Thnx ik houd wel van dat soort docu's!quote:Op vrijdag 10 maart 2017 18:41 schreef Lavenderr het volgende:
Video: de eerste kolonies rond een andere ster
Op dit moment is het al grensverleggend om kolonies op Mars te stichten. Deze video gaat over een nog veel gedurfder plan: de mensheid en ander aards leven verspreiden tot ver buiten het Zonnestelsel. Het plan begint met een kolonieschip van 2 kilometer lang dat met tien procent van de lichtsnelheid beweegt.
http://www.visionair.nl/w(...)ond-een-andere-ster/
Fascinerend idee.
Hm,quote:Op zaterdag 11 maart 2017 18:31 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
[..]
Ik weet niet waar je dit vandaan hebt, maar dit alles valt prima uit te rekenen. Je kan bijvoorbeeld uitrekenen bij welke phase angle je moet vertrekken om bij de maan (of een planeet) uit te komen.
[..]
De raket duwt recht van onderen. Waarom zou het verbindende frame dan breken?
[..]
There is, acutally. Als je goed kijkt zie je dat het allemaal wat gladder/schoner was.
[..]
Uit een gasfles.
[..]
Dat het in dat zonlicht zat betekend niet automatisch dat het instantaan aan die temperatuur zat. De LM had ook weer zijn eigen temperature control.
[..]
Dat klopt, de vlam met de gebruikte brandstof is vrijwel kleurloos.
What gives you that idea? Dat kan allemaal prima.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 10:23 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
[..]
2. Spacecrafts going to the Moon, Mars or asteroids. They are all fake! Propaganda. Just to impress stupid people. They cannot orbit anything. They have to start from Earth/LEO/EPO, stop and restart at target (Moon, Mars, asteroid) and return and stop back on Earth and it is not possible. You cannot carry the fuel (energy) with you to do it and ... you are lost anyway. You don't know where you are in 3D space during the trip/trajectory.
Nee, dat kun je niet. Vandaar dat je om de hete brij heen draait.quote:
Geweldig, die vent denkt, net as flat earther Eric Dubay, dat kernbommen niet bestaanquote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 10:23 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
The 1969 Apollo 11 is a good example why human space travel is not possible. .htm . Apollo 11 was 100% science fiction or a Hollywood show.
Hm, sorry. I meant ' It is 100% faked and done in a hollywood studio.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 11:26 schreef Wantie het volgende:
[..]
Geweldig, die vent denkt, net as flat earther Eric Dubay, dat kernbommen niet bestaan
En "het is 100% dit of toch iets anders"...
Waar is dan die 100% op gebaseerd?
The speed after trans-Earth injection was maybe 2 640 m/s. But in what directions? Everything is unclear. The Moon was at this time still orbiting around the Earth at 1 023 m/s speed, so one way or another the CSM had to reduce that tangential speed in Moon orbit to 0. It would appear they got away from behind or aft side the Moon into the radial course towards Earth, while the Moon continued its circular, orbital course around Earth.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 10:35 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
[..]
What gives you that idea? Dat kan allemaal prima.
That is utter nonsense.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 12:27 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
There is no atmosphere on the Moon to diffuse the light. Everything directly exposed to the Sun should be bright white = light reflected. And everything not directly exposed to the Sun should be pitch black = no light. All photos should be bright white/pitch black. But they aren't.
Can you provide the results of your experiment in a vaccuum chamber that proves both statements?quote:I confirm there is no atmosphere on the Moon. So there is no diffusion of light there. I also confirm you cannot take pictures on the Moon with a modified Hasselblad camera. It stops functioning, when in the -150°C cold shade and then being exposed to +150°C sunshine. It cracks up."
So your house is lit with torches and candles?quote:the only light source on the Moon is the Sun! Neil and Buzz didn't bring any torches or candles with them.
Since when produces a candle a bright light?quote:If you make a giant room and suck all the air out, how do you shine a bright light into it? A candle? It will not burn in vacuum. And how do you operate your camera in it? Are you all right? If not, consult a doctor!
So you don't know? Which proves again that your previous statement is bollocks.quote:light in vaccum - how does it behave, if not in vacuum?
Since you don't know how light behaves in a vacuum, you can't make that conclusion.quote:That the two Apollo 11 clowns were taking photos of themselves on the Moon is just a joke. The light was not correct. Their photos should be bitch black or bright white!
Hm, but there was no atmosphere to diffuse the light on the Moon. On the Moon there is only vacuum! Compare Earth where the light from the Sun must pass through 120 000 m of atmosphere full of atoms of all kind before hitting ground and sometimes with clouds in between. It is a big difference, i.e. the light conditions differ. IMO the Apollo 11 pictures were taken in atmosphere ... on Earth. But the photos show a gray surface. Gray surface of the Moon? Isn't it black? Or white? Or yellow? And Buzz used fill cards to light up the shady areas with Moon light 1969.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:02 schreef Wantie het volgende:
[..]
That is utter nonsense.
[..]
Can you provide the results of your experiment in a vaccuum chamber that proves both statements?
Nope, you can't
[..]
So your house is lit with torches and candles?
[..]
Since when produces a candle a bright light?
How about a lamp?
You are aware that the early types of lamp were using a vacuum bulb?
[..]
So you don't know? Which proves again that your previous statement is bollocks.
[..]
Since you don't know how light behaves in a vacuum, you can't make that conclusion.
The problem with your argument is that you seem to believe that color and gray scales of surfaces are caused by diffusion in the atmosphere.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:18 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
[..]
Hm, but there was no atmosphere to diffuse the light on the Moon. On the Moon there is only vacuum! Compare Earth where the light from the Sun must pass through 120 000 m of atmosphere full of atoms of all kind before hitting ground and sometimes with clouds in between. It is a big difference, i.e. the light conditions differ. IMO the Apollo 11 pictures were taken in atmosphere ... on Earth. But the photos show a gray surface. Gray surface of the Moon? Isn't it black? Or white? Or yellow? And Buzz used fill cards to light up the shady areas with Moon light 1969.
As far as I am concerned Buzz is an alcoholic that sees everything a bit hazy.
Which I explain at my popular website.
However, the main reason that Apollo 11 never visited the Moon is the fuel! It didn't have enough fuel to do the trip. Another reason is the re-entry and landing in Earth. It is impossible! satellites never return safety. They always burn up!
They burn up on purpose.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:18 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
satellites never return safety. They always burn up!
What is wrong with that? If the light from Sun is 100% reflected by anything on the Moon, it is WHITE. And if it is not reflected at all, it is BLACK. It happens in vacuum.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:20 schreef Wantie het volgende:
[..]
The problem with your argument is that you seem to believe that color and gray scales of surfaces are caused by diffusion in the atmosphere.
So tell me, how much fuel was needed and how much had they brought with them.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:18 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
the main reason that Apollo 11 never visited the Moon is the fuel! It didn't have enough fuel to do the trip.
The moon is white?quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:22 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
[..]
What is wrong with that? If the light from Sun is 100% reflected by anything on the Moon, it is WHITE.
yet you can't prove that that happens in a vacuum.quote:And if it is not reflected at all, it is BLACK. It happens in vacuum.
Sure, but color is not determined by the direction of light, its determined by the frequency of light rays.quote:On Earth with atmosphere diffusing the light in all directions
nope, its the same principlequote:, Color photo is a little different.
You tell me! I asked people at NAXA but got wrong numbers.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:22 schreef Wantie het volgende:
[..]
So tell me, how much fuel was needed and how much had they brought with them.
No it's not. What they basically did was aim just ahead of the moon during TLI. They did this in such a way, that if they did nothing during the rest of the flight, the spacecraft would swing past the moon, be slowed down by it's gravitational attraction, and automatically return to earth. This is known as a free return trajectory.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 12:04 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
[..]
The speed after trans-Earth injection was maybe 2 640 m/s. But in what directions? Everything is unclear. The Moon was at this time still orbiting around the Earth at 1 023 m/s speed, so one way or another the CSM had to reduce that tangential speed in Moon orbit to 0. It would appear they got away from behind or aft side the Moon into the radial course towards Earth, while the Moon continued its circular, orbital course around Earth.
Who knows? Evidently the CSM had to reduce the orbital/circular speed orbiting Earth at Moon altitude to 0 and just get a radial speed away from Moon towards location X in space and location B in orbit around Earth.
No it's not. Astronauts could actually use a sextant to navigate in space, using the stars, sun and fixed points on earth for references. They also had an inertial navigation system on board, and could navigate by means of multiple beamed radio waves from earth. That you don't understand how this is done, does not mean it is impossible to do.quote:It is quite complicated to navigate in space, when the islands or moons are moving all the time, and frankly speaking I do not understand how it is done in detail. Only 3D velocity records using Sun (fixed) as base and none are available.
I sail ships, and always know my location with radar, triangulation and sextant. Also, ships sail on a 2D water surface, space craft is in 3D space! How the Apollo space craft knew its location in 3D space is unknown!
Ever fired a weapon at a moving target, either in real life or in a video game? Same thing, aim ahead.quote:The distance travelled during the 150 seconds trans-Earth injection - you have to get out of orbit around the Moon at exactly the right moment and location A and into a radial trajectory towards location X and then Earth overcoming Moon gravity force - was only 292 500 meter (assuming Moon didn't move but during 150 seconds the Moon evidently displaced 153 450 meters).
You probably were at same altitude 115 000 m during the maneuver, but who knows and cares? During this time the Moon and Apollo 11 moved 365 722 meter sideways which you had to consider one way or another. If you had directed your rocket engine in the wrong direction, you would not have been in orbit around the Moon but going astray or crashed. Note that Apollo 11 has no fuel reserves or redundancy. One error and you are finished!
They had a computer to do that for them.quote:The conversation of the asstroholes during the 6 minutes lunar orbit insertion, LOI, burn between 75 hrs 50 minutes and 75 hrs 56 minutes of the flight does not reveal anything dramatic ... except that they can see the Moon while braking backwards with the LM at the end of the spacecraft.
How was it possible? Were the three (crazy?) assholes aboard piloting the spacecraft manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button or pedal in the process looking out through the window like on an airplane? How did they know what was up/down/right/left and the directions of velocity and the force.
Why on earth would you think any substance has to reflect either 100% or 0% in a vacuum? The surface of the moon has variations in albedo, texture etc.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:22 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
[..]
What is wrong with that? If the light from Sun is 100% reflected by anything on the Moon, it is WHITE. And if it is not reflected at all, it is BLACK. It happens in vacuum.
On Earth with atmosphere diffusing the light in all directions, there are all shades between WHITE and BLACK on photos taken, but not on the Moon, where there is vacuum.
Camera settings and film sensitivity doesn't matter at all. Color photo is a little different.
You sound like a shill paid for supporting some cheap US astronuts fooling around 1969+. Why don't you grow up?
Funny, when I look at the moon or take a picture I see something very different:quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:50 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
From my terrasse (with some good wine) here on Earth the visible Moon with the Sun shining on it is white - both at night and day. Only one color - white.
I have never seen a gray Moon.
...
That is because that light has been diffused by Earth's atmosphere.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:52 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
[..]
Funny, when I look at the moon or take a picture I see something very different:
[ afbeelding ]
Multiple shades of grey there. How do you think that is?
[quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 14:08 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
[..]
That is because that light has been diffused by Earth's atmosphere.
And why wouldn't it be possible? The chemical reactions work fine in space, and the cassettes were radiation shielded.quote:Hm,
In order to take pictures on the Moon with a conventional camera, you must bring the camera to the Moon, take pictures with it, and then bring the camera back to Earth, open the camera, take out the film and develop it, etc. I think I explain quite well at my web site, why it is not possible.
I think you just didn't understand the explanation Which is perfectly fine, as long as you remain open to information, and don't just dismiss it as fake because it's beyond your current level of comprehension.quote:Start to read about Rocket science, Fundamentals of spaceflight and Human (!) spaceflight and the courses I recommend at the Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden. Ask the teachers there for assistance. I provide the telephone numbers.
The teachers failed completely to establish a simple trajectory of a spacecraft leaving Earth to land on the Moon and to return again to Earth and land there.
One teacher said he had flown up to the ISS several times, done some EVAs there and then returned and landed on solid Earth ground again but asked for details ... nothing.
I have been told he is an actor just playing his role in the show.
What do you think?
Sure they do. It's called a rocket engine. Once you start hitting the atmosphere, drag does the rest.quote:Arianespace puts satellites in high speed high altitude orbits around Earth ... and that is all they can do. It is a one way trip. You cannot stop in or leave orbit and re-enter and land on Earth again.
The satellite has no brakes.
Sure you do. You can calculate the required phase angles, delta-v needed for the burn, how much fuel that will use etc etc. In a way it is easier in space, because once you're going, you just keep going.quote:It is not possible for a satellite to leave orbit around Earth to fly off to another heavenly body like the Moon or a planet and land there. You don't know how to apply the extra forces required and you do not have the fuel required for it. You will get lost at once.
Again, sure they do. I keep saying this, because there are answers to all these problems you see.quote:It is of course the famous n-body problem with no solution but experts say it is easy anyway.
And if they fly away in the wrong direction, they say it is easy just to stop and change course. But not how to do it. How do you turn 90° in space? Turn a wheel? Fire a rocket? NASA doesn't know how to turn a spacecraft 90° in space!
And again you contradict yourself.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 14:08 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
That is because that light has been diffused by Earth's atmosphere.
Actually, claiming that anyone who disagrees with you has cognitive dissonance is sad.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 10:23 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
[..]
Hm,
There are two types!
1. Satellites orbiting Earth. They are easy to put in orbits! Just apply a force and send them into orbits from ground. They cannot ever land on Earth ground again. Arianespace does it all the time. Via Airbus NV I am a shareholder. We meet 12 April 2017 at Okura Hotel, Amsterdam, Holland, to discuss it.
2. Spacecrafts going to the Moon, Mars or asteroids. They are all fake! Propaganda. Just to impress stupid people. They cannot orbit anything. They have to start from Earth/LEO/EPO, stop and restart at target (Moon, Mars, asteroid) and return and stop back on Earth and it is not possible. You cannot carry the fuel (energy) with you to do it and ... you are lost anyway. You don't know where you are in 3D space during the trip/trajectory.
To travel in space (like Apollo 11) you have to stop at the target (Moon) and then restart there to continue the trip. But you cannot carry the fuel with you for it. You get too heavy. And you must be able to predict the trajectory of your trip ... but you cannot. The n-body problem. And you cannot re-enter and land on Earth again. You are returning too fast and cannot identify the location, where to start the dip into the atmosphere. I have proven it all at my website, i.e. human space travel is a hoax. Only people suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it. It is sad
The spacecraft arrived in high velocity lunar orbit and then escaped (stopped going round in orbit) from high speed lunar orbit and for that you must apply great (rocket) forces on the spacecraft at the right time, location, duration, amplitude and direction and for that you need fuel and a good steering and navigation system.
Which you didn't have.
You seem to be in some sort of denial.
I asked NASA for calculations and Apollo 11 fuel use, but got no reply.
The 1969 Apollo 11 is a good example why human space travel is not possible. Apollo 11 was 100% science fiction or a Hollywood show.
Kloptquote:The spacecraft arrived in high velocity lunar orbit and then escaped (stopped going round in orbit) from high speed lunar orbit and for that you must apply great (rocket) forces on the spacecraft at the right time, location, duration, amplitude and direction and for that you need fuel and a good steering and navigation system.
Onzin... dat hadden ze wel. Kan je allemaal berekenen. Dat jij die wetten niet begrijpt...tja.quote:Which you didn't have.
Re satellites in Earth orbit they can just ... orbit. No brake, no engine, nothing. Just a satellite orbiting. They cannot go anywhere else than round and round.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 14:22 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
[...]
And on your terrace this somehow does not happen?
[..]
And why wouldn't it be possible? The chemical reactions work fine in space, and the cassettes were radiation shielded.
[..]
I think you just didn't understand the explanation Which is perfectly fine, as long as you remain open to information, and don't just dismiss it as fake because it's beyond your current level of comprehension.
[..]
Sure they do. It's called a rocket engine. Once you start hitting the atmosphere, drag does the rest.
[..]
Sure you do. You can calculate the required phase angles, delta-v needed for the burn, how much fuel that will use etc etc. In a way it is easier in space, because once you're going, you just keep going.
[..]
Again, sure they do. I keep saying this, because there are answers to all these problems you see.
If you really want to learn more about all of this, I can recommend a very good space simulator video game, called Kerbal Space Program. It can teach you a lot about orbital mechanics, rocket staging, gravity turns, the rocket equation, navigation in the solar system etc etc.
quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 16:43 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
[..]
Re satellites in Earth orbit they can just ... orbit. No brake, no engine, nothing. Just a satellite orbiting. They cannot go anywhere else than round and round.
Test! Pls answer the following:
Your satellite is in orbit at 300 000 m altitude and with speed 7 000 m/s. It has mass 1 000 kg. You intend to brake to 0 m/s speed and then drop straight down to Earth. Your kinetic energy is of the order 24 500 000 000 J (or Nm). Do you agree?
Thus you have to apply a brake force (N) during a certain time (s).
Say that you apply 24 500 N brake force? It is a lot! Almost 2.5 tonnes force on a 1 tonne satellite.
What is your brake distance from 7 000 to 0 m/s speed?
1 000 000 m? Yes! It is long!
Your average speed while braking is evidently 3 500 m/s, if you brake constantly.
What is then the time for brake from 7 000 to 0 m/s speed? 285.7 s! Yes! Not bad!
Less than 5 minutes.
Now my simple question? How much fuel (kg) is required to apply 24.5 kN force during 5 minutes to stop your satellite?
Isn't it an easy question?
Did you ever believe the Apollo landings?quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 10:23 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
The 1969 Apollo 11 is a good example why human space travel is not possible. Apollo 11 was 100% science fiction or a Hollywood show.
Show me your Grand dad's calculations that prove any Apollo mission impossible.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 16:53 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
Thanks for taking your time Heiwa, but you probably realise already that you are wasting your time with the space fans here.
Did you ever believe the Apollo landings?
I did up until a few years ago, even though my Grandad, who worked building Merlin V12 engines during WWII and on the prototypes of the RB211 engines in the 1960's told me (in so many words) that the moon landings were bullshit. I still believed the TV rather than my Grandad – something that I will always feel stupid about My Grandad thought it was all quite hilarious. But at least I understand the power of indoctrination.
From what I can gather, at the time, there were quite a lot of his colleagues in the aeronautical industry who did not believe the Apollo landing nonsense either.
There was probably a higher proportion of people who didn't believe it at the time than they do now – such is the power of the propaganda.
That is pretty easy to calculate if you know the ISP of the engine, but also completely irrelevant. You also contradict yourself here, first saying a satellite can't go anywhere. The thing is, you don't need to slow down all the way to zero, and sort off fall down. The only thing you need to do is slow down enough that you get low enough for atmospheric drag to become a significant factor. Air resistance (and possibly the ground) will do the rest.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 16:43 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
[..]
Re satellites in Earth orbit they can just ... orbit. No brake, no engine, nothing. Just a satellite orbiting. They cannot go anywhere else than round and round.
Test! Pls answer the following:
Your satellite is in orbit at 300 000 m altitude and with speed 7 000 m/s. It has mass 1 000 kg. You intend to brake to 0 m/s speed and then drop straight down to Earth. Your kinetic energy is of the order 24 500 000 000 J (or Nm). Do you agree?
Thus you have to apply a brake force (N) during a certain time (s).
Say that you apply 24 500 N brake force? It is a lot! Almost 2.5 tonnes force on a 1 tonne satellite.
What is your brake distance from 7 000 to 0 m/s speed?
1 000 000 m? Yes! It is long!
Your average speed while braking is evidently 3 500 m/s, if you brake constantly.
What is then the time for brake from 7 000 to 0 m/s speed? 285.7 s! Yes! Not bad!
Less than 5 minutes.
Now my simple question? How much fuel (kg) is required to apply 24.5 kN force during 5 minutes to stop your satellite?
Isn't it an easy question?
7000m/s relative to what?quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 16:43 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
Your satellite is in orbit at 300 000 m altitude and with speed 7 000 m/s.
Well, that is never the intend.quote:It has mass 1 000 kg. You intend to brake to 0 m/s speed and then drop straight down to Earth.
Ja dat kan ik wel, maar wil ik niet doen (analyses maken zijn dus ook niet jouw ding?). Ik ga niet voor een of andere dombo (die al meteen mijn vraag en/of antwoord niet begreep vanaf het begin) terugbladeren in een saaie nutteloze discussie om mijn bewijs te halen. Mijn gelijk is namelijk terug te lezen. Als je er zoveel waarde aan hecht, ga je zelf maar alles teruglezen.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 11:20 schreef Wantie het volgende:
[..]
Nee, dat kun je niet. Vandaar dat je om de hete brij heen draait.
And now you believe youtube videos.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 16:53 schreef Tingo het volgende:
I still believed the TV rather than my Grandad
Nee, het bewijs is niet terug te vinden in deze discussiequote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 20:42 schreef CynicusRomanticusRob het volgende:
[..]
Ja dat kan ik wel, maar wil ik niet doen (analyses maken zijn dus ook niet jouw ding?). Ik ga niet voor een of andere dombo (die al meteen mijn vraag en/of antwoord niet begreep vanaf het begin) terugbladeren in een saaie nutteloze discussie om mijn bewijs te halen. Mijn gelijk is namelijk terug te lezen. Als je er zoveel waarde aan hecht, ga je zelf maar alles teruglezen.
Deze discussie heeft een deel17quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 20:44 schreef Wantie het volgende:
[..]
Nee, het bewijs is niet terug te vinden in deze discussie
Daarom draai je er omheen.
Mooie praatjes verdoezelen dat niet.
Als je daar gelukkig van wordt, moet je dat vooral lekker blijven gelovenquote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 20:42 schreef CynicusRomanticusRob het volgende:
[..]
Ja dat kan ik wel, maar wil ik niet doen (analyses maken zijn dus ook niet jouw ding?). Ik ga niet voor een of andere dombo (die al meteen mijn vraag en/of antwoord niet begreep vanaf het begin) terugbladeren in een saaie nutteloze discussie om mijn bewijs te halen. Mijn gelijk is namelijk terug te lezen. Als je er zoveel waarde aan hecht, ga je zelf maar alles teruglezen.
Maakt niet uit, FOK is een heel prettig forum waarbij je eenvoudig kunt terug klikken door citaten.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 20:46 schreef CynicusRomanticusRob het volgende:
[..]
Deze discussie heeft een deel17
So what was the answer? A 1 000 kg satellite doing 7 000 m/s speed in LEO/EPO cannot stop in orbit! It is too small and cannot carry the fuel required to produce any brake force to slow down. It can just contine to orbit for ever. Going round and round. You cannot even fly up to it and service it. Why? Beacuse you cannot dock with it.quote:Your satellite is in orbit at 300 000 m altitude and with speed 7 000 m/s around Earth. It has mass 1 000 kg. You intend to brake in orbit to 0 m/s speed and then drop straight down to Earth. Your kinetic energy is of the order 24 500 000 000 J (or Nm). Do you agree? I know it is an unusual maneuver but why not stop in orbit ... and then drop straight down? OK - the braking takes less than 5 minutes so you might start dropping down then. But by applying the brake force a little upwards, you can maintain altitude. OK?
Thus you have to apply a brake force (N) during a certain time (s).
Say that you apply 24 500 N brake force? It is a lot! Almost 2.5 tonnes force on a 1 tonne satellite.
What is your brake distance from 7 000 to 0 m/s speed?
1 000 000 m? Yes! It is long!
Your average speed while braking is evidently 3 500 m/s, if you brake constantly.
What is then the time for brake from 7 000 to 0 m/s speed? 285.7 s! Yes! Not bad!
Less than 5 minutes.
Now my simple question? How much fuel (kg) is required to apply 24.5 kN force during 5 minutes to stop your satellite? You use the best rocket engine available.
It seems that you ignore the fact that there is no point in going from 7000m/s to 0m/s.quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 01:38 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
It seems nobody could answer my test:
[..]
So what was the answer? A 1 000 kg satellite doing 7 000 m/s speed in LEO/EPO cannot stop in orbit! It is too small and cannot carry the fuel required to produce any brake force to slow down. It can just contine to orbit for ever. Going round and round. You cannot even fly up to it and service it. Why? Beacuse you cannot dock with it.
Yes you can and it has been done several times in the past.quote:You cannot even fly up to it and service it.
You don't have to dock with it in order to repair it.quote:Why? Beacuse you cannot dock with it.
Why would anyone intend to do that.quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 01:38 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
You intend to brake in orbit to 0 m/s speed and then drop straight down to Earth.
In order to answer that, we need the ISP of the engine. But as I stated before, it's an completely nonrealistic scenario.quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 01:38 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
It seems nobody could answer my test:
[..]
So what was the answer? A 1 000 kg satellite doing 7 000 m/s speed in LEO/EPO cannot stop in orbit! It is too small and cannot carry the fuel required to produce any brake force to slow down. It can just contine to orbit for ever. Going round and round. You cannot even fly up to it and service it. Why? Beacuse you cannot dock with it.
Yes - the 1969 Apollo press conference is a good one. It's quite sad.quote:Op zondag 12 maart 2017 20:43 schreef Wantie het volgende:
[..]
And now you believe youtube videos.
So not much has changed
Maybe you should watch more of the educational ones. There are some pretty good ones available.quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 13:39 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
Yes - the 1969 Apollo press conference is a good one. It's quite sad.
I haven't really watched that many youtube films about it.And i certainly don't beleive everything -
David McGowans Wagging the Moon Doggie series is a good read.
A lot of people have doubted the moon landings since the day it happened...a long tme before youtube.
You beleive everything on TV. Whether that is a more reliable source of information or not is a matter of opinion I suppose.
Je krijgt haast te doen met die gasten. Ik heb de beelden nog eens bekeken, lijkt wel alsof ze van een begrafenis terugkomen en gebukt gaan onder een zware last (leugens vertellen?).quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 13:39 schreef Tingo het volgende:
[..]
Yes - the 1969 Apollo press conference is a good one. It's quite sad.
I haven't really watched that many youtube films about it.And i certainly don't beleive everything .
David McGowans Wagging the Moon Doggie series is a good read.
A lot of people have doubted the moon landings since the day it happened...a long tme before youtube.
You beleive everything on TV. Whether that is a more reliable source of information or not is a matter of opinion I suppose.
Nee, pure confirmation bias.quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 14:34 schreef controlaltdelete het volgende:
[..]
Je krijgt haast te doen met die gasten. Ik heb de beelden nog eens bekeken, lijkt wel alsof ze van een begrafenis terugkomen en gebukt gaan onder een zware last (leugens vertellen?).
Als je naar de comments kijkt zie je dat veel mensen hetzelfde denken. Maar goed, vast bang voor de camera en geen mediatraining
Weegt dat ene stukje hobby psychologie op tegen het bewijs dat mensen daar wel geweest zijn?quote:Op maandag 13 maart 2017 14:34 schreef controlaltdelete het volgende:
[..]
Je krijgt haast te doen met die gasten. Ik heb de beelden nog eens bekeken, lijkt wel alsof ze van een begrafenis terugkomen en gebukt gaan onder een zware last (leugens vertellen?).
Als je naar de comments kijkt zie je dat veel mensen hetzelfde denken. Maar goed, vast bang voor de camera en geen mediatraining
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |