Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 25, 2005 16:12:24 GMT -4
You are in 3D space not on a level surface. On a plane you have many and many possibilities to mistake, but in 3D space you have infinite possibilities to mistake. The key is to not make mistakes. Just because 1 + 1 has an infinite number of wrong answers doesn't mean a person cannot arrive at the correct answer.
|
|
|
Post by pierre1985 on Jul 25, 2005 16:21:19 GMT -4
" Just because 1 + 1 has an infinite number of wrong answers doesn't mean a person cannot arrive at the correct answer".
Mathematics, calculations, Newton and Kepler laws are very interesting, but you have not technology to send a probe to Mars or Saturn.
To be able to go to Saturn is like to find a needle in a straw-rick with the poor technology you have.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 25, 2005 16:50:47 GMT -4
Mathematics, calculations, Newton and Kepler laws are very interesting,
Rather more than that, since they are essential for calculating trajectories and how the spacecraft will behave.
but you have not technology to send a probe to Mars or Saturn.
Perhaps you can tell us what technology would be necessary? Or why the technology employed on the Cassini probe, or any other space probe, is inadequate for the task? We await your technical expertise, if you have it. If you have none we reserve the right to consider your arguments uninformed and therefore worthless.
To be able to go to Saturn is like to find a needle in a straw-rick with the poor technology you have.
Why? For starters, Saturn is a very easy object to find.
|
|
|
Post by pierre1985 on Jul 25, 2005 16:59:34 GMT -4
"Why? For starters, Saturn is a very easy object to find"
You have not telescopes able to see your probe going in 3D space, you can not determine where it is in reference with Saturn, but you by magic are able to steer your probe to Saturn in a travel of 2,2 billions miles in the darkness of deep universe.
;D ;D ;D You are story-tellers for children.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 25, 2005 17:37:13 GMT -4
You have not telescopes able to see your probe going in 3D space Yes we do. you can not determine where it is in reference with Saturn Yes we can. but you by magic are able to steer your probe to Saturn in a travel of 2,2 billions miles in the darkness of deep universe. It is not magic, it is called orbital mechanics. Your entire argument boils down to, "I don't understand it thus it cannot be". Why don't you please tell us what else you don't know understand so that we may cross those items off the list of things that are possible.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 25, 2005 17:43:22 GMT -4
You have not telescopes able to see your probe going in 3D space, you can not determine where it is in reference with Saturn, but you by magic are able to steer your probe to Saturn in a travel of 2,2 billions miles in the darkness of deep universe.
You are story-tellers for children.
Well, you are acting like a child. Perhaps you should pay attention to the story.
The orbit of a planet like Saturn is precisely known, and we've been able to predict Saturn's position, using the principles of Newton and Kepler, for hundreds of years.
We know where the spacecraft starts out from. We know from inertial measurments, radar, and radio ranging how the spacecraft accelerates under its own power, and under the influence of the Sun, the Earth, Saturn, and any other planet it flies by. The acceleration determines where it goes, which is further confirmed by radar and radio measurements.
In other words, we know exactly where the spacecraft is via these methods. The measurements are enabled by modern technology once the spacecraft is out of optical range, but the principles have been around for centuries. Nowadays, an increasing number of spacecraft can also use direct ranging to and imaging of their target for astrogation.
The very same principles (except for direct-to-target navigation) are used to place commercial and other satellites in orbit. If you don't believe we can navigate spacecraft using such methods, perhaps you should tell companies that spend billions of dollars a year for satellite communications that they are "story-tellers for children".
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 25, 2005 17:50:48 GMT -4
I should also add that not only is your assertion (that the technology for astrogation is inadequate to the task) is flat wrong, but that your initial statement (about using stars for position-finding) was completely wrong, and betrayed a fundamental ignorance of the most basic principles of spaceflight.
I am an engineer and understand these principles. But a lot other folks here aren't engineers and understand them anyway. In other words, any layman can educate himself to understand the basics of how these things work. Your continuing failure to make any effort to educate yourself - even a little bit - is as tedious as your childish attitude and your failure to acknowledge errors.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 25, 2005 18:00:44 GMT -4
...but you have not technology to send a probe to Mars or Saturn. You keep using these words but I don’t think they mean what you think they mean.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 25, 2005 18:08:11 GMT -4
I’m convinced “pierre1985” is just a reincarnation of user “unknown” from a couple months ago. You’re all wasting your time with him; he will not nor does he want to learn. We had to ban him once, and I see no reason to give him another second chance.
|
|
|
Post by gdwarf on Jul 25, 2005 18:18:35 GMT -4
"To send a probe to Saturn we only need to know how where it will be at a certain point in the future, and then launch a powerful enough rocket into an orbit that intersects Saturns orbit at the right time". You are in 3D space not on a level surface. On a plane you have many and many possibilities to mistake, but in 3D space you have infinite possibilities to mistake. So? Just don't make a mistake. It's true that in space you are in 3D, but how is that any different from sending a man to the moon? That was 3D, and took 3 days, so they had to figure out where the moon was in advance. Same with Mars. They simply did the same thing with Saturn, they figured out where it would be in 6.6 years and aimed the probe there, launched it, and made adjustments as needed. It's not overly hard, you could do it with a telescope and a calculator, provided you observed Saturn over a long enough period of time. I must admit, he seems similar to unknown in many ways, but I digress. So, we can see Pluto, we can even see Other Galaxies and Planets orbiting other suns, which are a lot farther then Saturn, but we cannot see Saturn? simply because something is 3D it is not automatically a technological impossibility. Heck, Submarines navigate in 3D, they do it all the time, how do they navigate if we don't have the technology? For most of the trip Cassini was travelling in a strait line, ie, on a plane, so the whole 3D aspect really doesn't matter overmuch. If you are claiming that our telescopes cannot give us an idea of what an object in space looks like in 3D I reccomend you download a free program called Celestia (A google search should find it), it has a fully 3D model of our solar system, and it is accurate. Finally, where is your proof that we don't have the technology? Your first two arguments did have proof, even if it was wrong, but you seem to have decided that proof is only needed when it agrees with you. Please don't simply say "Look all around you and you'll see that we don't have the technology", because I don't buy that, I have the technology to see Saturn close up from the comfort of my Computer Desk, if I can do that then why can a team of highly trained scientists all working together send a highly specialised space ship to that same planet?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 25, 2005 22:55:04 GMT -4
I don't believe Pierre meant we couldn't see Saturn, but rather that we couldn't see the probe out on its way to Saturn. Which is true; no telescope can see a space probe out that far.
As we've been explaining, though, we have other ways to locate the probe remotely (radar ranging with or without transponders, ranging via radio codes, Doppler, and signal strength) and via inertial measurement and calculation. So it's not necessary to see the probe visually.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 25, 2005 23:13:01 GMT -4
I don't believe Pierre meant we couldn't see Saturn, but rather that we couldn't see the probe out on its way to Saturn. Which is true; no telescope can see a space probe out that far. This is true. I earlier responded to Pierre with: You have not telescopes able to see your probe going in 3D space Yes we do. Which of course meant that we can "see" the spacecraft's radio signal and, in some cases, we can detect it by radar. As long as we can detect the spacecraft we are essentially "seeing" it. We do not need visual sightings to determine a spacecraft's position.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 25, 2005 23:52:13 GMT -4
I have this silly vision of people watching spacecraft and directing them by yelling at them: “Two degrees left! And up a little!” Of course, as we can’t see that far, and sound doesn’t travel through a vacuum, we can demonstrate that space travel is impossible.
I’d therefore have been curious as to which missions Pierre was willing to accept had actually happened. He made astronavigation seem so difficult that no missions beyond Earth orbit would have been possible, and I’d even have my doubts about putting satellites in a geocentric orbit…
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 26, 2005 1:36:35 GMT -4
You keep using these words but I don’t think they mean what you think they mean. Inconceivable! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 26, 2005 11:52:27 GMT -4
I’m convinced “pierre1985” is just a reincarnation of user “unknown” from a couple months ago. unknown or uneducated?
|
|