Artemis Project

  • 65 Replies
  • 2445 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 22954
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Artemis Project
« Reply #60 on: July 30, 2019, 05:45:28 PM »
The far more important issues are:
  • The usually quoted escape velocity, be it from earth or higher, assumed that no further thrust will be applied.
    It is quite feasible to escape from the earth by first achieving Low Earth Orbit and then applying a small continuous thrust.

  • When a single large thrust is applied to escape the direction does not matter as long as the craft does not impinge on the atmosphere or worse impact the planetary body:

    The escape velocity does not have to be directly away from centre of the earth. It can and usually is a tangential velocity.
    And "Note that a powered object may escape the gravity of a body at any velocity desired".

Your own source contradicts you. The image you shared with us says that it's in relation from the body center of mass.


No it doesn't!
I said,
Quote
The escape velocity does not have to be directly away from centre of the earth. It can and usually is a tangential velocity.
And "Note that a powered object may escape the gravity of a body at any velocity desired".

Look at the relevant part again:

                   

Note where it says,
Quote from: CalcTool Escape velocity Calculator
The "escape velocity" of an unpowered object . . . . . from its current distance from the body center of mass.

It is independant of the object mass or direction of movement (and therefore is not a truly "velocity" at all).

You claimed:
They needed to get the craft traveling at 7 miles per second in straight light relationship from the center of the earth. It doesn't matter what they had to do to do that. It's the rules. Many other proposals and ship designs had different dynamics.
But the craft does not have to travel "in straight light relationship from the center of the earth". The direction does not matter and that I what I have said.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38574
Re: Artemis Project
« Reply #61 on: July 31, 2019, 04:47:57 PM »
Your own source contradicts you. The image you shared with us says that it's in relation from the body center of mass.


Actually, it says "(note: direction does not matter)".
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: Artemis Project
« Reply #62 on: August 01, 2019, 03:53:57 AM »
It is just how we are taught about Escape Velocity. Look at this page from Georgia State:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vesc.html
Yes, look at what it actually says, not what you want to pretend it says:
Quote
If the kinetic energy of an object launched from the Earth were equal in magnitude to the potential energy, then in the absence of friction resistance it could escape from the Earth.
Notice how it appeals to the kinetic energy rather than velocity in a particular direction?
You can go straight up, but you don't need to.
If you go at an angle away from straight up, but still at escape velocity, you still escape, after following part of a hyperbolic orbit.
This is because you have enough kinetic energy to escape the gravitational potential well.
The only way you wont escape is if you do something to lose speed other than gravitationally interact with the planet, for example, firing rockets to slow down or crashing into the planet.

Just what source do you know of which claims you must be going straight up right from the start to escape?

Just what do you think would happen if an object went at 100 000 km/hr at an altitude of 1000 km above Earth's surface, in a direction 90 degrees from straight up?

If you put in 1 and 1.1 for the Mass and Radius
Then you are dealing with an altitude of ~637 km.
According to this:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
The initial orbit was 100 nautical miles (I am assuming that is what they meant rather than nano meters), or 185.2 km.
That puts it at 1.029 Earth radii.
That results in an escape velocity of ~24 650 archaic units per hour.

Put if they reached it or not is quite irrelevant.
They didn't just coast from then on. They had more burns which affected their velocity.

Your own source contradicts you. The image you shared with us says that it's in relation from the body center of mass.
No, his source fully supports him.
It clearly states that the direction does not matter.
What is in relation to the body's centre of mass is the distance.
The escape velocity is dependent upon the gravitational potential energy, and thus on the distance to the centre of mass of the body.
So distance is from the centre of mass, not direction, as direction does not matter.

Re: Artemis Project
« Reply #63 on: August 10, 2019, 12:18:29 PM »
Hi, I'm new to the forum.

On the premise that any moon landings were fake, why would India hoax a crash landing of their virgin launch at the cost of millions recently, wouldnt they just use CGI to hoax a successful landing, they have nothing to do with NASA but have access to the worlds resources in CGI.

A spectacularly stupid way to lose a huge amount of money in a 3rd world country and intentionally embaress themselves to the rest of the world.

I still dont understand how on a flat earth the sun doesnt illuminate the whole earth at the same time or render it all in complete darkness too.

Im open to enlightenment.

Re: Artemis Project
« Reply #64 on: August 10, 2019, 01:22:27 PM »
NASA mainly fakes major missions when they have to, which is why they suddenly advanced in technological progress and claimed to put Explorer 1 up within three months of Sputnick.
But if the earth is flat, that Sputnik mission was also fake. So instead of wanting to launch close after Sputnik, NASA could have called that a fake mission instead. I wonder why they didn't.
I tried so hard, and got so far. But in the end, I fell off the edge. I had to fall, to lose it all, but in the end, I still fell of the edge.

Re: Artemis Project
« Reply #65 on: August 11, 2019, 05:28:11 PM »
NASA mainly fakes major missions when they have to, which is why they suddenly advanced in technological progress and claimed to put Explorer 1 up within three months of Sputnick.
But if the earth is flat, that Sputnik mission was also fake. So instead of wanting to launch close after Sputnik, NASA could have called that a fake mission instead. I wonder why they didn't.

Because SDG, the whole international scientific world is in a centuries old conspiracy to fool the man/woman on the street into believing the world is round, but forget that many globers were burnt at the stake for heresy for nigh on 500 years.

I think the exercise in trying to argue an opposite theory is interesting, the Debating Society in Cambridge did this every year during the 50's and the Flat Earth concept was a very popular subject to argue for and to see things from a different perspective.

I just wish that the many posters on here kept insults out of the equation and used their brains instead to bring counter theories to the table and make the whole precess interesting.