From the article:

Spinning is defined as autorotation that develops after an asymmetrical or aggravated stall (a wing dropping during a stall)�"the downward moving wing has a higher angle of attack and more induced drag than the upward moving wing and therefore acquires a greater stalled condition.  Spinning involves simultaneous roll, yaw, and pitch as it develops a helical or corkscrew path nose down.  An incipient spin is the autorotation prior to a vertical descent path, while a fully developed spin begins once the vertical path is achieved

So, when power is lost to the RQ-170 Sentinel (IE, through the failure of its sole engine), the foward thrust is decreased to zero, while verical lift is reduced to near zero. This will result in a spin, because the RQ-170 is a bat-wing design flying wing, and thus lacks a fuselage. Due to autorotation the craft will spin around its center of gravity, rather than a fixed point. The center of gravity of the aircraft render it parallel to the horizon as it spun, and as this article states here, energy would be lost as it spun:

For a given moment of momentum H,  the highest energy state is spin about the ‘A’ axis (the blue line).  Let us suppose that we spin the body about axis ‘A’.  It is possible to envisage that as energy is lost within a spinning body (due to internal friction, say) then the trajectory will gradually ‘spiral’ around the surface of the ellipsoid, all the while conserving angular momentum H but losing energy T.

The opposing force of air resistance will also be acting upon the RQ-170 as it falls, further slowing the aircraft down as it approaches the ground, meaning it is very likely that it will be able to survive an impact in relatively good condition.

OK
But tell me, does it loses enough energy to prevent its major damage?
If some credible source, a physics proffessor or otherwise has said it then it holds some weight other wise, you are talking from your hand

Does it matter? Might makes right. You can learn your place in the world and be content, or watch your country burn after you dared to raise your voice against the most powerful nation in the entire history of man kind.

Yes legal opinion does matter, we are not in 1400, we are  in 21st century.
As for the rest, others have answered you better

please explain, i dont know what your talking about, you keep posting things you think to be true while not really saying were they came from.

I am talking about this and this

keep laughing, it good for the health.

Thanks for watching for me.

Last time I checked, Russia was at least as powerful back then. Another proof you are just a kid who watched to many tv-shows. And before you use superman as proof of your superiority, then I will highlight you for the reality and tell you he isn't real.

I assume you mean the USSR? Yeah, obviously. But around the mid-80s and since the fall of the USSR Russia lost its designation as a true superpower. In today's modern world, Russia lacks the ability to project its power outside of its immediate region (Eastern Europe and Northern Asia). Having an incredibly large army means nothing if you can't get it where you need it. Having a singly STOBAR (Short Take Off and Barrier Arrested Recovery) carrier (The Tbilisi, I believe) doesnt help in that you can only launch fairly light aircraft from it. Then theres he supply lines to maintain said force, which become larger, longer, and more vulnerable the more troops are deployed, the further away they are deployed, and the longer they are deployed. Russia's greatest problem is logistics.

you couldn't even fight people from Vietnam who is halve the size of an average american. You had even superior weapons and yet your super USA lose to them.

50000 American Dead for 1000000 Viet Cong dead is hardly a failure militarily. The US failed because it was unable to maintain a high enough support for the war and allowed politicians to dictate to generals, as opposed to letting the generals do their job. Vietnam was a loss, but not because of military defeat.

On a side note, the greatest issue with Democracy is that Public Support for a war is a finite resource; totalitarian governments don't really have that problem.

Just another proof how weak USA are. Even with such superior weapons you cant even defeat some guerrilla fighters

The terrorists couldn't stop the US Liberation, can't kick the US out, can't kick out the Democratic Governments elected by the people, can't protect their leaders *cough*BinLaden*cough* and get two in the chest and one in the head when they walk out the door, that is, if the CIA Drone Strikes don't get to them first. Despite my coolness towards him, I'll paraphrase GW in saying mission accomplished.

coming from a kid

Lol, do you even know how old I am?

Beside your insane fellow americans with guns. you cant even go to a movie in peace or to school for that matter. USA is a richer version of Afghanistan. At least in Afghanistan it not allowed for civilians to have guns. Even a war torn country like Afghanistan is better then USA.

Don't you wish?

the biggest over spenders are gone aswell.
you people still have more import then export. stop spending money that you did not earn.

Who, then, would you export to? Read up a bit on globalization, not the poor state of the world economy, and then note that the US is 24% of the WORLD GDP. You're a fool if you think the sudden collapse of the US won't bringdown the rest of the world.

whit all the money that we do not have to spend on usa anymore we can build greenhouses in said countries. give them work, money and food.

What are you talking about?

Lack of any centralized government means the greenhouses are never built. Everyone starves and dies. Thank you for playing. Please insert one token to try again.

who said we need you? we are experts of it comes to water. most water projects are done by a dutch companies because we are the experts.

Again, what are you talking about? Water projects could mean anything in the terms you described it in.

The US Navy is responsible for keeping world-wide trade routes open. No USN means no open routes, which mean trade stalls and dies out. Everybody becomes economically inviable due to an inability to exchange resources, starves, and dies. Thank you for playing. Please insert one token to try again.

a real american ignores all thats outside his own nation

No true Scotsman fallacy.

The fact that I'm posting in a thread about an international issue... But nice try though, not.

But tell me, does it loses enough energy to prevent its major damage?
If some credible source, a physics proffessor or otherwise has said it then it holds some weight other wise, you are talking from your hand

I know you didn't read the article because in big letters on the top of the page, it tells you who the author is: Hugh Hunt, from the prestigious Cambridge University. The human hand can't actually talk. Will you take my word for it, or do I need to find a doctor to prove it to you?

So the article explains how it survived impact. And yes, it did survive impact. And you why? Because id it had been utterly destroyed in a crash, there wouldn't be enough left for Iran to fuss about. So that Iran is talking about it would imply that it survived in good enough condition to make it worth recovering. And common sense strikes again!

Yes legal opinion does matter, we are not in 1400, we are  in 21st century.

No they don't because there is no court of law on the face of the earth that can actually enforce its opinions. Which is where "might makes right" comes into our play: we have our facts, and we have the force to back it up. Or as Andrew Jackson said: "Marshall has made his descision, now let him enforce it."

As for the rest, others have answered you better

No matter. I'm perfectly content to spread the mastication around. :D

I know you didn't read the article because in big letters on the top of the page, it tells you who the author is: Hugh Hunt, from the prestigious Cambridge University.

It explains the phenomenon.
What I am asking about is a theory or soime thing relating to the drone presented by some reputed expert based on this principle.

So the article explains how it survived impact

No, the article does not explain it.

No they don't because there is no court of law on the face of the earth that can actually enforce its opinions. Which is where "might makes right" comes into our play: we have our facts, and we have the force to back it up. Or as Andrew Jackson said: "Marshall has made his descision, now let him enforce it."

But your allies can back out of it.

So the article explains how it survived impact. And yes, it did survive impact. And you why? Because id it had been utterly destroyed in a crash, there wouldn't be enough left for Iran to fuss about. So that Iran is talking about it would imply that it survived in good enough condition to make it worth recovering. And common sense strikes again!

?Yes, common sense strikes and says it was hacked.

It explains the phenomenon.
What I am asking about is a theory or soime thing relating to the drone presented by some reputed expert based on this principle.

And the phenomenon applies to the drone. I don't see what the issue.

He's a physics professor, which is what you asked for after I gave it to you. Unfortunately, there is no field of falling-drone-ology, so if you won't accept a physics lesson from a Cambridge Professor, you won't be satisfied with any source given.

[quoteNo, the article does not explain it.

To use your own words from your previous sentence: The article explains the phenomenon. The phenomenon applies to the drone. Quod Erat Demonstradum.

But your allies can back out of it.

So what? Allies are great, but not necessary. The fact that much of these allies gt a lot of support from the US means the allies really need the US.

?Yes, common sense strikes and says it was hacked.

Do you have a well known, documented, unbiased, undeniable and inartuable source that says so beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Who, then, would you export to?

what about the rest of the world?
i never said it wont have a inpact but we will get over it. i'll be happy to get a financial slap in return for that. (btw i know enoufg anout global economics don't be afraid of that)

Lack of any centralized government means the greenhouses are never built. Everyone starves and dies. Thank you for playing. Please insert one token to try again.

they are already building them on small scale.
this just shows your lack of knowles.

The US Navy is responsible for keeping world-wide trade routes open.

simply not true. your just telling lies here.

No USN means no open routes, which mean trade stalls and dies out.

more lies

Everybody becomes economically inviable due to an inability to exchange resources, starves, and dies. Thank you for playing. Please insert one token to try again.

stop the lies plz.
or beter. get some knowles

The fact that I'm posting in a thread about an international issue...

only spewing your "oww america is so great and better then anyone els" BS
why o why would people hate people like this? arrogant, close minded and nationalistic are your hints.

And the phenomenon applies to the drone. I don't see what the issue.

He's a physics professor, which is what you asked for after I gave it to you. Unfortunately, there is no field of falling-drone-ology, so if you won't accept a physics lesson from a Cambridge Professor, you won't be satisfied with any source given.
To use your own words from your previous sentence: The article explains the phenomenon. The phenomenon applies to the drone. Quod Erat Demonstradum.

What I am asking is that if any Reputed expert presented this theory about this drone landing? If not, cigarette.(Cigar will cause you mouth cancer)
Iranian Engineers say so.

So what? Allies are great, but not necessary. The fact that much of these allies gt a lot of support from the US means the allies really need the US.

Tell me again hoe enthiusiastic EU nations are about current war?

hoe

I meant how

EnigmaX, entertaining as your nationalistic rhetoric might be, partydevil is right. The EU is perfectly capable of monitoring their own sea lanes. The fundamental flaw in your argument lies in the assumption that America's status derives from the capabilities of our armed forces simply isn't true. Furthermore, America cannot operate independently. Our nation's growth relies on the support of many other parts of the world. There is, of course, a flip side.

During the Cold War, the term 'Mutually Assured Destruction' rose to prominence, based on the principle that any launch of nuclear warheads could be anticipated enough to perform a counter-launch and ensuring nuclear holocaust. This principle was and still continues to be one of the main deterrents of international nuclear war. But the term can apply to more than nuclear threats.

It's common knowledge that America is deeply indebted to China. However, China won't come to collect. The reason for this stems from an economic phenomenon known as 'Interdependent Trading Relationships'. Essentially, due to intense participation in the free market by both America and China and expansive trading that developed as a result, the economic ruin of America--and China collecting their debt would ruin for America--would also cause the economic ruin of China. This is primarily because China would lose it's primary consumer, and should America attack China, America would lose it's primary supplier.

Interdependent trading relationships aren't solely restricted to China and the USA however. Most first world countries are connected through trade. In fact, should economic disaster occur in one of the three largest trading blocs (NAFTA, the EU, or China), the other two will almost certainly face economic disaster. This is most apparent  in the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, in which a collapse in the American real estate market directly resulted in a worldwide economic crisis. We are all so heavily invested in each other that the loss of one of us would be devastating for the others.

Partydevil, I'm glad you know enough about Global Economics. Everyone should. However, I'm surprised that someone with a basis in economic studies, especially in macroeconomics, would make the assumptions that:

a) Import/Export ratios are an indicator of a country's economic value.
-----This is an understandable assumption when looking at values and costs as relating purely to physical objects. However, much of America's value comes from the export of ideas and investments, especially since the dot-com boom. Most of the worlds top corporations that provide you with computers, software and many other goods are based in America, and they mostly manufacture research and ideas.

And

b) That the loss of one of the worlds largest trading blocs (NAFTA) would constitute a 'slap'. It'd be more like a brutal mugging and the ensuing hospitalization (EnigmaX, this holds true for us with the loss of the EU-- and if we attacked the Netherlands we would lose the support of the EU). That is not the kind of thing you can easily recover from.

Partydevil--I would highly recommend taking a look at Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell if you have the time, which is a book commonly used by universities for non-economics majors. Although in sections there is a capitalist/American slant (as Sowell is American), the book mostly covers basic economic principles that exist regardless of personal beliefs or bias.

EnigmaX--What you're saying sounds very Orson Scott Card-ian. Do you read many of his books? If not, take a look at Empire, or and of the Shadow of the Hegemon books. They relate very well to what you're saying

what about the rest of the world?
i never said it wont have a inpact but we will get over it. i'll be happy to get a financial slap in return for that. (btw i know enoufg anout global economics don't be afraid of that)

When Rome fell it plunged Europe in a thousand year dark age. Now throw in globalism, and you're cooking up a sh*t storm.

The problem is that the world economy is too dependent upon the US for trade. China and India are heavily dependent upon the US for trade. The removal of the US from this trade triangle will will quickly bring down these two nations because other trade parterners won't be able to make up the difference. And so in very short order the world's three largest economies are gone. KO blow to the world.

No one will survive; the world is too economically entwined to survive losing a fourth of its economy. Why do you think austerity protests in Greece affect the Nasdaq, and miner revolts in South Africa affect the Nikei Index? Because of globalization! The US isn't just some other insignificant nation! The world is dependent upon the US for everything! If we fall, you're coming down with us.

they are already building them on small scale

Key words being "centralized government." This just shows your lack of reading ability.

stop the lies plz

The next time you call someone a liar, you might actually want to show some proof that said individual is actually a liar.

Because when they prove you wrong, you only look like an arse:

Navy League of the United States

THE ROLE OF THE U.S. NAVY IN SUPPORTrnOF THE NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR MARITIME SECURITYrnbyrnCommander Peter J. Winter, United States Navy

Admiral Mahan and the United States Navy

Well, this is awkward. Because the above shows, bot in the past and now, that the US Navy is important in protecting the nation's trade, and ultimately, trade accross the world.

or beter. get some knowles

I'll do that right when you learn to spell "better" and "knowledge." :)

only spewing your "oww america is so great and better then anyone els" BS

Silly me! Uganda is clearly the greatest nation on Earth! How could I be sooooooo naive?

cigarette.(Cigar will cause you mouth cancer

How is this relative, exactly? And since quoting the employee of a state, heres what the US said happened to their drone: crash! And whats more, US Officials say the Iranians painted the drone and concealed the bottom of it with curtains when they revealed it to hide damage sustained when it crashed! ZOMG!

Tell me again hoe enthiusiastic EU nations are about current war?

Because the opinions of the EU totally affect US National Security. -_-"

Given that the vast majority of the equipment and men in Afghanistan are US, and that the US Military could easily make up the difference by keeping more units in country, the opinions of the EU aren't worth a dime (minute measure of American currency. Or do you want a source to prove common knowledge to you?).

I agree with you entirely Hojoko, except on one point: The USN *does* keep world trade lanes open because it keeps its own trade lanes open. He US trades with a vast number of states, and so the converse is that, through their trading with the US, all trade lanes are kept open.

For example, suppose that the US imports cars from Country A. Because the US needs these cars, and so it ensures it can always trade with Country A. Now, in order to make these cars, Country A imports iron from Country B. country A needs this iron to make cars; without it, they cannot make cars. The US does not directly trade with Country B, but meeps the trade lanes between Country A and B open because, without this trade occuring, the US will not be able to get cars from Country A. Thus everyone benefits.

And I highlight the US' military power because it is this power that allows it to keep everything else. Without the ability to defend itself, the other things that made America great would not long exist.