How many organizations are lying? (or: it's time to update the wiki)

Yup. Read 'em and weep.

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2013, 06:11:08 PM

I read it.  You are right.  Soemthing about boxing and a long diatribe about how information is funnelled.  In the end, I think I can sum up his viewpoint this way, "Geologists are fed data by the conspiracy."

Thanks for that. I was worried I might have to read through it. I'll be relying on your for the abridged drivel in future

it is this cognitive lethargy and petulant refusal to address such that leaves you living in a world, whether spherical or otherwise, built from abridgments.

Quote from: jason_85 on April 08, 2013, 06:36:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2013, 06:11:08 PM

I read it.  You are right.  Soemthing about boxing and a long diatribe about how information is funnelled.  In the end, I think I can sum up his viewpoint this way, "Geologists are fed data by the conspiracy."

Thanks for that. I was worried I might have to read through it. I'll be relying on your for the abridged drivel in future

it is this cognitive lethargy and petulant refusal to address such that leaves you living in a world, whether spherical or otherwise, built from abridgments.

Capitalize your sentences.

it is this cognitive lethargy and petulant refusal to address such that leaves you living in a world, whether spherical or otherwise, built from abridgments.

You're a massive tool.

I want to put it out there that the government has started the flat earth euthanization project. Just by informing you of this I have put my life in danger, they will come for me and then they will come for you flat earthers because you have discovered their cover up. It won't be long now before the government starts running this blog as part of that very same cover up, if they have not already done so. In fact most of you flat earthers on this site are probably government agents trying to hide the fact that the real flat earthers have already been disposed of. Most likely before 2001 when membership was reopened.

-OR-

You flat earthers are bat shit crazy and the government can't even balance a budget.

Quote from: jason_85 on April 08, 2013, 07:24:00 PM

... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...

They have a photo of it flying by.

What?

So those that photograph the ISS from earth are actually taking a photo of a massive photo put in the sky by NASA?

What?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2013, 07:28:33 PM

Quote from: jason_85 on April 08, 2013, 07:24:00 PM

... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...

They have a photo of it flying by.

What?

So those that photograph the ISS from earth are actually taking a photo of a massive photo put in the sky by NASA?

What?

Not sure he meant that. I may be reading into it too much, but I took it to mean

Dearest Jason,
I have no answer so I'm bailing. Please find attached a meaningless but sarcastically nuianced reply instead.
Yours truly,
Tom

Quote from: jason_85 on April 08, 2013, 07:24:00 PM

... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...

They have a photo of it flying by.

Somehow this is a defense for flat earthers?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2013, 07:28:33 PM

Quote from: jason_85 on April 08, 2013, 07:24:00 PM

... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...

They have a photo of it flying by.

Somehow this is a defense for flat earthers?

When have we claimed that it doesn't fly over people's heads?

Quote from: koolkat67 on April 09, 2013, 04:49:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2013, 07:28:33 PM

Quote from: jason_85 on April 08, 2013, 07:24:00 PM

... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...

They have a photo of it flying by.

Somehow this is a defense for flat earthers?

When have we claimed that it doesn't fly over people's heads?

So the ISS appears to orbit the Earth every 93 minutes, and you think this can be some kind of aircraft? Going over 17,000 miles an hour? I don't see any rocket or jet exhaust in these pictures, how is that possible when on your model it would have to be constantly thrusting? 

So the ISS appears to orbit the Earth every 93 minutes, and you think this can be some kind of aircraft? Going over 17,000 miles an hour? I don't see any rocket or jet exhaust in these pictures, how is that possible when on your model it would have to be constantly thrusting? 

It's likely a hydrogen-buoyant hard-shell dirigible at the edge of space where there is negligible wind resistance to slow it down. An engine, perhaps an ion drive, can easily accelerate such a craft to to high velocities.

From the link on ion propulsion:

Early tests in 2004 demonstrated power levels of 40 kilowatts and exhaust velocities in excess of 90,000 meters per second (over 200,000 mph).

So why when we look at the iss through telescopes does it not look like a hard shell dirigable?

No I mean you can quite clearly see the iss through a telescope I have done it and millions of people have done it. It's not a blob of ligh its in the shape off the iss.

From the link on ion propulsion:

Quote

Early tests in 2004 demonstrated power levels of 40 kilowatts and exhaust velocities in excess of 90,000 meters per second (over 200,000 mph).

No.

From the same link:

Modern ion thrusters can deliver up to 0.5 Newtons (0.1 pounds) of thrust, which is equivalent to the force you would feel by holding nine U.S. quarters in your hand. To compensate for low thrust, the ion thruster must be operated for a long time for the spacecraft to reach its top speed.

Remember, the earth is flat, so that would mean it has to always be turning.  It can't slow down fast enough.  With an ion drive, once you're going, you aren't stopping or changing direction anytime soon.

It would work if the earth was round though.  Too bad…

Wait wait wait wait... OK, so Elon Musk is in on it, and knows full well that it's actually the government managing their space operations, rather than SpaceX itself.  But since this has been going on for so long, that means that NASA would have to have APPROACHED Elon Musk, the successful founder of PayPal, and asked him to join their conspiracy.  Talk about incredible risks no sane person would take!  You said it yourself Tom Bishop:

Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way. That's a pretty big gamble that NASA would choose you over the Russians or some other Aerospace company, or decide keep their rocket program altogether.

So are we now expected to think that NASA would risk their entire multi-billion dollar enterprise in the hopes of getting one celebrity entrepreneur to be buddy-buddy with them?  That sounds like an even bigger gamble.  "No way."

So why when we look at the iss through telescopes does it not look like a hard shell dirigable?

How do you know what the ISS is filled with?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2013, 11:58:10 AM

From the link on ion propulsion:

Quote

Early tests in 2004 demonstrated power levels of 40 kilowatts and exhaust velocities in excess of 90,000 meters per second (over 200,000 mph).

No.

From the same link:

Quote

Modern ion thrusters can deliver up to 0.5 Newtons (0.1 pounds) of thrust, which is equivalent to the force you would feel by holding nine U.S. quarters in your hand. To compensate for low thrust, the ion thruster must be operated for a long time for the spacecraft to reach its top speed.

Remember, the earth is flat, so that would mean it has to always be turning.  It can't slow down fast enough.  With an ion drive, once you're going, you aren't stopping or changing direction anytime soon.

It would work if the earth was round though.  Too bad…

The center of gravity for the craft just needs to be slightly banked to the left or right so the craft travels Westwards according to its navigational instruments, and therefore in a big circle.

Jets don't have a problem with shifting their gravity to the left or right to bank into large circles.

Wait wait wait wait... OK, so Elon Musk is in on it, and knows full well that it's actually the government managing their space operations, rather than SpaceX itself.  But since this has been going on for so long, that means that NASA would have to have APPROACHED Elon Musk, the successful founder of PayPal, and asked him to join their conspiracy.  Talk about incredible risks no sane person would take!  You said it yourself Tom Bishop:

Quote

Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way. That's a pretty big gamble that NASA would choose you over the Russians or some other Aerospace company, or decide keep their rocket program altogether.

So are we now expected to think that NASA would risk their entire multi-billion dollar enterprise in the hopes of getting one celebrity entrepreneur to be buddy-buddy with them?  That sounds like an even bigger gamble.  "No way."

Musk doesn't need to be in on it. There is still some confusion about how contracting companies work. Government contractors have the same business model as private contractors. The contracting company finds you off of Monster/Career Builder/Dice and sends you to the client to interview. If the client likes you, the contractor hires you on under their own name, outsourcing your services. You go into work for the client while the contractor sits around profiting off of the difference between how much the client is paying them and how much they are paying you.

I can't believe no one on this forum has ever worked for a contractor before.

It's likely a hydrogen-buoyant hard-shell dirigible at the edge of space where there is negligible wind resistance to slow it down. An engine, perhaps an ion drive, can easily accelerate such a craft to to high velocities.

And by easily you mean impossibly because if you had looked up ion drives for more than 20 seconds you'd have realised that.

I don't understand your angle Tom. Why do you believe NASA when they say the ISS is in the fringe of space in an area of minimal atmospheric resistance, but then claim that instead of it being full of working instrumentation and a crew, it's filled with hydrogen? Why would they do that?

You go on to make up something about ion drives, but what's wrong with plain old rocket boosters? Your dirigible ISS would have cost more than the real deal; and why wouldn't they fit it with instrumentation and do studies while they're up there?

And by easily you mean impossibly because if you had looked up ion drives for more than 20 seconds you'd have realised that.

I said perhaps ion drives. I suggested that ion drives would be beneficial because there would be no need to carry fuel. Electricity from the solar panels could directly be turned into propulsion. At the edge of space where there is nearly no atmosphere, the fact that ion drives have low thrust is immaterial. There is no thick atmosphere like at sea level and therefore nothing to slow the craft down.

I don't understand your angle Tom. Why do you believe NASA when they say the ISS is in the fringe of space in an area of minimal atmospheric resistance, but then claim that instead of it being full of working instrumentation and a crew, it's filled with hydrogen? Why would they do that?

Because if it was not filled with hydrogen, or another lighter-than-air gas, it would come crashing back to the earth's surface, as the earth's orbit does not exist. I suggested hydrogen because hydrogen is more buoyant than other lighter-than-air gasses.

I said perhaps ion drives. I suggested that ion drives would be beneficial because there would be no need to carry fuel. Electricity from the solar panels could directly be turned into propulsion. At the edge of space where there is nearly no atmosphere, the fact that ion drives have low thrust is immaterial. There is no thick atmosphere like at sea level and therefore nothing to slow the craft down.

First of all, ion drives do require fuel, and electricity is not directly turned into propulsion. I understand what you are saying but the reason I'm bringing this up because it is yet another demonstration that you don't really understand what it is that you are saying. At the edge of space, there is very little atmosphere, and that's exactly why the ISS is there. It doesn't use ion drives because they are not economically feasible, so they use rockets instead. The thrust exerted by ion drives is very small (0.1 Newtons for a NSTAR thruster), so much so that it could not operate in the region where the ISS actually is, let alone where you think it is (in a buoyant region of the atmosphere).

In order for a balloon to remain boyant, it has to have a density less than or equal to the surrounding atmosphere. Even if the entire ISS was made completely out of hydrogen, it would still have a density of 0.0899kg/m3, so it would have to be no higher than 55km in the atmosphere. Considering that its observable velocity is over 7.5km/s, you would expect a force per unit area in the order of

F = 0.5 * rho * C * V^2 = 0.5 * 0.09 * 0.5 * 7500^2 = 1.3 million Newtons/ square meter
(assuming spherical shape for simplicity - doesn't change much for other shapes)

That's over 100 tons of pressure per square meter. Do you know of any balloons that could withstand that? An ion drive produces about 0.1N of force (0.01kg on earth). So not only would this floating ISS need to consume millions of gigawatts of power to drive its ion engines, it would also need to be made of materials stronger than anything known to man, given that both the pressure and aerodynamic heating loads woulds be astronomical.

I know it might seem to you that I am being overly harsh or aggressive, but I am quite simply exasperated by your incoherent responses. You seem to deliberately produce false information, possibly because you simply do not take the time to learn about your own references before citing them, and then bog us down in explaining your own errors to you. I have read your literature, why can't you at least try to read ours, or at least your own for god's sake.

In addition to your factual errors, your reasoning is completely bogus. An example of this is your explanation for why the ISS is filled with hydrogen:

Because if it was not filled with hydrogen, or another lighter-than-air gas, it would come crashing back to the earth's surface, as the earth's orbit does not exist

That is at best a hypothesis for which you provided no evidence, and founded itself on further unevidenced hypotheses (or axioms as you have come to use them). It is neither scientific nor zetetic.

And before you try to tell me the ISS is not moving at those speeds, its location is tracked and monitored by thousands of amateur astronomers. In addition, those atmospheric values are based entirely on the density of hydrogen, and have nothing to do with my "assumptions" about how dense the atmosphere is at 55km (it's based on the US Standard Atmosphere tables, but is not relevant in this case).

The thrust exerted by ion drives is very small (0.1 Newtons for a NSTAR thruster), so much so that it could not operate in the region where the ISS actually is, let alone where you think it is (in a buoyant region of the atmosphere).

That's easy. Just leave the ion drive on for a long period of time. In a near-vacuum the craft will eventually reach tremendous speeds.

Considering that its observable velocity is over 7.5km/s, you would expect a force per unit area in the order of

F = 0.5 * rho * C * V^2 = 0.5 * 0.09 * 0.5 * 7500^2 = 1.3 million Newtons/ square meter
(assuming spherical shape for simplicity - doesn't change much for other shapes)

That's over 100 tons of pressure per square meter. Do you know of any balloons that could withstand that? An ion drive produces about 0.1N of force (0.01kg on earth). So not only would this floating ISS need to consume millions of gigawatts of power to drive its ion engines, it would also need to be made of materials stronger than anything known to man, given that both the pressure and aerodynamic heating loads woulds be astronomical.

What do you mean "aerodynamic heating loads"? The ISS isn't surrounded by an atmosphere. It's in a near-vacuum. It's not going to heat up like a meteor falling through the atmosphere.

Also, I didn't say it was a balloon. I said it was likely a hard shell dirigible.

Why does the ion thruster need gigawatts? You already accept that ion thrusters can accelerate space craft to tremendous speeds, despite being solar powered by a distant sun.

That is at best a hypothesis for which you provided no evidence, and founded itself on further unevidenced hypotheses (or axioms as you have come to use them). It is neither scientific nor zetetic.

A hypothesis was implied with the words "perhaps" and "likely". I suggest you pay closer attention.

And before you try to tell me the ISS is not moving at those speeds, its location is tracked and monitored by thousands of amateur astronomers.

Please tell me how to gauge a speed of a distant white dot by looking at it, not knowing its distance from you.

That's easy. Just leave the ion drive on for a long period of time. In a near-vacuum the craft will eventually reach tremendous speeds.

No, it won't, even in near-vaccuum. And it's only near-vacuum in "my model", in yours the force exerted on a balloon operating at the density required to maintain buoyancy would be required to resist a force of 1.3 million newtons, as calculated before.

What do you mean "aerodynamic heating loads"? The ISS isn't surrounded by an atmosphere. It's in a near-vacuum. It's not going to heat up like a meteor falling through the atmosphere.

Again, you're taking the real-life example and confusing it with your own. In your model, the ISS would not be able to exist at a density-evelations above 0.09kg/m3 as it is being held up by the buoyant force of the hydrogen (above which hydrogen would sink). Therefore, it would experience tremendous heating loads, probably in the order several megawatts per square meter, possibly higher.

Also, I didn't say it was a balloon. I said it was likely a hard shell dirigible.

Even if it was made of carbon composite, it would still vaporise instantly.

Why does the ion thruster need gigawatts? You already accept that ion thrusters can accelerate space craft to tremendous speeds, despite being solar powered by a distant sun.

Yes, but not in the atmosphere. The force produced by a normal ion thruster is in the order of 0.1mN, for which it requires about 2.5kW. In order to produce 1.3 million newtons and overcome the drag alone, it would require over 30 gigawatts for every square meter of surface area. That is an absurd number, it's more power than many countries require, and must be overcome for every square meter of surface area. Not to mention the ion drives themselves would likely run out of fuel at such a rate.

A hypothesis was implied with the words "perhaps" and "likely". I suggest you pay closer attention.

Your scenario is neither possible nor likely.

Please tell me how to gauge a speed of a distant white dot by looking at it, not knowing its distance from you.

You measure the time between controlled elevation angles relative to each observer and apply trigonometry. The distance itself can be derived by an analogous method by taking measurements at equal points in time. This method is commonly called triangulation, and on a 1D flight-path it can be done with 2 control points.

Musk doesn't need to be in on it. There is still some confusion about how contracting companies work. Government contractors have the same business model as private contractors. The contracting company finds you off of Monster/Career Builder/Dice and sends you to the client to interview. If the client likes you, the contractor hires you on under their own name, outsourcing your services. You go into work for the client while the contractor sits around profiting off of the difference between how much the client is paying them and how much they are paying you.

I can't believe no one on this forum has ever worked for a contractor before.

Yeah… that's not how SpaceX works.  SpaceX does pretty much everything themselves.  The build their own rockets, their own crafts, and fly their own missions.  If they don't, then they're lying.  The contract between them and NASA is for them to provide cargo ferrying services to NASA that NASA would normally have to do themselves with their own vehicles.

They're lying either way, regardless of if you believe they actually do most of the stuff themselves.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2013, 07:57:11 PM

Please tell me how to gauge a speed of a distant white dot by looking at it, not knowing its distance from you.

You measure the time between controlled elevation angles relative to each observer and apply trigonometry. The distance itself can be derived by an analogous method by taking measurements at equal points in time. This method is commonly called triangulation, and on a 1D flight-path it can be done with 2 control points.

A simpler way to put this is that the ISS completes an orbit every 93 minutes, with a total distance of about 27,000 miles, for a speed of about 17,400 mph.

A simpler way to put this is that the ISS completes an orbit every 93 minutes, with a total distance of about 27,000 miles, for a speed of about 17,400 mph.

I was trying to be accommodating and provide a method that does not assume the ISS is actually in weak orbit, as Tom doesn't believe orbits exist.

No, it won't, even in near-vaccuum. And it's only near-vacuum in "my model", in yours the force exerted on a balloon operating at the density required to maintain buoyancy would be required to resist a force of 1.3 million newtons, as calculated before.

In a near vaccum at near space, what exactly is causing a resistance of 1.3 million newtons? Where do you account for the density of the atmosphere in your calculations? I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.

Yes, but not in the atmosphere. The force produced by a normal ion thruster is in the order of 0.1mN, for which it requires about 2.5kW. In order to produce 1.3 million newtons and overcome the drag alone, it would require over 30 gigawatts for every square meter of surface area. That is an absurd number, it's more power than many countries require, and must be overcome for every square meter of surface area. Not to mention the ion drives themselves would likely run out of fuel at such a rate.

Please provide calculations for the drag in a near space environment and the energy needed to overcome such drag.

In a near vaccum at near space, what exactly is causing a resistance of 1.3 million newtons? Where do you account for the density of the atmosphere in your calculations? I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.

Not only have I explicitly explained why bouyant forces could not maintain such an object above 55km altitude, I also explained precisely why 1.3 million newtons of force would be encountered and included the appropriate density in my calculations. Not only did you completely fail to read what I wrote, you have the nerve to tell me I am talking nonsense.

Please provide calculations for the drag in a near space environment and the energy needed to overcome such drag.

I will ignore for the sake of your question that I already exhaustively explained why your floating dirigible cannot function at higher altitudes, and I will assume that by "near space" you mean the rarefied regime of the atmosphere (which, incidentally, also means that nothing can float there). This is the region where the ISS operates.

The quick answer is that it's more complicated because the air flow is rarefied and must be modeled stochastically. The US standard atmosphere tables don't extend that high anyway (and if they did it would be meaningless). I would suspect that the ISS drag is in the order of 10s of newtons based on the frequency of their rocket boosts, but I don't know this for a fact. Getting a more accurate number would require either empirical relationships I don't have off hand or a full CFD calculation, which I am not willing to do.

At the very least do me the favour of reading what I have taken the time to write before responding.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2013, 07:57:11 PM

Please tell me how to gauge a speed of a distant white dot by looking at it, not knowing its distance from you.

You measure the time between controlled elevation angles relative to each observer and apply trigonometry. The distance itself can be derived by an analogous method by taking measurements at equal points in time. This method is commonly called triangulation, and on a 1D flight-path it can be done with 2 control points.

Even if multiple simultaneous observations of the ISS were carried out to triangulate its altitude and speed, which they haven't, the observers would still need to assume a Round Earth or a Flat Earth for their triangulation calculations to determine its altitude, as on a RE the observers will be standing at different angles in relation to each other and on an FE the observers are standing on the same plane. The baselines for the trangles are different depending on the shape of the earth we assume.

It's part of the reason why the position of the sun can be calculated to both 93 million miles away or a few thousand miles away depending on the shape of the earth we calculate under.