|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 4, 2005 17:01:10 GMT -4
What is amazing to me is not that all this is done, but that it was figured out in the first place, much of it before space travel.
My earliest celestial mechanics text was written in 1912. It contains basically all the features of modern orbital mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by wildbill on Aug 4, 2005 17:47:57 GMT -4
> For a given altitude above a given primary, all objects orbit at the same speed regardless of mass.
>>> Hey, professor, have you remained at 1900 theories?
>>>>>> You can say biggest nonsens talking about space. Who can confute your statement? YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG.
>>> For a given altitude smaller objects orbit slower to maintain the same altitude of the bigger ones.
>>> You have remained at theories of some centuries ago.
>>> But this is not the real problem.
>>> The real problem is that NASA engineers don't calculate earth's velocity and then all their calculations are WRONG.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 4, 2005 18:04:57 GMT -4
>>> Hey, professor, have you remained at 1900 theories? It's more like 1687 theories. That's when Isaac Newton published his Principia Mathematica setting forth his laws of universal gravitation. Those laws are still used today. Read a physics book sometime, Wildbill. You just might be astounded by what you can learn.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 4, 2005 19:05:56 GMT -4
Hey, professor, have you remained at 1900 theories?
They were right in the 1600s when they were first formulated and demonstrated. They were right in 1912 when they were exhaustively studied from a purely mathematical sense. They were right in 1957 when the first satellite exhibited the predicted behavior. They were right in 1967 when Szebehely published his translunar trajectory studies. They were right in 1971 when Bate published his seminal text on practical orbital computations.
And do you what? They're still right on July 28, 2005 as the 100,000 kg space shuttle orbiter matches orbits with the 183,000 kg International Space Station.
YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG.
No, you're making the same elementary mistake everyone does who first thinks about the nature of orbits. Galileo demonstrated this principle empirically in 1612. You're about 400 years behind the times.
For a given altitude smaller objects orbit slower to maintain the same altitude of the bigger ones.
Theoretically disproven and empirically contradicted.
You have remained at theories of some centuries ago.
No. Rather they've been confirmed by centuries of subsequent study and several decades of empirical operation.
The real problem is that NASA engineers don't calculate earth's velocity and then all their calculations are WRONG.
No, the real problem is that you don't know what the heck you're talking about, and are probably just the latest incarnation of pierre19whatever and "unknown" and thus immune to education.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 4, 2005 21:35:59 GMT -4
> For a given altitude above a given primary, all objects orbit at the same speed regardless of mass. >>> Hey, professor, have you remained at 1900 theories? >>>>>> You can say biggest nonsens talking about space. Who can confute your statement? YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG. >>> For a given altitude smaller objects orbit slower to maintain the same altitude of the bigger ones. >>> You have remained at theories of some centuries ago. >>> But this is not the real problem. >>> The real problem is that NASA engineers don't calculate earth's velocity and then all their calculations are WRONG. Well, we tried to educate you on how it works. I even showed you explicit references to earth's orbital velocity in NASA mission planning. Did you not notice that? I'm an engineer and I've worked in the space business for about a decade and a half. You're flat wrong in your understanding of the basic principle. If things worked the way you think, no satellite would be in its proper orbit, because your version of gravity is completely wrong. However, you don't have to be an engineer to see your mistake. Any freshman physics student understands this. Why don't you read the links I showed you to gain some basic familarity with this? Once again: you're completely incorrect in your understanding, and it's at the freshman physics - really a high school physics - level. We've showed you exactly where you're wrong, and given you examples of NASA mission planning explicitly accounting for Earth's orbital velocity, which also refutes your premise directly. We've given you links to learn something about the subject. And, of course, you can't - that is, you are incapable of - providing anything to back up your claim, because you just don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Aug 4, 2005 23:43:26 GMT -4
Just started reading some of this thread and wildbill certainly does sound familiar,
|
|
|
Post by wildbill on Aug 5, 2005 2:22:57 GMT -4
"They were right in the 1600s when they were first formulated and DEMONSTRATED. They were right in 1912 when they were exhaustively studied from a purely mathematical sense. They were right in 1957 when the first satellite exhibited the predicted behavior. They were right in 1967 when Szebehely published his translunar trajectory studies. They were right in 1971 when Bate published his seminal text on practical orbital computations". > You can't demonstrate anything about movements of objects in space because YOU CAN'T MAKE EXPERIMENTS. > You can't build a planet and launch it in space to see its behaviour. > Galileo, Newton, Kepler, only old theories UNDEMONSTRATED. Dear professor, Cassini made this path www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_cassini_trajectory_02.gif&cap=TheTo increase its velocity at 59,250 miles per hour! >>> But it already went at 101,000 miles per hour: 65,000 (earth velocity) + 36,000 (Cassini's velocity) = 101,000 miles per hour NASA ENGINEERS DON'T CONSIDER EARTH'S VELOCITY IN THEIR WRONG CALCULATIONS SO THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GO ANYWHERE IN SPACE >>> Who knows, does; who doesn't know, teaches, dear professor.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 5, 2005 2:42:52 GMT -4
Well let's see, Jay and Bob are both in the areospace industry as proffesinal engineers, so they certainly do and thus by your own admition know, what is it you do again?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 5, 2005 2:58:34 GMT -4
So Ulysses never went to the Sun? Viking 1 and 2, Pathfinder, Spirit, Opportunity and a couple of others never went to Mars? Galileo never went to Jupiter? Voyager 1 (or 2?) never went to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune? Deep Impact never went to Tempel 1? NEAR never went to Eros?
If you're right, those spacecraft would never have reached their destinations. But they did.
They do, so I think they know.
|
|
|
Post by wildbill on Aug 5, 2005 6:54:48 GMT -4
"If you're right, those spacecraft would never have reached their destinations. But they did. They do, so I think they know" >>> They know nothing >>> They didn't go to the moon because rockets can't move backwards braking with their rocket engines. They can move only forward. >>> They can't go to Mars or Saturn because they have not technology to follow their probes, to see Mars or Saturn relatively to their probes. > Radio signals from their probes are no use because Earth runs at 65,000 miles per hour and turns around itself at 1000 miles per hour. >> Even if the Earth was fixed like the sun a radio signal from the infinite 3D space is no use to locate their probes. >>> Professors like JayUtah can do complex calculations with their pens but they couldn't steer their probes to a target distant 100 000 000 kilometers even if their probes and their targets moved on a plane and not in 3D space. >>> They are making joke of you with all their fake advertising and fake images and fake movies made by Softimage, Maya, 3D Sstudio Max, LightWave and so on. >>>>>> Dear friend peterb, reason with your head. If Cassini already went at 101,000 miles per hour, why all this comedy? ?: www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_cassini_trajectory_02.gif&cap=The
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 5, 2005 7:18:03 GMT -4
>>> They didn't go to the moon because rockets can't move backwards braking with their rocket engines. They can move only forward.
How do you think the Shuttle or Soyuz brake to initiate re-entry? Soyuz also has small braking rockets to cushion the touch down on Earth. The DC-X demonstrated a controlled rocket-powered landing several times, and this was in six times the gravity that the LM operated in.
Why don't you do a little reseach before posting statements that make yourself look so ridiculous?
|
|
|
Post by wildbill on Aug 5, 2005 8:36:04 GMT -4
> Why don't you do a little reseach before posting statements that make yourself look so ridiculous?
Lunar lander was never tested on the Earth. This is really ridiculous.
Aldrin and Armstrong used the famous BWB system to land on the moon.
Body Weight Balance, they moved their bodies to balance and to keep in hovering their Lunar Murder
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 5, 2005 8:57:33 GMT -4
Lunar lander was never tested on the Earth. This is really ridiculous.
It didn't have enought thrust to get off the ground on Earth, it was built to operate in Lunar gravity. Simulators, the LLRV and LLTV, however, were tested on Earth, while the actual LM was tested three times in space before Apollo 11.
Aldrin and Armstrong used the famous BWB system to land on the moon.
Body Weight Balance, they moved their bodies to balance and to keep in hovering their Lunar Murder No, they had the RCS system of sixteen attitude control thrusters and aircraft-style instrument panel and controls. The closest Earth task is landing a helicopter, which requires a certain amount of training, but it is certainly not impossible.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 5, 2005 8:57:45 GMT -4
>>> They didn't go to the moon because rockets can't move backwards braking with their rocket engines. They can move only forward. Wow from the sublime to the rediculous. Anyone with half a brain understand that slow a rocket in space, all you need to do is fire a rocket engine in the same direction as it is traveling. The Shuttle uses built in rockets in the nose, the CSM merely turned itself around by using steering rockets to apply a torque to spin it about its length, then when it was traveling with the engine towards the moon and the LM pointed at the Earth, they fired the main engine to slow down.
|
|
|
Post by wildbill on Aug 5, 2005 9:17:23 GMT -4
|
|