|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 08/11/2005 : 06:29:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
"The probe does not go faster than that"
Than that????? How much?
Than the figures linked to by STS60 and referenced by Dave W.
Stop being deliberately obtuse.
A probe could go at any velocity 
Could and does are two completely seperate things.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 06:32:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
sts60 wrote:
"... It's really quite simple. You claimed NASA engineers don't take Earth's velocity into account. I provided explicit examples of NASA (and contractor) engineers taking Earth's velocity into account in mission planning, in particular for the Cassini mission ..."
It's not quite simple.
NASA engineers don't take Earth's velocity into account.
NASA engineers are only buffoons who write, write and write but do only craps, craps and craps.
And now you lie, lie, lie.
As was specifically presented to you, NASA engineers do take the velocity of the Earth into account. No matter how many times you say that they don't will not change the fact that they do. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 06:44:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
So the NASA is being debunked by an individual that has no grasp of basic mechanics.
Slightly amusing, but mostly painful...
I
Hey, don't say craps. I'm from the same country of Leonardo da Vinci, the father of airplane, helicopter and mechanical machines.
SECOND STATEMENT: NASA's buffoons say the probe passes near Venus and Venus increases its velocity. COMPLETELY FALSE.
Venus is not magic, it has no capacity to increase spacecraft's velocity.
Venus hasn't hands to give a push to the probe.
OK. Basic physics lesson #1, vectoring.
As the probe approaches Venus, Venus actually has gravity (shock and horror) and accellerates the probe. This also changes the trajectory (path) that probe travels as it bends towards Venus. So that it slingshots away faster than it approached by. (It then slows slightly, but the boost is enough to have a net increase in velocity from it's original with no expedature in fuel.)
What you can try to do is run at a tetherball pole. catch it in you hand and swing around it 90 degrees. your exiting velocity is greater than your approaching velocity because of vectoring.
Again, a rudimentary physics course could unlock the mysteries that you see. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 08:31:55 [Permalink]
|
I know being rude is frowned upon here but Jesus, Bigbrain is a complete idiot!
Point out that OF COURSE NASA takes into account the earth's velocity or try to educate him on the 'slingshot' technique of acceleration and his basic retort is:
nuh uh
He is as dumb as a box of rocks, and wouldn't modify his position if he was personally flown to Mars....
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 08:44:27 [Permalink]
|
After reviewing this thread yesterday, and being aware that NASA was planning to launch a Mars orbiter just this morning, I decided to contact NASA and inform them of some of our latest findings. I felt it important to let their engineers know we have consulted with one of the most capable space scientists available and we determined they should double check their calculations before launching the current mission.
Apparently my message to NASA was received in time because they have indeed delayed the current mission in order to review several software issues directly related to our discussion in this thread. Here is the news article...
Software Glitch Delays NASA Mission to Mars
Give yourselves a well deserved pat on the back, people. No doubt we've saved a multimillion dollar space shot from certain failure. Here is a copy of the message I received in response to my warning notice...quote:
August 11, 2005
Operations Headquarters: NASA Space Center
Cape Canaveral FL USA
Dear GeeMack,
We can't thank you enough for bringing these issues to our attention. For several decades we have worked on these projects believing we had the proper data, the proper understanding of physics, and were applying the correct calculations in developing our software. We have based virtually all space travel to date on essentially the same principles of physics, but are now prepared to admit that we have been wrong in nearly every instance.
We have taken the time to review the discussion on your internet forum, and have determined that one of your forum members reveals some critically important details about the approach to our current project. With the renewed understanding that all of our previous attempts at space travel have been unsuccessful, we felt it important to delay the launch of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter until we could apply this new material to the navigation programming.
Please pass along our thanks to all the members of your forum, particularly the one who goes by bigbrain. It is certain that without his help and wisdom this mission would have become yet one more failed attempt to reach Mars. It certainly would have resulted in another critical and very expensive failure. We will be upgrading the flight programming software to include his data and expect the resulting mission to be a resounding success. Again, thanks for all your help.
Sincerely,
Roger Wilco
Lead Engineer, NASA
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Flight Team
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 09:01:52 [Permalink]
|
So, bigbrain, one question. Did NASA orchestrate their failures too? There they were on television and in the news for all to see. Or were those failures another part of their evil scheme by adding disappointment into the mix for reality sake?
And oh my gosh, there would have had to have been so many people in on the conspiracy. How do you keep that many people silent and in the loop?
Remove all of the bad science from your accusation (something you tenaciously cling to no matter how many times you are corrected) and you are still making such an extraordinary claim that really, it should make you blush.
The world is littered with paranoid delusional malcontents who are completely incapable of being wrong. People who think that they are somehow endowed with the ability to see a truth that eludes everyone else. Some of those people stand in parks with bullhorns in hand warning of the coming destruction of our planet. Some post their ravings on websites because they can.
Make no mistake. The debate with you is for entertainment value. Some are having fun with math and such knowing full well that you will never acknowledge your mistakes. All in all you are a plaything at SFN and nothing more. A toy. Fun for now but due to become boring very soon.
Personally speaking, I just feel sorry for you.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 09:32:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
"As the probe approaches Venus, Venus actually has gravity (shock and horror) and accellerates the probe. This also changes the trajectory (path) that probe travels as it bends towards Venus. So that it slingshots away faster than it approached by. (It then slows slightly, but the boost is enough to have a net increase in velocity from it's original with no expedature in fuel.)
What you can try to do is run at a tetherball pole. catch it in you hand and swing around it 90 degrees. your exiting velocity is greater than your approaching velocity because of vectoring.
Again, a rudimentary physics course could unlock the mysteries that you see".
When the probe passes near Venus, it is attracted from its gravity that slows down spacecraft's velocity.
You say: "... your exiting velocity is greater than your approaching velocity because of vectoring..."
Because you have pushed it with your hand not because of vectoring
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 09:38:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
"As the probe approaches Venus, Venus actually has gravity (shock and horror) and accellerates the probe. This also changes the trajectory (path) that probe travels as it bends towards Venus. So that it slingshots away faster than it approached by. (It then slows slightly, but the boost is enough to have a net increase in velocity from it's original with no expedature in fuel.)
What you can try to do is run at a tetherball pole. catch it in you hand and swing around it 90 degrees. your exiting velocity is greater than your approaching velocity because of vectoring.
Again, a rudimentary physics course could unlock the mysteries that you see".
When the probe passes near Venus, it is attracted from its gravity that slows down spacecraft's velocity.
You say: "... your exiting velocity is greater than your approaching velocity because of vectoring..."
Because you have pushed it with your hand not because of vectoring
BUZZZZZZ!!!!! Wrong answer, go to your room and eat a booger.
You have even misstated what I have said. What I said is that the probe speeds up as it approaches Venus, gets a boost by being vectored around Venus and then begins slowing due to moving away from Venus. The net effect is an increase in speed. (inertia will do that for you)
Again, a basic physics course could unlock the mysteries that you find so absurd.
The tetherball example was to show the effect on speed by vectoring independant of significant gravitation.
If one looks at comets, the same thing happens to them at their closest approach to the Sun.
At least make an effort to educate yourself on the subjects you are pooh-poohing. "Common sense" is rarely either when speaking outside of subjects you lack any remedial learning about.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 08/11/2005 09:41:33 |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 09:43:44 [Permalink]
|
Dear Professor Valliant Dancer
explain your theory in simple words.
Venus hasn't hands that can push the probe |
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 09:49:39 [Permalink]
|
Dear friend sts60
No. I am not your "friend".
What can 3 kilograms cause to a probe going at 59,250 or 80,000 or 101,000 miles per hour?
Kilograms are units of mass, not force. If you don't understand that fundamental concept, you will never understand anything about space flight. Actually, you won't understand anything about motion. (Not that that will stop you from loudly proclaiming your opinions as gospel. I still get a chuckle from your apollohoax claim that the Mars rover navigation pictures were faked because the horizon was all curved. You know, the images taken with the fisheye lenses.)
What can a small force do to a something moving fast? Well, it keeps the Earth in its orbit.
G = the gravitational constant = 6.67*10^-11 N m^2 / kg^2
M = the mass of the Sun, 2 * 10^30 kg
R = distance to the Sun, Earth average = 150,000,000 km = 1.5*10^11 m
Any spacecraft at the same distance to the Sun as Earth is accelerated towards Sun at
a = GM/R^2 = 0.006 m/s^2. (And the Earth itself, for that matter.) That means that every hour the spacecraft gains about 21 m/s velocity toward the Sun. Its path is a curve defined by the balance of its tangential ("orbital") speed and the acceleration which constantly "bends the straight-line motion", as it were. In Earth's case (or that of a spacecraft following the Earth's orbit), you get a (near) circle about 940 million km in circumference.
Another way to look at this is to consider the ~circular path and ask what centripetal (inward) acceleration is needed to stay in this path. The answer is
a = v^2/r = (28 km/s)^2 / 1.5*10^8 km = 5.3*10^-6 km/s^2 or .0053 m/s^2. the difference comes from using rounded values and the approximation of a circular orbit.
Dave W. already worked this out. The only thing I would note is that the acceleration won't pull something into the Sun unless you start with very little tangential speed; otherwise you get an elliptical orbit with the Earth's distance as its aphelion (furthest distance from the Sun). |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 09:52:56 [Permalink]
|
| In my country "sceptic" or "skeptic" means: "incredulous, a person who is doubtful about everything" |
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 10:03:20 [Permalink]
|
Dear friend sts60
your calculations don't interest.
The truth is that Cassini could travel directly towards Saturn at highest velocity.
The truth is that if you steer the probe near Venus its velocity doesn't increase.
You said: "Kilograms are units of mass, not force"
To evaluate a force you can consider it like a weight, dear Professor |
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
| Edited by - bigbrain on 08/11/2005 10:06:49 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 10:16:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
bigbrain:
In my country "sceptic" or "skeptic" means: "incredulous, a person who is doubtful about everything"
That is a bad definition of skeptic. A skeptic demands evidence to support claims of fact. The skeptic will come to a tentative conclusion based on evidence for a claim. Doubt is the motivator for investigating claims. If a person doubts everything no matter what the evidence dictates, skepticism would serve no useful purpose other than to validate a cynical point of view.
Skepticism and critical thinking is a way to sort out claims. It is used as a way to assign a value to a claim. You have made a claim that is apparently of little value based on the evidence that you have chosen to ignore. You are not a skeptic just because you doubt NASA's claims. If I continued to doubt that sugar is sweet in spite of all existing evidence to the contrary, and no supporting evidence for my claim, that would not make me a skeptic. That would make me wrong.
Edited... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2005 : 10:22:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
"... If I doubt that sugar is sweet, that does not make me a skeptic. That makes me wrong".
If you doubt that sugar is sweet you are an idiot |
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
