NASA and the flat earth airplane...

Quote from: Cahaya on March 01, 2018, 09:23:25 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!

Quote from: rvlvr on March 01, 2018, 07:45:58 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 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)."

... 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.

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?

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).
...

Again, this not really an answer to the question.

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

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!?!?

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?

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

That it is flat and non-rotating.

Quote from: Cahaya on March 01, 2018, 09:13:29 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2018, 09:12:37 AM

Quote from: Cahaya on March 01, 2018, 09:06:32 AM

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Macarios on March 01, 2018, 10:58:06 AM

Simplifying the calculations before the airplane was produced.

Admitting the earth is flat and non-rotating and planes lose no mass during operation?

Quote from: Macarios on March 01, 2018, 10:58:06 AM

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.

Quote from: Macarios on March 01, 2018, 10:58:06 AM

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...

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...

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

That it is flat and non-rotating.

Even if this was case, friction free environments exist if you believe in outer space...

Analogy fail!

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)."

• 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.

• in the list of symbols:
  Quote

  τ_i     vehicle’s longitude on a non-rotating earth, rad
  ω_e      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 Z_E 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.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

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...

Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2018, 09:34:51 AM

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!

Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2018, 09:34:51 AM

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...

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.

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.

Lack of computational power...

All that practice has paid off Lackey,  you're now able to shoot yourself in the foot without the help of images.

Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2018, 08:20:22 AM

Evidently the Earth is flat according to NASA.

Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2018, 09:08:43 AM

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!?!?

Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2018, 09:13:39 AM

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

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2018, 12:32:09 PM

Lack of computational power...

Horse hockey, Nancy.

Such a brilliant rebuttal! Right down to your usual level of ignorance.

Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2018, 09:05:07 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2018, 12:32:09 PM

Lack of computational power...

Horse hockey, Nancy.

Such a brilliant rebuttal! Right down to your usual level of ignorance.

Shamanism in that planes are incapable of maintain constant mass.

Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2018, 09:12:26 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.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2018, 11:04:08 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2018, 09:12:26 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.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 01, 2018, 09:14:48 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2018, 09:05:07 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2018, 12:32:09 PM

Lack of computational power...

Horse hockey, Nancy.

Such a brilliant rebuttal! Right down to your usual level of ignorance.

I think your problem is actually with the lack of brilliant answers,...including yours...

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2018, 11:04:08 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2018, 09:12:26 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.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2018, 11:04:08 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2018, 09:12:26 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.

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)."