africa (and climbing). At the same time, people were saying it was down in near the Maldives, so I wanted to back up and track the orbit before it reached perigee which would have been NW of Perth, Australia while it was still headed SW (on a Mercader map, which is the map most orbits shown on). (Note: the map I was looking at was a 3-D map of the globe, with a real time orbit plot, and I was explaining things using a Mercader projection which most people would understand better).

Therefore, the only thing I could see as plausible would have been a splash somewhere NW of Perth, or on Australia itself (as the perigee ended before NZ, as the orbit was turning back NE).

Hopefully this makes sense.

So, as of this moment, I am still debating the Maldives location, but I don't have anything concrete to prove it wrong. In my opinion, it was too far north (and too high). Remember, the orbit is elliptical, and the vehicle would have been above 150 nm at that point (below 142 nm was de-orbit).

a reply to: TheRedneck

No argument here, generally. But I would say in this case it was inferior planning and engineering. Just an opinion here, I could be wrong. I do agree, they definitely don't care.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, exactly. That is the correct way to do it.

What the Chinese did was lazy at best, or poor engineering at worst.