NASA and the flat earth airplane...

  • 97 Replies
  • 18159 Views
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2018, 09:35:08 AM »
I've emailed an authority on NASA reports and will post any reply I receive
LMMFAO!!!

"An authority on NASA reports..."

FUCKING COMEDY GOLD!
Do you believe that your continual use of the same adjective helps the discussion?

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2018, 10:03:15 AM »
Because the Earth is flat, and you just caught them?

I thought everything NASA does or says is a lie...


Evidently the Earth is flat according to NASA.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2018, 10:58:06 AM »
I was wondering if there is any feasible explanation regarding this article by NASA:

https://websites.godaddy.com/blob/141717ab-a656-42dd-a416-0e1a404d4647/downloads/1bgu1pq66_83327.pdf?8517e905

"This report details the development of the linear model of a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying over a flat, nonrotating earth (emphasis mine)."

Simplifying the calculations before the airplane was produced.
If we know how the airplane is behaving over a distance of 1 mile, we will know what will be over every other cosequent mile as well.
And it is much easier to calculate it if we apply approximation by flat and static earth.

Later, for already calculated shape, you can add parameters for flying with the spin, against the spin, north, south, up, down.

All in all, they can break designing process into phases by complexity.

And the quote from Quora:
Quote
... until you come across real development or computational limits.
The cited paper is from 1988. Computers were much weaker back then.
For perspective, the Cray Y-MP was sold that year. Its peak performance
was 333 megaflops. She cost $15 million dollars. Contrast that to today.
A Geforce GTX 1070 is capable of 6,500,000 megaflops (6.5 teraflops)
and has a price tag of around $400.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2018, 12:20:13 PM »

Perhaps, but again...

Why be concerned about modeling a plane that would only be operative over purely flat, non-rotating ground, if no such ground exists according to science?

And do the results of this modeling differ from a linear model of just an ordinary plane?


Calculations that use approximations are simpler than those that involve every possible variable and constraint.

The most basic physics classes begin with approximations using "point masses" and "infinitely rigid rods" and "frictionless surfaces."

This is to demonstrate the overall principles without getting bogged down in the details.

The details are real, and may account for a large, small, tiny, or negligible effect depending on the case.

In many cases a simplified approximation is sufficient.

This paper uses, and states in the beginning, what the simplifying approximations are.

Mountains out of molehills. Conclusions taken out of context. Work on comprehension over trying to find a "gotcha" document.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2018, 12:32:09 PM »
I was wondering if there is any feasible explanation regarding this article by NASA:

https://websites.godaddy.com/blob/141717ab-a656-42dd-a416-0e1a404d4647/downloads/1bgu1pq66_83327.pdf?8517e905

"This report details the development of the linear model of a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying over a flat, nonrotating earth (emphasis mine)."

These days there's a popular trend when simulating things to simulate every possible mechanism we can imagine. ... Why would you ever make a flat Earth model when everything is eventually going to make its first flight on a real rotating spherical-ish Earth?

This approach works great until you come across real development or computational limits. The cited paper is from 1988. Computers were much weaker back then. For perspective, the Cray Y-MP was sold that year. Its peak performance was 333 megaflops. She cost $15 million dollars. Contrast that to today. A Geforce GTX 1070 is capable of 6,500,000 megaflops (6.5 teraflops) and has a price tag of around $400.

In those days, you didn't waste computational power on frivolities. It turns out that for a vast array of aeronautical problems, the effects of a flat earth vs. round are minimal (much less the effects of rotating vs. not).
...


There's your explination.

Again, this not really an answer to the question.

How so?

Quote
As a matter of fact, it is a highly disingenuous effort to push the whole topic to the back burner by some RE-tard!

In what way is it disingenuous? It's entirely feasible and quite straightforward. Don't like the answer? Tough!

Just for you special RE-tards out there (this includes most of you by the way), please also pay attention to the adjective "constant," next to mass.

That ain't possible according to science either...

Why is NASA engaged in such shamanism!?!?

"RE-tards", "shamanism". Lol! How clever.

Argued yourself into a corner again and it's getting to you, huh?

The answer is the same as before.

All models are wrong. Some are useful.

These days there's a popular trend when simulating things to simulate every possible mechanism we can imagine. ...

This approach works great until you come across real development or computational limits. The cited paper is from 1988. Computers were much weaker back then. For perspective, the Cray Y-MP was sold that year. Its peak performance was 333 megaflops. She cost $15 million dollars. Contrast that to today. A Geforce GTX 1070 is capable of 6,500,000 megaflops (6.5 teraflops) and has a price tag of around $400.

In those days, you didn't waste computational power on frivolities.
...
The more things you model, the more things you need to develop, verify, and maintain. If a particular problem does not call for advanced models, why waste budget developing and maintaining them?


They do this because it makes things simpler without compromising the usefulness of the model for the purpose it was made.

I think it is NASA acknowledging the reality of the Earth.

That it is flat and non-rotating.

So what? NASA doesn't care what you think. The rest of the universe certainly doesn't.

The feasible explanation you requested has been given. That it was so simple obviously gets under your skin.

Merely pointing out that your question had been answered before in another forum
And I merely pointed this question has not been answered in any forum, oincluding the one you referenced.

That entire copy/pasta you presented is NOT an answer to the question.

It is a shitpost designed to placate/shuffle aside the reality of the issue because the person making the post had no [expletive deleted] idea what else to do.

You mean it doesn't give the answer you want it to?
No.

I mean it does not give a [expletive deleted] answer at all.

See? You're completely losing it. Don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer.

It's long past time for you to see the obviously-correct answer you were given, learn from it, and quietly skulk away. Being a crybaby, throwing a tantrum, and using bad words only shows what a whiny crybaby you are - nothing else. Watching that meltdown was worth a laugh, though, so thanks for that!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2018, 12:42:07 PM »
Probably for the same reason that concepts like Newton's laws of motion are initially taught using a friction free environment: to make the math simpler.
Even if this was case, friction free environments exist if you believe in outer space...

Analogy fail!

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2018, 12:49:51 PM »
Simplifying the calculations before the airplane was produced.
Admitting the earth is flat and non-rotating and planes lose no mass during operation?
If we know how the airplane is behaving over a distance of 1 mile, we will know what will be over every other cosequent mile as well.
And it is much easier to calculate it if we apply approximation by flat and static earth.
Horse shit, unless you are claiming the Wright Brothers also believed in flat earth.
Later, for already calculated shape, you can add parameters for flying with the spin, against the spin, north, south, up, down.

All in all, they can break designing process into phases by complexity.

And the quote from Quora:
Quote
... until you come across real development or computational limits.
The cited paper is from 1988. Computers were much weaker back then.
For perspective, the Cray Y-MP was sold that year. Its peak performance
was 333 megaflops. She cost $15 million dollars. Contrast that to today.
A Geforce GTX 1070 is capable of 6,500,000 megaflops (6.5 teraflops)
and has a price tag of around $400.
Do not dish out the "less sophisticated computer," argument. It is an horse shit argument on Quora and it is the same horse shit argument here.

Nothing terribly sophisticated about the computations involving flight characteristics as it had already been done for nearly a century when the paper was introduced and we were well into the jet age...

Hell, NASA had already been to the MOON and back, right? If anybody is flight EXPURTTS it should be these fucking guys...

*

Cahaya

  • 420
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2018, 12:57:33 PM »
Simplifying the calculations before the airplane was produced.
Admitting the earth is flat and non-rotating and planes lose no mass during operation?
If we know how the airplane is behaving over a distance of 1 mile, we will know what will be over every other cosequent mile as well.
And it is much easier to calculate it if we apply approximation by flat and static earth.
Horse shit, unless you are claiming the Wright Brothers also believed in flat earth.
Later, for already calculated shape, you can add parameters for flying with the spin, against the spin, north, south, up, down.

All in all, they can break designing process into phases by complexity.

And the quote from Quora:
Quote
... until you come across real development or computational limits.
The cited paper is from 1988. Computers were much weaker back then.
For perspective, the Cray Y-MP was sold that year. Its peak performance
was 333 megaflops. She cost $15 million dollars. Contrast that to today.
A Geforce GTX 1070 is capable of 6,500,000 megaflops (6.5 teraflops)
and has a price tag of around $400.
Do not dish out the "less sophisticated computer," argument. It is an horse shit argument on Quora and it is the same horse shit argument here.

Nothing terribly sophisticated about the computations involving flight characteristics as it had already been done for nearly a century when the paper was introduced and we were well into the jet age...

Hell, NASA had already been to the MOON and back, right? If anybody is flight EXPURTTS it should be these fucking guys...

I don't think anybody suggests NASA went to the Moon and back using fixed-wing aircraft

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2018, 01:05:16 PM »

Nothing terribly sophisticated about the computations involving flight characteristics as it had already been done for nearly a century when the paper was introduced and we were well into the jet age...


Somebody loves reading the first paragraph of a paper, but conveniently neglects the ~100 pages and ~1000 formulae.

I love total lackey's world in which the Wright brothers have derived the flight dynamics in the paper using non-linear equations and matrix calculations!

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #39 on: March 01, 2018, 01:43:11 PM »
I think it is NASA acknowledging the reality of the Earth.

That it is flat and non-rotating.

No.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2018, 01:44:52 PM »
Even if this was case, friction free environments exist if you believe in outer space...

Analogy fail!

Jesus your dumb

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2018, 01:57:32 PM »
I was wondering if there is any feasible explanation regarding this article by NASA:

https://websites.godaddy.com/blob/141717ab-a656-42dd-a416-0e1a404d4647/downloads/1bgu1pq66_83327.pdf?8517e905

"This report details the development of the linear model of a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying over a flat, nonrotating earth (emphasis mine)."
Yes, it's a simplification that is reasonably accurate:
  • the mass of the aircraft is changing relatively slowly,
  • the Globe is locally nearly flat and
  • the Globe rotates very slowly at only at about 0.0007 rpm.
These simplifications allow much faster simulations, especially on slower computers and are quite adequate in many cases.

You might read, learn and inwardly digest, A STANDARD KINEMATIC MODEL FOR FLIGHT ANALYSIS SIMULATION AT NASA-AMES, NASA CR-2497, by Richard E. McFarland.
That should convince even a Total Lackey that NASA really does understand that the earth is really a Globe rotating at an angular rate, 7.2685X10-3 rad/sec.

That document contains:
  • in the list of symbols:
    Quote
    τi     vehicle’s longitude on a non-rotating earth, rad
    ωe      earth’s angular rate, 7.2685X10-3 rad/sec
  • on page 13:
    Quote
    The rate of change in longitude over a rotating earth is equal to the inertial rate of change due to translation about the ZE axis, minus the earth’s rate itself (derivative of 2.1) such that (2.13) may be rewritten
  • and on page 21:
    Quote
    Equations (5.5) through (5.8) are “flat-earth” approximations which are only valid in the vicinity of the runway.

Mr Totally Lackey, I do believe that NASA fully understands that the earth is a rotating Globe.

Your total ignorance on these things is quite laughable!

You, like so many others here, should take this very good advice:
Quote from: Mark Twain
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2018, 02:09:27 PM »
Nothing terribly sophisticated about the computations involving flight characteristics as it had already been done for nearly a century when the paper was introduced and we were well into the jet age...

That comment must mean that you didn't even look at the paper beyond the introduction. Many of the 1,217 equations are very complex, but how could you be expected to know that?

That's after the problem has been simplified a great deal by the stated assumptions.

To go along with Rab's Mark Twain quote, I give you:

"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
 - Will Rogers

With every cranky and ignorant remark you're only digging yourself in deeper. Some of it is funny, though!

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43052
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2018, 02:13:47 PM »
Probably for the same reason that concepts like Newton's laws of motion are initially taught using a friction free environment: to make the math simpler.
Even if this was case, friction free environments exist if you believe in outer space...

Analogy fail!
How many people do you know of that go to outer space to learn about Newton's laws of motion?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2018, 02:16:54 PM »
Probably for the same reason that concepts like Newton's laws of motion are initially taught using a friction free environment: to make the math simpler.
Even if this was case, friction free environments exist if you believe in outer space...
They do for all practical purposes as the earth, sun, moon and planets have been "doing their thing" for far longer than human history and don't look like stopping any time soon.

You really have to learn that no measurements of anything in real life can be absolutely accurate and no calculations involving those quantities can be absolutely accurate.
Hence, in many cases the "friction free" approximation gives a good starting point for understanding what is going on.

But, I guess, that your master didn't name you Total Lackey for nothing.
Quote from: online Dictionary
lackey
noun
    1.  a servant, especially a liveried footman or manservant.
         synonyms: servant, flunkey, footman, . . . . .  , vassal, . . . . . , drudge, factotum;
    << I doubt that the second meaning is relevant, but what would I know? >>
    2.  a brownish European moth of woods and hedgerows, the caterpillars of which live communally in a silken tent on the food tree.

I find that a flat-earther worried about accuracy is quite humourous, when they have no idea of even an accurate map of even the distance to the sun or the moon!

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #45 on: March 01, 2018, 03:04:12 PM »
All that practice has paid off Lackey,  you're now able to shoot yourself in the foot without the help of images.


Evidently the Earth is flat according to NASA.

Just for you special RE-tards out there (this includes most of you by the way), please also pay attention to the adjective "constant," next to mass.

That ain't possible according to science either...

Why is NASA engaged in such shamanism!?!?


I think it is NASA acknowledging the reality of the Earth.

That it is flat and non-rotating.

So one sentence is both shamanism and NASA admitting the truth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #46 on: March 01, 2018, 04:51:01 PM »
There are a lot of reasons for this kind of modeling.  The linear model doesn’t need to know where it is because aircraft itself is the center of the system.  The flat non-rotating earth part is just a description to illustrate that it has no effect on the system.  In this case the system is the aircraft.  The frame of reference for this model it the center of gravity of the aircraft.  Instead of the aircraft flying, banking, and climbing/diving through the sky, imagine that the aircraft is stationary and while all the external forces on the airframe are what are moving.  Those forces act on the aircrafts center of gravity.  It’s akin to a free body diagram.  Instead of a couple of arrows representing the forces applied to the CG of the aircraft, in this model each arrow is a set of linear differential equations.  You add as many arrows as you need to simulate whatever dynamics you’re trying to model.

Linearized models are a common practice in engineering.  Such models aren’t used for final designs but are used because the calculations are easier to handle and give accurate approximations of the actual system response.  They take complex non-linear differential equations and impose them on a linear set of differential equations.  The linear equations of state aren’t necessarily less complex but highly complex dynamic forces, which could get vastly complicated in a non-linear model, can be modeled by the liner equations of state as discrete forces that are representative of the real-world non-linear dynamics. 

My description is an over simplification but it should give you an idea of what it’s doing.  It’s merely a modeling technique to analytically test concepts for a design.  However, it would not be used for the actual system design and analysis.

There is one very important thing to consider.  The dynamics on an aircraft wouldn’t be any different if the world was flat or round.  You would still have the force of gravity, UA, denpressure...call it what you will.  You still have all the dynamics of air flow over the airframe.  None of that will change between earth models.  Therefore, you don’t have to design any differently based on earth models.  The point being that the flat non-rotating earth thing isn’t meant to represent reality. 

Mike
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #47 on: March 01, 2018, 09:05:07 PM »
Lack of computational power...
Horse hockey, Nancy.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #48 on: March 01, 2018, 09:12:26 PM »
All that practice has paid off Lackey,  you're now able to shoot yourself in the foot without the help of images.


Evidently the Earth is flat according to NASA.

Just for you special RE-tards out there (this includes most of you by the way), please also pay attention to the adjective "constant," next to mass.

That ain't possible according to science either...

Why is NASA engaged in such shamanism!?!?


I think it is NASA acknowledging the reality of the Earth.

That it is flat and non-rotating.

So one sentence is both shamanism and NASA admitting the truth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Shamanism in that planes are incapable of maintain constant mass.

Reality in terms of a flat, non-rotating earth.

You are a joke.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #49 on: March 01, 2018, 09:14:48 PM »
Lack of computational power...
Horse hockey, Nancy.
;D ;) ;D Such a brilliant rebuttal! Right down to your usual level of ignorance. ;D ;) ;D

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #50 on: March 01, 2018, 09:29:32 PM »
Lack of computational power...
Horse hockey, Nancy.
;D ;) ;D Such a brilliant rebuttal! Right down to your usual level of ignorance. ;D ;) ;D
I think your problem is actually with the lack of brilliant answers,...including yours...


*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #51 on: March 01, 2018, 09:56:09 PM »
Total: you have now been given quite a few good explanations for the paper and the part which you found interesting.

Do you still maintain the paper exists because NASA is hiding something from us?

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #52 on: March 01, 2018, 11:04:08 PM »
Shamanism in that planes are incapable of maintain constant mass.

How much does the mass of an airplane change over time?

Let's say a Boeing 747 burns 3600 gallons of fuel in an hour https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm. Jet fuel weighs about 6 pounds per gallon, so that's 21,600 pounds/hr. The maximum takeoff weight of a 747-300 was 833,000 lb, so somewhere mid-flight it could realistically be be around 700,000 lb. In another hour its weight changes from 700,000 pounds to 678,400 pounds, a change of about 3%.

If you're trying to model the response of an airplane to short-term changes, a drift of 3% per hour compared to constant mass is going to be lost in the noise, and might as well be considered constant.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #53 on: March 02, 2018, 05:48:17 AM »
Shamanism in that planes are incapable of maintain constant mass.

How much does the mass of an airplane change over time?

Let's say a Boeing 747 burns 3600 gallons of fuel in an hour https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm. Jet fuel weighs about 6 pounds per gallon, so that's 21,600 pounds/hr. The maximum takeoff weight of a 747-300 was 833,000 lb, so somewhere mid-flight it could realistically be be around 700,000 lb. In another hour its weight changes from 700,000 pounds to 678,400 pounds, a change of about 3%.

If you're trying to model the response of an airplane to short-term changes, a drift of 3% per hour compared to constant mass is going to be lost in the noise, and might as well be considered constant.
100 percent of mass = 833000 lbs

A loss of 154600 lbs is much more than a 3 percent loss.

*

Cahaya

  • 420
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #54 on: March 02, 2018, 06:11:58 AM »
Shamanism in that planes are incapable of maintain constant mass.

How much does the mass of an airplane change over time?

Let's say a Boeing 747 burns 3600 gallons of fuel in an hour https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm. Jet fuel weighs about 6 pounds per gallon, so that's 21,600 pounds/hr. The maximum takeoff weight of a 747-300 was 833,000 lb, so somewhere mid-flight it could realistically be be around 700,000 lb. In another hour its weight changes from 700,000 pounds to 678,400 pounds, a change of about 3%.

If you're trying to model the response of an airplane to short-term changes, a drift of 3% per hour compared to constant mass is going to be lost in the noise, and might as well be considered constant.
100 percent of mass = 833000 lbs

A loss of 154600 lbs is much more than a 3 percent loss.

I must have missed something!

An aircraft burns fuel at a specific rate, dependent on a number of factors. No airliner is capable of burning more than a few percentage of it's fuel in an hour of flight. So modelling an aircraft with no mass change will only ever add a small inaccuracy.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43052
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #55 on: March 02, 2018, 07:22:40 AM »
Lack of computational power...
Horse hockey, Nancy.
;D ;) ;D Such a brilliant rebuttal! Right down to your usual level of ignorance. ;D ;) ;D
I think your problem is actually with the lack of brilliant answers,...including yours...
I don't know about that.  Microbeta's answer seemed pretty reasonable.  Maybe that's why you ignored it.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #56 on: March 02, 2018, 08:37:50 AM »
Shamanism in that planes are incapable of maintain constant mass.

How much does the mass of an airplane change over time?

Let's say a Boeing 747 burns 3600 gallons of fuel in an hour https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm. Jet fuel weighs about 6 pounds per gallon, so that's 21,600 pounds/hr. The maximum takeoff weight of a 747-300 was 833,000 lb, so somewhere mid-flight it could realistically be be around 700,000 lb. In another hour its weight changes from 700,000 pounds to 678,400 pounds, a change of about 3%.

If you're trying to model the response of an airplane to short-term changes, a drift of 3% per hour compared to constant mass is going to be lost in the noise, and might as well be considered constant.
100 percent of mass = 833000 lbs

A loss of 154600 lbs is much more than a 3 percent loss.
Did you not notice the "per hour" or not understand?

Either way, you're missing the point that they want a model where they don't have to account for the fuel loss to, again, simplify the math. 

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #57 on: March 02, 2018, 07:03:13 PM »
Shamanism in that planes are incapable of maintain constant mass.

How much does the mass of an airplane change over time?

Let's say a Boeing 747 burns 3600 gallons of fuel in an hour https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm. Jet fuel weighs about 6 pounds per gallon, so that's 21,600 pounds/hr. The maximum takeoff weight of a 747-300 was 833,000 lb, so somewhere mid-flight it could realistically be be around 700,000 lb. In another hour its weight changes from 700,000 pounds to 678,400 pounds, a change of about 3%.

If you're trying to model the response of an airplane to short-term changes, a drift of 3% per hour compared to constant mass is going to be lost in the noise, and might as well be considered constant.
100 percent of mass = 833000 lbs

A loss of 154600 lbs is much more than a 3 percent loss.

That would be about 19%. Very good! So what?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #58 on: March 02, 2018, 11:38:40 PM »
Again the flatearther is vastly outnumbered by a pack of hungry roundies.

Roundies that don't understand that 'simplifying simulations/calculations' is a misnomer in our days of petaflop calculations within the largest governmental mainframes.

Roundies ,you are not only predictable, but the copy paste wisdom has clouded your minds up to a point of no return...... please claim your own senses back before it is to late......

Re: NASA and the flat earth airplane...
« Reply #59 on: March 03, 2018, 12:53:15 AM »
I was wondering if there is any feasible explanation regarding this article by NASA:

https://websites.godaddy.com/blob/141717ab-a656-42dd-a416-0e1a404d4647/downloads/1bgu1pq66_83327.pdf?8517e905

"This report details the development of the linear model of a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying over a flat, nonrotating earth (emphasis mine)."

To use a well used line of flat earth reasoning ......it’s a fake.
You call fake to every space launch, Hubble telescope and its thousands of images, every satelite in orbit, every astronomers on the planet, etc, etc......and you present a crappy pdf as some kind of proof of your mad beliefs......give us a break!.....have you ever heard of forgery, Adobe Acrobat?