Not everything loud is a sonic boom, can you please post a video of an aircraft creating a sonic boom when decelerating from supersonic?
I tried posting a link but it said it was spam of hearing the sonic booms made by the booster rockets landing please google sites exosnews Falcon Heavy launch blog.
Agreed, depending on the distance you are can make a difference to the number of shockwaves you hear, most hear just 2 normally from the leading and trailing edges pressure changes of the aircraft or rocket. but there can be more depending on the aerodynamic shape, over distances these can combine, as in a Falcon 9 booster landing you have to be close by to hear 3. you hear two very close together then a slightly longer gap to the 3rd.
You miss the point deceleration from transonic to subsonic creates no sonic boom, this is why there are no videos. So landing rockets produce no sonic boom. If I am wrong you or someone else can produce a video
The question here however is does deceleration from trans to subsonic create a momentary vapor cone and boom.
Not sure of your point? When the Falcon boosters just before they land they are still flying at a supersonic speed not that high before landing. why did you not search for my video?
Yes the second one has the landings. I also suggest you watch some YouTube videos on how Sonic booms work.
No vapor cone is required for a sonic boom, I will try a link to a youtube video that will help
Hi again, The moderator pointed out I can post links just not to mine. So here is the same from another source of the sonic booms
I did watch your ten mile away video. The point is that when the rockets fire just before landing that the sound that you heard, is not a sonic boom, it is the rockets firing.
The boosters are going supersonic as they fall down back through the atmosphere. They do slow down quite a bit before the final burn but not that much. So the sonic boom from when they come back through the speed barrier is not that much faster then the boosters themselves and arrives not long before.
I am not impressed with these landing boosters because they are a fraud as it cost as much or more to recondition a used booster than to build a new one. The entire thing needs to be x rayed for stress fractures, then tested or do they skip that? They portrayed the space shuttle as reuseable too but the engines took a year or so to recondition and as NASA found out reusing stuff is 100% fatal. Space x will learn the same lesson as no starships are being reconditioned after destroying themselves and the FAA will not certify them for human flight until they stop exploding. It's a sham to hide the element 115 projects
No vapor cone is required for a sonic boom, I will try a link to a youtube video that will help
Is it real if it is on youtube. I would prefer an air force or NASA link
You do not need to be impressed, the money does the talking. Also NASA now prefer to use a flight proven falcon 9 booster to launch its astronauts to the ISS. SpaceX have achieved what most thought impossible. Boeing got paid around twice as much to launch to the ISS that if the current Starliner test that another test may be required there are no more Atlas 5 rockets left to complete their contract for NASA. also ULA's Vulcan rocket or Blue Origin's New Glenn has human rating yet an lest not for some time. Maybe according to your prospective the USA will need to rely on Russia to get to the ISS again?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram