proof of a conspiracy

but, also remember that the planet used cannot be mars, because the planet will move. unless the point in space which mars WILL occupy when the probe reaches there is used (virtually impossible) the measurements will not be accurate.

You can work out accurately where the planets will be many hundreds of years into the future. It should be fairly easy to work out where Mars will be when the probe reaches the right point in it's orbit.

other than that all you need to do is be able to find the position of a space probe in space from a picture, and of course, show your work.

There's a fair bit more to working out the probe's position than just looking at a photo it's taken. It's just that a photo is one of the things that can be done to help confirm that it's on the right track.

There are a lot of things to working out where probes are and where they are going, and it would take quite a while to explain them all. There are sites available that tell you about how these things are worked out, if you are that interested. I'm probably not qualified to explain every little detail about it.

I did not find any useful information in either of those sites. can you please direct me to where the information you alluded to is?

I did not find any useful information in either of those sites. can you please direct me to where the information you alluded to is?

This page of the first site give information on some ways used to find the velocity and position of the probe.

Actually, I think that the OP is over simplifying the target.  You aren't just trying to hit mars, you are trying to hit a certain area of mars.  Not only that, but they need to drop that sucker into the proper decent trajectory (and not forget to convert from feet to meters!).  Also, we don't know the mass of the sun?  I thought you could determine an objects mass if something with a known mass was rotating around it at a known speed.  We know earth's mass, we know earth's speed, what's keeping us from calculating the sun's mass?


EDIT NOTE:  The distance variable may need to be known as well, I dunno.

We do know the mass of the sun of the sun. It is roughly 1.98892 x 10^30 kilograms, as stated on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Sun, Google http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=mass+of+sun&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= and http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/LeonVaysburd.shtml. The accuracy of this figure is increasing as our technological capability to measure such values gets more accurate.

The most recent Mars probe, Phoenix, and others before it, had thrusters installed. These thrusters would release a certain amount of mass from the craft at a certain velocity. Due to the principle of the conservation of momentum, the craft would tend to move in the opposite direction to that of the ejected mass. This enables NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to make adjustments to the trajectory of probes.

And do you honestly think that NASA would make such an elementary mistake of not converting from feet to metres?

And do you honestly think that NASA would make such an elementary mistake of not converting from feet to metres?

Kind of related:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

The Mars Climate Orbiter was intended to enter orbit at an altitude of 140?150 km (460,000-500,000 ft.) above Mars. However, a navigation error caused the spacecraft to reach as low as 57 km (190,000 ft.). The spacecraft was destroyed by atmospheric stresses and friction at this low altitude. The navigation error arose because a NASA subcontractor (Lockheed Martin) used Imperial units (pound-seconds) instead of the metric system.

Quote from: rounder69 on May 17, 2009, 07:47:35 AM

And do you honestly think that NASA would make such an elementary mistake of not converting from feet to metres?

Kind of related:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

Quote

The Mars Climate Orbiter was intended to enter orbit at an altitude of 140?150 km (460,000-500,000 ft.) above Mars. However, a navigation error caused the spacecraft to reach as low as 57 km (190,000 ft.). The spacecraft was destroyed by atmospheric stresses and friction at this low altitude. The navigation error arose because a NASA subcontractor (Lockheed Martin) used Imperial units (pound-seconds) instead of the metric system.

QFT.

here's an interesting portion of the article you gave me

Cassini provides an example of the accuracy achieved in rocket firings. The duration of a firing is executed within about 0.1% of the planned duration, and the pointing direction is executed within about 7 milliradians (0.4 degrees). Over the course of seven years from launch to arrival at Saturn, Cassini executed only seventeen of these planned, small velocity adjustments.

note that this is .4 degrees. that misses the target by (quick math)

.01 degrees (necessary range) goes into .4 400 times

multiply 400 by diameter of mars (2607) equals 1042800

so everytime they correct themselves they miss by over a million miles.

that is not accurate enough.

point 2.

the gravitational pull of the sun cannot be calculated with enough accuracy because we cannot isolate the sun and the earth. there is other mass that places a pull on the earth which, while not enough to impact or gigantic boulder is enough to screw with equations related toa small probe.

point 3.

an assumption that the entire article makes

Since the Earth's own orbital parameters and inherent motions are well known, the measurements we make of the spacecraft's motion as seen from Earth can be converted into the sun-centered or heliocentric orbital parameters needed to describe the spacecraft's trajectory.

if we don't know the earths measurements as accurate as necessary the entire thing is impossible.

note that this is .4 degrees. that misses the target by (quick math)

.01 degrees (necessary range) goes into .4 400 times

multiply 400 by diameter of mars (2607) equals 1042800

so everytime they correct themselves they miss by over a million miles.

that is not accurate enough.

Suppose you were to do that same correction exercise 20,000 km from Mars. Is it going to put it off course by such a large degree?

the gravitational pull of the sun cannot be calculated with enough accuracy because we cannot isolate the sun and the earth. there is other mass that places a pull on the earth which, while not enough to impact or gigantic boulder is enough to screw with equations related toa small probe.

There will be variations that we cannot predict, yes. That's part of the reason we perform mid-course corrections, to keep it on course should these variations nudge it off of it.

if we don't know the earths measurements as accurate as necessary the entire thing is impossible.

Far as I can tell, we know them well enough.

how do you plan to get the distance to the sun? with light waves bouncing back and forth? that only works at a very large number. recall what we're trying to do here. the equivalent proportion is shooting at a target that is one centimeter across, and about a hundred miles away! the projectile would have to be the size of an atom too. I mean at this point we have many billions of theories kicking around here and what we have touched on is only the surface! at what point does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle kick in?

Based on the mathematics you've badly attempted to use so far, I'd guess youre about 7-8 years old and pretty poor at maths for your age. Heisenberg uncertainty is irrelevant in macroscopic systems.

If someone wanted to fire a ballistic projectile to Mars, they would need to aim it very accurately that much of what you're saying is true. Unfortunately NONE of the objects NASA hurls into space have been ballistics, ALL have navigational systems, ALL are able to modify their trajectory VERY accurately.

It embarasses me that a human being is attempting to reason about things he clearly has no knowledge of whatsoever. Please get an education and stop spouting such drivel.

while the readjustment of the orbit of the probe is a lot easier as you get closer to mars, it's difficult to get that close. (missing by a million miles) once they've gotten to a certain pointlose the ability to correct the orbit enough to hit the planet. (the point of no return)

we established that solar wind still has an immeasurable effect, and nobodies answered my complaints that the mass of the sun and earth are immeasurable to the degree required. I recognize that there are estimates out there, but considering the accuracy required, it's not possible.

recall that I am not saying that we don't HAVE a measurement of any of these things, only that it is impossible to obtain such a measurement to the degree necessary (1cm, 100 miles away) is 18 billion dollars a year enough to hit that?

if it is, assassinations should be carried out with pistols protractors and calculators.

while the readjustment of the orbit of the probe is a lot easier as you get closer to mars, it's difficult to get that close. (missing by a million miles) once they've gotten to a certain pointlose the ability to correct the orbit enough to hit the planet. (the point of no return)

And? You can make as many corrections as needed. That's like saying it's Impossible to drive across a country, as your destination is going to appear tiny from where you start off at, and if you pointed your car in the correct direction and just drove, you would probably miss it. There's more to it than just an accurate lob.

we established that solar wind still has an immeasurable effect, and nobodies answered my complaints that the mass of the sun and earth are immeasurable to the degree required. I recognize that there are estimates out there, but considering the accuracy required, it's not possible.

The solar wind is also a tiny effect, and easy to compensate for. The mass of the Sun and the Earth are not needed.

recall that I am not saying that we don't HAVE a measurement of any of these things, only that it is impossible to obtain such a measurement to the degree necessary (1cm, 100 miles away) is 18 billion dollars a year enough to hit that?

if it is, assassinations should be carried out with pistols protractors and calculators.

But you don't need such accurate measurements. A probe is not ballistic like a bullet, it's steerable like a car or plane.

The mass of the Sun and the Earth are not needed.

we discussed this already. we determined that NASA used a heliocentric orbit around the sun to curve the flight pattern of the probe. in order to determine the bend that gravity would have on the probe one needs to know the mass of both objects involved and their distance from each other. without those, the gravitational pole on the probe cannot be determined. without the mass ofthe earth, the mass of the sun can not be determined. even with the earths mass you can only be so accurate.


and, in regards to the car analogie, it's a bit more like trying to drive over a 1cm target that's 100 miles away when the car only travels at 80 miles an hour by remote control. then throw in variable gravity, a tornado, and communication  errors

we discussed this already. we determined that NASA used a heliocentric orbit around the sun to curve the flight pattern of the probe. in order to determine the bend that gravity would have on the probe one needs to know the mass of both objects involved and their distance from each other. without those, the gravitational pole on the probe cannot be determined. without the mass ofthe earth, the mass of the sun can not be determined. even with the earths mass you can only be so accurate.

And I explained that you don't need the mass of an object to determine it's gravitational pull. You can determine it's pull by looking at the time period and distance of an object in orbit around it.

and, in regards to the car analogie, it's a bit more like trying to drive over a 1cm target that's 100 miles away when the car only travels at 80 miles an hour by remote control. then throw in variable gravity, a tornado, and communication  errors

A car which is covered in cameras and is moving at about 0.014 miles an hour, yes. I'm sure you could hit the target at that speed.

look!

the target is moving. there are infinite variables. your trying to hit an abstract area in 3 dimensional space. how much can you adjust for?

there's only so much you can do before the rover hits the point of no return and misses the planet.

look!

the target is moving. there are infinite variables. your trying to hit an abstract area in 3 dimensional space. how much can you adjust for?

there's only so much you can do before the rover hits the point of no return and misses the planet.

Or it enters the gravitational influence of the target.  Also, there really aren't as many variables as you think.

in a 33 million mile adventure through space there are a lot of variables.
even NASA doesn't deny that

in a 33 million mile adventure through space there are a lot of variables.
even NASA doesn't deny that

There's the gravity of the planets and to a lesser extent, the solar wind. Did I miss something?

look!

the target is moving. there are infinite variables. your trying to hit an abstract area in 3 dimensional space. how much can you adjust for?

there's only so much you can do before the rover hits the point of no return and misses the planet.

It's moving in a way so predictable you can plot it's position hundreds of years into the future. Whilst there may be many variables acting on the probe, most of them will have such a small influence they will hardly matter.

I'm not sure why you feel it's so difficult. Just because the distances involved are very large doesn't make everything a blind shot into the dark.

in a 33 million mile adventure through space there are a lot of variables.
even NASA doesn't deny that

Have you ever seen someone shoot at and hit a moving target?  There are a lot of variables involved there as well.

the reason it's so difficult is because there is a point at which anything becomes impossible. NASA doesn't claim to be able to hit polaris, nor pluto, nor a hundred million other objects. the reason is that it's too difficult. mechanical failures, solar flares (have been known to knock out power on earth, they could cause hell with a satellite), mathematical inaccuracies, a sheer lack of volume of correctional mass to change directions and momentum, contact problems. note that if the probe has a mechanical failure that uncalibrates it's recieving equipment by a millisecond the whole apparatus is worthless.

I understand they have the money to do it if it's possible, I just don't think it's possible.

the reason it's so difficult is because there is a point at which anything becomes impossible. NASA doesn't claim to be able to hit polaris, nor pluto, nor a hundred million other objects. the reason is that it's too difficult. mechanical failures, solar flares (have been known to knock out power on earth, they could cause hell with a satellite), mathematical inaccuracies, a sheer lack of volume of correctional mass to change directions and momentum, contact problems. note that if the probe has a mechanical failure that uncalibrates it's recieving equipment by a millisecond the whole apparatus is worthless.

I understand they have the money to do it if it's possible, I just don't think it's possible.

I just can't see why you think it's so difficult. Probes normally have a number of back up systems in case of failure. I believe solar flares only really cause problems with satellites near Earth as we have a magnetic field round are planet doing all kinds of crazy stuff to the flares. Inaccuracies can be corrected as the mission progresses. The probe is launched with sufficient propellent to correct any minor problems it will have. Contact problems are similar to mechanical ones; there are back up systems. I'm not sure what you mean by uncalibrating receiving apparatus by a millisecond.

It's also worth noting that there are indeed problems, and that NASA is not infallible. There have been plenty of missions to that succumbed to some of the problems you have listed.

the reason it's so difficult is because there is a point at which anything becomes impossible. NASA doesn't claim to be able to hit polaris, nor pluto, nor a hundred million other objects.

Umm... In January 2006, NASA launched the New Horizons probe to explore Pluto and the Kuiper Belt.  It should get to Pluto in July of 2015.
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/

I'll repeat what i've said before, this is not total %100 proof of a conspiracy. it just seems seems kind of silly to me that with all the problems that could happen, with the tech they had by the first rover, that NASA could possibly overcome all of these problems and send something to mars with the infitestimately low chance of hitting it.

it may be true for example that mars has been studied for thousands of years, but how accurate are those measurments?
it may be true that we know the gravitational pull of all significant objects in the solar system, but to what degree of accuracy?
it may be true that NASA knows where Mars will be at any given point in time, but to what degree of accuracy?

I can go on. the end point though is that while on a local scale these things don't add up to much, but on the 33 million mile scale they ought to add up to something.

you can't say it really isn't that difficult. even NASA doesn't say that.

I'll repeat what i've said before, this is not total %100 proof of a conspiracy. it just seems seems kind of silly to me that with all the problems that could happen, with the tech they had by the first rover, that NASA could possibly overcome all of these problems and send something to mars with the infitestimately low chance of hitting it.

Well, they don't always overcome the problems. There have been plenty of failures.

it may be true for example that mars has been studied for thousands of years, but how accurate are those measurments?
it may be true that we know the gravitational pull of all significant objects in the solar system, but to what degree of accuracy?
it may be true that NASA knows where Mars will be at any given point in time, but to what degree of accuracy?

The accuracy that is available is fairly high, especially with the number of missions we have performed to help refine those values.

I can go on. the end point though is that while on a local scale these things don't add up to much, but on the 33 million mile scale they ought to add up to something.

Perhaps , but a probe doesn't work on just the scale of 33 million miles. It performs corrections are the scale gets smaller and smaller.

you can't say it really isn't that difficult. even NASA doesn't say that.

We're not saying that it isn't difficult, just that it isn't near impossible.

I just can't see why you think it's so difficult.

yeah, you did say it wasn't that difficult. (or at least you implied it)

this thread is quite clearly coming to an end as all points have been made and the conversation will only repeat itself.

however, I like to wrap things up nicely on a basis where all participants can agree. these are the things we can agree on.

1) it is very difficult to send a probe to mars. NASA is lucky they managed it.
2) it is POSSIBLE to send a probe to mars in RE theory.

these seem to be the established principles throughout this entire discussion.

if we can all agree on these I have one more point to make before the thread dies.

) It is easier to fake images of mars than to actually take pictures of it.

if we can agree on this the thread may die in peace

anything more complicated throws unpredictable factors into the equation. this is the base reasoning for the angle they would have too fire it assumes several things.

Perhaps you should attempt the slightest bit of research before making such a post. The Galileo space probe sent to Jupiter went around the Sun almost 4 times before reaching it's destination. Everything was calculated, magnetic and gravitational forces from the Sun, planets, and even the asteroid belt. It took several years for Galileo to reach Jupiter, and yet EVERYTHING was planned out for Galileo to start orbiting around Jupiter. This is space, it's not like Earth, there's no wind, storms, or unpredictible events every day. Here's a picture of the flight path Galileo took, take a good look at it:




Compared to this, sending the rover to Mars was trivial

Util, it seems like your problem is that because the calculations are exceedingly difficult for you, you believe they are insurmountable for everyone. NASA isn't one guy sitting at a desk. It is thousands of the best and brightest brains on the planet. A wealth of data and the best instruments money can buy.
I doubt many people here would easily grasp the full extent of the calculations that go into a Mars intercept trajectory but our understanding isn't necessary for the achievement.

You also seem to be forgetting that over the incredibly vast distances these probes have to travel, there are many possible points for course correction. The probes take years to travel the distances. Tracking the probes trajectory as it proceeds allows fine tuning of the course if required. They don't fire and forget.

Sure it's difficult. That's why they get paid the big bucks.

solar flares (have been known to knock out power on earth,

Those would nearly irrelevant as to the course of a space probe. At worst this knocks out the most sensitive equipement, but it idea of a solar flare (mind you that is only radiation) damaging small rockets off the side of the probe is absolutely rediculous.

It is easier to fake images of mars than to actually take pictures of it.

I'm wondering if you appreciate the shear volume of data these things return. I had a quick poke around on the NASA site, and I found the data available for the Mars Global Surveyor. There's nearly 100 gigabytes of the stuff. I can't imagine anyone faking that much data and keeping it all consistent.

Quote

I just can't see why you think it's so difficult.

2) it is POSSIBLE to send a probe to mars in RE theory.

Uhhhh.... we have established that it is possible in RE Fact. What makes it imposible or any different in FE THEORY?

The burden is not on the world to convince you, but rather it is on you to cionvince the world. That has been the trouble for every great discovery and advance in technology.