The only surprise here is that it took this thread so long to show up.
The only surprise here is that it took this thread so long to show up.
I was surprised too. Can someone phone flatorange to make sure he's ok?
Seriously though, they are really take the **** now. I can't wait to see what they "achieve" next. A live feed from inside a black hole? Time travel? We live in an exciting time.
The only surprise here is that it took this thread so long to show up.
I was surprised too. Can someone phone flatorange to make sure he's ok?
Seriously though, they are really take the **** now. I can't wait to see what they "achieve" next. A live feed from inside a black hole? Time travel? We live in an exciting time.
Argument from personal credulity -and- a variant on the slippery slope fallacy. Well played sir. Taking fallacious criticism to a whole new level.
The only surprise here is that it took this thread so long to show up.
I was surprised too. Can someone phone flatorange to make sure he's ok?
Seriously though, they are really taking the **** now. I can't wait to see what they "achieve" next. A live feed from inside a black hole? Time travel? We live in an exciting time.
Thank you for your concern! It means a lot :-) I'm glad you made the threadThe only surprise here is that it took this thread so long to show up.
I was surprised too. Can someone phone flatorange to make sure he's ok?
Seriously though, they are really taking the **** now. I can't wait to see what they "achieve" next. A live feed from inside a black hole? Time travel? We live in an exciting time.
Who could have guessed that they would now go and land on a comet, ten years after launching a public mission to land on a comet
Maybe next they will have a spectacular failure, unless someone involved has a funny name, then that would have to be fake too
If bigfoot's whereabouts had been conclusively confirmed by several independent researchers half a century ago I'd expect that someone might be able to find their way to that location, yes.Who could have guessed that they would now go and land on a comet, ten years after launching a public mission to land on a comet
Maybe next they will have a spectacular failure, unless someone involved has a funny name, then that would have to be fake too
I see. So if a team goes on a mission to find Bigfoot, or a Yeti, or the Loch Ness Monster, you would expect them to succeed because they said that is what they are going to do? Righto.
Thank you for your concern! It means a lot :-) I'm glad you made the threadThe only surprise here is that it took this thread so long to show up.
I was surprised too. Can someone phone flatorange to make sure he's ok?
Seriously though, they are really taking the **** now. I can't wait to see what they "achieve" next. A live feed from inside a black hole? Time travel? We live in an exciting time.
We landed on a comet it's not that crazy. Like the moon and mars only much smaller so the math had to be much more precise.
Argument from personal credulity -and- a variant on the slippery slope fallacy. Well played sir. Taking fallacious criticism to a whole new level.
Perhaps you would like to correct my alleged logical fallacies, Rama?
In before flatorange:
What a complete load of nonsense!
Hilarious video outlining The Plan:
You are free to believe this insanity, but you might end up like this sad loser:
I can't wait to see what they "achieve" next. A live feed from inside a black hole? Time travel? We live in an exciting time.
Argument from personal credulity -and- a variant on the slippery slope fallacy. Well played sir. Taking fallacious criticism to a whole new level.
Perhaps you would like to correct my alleged logical fallacies, Rama?
Sure! Your criticism of the videos amounted to:In before flatorange:
What a complete load of nonsense!
Hilarious video outlining The Plan:
You are free to believe this insanity, but you might end up like this sad loser:
This is all argument from personal credulity. All you have put forward is that it is wrong because you think it is nonsense. Your argument can be discarded as fallacious based on this.
The variant on the slippery slope fallacy is:I can't wait to see what they "achieve" next. A live feed from inside a black hole? Time travel? We live in an exciting time.
Now that I took a second look, this would be more properly classified as reductio ad absurdum.
So, if I were you, I would start by basing an argument on the why and how you think this video is absurd. Refer to established physical principles; published, qualified analysis and logical premises to make your argument.
I hope this was helpful.
1a. I'm not making a formal argument.
1b. I don't have any reliable information to form any premises.
1c. I cannot justify a conclusion due to 1b.
1a. I'm not making a formal argument.
But an argument nonetheless. A fallacious one at that.Quote1b. I don't have any reliable information to form any premises.
I would suggest that this is a cognitive issue of your own and nothing to do with the sources you are or are not consulting. That being said, you could have easily pointed out why the sources you cited were unreliable.Quote1c. I cannot justify a conclusion due to 1b.
Yet you drew one, so what does that tell us about you?
So on what basis did you conclude that the videos were a complete load of nonsense?
The only surprise here is that it took this thread so long to show up.
I was surprised too. Can someone phone flatorange to make sure he's ok?
Seriously though, they are really taking the **** now. I can't wait to see what they "achieve" next. A live feed from inside a black hole? Time travel? We live in an exciting time.
In before flatorange:Hahahaha, nice one, legion. I'm speechless. Well to be honest, I'm still laughing. That bozo in video 1 starts to laugh because he knows just how frigging stupid this all is.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/12/rosetta-mission-philae-historic-landing-comet (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/12/rosetta-mission-philae-historic-landing-comet)
(http://)
What a complete load of nonsense!
Hilarious video outlining The Plan:
(http://)
You are free to believe this insanity, but you might end up like this sad loser:
(http://)
How in the hell can a witness become credible against the system?The only surprise here is that it took this thread so long to show up.
I was surprised too. Can someone phone flatorange to make sure he's ok?
Seriously though, they are really taking the **** now. I can't wait to see what they "achieve" next. A live feed from inside a black hole? Time travel? We live in an exciting time.
I mean, that's what I don't get about you. Don't get me wrong, I do respect you in certain ways .. but why do you default to a glass half empty on the trust thing. I for one reserve judgement on the plausibility of space travel and all that noise because I've never actually BEEN there, but there's a lot of supporting evidence outweighing the fakes. Far too large an outfit for a conspiracy in my books. Enough time has elapsed for whistleblowers. (I know some would say there have been, but they've never really been credible from what I've seen). It's the conspiracy that I find a little too far fetched, not space travel.
Scepticism is good, and healthy. Too much isn't in my opinion.
How in the hell can a witness become credible against the system?
Any witness won't get the chance. And anyone getting any air time by any means will be labelled a fruit loop. Are you saying you can't see this happening?
How about they explain how they managed to get a craft to reach 35,000 mph to catch this comet, first of all. Any news on how they did this?How in the hell can a witness become credible against the system?
Any witness won't get the chance. And anyone getting any air time by any means will be labelled a fruit loop. Are you saying you can't see this happening?
On their own, sure they'd be called nutty. A mole could collect information, release it to the public. I mean, the script to the moon landing would be a good start. Of course if you just get on a soap box and proclaim things you'll be called a loud idiot. You need evidence to back up your claims. "body language" doesn't cut it. It's a start I suppose, but need something more concrete.
So on what basis did you conclude that the videos were a complete load of nonsense?
Intuition and the implausibility of the whole thing. I've already admitted that I can form no logical argument to prove or disprove the tale. After your attacks on my logical fallacies, I sure hope you can prove your case...
How about they explain how they managed to get a craft to reach 35,000 mph to catch this comet, first of all. Any news on how they did this?How in the hell can a witness become credible against the system?
Any witness won't get the chance. And anyone getting any air time by any means will be labelled a fruit loop. Are you saying you can't see this happening?
On their own, sure they'd be called nutty. A mole could collect information, release it to the public. I mean, the script to the moon landing would be a good start. Of course if you just get on a soap box and proclaim things you'll be called a loud idiot. You need evidence to back up your claims. "body language" doesn't cut it. It's a start I suppose, but need something more concrete.
Thank you for your concern! It means a lot :-) I'm glad you made the threadThe only surprise here is that it took this thread so long to show up.
I was surprised too. Can someone phone flatorange to make sure he's ok?
Seriously though, they are really taking the **** now. I can't wait to see what they "achieve" next. A live feed from inside a black hole? Time travel? We live in an exciting time.
We landed on a comet it's not that crazy. Like the moon and mars only much smaller so the math had to be much more precise.
Glad to see you are well, flatorange. Do you have any information about the maths involved for this operation? I'm accused of suffering from personal incredulity, so getting the facts might cure me!
So tell me then.So on what basis did you conclude that the videos were a complete load of nonsense?
Intuition and the implausibility of the whole thing. I've already admitted that I can form no logical argument to prove or disprove the tale. After your attacks on my logical fallacies, I sure hope you can prove your case...
Both of which are completely useless and unpersuasive.
I made no claim to prove. But, if I were to present a case I would probably use papers published by the ESA; videos and photos from the spacecraft; etc...How about they explain how they managed to get a craft to reach 35,000 mph to catch this comet, first of all. Any news on how they did this?How in the hell can a witness become credible against the system?
Any witness won't get the chance. And anyone getting any air time by any means will be labelled a fruit loop. Are you saying you can't see this happening?
On their own, sure they'd be called nutty. A mole could collect information, release it to the public. I mean, the script to the moon landing would be a good start. Of course if you just get on a soap box and proclaim things you'll be called a loud idiot. You need evidence to back up your claims. "body language" doesn't cut it. It's a start I suppose, but need something more concrete.
The same way all things increase their velocity: acceleration. This is remarkably easy in the absence of friction and in a weak gravitational field.
I'll tell you scepti. It is magic :oExcellent answer, hoppy. ;D
So tell me then.So on what basis did you conclude that the videos were a complete load of nonsense?
Intuition and the implausibility of the whole thing. I've already admitted that I can form no logical argument to prove or disprove the tale. After your attacks on my logical fallacies, I sure hope you can prove your case...
Both of which are completely useless and unpersuasive.
I made no claim to prove. But, if I were to present a case I would probably use papers published by the ESA; videos and photos from the spacecraft; etc...How about they explain how they managed to get a craft to reach 35,000 mph to catch this comet, first of all. Any news on how they did this?How in the hell can a witness become credible against the system?
Any witness won't get the chance. And anyone getting any air time by any means will be labelled a fruit loop. Are you saying you can't see this happening?
On their own, sure they'd be called nutty. A mole could collect information, release it to the public. I mean, the script to the moon landing would be a good start. Of course if you just get on a soap box and proclaim things you'll be called a loud idiot. You need evidence to back up your claims. "body language" doesn't cut it. It's a start I suppose, but need something more concrete.
The same way all things increase their velocity: acceleration. This is remarkably easy in the absence of friction and in a weak gravitational field.
I haven't read up on this comet, so if you're game, I'll interrogate you. If not, I'll wait until someone has the info. You see, it makes me vomit and hurts my eyes to have to look at the explanations given out for this stuff in large amounts, so I'll get snippets by asking questions.So tell me then.So on what basis did you conclude that the videos were a complete load of nonsense?
Intuition and the implausibility of the whole thing. I've already admitted that I can form no logical argument to prove or disprove the tale. After your attacks on my logical fallacies, I sure hope you can prove your case...
Both of which are completely useless and unpersuasive.
I made no claim to prove. But, if I were to present a case I would probably use papers published by the ESA; videos and photos from the spacecraft; etc...How about they explain how they managed to get a craft to reach 35,000 mph to catch this comet, first of all. Any news on how they did this?How in the hell can a witness become credible against the system?
Any witness won't get the chance. And anyone getting any air time by any means will be labelled a fruit loop. Are you saying you can't see this happening?
On their own, sure they'd be called nutty. A mole could collect information, release it to the public. I mean, the script to the moon landing would be a good start. Of course if you just get on a soap box and proclaim things you'll be called a loud idiot. You need evidence to back up your claims. "body language" doesn't cut it. It's a start I suppose, but need something more concrete.
The same way all things increase their velocity: acceleration. This is remarkably easy in the absence of friction and in a weak gravitational field.
I already told you: they accelerated the spacecraft. What are you not understanding?
I haven't read up on this comet, so if you're game, I'll interrogate you. If not, I'll wait until someone has the info. You see, it makes me vomit and hurts my eyes to have to look at the explanations given out for this stuff in large amounts, so I'll get snippets by asking questions.
Ok, how far away was this comet when this little beast landed on it?
The answer is roughly 30 light minutes.Ok, so going by mainstream science's ways...am I correct is saying that this supposed comet is landed upon by this contraption, 334,800,000 miles away from Earth?
That seems like a very fair assumption. I agree with that.
credibility.
it is what most spaceman/spaced-out-men debates essentially rely upon.
why and how is credit is measured and given can only be determined by the individual that is being asked to acknowledge the claim/s made by the credit seeking source.
if a rag clad vagrant were to claim he/she was the owner of a Lamborghini, it would seem prudent to view said claim as unlikely to be true.
sure, it could be possible. recently inherited and in probate. won in a competition and in process of being sold. of such sentimental value that rough-sleeping and refuse eating is preferable to disposal for currency.
however, when year upon year said vagrant, still rag-clad and starved looking, makes further claims of gulfstream jet ownership, supermodel intimacy, and other such far-fetched claims, the chances are he is lying.
quoting the private plate of the lambo, or the airfield that hangars the jet, or the proclivities of miss delavigne, will do nothing to substantiate his/her nonsense.
the credibility of the space industry can also only be given subjectively, but for me the ranting, piss soaked tramp really needs to be hosteled, deloused, and found some beneficial activity, to remove the disturbance it creates.
if a rag clad vagrant were to claim he/she was the owner of a Lamborghini, it would seem prudent to view said claim as unlikely to be true.
...
quoting the private plate of the lambo, or the airfield that hangars the jet, or the proclivities of miss delavigne, will do nothing to substantiate his/her nonsense.
I agree. I say, let us all see the spaceships and examine them physically and that way we can all be sure on what we are dealing with.Quoteif a rag clad vagrant were to claim he/she was the owner of a Lamborghini, it would seem prudent to view said claim as unlikely to be true.
...
quoting the private plate of the lambo, or the airfield that hangars the jet, or the proclivities of miss delavigne, will do nothing to substantiate his/her nonsense.
That's why you would want the hobo to show you this car of his. It's not an unreasonable request. People question NASA.. well they have the equipment, the capability. Seems more than plausible. People say conspiracy, I say show me the car!
I agree. I say, let us all see the spaceships and examine them physically and that way we can all be sure on what we are dealing with.There are a number of spacecraft on display that you can go and see. You can also watch the launches. Physically examine prior to launch? No way. Using the car analogy, that would be like inviting every fruit loop on the internet to poke at the engine and brakes of a billion $ race car just before start; not going to happen for very good reasons.
What's the chances?
I'd say about the same as the vagrant getting you the log book for his supercar and private jet.
To people without sufficient understanding, I suppose it is magic.I'll tell you scepti. It is magic :oExcellent answer, hoppy. ;D
1) Do we all at least agree that it would be much easier to fake this to the public than to actually go out and do it? Just because you fire a rocket into the atmosphere doesn't mean it is being sent long distances.No. If we're talking about a handful of people, maybe. This is a huge institution, existing for a long time. In an outfit like that, it would be -very- difficult to keep the conspiracy in line. Possible? Maybe. Likely? No. Plus the countless enthusiasts who have verified their findings.
2) If NASA was involved in this type of conspiracy they would most likely ensure that no loose ends were exposed.Assuming conspiracy, I'm sure it would try.
Is there something you can show those people that would help them believe that this isn't all nothing more than somewhat easily produced fake video footage?Every shred of evidence in favour of NASA/Space travel being legit is automatically shot down as fake. Yet, over in the "excursion to the antarctica" thread Pongo says:
All pics from high altitude balloons I've seen show a flat earth. It's some of our strongest photographic evidence.You can't have it both ways. You'll be glad to know the urge to find the edge of the earth is so strong, the fund is currently at... $1,300/$4,000,000.. which hasn't budged in close to a year.
i.e. the non-skeptics..."Based on what we the public see, you have to at least acknowledge the possibility that this is fake.. and what would you show to or tell a skeptic that you think could strengthen the validity of these space missions?First, we're all sceptic. I for one do have a small part of me that does reserve judgement on things I can't verify first hand. Space travel, Evolution, etc.
Lets start with what we can agree on and then we can try to ascertain what it is we would like from the opposing argument.
These are just my thoughts off the top of my head:
1) Do we all at least agree that it would be much easier to fake this to the public than to actually go out and do it? Just because you fire a rocket into the atmosphere doesn't mean it is being sent long distances.
2) If NASA was involved in this type of conspiracy they would most likely ensure that no loose ends were exposed.
If I could question NASA (or whichever organization did this), I would tell them that they no doubt know of a growing group of people who believe space travel to be a conspiracy. Is there something you can show those people that would help them believe that this isn't all nothing more than somewhat easily produced fake video footage?
Now since we obviously can't question them here, at least we can ask the people who represent them.. so I put the question to you, i.e. the non-skeptics..."Based on what we the public see, you have to at least acknowledge the possibility that this is fake.. and what would you show to or tell a skeptic that you think could strengthen the validity of these space missions?
These are just my thoughts if anyone is interested in engaging them.
No, it's not science and engineering at all. It's downright blatant lies with a bunch of willing well paid crap actors of the Z list category, happily taking part in spinning a yarn, because, well,it's just a yarn...no one gets hurt, do they?To people without sufficient understanding, I suppose it is magic.I'll tell you scepti. It is magic :oExcellent answer, hoppy. ;D
To people who make an effort to understand, it is science and engineering.
And people like you will always find a way to simply believe anything you're told, as long as it's told by those you hero worship.Lets start with what we can agree on and then we can try to ascertain what it is we would like from the opposing argument.
These are just my thoughts off the top of my head:
1) Do we all at least agree that it would be much easier to fake this to the public than to actually go out and do it? Just because you fire a rocket into the atmosphere doesn't mean it is being sent long distances.
2) If NASA was involved in this type of conspiracy they would most likely ensure that no loose ends were exposed.
If I could question NASA (or whichever organization did this), I would tell them that they no doubt know of a growing group of people who believe space travel to be a conspiracy. Is there something you can show those people that would help them believe that this isn't all nothing more than somewhat easily produced fake video footage?
Now since we obviously can't question them here, at least we can ask the people who represent them.. so I put the question to you, i.e. the non-skeptics..."Based on what we the public see, you have to at least acknowledge the possibility that this is fake.. and what would you show to or tell a skeptic that you think could strengthen the validity of these space missions?
These are just my thoughts if anyone is interested in engaging them.
I am not sure how easy it would be to fake this. Understand that there will be thousands of photos, video footage and sensor telemetry from this. Not to mention all the documentation must be scientifically rigorous and is often published. It might be easier in the short term to fake but I am not sure how I personally could gauge that. In the long term: no way. The constant spinning plate act of making sure anyone whose name is attached to this never divulges the cover up becomes increasingly difficult as time goes on.
In regards to the evidence NASA could provide it is already out there. Look through a telescope and you can see the ISS in pretty good detail. There are millions of photos and thousands of hours of video. There are moon rocks. There is independent reception of radio signals from the Apollo 11 mission. It goes on and on. Conspiracy subscribers will always find a way to disbelieve the truth.
How in the hell can a witness become credible against the system?
Any witness won't get the chance. And anyone getting any air time by any means will be labelled a fruit loop. Are you saying you can't see this happening?
Blah..blah...blah..No, it's not science and engineering at all. It's downright blatant lies with a bunch of willing well paid crap actors of the Z list category, happily taking part in spinning a yarn, because, well,it's just a yarn...no one gets hurt, do they?To people without sufficient understanding, I suppose it is magic.I'll tell you scepti. It is magic :oExcellent answer, hoppy. ;D
To people who make an effort to understand, it is science and engineering.
Correct. Nobody gets hurt, except in the pocket and if the truth ever came out....in their trusting mind.
How in the hell any rational person can take this serious will remain a mystery to me. But having said that, I suppose the brightest memory gymnasts hang onto star trek/ star wars series as if it was real, so what the hell, eh?....let this be real as well. ::)
Legion, do you believe that cars, computers and airplanes actually exist?
If yes, you are the most indoctrinated and brainwashed cretin in the world.
If no, you are a real truth seeker that relies on logic and common sense.
How in the hell any rational person can take this serious will remain a mystery to me.
It wouldn't need to be if people would stop lying their arses off.
How in the hell any rational person can take this serious will remain a mystery to me.
LOL..... I'm guessing everything is a "mystery" to you sceptimatic.
It wouldn't need to be if people would stop lying their arses off.
So explain what people working on the project are doing.
why no posts of the incredible, fantastic photos i glimpsed earlier today of the 'probe' (when did this morph from being a space alien bumhole invasion device term, into a space turd attaching device term?) both just before, and after, its glorious (hallelujah) landing on its catchy named new perch?
perhaps those who are not duped are still laughing, while the believers celebrate effusively (but no more effusively than frumpy stereotype defying ESA sci-matron, its just not possible to emulate such.......behaviour?), or lay prostate before their televisions just trying to comprehend the unbelievable achievement they believe regardless.
i cannot decide which should be first, in the interest of comedic value, on the bill.
in-bound photo of 'lander' looking like the first piece of a decoupage upon an ink black void.
the hysterical theatrics of matronly-aunt-rocket-scientist just going way off the reservation, with ironically no reservations.
or the protracted, dead-pan dialogue describing the 'three bouncy bounces' that increased the excitement, or hilarity, dependent on the viewers disposition.
maybe a montage, of the truly incredible photos, leading into the unbelievable (and bouncy) reaction of ESA nut-job, followed by fantastic explanations of the bouncy climax to an embarrassing overall performance.
comedic gold.
So explain what people working on the project are doing.
why no posts of the incredible, fantastic photos i glimpsed earlier today of the 'probe' (when did this morph from being a space alien bumhole invasion device term, into a space turd attaching device term?) both just before, and after, its glorious (hallelujah) landing on its catchy named new perch?
perhaps those who are not duped are still laughing, while the believers celebrate effusively (but no more effusively than frumpy stereotype defying ESA sci-matron, its just not possible to emulate such.......behaviour?), or lay prostate before their televisions just trying to comprehend the unbelievable achievement they believe regardless.
i cannot decide which should be first, in the interest of comedic value, on the bill.
in-bound photo of 'lander' looking like the first piece of a decoupage upon an ink black void.
the hysterical theatrics of matronly-aunt-rocket-scientist just going way off the reservation, with ironically no reservations.
or the protracted, dead-pan dialogue describing the 'three bouncy bounces' that increased the excitement, or hilarity, dependent on the viewers disposition.
maybe a montage, of the truly incredible photos, leading into the unbelievable (and bouncy) reaction of ESA nut-job, followed by fantastic explanations of the bouncy climax to an embarrassing overall performance.
comedic gold.
Meaningful part distilled out.So explain what people working on the project are doing.<blah, blah, blah, blah>...
i have no idea.
...<blah, blah, blah, blah>
The jokers are cranking up the Hollywood fantasies with their latest joke of landing the little fridge sized probe with ready to fire anchor bolts onto a little so called comet, and as all Hollywood productions go - there must always be hitches to give the ever willing public something to AWE over, as in, those little anchor bolts just did not fire into the rock and the little probe done a bunny hop to land near a hill in shadow of the sun. Hahahahaha.
They only have so many hours before their batteries run out, apparently, due to this solar panel in the shadow escapade.
What's the betting that they manage to fire some booster on it and put it in the sun to re-charge it's duracell batteries?
I made a joke about it tweeting and yet it apparently has. ;D
It seemed over the moon (pardon the pun) that it landed and started goading the mother ship that launched it onto the comet. So while that Rosetta (are you better, are you well well well) ship is orbiting around this comet...this little proble is waiting for it to pass and then tweeting it whilst showing it, its willy, shouting," nah nah, look at me on here, on this little rock in space and you buzzing around me like a fly." ;D
I just have to make some predictions for what's next because there's no way they're going to let this thing die so quickly.
My guess is, it will jump up and land in the sunlight, then it will have fixed it's bolt shooting rock piercing feet rockets.
It will then begin to drill and probably find little bed bugs or something silly, inside the rock. Maybe a few huge super diamonds as well, probably.
Then I think some little silly script writer will pen in a disaster. Like something on the lines of. " space bacteria of some sort is attacking the probe and is eating the metal skin away. The probe has tweeted an SOS , telling Rosetta that it's not feeling as better as her and can Rosetta help it. It's so disturbing and we hope to get enough info on these space bacteria to find out if they're going to be a trheat to planet Earth in the future."
Some crap like this will come out, I can feel it.
How far do they have to go with this pathetic fantasy stuff before people wake up and actually smell the frigging coffee? ;D
<more stuff probably best left out of the "upper fora">
Sounds to me like a medical emergency.
Some crap like this will come out, I can feel it.
Uh, oh! You're already hedging your predictions. No confidence in yourself?
... or lay prostate before their televisions just trying to comprehend the unbelievable achievement they believe regardless.
why no posts of the incredible, fantastic photosYes, let's see some photos, shall we?
Rocks mate.Pun?
Rocks mate.Pun?
Who says the camera should be pointing in a direction to capture the probe and the comet at the same time?
Who says the camera should be pointing in a direction to capture the probe and the comet at the same time?
In my experience, when you are heading towards something, that something is in front of you. As the probe was (I assume), between the comet and Rosetta, I would expect to see it.
Who says the camera should be pointing in a direction to capture the probe and the comet at the same time?
In my experience, when you are heading towards something, that something is in front of you. As the probe was (I assume), between the comet and Rosetta, I would expect to see it.
So you are assuming, as in you do not rightly know. Got it.
So Legion, what is your theory about that photo anyway? That the conspiracy cobbled together a gif and posted it on the internet without noticing that they forgot to include the comet?
Who says the camera should be pointing in a direction to capture the probe and the comet at the same time?
In my experience, when you are heading towards something, that something is in front of you. As the probe was (I assume), between the comet and Rosetta, I would expect to see it.
So you are assuming, as in you do not rightly know. Got it.
No, I don't know. We are told that Rosetta is photographing Philae as Philae descends to the surface of the comet. But I don't see a comet. Are you both suggesting that the comet is on the other side of Rosetta? The opposite side to where Philae is descending to???
So Legion, what is your theory about that photo anyway? That the conspiracy cobbled together a gif and posted it on the internet without noticing that they forgot to include the comet?
I have no theory about these photos. I just find it very odd that the comet is not visible. Do you not?
The comet is hiding behind that little probe. It's perspective, plus the sun isn't out so the black rock can't be seen to our weak eyes. Obviously though, the reason why the probe is lit up, is because Rosetta had a 10 billion candle power torch shining directly onto it.Who says the camera should be pointing in a direction to capture the probe and the comet at the same time?
In my experience, when you are heading towards something, that something is in front of you. As the probe was (I assume), between the comet and Rosetta, I would expect to see it.
So you are assuming, as in you do not rightly know. Got it.
No, I don't know. We are told that Rosetta is photographing Philae as Philae descends to the surface of the comet. But I don't see a comet. Are you both suggesting that the comet is on the other side of Rosetta? The opposite side to where Philae is descending to???
The comet is hiding behind that little probe. It's perspective, plus the sun isn't out so the black rock can't be seen to our weak eyes. Obviously though, the reason why the probe is lit up, is because Rosetta had a 10 billion candle power torch shining directly onto it.Who says the camera should be pointing in a direction to capture the probe and the comet at the same time?
In my experience, when you are heading towards something, that something is in front of you. As the probe was (I assume), between the comet and Rosetta, I would expect to see it.
So you are assuming, as in you do not rightly know. Got it.
No, I don't know. We are told that Rosetta is photographing Philae as Philae descends to the surface of the comet. But I don't see a comet. Are you both suggesting that the comet is on the other side of Rosetta? The opposite side to where Philae is descending to???
And to think that we get called the nutters. ;D
The comet is hiding behind that little probe. It's perspective, plus the sun isn't out so the black rock can't be seen to our weak eyes. Obviously though, the reason why the probe is lit up, is because Rosetta had a 10 billion candle power torch shining directly onto it.Who says the camera should be pointing in a direction to capture the probe and the comet at the same time?
In my experience, when you are heading towards something, that something is in front of you. As the probe was (I assume), between the comet and Rosetta, I would expect to see it.
So you are assuming, as in you do not rightly know. Got it.
No, I don't know. We are told that Rosetta is photographing Philae as Philae descends to the surface of the comet. But I don't see a comet. Are you both suggesting that the comet is on the other side of Rosetta? The opposite side to where Philae is descending to???
And to think that we get called the nutters. ;D
Cheers Scepti. I feel a bit embarrassed now! Of course the comet was too small to detect. Thanks again.
So here is a photo showing an approximate flight path of Rosetta as it went through the maneuver to deliver Philae:
(http://www.spaceflight101.com/uploads/6/4/0/6/6406961/3905893_orig.png)
As you can see Rosetta was not in a synchronous flight path with the comet, so there is a plausible reason why the comet is not in the photo.
Plausible reason is not the same as proof. Get your head in the game kid.
Plausible reason is not the same as proof. Get your head in the game kid.
A powerpoint slide is "plausible reason"? LOL!
Plausible reason is not the same as proof. Get your head in the game kid.
A powerpoint slide is "plausible reason"? LOL!
No, you are having troubles I can see, let me help you. A non-synchronous flight path on the part of the Rosetta is the reason I said is plausible.
Plausible reason is not the same as proof. Get your head in the game kid.
A powerpoint slide is "plausible reason"? LOL!
No, you are having troubles I can see, let me help you. A non-synchronous flight path on the part of the Rosetta is the reason I said is plausible.
Rama, you have grown on me somewhat over the months. I had hoped that you were interested in proving things one way or another. And then you go and post that thing. I can't help but feel disappointment.
I can fully understand why Scepti posts in the way he does. I asked a reasonable question: why is the comet not visible in the photos?
Rama decides to provide a plausible reason for why the comet is not visible by posting a powerpoint slide! When I point out the absurdity of anyone accepting that as proof or even a plausible reason, he starts ranting about "idiotic hoaxes".
I can fully understand why Scepti posts in the way he does. I asked a reasonable question: why is the comet not visible in the photos?
Because the comet isn't within the field of view of the photo. That's why.QuoteRama decides to provide a plausible reason for why the comet is not visible by posting a powerpoint slide! When I point out the absurdity of anyone accepting that as proof or even a plausible reason, he starts ranting about "idiotic hoaxes".
He never claimed it was proof. He was trying to show, in a general sense, that the three bodies weren't in a straight line. Why would they be? Orbits are never straight lines, and, yes, these are orbits. Orbital mechanics don't behave the way you seem to be demanding.
Because it's on a PowerPoint slide means it has to be implausible? Why?
Did you just imply that because there are sometimes eclipses, the lander should always be in front of the comet to "eclipse" it"?I can fully understand why Scepti posts in the way he does. I asked a reasonable question: why is the comet not visible in the photos?
Because the comet isn't within the field of view of the photo. That's why.QuoteRama decides to provide a plausible reason for why the comet is not visible by posting a powerpoint slide! When I point out the absurdity of anyone accepting that as proof or even a plausible reason, he starts ranting about "idiotic hoaxes".
He never claimed it was proof. He was trying to show, in a general sense, that the three bodies weren't in a straight line. Why would they be? Orbits are never straight lines, and, yes, these are orbits. Orbital mechanics don't behave the way you seem to be demanding.
Because it's on a PowerPoint slide means it has to be implausible? Why?
Of course. That's why we never have eclipses. Oh, hold on...
Did you just imply that because there are sometimes eclipses, the lander should always be in front of the comet to "eclipse" it"?I can fully understand why Scepti posts in the way he does. I asked a reasonable question: why is the comet not visible in the photos?
Because the comet isn't within the field of view of the photo. That's why.QuoteRama decides to provide a plausible reason for why the comet is not visible by posting a powerpoint slide! When I point out the absurdity of anyone accepting that as proof or even a plausible reason, he starts ranting about "idiotic hoaxes".
He never claimed it was proof. He was trying to show, in a general sense, that the three bodies weren't in a straight line. Why would they be? Orbits are never straight lines, and, yes, these are orbits. Orbital mechanics don't behave the way you seem to be demanding.
Because it's on a PowerPoint slide means it has to be implausible? Why?
Of course. That's why we never have eclipses. Oh, hold on...
I do get that you think the orbit of the moon is a straight line. It is not.Did you just imply that because there are sometimes eclipses, the lander should always be in front of the comet to "eclipse" it"?I can fully understand why Scepti posts in the way he does. I asked a reasonable question: why is the comet not visible in the photos?
Because the comet isn't within the field of view of the photo. That's why.QuoteRama decides to provide a plausible reason for why the comet is not visible by posting a powerpoint slide! When I point out the absurdity of anyone accepting that as proof or even a plausible reason, he starts ranting about "idiotic hoaxes".
He never claimed it was proof. He was trying to show, in a general sense, that the three bodies weren't in a straight line. Why would they be? Orbits are never straight lines, and, yes, these are orbits. Orbital mechanics don't behave the way you seem to be demanding.
Because it's on a PowerPoint slide means it has to be implausible? Why?
Of course. That's why we never have eclipses. Oh, hold on...
"Orbits are never in straight lines". Get it now?
I can fully understand why Scepti posts in the way he does. I asked a reasonable question: why is the comet not visible in the photos? Rama decides to provide a plausible reason for why the comet is not visible by posting a powerpoint slide! When I point out the absurdity of anyone accepting that as proof or even a plausible reason, he starts ranting about "idiotic hoaxes".
Thanks for showing your true position, Rama.
Did you just imply that because there are sometimes eclipses, the lander should always be in front of the comet to "eclipse" it"?I can fully understand why Scepti posts in the way he does. I asked a reasonable question: why is the comet not visible in the photos?
Because the comet isn't within the field of view of the photo. That's why.QuoteRama decides to provide a plausible reason for why the comet is not visible by posting a powerpoint slide! When I point out the absurdity of anyone accepting that as proof or even a plausible reason, he starts ranting about "idiotic hoaxes".
He never claimed it was proof. He was trying to show, in a general sense, that the three bodies weren't in a straight line. Why would they be? Orbits are never straight lines, and, yes, these are orbits. Orbital mechanics don't behave the way you seem to be demanding.
Because it's on a PowerPoint slide means it has to be implausible? Why?
Of course. That's why we never have eclipses. Oh, hold on...
"Orbits are never in straight lines". Get it now?
So this image from ESA is incorrect? (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/ (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/)):Illustration obviously shows the comet's position at the time of landing, not at the time of lander separation.
(http://i.imgur.com/VBLCP4I.jpg)
The final manoeuvre by Rosetta was conducted at 07:35 GMT / 08:35 CET, which is taking Rosetta to a point about 22.5 km from the comet’s centre for separation.
Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?No. It has what is known to be gravity, not what liars claim to know to give the effect of gravity, ie. universal acceleration, denpressure or some other nonsense.
Ok, so it has what's known as gravity. In what proportion is the gravity compared to Earth's?Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?No. It has what is known to be gravity, not what liars claim to know to give the effect of gravity, ie. universal acceleration, denpressure or some other nonsense.
proportional to mass.Ok, so it has what's known as gravity. In what proportion is the gravity compared to Earth's?Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?No. It has what is known to be gravity, not what liars claim to know to give the effect of gravity, ie. universal acceleration, denpressure or some other nonsense.
Oh, ok, so basically no gravity worth mentioning then, due to it's supposed size, right?proportional to mass.Ok, so it has what's known as gravity. In what proportion is the gravity compared to Earth's?Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?No. It has what is known to be gravity, not what liars claim to know to give the effect of gravity, ie. universal acceleration, denpressure or some other nonsense.
A small object has low gravity, yes. Still 'worth mentioning' though when it's by far the largest object in the area.Oh, ok, so basically no gravity worth mentioning then, due to it's supposed size, right?proportional to mass.Ok, so it has what's known as gravity. In what proportion is the gravity compared to Earth's?Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?No. It has what is known to be gravity, not what liars claim to know to give the effect of gravity, ie. universal acceleration, denpressure or some other nonsense.
It's a little rock isn't it? what's the largest rock in the area got to do with anything?A small object has low gravity, yes. Still 'worth mentioning' though when it's by far the largest object in the area.Oh, ok, so basically no gravity worth mentioning then, due to it's supposed size, right?proportional to mass.Ok, so it has what's known as gravity. In what proportion is the gravity compared to Earth's?Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?No. It has what is known to be gravity, not what liars claim to know to give the effect of gravity, ie. universal acceleration, denpressure or some other nonsense.
So this image from ESA is incorrect? (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/ (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/)):
(http://i.imgur.com/VBLCP4I.jpg)
The final manoeuvre by Rosetta was conducted at 07:35 GMT / 08:35 CET, which is taking Rosetta to a point about 22.5 km from the comet’s centre for separation.
So this image from ESA is incorrect? (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/ (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/)):
(http://i.imgur.com/VBLCP4I.jpg)
The final manoeuvre by Rosetta was conducted at 07:35 GMT / 08:35 CET, which is taking Rosetta to a point about 22.5 km from the comet’s centre for separation.
What do you think is incorrect about it?
So this image from ESA is incorrect? (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/ (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/)):
(http://i.imgur.com/VBLCP4I.jpg)
The final manoeuvre by Rosetta was conducted at 07:35 GMT / 08:35 CET, which is taking Rosetta to a point about 22.5 km from the comet’s centre for separation.
What do you think is incorrect about it?
Why don't you walk me through it? I'll start you off:
1. Rosetta makes a sharp turn to the left.
2. Philae is detached towards the comet.
3. ?
Where is the comet in relation to Rosetta and Philae?
So this image from ESA is incorrect? (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/ (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/)):
(http://i.imgur.com/VBLCP4I.jpg)
The final manoeuvre by Rosetta was conducted at 07:35 GMT / 08:35 CET, which is taking Rosetta to a point about 22.5 km from the comet’s centre for separation.
What do you think is incorrect about it?
Why don't you walk me through it? I'll start you off:
1. Rosetta makes a sharp turn to the left.
2. Philae is detached towards the comet.
3. ?
Where is the comet in relation to Rosetta and Philae?
I feel like I'm walking in to a trap...
Oh wait! I know what to do! Legion, why don't you go ahead and tell everyone what's on your mind and then no one has to play your cute little game.
Does this tally up with the photos published?
(http://)
Does this tally up with the photos published?
(http://)
Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?
Does this tally up with the photos published?
(http://)
Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?
No, I'm done. If people want to believe this thing happened, that's up to them.
Does this tally up with the photos published?
(http://)
Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?
No, I'm done. If people want to believe this thing happened, that's up to them.
Well congratulations on your little intellectual masturbation
Does this tally up with the photos published?
(http://)
Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?
No, I'm done. If people want to believe this thing happened, that's up to them.
Well congratulations on your little intellectual masturbation
You should try it sometime. Thinking for yourself is quite enjoyable.
Does this tally up with the photos published?
(http://)
Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?
No, I'm done. If people want to believe this thing happened, that's up to them.
Well congratulations on your little intellectual masturbation
You should try it sometime. Thinking for yourself is quite enjoyable.
There was no evidence in this thread that you thought at all.
I on the other hand discerned all by myself that you had no point to make and cannot put together an argument. It was fun. Thanks!
As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
Does this tally up with the photos published?
(http://)
Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?
No, I'm done. If people want to believe this thing happened, that's up to them.
Well congratulations on your little intellectual masturbation
You should try it sometime. Thinking for yourself is quite enjoyable.
There was no evidence in this thread that you thought at all.
I on the other hand discerned all by myself that you had no point to make and cannot put together an argument. It was fun. Thanks!
Where did you get that powerpoint slide?
As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.
As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.
Perhaps you would like to provide a citation for confirmation. Or are you an asteroid specialist?
;D You're right. I just like to see how far these people will go with the utter garbage that they hang onto like limpets.As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
I wouldn't bother mate. One of the believers might spring another powerpoint slide out. You can't argue with that level of stupidity! Something like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/39EMq2Q.jpg)
Oh right. And then it operated its little thrusters again for a smooth landing, right?As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.
;D You're right. I just like to see how far these people will go with the utter garbage that they hang onto like limpets.As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
I wouldn't bother mate. One of the believers might spring another powerpoint slide out. You can't argue with that level of stupidity! Something like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/39EMq2Q.jpg)
Those bozo's that are acting out these punching the air facades must be either drugged up or be so stupid as to not realise just what they are taking part in.
Basically they are doing the biggest heist in history, robbing people of their hard earned cash and they think it's just a silly joke that's doing no harm.
Ripping tax payers off is robbery and they are pocketing some of that money, which makes them crooks and yet the clowns are more than happy to play act to dupe billions of people.
The only thing they have in their favour (for now) is the fact that nobody can physically prove they are scamming.
It makes me laugh how they declassify Pluto from being a planet one minute and put laser reflectors on the moon to gauge distance, yet they send out a probe 10 years ago to catch a small piece of space rock - land on it in an area they predicted but realising it bounced 2 km due to not shooting it's foot bolts into the deck and now it's landed in the shade.
I sincerely hope that one day, someone comes out and exposes these people, somehow.
It's going to happen because they are getting more and more deliberately ludicrous as they go on.
They have to do this to keep their pockets filled, because people are just getting fed up with this crap.
There's a whole lot of stuff coming our way - soon enough - that will even make this comet crap look tame and yet the gullible people will once again, swallow it up like hungry kids in a chocolate factory.
I'm so glad I can laugh at this, because to take it serious would literally spoil the fun of it all. ;D
Oh right. And then it operated its little thrusters again for a smooth landing, right?As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.
No my naive friend. I'm simply wise and extremely logical and a real genius.;D You're right. I just like to see how far these people will go with the utter garbage that they hang onto like limpets.As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
I wouldn't bother mate. One of the believers might spring another powerpoint slide out. You can't argue with that level of stupidity! Something like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/39EMq2Q.jpg)
Those bozo's that are acting out these punching the air facades must be either drugged up or be so stupid as to not realise just what they are taking part in.
Basically they are doing the biggest heist in history, robbing people of their hard earned cash and they think it's just a silly joke that's doing no harm.
Ripping tax payers off is robbery and they are pocketing some of that money, which makes them crooks and yet the clowns are more than happy to play act to dupe billions of people.
The only thing they have in their favour (for now) is the fact that nobody can physically prove they are scamming.
It makes me laugh how they declassify Pluto from being a planet one minute and put laser reflectors on the moon to gauge distance, yet they send out a probe 10 years ago to catch a small piece of space rock - land on it in an area they predicted but realising it bounced 2 km due to not shooting it's foot bolts into the deck and now it's landed in the shade.
I sincerely hope that one day, someone comes out and exposes these people, somehow.
It's going to happen because they are getting more and more deliberately ludicrous as they go on.
They have to do this to keep their pockets filled, because people are just getting fed up with this crap.
There's a whole lot of stuff coming our way - soon enough - that will even make this comet crap look tame and yet the gullible people will once again, swallow it up like hungry kids in a chocolate factory.
I'm so glad I can laugh at this, because to take it serious would literally spoil the fun of it all. ;D
I just realized you are actually a crotchety 90 year old man. I think you are an inventor but everything you invented was before the electronic age and so you are butter and angry that the world has left you behind. It all makes sense now.
If there's gravity then it's going to smash down onto the rock, right?Oh right. And then it operated its little thrusters again for a smooth landing, right?As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.
I don't know. It may not have been going very fast when it landed. It sounds like timing issues because of communications lag would make firing thrusters difficult.
Didn't we already establish that the gravity is very minute. Why would it 'smash'?If there's gravity then it's going to smash down onto the rock, right?Oh right. And then it operated its little thrusters again for a smooth landing, right?As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.
I don't know. It may not have been going very fast when it landed. It sounds like timing issues because of communications lag would make firing thrusters difficult.
It's Newtonian mechanics. Wait until you get to high school.
If it's that weak then how is Rosetta orbiting this rock?Didn't we already establish that the gravity is very minute. Why would it 'smash'?If there's gravity then it's going to smash down onto the rock, right?Oh right. And then it operated its little thrusters again for a smooth landing, right?As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.
I don't know. It may not have been going very fast when it landed. It sounds like timing issues because of communications lag would make firing thrusters difficult.
If it's that weak then how is Rosetta orbiting this rock?Didn't we already establish that the gravity is very minute. Why would it 'smash'?If there's gravity then it's going to smash down onto the rock, right?Oh right. And then it operated its little thrusters again for a smooth landing, right?As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.
I don't know. It may not have been going very fast when it landed. It sounds like timing issues because of communications lag would make firing thrusters difficult.
You can't have it both ways.
So how is it orbiting this 35,000 mph small piece of rock then. Tell me about it.If it's that weak then how is Rosetta orbiting this rock?Didn't we already establish that the gravity is very minute. Why would it 'smash'?If there's gravity then it's going to smash down onto the rock, right?Oh right. And then it operated its little thrusters again for a smooth landing, right?As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.
I don't know. It may not have been going very fast when it landed. It sounds like timing issues because of communications lag would make firing thrusters difficult.
You can't have it both ways.
You haven't idea how Newtonian Mechanics work.
Of course I can have it both ways. Greater gravity, faster orbital speed. Lower gravity, lower orbital speed. There is no problem with this that you aren't making up.If it's that weak then how is Rosetta orbiting this rock?Didn't we already establish that the gravity is very minute. Why would it 'smash'?If there's gravity then it's going to smash down onto the rock, right?Oh right. And then it operated its little thrusters again for a smooth landing, right?As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.
I don't know. It may not have been going very fast when it landed. It sounds like timing issues because of communications lag would make firing thrusters difficult.
You can't have it both ways.
So how is it orbiting this 35,000 mph small piece of rock then. Tell me about it.Perhaps it has escaped you that this rock isn't moving 35,000 mph relative to the spacecraft.
;D You're right. I just like to see how far these people will go with the utter garbage that they hang onto like limpets.As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
I wouldn't bother mate. One of the believers might spring another powerpoint slide out. You can't argue with that level of stupidity! Something like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/39EMq2Q.jpg)
Those bozo's that are acting out these punching the air facades must be either drugged up or be so stupid as to not realise just what they are taking part in.
Basically they are doing the biggest heist in history, robbing people of their hard earned cash and they think it's just a silly joke that's doing no harm.
Ripping tax payers off is robbery and they are pocketing some of that money, which makes them crooks and yet the clowns are more than happy to play act to dupe billions of people.
The only thing they have in their favour (for now) is the fact that nobody can physically prove they are scamming.
It makes me laugh how they declassify Pluto from being a planet one minute and put laser reflectors on the moon to gauge distance, yet they send out a probe 10 years ago to catch a small piece of space rock - land on it in an area they predicted but realising it bounced 2 km due to not shooting it's foot bolts into the deck and now it's landed in the shade.
I sincerely hope that one day, someone comes out and exposes these people, somehow.
It's going to happen because they are getting more and more deliberately ludicrous as they go on.
They have to do this to keep their pockets filled, because people are just getting fed up with this crap.
There's a whole lot of stuff coming our way - soon enough - that will even make this comet crap look tame and yet the gullible people will once again, swallow it up like hungry kids in a chocolate factory.
I'm so glad I can laugh at this, because to take it serious would literally spoil the fun of it all. ;D
Nice to see you are relying on insults to hammer your point home. It is the most depth of thought you have offered in this thread...
You are the worst person on the forum for doing this, you hypocrite. Three quarters of your posts are spent having a pop rather than discussion of the topic at hand.Nice to see you are relying on insults to hammer your point home. It is the most depth of thought you have offered in this thread...
Personal attacks and insults are one of the main weapons flat earthers call upon in any serious debate when—as inevitably they do—find themselves lost for scientifically-relevant answers. Once their stock-standard pseudo-scientific "knowledge" is exhausted, it's back to the ol' tried and trusted ad hominem.
—It's kinda pathetic and laughable at the same time. ;D
I won't comment any further on Geoffrey's ways in this thread.
So how is it orbiting this 35,000 mph small piece of rock then. Tell me about it.??? Why do you consider a comet nucleus several miles long a "small piece of rock"?
You are the worst person on the forum for doing this, you hypocrite. Three quarters of your posts are spent having a pop rather than discussion of the topic at hand.Nice to see you are relying on insults to hammer your point home. It is the most depth of thought you have offered in this thread...
Personal attacks and insults are one of the main weapons flat earthers call upon in any serious debate when—as inevitably they do—find themselves lost for scientifically-relevant answers. Once their stock-standard pseudo-scientific "knowledge" is exhausted, it's back to the ol' tried and trusted ad hominem.
—It's kinda pathetic and laughable at the same time. ;D
Of course, you know this and that's your game. Everyone can see it. Sorry to the mods for saying this, I won't comment any further on Geoffrey's ways in this thread.
You have not raised a single objection of substance or provided an alternative theory. The references to Newtonian mechanics were specific, only your ignorance gets in the way I f understanding and there was no speculation on the comets gravitational properties. If I have the time later I can calculate the force which the Philae applied to bounce 2kms in the air.
This is literally high school stuff. You need to read a book Legion.
You have not raised a single objection of substance or provided an alternative theory. The references to Newtonian mechanics were specific, only your ignorance gets in the way I f understanding and there was no speculation on the comets gravitational properties. If I have the time later I can calculate the force which the Philae applied to bounce 2kms in the air.
This is literally high school stuff. You need to read a book Legion.
Give it up now. You lost all credibility when you posted a powerpoint slide which you found "somewhere on the internet." At least all of my sources were cited.
You have not raised a single objection of substance or provided an alternative theory. The references to Newtonian mechanics were specific, only your ignorance gets in the way I f understanding and there was no speculation on the comets gravitational properties. If I have the time later I can calculate the force which the Philae applied to bounce 2kms in the air.
This is literally high school stuff. You need to read a book Legion.
Give it up now. You lost all credibility when you posted a powerpoint slide which you found "somewhere on the internet." At least all of my sources were cited.
Considering the other posters who came to my defense you are evidently wrong.
That some other believers posted in this thread does not make any of you correct.
By the way, when you quote a post it shows the url used to embed the photo so it's not hard to figure out how here the slide came from. But then again you do not even have a grasp of hundreds of years old physics taught to teenagers so I suppose I can't expect much.
Teaching something makes it a fact, does it?
Speaking of credibility, I am still waiting for you to offer up an idea of where the comet is in the photo. Why don't you present your idea for scrutiny?
Already explained in previous posts. Yawn.
That some other believers posted in this thread does not make any of you correct.[/i]
Teaching something makes it a fact, does it?
Already explained in previous posts. Yawn.
I have no theory about these photos. I just find it very odd that the comet is not visible. Do you not?
Scepti these idiots will believe anything that NASA and now ESA tell then. I have to hand it to these agencies for having people so brainwashed that they believe in fairytales, with no questions. It is quite remarkable.As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
I agree. It's astounding how people prefer to study fantasy and hero worship bullshit artists.Scepti these idiots will believe anything that NASA and now ESA tell then. I have to hand it to these agencies for having people so brainwashed that they believe in fairytales, with no questions. It is quite remarkable.As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?
It's astounding how people prefer to study fantasy and hero worship bullshit artists.
::) FFS Will you give it a rest already? If you can quote Newton, then they can quote Rowbotham.It's astounding how people prefer to study fantasy and hero worship bullshit artists.
I can only agree. Look at the number of flat earthers who regard Samuel Birley Rowbotham as some sort of scientific guru—even although he died well over 100 years ago. They're still quoting from his 16-page pamphlet "Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe" published in 1849.
Will you give it a rest already? If you can quote Newton, then they can quote Rowbotham.
No, I'm comparing Newton, the source who died almost 300 years ago, with Rowbotham, the source who died about 130 years ago. Dismissing ENaG just because it's 150 or so years old is stupid and tiresome, and you should know it by now.Will you give it a rest already? If you can quote Newton, then they can quote Rowbotham.
Uh... I sincerely hope your not comparing Newton the scientist with Rowbotham the snake-oil salesman? :o
I like how it's so easy for these space agencies to maneuver satellites in deep space, but they have a heck of a time getting higher than a couple hundred thousand feet on earth.
What an amazing idea, that Virgin Galactic can't even get even get higher than 200,000 feet with Billions of dollars budget, but they so easily traveled to the moon in 72 hours over 50 years ago.
Virgin Galactic must be so close to "popping" out of the atmosphere where you can easily float and travel at speeds thousands of miles of hour in any direction!
Markjo is right ausgeoff. Discredit Rowbotham because his claims are horribly wrong, not because they are old.
Markjo is right ausgeoff. Discredit Rowbotham because his claims are horribly wrong, not because they are old.
Too easy. Rowbotham's sole pseudo-scientific claim that the earth is flat is wrong precisely because it is so old; that's the whole point. The flat earthers have not updated it once in the ensuing 150 years.
We don't believe in phlogiston for exactly the same reasoning; the alleged "science" that proved its existence is massively outdated.
With the level of scrutiny that legion gives to others, you'd think he would hold himself to the same standards. These are some sceptimatic quality contentions here. It seems like he expects me and other round earthers to transport him to space and show him it's roundness in person so I thought we'd see more than just a bunch of "get a load of these cheesy guys on this video" stuff.
With the level of scrutiny that legion gives to others, you'd think he would hold himself to the same standards.
These are some sceptimatic quality contentions here. It seems like he expects me and other round earthers to transport him to space and show him it's roundness in person so I thought we'd see more than just a bunch of "get a load of these cheesy guys on this video" stuff.
With the level of scrutiny that legion gives to others, you'd think he would hold himself to the same standards. These are some sceptimatic quality contentions here. It seems like he expects me and other round earthers to transport him to space and show him it's roundness in person so I thought we'd see more than just a bunch of "get a load of these cheesy guys on this video" stuff.
A. You couldn't transport me to space, so stop being ridiculous.
B. I don't care what you think. Your faith is too deeply embedded to be challenged.
C. The videos speak for themselves.
You don´t need to go to space either... you could go to Antarctica.With the level of scrutiny that legion gives to others, you'd think he would hold himself to the same standards. These are some sceptimatic quality contentions here. It seems like he expects me and other round earthers to transport him to space and show him it's roundness in person so I thought we'd see more than just a bunch of "get a load of these cheesy guys on this video" stuff.
A. You couldn't transport me to space, so stop being ridiculous.
B. I don't care what you think. Your faith is too deeply embedded to be challenged.
C. The videos speak for themselves.
A. You couldn't transport me to space, so stop being ridiculous.
B. I don't care what you think. Your faith is too deeply embedded to be challenged.
C. The videos speak for themselves.
With the level of scrutiny that legion gives to others, you'd think he would hold himself to the same standards. These are some sceptimatic quality contentions here. It seems like he expects me and other round earthers to transport him to space and show him it's roundness in person so I thought we'd see more than just a bunch of "get a load of these cheesy guys on this video" stuff.
A. You couldn't transport me to space, so stop being ridiculous.
B. I don't care what you think. Your faith is too deeply embedded to be challenged.
C. The videos speak for themselves.
A. I know I can't but it seems that you want purely empirical evidence and by your standards, it seems that that means going to space.
B. Ive often been described as faithless. Never heard that one.
C. The videos don't really add anything to this discussion.
Here is another video. What is its purpose?
(http://)
Persuasion. Nothing more.
Here is another video. What is its purpose?And once again, legion displays his ignorance. I'm truly astounded that anybody living in this age of technological enlightenment is still apparently living in the scientific Dark Ages.
Persuasion. Nothing more.It's actually kinda sad that someone like legion is missing out on experiencing and appreciating some of the most stunning, outstanding scientific research so far this century.
I suggest that the videos do add to the discussion. What is the purpose of these videos being aired?
Are they designed to:
1. Inform?
2. Persuade?
3. Entertain?
I suggest that the videos do add to the discussion. What is the purpose of these videos being aired?
Are they designed to:
1. Inform?
2. Persuade?
3. Entertain?
Are those choices supposed to be mutually exclusive?
Here is another video. What is its purpose?
(http://)
Persuasion. Nothing more.
My guess is inform but I'm not insisting anything. Until I can prove there is a lander on the comet, or you can prove that there isn't, I guess we will never know. You seem to be making the claim so I'm looking forward to your conclusive evidence.
Here is another video. What is its purpose?
(http://)
Persuasion. Nothing more.
My guess is inform but I'm not insisting anything. Until I can prove there is a lander on the comet, or you can prove that there isn't, I guess we will never know. You seem to be making the claim so I'm looking forward to your conclusive evidence.
Actually, it is ESA who is making the claim. You seem to accept it as true unless it can be proven to not be true. Why should you demand proof from me when you don't demand it from them?
Here is another video. What is its purpose?
(http://)
Persuasion. Nothing more.
My guess is inform but I'm not insisting anything. Until I can prove there is a lander on the comet, or you can prove that there isn't, I guess we will never know. You seem to be making the claim so I'm looking forward to your conclusive evidence.
Actually, it is ESA who is making the claim. You seem to accept it as true unless it can be proven to not be true. Why should you demand proof from me when you don't demand it from them?
I don't demand it from them because I'm not inquiring about it. It's as simple as that. It's sort of like how I don't demand proof that OJ did or did not kill his wife. If a story comes out about it then I'll gladly read about it and say.... huh, okay... but overall it's not something that really matters to me. Well scratch that... it matters but it's way down the list on my priorities. However, if I suspected there to be fraud and if I thought the earth was flat then this would be a huge priority for me and I would be looking for evidence. See how that works?
It matters to you because you are suspicious of it. So again, looking forward to your evidence.
Can you Kay out the logical argument that proves Rottingroom is in this thread because he believes Philae landed on a comet? I would love to see if you could actually prove this in principle. Obviously you cannot prove it in reality without an admission on RRs part. Look forward to it!
Here is another video. What is its purpose?
(http://)
Persuasion. Nothing more.
My guess is inform but I'm not insisting anything. Until I can prove there is a lander on the comet, or you can prove that there isn't, I guess we will never know. You seem to be making the claim so I'm looking forward to your conclusive evidence.
Actually, it is ESA who is making the claim. You seem to accept it as true unless it can be proven to not be true. Why should you demand proof from me when you don't demand it from them?
I don't demand it from them because I'm not inquiring about it. It's as simple as that. It's sort of like how I don't demand proof that OJ did or did not kill his wife. If a story comes out about it then I'll gladly read about it and say.... huh, okay... but overall it's not something that really matters to me. Well scratch that... it matters but it's way down the list on my priorities. However, if I suspected there to be fraud and if I thought the earth was flat then this would be a huge priority for me and I would be looking for evidence. See how that works?
It matters to you because you are suspicious of it. So again, looking forward to your evidence.
You're starting to sound like geoffrey, now. Accusing people of being flat earthers, pretending to not believe when you really do believe.
If you didn't believe, you wouldn't be in this thread. But here you are.
Here is another video. What is its purpose?
(http://)
Persuasion. Nothing more.
My guess is inform but I'm not insisting anything. Until I can prove there is a lander on the comet, or you can prove that there isn't, I guess we will never know. You seem to be making the claim so I'm looking forward to your conclusive evidence.
Actually, it is ESA who is making the claim. You seem to accept it as true unless it can be proven to not be true. Why should you demand proof from me when you don't demand it from them?
I don't demand it from them because I'm not inquiring about it. It's as simple as that. It's sort of like how I don't demand proof that OJ did or did not kill his wife. If a story comes out about it then I'll gladly read about it and say.... huh, okay... but overall it's not something that really matters to me. Well scratch that... it matters but it's way down the list on my priorities. However, if I suspected there to be fraud and if I thought the earth was flat then this would be a huge priority for me and I would be looking for evidence. See how that works?
It matters to you because you are suspicious of it. So again, looking forward to your evidence.
You're starting to sound like geoffrey, now. Accusing people of being flat earthers, pretending to not believe when you really do believe.
If you didn't believe, you wouldn't be in this thread. But here you are.
I didn't say I don't believe and I also didn't say that I don't care. I'm just pointing that I care far less than you do and that it is appropriate. Suspicion is a good motivator.
I have no motivation to go and find evidence that there is a lander on a comet. You do though. You think the entire planet is lying to you about space and even the shape of the planet. You think large parts of science and even mathematics are just a bunch of fraudulent lies. So again, you should be looking for evidence. Give me one good reason why I should be?
1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.
Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.
1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.
Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.
Nice argument.
1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?
Can you Kay out the logical argument that proves Rottingroom is in this thread because he believes Philae landed on a comet? I would love to see if you could actually prove this in principle. Obviously you cannot prove it in reality without an admission on RRs part. Look forward to it!
You cannot logically prove someone guilty of something unless they confess to it? Is that your assertion?
1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.
Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.
Nice argument.
1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?
1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.
Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.
Nice argument.
1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?
Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.
1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.
So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.
You seem to accept it as true unless it can be proven to not be true.Round earthers accept the current scientific status quo in this instance. Which is that On 12 November 2014, ESA's Rosetta mission soft-landed its Philae probe on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. It was controlled by ESA's New Norcia 35m dish ground station near Perth in Western Australia.
1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.
Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.
Nice argument.
1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?
Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.
1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.
So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.
You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.
Try again.
Yeah I said, "Yup, seems like we could land on a comet. "
You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.
Try again.
1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.
Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.
Nice argument.
1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?
Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.
1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.
So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.
You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.
Try again.
Jroa? Is that you? You do know why rockets exist right? You do know who discovered maths right? ....Probably humans.
And is that some sort of argumentum ad unpopulum? Here I'll return it. Nobody gives two shits about people who think rockets can't work in a vacuum, so it is a given. Pathetic.
I don't know why you had to bring up rockets in a vacuum, but where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.
Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.
Nice argument.
1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?
Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.
1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.
So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.
You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.
Try again.
Jroa? Is that you? You do know why rockets exist right? You do know who discovered maths right? ....Probably humans.
And is that some sort of argumentum ad unpopulum? Here I'll return it. Nobody gives two shits about people who think rockets can't work in a vacuum, so it is a given. Pathetic.
There we go. There stands the believer. Thank you.
Rama, have anything to say?
1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.
Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.
Nice argument.
1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?
Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.
1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.
So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.
You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.
Try again.
Jroa? Is that you? You do know why rockets exist right? You do know who discovered maths right? ....Probably humans.
And is that some sort of argumentum ad unpopulum? Here I'll return it. Nobody gives two shits about people who think rockets can't work in a vacuum, so it is a given. Pathetic.
There we go. There stands the believer. Thank you.
Rama, have anything to say?
Yes. I am now officially in your head. Fear me with every argument you attempt to make.1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.
Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.
Nice argument.
1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?
Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.
1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.
So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.
You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.
Try again.
Jroa? Is that you? You do know why rockets exist right? You do know who discovered maths right? ....Probably humans.
And is that some sort of argumentum ad unpopulum? Here I'll return it. Nobody gives two shits about people who think rockets can't work in a vacuum, so it is a given. Pathetic.
There we go. There stands the believer. Thank you.
Rama, have anything to say?
where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?What evidence do you have that force doesn't equal mass times acceleration?
it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.
where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?What evidence do you have that force doesn't equal mass times acceleration?
it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.
Simple equations confuse you?where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?What evidence do you have that force doesn't equal mass times acceleration?
it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.
eh?
Simple equations confuse you?where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?What evidence do you have that force doesn't equal mass times acceleration?
it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.
eh?
F=ma
Force equals mass times acceleration
Simple equations confuse you?where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?What evidence do you have that force doesn't equal mass times acceleration?
it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.
eh?
F=ma
Force equals mass times acceleration
e+h=mantra rejection.
hare krshna+allah ahuakbah=sing hosana in the highest.
study the bold, from a step back or so, and look.....
hello i am not bright or subtle?
63;9
six three semicolon nine
......do you see how formless, pointless and guileless it is?
So yes, you are confused by simple equations.Simple equations confuse you?where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?What evidence do you have that force doesn't equal mass times acceleration?
it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.
eh?
F=ma
Force equals mass times acceleration
e+h=mantra rejection.
hare krshna+allah ahuakbah=sing hosana in the highest.
study the bold, from a step back or so, and look.....
hello i am not bright or subtle?
63;9
six three semicolon nine
......do you see how formless, pointless and guileless it is?
Step on the dashed yellow line in front of your house. Get hit by a car going 30 mph. Now get hit by a semi truck going 30 mph.
Which had more force?
Step on yellow dashed line again. Get hit by semi truck accelerating up to 30 mph in 5 seconds. Then get hit by semi truck accelerating up to 60 mph in 5 seconds.
Which had more force?
F = ma
So let's be clear now. People come to this site wondering, how can people possibly think the earth is flat, let's see what they have to say. How unfortunate that they come here and see no substance from FE'rs. Where are the premises that lead one to believe any of this legion? Where is it?
So let's be clear now. People come to this site wondering, how can people possibly think the earth is flat, let's see what they have to say. How unfortunate that they come here and see no substance from FE'rs. Where are the premises that lead one to believe any of this legion? Where is it?
Try to stay on topic. We are not discussing the shape of the earth.
Feel free to try and disprove the equation. Pointless posts will not work.Step on the dashed yellow line in front of your house. Get hit by a car going 30 mph. Now get hit by a semi truck going 30 mph.
Which had more force?
Step on yellow dashed line again. Get hit by semi truck accelerating up to 30 mph in 5 seconds. Then get hit by semi truck accelerating up to 60 mph in 5 seconds.
Which had more force?
F = ma
wow, orthodoxy hurts.
So let's be clear now. People come to this site wondering, how can people possibly think the earth is flat, let's see what they have to say. How unfortunate that they come here and see no substance from FE'rs. Where are the premises that lead one to believe any of this legion? Where is it?
Try to stay on topic. We are not discussing the shape of the earth.
We discussed how it is your burden to prove that we didn't land on the comet and that RE'rs neither have the burden or motivation to do so. You made the thread after all. You refused so I thought I'd ask you to basically prove or even give a logical reason why you believe anything that you do. I've yet to hear anything like that from you, ever.
So let's be clear now. People come to this site wondering, how can people possibly think the earth is flat, let's see what they have to say. How unfortunate that they come here and see no substance from FE'rs. Where are the premises that lead one to believe any of this legion? Where is it?
Try to stay on topic. We are not discussing the shape of the earth.
We discussed how it is your burden to prove that we didn't land on the comet and that RE'rs neither have the burden or motivation to do so. You made the thread after all. You refused so I thought I'd ask you to basically prove or even give a logical reason why you believe anything that you do. I've yet to hear anything like that from you, ever.
Of course you have no motivation to prove the rosetta/philae sham. Doing so is impossible, and you know it. Why you expect me to be able to disprove it is unclear. And why you think I have a burden of proof is also unclear. As I've said many times, I don't care what you think. That's not meant offensively, just a statement of fact.
Of course you have no motivation to prove the rosetta/philae sham. Doing so is impossible, and you know it. Why you expect me to be able to disprove it is unclear. And why you think I have a burden of proof is also unclear. As I've said many times, I don't care what you think. That's not meant offensively, just a statement of fact.
Of course you have no motivation to prove the rosetta/philae sham. Doing so is impossible, and you know it. Why you expect me to be able to disprove it is unclear. And why you think I have a burden of proof is also unclear. As I've said many times, I don't care what you think. That's not meant offensively, just a statement of fact.
Gee... this is a difficult one to respond to. Thousands of astrophysicists and astronomers, and engineers and technicians developed and viewed the Rosetta landing, but one guy called legion reckons it's all bogus.
Hmmm..... who to believe? ;D
So let's be clear now. People come to this site wondering, how can people possibly think the earth is flat, let's see what they have to say. How unfortunate that they come here and see no substance from FE'rs. Where are the premises that lead one to believe any of this legion? Where is it?
Try to stay on topic. We are not discussing the shape of the earth.
We discussed how it is your burden to prove that we didn't land on the comet and that RE'rs neither have the burden or motivation to do so. You made the thread after all. You refused so I thought I'd ask you to basically prove or even give a logical reason why you believe anything that you do. I've yet to hear anything like that from you, ever.
Of course you have no motivation to prove the rosetta/philae sham. Doing so is impossible, and you know it. Why you expect me to be able to disprove it is unclear. And why you think I have a burden of proof is also unclear. As I've said many times, I don't care what you think. That's not meant offensively, just a statement of fact.
Well there are pictures. This is very good proof but you just deny it. You made the thread and you've made it clear that you have a problem with it. So why should anyone have the burden but you? Imagine if someone made a moon denier video without attempting to provide evidence and just stated that its bullshit, or the opposite, if someone made a response to that and didn't provide evidence and just stated it. That's sort of how you sound right now.
Of course you have no motivation to prove the rosetta/philae sham. Doing so is impossible, and you know it. Why you expect me to be able to disprove it is unclear. And why you think I have a burden of proof is also unclear. As I've said many times, I don't care what you think. That's not meant offensively, just a statement of fact.
Gee... this is a difficult one to respond to. Thousands of astrophysicists and astronomers, and engineers and technicians developed and viewed the Rosetta landing, but one guy called legion reckons it's all bogus.
Hmmm..... who to believe? ;D
Care to back that up, geoffrey? You don't want everyone to think you are making stuff up again, surely? I'm actually surprised you haven't gone with your usual claim of "millions".
"Pictures are good proof" != "Rottingroom believes the pictures". You make a tremendous amount of assumptions for someone who sees that as a deficiency. Cmon kiddo, you are better than that.
"Pictures are good proof" != "Rottingroom believes the pictures". You make a tremendous amount of assumptions for someone who sees that as a deficiency. Cmon kiddo, you are better than that.
rama, I don't know what game you think you are playing with me, but with posts like that one, you seem to be losing and clutching at straws.
rotting believes. You believe.
Of course you have no motivation to prove the rosetta/philae sham. Doing so is impossible, and you know it. Why you expect me to be able to disprove it is unclear. And why you think I have a burden of proof is also unclear. As I've said many times, I don't care what you think. That's not meant offensively, just a statement of fact.
Gee... this is a difficult one to respond to. Thousands of astrophysicists and astronomers, and engineers and technicians developed and viewed the Rosetta landing, but one guy called legion reckons it's all bogus.
Hmmm..... who to believe? ;D
Care to back that up, geoffrey? You don't want everyone to think you are making stuff up again, surely? I'm actually surprised you haven't gone with your usual claim of "millions".QuoteOr are you now denying that thousands of technical personnel were involved in some way with the Rosetta landing? How many would you say were involved?
A handful.QuoteAnd as a matter of interest, can you tell me the names of half a dozen accredited scientists who accept the flat earth theory? I'm betting you can't.
Usual off-topic drivel.
QuoteAnd as a matter of interest, can you tell me the names of half a dozen accredited scientists who accept the flat earth theory? I'm betting you can't.
Usual off-topic drivel.
QuoteAnd as a matter of interest, can you tell me the names of half a dozen accredited scientists who accept the flat earth theory? I'm betting you can't.
Usual off-topic drivel.
So like every other flat earther here, poor old legion couldn't even name half a dozen flat earth scientists, and tried to claim my request was just "drivel". LOL. What a piss-weak response.
The mere fact that he's unable to proves pretty clearly that there are none. Unless you'd like some time to do a bit more research and come up with a few names legion? The ball is in your court. Go for it, or look like a fool.
He said it was off-topic drivel, which it is. It is an argument from authority which has nothing to do with the thread. In this case, Legion was right.
He said it was off-topic drivel, which it is. It is an argument from authority which has nothing to do with the thread. In this case, Legion was right.
I'm not quite sure as to why you've started to stalk me again, but anyway, say what you will. It makes not one iota of difference to me LOL.
I think that someone such as legion—who denies the whole Rosetta landing thing—needs to supply alternative sources from scientist who agree with him that it was all bogus. And presumably these scientists would also accept the flat earth theory. So asking him to name a few of those presumed scientists wasn't "drivel" by any means; it was directly related to his calling foul.
Or, as a round earther, are you happy to accept his opinion as being credible, without any scientific backup? If I say (as I do of course) that the Rosetta landing was legitimate, I'm happy to name a few of the ESA scientists whose credentials I respect; Frank De Winne, Timothy Peake, Frank De Winne, Claude Nicollier, Thomas Reiter, Andreas Mogensen, Alexander Gerst et al.
Why shouldn't I expect the same of legion? I'm certainly not just gonna take his word alone for the negative claims he makes. He needs to qualify them.
The European Space Agency, ESA, suggests that the spacecraft Rosetta made total three fly-bys of planet Earth and one fly-by of planet Mars to get to the comet and that each fly-by created a gravity assisted kick sending the spacecraft at a different speed/direction towards the comet and that the spacecraft finally had to brake to fly parallell with the comet. That it is an illusion and pure nonsense is described at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) .
Reason why ESA fools us is to collect tax payers money and put in their own pockets. Rosetta is just computer generated images, etc.
The European Space Agency, ESA, suggests that the spacecraft Rosetta made total three fly-bys of planet Earth and one fly-by of planet Mars to get to the comet and that each fly-by created a gravity assisted kick sending the spacecraft at a different speed/direction towards the comet and that the spacecraft finally had to brake to fly parallell with the comet. That it is an illusion and pure nonsense is described at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) .
Reason why ESA fools us is to collect tax payers money and put in their own pockets. Rosetta is just computer generated images, etc.
The European Space Agency, ESA, suggests that the spacecraft Rosetta made total three fly-bys of planet Earth and one fly-by of planet Mars to get to the comet and that each fly-by created a gravity assisted kick sending the spacecraft at a different speed/direction towards the comet and that the spacecraft finally had to brake to fly parallell with the comet. That it is an illusion and pure nonsense is described at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) .
Reason why ESA fools us is to collect tax payers money and put in their own pockets. Rosetta is just computer generated images, etc.
I'd be more interested in how someone gets to "put money in their pockets", these machines are built, people are paid their salaries, budget is public... It's not like some guy in a cloak just says "this will cost 2 billion, gimme" and shows up with some videos ten years after.
Reason why ESA fools us is to collect tax payers money and put in their own pockets. Rosetta is just computer generated images, etc.
In videos purporting to be footage from either Rosetta's or Philae's cameras, can you please present evidence that they are CGI?
Can you please quote the relevant passage that shows gravitational slingshots are not possible?
In videos purporting to be footage from either Rosetta's or Philae's cameras, can you please present evidence that they are CGI?
Again, would you please quote the relevant passage(s)?
Can you please quote the relevant passage that shows gravitational slingshots are not possible?
In videos purporting to be footage from either Rosetta's or Philae's cameras, can you please present evidence that they are CGI?
Thanks for asking. Answers are provided in my article linked to above.
According ESA the first Rosetta fly-by of planet Earth and associated gravity kick took place exactly one year after departure from planet Earth, i.e. planet Earth had just made one tour around the Sun. If you study my article you will find that Rosetta could not have been in that location in space at that time. Same applies to the following kicks.
Again, would you please quote the relevant passage(s)?
You should wonder about the first strange and following fly-bys (sic) and gravity assist kicks in 3-D. How can planets like Earth and Mars fly-by and kick away a light spacecraft like the Rosetta? Why doesn't Rosetta simply collide with the planets?
Looks easily doable to me. Shows the flight path.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62296.0#.VG66IsnYeQ4 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62296.0#.VG66IsnYeQ4)
The European Space Agency, ESA, suggests that the spacecraft Rosetta made total three fly-bys of planet Earth and one fly-by of planet Mars to get to the comet and that each fly-by created a gravity assisted kick sending the spacecraft at a different speed/direction towards the comet and that the spacecraft finally had to brake to fly parallell with the comet. That it is an illusion and pure nonsense is described at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) .
Reason why ESA fools us is to collect tax payers money and put in their own pockets. Rosetta is just computer generated images, etc.
Before I take a look at this later and critique I just want to point out that conspiracy theorists all suck at web design.
The European Space Agency, ESA, suggests that the spacecraft Rosetta made total three fly-bys of planet Earth and one fly-by of planet Mars to get to the comet and that each fly-by created a gravity assisted kick sending the spacecraft at a different speed/direction towards the comet and that the spacecraft finally had to brake to fly parallell with the comet. That it is an illusion and pure nonsense is described at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) .
Reason why ESA fools us is to collect tax payers money and put in their own pockets. Rosetta is just computer generated images, etc.
Before I take a look at this later and critique I just want to point out that conspiracy theorists all suck at web design.
I'm going to have to agree. I don't have anything to add as far as the the subject goes.
Your page is just text vomit.
Any evidence of this claim?
Your page is just text vomit.
I think you are jealous that I have 500 visitors/day to my site
Any evidence of this claim?
Your page is just text vomit.
I think you are jealous that I have 500 visitors/day to my site
Your page is just text vomit.
I think you are jealous that I have 500 visitors/day to my site and http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS) .
But topic is Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet and for it planet Earth at three close fly-bys kicked off Rosetta three times into new directions at new velocities into space to finally to reach the comet.
But when it happened just above us 3rd March 2005, 14 November 2007 and 11 November 2009 nobody told us. Wouldn't it have been nice to witness a Rosetta fly-by of Earth then?
Maybe there were no fly-bys? What do you think?
They get invited to all the best parties?Any evidence of this claim?
Your page is just text vomit.
I think you are jealous that I have 500 visitors/day to my site
Why would anyone be jealous of Google bots and Yahoo spiders ???
I think you are jealous that I have 500 visitors/day to my site [...]
Your page is just text vomit.
Maybe. Sounds like speculation. Have any actual evidence?
Can you tell us why Rosetta could not carry fuel for maneuvering while you are at it?
Then if there is time could you please do us a favor and research how slingshots work?
Thanks.
I think you are jealous that I have 500 visitors/day to my site [...]
Your page is just text vomit.
Um no. No matter how many hits, I would never be proud of that mess of text. Ever.
I don't have a website, but I do have a front facing server. It gets pretty close to that many 'hits' every day. From Russia, China, .. basically people scanning looking for holes.
If you're proud of effectively throwing alphabet soup at a canvas... then.. I guess. It's still terrible.
I know enough about design principles to know you haven't got a clue what you're doing with that website.
You carbon copy your thoughts directly to your editor, which explains why it's a twisted mess.
As for the actual CONTENT, once I prepare my eyes I'm going to copypasta that entire wall of text and throw it into notepad. Then at least I can read it without getting eye cancer.
Like I said. Trainwrecks get lots of views too. Just because you have visitors, does not automatically mean every one of them are human, and if they are there's no guarantee they aren't just there to see "the worst looking site on the planet". Hell, I added a few to that number, showing my friends just how terrible that site is. You can be proud of that, if you're completely out of touch with reality. Like anyone had a doubt anyway.
I know enough about design principles to know you haven't got a clue what you're doing with that website.Is he really out of touch with reality or are you out of touch with reality. You appear to be knocking his work as though you can pshysically prove him wrong. How can you?
You carbon copy your thoughts directly to your editor, which explains why it's a twisted mess.
As for the actual CONTENT, once I prepare my eyes I'm going to copypasta that entire wall of text and throw it into notepad. Then at least I can read it without getting eye cancer.
Like I said. Trainwrecks get lots of views too. Just because you have visitors, does not automatically mean every one of them are human, and if they are there's no guarantee they aren't just there to see "the worst looking site on the planet". Hell, I added a few to that number, showing my friends just how terrible that site is. You can be proud of that, if you're completely out of touch with reality. Like anyone had a doubt anyway.
Maybe. Sounds like speculation. Have any actual evidence?
Can you tell us why Rosetta could not carry fuel for maneuvering while you are at it?
Then if there is time could you please do us a favor and research how slingshots work?
Thanks.
My ISP tells me I have >500 visitors/day. I think it is pretty good.
Re Rosetta fuel, pls refer to my web page, where it is explained, e.g. only 24 10N thrusters for maneuvering, 1600 kg fuel, etc. Cannot brake the spacecraft much.
Slingshots! According ESA it was done three times just in front of planet Earth - 3rd March 2005, 14 November 2007 and 11 November 2009 - but ESA forgot to tell us about it. Imagine if we could see a spacecraft like Rosetta fly by Earth and change direction, etc. ESA was apparently steering the Rosetta to arrive Earth three times at the right angle/velocity/time for the gravity kick BUT didn't let us see it. I think reason was that it never happened.
But if it happened, ESA should show as the records of the two masses' arrival speed/direction in 3-D and departure speed/direction in 3-D relative the Sun and how ESA adjusted them to suit. Remember that if you go off >1° you'll miss the target.
So your proof it did not happen is:
1. They did not broadcast the Rosetta fly bys.
2. The Rosetta cannot brake much.
Is that it?
So your proof it did not happen is:
1. They did not broadcast the Rosetta fly bys.
2. The Rosetta cannot brake much.
Is that it?
Not really - full story is at my web site. It started 1993. March 2004 Rosetta was sent up into space into orbit around the Sun magically a little off the Earth's orbit around Earth and a year later Rosetta almost collided with planet Earth - the first fly-by kick - that nobody saw. I would have loved to see it - Rosetta arriving at a certain speed and then due to Earth being kicked away towards Mars ... or where Mars will be when Rosetta crosses its orbit around the Sun - a second collision or fly by putting Rossetta into orbit around the Sun, so it can almost collide with planet Earth many monthes later for a second fly-by that nobody saw, etc, etc. Science fiction as its worst!
In the end Rosetta is kicked out towards the elliptical orbit of the comet and when it arrives there course and speed is changed so it after a couple of months Rosette flies parallell with the comet in the orbit of the comet.
How a spacecraft without engine can enter into an elliptical orbit of a comet is ??? .
I do not like the Hells Angels dress code of the ESA staff, either.
Not really - full story is at my web site. It started 1993. March 2004 Rosetta was sent up into space into orbit around the Sun magically a little off the Earth's orbit around Earth and a year later Rosetta almost collided with planet Earth - the first fly-by kick - that nobody saw. I would have loved to see it - Rosetta arriving at a certain speed and then due to Earth being kicked away towards Mars ... or where Mars will be when Rosetta crosses its orbit around the Sun - a second collision or fly by putting Rossetta into orbit around the Sun, so it can almost collide with planet Earth many monthes later for a second fly-by that nobody saw, etc, etc. Science fiction as its worst!Why do you imagine that nobody knew of Rosetta's flybys? They were in in science news and the flight plan was published way back, before the launch. The fact that you didn't know is hardly evidence of anything. Here's (http://www.planetarysociety.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2007/1216.html) an example from 2007, this mission was never some sort of a secret like you'd like people to believe for some reason.
In the end Rosetta is kicked out towards the elliptical orbit of the comet and when it arrives there course and speed is changed so it after a couple of months Rosette flies parallell with the comet in the orbit of the comet.
How a spacecraft without engine can enter into an elliptical orbit of a comet is ??? .
I do not like the Hells Angels dress code of the ESA staff, either.
March 2004 Rosetta was sent up into space into orbit around the Sun magically a little off the Earth's orbit
around Earth and a year later Rosetta almost collided with planet Earth
- the first fly-by kick - that nobody saw. I would have loved to see it - Rosetta arriving at a certain speed and then due to Earth being kicked away towards Mars ... or where Mars will be when Rosetta crosses its orbit around the Sun - a second collision or fly by
putting Rossetta into orbit around the Sun,
so it can almost collide with planet Earth many monthes later for a second fly-by
that nobody saw,
etc, etc. Science fiction as its worst!
In the end Rosetta is kicked out towards the elliptical orbit of the comet and when it arrives there course and speed is changed so it after a couple of months Rosette flies parallell with the comet in the orbit of the comet.
How a spacecraft without engine can enter into an elliptical orbit of a comet is ??? .
I do not like the Hells Angels dress code of the ESA staff, either.
But, but, he has had visitors on his website!*massive snip*
But, but, he has had visitors on his website!
But, but, he has had visitors on his website!
So did Bozo the clown LOL.
Thats not true, my site visit 703 visiters day, americans most. whole story on my site. Bozo the Clown not real, conspiracy made in 1943 by nasa/esa/illuminati/mcdonalds. all on site with massive visitor. you just jealus my site have 703 visits day.
I know enough about design principles to know you haven't got a clue what you're doing with that website.
You carbon copy your thoughts directly to your editor, which explains why it's a twisted mess.
As for the actual CONTENT, once I prepare my eyes I'm going to copypasta that entire wall of text and throw it into notepad. Then at least I can read it without getting eye cancer.
Like I said. Trainwrecks get lots of views too. Just because you have visitors, does not automatically mean every one of them are human, and if they are there's no guarantee they aren't just there to see "the worst looking site on the planet". Hell, I added a few to that number, showing my friends just how terrible that site is. You can be proud of that, if you're completely out of touch with reality. Like anyone had a doubt anyway.
Thanks for your not very intelligent comments about topic Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet that I describe at my popular web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS) .
You seem to be like ESA - a flat 2-D space supporter - believing a spacecraft can bounce around like a billiard ball among the planets completely out of reality. People like you are easy to fool.
Is he really out of touch with reality or are you out of touch with reality. You appear to be knocking his work as though you can pshysically prove him wrong. How can you?In the grand scheme of things, I can't. Neither can you. The problem is, you have to prove alot more with the conspiracy angle than you do the "space travel is real" angle. Now if something solid were to prove your/his point.. alright, then we have a starting point. Instead we have this terrible website he cites, that he himself wrote.
Ok you don't like what you see and you want to argue the point. Fair enough. The problem is, you are trying your utmost to ridicule him and making him out to be some nutter for no other reason than you have been trained to think this way by following mainstream media/science digs that use these terms for no other reason than to stop people actually getting closer to actual reality.He is a nutter. Everyone else has pretty much torn up his arguments. Two little chirps isn't my "utmost to ridicule him". I could do alot worse. His website however deserves all the ridicule it gets, because really. Damn.
You guys are easily fooled, your brains are impervious to what Heiwa is saying. Plus you are assholes about it. If you would spend anytime reading the analysis, you might have a question or two about the"flight". You don't question any thing that NASA or ESA tells you. NASA and TPTB have in the palm of there hands. You suffer from belief prior to investigation. You are dummies.I read Heiwa's page and it is woefully short on analysis. However, there are plenty of incredulous claims interspersed with weakly supported factoids. If you were not so intent on believing him, you would see this.
You guys are easily fooled, your brains are impervious to what Heiwa is saying. Plus you are assholes about it. If you would spend anytime reading the analysis, you might have a question or two about the"flight". You don't question any thing that NASA or ESA tells you. NASA and TPTB have in the palm of there hands. You suffer from belief prior to investigation. You are dummies.
You guys are easily fooled, your brains are impervious to what Heiwa is saying. Plus you are assholes about it. If you would spend anytime reading the analysis, you might have a question or two about the"flight". You don't question any thing that NASA or ESA tells you. NASA and TPTB have in the palm of there hands. You suffer from belief prior to investigation. You are dummies.
If you think that Rosetta got 4 kicks in one loop, then you obviously haven't studied the flight plan.Looks easily doable to me. Shows the flight path.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62296.0#.VG66IsnYeQ4 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62296.0#.VG66IsnYeQ4)
If you look carefully, Rosetta, after four kicks, in one elliptical loop suddenly manage to move into another, different loop of the comet and then flies at same speed of the comet.
Anyway - each kick is impossible in 3-D space. The planets can only attract the spacecraft and not attract/kick off the spacecraft in another direction like a slingshot...On what scientific principles do you base this claim?
Also the first orbit of Rosetta around the Sun and close by to Earth all the time before the first kick is impossible. Rosetta cannot fly away from Earth for say a week and then change course into an orbit around the Sun to collide with Earth again after a year. All ESA info is thus pure science fiction. Not even fun!Again, have you studied the flight plan?
Again, have you studied the flight plan?
If you read my article at my web pageYou should really stop that crap. Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.
My reasoning about the Rosetta hoax is quite lengthy and that's why I present it on my popular web site. Regardless, it would appear from the ESA flight plan that planet Earth was in a perfect location 11 or 13 November 2009 to launch Rosetta directly towards the orbit of the comet, so the whole show with a launch 2 or 3 March 2004 and then being kicked around like a billiard ball seems bad science fiction.If you read my article at my web pageYou should really stop that crap. Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.
If you have a argument to make, then make it here.
My reasoning about the Rosetta hoax is quite lengthy and that's why I present it on my popular web site. Regardless, it would appear from the ESA flight plan that planet Earth was in a perfect location 11 or 13 November 2009 to launch Rosetta directly towards the orbit of the comet, so the whole show with a launch 2 or 3 March 2004 and then being kicked around like a billiard ball seems bad science fiction.If you read my article at my web pageYou should really stop that crap. Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.
If you have a argument to make, then make it here.
I evidently know both plans are impossible. You cannot send a spacecraft away from the orbit of Earth and Earth itself to enter another orbit of another planet or comet because in order to change speed and direction in space, you need energy and you cannot carry that energy/fuel with you. Just a trip to Mars is impossible for that reason.
People that believe in space travel are really brainwashed by too much space travel propaganda.
More empty hand waving. Bring some numbers, then we can debate.My reasoning about the Rosetta hoax is quite lengthy and that's why I present it on my popular web site. Regardless, it would appear from the ESA flight plan that planet Earth was in a perfect location 11 or 13 November 2009 to launch Rosetta directly towards the orbit of the comet, so the whole show with a launch 2 or 3 March 2004 and then being kicked around like a billiard ball seems bad science fiction.If you read my article at my web pageYou should really stop that crap. Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.
If you have a argument to make, then make it here.
I evidently know both plans are impossible. You cannot send a spacecraft away from the orbit of Earth and Earth itself to enter another orbit of another planet or comet because in order to change speed and direction in space, you need energy and you cannot carry that energy/fuel with you. Just a trip to Mars is impossible for that reason.
People that believe in space travel are really brainwashed by too much space travel propaganda.
All details you want to see about my evidence about impossible space travel are on my web site. Space travel is not possible. You cannot ever stop in or return from space alive. We can only send satellites one way away into space. That's not travel.
You claim this but never support it with evidence. Even on your popular website. You make a lot of assertions but never show your reasoning in detail. This is what I want to see.
OK! € 1 000 000:- ! Collect it at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .More empty hand waving. Bring some numbers, then we can debate.My reasoning about the Rosetta hoax is quite lengthy and that's why I present it on my popular web site. Regardless, it would appear from the ESA flight plan that planet Earth was in a perfect location 11 or 13 November 2009 to launch Rosetta directly towards the orbit of the comet, so the whole show with a launch 2 or 3 March 2004 and then being kicked around like a billiard ball seems bad science fiction.If you read my article at my web pageYou should really stop that crap. Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.
If you have a argument to make, then make it here.
I evidently know both plans are impossible. You cannot send a spacecraft away from the orbit of Earth and Earth itself to enter another orbit of another planet or comet because in order to change speed and direction in space, you need energy and you cannot carry that energy/fuel with you. Just a trip to Mars is impossible for that reason.
People that believe in space travel are really brainwashed by too much space travel propaganda.
All details you want to see about my evidence about impossible space travel are on my web site. Space travel is not possible. You cannot ever stop in or return from space alive. We can only send satellites one way away into space. That's not travel.
You claim this but never support it with evidence. Even on your popular website. You make a lot of assertions but never show your reasoning in detail. This is what I want to see.
I have since many years offered anyone proving me wrong €1 000 000:- at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) , but nobody has collected.
Why?
Because I am right? Check yourself!
He has supported his claims at least once on his website. Why do you all act like he has no evidence?All details you want to see about my evidence about impossible space travel are on my web site. Space travel is not possible. You cannot ever stop in or return from space alive. We can only send satellites one way away into space. That's not travel.
You claim this but never support it with evidence. Even on your popular website. You make a lot of assertions but never show your reasoning in detail. This is what I want to see.
I have since many years offered anyone proving me wrong €1 000 000:- at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) , but nobody has collected.
Why?
Because I am right? Check yourself!
Why won't you support your claims? It has been asked repeatedly and all you do is promote your website.
He has supported his claims at least once on his website. Why do you all act like he has no evidence?All details you want to see about my evidence about impossible space travel are on my web site. Space travel is not possible. You cannot ever stop in or return from space alive. We can only send satellites one way away into space. That's not travel.
You claim this but never support it with evidence. Even on your popular website. You make a lot of assertions but never show your reasoning in detail. This is what I want to see.
I have since many years offered anyone proving me wrong €1 000 000:- at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) , but nobody has collected.
Why?
Because I am right? Check yourself!
Why won't you support your claims? It has been asked repeatedly and all you do is promote your website.
More hand waving. Bring some numbers, not imaginary money.OK! € 1 000 000:- ! Collect it at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .More empty hand waving. Bring some numbers, then we can debate.My reasoning about the Rosetta hoax is quite lengthy and that's why I present it on my popular web site. Regardless, it would appear from the ESA flight plan that planet Earth was in a perfect location 11 or 13 November 2009 to launch Rosetta directly towards the orbit of the comet, so the whole show with a launch 2 or 3 March 2004 and then being kicked around like a billiard ball seems bad science fiction.If you read my article at my web pageYou should really stop that crap. Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.
If you have a argument to make, then make it here.
I evidently know both plans are impossible. You cannot send a spacecraft away from the orbit of Earth and Earth itself to enter another orbit of another planet or comet because in order to change speed and direction in space, you need energy and you cannot carry that energy/fuel with you. Just a trip to Mars is impossible for that reason.
People that believe in space travel are really brainwashed by too much space travel propaganda.
Then we can debate.
He has posted hundreds of numbers for you to dispute. Who is being lazy here?More hand waving. Bring some numbers, not imaginary money.OK! € 1 000 000:- ! Collect it at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .More empty hand waving. Bring some numbers, then we can debate.My reasoning about the Rosetta hoax is quite lengthy and that's why I present it on my popular web site. Regardless, it would appear from the ESA flight plan that planet Earth was in a perfect location 11 or 13 November 2009 to launch Rosetta directly towards the orbit of the comet, so the whole show with a launch 2 or 3 March 2004 and then being kicked around like a billiard ball seems bad science fiction.If you read my article at my web pageYou should really stop that crap. Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.
If you have a argument to make, then make it here.
I evidently know both plans are impossible. You cannot send a spacecraft away from the orbit of Earth and Earth itself to enter another orbit of another planet or comet because in order to change speed and direction in space, you need energy and you cannot carry that energy/fuel with you. Just a trip to Mars is impossible for that reason.
People that believe in space travel are really brainwashed by too much space travel propaganda.
Then we can debate.
You guys are easily fooled, your brains are impervious to what Heiwa is saying.And for which I'm eternally grateful. Absorbing anything at all from Anders Bjorkman's site would be tantamount to killing of 20 billion brain cells in one fell swoop LOL.
Plus you are assholes about it.
He has posted hundreds of numbers for you to dispute. Who is being lazy here?More hand waving. Bring some numbers, not imaginary money.OK! € 1 000 000:- ! Collect it at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .More empty hand waving. Bring some numbers, then we can debate.My reasoning about the Rosetta hoax is quite lengthy and that's why I present it on my popular web site. Regardless, it would appear from the ESA flight plan that planet Earth was in a perfect location 11 or 13 November 2009 to launch Rosetta directly towards the orbit of the comet, so the whole show with a launch 2 or 3 March 2004 and then being kicked around like a billiard ball seems bad science fiction.If you read my article at my web pageYou should really stop that crap. Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.
If you have a argument to make, then make it here.
I evidently know both plans are impossible. You cannot send a spacecraft away from the orbit of Earth and Earth itself to enter another orbit of another planet or comet because in order to change speed and direction in space, you need energy and you cannot carry that energy/fuel with you. Just a trip to Mars is impossible for that reason.
People that believe in space travel are really brainwashed by too much space travel propaganda.
Then we can debate.
He has also put his money and reputation at stake, which is much more than you have done.
I evidently know both plans are impossible. You cannot send a spacecraft away from the orbit of Earth and Earth itself to enter another orbit of another planet or comet because in order to change speed and direction in space, you need energy and you cannot carry that energy/fuel with you.
Nothing to see here, guys. Just some armchair scientist who keeps talking smack and actually thinks he's smarter than hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and engineers.
Nothing to see here, guys. Just some armchair scientist who keeps talking smack and actually thinks he's smarter than hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and engineers.
Great. Another believer. Feel free to convince us that this shambolic fiasco was actually a serious scientific accomplishment.
Nothing to see here, guys. Just some armchair scientist who keeps talking smack and actually thinks he's smarter than hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and engineers.
Great. Another believer. Feel free to convince us that this shambolic fiasco was actually a serious scientific accomplishment.
If it happened, then it was more of an engineering accomplishment. I am not sure why you would classify it as a "shambolic fiasco". We're you just trying to sound like Oscar Wilde or something?
"Engineers are not scientists". Search for it on here. Do you think they are the same?Nothing to see here, guys. Just some armchair scientist who keeps talking smack and actually thinks he's smarter than hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and engineers.
Great. Another believer. Feel free to convince us that this shambolic fiasco was actually a serious scientific accomplishment.
If it happened, then it was more of an engineering accomplishment. I am not sure why you would classify it as a "shambolic fiasco". We're you just trying to sound like Oscar Wilde or something?
Engineering is not part of the sciences now? Do you even know what science or engineering is?
"Engineers are not scientists". Search for it on here. Do you think they are the same?Nothing to see here, guys. Just some armchair scientist who keeps talking smack and actually thinks he's smarter than hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and engineers.
Great. Another believer. Feel free to convince us that this shambolic fiasco was actually a serious scientific accomplishment.
If it happened, then it was more of an engineering accomplishment. I am not sure why you would classify it as a "shambolic fiasco". We're you just trying to sound like Oscar Wilde or something?
Engineering is not part of the sciences now? Do you even know what science or engineering is?
Feel free to show some evidence of the conspiracy. Any evidence.Nothing to see here, guys. Just some armchair scientist who keeps talking smack and actually thinks he's smarter than hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and engineers.
Great. Another believer. Feel free to convince us that this shambolic fiasco was actually a serious scientific accomplishment.
Yes, BS, bachelor of science. Where did I say otherwise?"Engineers are not scientists". Search for it on here. Do you think they are the same?Nothing to see here, guys. Just some armchair scientist who keeps talking smack and actually thinks he's smarter than hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and engineers.
Great. Another believer. Feel free to convince us that this shambolic fiasco was actually a serious scientific accomplishment.
If it happened, then it was more of an engineering accomplishment. I am not sure why you would classify it as a "shambolic fiasco". We're you just trying to sound like Oscar Wilde or something?
Engineering is not part of the sciences now? Do you even know what science or engineering is?
Do you not realize that engineers have the word "science" in their degree tittle?
Do you not realize that scientists and engineers have different methodologies and goals?"Engineers are not scientists". Search for it on here. Do you think they are the same?Nothing to see here, guys. Just some armchair scientist who keeps talking smack and actually thinks he's smarter than hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and engineers.
Great. Another believer. Feel free to convince us that this shambolic fiasco was actually a serious scientific accomplishment.
If it happened, then it was more of an engineering accomplishment. I am not sure why you would classify it as a "shambolic fiasco". We're you just trying to sound like Oscar Wilde or something?
Engineering is not part of the sciences now? Do you even know what science or engineering is?
Do you not realize that engineers have the word "science" in their degree tittle?
There are now BEng and MEng degrees."Engineers are not scientists". Search for it on here. Do you think they are the same?Nothing to see here, guys. Just some armchair scientist who keeps talking smack and actually thinks he's smarter than hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and engineers.
Great. Another believer. Feel free to convince us that this shambolic fiasco was actually a serious scientific accomplishment.
If it happened, then it was more of an engineering accomplishment. I am not sure why you would classify it as a "shambolic fiasco". We're you just trying to sound like Oscar Wilde or something?
Engineering is not part of the sciences now? Do you even know what science or engineering is?
Do you not realize that engineers have the word "science" in their degree tittle?
Engineering is not part of the sciences now? Do you even know what science or engineering is?Do you?
Nothing to see here, guys. Just some armchair scientist who keeps talking smack and actually thinks he's smarter than hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and engineers.
Great. Another believer. Feel free to convince us that this shambolic fiasco was actually a serious scientific accomplishment.
If it happened, then it was more of an engineering accomplishment. I am not sure why you would classify it as a "shambolic fiasco". We're you just trying to sound like Oscar Wilde or something?
Engineering is not part of the sciences now? Do you even know what science or engineering is?
Do you not realize that engineers have the word "science" in their degree tittle?I'm sure that's just some particular group of 'engineers'. Did you have science tattooed on your tittle or how did it end up there?
;D ;D ;D ;D I had to laugh out loud at this. Sorry about the low content, I just couldn't help it.Do you not realize that engineers have the word "science" in their degree tittle?I'm sure that's just some particular group of 'engineers'. Did you have science tattooed on your tittle or how did it end up there?
We are specifically asking for one set of numbers that he uses to prove that Rosetta could never make the orbit.
If he is such the expert and us such the idiots, then he would gladly put them right here. Instead of trying to increase his worthless sites hits.
As re-entries are, IMO, impossible, the Orion was just another magic trick of NASA to keep the Rosetta illusion alive.
I have asked Mr Brandi K. Dean (JSC-AD931)" <[email protected]> of NASA about a log of the 5 December Orion flight with speed (m/s), course (°) (horizontally), position (lat/long on Earth below), altitude (m) - say every 5 or 10 minutes - from start to splashdown to include in my popular web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) , but Mr Dean has replied:
We can't provide that information because it would reveal information that ULA considers proprietary for the Delta V.
It is clear that NASA cannot provide any evidence that the Orion ever flew anywhere in space above Earth.
This does not follow. An unwillingness to provide information (that you are not entitled to) does not equate an inability to provide such information does it now?
This does not follow. An unwillingness to provide information (that you are not entitled to) does not equate an inability to provide such information does it now?
NASA has made a lot of PR for Orion but the general public could neither watch the launch nor the splash down at close distance.
Only low quality footage and cartoons were handed out indicating it is amateurish science fiction.
And then the whole track of the trip is secret because they could not connect the times of launch and splash down correctly.
NASA was caught with their pants down ... again ... full of shit. Like the ESA Rosetta clowns with tattooes and naked girls shirts.
I see we have another probe waking up out of a coma now it's near pluto after a 9 (?) year trip.
How stupid does this stuff have to actually get before people will wake up to this absolute nonsense. ::)
51,000 miles per hour they reckon it was travelling. Some fuel and solar panels eh? ;D
Oops, it looks like solar panels are of no use for the 3 Billion mile trip.
Here's what it says.
Why not go into orbit around Pluto?
There are two reasons. The first is an engineering reason. To get to Pluto (which is 5 billion kilometers or 3 billion miles from Earth) in just 9.5 years, as New Horizons will, the spacecraft must travel very, very quickly. As a result, New Horizons will speed by Pluto at a velocity of about 43,000 kilometers per hour (27,000 miles per hour). To get into orbit, operators would have to reduce that speed by over 90%, which would require more than 1,000 times the fuel that New Horizons can carry.
The second reason is scientific: If we did stop to go into orbit, we wouldn't be able to go on to explore the Kuiper Belt!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are some of the major challenges of this mission?
The huge distance of Pluto from the Sun, about 32 times farther than the Earth-Sun distance, creates "extreme" conditions in several respects. First, it takes a long time to get to Pluto (9.5 years with a gravity boost from Jupiter), ::)which means that the spacecraft and instruments must have long lifetimes (i.e., their "warranties" must be good for over a decade!). ;DThe large distance from the Sun also means that solar cells could not be used to power the spacecraft, and the onboard systems must be designed to operate in a cold environment ::). Finally, sending a spacecraft all the way to Pluto required a powerful rocket and places severe constraints on the weights of the instruments. The more mass you want to carry, the larger the rocket needs to be. Even using the Lockheed-Martin Atlas V rocket, one of the most powerful in the U.S. fleet, New Horizons had to weigh about 1,050 pounds (480 kilograms).
All of the above posed major technical challenges, but the New Horizons team has found ways to overcome all of them and delivered a spacecraft that can meet all of NASA's primary scientific objectives at Pluto.
Oh we all don't doubt for one second they won't overcome any problems. A few weetabix packets - some duct tape and a roll of kitchen foil in it's backpack is the essential kit for camping out 3 billion miles from home. ;D
The New Horizons spacecraft is roughly 8 feet (2.5 meters) across and weighed approximately 1,050 pounds (480 kilograms) — about half a ton — when first fueled. It's about the size (and shape) of a baby grand piano. ;D
That's music to our ears. Hahahahaha. That's tickled my ivories. What about you lot? ;D
It carries seven scientific instruments:
Are you ready?
1.ALICE is an ultraviolet spectrometer used for measuring gas composition
Alice? Alice?...who the F is Alice? ;D
2.RALPH combines an infrared spectrometer (LEISA) for mapping surface composition with a color optical imager (MVIC) for mapping surface structure and composition
Happy days indeed. We have Ralph Malph on the job as well as Alice in wonderland. ;D
3.REX is a radio experiment for measuring atmospheric composition and temperature
Naturally, man's best friend is Rex, so what a companion to have. This will be the sniffer instrument. I'm sure REX will get along with pluto. ;D
4.LORRI is an optical telescope that provides the highest resolution imaging of the surface
Let's not forget, you need a big truck to store your samples on these missions, so always bring along a LORRI. ;D
5.PEPSSI is a plasma-sensing instrument for measuring particles escaping from Pluto's atmosphere
This instrument will be measuring the fizz and calorie content of little Pluto. :P
6.SWAP is a plasma-sensing instrument for measuring the properties of the solar wind at Pluto, Pluto's atmospheric escape rate, and for searching for a magnetosphere around Pluto. The "solar wind" is a stream of charged particles streaming away from the Sun at high speed.
For safety purposes, always take a swap team. ;D
7.SDC, an instrument used to measure dust impacts at the New Horizons spacecraft during its entire trajectory, was built by students at the University of Colorado!
After all that we get SDC? what the hell. :-\ It must be short for SPACE DUST CAPTURER. I can picture it now relaying messages on twitter to the other intruments. " duck,we are being (ouch, ouch,ouch) bombarded by space dust." ;D
The extremeties of space, eh?
The coldness of space?
One minute space is neither hot nor cold and now it's extreme cold. :-\
I have a feeling that we aren't too far off a big TV show of men on another so called planet that is like Earth, they will say.
I can see a lost in space carry on coming and it's coming right around the corner at us.
Aliens first, maybe?
Watch this. It'll turn out that pluto is actually just like Earth and is now reclassified as a planet where man will go on a mission to it to populate it by boarding a new ultra Alpha Delta nuclear rocket that can reach pluto in a year and man will colonise it.
A little Noah's Ark. 10 men and 10 women, all DNA tested to show perfection and all who look great in tight silver suits with a big helmet on. ;D
It's a good job I know they are taking the utter piss out of us all, because if I didn't, I would be in for one hell of a come down when the crap hits the fan.
51,000 miles per hour they reckon it was travelling. Some fuel and solar panels eh? ;D
Oops, it looks like solar panels are of no use for the 3 Billion mile trip.
This post is the concrete proof that Sceptimatic, although a self proclaimed genius who knows everything wrong about the current model of the Universe, knows absolutely nothing about space travel.And you are a seasoned spaceman are you? ;D
Jesus. First of all, Scepti, if you've "grasped" anything about what we've been telling you about space travel, you would know that reaching a speed of 51,000 miles per hour is not actually that great of a feat, and not to mention that the majority of that burn happened barely into medium Earth orbit. The spacecraft itself did not get itself to those speeds.Oh ok, then what made the space craft get to these speeds if it didn't use any fuel. gravity pulling? what did it do? just sling shot around planets and whizz into space?
Second of all, no. It does not have solar panels, because like you guessed, there isn't enough sunlight 31.09AU (as of today) away from the sun. In fact, no spacecraft meant to go that far ever had solar panels. That's why they use a radioisotope thermoelectric generator.I forgot abut that radioisotope thermoelectric generator. How does this work? petrol generator?
Just a guess here, but it likely uses radioisotopes.So tell me how they power the ship.
Just a guess here, but it likely uses radioisotopes.So tell me how they power the ship.
Look it up and if you don't believe it tell us the link.Just a guess here, but it likely uses radioisotopes.So tell me how they power the ship.
Oh ok, then what made the space craft get to these speeds if it didn't use any fuel. gravity pulling? what did it do? just sling shot around planets and whizz into space?
Tell me oh great one.
I forgot abut that radioisotope thermoelectric generator. How does this work? petrol generator?
I agree. It takes time to read up on clap trap propulsion methods, doesn't it? and I understand you not bothering to go through that carry on.Just a guess here, but it likely uses radioisotopes.So tell me how they power the ship.
I am not here to hold your hand.
Nah. It's ok. If I wanted to read fantasy I'd just buy a comic or something.Look it up and if you don't believe it tell us the link.Just a guess here, but it likely uses radioisotopes.So tell me how they power the ship.
No I don't believe in nuclear power. Anyway, so this thing is fissioning (allegedly) in a probe and somehow creating electricity without any water coolant to stop it going critical as we are led to believe this stuff does. And yet this thing is fissioning for over 9 years and somehow powering this probe.Oh ok, then what made the space craft get to these speeds if it didn't use any fuel. gravity pulling? what did it do? just sling shot around planets and whizz into space?
Tell me oh great one.
A Lockheed Martin Atlas V 551 rocket, a Centaur second stage and a ATK Star 48B third stage along with the gravity sling shot provided by the Jupiter flyby.QuoteI forgot abut that radioisotope thermoelectric generator. How does this work? petrol generator?
It's plutonium-238 oxide, clad in iridium and encased in graphite. It "uses an array of thermocouples to convert the heat released by the decay of a suitable radioactive material into electricity by the Seebeck effect." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator)
You do believe in nuclear power don't you? You should. It's all push on push. Just think about it.
Nah. It's ok. If I wanted to read fantasy I'd just buy a comic or something.Look it up and if you don't believe it tell us the link.Just a guess here, but it likely uses radioisotopes.So tell me how they power the ship.
True. I do help people a lot by making it clear that I don't swallow bull crap, so at least you know when you back out. Good on you.Nah. It's ok. If I wanted to read fantasy I'd just buy a comic or something.Look it up and if you don't believe it tell us the link.Just a guess here, but it likely uses radioisotopes.So tell me how they power the ship.
So dishonest. I am glad that you are easy to predict so I don't have to waste time with the things I don't want to.
No I don't believe in nuclear power. Anyway, so this thing is fissioning (allegedly) in a probe and somehow creating electricity without any water coolant to stop it going critical as we are led to believe this stuff does. And yet this thing is fissioning for over 9 years and somehow powering this probe.
Is there any chance that you people will one day wake up and actually have the common sense to see that they are ripping the piss out of you?
Fission isn't used in satellites. It's just radioactive decay. It's happening in your smoke detector right now.No I don't believe in nuclear power. Anyway, so this thing is fissioning (allegedly) in a probe and somehow creating electricity without any water coolant to stop it going critical as we are led to believe this stuff does. And yet this thing is fissioning for over 9 years and somehow powering this probe.Oh ok, then what made the space craft get to these speeds if it didn't use any fuel. gravity pulling? what did it do? just sling shot around planets and whizz into space?
Tell me oh great one.
A Lockheed Martin Atlas V 551 rocket, a Centaur second stage and a ATK Star 48B third stage along with the gravity sling shot provided by the Jupiter flyby.QuoteI forgot abut that radioisotope thermoelectric generator. How does this work? petrol generator?
It's plutonium-238 oxide, clad in iridium and encased in graphite. It "uses an array of thermocouples to convert the heat released by the decay of a suitable radioactive material into electricity by the Seebeck effect." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator)
You do believe in nuclear power don't you? You should. It's all push on push. Just think about it.
Is there any chance that you people will one day wake up and actually have the common sense to see that they are ripping the piss out of you?
So then explain how it generates this electricity for this probe, in space for over 9 years then.No I don't believe in nuclear power. Anyway, so this thing is fissioning (allegedly) in a probe and somehow creating electricity without any water coolant to stop it going critical as we are led to believe this stuff does. And yet this thing is fissioning for over 9 years and somehow powering this probe.
Is there any chance that you people will one day wake up and actually have the common sense to see that they are ripping the piss out of you?
You should think about what you write. No one mentioned fission. Heat generated by radioactive isotopes was mentioned. Totally different things.
Yes but batteries or mains electricity power my smoke detector not radioactive isotopes.Fission isn't used in satellites. It's just radioactive decay. It's happening in your smoke detector right now.No I don't believe in nuclear power. Anyway, so this thing is fissioning (allegedly) in a probe and somehow creating electricity without any water coolant to stop it going critical as we are led to believe this stuff does. And yet this thing is fissioning for over 9 years and somehow powering this probe.Oh ok, then what made the space craft get to these speeds if it didn't use any fuel. gravity pulling? what did it do? just sling shot around planets and whizz into space?
Tell me oh great one.
A Lockheed Martin Atlas V 551 rocket, a Centaur second stage and a ATK Star 48B third stage along with the gravity sling shot provided by the Jupiter flyby.QuoteI forgot abut that radioisotope thermoelectric generator. How does this work? petrol generator?
It's plutonium-238 oxide, clad in iridium and encased in graphite. It "uses an array of thermocouples to convert the heat released by the decay of a suitable radioactive material into electricity by the Seebeck effect." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator)
You do believe in nuclear power don't you? You should. It's all push on push. Just think about it.
Is there any chance that you people will one day wake up and actually have the common sense to see that they are ripping the piss out of you?
Edit: Beat by Rama Set.
So then explain how it generates this electricity for this probe, in space for over 9 years then.No I don't believe in nuclear power. Anyway, so this thing is fissioning (allegedly) in a probe and somehow creating electricity without any water coolant to stop it going critical as we are led to believe this stuff does. And yet this thing is fissioning for over 9 years and somehow powering this probe.
Is there any chance that you people will one day wake up and actually have the common sense to see that they are ripping the piss out of you?
You should think about what you write. No one mentioned fission. Heat generated by radioactive isotopes was mentioned. Totally different things.
QuoteNASA was caught with their pants down ... again ... full of shit. Like the ESA Rosetta clowns with tattooes and naked girls shirts.
Stay classy Heiwa. I will reiterate my offer: I will pay 1,000,000CAD if NASA refuses to hand over mission logs for the Dec 5, 2014 Orion mission to a Senate oversight committee.
Loved your analysis scepti...lol,lol
Do you even read any of the posts that you reply to? ??? ::)Yes but batteries or mains electricity power my smoke detector not radioactive isotopes.Fission isn't used in satellites. It's just radioactive decay. It's happening in your smoke detector right now.No I don't believe in nuclear power. Anyway, so this thing is fissioning (allegedly) in a probe and somehow creating electricity without any water coolant to stop it going critical as we are led to believe this stuff does. And yet this thing is fissioning for over 9 years and somehow powering this probe.Oh ok, then what made the space craft get to these speeds if it didn't use any fuel. gravity pulling? what did it do? just sling shot around planets and whizz into space?
Tell me oh great one.
A Lockheed Martin Atlas V 551 rocket, a Centaur second stage and a ATK Star 48B third stage along with the gravity sling shot provided by the Jupiter flyby.QuoteI forgot abut that radioisotope thermoelectric generator. How does this work? petrol generator?
It's plutonium-238 oxide, clad in iridium and encased in graphite. It "uses an array of thermocouples to convert the heat released by the decay of a suitable radioactive material into electricity by the Seebeck effect." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator)
You do believe in nuclear power don't you? You should. It's all push on push. Just think about it.
Is there any chance that you people will one day wake up and actually have the common sense to see that they are ripping the piss out of you?
Edit: Beat by Rama Set.
How about explaining how they power that probe effigy.
Jesus. First of all, Scepti, if you've "grasped" anything about what we've been telling you about space travel, you would know that reaching a speed of 51,000 miles per hour is not actually that great of a feat, and not to mention that the majority of that burn happened barely into medium Earth orbit. The spacecraft itself did not get itself to those speeds.Oh ok, then what made the space craft get to these speeds if it didn't use any fuel. gravity pulling? what did it do? just sling shot around planets and whizz into space?
Tell me oh great one.
No I don't believe in nuclear power. Anyway, so this thing is fissioning (allegedly) in a probe and somehow creating electricity without any water coolant to stop it going critical as we are led to believe this stuff does. And yet this thing is fissioning for over 9 years and somehow powering this probe.
Hey, did you also know that the speed at which a rocket outside the atmosphere accelerates is exponential? That is because without the drag of the atmosphere and the light rocket (because it has burnt most of its fuel and jettisoned the lower stages), the thrust to weight ratio becomes extremely big! That means it requires little time and little fuel to accelerate it to an escape velocity with those powerful engines.
I find it funny that you dare trash talk and bash things you don't even understand.
Hey, did you also know that the speed at which a rocket outside the atmosphere accelerates is exponential? That is because without the drag of the atmosphere and the light rocket (because it has burnt most of its fuel and jettisoned the lower stages), the thrust to weight ratio becomes extremely big! That means it requires little time and little fuel to accelerate it to an escape velocity with those powerful engines.
I find it funny that you dare trash talk and bash things you don't even understand.
A message for all flat earthers:
Science fiction movies do a terrible job at portraying physics (so much for indoctrination), and if your knowlage about space travel is gained from science fiction, then it's probobaly wrong. Forget all physics that you have learned from science fiction films.
A message for all flat earthers:
Science fiction movies do a terrible job at portraying physics (so much for indoctrination), and if your knowlage about space travel is gained from science fiction, then it's probobaly wrong. Forget all physics that you have learned from science fiction films.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator):
"...In the same brief letter where he introduced the communications satellite, Arthur C. Clarke suggested that, with respect to spacecraft, "the operating period might be indefinitely prolonged by the use of thermocouples.""
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke (http://[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke)[/url]:
Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, CBE, FRAS (Sri Lankabhimanya Arthur Charles Clarke) (16 December 1917 – 19 March 2008) was a British science fiction writer, science writer and futurist, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host.
Who is relying on science fiction again?
Star Trek communicators look and work a lot like mobile phones even though It has unrealistic physics. Mobile phones are obviously not a conspiracy because I am posting this reply from my iPhone. BTW, I never said that everything in science fiction is false, I am just saying that it's not a reliable source.A message for all flat earthers:
Science fiction movies do a terrible job at portraying physics (so much for indoctrination), and if your knowlage about space travel is gained from science fiction, then it's probobaly wrong. Forget all physics that you have learned from science fiction films.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator):
"...In the same brief letter where he introduced the communications satellite, Arthur C. Clarke suggested that, with respect to spacecraft, "the operating period might be indefinitely prolonged by the use of thermocouples.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke):
Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, CBE, FRAS (Sri Lankabhimanya Arthur Charles Clarke) (16 December 1917 – 19 March 2008) was a British science fiction writer, science writer and futurist, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host.
Who is relying on science fiction again?
A message for all flat earthers:
Science fiction movies do a terrible job at portraying physics (so much for indoctrination), and if your knowlage about space travel is gained from science fiction, then it's probobaly wrong. Forget all physics that you have learned from science fiction films.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator):
"...In the same brief letter where he introduced the communications satellite, Arthur C. Clarke suggested that, with respect to spacecraft, "the operating period might be indefinitely prolonged by the use of thermocouples.""
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke (http://[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke)[/url]:
Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, CBE, FRAS (Sri Lankabhimanya Arthur Charles Clarke) (16 December 1917 – 19 March 2008) was a British science fiction writer, science writer and futurist, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host.
Who is relying on science fiction again?
Can you please point to where radioisotope thermoelectric generators are described as fiction, other than in your own opinion? You seem to conflate a science fiction author (and inventor per your source) with science fiction itself.
RTG's can supply power for a long time but their high expense and radioactivity makes them not very practical for a lot of things. They are great for supplying reliable power for long periods of time in remote and hard (or impossible) to re supply regions where solar power is not practical, but how often does that happen? Just because it doesn't power your refrigerator doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.A message for all flat earthers:
Science fiction movies do a terrible job at portraying physics (so much for indoctrination), and if your knowlage about space travel is gained from science fiction, then it's probobaly wrong. Forget all physics that you have learned from science fiction films.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator):
"...In the same brief letter where he introduced the communications satellite, Arthur C. Clarke suggested that, with respect to spacecraft, "the operating period might be indefinitely prolonged by the use of thermocouples.""
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke (http://[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke)[/url]:
Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, CBE, FRAS (Sri Lankabhimanya Arthur Charles Clarke) (16 December 1917 – 19 March 2008) was a British science fiction writer, science writer and futurist, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host.
Who is relying on science fiction again?
Can you please point to where radioisotope thermoelectric generators are described as fiction, other than in your own opinion? You seem to conflate a science fiction author (and inventor per your source) with science fiction itself.
Can you find any examples, other than the following:
1. Space adventures.
2. Soviet lighthouses.
3. US controlled Arctic stations.
where these RTG's are used? I couldn't after ten minutes of web searching. What does that tell us?
A message for all flat earthers:
Science fiction movies do a terrible job at portraying physics (so much for indoctrination), and if your knowlage about space travel is gained from science fiction, then it's probobaly wrong. Forget all physics that you have learned from science fiction films.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator):
"...In the same brief letter where he introduced the communications satellite, Arthur C. Clarke suggested that, with respect to spacecraft, "the operating period might be indefinitely prolonged by the use of thermocouples.""
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke (http://[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke)[/url]:
Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, CBE, FRAS (Sri Lankabhimanya Arthur Charles Clarke) (16 December 1917 – 19 March 2008) was a British science fiction writer, science writer and futurist, inventor, undersea explorer, and television series host.
Who is relying on science fiction again?
Can you please point to where radioisotope thermoelectric generators are described as fiction, other than in your own opinion? You seem to conflate a science fiction author (and inventor per your source) with science fiction itself.
Can you find any examples, other than the following:
1. Space adventures.
2. Soviet lighthouses.
3. US controlled Arctic stations.
where these RTG's are used? I couldn't after ten minutes of web searching. What does that tell us?
Hey, did you also know that the speed at which a rocket outside the atmosphere accelerates is exponential? That is because without the drag of the atmosphere and the light rocket (because it has burnt most of its fuel and jettisoned the lower stages), the thrust to weight ratio becomes extremely big! That means it requires little time and little fuel to accelerate it to an escape velocity with those powerful engines.
I find it funny that you dare trash talk and bash things you don't even understand.
A NASA/ESA spacecraft in our Solar system just increases its speed with a factor of say ~2.5 as long as thrust/force is applied to it by a rocket engine aboard. Reason is that the spacecraft ejects fuel mass as hot gas in one direction and, when getting lighter, speeds off in the other direction. When you shut off the space craft rocket engine, speed does not become constant, because of the Sun and Co. Gravity! Heard about it? Going to Pluto away from the Sun, you'll slow down all the time. Going towards the Sun you go faster and faster. Don't forget that you are in 3-D Solar system space with the Sun in the middle. Of course Sun + its Solar system is speeding away in the Milky Way towards some Dark Hole somewhere. But do not worry. Human space travel in our Solar system is 100% impossible, though. It only exists in Hollywood SF films, etc.
I have explained it on page 3 of this thread.
Gravity! Heard about it? Going to Pluto away from the Sun, you'll slow down all the time. Going towards the Sun you go faster and faster. Don't forget that you are in 3-D Solar system space with the Sun in the middle.
When he said that the spacecraft is going away from the sun, he never said that it didn't also have momentum in some other direction, which would cause an orbit. When a spacecraft travels further from the sun, they make their orbit more elliptical and so it looks like this:
Hey, did you also know that the speed at which a rocket outside the atmosphere accelerates is exponential? That is because without the drag of the atmosphere and the light rocket (because it has burnt most of its fuel and jettisoned the lower stages), the thrust to weight ratio becomes extremely big! That means it requires little time and little fuel to accelerate it to an escape velocity with those powerful engines.
I find it funny that you dare trash talk and bash things you don't even understand.
A NASA/ESA spacecraft in our Solar system just increases its speed with a factor of say ~2.5 as long as thrust/force is applied to it by a rocket engine aboard. Reason is that the spacecraft ejects fuel mass as hot gas in one direction and, when getting lighter, speeds off in the other direction. When you shut off the space craft rocket engine, speed does not become constant, because of the Sun and Co. Gravity! Heard about it? Going to Pluto away from the Sun, you'll slow down all the time. Going towards the Sun you go faster and faster. Don't forget that you are in 3-D Solar system space with the Sun in the middle. Of course Sun + its Solar system is speeding away in the Milky Way towards some Dark Hole somewhere. But do not worry. Human space travel in our Solar system is 100% impossible, though. It only exists in Hollywood SF films, etc.
I have explained it on page 3 of this thread.
How can someone who claims to offer 1,000,000 to anyone who can disprove the NASA conspiracy be so ignorant about basic facts? Reading this made me cringe so damn hard.
Why? This:QuoteGravity! Heard about it? Going to Pluto away from the Sun, you'll slow down all the time. Going towards the Sun you go faster and faster. Don't forget that you are in 3-D Solar system space with the Sun in the middle.
This statement is enough to make you look like the biggest fool here.
No shit, gravity will make you slow down. It's accounted for in the spacecrafts trajectory. Hell, it isn't even just 'accounted for,' gravity is what all spacecraft have relied on, ever, to travel. Escape angles, delta V, Hoffman transfers, burn time windows, apogees, perigees; gravity is the single most important constant which is used to calculate every single aspect of the trajectory of a spacecraft. Every single spacecraft launched uses orbits and transfer burns dependent on gravity to do anything.
And there's the fact that no spacecraft ever goes straight towards the sun or straight in the other direction. Every spacecraft is always in the orbit of the sun.
How about you do some math:
New Horizons was hurdled into solar escape trajectory almost right after launch, 16.5 km/s.
New Horizons weighs around 400kg
Doing some really rough physics, (900 MJ/kg)* 478kg*10
You'll find out that the energy required to reach solar escape velocity for a payload of 478kg is about 1.3 times the energy of an airbus A330.
And if you calculate velocity decay due to gravity, you'll realize that the intitial speed of 16.5km/s will not decay enough for the spacecraft to fall back to the sun (or else it wouldn't be escape velocity. Get it?)
Get educated. Make sure you don't spout lies.
Can I have 1,000,000 yet?
New Horizons (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/launch/index.html (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/launch/index.html) ) was allegedly launched January 19, 2006 and its closest approach to Pluto will be at 7:49:59 a.m. EDT (11:49:59 UTC) on July 14, 2015, we are told. If it was sent direct to Pluto or has been orbiting the Sun several times and been kicked about by Earth and Mars several times Rosetta style is not known as the log is property of NASA or the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md, and secret. Actually New Horizons is another NASA hoax, i.e. 100% science fiction like the ESA's Rosetta (topic). Quite boring! Same nonsense magic show all the time - a rocket is sent off into space and 10 years later it encounters a planet or a comet, when everybody has lost interest and fallen asleep.
The International Fake Station above us orbiting Earth in 90 minutes at 7 500 m/s speed is more fun. You take a rocket and in a few hours you are there. 100's of astroclowns have done it. When you want to go home, you jump into a capsule and drops down to Earth in 8 minutes and land at Kazakstan or outside Long Beach, Ca, and become a HERO! Boring magic.
Can you believe that some people actually think that argument from incredulity is a valid debate strategy?
New Horizons (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/launch/index.html (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/launch/index.html) ) was allegedly launched January 19, 2006 and its closest approach to Pluto will be at 7:49:59 a.m. EDT (11:49:59 UTC) on July 14, 2015, we are told. If it was sent direct to Pluto or has been orbiting the Sun several times and been kicked about by Earth and Mars several times Rosetta style is not known as the log is property of NASA or the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md, and secret. Actually New Horizons is another NASA hoax, i.e. 100% science fiction like the ESA's Rosetta (topic). Quite boring! Same nonsense magic show all the time - a rocket is sent off into space and 10 years later it encounters a planet or a comet, when everybody has lost interest and fallen asleep.People don't stay in the International Space Station for just a few hours at s time, people stay up there for about 6 months at a time. If the zero G enviroment of the ISS was faked by using a zero G plane like the vomit comit, then how could astronauts get hours of continuous zero G footage? Did the government invent a magical anti gravity device or something?
The International Fake Station above us orbiting Earth in 90 minutes at 7 500 m/s speed is more fun. You take a rocket and in a few hours you are there. 100's of astroclowns have done it. When you want to go home, you jump into a capsule and drops down to Earth in 8 minutes and land at Kazakstan or outside Long Beach, Ca, and become a HERO! Boring magic.
People don't stay in the International Space Station for just a few hours at s time, people stay up there for about 6 months at a time. If the zero G enviroment of the ISS was faked by using a zero G plane like the vomit comit, then how could astronauts get hours of continuous zero G footage? Did the government invent a magical anti gravity device or something?
It is magic! Like any magician putting a rabbit in a hat, turning the hat and ... it is empty. The rabbit is not there. The rabbit is in another hat at the other end of the stage. Not very impressive when you know how it is done. But children love it.
It is magic! Like any magician putting a rabbit in a hat, turning the hat and ... it is empty. The rabbit is not there. The rabbit is in another hat at the other end of the stage. Not very impressive when you know how it is done. But children love it.
LOL... poor old Anders doesn't even understand that "magicians" don't actually exist. In the 21st century they're known, strictly speaking, as "illusionists"—but then we all know how dopey the guy really is under the tsunami of bovine excrement he spreads around dozens of forums across the web. Makes you wonder how he has any time left to devote to his international ship rescuing company doesn't it?
I guess this response of mine will simply give the delusional Mr Bjorkman the opportunity of posting yet another link to his "popular" site. ;D
You are just jealous as usual not knowing much about anything.
You are just jealous as usual not knowing much about anything.
Jealous? Of a well-known web whack-job? With a PhD in self-aggrandisement?
Don't make me laugh Anders. Oh... I just did.
;D ;D ;D
Back to the Orion! Here - Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean (http://#ws) - it splashes down just in front of some US Navy, Hollywood white trash being paid peanuts for the pleasure to participate in watching the end of the latest, magic, illusionist, NASA space SHOW. The object (the rabbit) splashing down in the Pacific (or the hat) was just dropped of a plane high up 10 minutes earlier, which nobody saw.How do satellites get to their locations?
What BOORING stuff!
Back to the Orion! Here - Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean (http://#ws) - it splashes down just in front of some US Navy, Hollywood white trash being paid peanuts for the pleasure to participate in watching the end of the latest, magic, illusionist, NASA space SHOW. The object (the rabbit) splashing down in the Pacific (or the hat) was just dropped of a plane high up 10 minutes earlier, which nobody saw.You seem to have the ridicule and incredulity down pretty well. How about some actual debunking for a change? You know, real technical obstacles that a bunch of highly educated engineers can't overcome.
What BOORING stuff!
Back to the Orion! Here - Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean (http://#ws) - it splashes down just in front of some US Navy, Hollywood white trash being paid peanuts for the pleasure to participate in watching the end of the latest, magic, illusionist, NASA space SHOW. The object (the rabbit) splashing down in the Pacific (or the hat) was just dropped of a plane high up 10 minutes earlier, which nobody saw.
What BOORING stuff!
Back to the Orion! Here - Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean (http://#ws) - it splashes down just in front of some US Navy, Hollywood white trash being paid peanuts for the pleasure to participate in watching the end of the latest, magic, illusionist, NASA space SHOW. The object (the rabbit) splashing down in the Pacific (or the hat) was just dropped of a plane high up 10 minutes earlier, which nobody saw.You seem to have the ridicule and incredulity down pretty well. How about some actual debunking for a change? You know, real technical obstacles that a bunch of highly educated engineers can't overcome.
What BOORING stuff!
Back to the Orion! Here - Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean (http://#ws) - it splashes down just in front of some US Navy, Hollywood white trash being paid peanuts for the pleasure to participate in watching the end of the latest, magic, illusionist, NASA space SHOW. The object (the rabbit) splashing down in the Pacific (or the hat) was just dropped of a plane high up 10 minutes earlier, which nobody saw.
What BOORING stuff!
You seem awfully obsessed with something you find awfully boring. Perhaps consult a mental health health practitioner and tell them you might be neurotic. Until then Markjo has the idea. Present some technical arguments rather than your just your incredulous conclusions.
Back to the Orion! Here - Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean (http://#ws) - it splashes down just in front of some US Navy, Hollywood white trash being paid peanuts for the pleasure to participate in watching the end of the latest, magic, illusionist, NASA space SHOW. The object (the rabbit) splashing down in the Pacific (or the hat) was just dropped of a plane high up 10 minutes earlier, which nobody saw.How do satellites get to their locations?
What BOORING stuff!
So you can't think of any technical or engineering reasons why the Orion mission couldn't be carried out? Good to know.Back to the Orion! Here - Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean (http://#ws) - it splashes down just in front of some US Navy, Hollywood white trash being paid peanuts for the pleasure to participate in watching the end of the latest, magic, illusionist, NASA space SHOW. The object (the rabbit) splashing down in the Pacific (or the hat) was just dropped of a plane high up 10 minutes earlier, which nobody saw.You seem to have the ridicule and incredulity down pretty well. How about some actual debunking for a change? You know, real technical obstacles that a bunch of highly educated engineers can't overcome.
What BOORING stuff!
Tell me why I should believe the footage linked to. It seems to be people on a warship watching something - a sailboat? - and then we see something dropping from the sky among the clouds. The final sequence is the Apollo (sorry Orion) capsule or a mock up of it dropping into the sea. Three different bits put together ... magic! To keep the illusion going.
Stupid people think it is one film sequence of something dropping from the sky - bird shit!
So you can't think of any technical or engineering reasons why the Orion mission couldn't be carried out? Good to know.
You are just jealous as usual not knowing much about anything.
Jealous? Of a well-known web whack-job? With a PhD in self-aggrandisement?
Don't make me laugh Anders. Oh... I just did.
If you consider yourself not jealous, please consider sick, mentally ill, zero, rubbish, etc. You must be ... with >4 000's + stupid posts at this forum.
So you can't think of any technical or engineering reasons why the Orion mission couldn't be carried out? Good to know.
There is no scientific descriptions off any kind - incl. peer reviewed thesises and articles - how anything dropping from the sky at 100 000 m altitude with an initial velocity of say 7 500 m/s can slow down by friction in the atmosphere and land safely on the ground. Meteorites will simply burn up. Capsules of any kind will rotate around themselves, break up and disintegrate ... and burn up. The suggestion that a heat shield will assist is just a fairy tale. But if you can show me a heat shield that has passed the test, please do so. Try the Apollo 11 PICA heat shield patented 1965. Why didn't it burn up at re-entry?
It never re-entered anything!
Dropping a capsule with parachutes from a plane at low altitude is just plane stupid. What does it prove?
How hard have you looked? This took me all of about 10 seconds: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=atmospheric+reentry+study&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=atmospheric+reentry+study&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart)So you can't think of any technical or engineering reasons why the Orion mission couldn't be carried out? Good to know.
There is no scientific descriptions off any kind - incl. peer reviewed thesises and articles - how anything dropping from the sky at 100 000 m altitude with an initial velocity of say 7 500 m/s can slow down by friction in the atmosphere and land safely on the ground.
Meteorites will simply burn up.Are you saying that meteorites never land on the earth? ???
Capsules of any kind will rotate around themselves, break up and disintegrate ... and burn up.Are you saying that a combination of reaction control thrusters and aerodynamic design aren't sufficient to control a capsule's attitude?
The suggestion that a heat shield will assist is just a fairy tale. But if you can show me a heat shield that has passed the test, please do so. Try the Apollo 11 PICA heat shield patented 1965. Why didn't it burn up at re-entry?Perhaps because the PICA heat shield worked as designed.
It never re-entered anything!If you say so. ::)
Dropping a capsule with parachutes from a plane at low altitude is just plane stupid. What does it prove?Well, for one thing, it proves that they can get the parachutes to open like they should. Secondly, what evidence do you have that the Orion capsule in that video was dropped by a plane?
So you can't think of any technical or engineering reasons why the Orion mission couldn't be carried out? Good to know.
There is no scientific descriptions off any kind - incl. peer reviewed thesises and articles - how anything dropping from the sky at 100 000 m altitude with an initial velocity of say 7 500 m/s can slow down by friction in the atmosphere and land safely on the ground.
So you can't think of any technical or engineering reasons why the Orion mission couldn't be carried out? Good to know.
There is no scientific descriptions off any kind - incl. peer reviewed thesises and articles - how anything dropping from the sky at 100 000 m altitude with an initial velocity of say 7 500 m/s can slow down by friction in the atmosphere and land safely on the ground. Meteorites will simply burn up. Capsules of any kind will rotate around themselves, break up and disintegrate ... and burn up. The suggestion that a heat shield will assist is just a fairy tale. But if you can show me a heat shield that has passed the test, please do so. Try the Apollo 11 PICA heat shield patented 1965. Why didn't it burn up at re-entry?
It never re-entered anything!
Dropping a capsule with parachutes from a plane at low altitude is just plane stupid. What does it prove?
Capsules of any kind will rotate around themselves, break up and disintegrate ... and burn up.Are you saying that a combination of reaction control thrusters and aerodynamic design aren't sufficient to control a capsule's attitude?
Second of all, you do realize that when a capsule is de-orbited or when the shuttle is de-orbited, they do multiple retrograde burns to slow down right? Or else.. you know.. they would still be in orbit.
Have you seen my post where I posted a Wikipedia article on reentry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry)? It explains (among other things) concepts like ablative shielding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry#Ablative) and the aerodynamics involved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry#Real_.28non-equilibrium.29_gas_model). I would recommend that you read up on reentry before you pretend to be the local expert.
Second of all, you do realize that when a capsule is de-orbited or when the shuttle is de-orbited, they do multiple retrograde burns to slow down right? Or else.. you know.. they would still be in orbit.
Of course I know this. And neither a capsule nor a Shuttle has sufficient fuel aboard to do retrograde burns to slow down at re-entry. They are going much too fast. You cannot stop any object with speed >7 000 m/s using a rocket engine/fuel aboard and friction against atmosphere just burns you up.
Do you know how much energy is required to accelerate a mass 1 kg to 7 000 m/s speed? Right 24.5 MJ! And the same amount of energy is required to slow it down to 0 m/s. Imagine the amount of energy required to stop an 8 500 kg Orion capsule.
I am amazed at all participants believing in space travel above and that re-entry is possible.
By the way, I can't find where your website is listed on your profile. Could you please give me a link to it, because i am really interested to know why you think that a space shuttle is aerodynamically unstable. It is really back heavy because of the engines, which is why the wings have to be so far back to be at the center of mass, which makes the shuttle look like it can't fly, but there are videos of space shuttles landing (http://) and spectators are invited to these events (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/21/161577281/touchdown-space-shuttle-endeavour-lands-in-los-angeles).
I have read the specified articles on your website and I have noticed some issues with your reasoning.
By the way, I can't find where your website is listed on your profile. Could you please give me a link to it, because i am really interested to know why you think that a space shuttle is aerodynamically unstable. It is really back heavy because of the engines, which is why the wings have to be so far back to be at the center of mass, which makes the shuttle look like it can't fly, but there are videos of space shuttles landing (http://) and spectators are invited to these events (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/21/161577281/touchdown-space-shuttle-endeavour-lands-in-los-angeles).
Thanks for asking! Start reading chapters 1.12+ and 2.3+ at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) and you'll find out my thoughts about capsules and shuttles returning from space trying to land on Earth ... and why it is not possible.
Thanks for asking! Start reading chapters 1.12+ and 2.3+ at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) and you'll find out my thoughts about capsules and shuttles returning from space trying to land on Earth ... and why it is not possible.I see lots of hand waving and lots of denial, but I don't see anything resembling actual proof that atmospheric reentry is an engineering challenge that is impossible to overcome.
You did mention that you had no idea what a plasma trail is, so I will explain that first. Plasma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29) is a state of matter that you get by heating up a gas, it is any matter that is so hot that the atomic nuclei can't hold on to any electrons and it also glows, and it is basically the glowing part of a fire. Objects reentering the atmosphere leave a trail of plasma because of all of the heat involved that glows and can be seen from the ground, it's the reason that meteors (shooting stars) appear to glow as they streak across the sky.
One thing that you demonstrated a lack of understanding on is how the space shuttle's windows do not melt during reentry, and the reason for that is that the nose of the shuttle takes a lot of the beating because of the angle that it reenters at and also the windows are at an angle and so they don't really hit a lot of the incoming air and the air they do hit hardly get's deflected and pressurized, and the rapid pressurization is where all of the heat comes from. You also never mentioned why you thought that the picture from the ISS of the shuttle reentering was faked other then you thought that it looked like it and it conflicts with your theory.
If plasma trails are SF nonsense, then what are the glowing trails left by meteors? Are meteor showers created by the government as a part of the conspiracy? By the way, what experience has led you to believe that a space shuttle won't survive reentry? At least show some math to back you up because math is considered concrete evidence.You did mention that you had no idea what a plasma trail is, so I will explain that first. Plasma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29) is a state of matter that you get by heating up a gas, it is any matter that is so hot that the atomic nuclei can't hold on to any electrons and it also glows, and it is basically the glowing part of a fire. Objects reentering the atmosphere leave a trail of plasma because of all of the heat involved that glows and can be seen from the ground, it's the reason that meteors (shooting stars) appear to glow as they streak across the sky.
One thing that you demonstrated a lack of understanding on is how the space shuttle's windows do not melt during reentry, and the reason for that is that the nose of the shuttle takes a lot of the beating because of the angle that it reenters at and also the windows are at an angle and so they don't really hit a lot of the incoming air and the air they do hit hardly get's deflected and pressurized, and the rapid pressurization is where all of the heat comes from. You also never mentioned why you thought that the picture from the ISS of the shuttle reentering was faked other then you thought that it looked like it and it conflicts with your theory.
Plasma - according Wikipedia, LOL, it is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of unbound positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero) and I doubt it leaves a trail after a Shuttle. Plasma trails are just SF nonsense - sometimes/often I am quite ironic and sardonic about the NASA lingo.
If you believe the Shuttle cockpit windows can resist hitting atmosphere at 7 000 m/s velocity producing a plasma trail, be my guest. Solid water hitting the flat bow of a ship at 10 m/s velocity makes a lot of noise, I know from experience. The Shuttle structure would not resist 300-400 m/s velocity in air and break apart at a little higher speed. It is 78 000 kg of junk! Probably less but junk all the way.
I have read the specified articles on your website and I have noticed some issues with your reasoning.
On the first article, there was a distinct lack of math and instead there were a lot of "I have the feeling", which makes most of your conclusions there based off of an assumption rather then any actual evidence. You also failed to state your sources for the information that needed it the most like the "NASA can't explain this" statements. Math is an amazing thing because you can use it to put logic on paper, so please use that instead of your feelings.
And, you walk right into what mikeman had just finished describing. Way to go!You did mention that you had no idea what a plasma trail is, so I will explain that first. Plasma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29) is a state of matter that you get by heating up a gas, it is any matter that is so hot that the atomic nuclei can't hold on to any electrons and it also glows, and it is basically the glowing part of a fire. Objects reentering the atmosphere leave a trail of plasma because of all of the heat involved that glows and can be seen from the ground, it's the reason that meteors (shooting stars) appear to glow as they streak across the sky.
One thing that you demonstrated a lack of understanding on is how the space shuttle's windows do not melt during reentry, and the reason for that is that the nose of the shuttle takes a lot of the beating because of the angle that it reenters at and also the windows are at an angle and so they don't really hit a lot of the incoming air and the air they do hit hardly get's deflected and pressurized, and the rapid pressurization is where all of the heat comes from. You also never mentioned why you thought that the picture from the ISS of the shuttle reentering was faked other then you thought that it looked like it and it conflicts with your theory.
Plasma - according Wikipedia, LOL, it is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of unbound positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero) and I doubt it leaves a trail after a Shuttle. Plasma trails are just SF nonsense - sometimes/often I am quite ironic and sardonic about the NASA lingo.
If you believe the Shuttle cockpit windows can resist hitting atmosphere at 7 000 m/s velocity producing a plasma trail, be my guest. Solid water hitting the flat bow of a ship at 10 m/s velocity makes a lot of noise, I know from experience.
The Shuttle structure would not resist 300-400 m/s velocity in air and break apart at a little higher speed.[citation needed]
It is 78 000 kg of junk! Probably less but junk all the way.
It is 78 000 kg of junk! Probably less but junk all the way.That's exactly how I would describe your reasoning.
Do you know how much energy is required to accelerate a mass 1 kg to 7 000 m/s speed? Right 24.5 MJ!Can you do the math for a starting mass of 1 kg at 0m/s and a final mass of 0.5 kg at 7000 m/s considering a constant rate of mass loss ?
Do you know how much energy is required to accelerate a mass 1 kg to 7 000 m/s speed? Right 24.5 MJ!Can you do the math for a starting mass of 1 kg at 0m/s and a final mass of 0.5 kg at 7000 m/s considering a constant rate of mass loss ?
And by the way, what would be the final speed and energy of a rocket weighting 1000 kg , including 500 kg of fuel, burning it with an ejection speed of 4500 m/s ? (commmon value for oxygen/hydrogen rocket engines)
Do you know how much energy is required to accelerate a mass 1 kg to 7 000 m/s speed? Right 24.5 MJ!Can you do the math for a starting mass of 1 kg at 0m/s and a final mass of 0.5 kg at 7000 m/s considering a constant rate of mass loss ?
And by the way, what would be the final speed and energy of a rocket weighting 1000 kg , including 500 kg of fuel, burning it with an ejection speed of 4500 m/s ? (commmon value for oxygen/hydrogen rocket engines)
Do you know how much energy is required to accelerate a mass 1 kg to 7 000 m/s speed? Right 24.5 MJ!Can you do the math for a starting mass of 1 kg at 0m/s and a final mass of 0.5 kg at 7000 m/s considering a constant rate of mass loss ?
And by the way, what would be the final speed and energy of a rocket weighting 1000 kg , including 500 kg of fuel, burning it with an ejection speed of 4500 m/s ? (commmon value for oxygen/hydrogen rocket engines)
That doesn't matter so much as the shuttle didn't reduce it's speed to 0 m/s for rentry.
Assuming a fully fuel laden shuttle massing around 585,000 kg and carrying 103,000 kg of LH2 in a low earth orbit at 7,800 m/s. H2 has a combustion energy value of 141,000 KJ/kg. The shuttle needs to reduce it's orbital velocity from 7,800 m/s to around 4,700 m/s for re-entry.
So:
Energy required for de-orbit = 1/2 x 585,000 x (7,800-4700)2 = 2.81 TJ
Energy available = 103,000 x 141,000 = 14.5 TJ
That's enough energy for 5 de-orbit burns. Even if you reduce the fuel to 25% of capacity it would still amount to over 3 TJ of energy, still enough to deorbit without even correcting the mass of the shuttle.
Do you know how much energy is required to accelerate a mass 1 kg to 7 000 m/s speed? Right 24.5 MJ!Can you do the math for a starting mass of 1 kg at 0m/s and a final mass of 0.5 kg at 7000 m/s considering a constant rate of mass loss ?
And by the way, what would be the final speed and energy of a rocket weighting 1000 kg , including 500 kg of fuel, burning it with an ejection speed of 4500 m/s ? (commmon value for oxygen/hydrogen rocket engines)
That doesn't matter so much as the shuttle didn't reduce it's speed to 0 m/s for rentry.
Assuming a fully fuel laden shuttle massing around 585,000 kg and carrying 103,000 kg of LH2 in a low earth orbit at 7,800 m/s. H2 has a combustion energy value of 141,000 KJ/kg. The shuttle needs to reduce it's orbital velocity from 7,800 m/s to around 4,700 m/s for re-entry.
So:
Energy required for de-orbit = 1/2 x 585,000 x (7,800-4700)2 = 2.81 TJ
Energy available = 103,000 x 141,000 = 14.5 TJ
That's enough energy for 5 de-orbit burns. Even if you reduce the fuel to 25% of capacity it would still amount to over 3 TJ of energy, still enough to deorbit without even correcting the mass of the shuttle.
And by the way, what would be the final speed and energy of a rocket weighting 1000 kg , including 500 kg of fuel, burning it with an ejection speed of 4500 m/s ? (commmon value for oxygen/hydrogen rocket engines)
If the initial speed of mass 1000 kg was 7000 m/s, I suggest the final speed of the remaining 500 kg is 5362 m/s (after dropping off 500 kg fuel as hot gases), i.e. a 23.4% speed reduction. It is not easy to brake or slow down in space.
If the initial speed of mass 1000 kg was 7000 m/s, I suggest the final speed of the remaining 500 kg is 5362 m/s (after dropping off 500 kg fuel as hot gases), i.e. a 23.4% speed reduction. It is not easy to brake or slow down in space.
If the initial speed of mass 1000 kg was 7000 m/s, I suggest the final speed of the remaining 500 kg is 5362 m/s (after dropping off 500 kg fuel as hot gases), i.e. a 23.4% speed reduction. It is not easy to brake or slow down in space.
Care to give the maths for this result please?
If the initial speed of mass 1000 kg was 7000 m/s, I suggest the final speed of the remaining 500 kg is 5362 m/s (after dropping off 500 kg fuel as hot gases), i.e. a 23.4% speed reduction. It is not easy to brake or slow down in space.
Care to give the maths for this result please?
Pls do it yourself! Tip - deduct the kinetic energy of fuel, which is lost into space while braking, from the original kinetic energy of the 1000 kg mass to obtain the kinetic energy of the mass 500 kg with no fuel left aboard.
If the initial speed of mass 1000 kg was 7000 m/s, I suggest the final speed of the remaining 500 kg is 5362 m/s (after dropping off 500 kg fuel as hot gases), i.e. a 23.4% speed reduction. It is not easy to brake or slow down in space.
Care to give the maths for this result please?
Pls do it yourself! Tip - deduct the kinetic energy of fuel, which is lost into space while braking, from the original kinetic energy of the 1000 kg mass to obtain the kinetic energy of the mass 500 kg with no fuel left aboard.
I'm finding very different results, that's why I'm kindly requesting your math, as I suspect some mistakes from it
lolIf the initial speed of mass 1000 kg was 7000 m/s, I suggest the final speed of the remaining 500 kg is 5362 m/s (after dropping off 500 kg fuel as hot gases), i.e. a 23.4% speed reduction. It is not easy to brake or slow down in space.
Care to give the maths for this result please?
Pls do it yourself! Tip - deduct the kinetic energy of fuel, which is lost into space while braking, from the original kinetic energy of the 1000 kg mass to obtain the kinetic energy of the mass 500 kg with no fuel left aboard.
I'm finding very different results, that's why I'm kindly requesting your math, as I suspect some mistakes from it
There is only one result - 5362 m/s (or maybe 5256 m/s?). If you get other results (sic) you are mistaken. Try again!
lolIf the initial speed of mass 1000 kg was 7000 m/s, I suggest the final speed of the remaining 500 kg is 5362 m/s (after dropping off 500 kg fuel as hot gases), i.e. a 23.4% speed reduction. It is not easy to brake or slow down in space.
Care to give the maths for this result please?
Pls do it yourself! Tip - deduct the kinetic energy of fuel, which is lost into space while braking, from the original kinetic energy of the 1000 kg mass to obtain the kinetic energy of the mass 500 kg with no fuel left aboard.
I'm finding very different results, that's why I'm kindly requesting your math, as I suspect some mistakes from it
There is only one result - 5362 m/s (or maybe 5256 m/s?). If you get other results (sic) you are mistaken. Try again!
So you haven't done the maths?
Just show the calculation.lolIf the initial speed of mass 1000 kg was 7000 m/s, I suggest the final speed of the remaining 500 kg is 5362 m/s (after dropping off 500 kg fuel as hot gases), i.e. a 23.4% speed reduction. It is not easy to brake or slow down in space.
Care to give the maths for this result please?
Pls do it yourself! Tip - deduct the kinetic energy of fuel, which is lost into space while braking, from the original kinetic energy of the 1000 kg mass to obtain the kinetic energy of the mass 500 kg with no fuel left aboard.
I'm finding very different results, that's why I'm kindly requesting your math, as I suspect some mistakes from it
There is only one result - 5362 m/s (or maybe 5256 m/s?). If you get other results (sic) you are mistaken. Try again!
So you haven't done the maths?
No, I have done the maths in my head as usual - one result 5362, one 5256. About the same. Please use your brain in your head when calculating. How else can you do maths?
If you have done the maths, then show your working. It just looks like you are bullshitting otherwise.lolIf the initial speed of mass 1000 kg was 7000 m/s, I suggest the final speed of the remaining 500 kg is 5362 m/s (after dropping off 500 kg fuel as hot gases), i.e. a 23.4% speed reduction. It is not easy to brake or slow down in space.
Care to give the maths for this result please?
Pls do it yourself! Tip - deduct the kinetic energy of fuel, which is lost into space while braking, from the original kinetic energy of the 1000 kg mass to obtain the kinetic energy of the mass 500 kg with no fuel left aboard.
I'm finding very different results, that's why I'm kindly requesting your math, as I suspect some mistakes from it
There is only one result - 5362 m/s (or maybe 5256 m/s?). If you get other results (sic) you are mistaken. Try again!
So you haven't done the maths?
No, I have done the maths in my head as usual - one result 5362, one 5256. About the same. Please use your brain in your head when calculating. How else can you do maths?
Please enlighten me, explain me how you get these results, as I'm the one mistaken.If the initial speed of mass 1000 kg was 7000 m/s, I suggest the final speed of the remaining 500 kg is 5362 m/s (after dropping off 500 kg fuel as hot gases), i.e. a 23.4% speed reduction. It is not easy to brake or slow down in space.
Care to give the maths for this result please?
Pls do it yourself! Tip - deduct the kinetic energy of fuel, which is lost into space while braking, from the original kinetic energy of the 1000 kg mass to obtain the kinetic energy of the mass 500 kg with no fuel left aboard.
I'm finding very different results, that's why I'm kindly requesting your math, as I suspect some mistakes from it
There is only one result - 5362 m/s (or maybe 5256 m/s?). If you get other results (sic) you are mistaken. Try again!
lolIf the initial speed of mass 1000 kg was 7000 m/s, I suggest the final speed of the remaining 500 kg is 5362 m/s (after dropping off 500 kg fuel as hot gases), i.e. a 23.4% speed reduction. It is not easy to brake or slow down in space.
Care to give the maths for this result please?
Pls do it yourself! Tip - deduct the kinetic energy of fuel, which is lost into space while braking, from the original kinetic energy of the 1000 kg mass to obtain the kinetic energy of the mass 500 kg with no fuel left aboard.
I'm finding very different results, that's why I'm kindly requesting your math, as I suspect some mistakes from it
There is only one result - 5362 m/s (or maybe 5256 m/s?). If you get other results (sic) you are mistaken. Try again!
So you haven't done the maths?
No, I have done the maths in my head as usual - one result 5362, one 5256. About the same. Please use your brain in your head when calculating. How else can you do maths?
Pencil, paper and calculator Heiwa. Thats the only way to do it so you can then go back over it and verify you didnt make any errors.
No wonder you come up with such wildly inaccurate numbers.
Pencil, paper and calculator Heiwa. Thats the only way to do it so you can then go back over it and verify you didnt make any errors.
No wonder you come up with such wildly inaccurate numbers.
Paper and pen? Calculator?? Inaccurate numbers??? What's wrong with a fresh brain and using it for simple calculations? Anyway, plenty of people above think they know the answer and are therefore invited to present the calculations to reach it. It is simple astrophysics:
A. Calculate the kinetic energy of the total mass 1000 kg spacecraft at 7000 m/s velocity relative Earth in space (mv²/2).
B. Calculate the kinetic energy of the fuel mass 500 kg after it has been ejected from the spacecraft as hot gas at velocity 4500 m/s relative the spacecraft polluting the space at 2500 m/s velocity relative Earth and having slowed down the space craft to unknown speed.
A-B is then the kinetic energy of the 500 kg spacecraft after braking (ejection of 500 kg fuel as hot gas), speed of which is easy to find (sqr((2(A-B)/500))).
Edit : Just Kidding
Pencil, paper and calculator Heiwa. Thats the only way to do it so you can then go back over it and verify you didnt make any errors.
No wonder you come up with such wildly inaccurate numbers.
Paper and pen? Calculator?? Inaccurate numbers??? What's wrong with a fresh brain and using it for simple calculations? Anyway, plenty of people above think they know the answer and are therefore invited to present the calculations to reach it. It is simple astrophysics:
A. Calculate the kinetic energy of the total mass 1000 kg spacecraft at 7000 m/s velocity relative Earth in space (mv²/2).
B. Calculate the kinetic energy of the fuel mass 500 kg after it has been ejected from the spacecraft as hot gas at velocity 4500 m/s relative the spacecraft polluting the space at 2500 m/s velocity relative Earth and having slowed down the space craft to unknown speed.
A-B is then the kinetic energy of the 500 kg spacecraft after braking (ejection of 500 kg fuel as hot gas), speed of which is easy to find (sqr((2(A-B)/500))).
Pencil, paper and calculator Heiwa. Thats the only way to do it so you can then go back over it and verify you didnt make any errors.
No wonder you come up with such wildly inaccurate numbers.
Paper and pen? Calculator?? Inaccurate numbers??? What's wrong with a fresh brain and using it for simple calculations?
You claim to work in a responsible engineering position and ask this? Wow!
Pencil, paper and calculator Heiwa. Thats the only way to do it so you can then go back over it and verify you didnt make any errors.
No wonder you come up with such wildly inaccurate numbers.
Paper and pen? Calculator?? Inaccurate numbers??? What's wrong with a fresh brain and using it for simple calculations?
You claim to work in a responsible engineering position and ask this? Wow!
You are just jealous I assume. Question is how to brake a 1000 kg spacecraft incl. 500 kg fuel. The initial speed of the spacecraft is 7000 m/s. However, the velocity of the fuel exhaust is not 4500 m/s, but a more realistic 2800 m/s. So what is the speed of the 500 kg spacecraft, when all 500 kg fuel has been burnt and ejected as exhaust?
The question remains: So what is the speed of the 500 kg spacecraft, when all 500 kg fuel has been burnt and ejected as exhaust?You are just jealous I assume. Question is how to brake a 1000 kg spacecraft incl. 500 kg fuel. The initial speed of the spacecraft is 7000 m/s. However, the velocity of the fuel exhaust is not 4500 m/s, but a more realistic 2800 m/s. So what is the speed of the 500 kg spacecraft, when all 500 kg fuel has been burnt and ejected as exhaust?
"Jealous".....? Oh puhleeze! ;D
The size of this guy's ego never ceases to amaze me. He quotes nonsensical astrophysical and jet propulsion figures as though he really knows what he's talking about. I took the time to check up on his academic credentials...
I can confirm that a Mr Anders Björkman was awarded the degree of Master of Science at the School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
(Civilingenjörsexamen i Skeppsbyggnad) at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. His degree diploma was issued on 15 October 1969.
So... what does a forty-year-old degree in naval architecture and/or marine engineering have to do with aerospace and/or astronautics you may ask. Absolutely nothing. End of story.
Björkman simply fills all his posts with absurd "facts" and meaningless figures, and hopes that nobody on these forums can see that they warrant no merit at all. To put it even more bluntly, Björkman is an inveterate bullshitter.
He's also made it to the "List of Internet Kooks" which you can check out HERE (http://bit.ly/1yLFshQ).
As well, I've taken the liberty of posting a link to another site HERE (http://bit.ly/12FVv36) wherein a qualified mechanical engineer debunks most of Björkman's "theories" about the 9/11 disaster and his nonsensical claims about the towers' structural collapse.
Still, I need a good laugh some days. Thanks Anders. :P
You do realise you are dealing with a total paid shill don't you?The question remains: So what is the speed of the 500 kg spacecraft, when all 500 kg fuel has been burnt and ejected as exhaust?You are just jealous I assume. Question is how to brake a 1000 kg spacecraft incl. 500 kg fuel. The initial speed of the spacecraft is 7000 m/s. However, the velocity of the fuel exhaust is not 4500 m/s, but a more realistic 2800 m/s. So what is the speed of the 500 kg spacecraft, when all 500 kg fuel has been burnt and ejected as exhaust?
"Jealous".....? Oh puhleeze! ;D
The size of this guy's ego never ceases to amaze me. He quotes nonsensical astrophysical and jet propulsion figures as though he really knows what he's talking about. I took the time to check up on his academic credentials...
I can confirm that a Mr Anders Björkman was awarded the degree of Master of Science at the School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
(Civilingenjörsexamen i Skeppsbyggnad) at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. His degree diploma was issued on 15 October 1969.
So... what does a forty-year-old degree in naval architecture and/or marine engineering have to do with aerospace and/or astronautics you may ask. Absolutely nothing. End of story.
Björkman simply fills all his posts with absurd "facts" and meaningless figures, and hopes that nobody on these forums can see that they warrant no merit at all. To put it even more bluntly, Björkman is an inveterate bullshitter.
He's also made it to the "List of Internet Kooks" which you can check out HERE (http://bit.ly/1yLFshQ).
As well, I've taken the liberty of posting a link to another site HERE (http://bit.ly/12FVv36) wherein a qualified mechanical engineer debunks most of Björkman's "theories" about the 9/11 disaster and his nonsensical claims about the towers' structural collapse.
Still, I need a good laugh some days. Thanks Anders. :P
With your IQ and multiple PhDs it should be simple to answer. Pls show that you are clever.
You do realise you are dealing with a total paid shill don't you?
Of course. ausGeoff is probably also mentally ill of sorts. But the forum is open for them, too.
You do realise you are dealing with a total paid shill don't you?
Of course. ausGeoff is probably also mentally ill of sorts. But the forum is open for them, too.
You do realise you are dealing with a total paid shill don't you?
The question remains: So what is the speed of the 500 kg spacecraft, when all 500 kg fuel has been burnt and ejected as exhaust?You are just jealous I assume. Question is how to brake a 1000 kg spacecraft incl. 500 kg fuel. The initial speed of the spacecraft is 7000 m/s. However, the velocity of the fuel exhaust is not 4500 m/s, but a more realistic 2800 m/s. So what is the speed of the 500 kg spacecraft, when all 500 kg fuel has been burnt and ejected as exhaust?
"Jealous".....? Oh puhleeze! ;D
The size of this guy's ego never ceases to amaze me. He quotes nonsensical astrophysical and jet propulsion figures as though he really knows what he's talking about. I took the time to check up on his academic credentials...
I can confirm that a Mr Anders Björkman was awarded the degree of Master of Science at the School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
(Civilingenjörsexamen i Skeppsbyggnad) at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. His degree diploma was issued on 15 October 1969.
So... what does a forty-year-old degree in naval architecture and/or marine engineering have to do with aerospace and/or astronautics you may ask. Absolutely nothing. End of story.
Björkman simply fills all his posts with absurd "facts" and meaningless figures, and hopes that nobody on these forums can see that they warrant no merit at all. To put it even more bluntly, Björkman is an inveterate bullshitter.
He's also made it to the "List of Internet Kooks" which you can check out HERE (http://bit.ly/1yLFshQ).
As well, I've taken the liberty of posting a link to another site HERE (http://bit.ly/12FVv36) wherein a qualified mechanical engineer debunks most of Björkman's "theories" about the 9/11 disaster and his nonsensical claims about the towers' structural collapse.
Still, I need a good laugh some days. Thanks Anders. :P
With your IQ and multiple PhDs it should be simple to answer. Pls show that you are clever.
You are just jealous I assume. Question is how to brake a 1000 kg spacecraft incl. 500 kg fuel.Which do you think would be more efficient: braking a heavy spacecraft or changing the orbit so that it intersects with the atmosphere and let atmospheric drag do the vast majority of the braking?
The vehicle began re-entry by firing the Orbital maneuvering system engines, while flying upside down, backside first, in the opposite direction to orbital motion for approximately three minutes, which reduced the Shuttle's velocity by about 200 mph (322 km/h). The resultant slowing of the Shuttle lowered its orbital perigee down into the upper atmosphere.
You are just jealous I assume. Question is how to brake a 1000 kg spacecraft incl. 500 kg fuel.Which do you think would be more efficient: braking a heavy spacecraft or changing the orbit so that it intersects with the atmosphere and let atmospheric drag do the vast majority of the braking?Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Re-entry_and_landingThe vehicle began re-entry by firing the Orbital maneuvering system engines, while flying upside down, backside first, in the opposite direction to orbital motion for approximately three minutes, which reduced the Shuttle's velocity by about 200 mph (322 km/h). The resultant slowing of the Shuttle lowered its orbital perigee down into the upper atmosphere.
You are just jealous I assume. Question is how to brake a 1000 kg spacecraft incl. 500 kg fuel.Which do you think would be more efficient: braking a heavy spacecraft or changing the orbit so that it intersects with the atmosphere and let atmospheric drag do the vast majority of the braking?Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Re-entry_and_landingThe vehicle began re-entry by firing the Orbital maneuvering system engines, while flying upside down, backside first, in the opposite direction to orbital motion for approximately three minutes, which reduced the Shuttle's velocity by about 200 mph (322 km/h). The resultant slowing of the Shuttle lowered its orbital perigee down into the upper atmosphere.
That's some funny s**t, markjo!
Shuttle: Houston, we're coming home.
Houston: Roger, shuttle. Remember to flip and spin that bird upside down!
Shuttle: [chuckling]
Houston: We are live to the world, shuttle.
Shuttle: [chuckling stops, coughing follows]. Roger, orbital resequence initializing.
I was clever enough to go to ApolloHoax.net and see you get slapped around by a group of aerospace engineers there a couple of years back. It was very illuminating to see that you had no idea of how to apply the rocket equation there or even that it was instrumental in calculating the fuel usage on a variable mass rocket.
You assume wrong.
Pencil, paper and calculator Heiwa. Thats the only way to do it so you can then go back over it and verify you didnt make any errors.
No wonder you come up with such wildly inaccurate numbers.
Paper and pen? Calculator?? Inaccurate numbers??? What's wrong with a fresh brain and using it for simple calculations?
You claim to work in a responsible engineering position and ask this? Wow!
You are just jealous I assume.
Question is how to brake a 1000 kg spacecraft incl. 500 kg fuel. The initial speed of the spacecraft is 7000 m/s. However, the velocity of the fuel exhaust is not 4500 m/s, but a more realistic 2800 m/s. So what is the speed of the 500 kg spacecraft, when all 500 kg fuel has been burnt and ejected as exhaust?
I was clever enough to go to ApolloHoax.net and see you get slapped around by a group of aerospace engineers there a couple of years back. It was very illuminating to see that you had no idea of how to apply the rocket equation there or even that it was instrumental in calculating the fuel usage on a variable mass rocket.
But it seems you are not clever enough to compute the speed of a spacecraft after braking. Before braking the spacecraft has mass 1000 kg (incl. 500 kg fuel) and speed 7000 m/s. Then 500 kg fuel is ejected as hot gases at a velocity of 2500 m/s in the opposite direction of flying to slow down the space craft to slow it down, which takes a certain time and pollutes the space. Question is what velocity has then the 500 kg spacecraft?
You can evidently apply the brake force perpendicular to direction of flying. You will then not slow down at all - just change direction at increased speed. Do you know what speed you have then ... and what is the new direction?
Please demonstrate that you are clever and know how to brake a spacecraft. Pls ask your Apollo.Hoax.net clowns for assistance if necessary. Last time I visited ApolloHoax the people there thought that braking an Apollo module was pushing down the pedal in the middle while looking out the window in the side.
Remember that Rosetta had to brake a lot to finally fly parallell with the PR67 comet at identical speed and then rotated around the comet for inspection, i.e. a force was applied in another direction. It was all ESA fantasies of course as the Rosetta does not even fly in space but it is great fun to ask the ESA astrophycists about it. They don't have a clue!
I'd forgotten that thread. He also had his ass handed to him - on the same topic - on cosmoquest.org (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?141335-Heiwa-s-thread).
I was clever enough to go to ApolloHoax.net and see you get slapped around by a group of aerospace engineers there a couple of years back. It was very illuminating to see that you had no idea of how to apply the rocket equation there or even that it was instrumental in calculating the fuel usage on a variable mass rocket.
But it seems you are not clever enough to compute the speed of a spacecraft after braking. Before braking the spacecraft has mass 1000 kg (incl. 500 kg fuel) and speed 7000 m/s. Then 500 kg fuel is ejected as hot gases at a velocity of 2500 m/s in the opposite direction of flying to slow down the space craft to slow it down, which takes a certain time and pollutes the space. Question is what velocity has then the 500 kg spacecraft?
You can evidently apply the brake force perpendicular to direction of flying. You will then not slow down at all - just change direction at increased speed. Do you know what speed you have then ... and what is the new direction?
Please demonstrate that you are clever and know how to brake a spacecraft. Pls ask your Apollo.Hoax.net clowns for assistance if necessary. Last time I visited ApolloHoax the people there thought that braking an Apollo module was pushing down the pedal in the middle while looking out the window in the side.
Remember that Rosetta had to brake a lot to finally fly parallell with the PR67 comet at identical speed and then rotated around the comet for inspection, i.e. a force was applied in another direction. It was all ESA fantasies of course as the Rosetta does not even fly in space but it is great fun to ask the ESA astrophycists about it. They don't have a clue!
Evidently you had the blinders on at apollohoax.net and so decided to come somewhere that has a smaller proportion of people with specific expertise in aerospace engineering and aeronautics. Probably smart since those people you so haughtily referred to as clowns provided calculations and sources to destroy your claim that spacecraft cannot make trans-lunar journeys due to fuel constraints. Not only that, but they provided information you insisted was classified, further disintegrating you cobspiracy assertions.
I highly recommend reading the thread to others because there is quite a bit of interesting conversation regarding manned space flight:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=3b4c7c5f4cb62807383919f4bbce606c&topic=269.0 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=3b4c7c5f4cb62807383919f4bbce606c&topic=269.0)
It also demonstrates that the argument Heiwa is currently trying make is a derivative of a badly formed argument he tried two years ago.
You assume wrong.
Pencil, paper and calculator Heiwa. Thats the only way to do it so you can then go back over it and verify you didnt make any errors.
No wonder you come up with such wildly inaccurate numbers.
Paper and pen? Calculator?? Inaccurate numbers??? What's wrong with a fresh brain and using it for simple calculations?
You claim to work in a responsible engineering position and ask this? Wow!
You are just jealous I assume.QuoteQuestion is how to brake a 1000 kg spacecraft incl. 500 kg fuel. The initial speed of the spacecraft is 7000 m/s. However, the velocity of the fuel exhaust is not 4500 m/s, but a more realistic 2800 m/s. So what is the speed of the 500 kg spacecraft, when all 500 kg fuel has been burnt and ejected as exhaust?
Although this isn't my area of expertise, this sure seems like a routine application of the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation)[nb]It's been ages since I've done this stuff. I admit I had to look it up again to be sure of the details.[/nb]
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/4/5/945a66bb8ac5a46fd959ab6c12eebb00.png)
Delta-v is your change in velocity, ve is your exhaust velocity, m0 and m1 are the starting and ending masses, respectively (m0 - m1 is the mass of the spent fuel), and ln is the natural logarithm function (use the ln, and not log, function on your scientific calculator or Excel).
Since we're calculating change in velocity, and ve is relative to the rocket, the starting velocity is irrelevant. Using a typical 4500 m/sec for ve as originally specified by Heiwa the change in velocity is:
Dv = 4500 m/s * ln(1000 kg / 500 kg)
= 4500 m/s * ln(2)
= 4500 m/s * (0.6931)
= 3119 m/s.
If it's a braking maneuver, then the final velocity v1 is the initial velocity v0 minus the change in velocity Dv.
v1 = v0 - Dv
= 7000 m/s - 3119 m/s
= 3880 m/s
I'm not sure how the 2500 or 2800 m/s he mentions apply. It seems like Heiwa's subtracting ve from v0 to get 2500 m/s for some reason. If he wanted the velocity of the exhaust relative to the frame of reference v0 is measured against, for whatever reason, and since it's a braking maneuver, he should add those quantities and get 9500 m/s, shouldn't he?
Also, using the kinetic energy of the exhaust seems like its unnecessarily complicated (if it is workable at all - I'm not sure it is). Using momentum might be easier, but even then... Compounding this by "doing it all in his head" so his different result can't be examined does not lend much confidence in his work.
??? What's so funny? Which way would you suggest pointing the rocket engines if you want to slow the shuttle?You are just jealous I assume. Question is how to brake a 1000 kg spacecraft incl. 500 kg fuel.Which do you think would be more efficient: braking a heavy spacecraft or changing the orbit so that it intersects with the atmosphere and let atmospheric drag do the vast majority of the braking?Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Re-entry_and_landingThe vehicle began re-entry by firing the Orbital maneuvering system engines, while flying upside down, backside first, in the opposite direction to orbital motion for approximately three minutes, which reduced the Shuttle's velocity by about 200 mph (322 km/h). The resultant slowing of the Shuttle lowered its orbital perigee down into the upper atmosphere.
That's some funny s**t, markjo!
Shuttle: Houston, we're coming home.
Houston: Roger, shuttle. Remember to flip and spin that bird upside down!
Shuttle: [chuckling]
Houston: We are live to the world, shuttle.
Shuttle: [chuckling stops, coughing follows]. Roger, orbital resequence initializing.
This is a pattern that Heiwa has set over the years: Infest a forum, crap on endlessly about stuff he knows nothing
You assume wrong.
Pencil, paper and calculator Heiwa. Thats the only way to do it so you can then go back over it and verify you didnt make any errors.
No wonder you come up with such wildly inaccurate numbers.
Paper and pen? Calculator?? Inaccurate numbers??? What's wrong with a fresh brain and using it for simple calculations?
You claim to work in a responsible engineering position and ask this? Wow!
You are just jealous I assume.QuoteQuestion is how to brake a 1000 kg spacecraft incl. 500 kg fuel. The initial speed of the spacecraft is 7000 m/s. However, the velocity of the fuel exhaust is not 4500 m/s, but a more realistic 2800 m/s. So what is the speed of the 500 kg spacecraft, when all 500 kg fuel has been burnt and ejected as exhaust?
Although this isn't my area of expertise, this sure seems like a routine application of the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation)[nb]It's been ages since I've done this stuff. I admit I had to look it up again to be sure of the details.[/nb]
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/4/5/945a66bb8ac5a46fd959ab6c12eebb00.png)
Delta-v is your change in velocity, ve is your exhaust velocity, m0 and m1 are the starting and ending masses, respectively (m0 - m1 is the mass of the spent fuel), and ln is the natural logarithm function (use the ln, and not log, function on your scientific calculator or Excel).
Since we're calculating change in velocity, and ve is relative to the rocket, the starting velocity is irrelevant. Using a typical 4500 m/sec for ve as originally specified by Heiwa the change in velocity is:
Dv = 4500 m/s * ln(1000 kg / 500 kg)
= 4500 m/s * ln(2)
= 4500 m/s * (0.6931)
= 3119 m/s.
If it's a braking maneuver, then the final velocity v1 is the initial velocity v0 minus the change in velocity Dv.
v1 = v0 - Dv
= 7000 m/s - 3119 m/s
= 3880 m/s
I'm not sure how the 2500 or 2800 m/s he mentions apply. It seems like Heiwa's subtracting ve from v0 to get 2500 m/s for some reason. If he wanted the velocity of the exhaust relative to the frame of reference v0 is measured against, for whatever reason, and since it's a braking maneuver, he should add those quantities and get 9500 m/s, shouldn't he?
Also, using the kinetic energy of the exhaust seems like its unnecessarily complicated (if it is workable at all - I'm not sure it is). Using momentum might be easier, but even then... Compounding this by "doing it all in his head" so his different result can't be examined does not lend much confidence in his work.
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, as we all know (I mention it on my web site), used to see how a rocket or spacecraft accelerates, while getting lighter with a constant force
(exhaust gasses escaping at 2400 m/s) applied to it.
If it can be used for deceleration is another matter.
The force is then applied in the opposite direction or the rocket/spacecraft flies backwards, i.e. has been flipped around 180° in the direction of flight. The force must be applied in the right direction. If not you accelerate/decelerate into empty space.
If you brake to get into, e.g. Moon orbit, you must also consider the grafity force of the Moon that accelerates your spacecraft.
And it was the topic at ApolloHoax.net. I showed that it was impossible for Apollo to brake flying backwards to get into Moon orbit, while it, at the same time, was accelerating due to Moon gravity.
The Apollo crew had no means to brake/apply the force in the right direction (which changes) to get into Moon orbit.
Bye, bye Apollo. Luckily it was just a Hollywood show 1969-1972.Please show why you think this maneuver was impossible, how much fuel was needed, and how much was available. Please provide details of your calculations and evidence for the amount of fuel available.
Likewise the Shuttle re-entries during 20+ years leaving the International Fake Station at 400000 meter altitude is impossible. The 78 000 kg Shuttle at 7000 m/s must fly backwards and activate its jet/rocket engines to slow down and there is too little fuel aboard for it.
When dropping down to 100000 meter altitude entering the atmosphere, the speed has increased and the Shuttle must flip 180° with nose forward and dip into the atmosphere. It is then, e.g. the front windows break apart and the Shuttle disintegrates.Please show details why you believe the required maneuver was not possible. Citation needed on the window thing.
Luckily it was just another Hollywood show. Like the Rosetta/Philae = TOPIC! Too little fuel aboard for manoeuvering!Citation needed.
And too far away from Earth!For what?
But a nice Babelsberg show! Berlin is much more fun than Los Angeles.OK ???
But very boring as it is all magic tricks by tired illusionists just making children happy. And stupid grown ups, of course, still believing in Father Christmas.
Please show why you think this maneuver was impossible, how much fuel was needed, and how much was available. Please provide details of your calculations and evidence for the amount of fuel available.
Hm, you have made >4490 posts at this forum and I have only made 117 incl. this one - all very intelligent and clear.
And you cannot even explain how a spacecraft like Rosetta going backwards slows down by firing its rocket engine(s) in the exact, opposite direction of flight so it gets engulfed in its own exhaust, running out of fuel, etc, etc.
Please show why you think this maneuver was impossible, how much fuel was needed, and how much was available. Please provide details of your calculations and evidence for the amount of fuel available.
Please refer to Section #1.5 of my paper/web page linked to on page 3 of this thread. Note that I write simple and popular based on the NASA reports of the alleged space trip (all mentioned in my paper).
As it is clear from the beginning that all space trips (apart from unmanned satellites orbiting Earth) are stupid hoaxes, detailed calculations are not required. Input data provided by NASA differs all the time, etc, so no detailed results can be computed and this fact is used to show that criticism is not valid, bla, bla.
Hm, you have made >4490 sick posts of little value at this forum and I have only made 117 incl. this one - all very intelligent and clear.It looks like some of us have a different idea of what makes for an "intelligent and clear" post than you seem to.
And you cannot even explain how a spacecraft like Rosetta going backwards slows down by firing its rocket engine(s) in the exact, opposite direction of flight so it gets engulfed in its own exhaust, running out of fuel, etc, etc.Umm... Do you understand how things work in a microgravity, nearly perfect vacuum environment? If I fire my thrusters in the direction that I'm traveling, then the exhaust are accelerated away from me while I'm being decelerated. How can I be engulfed in those exhaust gasses if those exhaust gasses are traveling faster than I am and being dissipated into the vacuum of space?
If I fire my thrusters in the direction that I'm traveling, then the exhaust are accelerated away from me while I'm being decelerated. How can I be engulfed in those exhaust gasses if those exhaust gasses are traveling faster than I am and being dissipated into the vacuum of space?If I understand correctly, the exhaust gases are not accelerated away but ejected at constant velocity from the spacecraft that at the same time is slowing down, so in a way the exhaust appears to accelerate but it is the space craft that slows down. How the exhaust is dissipated into the vacuum space is another story. The exhaust gases just continue to fly away at constant speed in the space - like a big sausage shaped cloud. It means that the part of the exhaust cloud or sausage that was ejeceted first has a higher speed than the part of the cloud or sausage that was ejected last due to the fact that the spacecraft slows down in the meantime. The exhaust cloud sausage will thus elongate itself in space ... forever. Unless you are close to a planet or moon that will attract the exhaust cloud by gravity. If you brake very close to a planet or moon trying to land, I assume you will get engulfed in the gases that are bouncing off from the ground below.
Unless you are close to a planet or moon that will attract the exhaust cloud by gravity. If you brake very close to a planet or moon trying to land, I assume you will get engulfed in the gases that are bouncing off from the ground below.??? Why should this be a problem? Being engulfed in gasses when landing doesn't seem to bother helicopters or Harrier jets at all.
If I understand correctly [...]
One only has to look at your absurd web pages to realise that LOL.
Thanks for visiting my popular web pages. I know you lack basic knowledge and education to fully understand them, but you tried. Maybe some day you will learn what I say?
Thanks for visiting my popular web pages. I know you lack basic knowledge and education to fully understand them, but you tried. Maybe some day you will learn what I say?
LOL..... a "boat mechanic". ;D
I certainly hope not Anders; I don't want all my friends to think I've had a frontal lobotomy!
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, as we all know (I mention it on my web site), used to see how a rocket or spacecraft accelerates, while getting lighter with a constant force (exhaust gasses escaping at 2400 m/s) applied to it. If it can be used for deceleration is another matter. The force is then applied in the opposite direction or the rocket/spacecraft flies backwards, i.e. has been flipped around 180° in the direction of flight. The force must be applied in the right direction. If not you accelerate/decelerate into empty space. (...)
what would be the final speed and energy of a rocket weighting 1000 kg , including 500 kg of fuel, burning it with an ejection speed of 4500 m/s ?You answered
I suggest the final speed of the remaining 500 kg is 5362 m/sthen
There is only one result - 5362 m/s (or maybe 5256 m/s?). If you get other results (sic) you are mistakenand finally gave your "formula"
A. Calculate the kinetic energy of the total mass 1000 kg spacecraft at 7000 m/s velocity relative Earth in space (mv²/2).
B. Calculate the kinetic energy of the fuel mass 500 kg after it has been ejected from the spacecraft as hot gas at velocity 4500 m/s relative the spacecraft polluting the space at 2500 m/s velocity relative Earth and having slowed down the space craft to unknown speed.
A-B is then the kinetic energy of the 500 kg spacecraft after braking (ejection of 500 kg fuel as hot gas), speed of which is easy to find (sqr((2(A-B)/500))).
I'm afraid, but you are dead wrong here. You simply cannot compute kinetic energies from different referentials and you cannot evaluate kinetic energy from a variable mass system this way.
But ... thanks for visiting my popular web site.No need to thank me Anders. Being a skeptic, I was initially led to it by THIS (http://bit.ly/1srm8U3) site: "The Unique World of Anders Bjorkman (Heiwa)" which I can thoroughly recommend to both the flat earthers and round earthers here. And I know you truly think your silly site is "popular", although it sounds to me more like you're repeatedly confirming it to yourself rather than any visitors. But then that's just your arrogance and/or naivety showing through LOL.
I really try to adapt it to all kind of visitors, incl. you. It seems it works.
The notation's usual purpose is to inform the reader that any errors or apparent errors in quoted material do not arise from errors in the course of the transcription, but are intentionally reproduced, exactly as they appear in the source text.
Thanks for visiting my popular web pages.
How is what I said wrong?Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SicThe notation's usual purpose is to inform the reader that any errors or apparent errors in quoted material do not arise from errors in the course of the transcription, but are intentionally reproduced, exactly as they appear in the source text.
Heiwa, are you being paid to spread malware?
How is what I said wrong?Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SicThe notation's usual purpose is to inform the reader that any errors or apparent errors in quoted material do not arise from errors in the course of the transcription, but are intentionally reproduced, exactly as they appear in the source text.
Sic may also be used derisively, to call attention to the original writer's spelling mistakes or erroneous logicEmphasis mine.
Heiwa, are you being paid to spread malware?
Not at all. Somebody linked to my web pages at this forum, somebody else suggested that info there was not correct ... and there we are ... off topic most of the time. I evidently maintain that the whole Rosetta (topic) spacecraft is a European Space Agency, ESA, hoax since 20 years and show it quite convincing at my web page about it (and I am happy that it is linked to). Reason seem to be to maintain the NASA Apollo show since 1969 that space travel and similar is possible (which it isn't) and to keep useless astrophysicists ockupied. Imagine having studied astrophysics for many years, then not finding any job apart from ESA and there being asked to spread psuedoscientific garbage in space and on Earth. I just feel sorry for those people. It is scientific fraud. But politically correct, which I am not.
It's funny that when you are confronted by people with expertise in the fields you critique (I.e. Aeronautics) it is your ideas that appear fraudulent. Why is it that you never address the flaws in your energy balancing modelling or acknowledge that much of the information you claim NASA has never published in fact is extremely accessible?
Heiwa, do you admit that your answer to my initial question is incorrect ?
Heiwa, do you admit that your answer to my initial question is incorrect ?No - the speed after braking is 5362 m/s, i.e. Delta-v is 1638 m/s, but, it seems, I used an exhaust velocity of 2363 m/s = more realistic. Any problems?
Paper and pen? Calculator?? Inaccurate numbers??? What's wrong with a fresh brain and using it for simple calculations? Anyway, plenty of people above think they know the answer and are therefore invited to present the calculations to reach it. It is simple astrophysics:
A. Calculate the kinetic energy of the total mass 1000 kg spacecraft at 7000 m/s velocity relative Earth in space (mv²/2).
B. Calculate the kinetic energy of the fuel mass 500 kg after it has been ejected from the spacecraft as hot gas at velocity 4500 m/s relative the spacecraft polluting the space at 2500 m/s velocity relative Earth and having slowed down the space craft to unknown speed.
A-B is then the kinetic energy of the 500 kg spacecraft after braking (ejection of 500 kg fuel as hot gas), speed of which is easy to find (sqr((2(A-B)/500))).
I'm finding very different results, that's why I'm kindly requesting your math, as I suspect some mistakes from itThere is only one result - 5362 m/s (or maybe 5256 m/s?). If you get other results (sic) you are mistaken. Try again!
And you are expecting me to believe that you inadvertedly swapped 4500 m/s by 2363 m/s "using only head " because it sounded more realistic?? really ?
Yes! Most rocket engines I deal with (see my webpage) seem to have an exhaust velocity ~2400 m/s, so it appears that number entered my head when doing the calculation to make you happy. (...)
And you are expecting me to believe that you inadvertedly swapped 4500 m/s by 2363 m/s "using only head " because it sounded more realistic?? really ?
Is your initial formula valid with your new numbers ?
Ve=sqr(2*((1000*7000*7000/2)-(500*2363*2363/2))/500)
9613 is in my head. But what should it be? Increased speed? When braking? Sounds like NASA. Better forget it!
Please focus on the maths, answer to my question :QuoteIs your initial formula valid with your new numbers ?
Ve=sqr(2*((1000*7000*7000/2)-(500*2363*2363/2))/500)
In the 1960's I (and many others) fell in love with Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space and a beautiful one too. When in the 1990's when I worked a lot in Russia and Ukraine, I happened to meet Valentina, still very pretty and funny, and asked her how she/her spacecraft had managed to slow down for landing. She told me:
"Anders, I never went into space as it was and is impossible. It was just a big propaganda trick to impress the Americans".
9613 is in my head. But what should it be? Increased speed? When braking? Sounds like NASA. Better forget it!
Please focus on the maths, answer to my question :QuoteIs your initial formula valid with your new numbers ?
Ve=sqr(2*((1000*7000*7000/2)-(500*2363*2363/2))/500)
And you are expecting me to believe that you inadvertedly swapped 4500 m/s by 2363 m/s "using only head " because it sounded more realistic?? really ?
Yes! Most rocket engines I deal with (see my webpage) seem to have an exhaust velocity ~2400 m/s,
so it appears that number entered my head when doing the calculation to make you happy. Anyway - rocket engines are mainly used to increase the speed of the spacecraft,
e.g. to shoot up satellites into orbit around Earth through the atmosphere. Then the exhaust exists backwards at the bottom end of the rocket and aided by gyros and wing flaps (if atmosphere is still there) the spacecraft may be stabilized. Any crew are facing forward.
Rocket engines are rarely used to reduce the speed of a space craft,
as then the space craft is flipped around 180° - the bottom becomes the forward end - and the exhaust is directed forwards in the direction of travel - hopefully. A small instability of the spacecraft will change its heading and the spacecraft will go off course - like a car running off the road.
And the crew is facing backwards.
The first, full scale, serious reduction of speed in space of a spacecraft was, as far as I understand, the Apollo in the 1960's,
when slowing down and turning to get into orbit of the Moon that in turn orbits the Earth at substantial speed. In that case the spacecraft (Apollo) was also subject to Moon gravity pulling the spacecraft down towards the center of the Moon, while the rocket engine pushed in some other direction.
IMHO opinion NASA lacked in the 1960's both the theoretical and practical knowledges and the actual equipment, means and people to carry out such reduction of speed of a spacecraft, so therefore I have my doubts about NASA & Co. And the technology to brake in space has hardly developed since, i.e. it remains impossible.
But as NASA got away with the Apollo swindle, they and ESA, Russians and Chineses just carry on to copy/paste the shit.
In the 1960's I (and many others) fell in love with Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space and a beautiful one too. When in the 1990's when I worked a lot in Russia and Ukraine, I happened to meet Valentina, still very pretty and funny, and asked her how she/her spacecraft had managed to slow down for landing. She told me:
"Anders, I never went into space as it was and is impossible. It was just a big propaganda trick to impress the Americans".
1992-1998 I was 28 times in Ukraine and 5 times in Russia, built one ship at Nikolaev, Ukraine (actually very Russian) and bought another at St. Petersburg, Russia, inspected many ships incl. an aircraft carrier (Varjag), tried to assist Ukrainian shipbuilding industry and met plenty people, many beautiful women and had great fun and made plenty money. Unfortunately the corrupt landlubbers up in the Carpatian mountains and at Kiev never understood anything about shipbuilding, so in the end I gave up.
In the 1960's I (and many others) fell in love with Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space and a beautiful one too. When in the 1990's when I worked a lot in Russia and Ukraine, I happened to meet Valentina, still very pretty and funny, and asked her how she/her spacecraft had managed to slow down for landing. She told me:
"Anders, I never went into space as it was and is impossible. It was just a big propaganda trick to impress the Americans".
Heiwa, can you give some more details on this?
Can this be independently verified?
I dunno, I'm applying YOUR formula with YOUR numbers, care to explain this result ?
Can this be independently verified?
You have to ask the participants at the party. As far as I remember the caviar was excellent, the champagne drinkable, the smoked sturgeon quite good and then there was vodka so that everybody apart from me passed out ... as usual. It was a good party. Have you ever been in USSR, Russia and Ukraine? My first visit was February 1969 ... and it was snowing and cold at Moscow and Leningrad. Very romantic, actually. I predicted already then the collapse that followed and ended 1991.
I dunno, I'm applying YOUR formula with YOUR numbers, care to explain this result ?
No, you are not. My formula is simple! The kinetic energy of the spacecraft mv²/2 before braking minus the kinetic energy of the exhaust gas (pls use correct value for the actual exhaust gas speed - an average will suffice to get a feel) that has been ejected from the space craft is the kinetic energy of the spacecraft after braking. As you know its mass after braking, it is easy to calculate the velocity of the spacecraft after braking.
Velocities could be relative Earth. Do not use exhaust gas velocity relative the spacecraft!
B. Calculate the kinetic energy of the fuel mass 500 kg after it has been ejected from the spacecraft as hot gas at velocity 4500 m/s relative the spacecraft
what would be the final speed and energy of a rocket weighting 1000 kg , including 500 kg of fuel, burning it with an ejection speed of 4500 m/s ?
I don't see why a rocket can't reduce the speed of a space craft, there is no air in space which means that there is no reason why a ship can't be pointed in a certain direction. If a rocket forms around to slow down, then the people inside would feel just like they are accelerating and if you didn't have windows then there would be no way to tell weather you are speeding up or slowing down.
And you are expecting me to believe that you inadvertedly swapped 4500 m/s by 2363 m/s "using only head " because it sounded more realistic?? really ?
Yes! Most rocket engines I deal with (see my webpage) seem to have an exhaust velocity ~2400 m/s, so it appears that number entered my head when doing the calculation to make you happy. Anyway - rocket engines are mainly used to increase the speed of the spacecraft, e.g. to shoot up satellites into orbit around Earth through the atmosphere. Then the exhaust exists backwards at the bottom end of the rocket and aided by gyros and wing flaps (if atmosphere is still there) the spacecraft may be stabilized. Any crew are facing forward.
Rocket engines are rarely used to reduce the speed of a space craft, as then the space craft is flipped around 180° - the bottom becomes the forward end - and the exhaust is directed forwards in the direction of travel - hopefully. A small instability of the spacecraft will change its heading and the spacecraft will go off course - like a car running off the road. And the crew is facing backwards.
The first, full scale, serious reduction of speed in space of a spacecraft was, as far as I understand, the Apollo in the 1960's, when slowing down and turning to get into orbit of the Moon that in turn orbits the Earth at substantial speed. In that case the spacecraft (Apollo) was also subject to Moon gravity pulling the spacecraft down towards the center of the Moon, while the rocket engine pushed in some other direction.
IMHO opinion NASA lacked in the 1960's both the theoretical and practical knowledges and the actual equipment, means and people to carry out such reduction of speed of a spacecraft, so therefore I have my doubts about NASA & Co. And the technology to brake in space has hardly developed since, i.e. it remains impossible.
But as NASA got away with the Apollo swindle, they and ESA, Russians and Chineses just carry on to copy/paste the shit.
In the 1960's I (and many others) fell in love with Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space and a beautiful one too. When in the 1990's when I worked a lot in Russia and Ukraine, I happened to meet Valentina, still very pretty and funny, and asked her how she/her spacecraft had managed to slow down for landing. She told me:
"Anders, I never went into space as it was and is impossible. It was just a big propaganda trick to impress the Americans".
One more issue : the exhaust speed relative to earth is variable at a non-linear rate as the acceleration varies. How do you find the average speed if you do not know the acceleration rate and the final speed ?
Btw, whatever value you may use, it still does not work.
One more issue : the exhaust speed relative to earth is variable at a non-linear rate as the acceleration varies. How do you find the average speed if you do not know the acceleration rate and the final speed ?
Btw, whatever value you may use, it still does not work.
If you use the correct value, it works.
The kinetic energy of the exhaust gas is evidently the mass (500 kg) times the actual, average velocity of the gas (relative Earth or the point you use as reference). By iteration you'll find it, so that all parts (total kinetic energy prior braking, kinetic energy of the exhaust, kinetic energy of empty spacecraft) of my formula balances.
Evidently the actual velocities of the exhaust changes all the time as the rocket slows down, so I use one average value. Just to get a feel. See my web page about it where I use NASA's figures of spacecraft (Apollo) speeds/masses before/after braking to get a feeling for the kinetic energy of the exhaust, etc, etc. NASA always assume that the brake force is always applied in exactly the correct direction in 3D space (without any evidence) and as there are no error margins in the amount of fuel available, you should, like me, soon conclude that the whole trip (Apollo) is fantasy.
Could you please show the formulas and values you used to calculate the exhaust velocity? Also, how does this velocity relate to specific impulse or mass flow rate?
One more issue : the exhaust speed relative to earth is variable at a non-linear rate as the acceleration varies. How do you find the average speed if you do not know the acceleration rate and the final speed ?
Btw, whatever value you may use, it still does not work.
If you use the correct value, it works.
The kinetic energy of the exhaust gas is evidently the mass (500 kg) times the actual, average velocity of the gas (relative Earth or the point you use as reference). By iteration you'll find it, so that all parts (total kinetic energy prior braking, kinetic energy of the exhaust, kinetic energy of empty spacecraft) of my formula balances.
Evidently the actual velocities of the exhaust changes all the time as the rocket slows down, so I use one average value. Just to get a feel. See my web page about it where I use NASA's figures of spacecraft (Apollo) speeds/masses before/after braking to get a feeling for the kinetic energy of the exhaust, etc, etc. NASA always assume that the brake force is always applied in exactly the correct direction in 3D space (without any evidence) and as there are no error margins in the amount of fuel available, you should, like me, soon conclude that the whole trip (Apollo) is fantasy.
Could you please show the formulas and values you used to calculate the exhaust velocity? Also, how does this velocity relate to specific impulse or mass flow rate?
I will not go to your site because it is of questionable security status.Being the web master I am sorry to hear that. Pls provide more details. I have had >1.6 million visitors to my site http://heiwaco.com (http://heiwaco.com) and you are the first to complain. Maybe you just make up things?
One more issue : the exhaust speed relative to earth is variable at a non-linear rate as the acceleration varies. How do you find the average speed if you do not know the acceleration rate and the final speed ?
Btw, whatever value you may use, it still does not work.
If you use the correct value, it works.
The kinetic energy of the exhaust gas is evidently the mass (500 kg) times the actual, average velocity of the gas (relative Earth or the point you use as reference). By iteration you'll find it, so that all parts (total kinetic energy prior braking, kinetic energy of the exhaust, kinetic energy of empty spacecraft) of my formula balances.
Evidently the actual velocities of the exhaust changes all the time as the rocket slows down, so I use one average value. Just to get a feel. (...)
Ok, what is the correct value of the average velocity? Care you give your iteration algorithm ?
No, You didn't give your iteration algorithm. How do you get these values ? How many times will you dance around with numbers ?Happy?
Ok, what is the correct value of the average velocity? Care you give your iteration algorithm ?
Sorry! I give you the numbers using ve 4800 and 2800 and you wet and soil your pants because you are fixed on 4500. Pls change your underwear, trousers, take a shower ... and try again. Or better ... take a time out?No, You didn't give your iteration algorithm. How do you get these values ? How many times will you dance around with numbers ?Happy?
Ok, what is the correct value of the average velocity? Care you give your iteration algorithm ?
I'm asking you for the fifth time to give the detailed calculations for a 1000kg spaceship@7000 m/s, an exhaust gas speed of 4500 m/s and a final mass of 500 kg. Not 4800 m/s nor 2800 m/s. Say again : 4500m/s.
Don't throw random numbers there, show the details from a to z.
Professional people do not write like that, shows what you are.Sorry! I give you the numbers using ve 4800 and 2800 and you wet and soil your pants because you are fixed on 4500. Pls change your underwear, trousers, take a shower ... and try again. Or better ... take a time out?No, You didn't give your iteration algorithm. How do you get these values ? How many times will you dance around with numbers ?Happy?
Ok, what is the correct value of the average velocity? Care you give your iteration algorithm ?
I'm asking you for the fifth time to give the detailed calculations for a 1000kg spaceship@7000 m/s, an exhaust gas speed of 4500 m/s and a final mass of 500 kg. Not 4800 m/s nor 2800 m/s. Say again : 4500m/s.
Don't throw random numbers there, show the details from a to z.
I will not go to your site because it is of questionable security status.Being the web master I am sorry to hear that. Pls provide more details. I have had >1.6 million visitors to my site <link> and you are the first to complain. Maybe you just make up things?
I will not go to your site because it is of questionable security status.Being the web master I am sorry to hear that. Pls provide more details. I have had >1.6 million visitors to my site <link> and you are the first to complain. Maybe you just make up things?
No, he's not. I made the same complaint here a couple days ago. Don't you remember replying?
Similar concerns were brought up at apollohoax or cosmoquest (maybe both) when those threads were active as well.
No, You didn't give your iteration algorithm. How do you get these values ? How many times will you dance around with numbers ?Happy?
Ok, what is the correct value of the average velocity? Care you give your iteration algorithm ?
I'm asking you for the fifth time to give the detailed calculations for a 1000kg spaceship@7000 m/s, an exhaust gas speed of 4500 m/s and a final mass of 500 kg. Not 4800 m/s nor 2800 m/s. Say again : 4500m/s.
Don't throw random numbers there, show the details from a to z.
The exhaust gas will pollute space for ever!
In that case Delta-v = 3119 m/s and velocity of the 500 kg space craft with no fuel after braking is 3881 m/s and its kinetic energy is 3.77 GJ.Ok. Now you are using the Tsiolkovski equation (yes the one you don't agree with) to find the DeltaV and then plug the given value to find the suitable "average speed" to make your equation work. How convenient...Very impressed.
If you brake at 10 m/s², then the braking takes 311.9 s or 5.2 minutes. Fuel consumption is 1.6 kg/s.Irrelevant. The acceleration is not constant, your numbers are off. You should better say that you have no idea for the acceleration value.
Hm, this Tsiolkovski does not concern himself with fuel consumption and safety in space (and at sea). Fuel consumption in space is the main focus of my popular web site (>1.6 million downloads) and there I show how easy it is to run out of fuel in space and get stranded there for ever. It makes safe space travel impossible. This Rosetta has only fuel to change speed 2300 m/s, e.g. if Rosetta had to speed up 1150 m/s to make a fly bye/kick off at Earth and speed down 1150 m/s to make the fly bye/kick off at Mars, then all the fuel was burnt up ... end of trip. So IMHO Rosetta is a stupid hoax keeping some asstrophuckers busy at ESA.In that case Delta-v = 3119 m/s and velocity of the 500 kg space craft with no fuel after braking is 3881 m/s and its kinetic energy is 3.77 GJ.Ok. Now you are using the Tsiolkovski equation (yes the one you don't agree with) to find the DeltaV and then plug the given value to find the suitable "average speed" to make your equation work. How convenient...Very impressed.
The positive aspect is that by using the Tsiolkovski equation, you imply that yours is wrong. I assume it's the best you can offer.If you brake at 10 m/s², then the braking takes 311.9 s or 5.2 minutes. Fuel consumption is 1.6 kg/s.Irrelevant. The acceleration is not constant, your numbers are off. You should better say that you have no idea for the acceleration value.
Hm, this Tsiolkovski does not concern himself with fuel consumption and safety in space (and at sea). Fuel consumption in space is the main focus of my popular web site (>1.6 million downloads) and there I show how easy it is to run out of fuel in space and get stranded there for ever. It makes safe space travel impossible. This Rosetta has only fuel to change speed 2300 m/s, e.g. if Rosetta had to speed up 1150 m/s to make a fly bye/kick off at Earth and speed down 1150 m/s to make the fly bye/kick off at Mars, then all the fuel was burnt up ... end of trip. So IMHO Rosetta is a stupid hoax keeping some asstrophuckers busy at ESA.In that case Delta-v = 3119 m/s and velocity of the 500 kg space craft with no fuel after braking is 3881 m/s and its kinetic energy is 3.77 GJ.Ok. Now you are using the Tsiolkovski equation (yes the one you don't agree with) to find the DeltaV and then plug the given value to find the suitable "average speed" to make your equation work. How convenient...Very impressed.
The positive aspect is that by using the Tsiolkovski equation, you imply that yours is wrong. I assume it's the best you can offer.If you brake at 10 m/s², then the braking takes 311.9 s or 5.2 minutes. Fuel consumption is 1.6 kg/s.Irrelevant. The acceleration is not constant, your numbers are off. You should better say that you have no idea for the acceleration value.
BTW 10 m/s² is a constant acceleration. You can test yourself by jumping out from a window and be subject to almost that acceleration. Try it!
Hm, this Tsiolkovski does not concern himself with fuel consumption and safety in spaceIn that case Delta-v = 3119 m/s and velocity of the 500 kg space craft with no fuel after braking is 3881 m/s and its kinetic energy is 3.77 GJ.Ok. Now you are using the Tsiolkovski equation (yes the one you don't agree with) to find the DeltaV and then plug the given value to find the suitable "average speed" to make your equation work. How convenient...Very impressed.
The positive aspect is that by using the Tsiolkovski equation, you imply that yours is wrong. I assume it's the best you can offer.If you brake at 10 m/s², then the braking takes 311.9 s or 5.2 minutes. Fuel consumption is 1.6 kg/s.Irrelevant. The acceleration is not constant, your numbers are off. You should better say that you have no idea for the acceleration value.
(and at sea).
Fuel consumption in space is the main focus of my popular web site (>1.6 million downloads) and there I show how easy it is to run out of fuel in space and get stranded there for ever. It makes safe space travel impossible.
This Rosetta has only fuel to change speed 2300 m/s, e.g. if Rosetta had to speed up 1150 m/s to make a fly bye/kick off at Earth and speed down 1150 m/s to make the fly bye/kick off at Mars, then all the fuel was burnt up ... end of trip. So IMHO Rosetta is a stupid hoax keeping some asstrophuckers busy at ESA.
BTW 10 m/s² is a constant acceleration. You can test yourself by jumping out from a window and be subject to almost that acceleration. Try it!
This Rosetta has only fuel to change speed 2300 m/s, e.g. if Rosetta had to speed up 1150 m/s to make a fly bye/kick off at Earth and speed down 1150 m/s to make the fly bye/kick off at Mars, then all the fuel was burnt up ... end of trip. So IMHO Rosetta is a stupid hoax keeping some asstrophuckers busy at ESA.
If what you say is true and the fuel is indeed used up, apparently it carried enough fuel to accomplish the required maneuvers to achieve its objectives, and now it requires no more. I suspect this was by careful design by real engineers who knew how to do what they wanted to do. Given your sloppy approach to engineering problems, I can easily see why you would need an impossibly large quantity of fuel to accomplish the same thing if you were designing the project.
This Rosetta has only fuel to change speed 2300 m/s, e.g. if Rosetta had to speed up 1150 m/s to make a fly bye/kick off at Earth and speed down 1150 m/s to make the fly bye/kick off at Mars, then all the fuel was burnt up ... end of trip. So IMHO Rosetta is a stupid hoax keeping some asstrophuckers busy at ESA.
If what you say is true and the fuel is indeed used up, apparently it carried enough fuel to accomplish the required maneuvers to achieve its objectives, and now it requires no more. I suspect this was by careful design by real engineers who knew how to do what they wanted to do. Given your sloppy approach to engineering problems, I can easily see why you would need an impossibly large quantity of fuel to accomplish the same thing if you were designing the project.
Of course what I say is true.
But Rosetta didn't use any fuel at all to get to comet P97. It was kicked (!) around by planets Earth and Mars like a billard ball. Ever heard about gravity assist kicks? That's how you speed up/down/change course in space using no fuel according ESA. You just tap kinetic energy from passing planets.
LOL. Only idiots believe such nonsense.
Do you believe in gravity assist kicks?
It was only when arriving close to P97 fuel was used to slow down, etc. A gravity assist kick was suddenly not possible. And Rosetta didn't have more fuel to slow down total 2300 m/s ejecting about 1600 kg fuel. That's how it is designed by ESA engineers. And you have to slow down in exactly the right direction, i.e. apply the force exactly right. Otherwise you are lost for ever.
My philosphy is simple - carry enough fuel to be able to reach a safe haven during any part of the trip.
It applies to the sea but also to space. But not possible to apply in space. Human space travel is impossible.
<empty promise>
Please focus on the maths, all this pseudo scientific bunch of words is absolutely out of focus.Hm, this Tsiolkovski does not concern himself with fuel consumption and safety in space (and at sea). Fuel consumption in space is the main focus of my popular web site (>1.6 million downloads) and there I show how easy it is to run out of fuel in space and get stranded there for ever. It makes safe space travel impossible. This Rosetta has only fuel to change speed 2300 m/s, e.g. if Rosetta had to speed up 1150 m/s to make a fly bye/kick off at Earth and speed down 1150 m/s to make the fly bye/kick off at Mars, then all the fuel was burnt up ... end of trip. So IMHO Rosetta is a stupid hoax keeping some asstrophuckers busy at ESA.In that case Delta-v = 3119 m/s and velocity of the 500 kg space craft with no fuel after braking is 3881 m/s and its kinetic energy is 3.77 GJ.Ok. Now you are using the Tsiolkovski equation (yes the one you don't agree with) to find the DeltaV and then plug the given value to find the suitable "average speed" to make your equation work. How convenient...Very impressed.
The positive aspect is that by using the Tsiolkovski equation, you imply that yours is wrong. I assume it's the best you can offer.If you brake at 10 m/s², then the braking takes 311.9 s or 5.2 minutes. Fuel consumption is 1.6 kg/s.Irrelevant. The acceleration is not constant, your numbers are off. You should better say that you have no idea for the acceleration value.
BTW 10 m/s² is a constant acceleration. You can test yourself by jumping out from a window and be subject to almost that acceleration. Try it!
Gravity assist maneuver is not just a name put on an impossible maneuver that was made up to explain distant space travel, it is a mathematically provable way that a spacecraft can interact with a planet given newtonian physics. I believe that gravity assists are possible because I have personally run simulations of them and seen mathematical proofs that suggest that they are possible.
This Rosetta has only fuel to change speed 2300 m/s, e.g. if Rosetta had to speed up 1150 m/s to make a fly bye/kick off at Earth and speed down 1150 m/s to make the fly bye/kick off at Mars, then all the fuel was burnt up ... end of trip. So IMHO Rosetta is a stupid hoax keeping some asstrophuckers busy at ESA.
If what you say is true and the fuel is indeed used up, apparently it carried enough fuel to accomplish the required maneuvers to achieve its objectives, and now it requires no more. I suspect this was by careful design by real engineers who knew how to do what they wanted to do. Given your sloppy approach to engineering problems, I can easily see why you would need an impossibly large quantity of fuel to accomplish the same thing if you were designing the project.
Of course what I say is true. But Rosetta didn't use any fuel at all to get to comet P97. It was kicked (!) around by planets Earth and Mars like a billard ball. Ever heard about gravity assist kicks? That's how you speed up/down/change course in space using no fuel according ESA. You just tap kinetic energy from passing planets. LOL. Only idiots believe such nonsense. Do you believe in gravity assist kicks?
It was only when arriving close to P97 fuel was used to slow down, etc. A gravity assist kick was suddenly not possible. And Rosetta didn't have more fuel to slow down total 2300 m/s ejecting about 1600 kg fuel. That's how it is designed by ESA engineers. And you have to slow down in exactly the right direction, i.e. apply the force exactly right. Otherwise you are lost for ever.
My philosphy is simple - carry enough fuel to be able to reach a safe haven during any part of the trip. It applies to the sea but also to space. But not possible to apply in space. Human space travel is impossible.
Prove me wrong and collect €1M! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm)
It seemed to have worked, so you just might be wrong. Again. Have you even considered this?
Gravity assist maneuver is not just a name put on an impossible maneuver that was made up to explain distant space travel, it is a mathematically provable way that a spacecraft can interact with a planet given newtonian physics. I believe that gravity assists are possible because I have personally run simulations of them and seen mathematical proofs that suggest that they are possible.
Gravity assist maneuver is not just a name put on an impossible maneuver that was made up to explain distant space travel, it is a mathematically provable way that a spacecraft can interact with a planet given newtonian physics. I believe that gravity assists are possible because I have personally run simulations of them and seen mathematical proofs that suggest that they are possible.
OK - big planet Earth is orbiting the Sun at constant speed v1 m/s and my tiny 3000 kg spacecraft Heiwa arrives towards Earth with speed v2 at a certain angle after having been kicked there by planet Mars. Sun, Earth, Mars and Heiwa are in the same plane. Now Earth shall kick Heiwa out of that plane towards comet 67P that is elliptically orbiting Sun in another plane.
Please advise what speed v3 and direction my space craft Heiwa shall be kicked to arrive close to 67P with not too much speed difference.
How is kinetic energy 1500(v2² - v3²) transmitted between Earth and Heiwa and how do you adjust the direction? Does Earth's atmosphere and clouds in the way make task difficult?
It seemed to have worked, so you just might be wrong. Again. Have you even considered this?
Of course. A tattoed clown at ESA with a shirt full of nude women announced that Rosetta had arrived at the comet and media quoted him. I evidently consider the whole thing a hoax for reasons given on my web page.
Of course. A tattooed clown at ESA with a shirt full of nude women announced that Rosetta had arrived at the comet and media quoted him.
Gravity assist maneuver is not just a name put on an impossible maneuver that was made up to explain distant space travel, it is a mathematically provable way that a spacecraft can interact with a planet given newtonian physics. I believe that gravity assists are possible because I have personally run simulations of them and seen mathematical proofs that suggest that they are possible.
OK - big planet Earth is orbiting the Sun at constant speed v1 m/s and my tiny 3000 kg spacecraft Heiwa arrives towards Earth with speed v2 at a certain angle after having been kicked there by planet Mars. Sun, Earth, Mars and Heiwa are in the same plane. Now Earth shall kick Heiwa out of that plane towards comet 67P that is elliptically orbiting Sun in another plane.
Please advise what speed v3 and direction my space craft Heiwa shall be kicked to arrive close to 67P with not too much speed difference.
How is kinetic energy 1500(v2² - v3²) transmitted between Earth and Heiwa and how do you adjust the direction? Does Earth's atmosphere and clouds in the way make task difficult?
You should know that there is far too little information in your problem to solve it. You are an engineer right? Or are you just looking for a general solution?
Gravity assist maneuver is not just a name put on an impossible maneuver that was made up to explain distant space travel, it is a mathematically provable way that a spacecraft can interact with a planet given newtonian physics. I believe that gravity assists are possible because I have personally run simulations of them and seen mathematical proofs that suggest that they are possible.
OK - big planet Earth is orbiting the Sun at constant speed v1 m/s and my tiny 3000 kg spacecraft Heiwa arrives towards Earth with speed v2 at a certain angle after having been kicked there by planet Mars. Sun, Earth, Mars and Heiwa are in the same plane. Now Earth shall kick Heiwa out of that plane towards comet 67P that is elliptically orbiting Sun in another plane.
Please advise what speed v3 and direction my space craft Heiwa shall be kicked to arrive close to 67P with not too much speed difference.
How is kinetic energy 1500(v2² - v3²) transmitted between Earth and Heiwa and how do you adjust the direction? Does Earth's atmosphere and clouds in the way make task difficult?
You should know that there is far too little information in your problem to solve it. You are an engineer right? Or are you just looking for a general solution?
I am just interested in the velocity/direction of space craft Heiwa before (one vector) and after (another vector) the gravity assist kick carried out by planet Earth (and the Sun). Mass remains same.
It seems the moving Planet Earth gravity attracts moving Heiwa one way or another and then there is this magic kick - Heiwa changes speed and direction and carries on in a new orbit around the Sun - hopefully towards the comet.
There are many unknowns here and I believe ESA lacks the equipment and know how to carry out a kick? If the direction is 1° wrong or the speed is 100 m/s to slow or fast you'll miss the target. And the staff looks hippie - too many kicks?
Surely you know that such a calculation is highly dependent on the initial conditions of which you have only provided the mass of the spacecraft. That being said, here is a link to a page which outlines the basics of the calculation:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114/kmath114.htm (http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114/kmath114.htm)
I could also recommend the Kerbal Space Program. It is apparently a fun simulator!
Finally, you might want to note, that unlike yourself, the engineers and scientists at ESA likely do not do their calculations in their head, but instead use computers giving their calculations a higher degree of reliability.
Any questions?
But it was fantasy then and fantasy now and only sect members - true believers - troll around and suggest it is true.By "true believers" do you mean "pretty much everyone in the world"?
But it was fantasy then and fantasy now and only sect members - true believers - troll around and suggest it is true.By "true believers" do you mean "pretty much everyone in the world"?
Your calculations are hilarious bullshit. Why not use the real numbers?
What do ESA do with the money?But it was fantasy then and fantasy now and only sect members - true believers - troll around and suggest it is true.By "true believers" do you mean "pretty much everyone in the world"?
Your calculations are hilarious bullshit. Why not use the real numbers?
28 900 m/s is the velocity of you, JTC, orbiting the Sun on planet Earth. Do not blame me! You are really fast spinning around the Sun. If something then approaches planet Earth in the opposite direction, e.g. 11 100 m/s (the Heiwa space craft), you and planet Earth will kick it around Earth 180° and sending it off in the opposite direction at almost 7 times higher speed. It only takes 6-7 minutes. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC) .
Evidently the sling shot theory is bullshit but ESA/Rosetta use it to steal money from European tax payers. Do not blame me!
Surely you know that such a calculation is highly dependent on the initial conditions of which you have only provided the mass of the spacecraft. That being said, here is a link to a page which outlines the basics of the calculation:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114/kmath114.htm (http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114/kmath114.htm)
I could also recommend the Kerbal Space Program. It is apparently a fun simulator!
Finally, you might want to note, that unlike yourself, the engineers and scientists at ESA likely do not do their calculations in their head, but instead use computers giving their calculations a higher degree of reliability.
Any questions?
The only variables are mass of Sun, Earth and Heiwa and velocity/direction of Earth and Heiwa.
Assume that Earth and Heiwa meet head on at normal space velocities and Heiwa turns 180° around Earth to proceed in same direction as Earth. Earth is moving at 28 900 m/s speed around Sun in one direction and say that Heiwa has speed 11 100 m/s in its orbit around Sun in the other direction and that they happen to meet in space. Pls explain how Earth can catch Heiwa and sling Heiwa around 180° so that Heiwa becomes speed 68900 m/s, while remaining in the 2-D plane.
Using my head calculations I find that Earth and Heiwa pass each other at 40 000 m/s relative speed and that there is little time for sling shots unless, unlikely, Heiwa hits Earth and crashes. Earth gravity may affect the direction of Heiwa a little, up or down out of the 2-D plane, but not 180° in the 2-D plane. Space is 3-D.
The Rosetta program was invented in 1993 and evidently they had computers then and could do the calculations. But it was fantasy then and fantasy now and only sect members - true believers - troll around and suggest it is true.*Yawn*
What does ESA do with the money? They spend it! Tattoes. Visit to legal whore houses in Germany. Paying Babelsberg moviepeople. Playing theatre. Apart from normal running expenses of ESA doing nothing. I am amazed that they are allowed to rip us off like that. Reason is simple! It is politically correct to be ripped off. A majority supports ripping off the minority. I just watch the show. I evidently would prefer to watch a better show, but there is no choice.What do ESA do with the money?But it was fantasy then and fantasy now and only sect members - true believers - troll around and suggest it is true.By "true believers" do you mean "pretty much everyone in the world"?
Your calculations are hilarious bullshit. Why not use the real numbers?
28 900 m/s is the velocity of you, JTC, orbiting the Sun on planet Earth. Do not blame me! You are really fast spinning around the Sun. If something then approaches planet Earth in the opposite direction, e.g. 11 100 m/s (the Heiwa space craft), you and planet Earth will kick it around Earth 180° and sending it off in the opposite direction at almost 7 times higher speed. It only takes 6-7 minutes. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC) .
Evidently the sling shot theory is bullshit but ESA/Rosetta use it to steal money from European tax payers. Do not blame me!
Your complaint is that there is not enough time to steer? Sounds like an engineering problem that has a solution but not impossible.
Your complaint is that there is not enough time to steer? Sounds like an engineering problem that has a solution but not impossible.
No - a slingshot 180° change of direction + multiple speed increase free of charge in space takes just 6-7 minutes - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC) . It is pure pseudophysics.
BTW - what space sect do you belong to? NASA, ESA, or the Russians, Chinese, French, etc. space clowns. Please do not say you are Indian or Iranian.
OK - big planet Earth is orbiting the Sun at constant speed v1 m/s and my tiny 3000 kg spacecraft Heiwa arrives towards Earth with speed v2 at a certain angle after having been kicked there by planet Mars. Sun, Earth, Mars and Heiwa are in the same plane. Now Earth shall kick Heiwa out of that plane towards comet 67P that is elliptically orbiting Sun in another plane.
Please advise what speed v3 and direction my space craft Heiwa shall be kicked to arrive close to 67P with not too much speed difference.
How is kinetic energy 1500(v2² - v3²) transmitted between Earth and Heiwa and how do you adjust the direction? Does Earth's atmosphere and clouds in the way make task difficult?
You should know that there is far too little information in your problem to solve it. You are an engineer right? Or are you just looking for a general solution?
I am just interested in the velocity/direction of space craft Heiwa before (one vector) and after (another vector) the gravity assist kick carried out by planet Earth (and the Sun). Mass remains same.
It seems the moving Planet Earth gravity attracts moving Heiwa one way or another and then there is this magic kick - Heiwa changes speed and direction and carries on in a new orbit around the Sun - hopefully towards the comet.
There are many unknowns here and I believe ESA lacks the equipment and know how to carry out a kick? If the direction is 1° wrong or the speed is 100 m/s to slow or fast you'll miss the target. And the staff looks hippie - too many kicks?
Just out of curiosity, when did NASA, or any other space agency, claim to have performed a 180 degree gravitational assist? From what I can tell, that 180 degree example was shown as an extreme example, not as an historical one.Your complaint is that there is not enough time to steer? Sounds like an engineering problem that has a solution but not impossible.No - a slingshot 180° change of direction + multiple speed increase free of charge in space takes just 6-7 minutes - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC) . It is pure pseudophysics.
No - a slingshot 180° change of direction + multiple speed increase free of charge in space takes just 6-7 minutes - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC) . It is pure pseudophysics.
1.I look forward to you presenting your argument as to why it is impossible. All you have offered so far is incredulity, which is not an argument.QuoteBTW - what space sect do you belong to? NASA, ESA, or the Russians, Chinese, French, etc. space clowns. Please do not say you are Indian or Iranian.
2. What are you on about now?
No "magic kick" as a distinct event as you imply. The "kick" is happening the whole time "gravity attracts moving Heiwa"; speed and direction, i.e. velocity, is continually changing through the encounter.
Just out of curiosity, when did NASA, or any other space agency, claim to have performed a 180 degree gravitational assist? From what I can tell, that 180 degree example was shown as an extreme example, not as an historical one.Your complaint is that there is not enough time to steer? Sounds like an engineering problem that has a solution but not impossible.No - a slingshot 180° change of direction + multiple speed increase free of charge in space takes just 6-7 minutes - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC) . It is pure pseudophysics.
No - a slingshot 180° change of direction + multiple speed increase free of charge in space takes just 6-7 minutes - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC) . It is pure pseudophysics.
1.I look forward to you presenting your argument as to why it is impossible. All you have offered so far is incredulity, which is not an argument.QuoteBTW - what space sect do you belong to? NASA, ESA, or the Russians, Chinese, French, etc. space clowns. Please do not say you are Indian or Iranian.
2. What are you on about now?
1. I evidently present my information at my popular web page. You have to study it. If you do not understand copy/paste the relevant part, etc.
2. It is a question! Rama Set? Indian, Iranian, Pakistani?
No "magic kick" as a distinct event as you imply. The "kick" is happening the whole time "gravity attracts moving Heiwa"; speed and direction, i.e. velocity, is continually changing through the encounter.
That is evident: Sun interacts with planets orbiting it. Sun and planets also interact with Heiwa space craft (and other objects) flying around them. The interaction apparently becomes useful at close encounters - kicks - and I just propose that ESA fakes it ... every time. I explain more at my popular web page.
Astrophysics seems to be like football. Overpaid players kick a ball around in front of viewers having nothing else to do.
- Do you envy the ESA scientists and engineers because of their casual dress code? Do you hate your own job?
- Do you envy the ESA scientists and engineers because of their casual dress code? Do you hate your own job?
Two OT questions. One answer. I envy and hate nobody/nothing being generously paid by the Heiwa foundation, Vaduz, Lichtenstein, to enlighten the public about peace (heiwa) on Earth and stupid propaganda blinding many poor persons of Earth. Human space travel is impossible and ICBMs do not work either as they will burn up on re-entry, atomic bombs also do not work, etc, etc.
I feel sorry for those many Americans wasting many years paying expensive college/university courses just learning propaganda and pseudosciences and then getting stupid jobs (or what you can call it) lying and cheating. They really hate me after having studied my web pages. Why aren't they getting happy instead? So they can stop cheat and lie.
I feel sorry for people who are so ignorant that they can't enjoy the marvels that humans have created.
- Do you envy the ESA scientists and engineers because of their casual dress code? Do you hate your own job?
Two OT questions. One answer. I envy and hate nobody/nothing being generously paid by the Heiwa foundation, Vaduz, Lichtenstein, to enlighten the public about peace (heiwa) on Earth and stupid propaganda blinding many poor persons of Earth. Human space travel is impossible and ICBMs do not work either as they will burn up on re-entry, atomic bombs also do not work, etc, etc.
I feel sorry for those many Americans wasting many years paying expensive college/university courses just learning propaganda and pseudosciences and then getting stupid jobs (or what you can call it) lying and cheating. They really hate me after having studied my web pages. Why aren't they getting happy instead? So they can stop cheat and lie.
Any links to people who actually agree with you and have recognised qualifications?
- Do you envy the ESA scientists and engineers because of their casual dress code? Do you hate your own job?
Two OT questions. One answer. I envy and hate nobody/nothing being generously paid by the Heiwa foundation, Vaduz, Lichtenstein, to enlighten the public about peace (heiwa) on Earth and stupid propaganda blinding many poor persons of Earth. Human space travel is impossible and ICBMs do not work either as they will burn up on re-entry, atomic bombs also do not work, etc, etc.
I feel sorry for those many Americans wasting many years paying expensive college/university courses just learning propaganda and pseudosciences and then getting stupid jobs (or what you can call it) lying and cheating. They really hate me after having studied my web pages. Why aren't they getting happy instead? So they can stop cheat and lie.
I feel sorry for people who are so ignorant that they can't enjoy the marvels that humans have created.
Any links to people who actually agree with you and have recognised qualifications?Thanks for asking! My web page was just down loaded for 1 613 451st time and I receive plenty e-mails - most of them positive, etc. It seems I have a large following. One problem is MainStream Media, MSM. They never mention my good news.
Any links to people who actually agree with you and have recognised qualifications?Thanks for asking! My web page was just down loaded for 1 613 451st time and I receive plenty e-mails - most of them positive, etc. It seems I have a large following. One problem is MainStream Media, MSM. They never mention my good news.
I got into the good, true news business by looking into the M/S Estonia sinking in the Baltic 28 september 1994, reason being I assisted operating a large fleet of similar passenger ferries.
It was soon clear that three national authorities and their MSM were lying about everything about the sinking, the condition of the ship, responsibilities involved, etc. When I friendly pointed out all the errors and impossibilities and lies and deceptions of politicians, civil servants, journalists and a lot of spin doctors, I didn't become very popular among them. Only survivors and relatives of victims of the sinking liked me. I describe it on my web site. I was accused by stupid people of being a conspiracy theorist spreading rumours and lies of all kind. My mother became very unhappy. I didn't tell her that I was threatened to better shut up ... national security, etc, etc. People closer to the truth started to die suddenly, etc.
Luckily I live in fairly safe place with good friends around me so I continued to follow the Estonia scandal. I am just an observer with good knowledge about safety at sea and passenger ferry shipping. I could not abandon the survivors and relatives of victims that demanded truth. And there we are today 20 years later.
This space propaganda show is just a side line for me. People believe in space travel because MSM say it is true. I think I show that human space travel and similar (Rosetta) are impossible. It seems to upset many people. Like the atomic bomb lovers I upset pointing out that A- and H-bombs do not work. The A-bomb lovers are really upset that the military cannot wipe out Russia and kill 50 million people. I really feel sorry for such people.
So no agreements on space travel. Many have no knowledge of MSM.Any links to people who actually agree with you and have recognised qualifications?Thanks for asking! My web page was just down loaded for 1 613 451st time and I receive plenty e-mails - most of them positive, etc. It seems I have a large following. One problem is MainStream Media, MSM. They never mention my good news.
I got into the good, true news business by looking into the M/S Estonia sinking in the Baltic 28 september 1994, reason being I assisted operating a large fleet of similar passenger ferries.
It was soon clear that three national authorities and their MSM were lying about everything about the sinking, the condition of the ship, responsibilities involved, etc. When I friendly pointed out all the errors and impossibilities and lies and deceptions of politicians, civil servants, journalists and a lot of spin doctors, I didn't become very popular among them. Only survivors and relatives of victims of the sinking liked me. I describe it on my web site. I was accused by stupid people of being a conspiracy theorist spreading rumours and lies of all kind. My mother became very unhappy. I didn't tell her that I was threatened to better shut up ... national security, etc, etc. People closer to the truth started to die suddenly, etc.
Luckily I live in fairly safe place with good friends around me so I continued to follow the Estonia scandal. I am just an observer with good knowledge about safety at sea and passenger ferry shipping. I could not abandon the survivors and relatives of victims that demanded truth. And there we are today 20 years later.
This space propaganda show is just a side line for me. People believe in space travel because MSM say it is true. I think I show that human space travel and similar (Rosetta) are impossible. It seems to upset many people. Like the atomic bomb lovers I upset pointing out that A- and H-bombs do not work. The A-bomb lovers are really upset that the military cannot wipe out Russia and kill 50 million people. I really feel sorry for such people.
Question or what? It seems the FES forum linked to me. That's how I found FES forum. Google & Co seem to love me. Often I am #1 result for various searches. 70% of my visitors come from them. 29.99% comes via links published elsewhere or out of the blue. 0.01% comes from FES forum. I wonder why I waste my time with the flat earth nuts. Most of you seem to be crazy.Any links to people who actually agree with you and have recognised qualifications?Thanks for asking! My web page was just down loaded for 1 613 451st time and I receive plenty e-mails - most of them positive, etc. It seems I have a large following. One problem is MainStream Media, MSM. They never mention my good news.
I got into the good, true news business by looking into the M/S Estonia sinking in the Baltic 28 september 1994, reason being I assisted operating a large fleet of similar passenger ferries.
It was soon clear that three national authorities and their MSM were lying about everything about the sinking, the condition of the ship, responsibilities involved, etc. When I friendly pointed out all the errors and impossibilities and lies and deceptions of politicians, civil servants, journalists and a lot of spin doctors, I didn't become very popular among them. Only survivors and relatives of victims of the sinking liked me. I describe it on my web site. I was accused by stupid people of being a conspiracy theorist spreading rumours and lies of all kind. My mother became very unhappy. I didn't tell her that I was threatened to better shut up ... national security, etc, etc. People closer to the truth started to die suddenly, etc.
Luckily I live in fairly safe place with good friends around me so I continued to follow the Estonia scandal. I am just an observer with good knowledge about safety at sea and passenger ferry shipping. I could not abandon the survivors and relatives of victims that demanded truth. And there we are today 20 years later.
This space propaganda show is just a side line for me. People believe in space travel because MSM say it is true. I think I show that human space travel and similar (Rosetta) are impossible. It seems to upset many people. Like the atomic bomb lovers I upset pointing out that A- and H-bombs do not work. The A-bomb lovers are really upset that the military cannot wipe out Russia and kill 50 million people. I really feel sorry for such people.
So to answer Inquisitive's question, no websites or people that have recognized academic qualifications that link to your site or you as a source for valid scientific knowledge exist?
Question or what? It seems the FES forum linked to me. That's how I found FES forum. Google & Co seem to love me. Often I am #1 result for various searches. 70% of my visitors come from them. 29.99% comes via links published elsewhere or out of the blue. 0.01% comes from FES forum. I wonder why I waste my time with the flat earth nuts. Most of you seem to be crazy.Any links to people who actually agree with you and have recognised qualifications?Thanks for asking! My web page was just down loaded for 1 613 451st time and I receive plenty e-mails - most of them positive, etc. It seems I have a large following. One problem is MainStream Media, MSM. They never mention my good news.
I got into the good, true news business by looking into the M/S Estonia sinking in the Baltic 28 september 1994, reason being I assisted operating a large fleet of similar passenger ferries.
It was soon clear that three national authorities and their MSM were lying about everything about the sinking, the condition of the ship, responsibilities involved, etc. When I friendly pointed out all the errors and impossibilities and lies and deceptions of politicians, civil servants, journalists and a lot of spin doctors, I didn't become very popular among them. Only survivors and relatives of victims of the sinking liked me. I describe it on my web site. I was accused by stupid people of being a conspiracy theorist spreading rumours and lies of all kind. My mother became very unhappy. I didn't tell her that I was threatened to better shut up ... national security, etc, etc. People closer to the truth started to die suddenly, etc.
Luckily I live in fairly safe place with good friends around me so I continued to follow the Estonia scandal. I am just an observer with good knowledge about safety at sea and passenger ferry shipping. I could not abandon the survivors and relatives of victims that demanded truth. And there we are today 20 years later.
This space propaganda show is just a side line for me. People believe in space travel because MSM say it is true. I think I show that human space travel and similar (Rosetta) are impossible. It seems to upset many people. Like the atomic bomb lovers I upset pointing out that A- and H-bombs do not work. The A-bomb lovers are really upset that the military cannot wipe out Russia and kill 50 million people. I really feel sorry for such people.
So to answer Inquisitive's question, no websites or people that have recognized academic qualifications that link to your site or you as a source for valid scientific knowledge exist?
You waste your time with us because a lot of FE believers don't believe space travel is possible. Where else are you going to find this many Apollo deniers?Question or what? It seems the FES forum linked to me. That's how I found FES forum. Google & Co seem to love me. Often I am #1 result for various searches. 70% of my visitors come from them. 29.99% comes via links published elsewhere or out of the blue. 0.01% comes from FES forum. I wonder why I waste my time with the flat earth nuts. Most of you seem to be crazy.Any links to people who actually agree with you and have recognised qualifications?Thanks for asking! My web page was just down loaded for 1 613 451st time and I receive plenty e-mails - most of them positive, etc. It seems I have a large following. One problem is MainStream Media, MSM. They never mention my good news.
I got into the good, true news business by looking into the M/S Estonia sinking in the Baltic 28 september 1994, reason being I assisted operating a large fleet of similar passenger ferries.
It was soon clear that three national authorities and their MSM were lying about everything about the sinking, the condition of the ship, responsibilities involved, etc. When I friendly pointed out all the errors and impossibilities and lies and deceptions of politicians, civil servants, journalists and a lot of spin doctors, I didn't become very popular among them. Only survivors and relatives of victims of the sinking liked me. I describe it on my web site. I was accused by stupid people of being a conspiracy theorist spreading rumours and lies of all kind. My mother became very unhappy. I didn't tell her that I was threatened to better shut up ... national security, etc, etc. People closer to the truth started to die suddenly, etc.
Luckily I live in fairly safe place with good friends around me so I continued to follow the Estonia scandal. I am just an observer with good knowledge about safety at sea and passenger ferry shipping. I could not abandon the survivors and relatives of victims that demanded truth. And there we are today 20 years later.
This space propaganda show is just a side line for me. People believe in space travel because MSM say it is true. I think I show that human space travel and similar (Rosetta) are impossible. It seems to upset many people. Like the atomic bomb lovers I upset pointing out that A- and H-bombs do not work. The A-bomb lovers are really upset that the military cannot wipe out Russia and kill 50 million people. I really feel sorry for such people.
So to answer Inquisitive's question, no websites or people that have recognized academic qualifications that link to your site or you as a source for valid scientific knowledge exist?
Thanks. No waste of time of my side. Side? I live on a flat side! Nice view of the Mediterranean Sea from my office looking East. Looks flat! View of the flat mountain face in the other direction. Looks like a flat wall. Everything looks flat from my comfortable penthouse. Which is flat. Some people call it a flat. Which it is. Everything is smooth and level. Evidently Earth is flat wherever we are on it. That it could also be a globe flying around Sun in space at 28 900 m/s velocity is another matter. I like intelligent discussions. Regrettably I didn't find it here. Sayonara!You waste your time with us because a lot of FE believers don't believe space travel is possible. Where else are you going to find this many Apollo deniers?Question or what? It seems the FES forum linked to me. That's how I found FES forum. Google & Co seem to love me. Often I am #1 result for various searches. 70% of my visitors come from them. 29.99% comes via links published elsewhere or out of the blue. 0.01% comes from FES forum. I wonder why I waste my time with the flat earth nuts. Most of you seem to be crazy.Any links to people who actually agree with you and have recognised qualifications?Thanks for asking! My web page was just down loaded for 1 613 451st time and I receive plenty e-mails - most of them positive, etc. It seems I have a large following. One problem is MainStream Media, MSM. They never mention my good news.
I got into the good, true news business by looking into the M/S Estonia sinking in the Baltic 28 september 1994, reason being I assisted operating a large fleet of similar passenger ferries.
It was soon clear that three national authorities and their MSM were lying about everything about the sinking, the condition of the ship, responsibilities involved, etc. When I friendly pointed out all the errors and impossibilities and lies and deceptions of politicians, civil servants, journalists and a lot of spin doctors, I didn't become very popular among them. Only survivors and relatives of victims of the sinking liked me. I describe it on my web site. I was accused by stupid people of being a conspiracy theorist spreading rumours and lies of all kind. My mother became very unhappy. I didn't tell her that I was threatened to better shut up ... national security, etc, etc. People closer to the truth started to die suddenly, etc.
Luckily I live in fairly safe place with good friends around me so I continued to follow the Estonia scandal. I am just an observer with good knowledge about safety at sea and passenger ferry shipping. I could not abandon the survivors and relatives of victims that demanded truth. And there we are today 20 years later.
This space propaganda show is just a side line for me. People believe in space travel because MSM say it is true. I think I show that human space travel and similar (Rosetta) are impossible. It seems to upset many people. Like the atomic bomb lovers I upset pointing out that A- and H-bombs do not work. The A-bomb lovers are really upset that the military cannot wipe out Russia and kill 50 million people. I really feel sorry for such people.
So to answer Inquisitive's question, no websites or people that have recognized academic qualifications that link to your site or you as a source for valid scientific knowledge exist?
I like intelligent discussions. Regrettably I didn't find it here.Interesting. Some of us have the same feelings about you and your "popular web site".
Sense you live next to an ocean why don't you try to spot another continent. Try using a really powerful telescope. Most flat earthers think you can't see the continent because light can't travel infinitely through air, but you can see things like stars, the moon, and the sun that are WAY further away then the closest continent yet you can see them as they rise and set at the horizon. It makes sense that it doesn't look round because Earth is MASSIVE.Thanks. No waste of time of my side. Side? I live on a flat side! Nice view of the Mediterranean Sea from my office looking East. Looks flat! View of the flat mountain face in the other direction. Looks like a flat wall. Everything looks flat from my comfortable penthouse. Which is flat. Some people call it a flat. Which it is. Everything is smooth and level. Evidently Earth is flat wherever we are on it. That it could also be a globe flying around Sun in space at 28 900 m/s velocity is another matter. I like intelligent discussions. Regrettably I didn't find it here. Sayonara!You waste your time with us because a lot of FE believers don't believe space travel is possible. Where else are you going to find this many Apollo deniers?Question or what? It seems the FES forum linked to me. That's how I found FES forum. Google & Co seem to love me. Often I am #1 result for various searches. 70% of my visitors come from them. 29.99% comes via links published elsewhere or out of the blue. 0.01% comes from FES forum. I wonder why I waste my time with the flat earth nuts. Most of you seem to be crazy.Any links to people who actually agree with you and have recognised qualifications?Thanks for asking! My web page was just down loaded for 1 613 451st time and I receive plenty e-mails - most of them positive, etc. It seems I have a large following. One problem is MainStream Media, MSM. They never mention my good news.
I got into the good, true news business by looking into the M/S Estonia sinking in the Baltic 28 september 1994, reason being I assisted operating a large fleet of similar passenger ferries.
It was soon clear that three national authorities and their MSM were lying about everything about the sinking, the condition of the ship, responsibilities involved, etc. When I friendly pointed out all the errors and impossibilities and lies and deceptions of politicians, civil servants, journalists and a lot of spin doctors, I didn't become very popular among them. Only survivors and relatives of victims of the sinking liked me. I describe it on my web site. I was accused by stupid people of being a conspiracy theorist spreading rumours and lies of all kind. My mother became very unhappy. I didn't tell her that I was threatened to better shut up ... national security, etc, etc. People closer to the truth started to die suddenly, etc.
Luckily I live in fairly safe place with good friends around me so I continued to follow the Estonia scandal. I am just an observer with good knowledge about safety at sea and passenger ferry shipping. I could not abandon the survivors and relatives of victims that demanded truth. And there we are today 20 years later.
This space propaganda show is just a side line for me. People believe in space travel because MSM say it is true. I think I show that human space travel and similar (Rosetta) are impossible. It seems to upset many people. Like the atomic bomb lovers I upset pointing out that A- and H-bombs do not work. The A-bomb lovers are really upset that the military cannot wipe out Russia and kill 50 million people. I really feel sorry for such people.
So to answer Inquisitive's question, no websites or people that have recognized academic qualifications that link to your site or you as a source for valid scientific knowledge exist?
My web page was just down loaded for 1 613 451st time and I receive plenty e-mails - most of them positive, etc.
It seems the gravity assist kick sect members had problems after my publishing
http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC (http://bit.ly/1srm8U3) . I really feel sorry for any people calling themselves astrophysicians believing that small objects can 180° swing around big planets in space and increase their speeds almost 3X at the same time.
Compared with the flat earth suggestion, the gravity assist kick is really unbelievable but there are clowns that believe it.
It seems the gravity assist kick sect members had problems after my publishing
http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#JTC (http://bit.ly/1srm8U3) . I really feel sorry for any people calling themselves astrophysicians believing that small objects can 180° swing around big planets in space and increase their speeds almost 3X at the same time.
Compared with the flat earth suggestion, the gravity assist kick is really unbelievable but there are clowns that believe it.
Poor old Anders is still posting his loony-tunes notions I see. Despite criticising them, he seems to think that guys who research space are called "astrophysicians" rather than the correct astrophysicists.
This is a classic example of how little this boat mechanic knows of true science LOL. A physician is actually a medical doctor, and like Anders, knows virtually nothing about astrophysics.
Why do you keep in trying to plug you "popular website" ?Because it is more interesting than the drivel you spew.
Why do you keep in trying to plug you "popular website" ?Because it is more interesting than the drivel you spew.
Why do you keep in trying to plug you "popular website" ?
Why does anyone need to provide you with details. The maths should be easy for you. What more details do you need?
And what info Did you require from ESA exactly?
And out of interest who was this addressed to?
I'd imagen a email that generic to esa would get a lot of emails. I assumed you were directing the email at a specific department. I'd imagen they clicked on the link at the bottom and got the security warning and left it at that.
As I reported earlier, he was briefly on a UK based astronomy forum. He was banned after about 30 minutes. It appears that his MO is to watch for new hits on his site and them to spam where the hit came from, if possible. One of the members over there raised an interesting suggestion.....the website's only purpose is as a revenue generator ( http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com (http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com) reports it as generating $700 per day).
Interesting idea...which would certainly through another angle on Bjorkman's pig-headedness...he is not interested in learning...in fact the more outrageous his BS the better as it generates more hits on his site.
I went through the 113 pages of a thread in which Heiwa participated and got banned: http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0, (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0,) where I found this in page 78:QuoteAs I reported earlier, he was briefly on a UK based astronomy forum. He was banned after about 30 minutes. It appears that his MO is to watch for new hits on his site and them to spam where the hit came from, if possible. One of the members over there raised an interesting suggestion.....the website's only purpose is as a revenue generator ( http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com (http://sourcemetro.com/heiwaco.tripod.com) reports it as generating $700 per day).
Interesting idea...which would certainly through another angle on Bjorkman's pig-headedness...he is not interested in learning...in fact the more outrageous his BS the better as it generates more hits on his site.
BTW, I'm still waiting for a definitive answer to my initial question Heiwa. Perhaps you've already admitted your equation is dead wrong ?
You know perfectly what is the question, and you know you cannot answer properly to it.BTW, I'm still waiting for a definitive answer to my initial question Heiwa. Perhaps you've already admitted your equation is dead wrong ?
I am so sorry keeping you waiting. What was the question? Was it about topic Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet? Or the size of my shoes? If the latter, start a new thread about it.
Pls do it yourself
I have done the maths in my head as usual - one result 5362, one 5256
Calculate the kinetic energy of the fuel mass 500 kg after it has been ejected from the spacecraft as hot gas at velocity 4500 m/s
I used an exhaust velocity of 2363 m/s = more realistic.
According ESA and other pseudoscientific agencies - NASA! - planet Earth with speed U can swing around 180° any little object approaching Earth head on at speed v with a little offset to avoid crash and accelerate the little object during 8 minutes, so it becomes speed v + 2U ... in the opposite direction! Nonsense of course. The g-forces on the little object during the 180° turn is of the order 12-13 g, which will rip it apart, but before it happens, the little object is re-directed straight on the planet and - CRASH!Anders, you do realize that gravity does not need to be 180 degrees, don't you? In fact, I challenge you to find one example where any space agency has claimed to have used a 180 degree gravity assist for one of its space probes.
Of course a gravity assist kick does not need to be a 180° turn of one object (the space craft) around another (a planet). It only happens when the two objects meet almost head on, we are told to believe by members of the sect of such believers.According ESA and other pseudoscientific agencies - NASA! - planet Earth with speed U can swing around 180° any little object approaching Earth head on at speed v with a little offset to avoid crash and accelerate the little object during 8 minutes, so it becomes speed v + 2U ... in the opposite direction! Nonsense of course. The g-forces on the little object during the 180° turn is of the order 12-13 g, which will rip it apart, but before it happens, the little object is re-directed straight on the planet and - CRASH!Anders, you do realize that gravity does not need to be 180 degrees, don't you? In fact, I challenge you to find one example where any space agency has claimed to have used a 180 degree gravity assist for one of its space probes.
Of course a gravity assist kick does not need to be a 180° turn of one object (the space craft) around another (a planet). It only happens when the two objects meet almost head on, we are told to believe by members of the sect of such believers.According ESA and other pseudoscientific agencies - NASA! - planet Earth with speed U can swing around 180° any little object approaching Earth head on at speed v with a little offset to avoid crash and accelerate the little object during 8 minutes, so it becomes speed v + 2U ... in the opposite direction! Nonsense of course. The g-forces on the little object during the 180° turn is of the order 12-13 g, which will rip it apart, but before it happens, the little object is re-directed straight on the planet and - CRASH!Anders, you do realize that gravity does not need to be 180 degrees, don't you? In fact, I challenge you to find one example where any space agency has claimed to have used a 180 degree gravity assist for one of its space probes.
We don't know the headings or directions of the four ESA/Rosetta gravity assist kicks . We only know that ESA claims that they took place but failed to photograph them, etc. I evidently claim ESA could not have carried out the b]gravity assist kicks [/b] and I explain why on my web site. The tattoed ESA clowns with their porno shirts have not clarified the matter. I am amazed that media do not ask ESA to clarify its claims.
One correction is to arrive exactly, so you are gravity assist kicked off to the next (moving) planet and that you do not go off target up/down/left/right/too slow/too fast. Remember you are in 3D.Of course a gravity assist kick does not need to be a 180° turn of one object (the space craft) around another (a planet). It only happens when the two objects meet almost head on, we are told to believe by members of the sect of such believers.According ESA and other pseudoscientific agencies - NASA! - planet Earth with speed U can swing around 180° any little object approaching Earth head on at speed v with a little offset to avoid crash and accelerate the little object during 8 minutes, so it becomes speed v + 2U ... in the opposite direction! Nonsense of course. The g-forces on the little object during the 180° turn is of the order 12-13 g, which will rip it apart, but before it happens, the little object is re-directed straight on the planet and - CRASH!Anders, you do realize that gravity does not need to be 180 degrees, don't you? In fact, I challenge you to find one example where any space agency has claimed to have used a 180 degree gravity assist for one of its space probes.
We don't know the headings or directions of the four ESA/Rosetta gravity assist kicks . We only know that ESA claims that they took place but failed to photograph them, etc. I evidently claim ESA could not have carried out the b]gravity assist kicks [/b] and I explain why on my web site. The tattoed ESA clowns with their porno shirts have not clarified the matter. I am amazed that media do not ask ESA to clarify its claims.
When a space probe is performing a gravity assist manuver, they have greater concerns then to take pretty pictures of planets, they are more concerned with things like making sure they do the manuver right and performing the necessary corrections. If it all was actually a con then do 't you think that they would just render out a few pictures the same way that they allegedly got all of the other space pictures. There are actually commercialy available suborbital space planes on the market right now and commercial space flight is becoming a reality because that's the obvious thing to do if space does not actually exist.
I think there is a couple of private space flight companies that would argue that statementEvidently there are space flight companies ready to fool prospective clients, e.g. the VG company selling 'space' trips or just an up phase starting from hanging below an airplane speeding up to a certain altitude and then a down phase trying to do a re-entry without breaking or burning up. The only available VG 'space craft' fell apart already in the up phase at a simple test. Then there is the US SX company selling trips to the International Fake Station that doesn't exist either. The only SX client is NASA = a corrupt government agency that says it sent people to the Moon 1969-1972. LOL! The owner of SX also sells electric cars that only fools or idiots buy or accept to drive. It takes hours to charge them, if you find a place to charge them. My 15 years old Opel Agila is much faster/better/more economic and safer.
You cannot adjust the planets involved so only the Rosetta can be adjusted ... but doesn't have enough fuel for it -You've failed so far to prove this assertion. As you use bogus equations, it's not really surprising.
I was thinking more along the lines of space X. And no nothing beyond my fascination with companies pushing the boundaries of countless fields of science engendering chemistry.space X? FGS. Has it achieved anything? I contacted it and the female chief secretary advised all was secret, bla, bla. Only evidences that spaceX exists are some strange videos planted on the Internet; rockets or models of them flying up into the sky to the NASA ISF and capsules splashing into the Pacific outside Santa Monica, dropped there by some plane taking off an hour earlier from some private airport.
Then please stop arguing as if a 180 degree assist is the only one ever used.Of course a gravity assist kick does not need to be a 180° turn of one object (the space craft) around another (a planet). It only happens when the two objects meet almost head on, we are told to believe by members of the sect of such believers.According ESA and other pseudoscientific agencies - NASA! - planet Earth with speed U can swing around 180° any little object approaching Earth head on at speed v with a little offset to avoid crash and accelerate the little object during 8 minutes, so it becomes speed v + 2U ... in the opposite direction! Nonsense of course. The g-forces on the little object during the 180° turn is of the order 12-13 g, which will rip it apart, but before it happens, the little object is re-directed straight on the planet and - CRASH!Anders, you do realize that gravity does not need to be 180 degrees, don't you? In fact, I challenge you to find one example where any space agency has claimed to have used a 180 degree gravity assist for one of its space probes.
We don't know the headings or directions of the four ESA/Rosetta gravity assist kicks . We only know that ESA claims that they took place but failed to photograph them, etc. I evidently claim ESA could not have carried out the b]gravity assist kicks [/b] and I explain why on my web site. The tattoed ESA clowns with their porno shirts have not clarified the matter. I am amazed that media do not ask ESA to clarify its claims.Actually, space probes such as Voyager, often do photograph the planets that they get the gravity assist from. However, since Rosetta was getting its assists from Earth and Mars, I doubt that photographing these planets (that already have other probes in orbit and actively photographing them) was a priority.
Space X has launched plenty of commercial payloads. As I said NASA is far from its sole customer.Hm, according SpaceX home page http://www.spacex.com/ (http://www.spacex.com/) ...
Are you trying to say that because space X dose not do something revolutionary it's not real?No or yes. I only know SpaceX from its web site, which looks real but has not been updated since 2013. SpaceX has since 2002 tried to revolutionize the space biz but has only managed to send some satellites into orbit (which appears real) and some capsules to the ISF (which is fake). I have no confidence in the owner of SpaceX selling his space capsules on my web site (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) ). The capsule doesn't look fit to be dropped from 400 000 m altitude and speed > 7000 m/s into the Earth's atmosphere to land safely 8 minutes later a 0 m/s speed. I think anything dropped like that burns or breaks up in a very short time.
... as for you assertion about re entry and landing... well your math has been shown to be wrong countless times ...
Are you trying to say that because space X dose not do something revolutionary it's not real?No or yes. I only know SpaceX from its web site, which looks real but has not been updated since 2013. SpaceX has since 2002 tried to revolutionize the space biz but has only managed to send some satellites into orbit (which appears real) and some capsules to the ISF (which is fake). I have no confidence in the owner of SpaceX selling his space capsules on my web site (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) ). The capsule doesn't look fit to be dropped from 400 000 m altitude and speed > 7000 m/s into the Earth's atmosphere to land safely 8 minutes later a 0 m/s speed. I think anything dropped like that burns or breaks up in a very short time.
Are you a SpaceX sect member? You sound like one!
This SpaceX news is hilarious :
http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/09/16/nasa-selects-spacex-be-part-americas-human-spaceflight-program (http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/09/16/nasa-selects-spacex-be-part-americas-human-spaceflight-program)
"Today, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014, NASA selected SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft to fly American astronauts to the International Space Station under the Commercial Crew Program. ...
Crew Dragon’s powerful launch escape system, the first of its kind, will provide escape capability from the time the crew enters the vehicle all the way to orbit. Should an emergency occur during launch, eight SuperDraco engines built into the side walls of the Dragon spacecraft will produce up to 120,000 pounds of axial thrust to carry astronauts to safety."
Imagine that SuperDraco engines built into the side walls will carry astronauts to safety in an emergency. Hilarious! LOL, LOL!!
The capsule doesn't look fit
Hilarious! LOL, LOL!!
Are you a SpaceX sect member? You sound like one!
Maths at that level is beyond my abilities. But I'm able to trust others who are experts in such fields. Something flat earthers in general seem to not be able to do. But what I will say is that I have seen sats with my own eyes I have seen the space station with my own eyes I have seen the space shuttle with my own eyes. I have seen many of the planets ant the orbits they make with my own eyes. I understand orbital mechanics to a point and from what I do know I see no problem.Topic is here Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet and it implies that Rosetta made four gravity assist kicks with planets Earth (3X) and Mars (1X) to arrive at the comet. The experts at ESA has been asked to provide info about the four gravity assist kicks but refuse. Reason? Gravity assist kicks in space are not possible. Any maths suggesting otherwise is wrong.NASA to impress them. Many people have seen the space station as a bright spot in the sky but do not
Any maths suggesting otherwise is wrong.
Any maths suggesting otherwise is wrong.
This should be easy to prove if it's true. Please tell us how math can be manipulated
Assisted by small rockets? ???
Assisted by small rockets? ???
Yes - that can lift 3 tons. No rockets can lift 80-90 tons (a Shuttle incl. 10 tons pay load) into LEO.
Assisted by small rockets? ???
Yes - that can lift 3 tons. No rockets can lift 80-90 tons (a Shuttle incl. 10 tons pay load) into LEO.
Car to show us how you came to that conclusion?
All I am seeing is opinions no facts.http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf) is fun! NASA develops a new rocket that can do the same thing as a Saturn V could do 50 years ago. The drawings of the Saturn V rockets built 1965-1972 have disappeared and nobody knows what it really looked like.
What is your source for the Saturn v plans being missing? I have seen sources that the plans are in Huntsville still and there are still 3 F-1 engines around. From what I understand, the problem with manufacturing F-1s again, is that the sub-contractors that helped in the building are mostly gone so the logistical infrastructure is gone.All I am seeing is opinions no facts.http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf) is fun! NASA develops a new rocket that can do the same thing as a Saturn V could do 50 years ago. The drawings of the Saturn V rockets built 1965-1972 have disappeared and nobody knows what it really looked like.
The Shuttle hoax was easy to reveal - a heavy, 80-90 tons Shuttle was sent up with 10 tons payload and was orbiting Earth at > 7 500 m/s speed and then, after a while up there, it landed again empty (mass 78 tons) after a strange re-entry that NASA cannot explain, i.e. how it managed to slow down or brake.
Only idiots believe the NASA nonsense today. So Pythagoras you are not alone!
No real Saturn V rockets were ever built! What was seen from a distance and filmed taking off were just big, mostly empty, mock-up rockets with no astronuts or modules up top taking off. Looked impressive but ... it was just a show.What is your source for the Saturn v plans being missing? I have seen sources that the plans are in Huntsville still and there are still 3 F-1 engines around. From what I understand, the problem with manufacturing F-1s again, is that the sub-contractors that helped in the building are mostly gone so the logistical infrastructure is gone.All I am seeing is opinions no facts.http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf) is fun! NASA develops a new rocket that can do the same thing as a Saturn V could do 50 years ago. The drawings of the Saturn V rockets built 1965-1972 have disappeared and nobody knows what it really looked like.
The Shuttle hoax was easy to reveal - a heavy, 80-90 tons Shuttle was sent up with 10 tons payload and was orbiting Earth at > 7 500 m/s speed and then, after a while up there, it landed again empty (mass 78 tons) after a strange re-entry that NASA cannot explain, i.e. how it managed to slow down or brake.
Only idiots believe the NASA nonsense today. So Pythagoras you are not alone!
Can't they explain how it re enters and land?No. Just ask them at NASA. They never reply. Or study the info available on the Internet how to land with a Shuttle slowing down from 7 500 m/s speed up in space at 400 000 m altitude to zero speed down on Earth ground. Just fantasy stories/videos. You would expect to find many videos filming out of the Shuttle cockpit windows the whole thing and also the inside. What do you find? One or two shaky videos showing not much - dark inside cockpit, nothing outside, etc.
Can't they explain how it re enters and land?No. Just ask them at NASA. They never reply. Or study the info available on the Internet how to land with a Shuttle slowing down from 7 500 m/s speed up in space at 400 000 m altitude to zero speed down on Earth ground. Just fantasy stories/videos. You would expect to find many videos filming out of the Shuttle cockpit windows the whole thing and also the inside. What do you find? One or two shaky videos showing not much - dark inside cockpit, nothing outside, etc.
Re-entry is impossible. A capsule will start to rotate and make mince meat of humans inside and then it will burn up. A Shuttle will simply break up/apart due to dynamic/friction loads imposed and then all the parts will burn up. This Yuri Gagarin cosmonut flying once around Earth in 90 minutes and then landing using a parachute was just communist 1950's PR. And people believed it then. Try do do the same thing today and learn a little.Can't they explain how it re enters and land?No. Just ask them at NASA. They never reply. Or study the info available on the Internet how to land with a Shuttle slowing down from 7 500 m/s speed up in space at 400 000 m altitude to zero speed down on Earth ground. Just fantasy stories/videos. You would expect to find many videos filming out of the Shuttle cockpit windows the whole thing and also the inside. What do you find? One or two shaky videos showing not much - dark inside cockpit, nothing outside, etc.
"Alright, we are about to begin reentry where we will burn up if we don't do everything exactly right. Get the camera."
Re-entry is impossible. A capsule will start to rotate and make mince meat of humans inside and then it will burn up. A Shuttle will simply break up/apart due to dynamic/friction loads imposed and then all the parts will burn up. This Yuri Gagarin cosmonut flying once around Earth in 90 minutes and then landing using a parachute was just communist 1950's PR. And people believed it then. Try do do the same thing today and learn a little.Can't they explain how it re enters and land?No. Just ask them at NASA. They never reply. Or study the info available on the Internet how to land with a Shuttle slowing down from 7 500 m/s speed up in space at 400 000 m altitude to zero speed down on Earth ground. Just fantasy stories/videos. You would expect to find many videos filming out of the Shuttle cockpit windows the whole thing and also the inside. What do you find? One or two shaky videos showing not much - dark inside cockpit, nothing outside, etc.
"Alright, we are about to begin reentry where we will burn up if we don't do everything exactly right. Get the camera."
OK, I am just going to take your word for it that all space travel is a lie. Psych! Please state your sources and show your math, because your word is the only information that I have in favor of your theory.
Astronaut’s-Eye View of NASA’s Orion Spacecraft Re-entry. The camera is looking ‘up’ from behind the capsule, so as Orion’s lager heat shield bears the brunt of atmospheric heating as it reenters through the stratosphere, we’re looking along the ionization trail of this man-made meteor as it dashes through the sky.Funny sound!
Astronaut’s-Eye View of NASA’s Orion Spacecraft Re-entry (http://#ws)
Astronaut’s-Eye View of NASA’s Orion Spacecraft Re-entry. The camera is looking ‘up’ from behind the capsule, so as Orion’s lager heat shield bears the brunt of atmospheric heating as it reenters through the stratosphere, we’re looking along the ionization trail of this man-made meteor as it dashes through the sky.Funny sound!
Astronaut’s-Eye View of NASA’s Orion Spacecraft Re-entry (http://#ws)
Just how many times is this intellectually-challenged boat mechanic Anders Bjorkman gonna link us to his comical sites? And I'm seriously losing track of the number of forums he's been banned from. How long before he's banned here?An engineer who claims that weight = mass! LOL
This is a far more interesting site:
The Unique World of Anders Björkman (Heiwa) (http://bit.ly/1srm8U3).
I suggest everybody check it out for the truth about Björkman and his other lunatic ideas. You'll crack a rib laughing. ;D
Just had to make spag out of this. ...Hm, topic is Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet and for it to be true Rosetta must have performed four gravity assist kicks - three above our planet Earth and one above planet Mars.
The worry is he makes a few of the nutters here look dumb.
Just had to make spag out of this. ...Hm, topic is Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet and for it to be true Rosetta must have performed four gravity assist kicks - three above our planet Earth and one above planet Mars.
The worry is he makes a few of the nutters here look dumb.
ESA - the producer and director of the Rosetta (Babelsberg/Potsdam) show - cannot explain how a gravity assist kick takes place in space and the dumb nutters at this forum change the topic to me that has just shown, several times, that a gravity assist kick is not physically possible.
ESA suggests that it sent the Rosetta away from and ahead of planet Earth in one elliptical orbit around the Sun and that exactly one year later Rosetta encountered planet Earth again so a gravity assist kick could be performed: planet Earth kicking Rosetta into another orbit around the Sun. Rosetta being shot away from planet Earth flew like a bumerang in space so it came back to Earth exactly one year later, i.e. when Earth had made one tour around the Sun.
The nutters at this forum thus not only belive in gravity assist kicks but apparently also in a Rosetta bumerang space flight. Well, why not? These nutters are harmless and don't even know how to be rude.
Thanks for asking. The bigger object flying in space will always only attract the smaller object also flying in space towards the center of gravity of the bigger object, e.g. the center of Earth. Compare Galileo Galilei dropping objects from the Tower of Pisa about 500 years ago showing how the bigger object, i.e. Earth, attracted the smaller object (and did not kick anything away).Just had to make spag out of this. ...Hm, topic is Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet and for it to be true Rosetta must have performed four gravity assist kicks - three above our planet Earth and one above planet Mars.
The worry is he makes a few of the nutters here look dumb.
ESA - the producer and director of the Rosetta (Babelsberg/Potsdam) show - cannot explain how a gravity assist kick takes place in space and the dumb nutters at this forum change the topic to me that has just shown, several times, that a gravity assist kick is not physically possible.
ESA suggests that it sent the Rosetta away from and ahead of planet Earth in one elliptical orbit around the Sun and that exactly one year later Rosetta encountered planet Earth again so a gravity assist kick could be performed: planet Earth kicking Rosetta into another orbit around the Sun. Rosetta being shot away from planet Earth flew like a bumerang in space so it came back to Earth exactly one year later, i.e. when Earth had made one tour around the Sun.
The nutters at this forum thus not only belive in gravity assist kicks but apparently also in a Rosetta bumerang space flight. Well, why not? These nutters are harmless and don't even know how to be rude.
How exactly is a gravity assist not possible?
Companies and organisations often do not reply to people who just want to engage in an ongoing discussion and do not accept what they say.Hm, I have just asked ESA politely twice for details of the four Rosetta gravity assist kicks - speed/direction (relative Sun) of Rosetta before/after kicks, time/duration/date of kicks and details of the new elliptical orbit of the Rosetta between kicks and there is no reply at all.
Thanks for asking. The bigger object flying in space will always only attract the smaller object also flying in space towards the center of gravity of the bigger object, e.g. the center of Earth. Compare Galileo Galilei dropping objects from the Tower of Pisa about 500 years ago showing how the bigger object, i.e. Earth, attracted the smaller object (and did not kick anything away).
According the gravity assist sect members, many present at this forum, the bigger object, i.e. planet Earth will not attract the smaller object flying by it, but kick it away at increased speed in a new direction in space. They refer to some maths where the bigger object (a massive moving point in space) does not attract the smaller object, another moving point, towards its center/point but just swings it around the same center/point 1-180°, so the smaller object accelerates and leaves the bigger object at increased speed, etc, etc, depending on many strange assumptions. I explain more at my popular web site. You can also ask a tattoed ESA astrophysicist clown wearing a porno shirt about it. I have asked ESA twice to clarify their gravity assist but ... no reply. I will ask again next week.
Thanks for asking. The bigger object flying in space will always only attract the smaller object also flying in space towards the center of gravity of the bigger object, e.g. the center of Earth. Compare Galileo Galilei dropping objects from the Tower of Pisa about 500 years ago showing how the bigger object, i.e. Earth, attracted the smaller object (and did not kick anything away).
According the gravity assist sect members, many present at this forum, the bigger object, i.e. planet Earth will not attract the smaller object flying by it, but kick it away at increased speed in a new direction in space. They refer to some maths where the bigger object (a massive moving point in space) does not attract the smaller object, another moving point, towards its center/point but just swings it around the same center/point 1-180°, so the smaller object accelerates and leaves the bigger object at increased speed, etc, etc, depending on many strange assumptions. I explain more at my popular web site. You can also ask a tattoed ESA astrophysicist clown wearing a porno shirt about it. I have asked ESA twice to clarify their gravity assist but ... no reply. I will ask again next week.
The fact that you can't understand their calculations doesn't demonstrate that gravity assist is impossible. And BTW, gravity assist can also be used to slow down a craft.
Thanks for asking. The bigger object flying in space will always only attract the smaller object also flying in space towards the center of gravity of the bigger object, e.g. the center of Earth. Compare Galileo Galilei dropping objects from the Tower of Pisa about 500 years ago showing how the bigger object, i.e. Earth, attracted the smaller object (and did not kick anything away).
According the gravity assist sect members, many present at this forum, the bigger object, i.e. planet Earth will not attract the smaller object flying by it, but kick it away at increased speed in a new direction in space. They refer to some maths where the bigger object (a massive moving point in space) does not attract the smaller object, another moving point, towards its center/point but just swings it around the same center/point 1-180°, so the smaller object accelerates and leaves the bigger object at increased speed, etc, etc, depending on many strange assumptions. I explain more at my popular web site. You can also ask a tattoed ESA astrophysicist clown wearing a porno shirt about it. I have asked ESA twice to clarify their gravity assist but ... no reply. I will ask again next week.
The fact that you can't understand their calculations doesn't demonstrate that gravity assist is impossible. And BTW, gravity assist can also be used to slow down a craft.
I understand the calculations. I do not agree with the assumptions. I prefer Galileo Galilei than any ESA tattoed astrophysicist with a pornoshirt. GG suggests that the bigger object will attract the smaller object and change its direction prior encounter/crash. Throw something horizontally from the top of the Pisa tower and see what happens = the smaller object crashes on Earth. A sect in Rome didn't like GG and banned him.
The ESA tattoed astrophysicist with a pornoshirt suggests that planet Earth will not affect the direction of Rosetta prior encounter - it is straight - and then suddenly swings or kicks planet Earth or Mars Rosetta in a new straight direction into a new orbit around Sun that leads to another encounter/kick.
In my calculations planet Earth or Mars and the Sun of course attract by gravity Rosetta many hours before the encounter and change Rosetta's speed and direction all the time and if Rosetta doesn't crash on the planet, it spins off in an unknown direction (up/down/right/left) and at unknown speed (fwd/aft) into space and will not be seen again.
Maybe it will disappear into a black hole on the pool table?
Care to show your calculations?
Care to post it hear. My browser advises me not to go onto your website.
Have they been peer reviewed?
Care to show your calculations?
http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS) and go down a bit.
Come on Heiwa. Just copy paste it here please. Let us all admire your misunderstanding.
I'd rather not risk infecting my computer. So can you past it hear?Upgrade your anti-virus software or use someone's else PC. I have actually many visitors using their mobile phones, pads, whatever to admire my work and nobody complains. Did you soil your pants? Have a look!
Heiwa kept constantly arguing that Rosetta couldn't have been looped around a planet making a 180° turn. But from this presentation video, I don't see where Rosetta ever did that. There were 3 rendezvous with Earth (to accelerate) and one with Mars (to slow down):
Heiwa kept constantly arguing that Rosetta couldn't have been looped around a planet making a 180° turn. But from this presentation video, I don't see where Rosetta ever did that. There were 3 rendezvous with Earth (to accelerate) and one with Mars (to slow down):
Pls listen to what I say - Rosetta gravity assist kicks changing direction 1, 2, 5, X, 90 or 180° and velocity up/down are not possible because you cannot control the speed/direction/location of space craft Rosetta prior to the kick and if you get too close to Earth you will crash. Basic.
Only ESA sect members believe the nonsense with gravity assist kicks - some get tattoed from top to bottom and then dress up in shirts with nude girls on.
Heiwa kept constantly arguing that Rosetta couldn't have been looped around a planet making a 180° turn. But from this presentation video, I don't see where Rosetta ever did that. There were 3 rendezvous with Earth (to accelerate) and one with Mars (to slow down):
Pls listen to what I say - Rosetta gravity assist kicks changing direction 1, 2, 5, X, 90 or 180° and velocity up/down are not possible because you cannot control the speed/direction/location of space craft Rosetta prior to the kick and if you get too close to Earth you will crash. Basic.
Only ESA sect members believe the nonsense with gravity assist kicks - some get tattoed from top to bottom and then dress up in shirts with nude girls on.
Care to show how you came to the conclusion it cannot be controlled?
Rosetta has thrusters and reaction wheels. I don't see why it is impossible to adjust its speed/direction.You need fuel + full control/knowledge of speed, direction and location in 3D space around the Sun, etc. You cannot fill up your fuel tank in space!
You seem to be under the impression that one cannot know that precise location speed and direction of an object. Why is this?
You seem to be under the impression that one cannot know that precise location speed and direction of an object. Why is this?
Lack of light? Fog? Mist? Object hidden by a cloud. Or you are on the wrong side of the rotating Earth and the object is out of sight on the other side?
Or maybe the attoed ESA controller is sleeping at his control board if the object is Rosetta?
You seem to believe you are living in the perfect DHS/NSA Disneyworld where your location and thinking is always known. I really feel sorry for you - cannot use Google because it links to other web sites that cannot be trusted. So I will no longer discuss with you. You seem too stupid, too.
I have actually many visitors using their mobile phones, pads, whatever to admire my work and nobody complains. Did you soil your pants? Have a look!
Why would fog or mist be a problem for a space probe?You have to study, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly) - evidently it is a joke, but anyway: "Maybe any velocity increase was masked by atmospheric drag of the lower altitude of 303 km."
Why would position of the earth's orientation be a problem?
I have actually many visitors using their mobile phones, pads, whatever to admire my work and nobody complains. Did you soil your pants? Have a look!
No... you don't have "many" visitors who "admire" your sites.
You have a problem with their still being minute traces of atmosphere at that altitude? Do you have a y science to suggest this should not be the case or is it just your expert opinion?
And on the fuel opinion, I'm not sure if it did or didn't use fuel to make course corrections. Have you got a citation for this? And even if it didn't. It's still got its reaction wheels. Also have you ever heard of launch windows and or why manoeuvre are conducted at set times? It's so it does not have to waste fuel on future wasteful corrections.
Fuel - according to the link given above no fuel was used by Rosetta to adjust speed/course in order to encounter the fast moving planets at perfect times to enable gravity assist kicks!Obviously, you know nothing about space flights and are too lazy to find the information.
Rosetta just bounced between the planets with no outside adjustments during 9 years by, e.g. the ESA tattoed clowns in pornoshirts looking after the show.
I will ask ESA again (for the 3rd time) on 5 January 2015 to provide the info about the kicks + confirmation that no fuel was used. I doubt they will reply of course, but we will see.
May 10 — The most critical deep space maneuver was successfully executed. The four thrusters on board of Rosetta were fired for about 3.5 hours, and a velocity change (delta v) of 152.8 metre per second was imparted to the spacecraft.
May 16 — A planned "touch-up" deep space maneuver was successfully executed. A burn of just under 17 minutes was performed with high accuracy. Then Rosetta pointed its instruments again towards Comet LINEAR for observation.
Fuel - according to the link given above no fuel was used by Rosetta to adjust speed/course in order to encounter the fast moving planets at perfect times to enable gravity assist kicks!Obviously, you know nothing about space flights and are too lazy to find the information.
Rosetta just bounced between the planets with no outside adjustments during 9 years by, e.g. the ESA tattoed clowns in pornoshirts looking after the show.
I will ask ESA again (for the 3rd time) on 5 January 2015 to provide the info about the kicks + confirmation that no fuel was used. I doubt they will reply of course, but we will see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Rosetta_spacecraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Rosetta_spacecraft)QuoteMay 10 — The most critical deep space maneuver was successfully executed. The four thrusters on board of Rosetta were fired for about 3.5 hours, and a velocity change (delta v) of 152.8 metre per second was imparted to the spacecraft.
May 16 — A planned "touch-up" deep space maneuver was successfully executed. A burn of just under 17 minutes was performed with high accuracy. Then Rosetta pointed its instruments again towards Comet LINEAR for observation.
Fuel - according to the link given above no fuel was used by Rosetta to adjust speed/course in order to encounter the fast moving planets at perfect times to enable gravity assist kicks!Obviously, you know nothing about space flights and are too lazy to find the information.
Rosetta just bounced between the planets with no outside adjustments during 9 years by, e.g. the ESA tattoed clowns in pornoshirts looking after the show.
I will ask ESA again (for the 3rd time) on 5 January 2015 to provide the info about the kicks + confirmation that no fuel was used. I doubt they will reply of course, but we will see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Rosetta_spacecraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Rosetta_spacecraft)QuoteMay 10 — The most critical deep space maneuver was successfully executed. The four thrusters on board of Rosetta were fired for about 3.5 hours, and a velocity change (delta v) of 152.8 metre per second was imparted to the spacecraft.
May 16 — A planned "touch-up" deep space maneuver was successfully executed. A burn of just under 17 minutes was performed with high accuracy. Then Rosetta pointed its instruments again towards Comet LINEAR for observation.
Sorry, you must have soiled your underwear down under - did it drop on your head? As webmaster, etc, of my popular site I know I had 511 happy visitors yesterday, i.e. none complained to me. Of course nothing compared with the last week September 2014 when I had > 15 000 visitors/week - due to the fact the it was 20 years since M/S Estonia was sunk in the Baltic caused by hull leakage/sabotage killing plenty people aboard and the Swedish government started a cover-up killing a few extra people ashore too, while suggesting the visor fell off. Sad that criminal people get away with such crimes and conspiracies. I think it is my duty to inform the public about it. Free of charge!I have actually many visitors using their mobile phones, pads, whatever to admire my work and nobody complains. Did you soil your pants? Have a look!No... you don't have "many" visitors who "admire" your sites.
Bloody he'll heiwi that kind of blows your whole argument out of the water doesn't it?
And why on earth would you have any encounters with the atmosphere at that altitude?
I am sure heywee will thank you for linking and increasing the number of hits to his site :PLOL - noone takes this ausGeoff clown serious. I was quite happy with the 15000+ visitors last week September 2014 studying the Swedish government Estonia cover-up.
Why would fog or mist be a problem for a space probe?
Why would position of the earth's orientation be a problem?
Note also that Rosetta didn't use any fuel at all to correct its speed, direction, position to carry out four gravity assist kicks.
Rosetta just flew around in space for 9 years and was kicked around the Sun between moving planets four times with no adjustments required at all. Magic! Only children believe such nonsense.
Fuel - according to the link given above no fuel was used by Rosetta to adjust speed/course in order to encounter the fast moving planets at perfect times to enable gravity assist kicks!Obviously, you know nothing about space flights and are too lazy to find the information.
Rosetta just bounced between the planets with no outside adjustments during 9 years by, e.g. the ESA tattoed clowns in pornoshirts looking after the show.
I will ask ESA again (for the 3rd time) on 5 January 2015 to provide the info about the kicks + confirmation that no fuel was used. I doubt they will reply of course, but we will see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Rosetta_spacecraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Rosetta_spacecraft)QuoteMay 10 — The most critical deep space maneuver was successfully executed. The four thrusters on board of Rosetta were fired for about 3.5 hours, and a velocity change (delta v) of 152.8 metre per second was imparted to the spacecraft.
May 16 — A planned "touch-up" deep space maneuver was successfully executed. A burn of just under 17 minutes was performed with high accuracy. Then Rosetta pointed its instruments again towards Comet LINEAR for observation.
No matter how many times you repeat that BS heywee, we know for sure that you have no idea what you are talking about.You are just jealous that I have a very popular web site visited by plenty people. Nobody visits this forum thread, where I (or the person writing this) am just wasting my time.
Please provide peer review details.
Bloody he'll heiwi that kind of blows your whole argument out of the water doesn't it?
And why on earth would you have any encounters with the atmosphere at that altitude?
Not really. I describe the ESA nonsense pretty good at my popular website. You really have to study it to participate in the discussion.
Imagine that Rosetta performed four gravity assist kicks in 3D space 2004-2009 and didn't use any fuel to adjust speed, direction and location prior any of them. Rosetta went straight (actually in orbits around the Sun) from one gravity assist kick at one fast moving planet to the next encounter without any assistance or adjustments at all.
Four consequetive holes in one! Happens only in stupid SF novels for 10 years old.
No matter how many times you repeat that BS heywee, we know for sure that you have no idea what you are talking about.You are just jealous that I have a very popular web site visited by plenty people. Nobody visits this forum thread, where I (or the person writing this) am just wasting my time.
First you say this......He knows he's wrong but he can't just admit it.Why would fog or mist be a problem for a space probe?
Why would position of the earth's orientation be a problem?
Note also that Rosetta didn't use any fuel at all to correct its speed, direction, position to carry out four gravity assist kicks.
Rosetta just flew around in space for 9 years and was kicked around the Sun between moving planets four times with no adjustments required at all. Magic! Only children believe such nonsense.
To which you get a reply of....Fuel - according to the link given above no fuel was used by Rosetta to adjust speed/course in order to encounter the fast moving planets at perfect times to enable gravity assist kicks!Obviously, you know nothing about space flights and are too lazy to find the information.
Rosetta just bounced between the planets with no outside adjustments during 9 years by, e.g. the ESA tattoed clowns in pornoshirts looking after the show.
I will ask ESA again (for the 3rd time) on 5 January 2015 to provide the info about the kicks + confirmation that no fuel was used. I doubt they will reply of course, but we will see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Rosetta_spacecraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Rosetta_spacecraft)QuoteMay 10 — The most critical deep space maneuver was successfully executed. The four thrusters on board of Rosetta were fired for about 3.5 hours, and a velocity change (delta v) of 152.8 metre per second was imparted to the spacecraft.
May 16 — A planned "touch-up" deep space maneuver was successfully executed. A burn of just under 17 minutes was performed with high accuracy. Then Rosetta pointed its instruments again towards Comet LINEAR for observation.
Do you not see the problem with your statement?
And what info Did you require from ESA exactly?
Sent twice to ESA:
"Rosetta gravity assist kicks
Dear Madame/Sir,
I would be much obliged to receive information about subject, i.e. the exact details of the four gravity assist kicks into new orbits around the Sun to get Rosetta away from Earth and to a rendez-vous with Mars, back to more rendez-vous with Earth twice and then off to the 67P comet.
The data is apparently stored somewhere for independent review - pls provide a link. The details are straight headings (°)/velocities (m/s) of Rosetta before/after kicks and altitudes (m) of kicks above the planets and time(s) and dates of the kicks.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Anders Björkman
Heiwa Co - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS) "
Should not be difficult to reply to?
I will ask ESA again (for the 3rd time) on 5 January 2015 to provide the info about the kicks + confirmation that no fuel was used. I doubt they will reply of course, but we will see.Why don't you try an anonymous or pseudonymous request for the info from a nondescript email address and omit the link to your "popular web site" this time. Maybe you'll get an answer if the request isn't obviously from a well-known crank.
And you rectum you are a boat mechanic hewee. Stay away from my boat.
Sent twice to ESA:Something tells me that including a link to a page where you call their project a fraud and their director general a clown isn't a very good way to ensure a response.
"Rosetta gravity assist kicks
Dear Madame/Sir,
I would be much obliged to receive information about subject, i.e. the exact details of the four gravity assist kicks into new orbits around the Sun to get Rosetta away from Earth and to a rendez-vous with Mars, back to more rendez-vous with Earth twice and then off to the 67P comet.
The data is apparently stored somewhere for independent review - pls provide a link. The details are straight headings (°)/velocities (m/s) of Rosetta before/after kicks and altitudes (m) of kicks above the planets and time(s) and dates of the kicks.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Anders Björkman
Heiwa Co - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS) "
Should not be difficult to reply to?
I was away from this site for 24 hours and there are 3 new pages on this thread. Some skimming revealed that most of it was just Hewia advertising his website, so it looks like I didn't miss much.Why don't you try staying away longer?
I was away from this site for 24 hours and there are 3 new pages on this thread. Some skimming revealed that most of it was just Hewia advertising his website, so it looks like I didn't miss much.Why don't you try staying away longer?
Why do you want to confirm that no fuel was used before or after gravity assists when it has already been established that Rosetta did use correctional burns using its onboard thrusters and over a tonne of fuel and oxidiser.
Why do you want to confirm that no fuel was used before or after gravity assists when it has already been established that Rosetta did use correctional burns using its onboard thrusters and over a tonne of fuel and oxidiser.
It has not been established that Rosetta made correctional burns before or after any kick. On the other hand it has been suggested many times that correctional burns were not required - all went without outside intervention.
BTW - I have received various automatic replies to my polite mail - all responders are on vaccation until 5 January, etc.
No!Why do you want to confirm that no fuel was used before or after gravity assists when it has already been established that Rosetta did use correctional burns using its onboard thrusters and over a tonne of fuel and oxidiser.
It has not been established that Rosetta made correctional burns before or after any kick. On the other hand it has been suggested many times that correctional burns were not required - all went without outside intervention.
BTW - I have received various automatic replies to my polite mail - all responders are on vaccation until 5 January, etc.
If I help you to find some ESA reports showing that Rosetta made correctional burns before/after swingbys, will you eat your own words heywee?
No!Why do you want to confirm that no fuel was used before or after gravity assists when it has already been established that Rosetta did use correctional burns using its onboard thrusters and over a tonne of fuel and oxidiser.
It has not been established that Rosetta made correctional burns before or after any kick. On the other hand it has been suggested many times that correctional burns were not required - all went without outside intervention.
BTW - I have received various automatic replies to my polite mail - all responders are on vaccation until 5 January, etc.
If I help you to find some ESA reports showing that Rosetta made correctional burns before/after swingbys, will you eat your own words heywee?
No!Why do you want to confirm that no fuel was used before or after gravity assists when it has already been established that Rosetta did use correctional burns using its onboard thrusters and over a tonne of fuel and oxidiser.
It has not been established that Rosetta made correctional burns before or after any kick. On the other hand it has been suggested many times that correctional burns were not required - all went without outside intervention.
BTW - I have received various automatic replies to my polite mail - all responders are on vaccation until 5 January, etc.
If I help you to find some ESA reports showing that Rosetta made correctional burns before/after swingbys, will you eat your own words heywee?
No!Why do you want to confirm that no fuel was used before or after gravity assists when it has already been established that Rosetta did use correctional burns using its onboard thrusters and over a tonne of fuel and oxidiser.
It has not been established that Rosetta made correctional burns before or after any kick. On the other hand it has been suggested many times that correctional burns were not required - all went without outside intervention.
BTW - I have received various automatic replies to my polite mail - all responders are on vaccation until 5 January, etc.
If I help you to find some ESA reports showing that Rosetta made correctional burns before/after swingbys, will you eat your own words heywee?
The truth really hurts, doesn't it?
Heiwa - seriously you've been presented with evidence that Rosetta performed orbital corrections before and after its gravity assists. What else do you want?Hm, according to the link provided above Rosetta didn't burn any fuel immediately before the first kick and immediately after the fourth kick, i.e. no corrections were done to carry out four kicks.
Hey Heiwa I found a picture of Mars taken by Rosetta lander during its Mars gravity assist.
http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceflightporn/comments/2mpgny/mars_as_seen_by_philae_during_rosettas_gravity/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceflightporn/comments/2mpgny/mars_as_seen_by_philae_during_rosettas_gravity/)
Hey Heiwa I found a picture of Mars taken by Rosetta lander during its Mars gravity assist.
http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceflightporn/comments/2mpgny/mars_as_seen_by_philae_during_rosettas_gravity/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceflightporn/comments/2mpgny/mars_as_seen_by_philae_during_rosettas_gravity/)
Hm, the picture was created 01/04/2015. Rosetta is at the comet right now according ESA and cannot make pictures of Mars.
Hey Heiwa I found a picture of Mars taken by Rosetta lander during its Mars gravity assist.
http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceflightporn/comments/2mpgny/mars_as_seen_by_philae_during_rosettas_gravity/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceflightporn/comments/2mpgny/mars_as_seen_by_philae_during_rosettas_gravity/)
Hm, the picture was created 01/04/2015. Rosetta is at the comet right now according ESA and cannot make pictures of Mars.
I will help you for the first Earth swingby, you can do the same for the remaining swingbys. Here are the links to ESA reports made before and around the first gravity assist. I have used the following links:Heiwa - seriously you've been presented with evidence that Rosetta performed orbital corrections before and after its gravity assists. What else do you want?Hm, according to the link provided above Rosetta didn't burn any fuel immediately before the first kick and immediately after the fourth kick, i.e. no corrections were done to carry out four kicks.
I would have expected Earth gravity to attract Rosetta, when she arrived behind Earth to accelerate Rosetta more and more and to divert Rosetta towards the center of Earth and CRASH!
You know - if you kick something on/from Earth in the direction of travel, it always comes back ... even if it has to swing around the Sun.
Anyway, I am looking forward the what ESA has to say about the four kicks.
Heiwa - seriously you've been presented with evidence that Rosetta performed orbital corrections before and after its gravity assists. What else do you want?Hm, according to the link provided above Rosetta didn't burn any fuel immediately before the first kick and immediately after the fourth kick, i.e. no corrections were done to carry out four kicks.
Take the first kick 4 March 2005. Our planet Earth is in its normal orbit around Sun at speed 29 800 m/s. Rosetta is coming up from behind at ~40 800 m/s speed at an angle of ~5° (Rosetta is in elliptic orbit around the Sun) and at 1 200 000 m altitude or distance from Earth.
Rosetta is 11 000 m/s faster than Earth and when Rosetta is 1 200 km from Earth - kick! - there is a magic transfer of kinetic energy from Earth to Rosetta and Rosetta is kicked away into a new elliptic orbit around the Sun that crosses the orbit of Mars around the Sun ... exactly when Mars is there many months later.
ESA asked every amateur astronomer on Earth to look out for Rosetta on 4 March 2005 and to take photos of the kick. Result? Zero!
How do you take a photo of a small object diameter 1 m with some solar panels sticking out that is 1 200 000 m away and having a speed 11 000 m/s faster than Earth? What telescope can do that? And why didn't ESA do it itself?
I would have expected Earth gravity to attract Rosetta, when she arrived behind Earth to accelerate Rosetta more and more and to divert Rosetta towards the center of Earth and CRASH!
GG demonstrated it 500 years ago, the Pope got upset and the Inquisition (the Pope's DHS with the then Patriot Act and plenty FE believers) wanted to burn GG for his innocent ideas and suggestions.
You know - if you kick something on/from Earth in the direction of travel, it always comes back ... even if it has to swing around the Sun.
Anyway, I am looking forward the what ESA has to say about the four kicks.
It took me 10 minutes to search those publicly available reports and compile that list. I am not impressed by your ignorance and laziness at all. You obviously know nothing about space flights heywee!
Eat your own words first and then I'll help you find those reports.
It took me 10 minutes to search those publicly available reports and compile that list. I am not impressed by your ignorance and laziness at all. You obviously know nothing about space flights heywee!
Using http://sci.esa.int/services/36371-search/ (http://sci.esa.int/services/36371-search/) + Rosetta Status Reports I just get 8 pages of reports in no order at all and very little about gravity assist kicks.
Eat your own words first and then I'll help you find those reports.
It took me 10 minutes to search those publicly available reports and compile that list. I am not impressed by your ignorance and laziness at all. You obviously know nothing about space flights heywee!
Using http://sci.esa.int/services/36371-search/ (http://sci.esa.int/services/36371-search/) + Rosetta Status Reports I just get 8 pages of reports in no order at all and very little about gravity assist kicks.
The reports are a joke! Written by some SF writer with little knowledge of physics for young boys to fantasize about. So all details of the gravity assist kicks are left out. It is just said they took place and everything went fine, bla, bla. The last kick is hilarious ... Rosetta flew over the South Pacific at 2 500 000 m altitude and was kicked away to comet 67P.
There are contradictory reports about Rosetta correction maneuvers and fuel consumption. ESA uses the NASA/JPL favourite term nominal that can mean anything like inconsiderable. Fact remains - a gravity assist kick is not possible in space. Particularily not over the South Pacific!The reports are a joke! Written by some SF writer with little knowledge of physics for young boys to fantasize about. So all details of the gravity assist kicks are left out. It is just said they took place and everything went fine, bla, bla. The last kick is hilarious ... Rosetta flew over the South Pacific at 2 500 000 m altitude and was kicked away to comet 67P.
You didn't believe that Rosetta burned any fuel for each kick. Now that I showed you that Rosetta did make several trajectory correction maneuvers for the first gravity assist, you still didn't understand how that kick could happen. Listen heywee, the fact that you don't understand it, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. And to be honest with you, we can clearly see that actually you don't understand quite a lot.
Why not over the south Pacific?It is explained at my web site. Pls study it!
What's impossible about a gravity assist?It is explained at my web site. Pls study it!
What contradictory reports?It is explained at my web site. Pls study it!
Thanks for your cooperation.Why would you expect a reply from ESA when you provide a link to a (popular) web site that calls the entire Rosetta program a fraud and the ESA director general a clown?
Anders Björkman
Heiwa Co - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS)
un-quote
So let's await the reply by ESA.
That website is also just one page. It would probably be a good idea to organize it a bit.Hey, mikeman, since you did apparently venture there, is there advertising on Anders' site? Given all the pimping it gets, he must be paid by the page view. If there's no advertising, the question becomes who and, perhaps more important, why?
That website is also just one page. It would probably be a good idea to organize it a bit.Hey, mikeman, since you did apparently venture there, is there advertising on Anders' site? Given all the pimping it gets, he must be paid by the page view. If there's no advertising, the question becomes who and, perhaps more important, why?
Don't go back just to answer this question, just say if you noticed any ads. If there are and you remember who, that would be useful to know.
Thanks for your cooperation.Why would you expect a reply from ESA when you provide a link to a (popular) web site that calls the entire Rosetta program a fraud and the ESA director general a clown?
Anders Björkman
Heiwa Co - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS)
un-quote
So let's await the reply by ESA.
Also, it should be pretty obvious that it's much more efficient to make small mid-course corrections far out than it would be to make large corrections just before the gravity assist.
Thanks for your cooperation.Why would you expect a reply from ESA when you provide a link to a (popular) web site that calls the entire Rosetta program a fraud and the ESA director general a clown?
Anders Björkman
Heiwa Co - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS)
un-quote
So let's await the reply by ESA.
Also, it should be pretty obvious that it's much more efficient to make small mid-course corrections far out than it would be to make large corrections just before the gravity assist.
I am an optimist and hope somebody at ESA will provide the missing info about the impossible gravity assist kicks that evidently never took place. The whole project is a fraud! No Rosetta in space. Human space travel is not possible and robotic ones like Rosetta much too complicated to do.
Better to get the kick right in the first place with no corrections later. But you always run out of fuel any way you do it and there are no kicks.
Prove me wrong and earn €1 000 000:- at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
kind regards
Anders Björkman aka Heiwa
I am an optimist and hope somebody at ESA will provide the missing info about the impossible gravity assist kicks that evidently never took place. The whole project is a fraud!I'd say that you're lot more than an optimist if you insult an agency that you're trying to get information from.
Better to get the kick right in the first place with no corrections later. But you always run out of fuel any way you do it and there are no kicks.Actually, it's better to design a space probe to carry enough fuel to make any mid-course corrections that you might need.
Prove me wrong and earn €1 000 000:- at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm).Why would anyone waste the effort when you've already proven that you will never accept any evidence that you're wrong?
Thanks for your cooperation.Why would you expect a reply from ESA when you provide a link to a (popular) web site that calls the entire Rosetta program a fraud and the ESA director general a clown?
Anders Björkman
Heiwa Co - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS)
un-quote
So let's await the reply by ESA.
Also, it should be pretty obvious that it's much more efficient to make small mid-course corrections far out than it would be to make large corrections just before the gravity assist.
I am an optimist and hope somebody at ESA will provide the missing info about the impossible gravity assist kicks that evidently never took place. The whole project is a fraud! No Rosetta in space. Human space travel is not possible and robotic ones like Rosetta much too complicated to do.
Better to get the kick right in the first place with no corrections later. But you always run out of fuel any way you do it and there are no kicks.
Prove me wrong and earn €1 000 000:- at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
kind regards
Anders Björkman aka Heiwa
I checked out your link to the €1,000,000reward thing and at first I thought that the reward was to disprove the Gravity assist kick thing which I could develop a program to do, but unfortunately it's about the 9/11 incident and I actually believe that it was caused by the government anyway, so darn. Programs take a lot of time and energy to write, so I don't want to write an orbital simulation program just to prove a point. If I am mistaken and the reward does extend to proving that gravity assist manuvers are possible then I will start development of the program imediately and I will even show my source code so people can make sure that I did not cheat.
Why would anyone waste the effort when you've already proven that you will never accept any evidence that you're wrong?
Thanks for your cooperation.Why would you expect a reply from ESA when you provide a link to a (popular) web site that calls the entire Rosetta program a fraud and the ESA director general a clown?
Anders Björkman
Heiwa Co - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS)
un-quote
So let's await the reply by ESA.
Also, it should be pretty obvious that it's much more efficient to make small mid-course corrections far out than it would be to make large corrections just before the gravity assist.
I am an optimist and hope somebody at ESA will provide the missing info about the impossible gravity assist kicks that evidently never took place. The whole project is a fraud! No Rosetta in space. Human space travel is not possible and robotic ones like Rosetta much too complicated to do.
Better to get the kick right in the first place with no corrections later. But you always run out of fuel any way you do it and there are no kicks.
Prove me wrong and earn €1 000 000:- at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
kind regards
Anders Björkman aka Heiwa
I checked out your link to the €1,000,000reward thing and at first I thought that the reward was to disprove the Gravity assist kick thing which I could develop a program to do, but unfortunately it's about the 9/11 incident and I actually believe that it was caused by the government anyway, so darn. Programs take a lot of time and energy to write, so I don't want to write an orbital simulation program just to prove a point. If I am mistaken and the reward does extend to proving that gravity assist manuvers are possible then I will start development of the program imediately and I will even show my source code so people can make sure that I did not cheat.
The Challenge #2 is about human space travel in 3D and, if you require it, gravity assist kicks. You can always use the Moon to demonstrate anything about gravity assist kicks, e.g. they do no work, really.
Moon is too big in 3D (and not a mathematical point mass in 2D used by many astrophysicians) so you will spin off in an unkown direction, if you try. You know - you cannot ever collide with a 1D point in 3D or 2D.
If I were to write a program to simulate a gravity assist manuver only using the gravity equasion and Newtonian laws of motion would that be enough to get the reward?
Who did you say had peer reviewed your beliefs?
Why would anyone waste the effort when you've already proven that you will never accept any evidence that you're wrong?
Just try to win the my Challenges and prove that I am wrong. I will evidently accept that. I am quite certain that I am right though but ... you never know. That's the Challenge. And you do not waste your time by using your brain a little now and then (in lieu of writing stupid comments at this forum without any thought at all).
Who did you say had peer reviewed your beliefs?
So your paper on structural progressive collapse was reviewed and rejected. Hardly a ringing endorsement for your space conspiracy theories. ::)
Who did you say had peer reviewed your beliefs?
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm)
Here is a possible Challenge solution to go Mars (or its Moon) and back using gravity assist kicks !
You send your Mars spacecraft to the Earth Moon for the first kick and direction change back to Earth - speed increases! The second kick is with Earth with a direction change back to the Moon. After a few kicks between Moon/Earth your space ship has reached a very great speed using no fuel and you kick your self away to Mars (or its Moons), where you arrive after two days.
At Mars you use the Mars Moons to kick your speed down to almost 0 again, so you can land on a Mars Moon. You must have enough fuel to land and to get off a Mars Moon, but then you can kick yourself back to Earth using gravity assist kicks ! Gravity assist kicks provide free energy, you know!
But maybe the high g-forces applied at every kick will kill you?
So your paper on structural progressive collapse was reviewed and rejected. Hardly a ringing endorsement for your space conspiracy theories. ::)
Who did you say had peer reviewed your beliefs?
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm)
Here is a possible Challenge solution to go Mars (or its Moon) and back using gravity assist kicks !
You send your Mars spacecraft to the Earth Moon for the first kick and direction change back to Earth - speed increases! The second kick is with Earth with a direction change back to the Moon. After a few kicks between Moon/Earth your space ship has reached a very great speed using no fuel and you kick your self away to Mars (or its Moons), where you arrive after two days.
At Mars you use the Mars Moons to kick your speed down to almost 0 again, so you can land on a Mars Moon. You must have enough fuel to land and to get off a Mars Moon, but then you can kick yourself back to Earth using gravity assist kicks ! Gravity assist kicks provide free energy, you know!
But maybe the high g-forces applied at every kick will kill you?
The highest the g-force could ever be will be the acceleration due to gravity at surface of the body you are getting the assist from. This is because you are using that gravitational pull from that body in question, there is no other acceleration present.
Here is a possible Challenge solution to go Mars (or its Moon) and back using gravity assist kicks !
You send your Mars spacecraft to the Earth Moon for the first kick and direction change back to Earth - speed increases! The second kick is with Earth with a direction change back to the Moon. After a few kicks between Moon/Earth your space ship has reached a very great speed using no fuel and you kick your self away to Mars (or its Moons), where you arrive after two days.
At Mars you use the Mars Moons to kick your speed down to almost 0 again, so you can land on a Mars Moon. You must have enough fuel to land and to get off a Mars Moon, but then you can kick yourself back to Earth using gravity assist kicks ! Gravity assist kicks provide free energy, you know!
But maybe the high g-forces applied at every kick will kill you?
The highest the g-force could ever be will be the acceleration due to gravity at surface of the body you are getting the assist from. This is because you are using that gravitational pull from that body in question, there is no other acceleration present.
You do not understand astrophysics. At a 180° gravity assist kick swing by around a very solid, great, high density mass body of say 1 m diameter in space, the spacecraft is subject to 10 000 g forces, that will rip it apart into atoms. Pls do the calculations yourself.
So your paper on structural progressive collapse was reviewed and rejected. Hardly a ringing endorsement for your space conspiracy theories. ::)
Who did you say had peer reviewed your beliefs?
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm)
No, my paper was peer reviewed and approved and I was invited to present it at EMI2013. Then DHS, FBI, CIA and NSA got involved and the poor Americans having peer reviewed and approved my paper were all arrested, tortured, jailed, executed and given a hard time. I evidently stayed away from the GWB inspired bloodshed, etc. I can't stand this type of friendly discussions. Media evidently didn't report it.
Mr. Bjorkman:
We regret to inform you that, after further technical evaluation, the EMI 2013 conference organization found your abstract not meeting the standards of the conference. Hence, we withdraw acceptance of your abstract which will not be featured in the conference program and book of abstracts. We apologize for this very late notice due to an oversight on our side and we will process full reimbursement of your registration.
In addition, we would like to clarify that the EMI 2013 conference organization does not support and does not endorse any of the opinions you express in your website http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/emi2013.htm) . Hence, please, refrain yourself from using the EMI 2013 logo which is copyrighted material from our EMI 2013 conference website.
Finally, it is important to point out that, contrarily to what is stated in your website, the EMI 2013 conference organization
(1) did not peer review any full paper containing the material discussed in the aforementioned website (the EMI 2013 conference does not feature full-paper proceedings) ;
(2) your abstract was not submitted upon our invitation but rather it was one of the several hundreds of unsolicited submissions we received.
Gianluca Cusatis
EMI 2013 Conference Chair
There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen. It's impossible, I know that. NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.
BTW, I notice that you are still using EMI's copyrighted material after they expressly told you not to use it. How does it feel to be a criminal?
There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen. It's impossible, I know that. NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.
ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done. What else do you want me to do?
Rather than derailing this thread any further, why don't we move this discussion to this thread:
BTW, I notice that you are still using EMI's copyrighted material after they expressly told you not to use it. How does it feel to be a criminal?
Thanks for visiting my EMI2013 website. I evidently use the EMI's copyrighted material there, as I was invited by EMI to present my paper after it had been peer reviewed by EMI. The poor EMI people have on the other hand been badly treated by DHS & Co afterward and you should really worry about them. Imagine being tortured for having invited me to EMI 2013.
XMAS is in 12 months time! Thanks for your intelligent contribution to this thread. Pls try to spell correctly.
There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen. It's impossible, I know that. NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.
ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done. What else do you want me to do?
maybe go stick your head in the sand a bit further, maybe stop making up stuff. maybe check out your own popular web site and cop the crap that cum's with it. MERRY XMAS .
There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen. It's impossible, I know that. NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.
ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done. What else do you want me to do?
There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen. It's impossible, I know that. NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.
ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done. What else do you want me to do?
I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)) and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.
There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen. It's impossible, I know that. NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.
ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done. What else do you want me to do?
I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)) and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.
I link to that rubbish on my website since long. Imagine a Rosetta Mars gravity assist kick at 230 km altitude over the north part of Mars at a relative speed 10 000 m/s - Mars being that much faster - reducing the speed of Rosetta and kicking Rosetta outwards from the Sun but still towards Earth. Hilarious nonsense. Typical Wikipedia propaganda, lies and copy/paste shit.
There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen. It's impossible, I know that. NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.
ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done. What else do you want me to do?
I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)) and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.
I link to that rubbish on my website since long. Imagine a Rosetta Mars gravity assist kick at 230 km altitude over the north part of Mars at a relative speed 10 000 m/s - Mars being that much faster - reducing the speed of Rosetta and kicking Rosetta outwards from the Sun but still towards Earth. Hilarious nonsense. Typical Wikipedia propaganda, lies and copy/paste shit.
Are you saying there is no possible parabolic course in 3 dimensions that could send an object over the northern part of Mars and towards the sun while still tracking to intercept the Earth's gravitational influence?
What are planets in FET anyway? Are they just small boulders that orbit the sun for no reason? Why don't they fall out of the sky?
There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen. It's impossible, I know that. NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.
ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done. What else do you want me to do?
I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)) and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.
I link to that rubbish on my website since long. Imagine a Rosetta Mars gravity assist kick at 230 km altitude over the north part of Mars at a relative speed 10 000 m/s - Mars being that much faster - reducing the speed of Rosetta and kicking Rosetta outwards from the Sun but still towards Earth. Hilarious nonsense. Typical Wikipedia propaganda, lies and copy/paste shit.
Are you saying there is no possible parabolic course in 3 dimensions that could send an object over the northern part of Mars and towards the sun while still tracking to intercept the Earth's gravitational influence?
Yes, something like it. If Rosetta was approaching Mars like suggested, it would have crashed. But Rosetta is 100% fantasy - like all spacecrafts having landed on or orbiting Mars. You cannot land on Mars - you can only crash on Mars if you manage to aim right.
What are planets in FET anyway? Are they just small boulders that orbit the sun for no reason? Why don't they fall out of the sky?
There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen. It's impossible, I know that. NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.
ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done. What else do you want me to do?
I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)) and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.
I link to that rubbish on my website since long. Imagine a Rosetta Mars gravity assist kick at 230 km altitude over the north part of Mars at a relative speed 10 000 m/s - Mars being that much faster - reducing the speed of Rosetta and kicking Rosetta outwards from the Sun but still towards Earth. Hilarious nonsense. Typical Wikipedia propaganda, lies and copy/paste shit.
Are you saying there is no possible parabolic course in 3 dimensions that could send an object over the northern part of Mars and towards the sun while still tracking to intercept the Earth's gravitational influence?
Yes, something like it. If Rosetta was approaching Mars like suggested, it would have crashed. But Rosetta is 100% fantasy - like all spacecrafts having landed on or orbiting Mars. You cannot land on Mars - you can only crash on Mars if you manage to aim right.
What are planets in FET anyway? Are they just small boulders that orbit the sun for no reason? Why don't they fall out of the sky?
There are no 180 degree gravity assists that ever happen. It's impossible, I know that. NASA or ESA have never claimed to do 189 degree gravity assists.
ESA claims Rosetta did four gravity assist kicks 2005-2009 but refuses to tell us how many degrees, the dates, durations and accelerations. I have shown ESA is lying and that no kicks were done. What else do you want me to do?
I just pulled up the Wikipedia article on Rosetta (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)) and found a chart with the dates and pedigrees of all gravity asists by simply Googling it.
I link to that rubbish on my website since long. Imagine a Rosetta Mars gravity assist kick at 230 km altitude over the north part of Mars at a relative speed 10 000 m/s - Mars being that much faster - reducing the speed of Rosetta and kicking Rosetta outwards from the Sun but still towards Earth. Hilarious nonsense. Typical Wikipedia propaganda, lies and copy/paste shit.
Are you saying there is no possible parabolic course in 3 dimensions that could send an object over the northern part of Mars and towards the sun while still tracking to intercept the Earth's gravitational influence?
Yes, something like it. If Rosetta was approaching Mars like suggested, it would have crashed. But Rosetta is 100% fantasy - like all spacecrafts having landed on or orbiting Mars. You cannot land on Mars - you can only crash on Mars if you manage to aim right.
Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?
Didn't look fake. I would of expected pictures of aliens or fairies. Just because it's April 1st, that doesn't mean everything is fake.Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?
Maybe. Or maybe it is all a joke.
Didn't look fake. I would of expected pictures of aliens or fairies. Just because it's April 1st, that doesn't mean everything is fake.Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?
Maybe. Or maybe it is all a joke.
YesDidn't look fake. I would of expected pictures of aliens or fairies. Just because it's April 1st, that doesn't mean everything is fake.Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?
Maybe. Or maybe it is all a joke.
So, the timing was coincidental?
YesDidn't look fake. I would of expected pictures of aliens or fairies. Just because it's April 1st, that doesn't mean everything is fake.Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?
Maybe. Or maybe it is all a joke.
So, the timing was coincidental?
Coincidental with what? Why is ESA releasing data on 27 March 2015 significant? That seems to be the release date of many, if not all, of the images in the archive (http://imagearchives.esac.esa.int/index.php?/category/57).Didn't look fake. I would of expected pictures of aliens or fairies. Just because it's April 1st, that doesn't mean everything is fake.Maybe because it wasn't part of the mission?
Maybe. Or maybe it is all a joke.
So, the timing was coincidental?