Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 08, 2014, 12:13:22 PM

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:

"...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:

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.

Quote from: legion on December 08, 2014, 12:56:26 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 08, 2014, 12:13:22 PM

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:

"...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[/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?

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2014, 01:03:22 PM

Quote from: legion on December 08, 2014, 12:56:26 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 08, 2014, 12:13:22 PM

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:

"...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[/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?

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.

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2014, 01:03:22 PM

Quote from: legion on December 08, 2014, 12:56:26 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 08, 2014, 12:13:22 PM

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:

"...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[/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?

Mikeman7918 pretty much nailed it.  I just wanted to point out how in an absence of evidence for your opinions, you were made to resort to incredulous editiorializing.  This is inevitably unconvincing and you should perhaps focus your efforts and describing why such a machine is not feasible.  That radioactive elements generate heat is quite well substantiated, so proposing to harness that as an energy generator does not seem a big leap.

Quote from: Santi871 on December 08, 2014, 11:27:05 AM

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:

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.

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?

 

Quote from: Heiwa on December 08, 2014, 12:01:12 PM

Quote from: Santi871 on December 08, 2014, 11:27:05 AM

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:

Quote

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.

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?

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:



Just imagine that the planet is replaced by a space ship and that would be about what new horizons is doing around the sun.  Even though it's not going directly away from the sun, it is getting further from the sun at an angle.  Heiwa also never said that the sun's gravity wasn't taken into account when calculating it's trajectory, he just said that it happened.  Also, new horizons did a gravity assist at Jupiter to boost it along, and that made it and so it took less energy from a rocket to accelerate it, and it also had a really big rocket to launch it.

I think you misunderstood me- I'm a round Earther. I know perfectly well how orbital mechanics work.

New Horizons (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.

New Horizons (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.

Is anyone else having a hard time trying to figure what this guy is saying? All I got is that he is bored but that can't be, he seems consumed by this.

Can you believe that some people actually think that argument from incredulity is a valid debate strategy?

Can you believe that some people actually think that argument from incredulity is a valid debate strategy?

It's incredible.

New Horizons (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.

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?

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.   

Quote from: Heiwa on December 08, 2014, 11:29:47 PM

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.   

You are just jealous as usual not knowing much about anything. But you are right - sending up a rocket 3 March 2004 and then knocking it - the Rosetta - around the Solar system four times before it arrives at a far away comet 2014, where it still is, is really an illusion. But plenty people believe in it. Why not? The show must go on! Link to my site is on page 3, where some fan of mine put it.

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.

           

Quote from: Heiwa on December 09, 2014, 02:28:34 AM

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.

Back to the Orion! Here -  #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean - 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 -  #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean - 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!

How do satellites get to their locations?

Back to the Orion! Here -  #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean - 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 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.

Back to the Orion! Here -  #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean - 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.

Quote from: Heiwa on December 09, 2014, 04:43:02 AM

Back to the Orion! Here -  #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean - 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 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.

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!

Quote from: Heiwa on December 09, 2014, 04:43:02 AM

Back to the Orion! Here -  #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean - 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.

Many children don't like being told Santa Claus does not exist - not now in December. They really believe in him popping down on the 25th from the sky and the North Pole.
When I then present technical arguments that Santa is an illusion, we laugh together. We have fun.
Only sick adults really believe in Santa.

Quote from: Heiwa on December 09, 2014, 04:43:02 AM

Back to the Orion! Here -  #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean - 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!

How do satellites get to their locations?

Satellites are sent into low Earth orbits around Earth by rockets, e.g. the French Ariane manufactured by my company, i.e. I am a minority share holder of the company. Like fireworks. Nice business. In orbit the satellites may be pushed higher up by other rockets into higher orbits to remain stationary above the rotating Earth, i.e. they rotate with the Earth at same speed.
However, no satellite can be taken down again from up there for repairs, etc. and no human can go up to repair the satellite. It is moving too fast and cannot be slowed down in any way. It is all very simple. No magic.
Anything trying to get back down from orbit around to Earth itself or similar - like the Orion or a satellite repair engineer - will simply burn up in the atmosphere at 100 000+ m altitude. It also includes InterContinental Ballistic Missiles, ICBMs, with H-bombs at their tops. Nothing can re-enter from space intact. All burns up!

Quote from: markjo on December 09, 2014, 05:32:54 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on December 09, 2014, 04:43:02 AM

Back to the Orion! Here -  #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch NASA's Orion (rabbit) splash down in the Pacific Ocean - 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 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.

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.

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?

Quote from: ausGeoff on December 09, 2014, 03:49:44 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on December 09, 2014, 02:28:34 AM

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.

Oh dear..... I've obviously struck a raw nerve with poor old Anders.   

Incidentally, this is his entry in the RationalWiki's "List of Internet Kooks"... Anders Björkman—also goes as Heiwa. Apollo hoax and 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Has no idea how to do energy balances or compute propellant requirements for orbital maneuvers (has notably claimed that the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is unrelated to this). Offers million-Euro prizes to anyone who shos him to be wrong, and either ignores people who proceed to do so or makes silent corrections to his site in response.

'nuff sed.

Quote from: markjo on December 09, 2014, 06:51:55 AM

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?

You obviously don't know much about heat shields...  How a heat shield works is it actually melts and the melted pieces come off, taking the heat with it.  The same things happens when you sweat, your sweat evaporates off of your skin, taking the heat with it.  That's it in a nutshell anyway, this article contains more information.

Quote from: markjo on December 09, 2014, 06:51:55 AM

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.

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

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?

Quote from: markjo on December 09, 2014, 06:51:55 AM

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.

This alone shows the sheer intellectual dishonesty you have. 5 seconds on Google and I am sure just as long at any University library in their Peer Reviewed Journals section would prove you incredibly wrong.

As far as I am concerned you're just a troll.