The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: EngineerMan on February 23, 2020, 11:51:41 PM
-
So I have worked for NASA and other organizations. Can you explain to me how I have been fooled by them? I have participated in dozens of tests and witnessed numerous launches. I have calculated trajectories and return paths. All must include terrain, atmosphere, curvature, and rotation of the earth (among other significant factors) in order to obtain accurate results. If I make a mistake human life is at risk. If I omit those basic considerations from my calculations nothing works out. I grew up with relatives and friend’s relatives who all worked on the Apollo program, space shuttle, and space station. I followed suit as an engineer working on shuttle, space station, and other projects.
How have I been fooled? Did my family and friends lie to me? Have I been living a fantasy? How does that play into your flat earth model?
-
So I have worked for NASA and other organizations. Can you explain to me how I have been fooled by them? I have participated in dozens of tests and witnessed numerous launches. I have calculated trajectories and return paths. All must include terrain, atmosphere, curvature, and rotation of the earth (among other significant factors) in order to obtain accurate results. If I make a mistake human life is at risk. If I omit those basic considerations from my calculations nothing works out. I grew up with relatives and friend’s relatives who all worked on the Apollo program, space shuttle, and space station. I followed suit as an engineer working on shuttle, space station, and other projects.
How have I been fooled? Did my family and friends lie to me? Have I been living a fantasy? How does that play into your flat earth model?
I have seen some launches myself.
Quite the spectacle.
Can you provide some specific background as to what type of functions are used regarding rocket launches?
-
Can you provide some specific background as to what type of functions are used regarding rocket launches?
"Function" could have multiple meanings in this context; mathematical functions? function of mechanical components?
What do you mean by it?
-
I have seen some launches myself.
Quite the spectacle.
Can you provide some specific background as to what type of functions are used regarding rocket launches?
I don’t know what you mean. There are a lot of “functions”. Are you speaking calculations? Guidance? Simulations? Can’t even begin to scratch the surface in a forum. Kinematics alone would fill a textbook.
-
So I have worked for NASA and other organizations. Can you explain to me how I have been fooled by them? I have participated in dozens of tests and witnessed numerous launches. I have calculated trajectories and return paths. All must include terrain, atmosphere, curvature, and rotation of the earth (among other significant factors) in order to obtain accurate results. If I make a mistake human life is at risk. If I omit those basic considerations from my calculations nothing works out. I grew up with relatives and friend’s relatives who all worked on the Apollo program, space shuttle, and space station. I followed suit as an engineer working on shuttle, space station, and other projects.
How have I been fooled? Did my family and friends lie to me? Have I been living a fantasy? How does that play into your flat earth model?
I'm sure you will be aware , since you worked there , that nasa uses flat earth geocentric coordinate system in it's rocket launches and space endeavors. Apparently it sometimes uses the heliocentric model occasionally for trajectories to the outer planets .
-
I have seen some launches myself.
Quite the spectacle.
Can you provide some specific background as to what type of functions are used regarding rocket launches?
I don’t know what you mean. There are a lot of “functions”. Are you speaking calculations? Guidance? Simulations? Can’t even begin to scratch the surface in a forum. Kinematics alone would fill a textbook.
If you would be kind enough to start with just presenting one of them you found necessary to fulfill the requirements of your job duties.
Let's start with one on math.
Thanks.
-
I'm sure you will be aware , since you worked there , that nasa uses flat earth geocentric coordinate system in it's rocket launches and space endeavors. Apparently it sometimes uses the heliocentric model occasionally for trajectories to the outer planets .
Ummm. Geocentric coordinate system assumes earth is a spheroid and measures all 3 axes from the center of the earth. Heliocentric assumes sun is a spheroid.
This is all very fundamental...
-
If you would be kind enough to start with just presenting one of them you found necessary to fulfill the requirements of your job duties.
Let's start with one on math.
Thanks.
Why don’t you pick one and tell me why it is fallacious? Pick gravity, angular velocity of the earth, coordinate systems, atmospheric models, terrain models, etc. Any of them. Maybe you can explain how to propagate a trajectory though a flat earth model vs a geoid based model including all of the above considerations. That will make it simple since you are only calculating surface to surface trajectories within the atmosphere.
-
If you would be kind enough to start with just presenting one of them you found necessary to fulfill the requirements of your job duties.
Let's start with one on math.
Thanks.
Why don’t you pick one and tell me why it is fallacious? Pick gravity, angular velocity of the earth, coordinate systems, atmospheric models, terrain models, etc. Any of them. Maybe you can explain how to propagate a trajectory though a flat earth model vs a geoid based model including all of the above considerations. That will make it simple since you are only calculating surface to surface trajectories within the atmosphere.
Wow.
I asked if you would be kind enough to write about some functions related to your job.
You opened the discussion and I posed an honest, straightforward query, following it up with more specificity, re:math functions.
Why don't you pick one and let's write about it.
It's your thread.
-
Sorry, this is still way too vague a request.
"Maths functions" with respect to what part of the overall project?
Calculating strength of the rocket body? Calculating trajectory? Something else?
-
Wow.
I asked if you would be kind enough to write about some functions related to your job.
You opened the discussion and I posed an honest, straightforward query, following it up with more specificity, re:math functions.
Why don't you pick one and let's write about it.
It's your thread.
I think you misconstrued my response. Most of the models used are standards, the algorithms and math are publicly available, and therefore there is no sense in me doing a tutorial on them.
If you want me to pick one how about we talk about altitude as it relates to elevation? I have used the DTED (available from USGS https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov) and routinely convert between geoid-based, ellipsoid-based (HAE), and mean sea level (MSL) based. Us round-earthers don't believe the earth is round but elliptical. The WGS84 provides a standard for the elliptical representation of the earth and elevation is based on that. We can use terrain modeling for all kinds of purposes including avoidance by aircraft and tactical ballistic missiles.
Given the publicly available information for these altitude and terrain modeling/standards perhaps you can explain why these spheroidal based models are accurate if the earth is flat.
-
Wow.
I asked if you would be kind enough to write about some functions related to your job.
You opened the discussion and I posed an honest, straightforward query, following it up with more specificity, re:math functions.
Why don't you pick one and let's write about it.
It's your thread.
I think you misconstrued my response. Most of the models used are standards, the algorithms and math are publicly available, and therefore there is no sense in me doing a tutorial on them.
If you want me to pick one how about we talk about altitude as it relates to elevation? I have used the DTED (available from USGS https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov) and routinely convert between geoid-based, ellipsoid-based (HAE), and mean sea level (MSL) based. Us round-earthers don't believe the earth is round but elliptical. The WGS84 provides a standard for the elliptical representation of the earth and elevation is based on that. We can use terrain modeling for all kinds of purposes including avoidance by aircraft and tactical ballistic missiles.
Given the publicly available information for these altitude and terrain modeling/standards perhaps you can explain why these spheroidal based models are accurate if the earth is flat.
Again, it is your thread.
You are an engineer who worked for "NASA and other agencies."
You, "calculated trajectories and return paths. All must include terrain, atmosphere, curvature, and rotation of the earth (among other significant factors) in order to obtain accurate results."
Let's start there.
What launches did you work on, in turn performing these specific functions?
-
I'm sure you will be aware , since you worked there , that nasa uses flat earth geocentric coordinate system in it's rocket launches and space endeavors. Apparently it sometimes uses the heliocentric model occasionally for trajectories to the outer planets .
Ummm. Geocentric coordinate system assumes earth is a spheroid and measures all 3 axes from the center of the earth. Heliocentric assumes sun is a spheroid.
This is all very fundamental...
Ummm no . Heliocentric model is fundamental to heliocentric model . Geocentric model is fundamental to the geeocentric model.
The fact that the geocentric model is used in space travel suggests the heliocentric model is unusable . This is logic .
-
The fact that the geocentric model is used in space travel suggests the heliocentric model is unusable . This is logic .
By "geocentric", I would imagine that if you're putting a satellite into orbit the only thing you need to consider is the earth and the gravity of it.
It's not "geocentric" in the sense that it assumes the earth is at the centre of anything, but other bodies probably don't need to be considered simply because their gravitational effects are too small to make a difference. Just like relativistic effects generally don't need to considered in many situations. That doesn't invalidate relativity, it just means for certain things the effects are too small to make a difference so for simplicity it can be disregarded.
-
Ummm. Geocentric coordinate system assumes earth is a spheroid and measures all 3 axes from the center of the earth. Heliocentric assumes sun is a spheroid.
This is all very fundamental...
Ummm no . Heliocentric model is fundamental to heliocentric model . Geocentric model is fundamental to the geeocentric model.
The fact that the geocentric model is used in space travel suggests the heliocentric model is unusable . This is logic .
Ummm yes. Geocentric "model" and geocentric "coordinate system" refer to two different things. Geocentric "model" proposes the earth is the center of the solar system. Geocentric "coordinate system" is just that: x,y,z axes measured from the center of the earth.
Similarly with the heliocentric "model" and heliocentric "coordinate system".
-
What launches did you work on, in turn performing these specific functions?
I worked quite a few of the SpaceLab missions. I worked with the ESA, Germans, and Japanese: STS-35, STS-40, STS-42, STS-45, STS-50, STS-47, STS-52, STS-56, STS-55, and STS-58
After STS-58 I went on to work data acquisition and distribution for ISS. After my stint working with the ISS I transitioned to private industry and worked telecomm and datacomm receiving 3 patents for my work there. After that I returned to grad school for my PhD while working in the defense industry.
-
What launches did you work on, in turn performing these specific functions?
I worked quite a few of the SpaceLab missions. I worked with the ESA, Germans, and Japanese: STS-35, STS-40, STS-42, STS-45, STS-50, STS-47, STS-52, STS-56, STS-55, and STS-58
After STS-58 I went on to work data acquisition and distribution for ISS. After my stint working with the ISS I transitioned to private industry and worked telecomm and datacomm receiving 3 patents for my work there. After that I returned to grad school for my PhD while working in the defense industry.
Sounds interesting.
Could please share what specific math calculations you used in regard to STS-35 launch angle?
-
Sounds interesting.
Could please share what specific math calculations you used in regard to STS-35 launch angle?
I didn't calculate any STS launch angles. My experience with trajectory calculations and flight path analysis were outside of my NASA experience.
My work with NASA involved SpaceLab and ISS. For STS-35 I worked on the instrument pointing system (IPS). The IPS was a three axis platform for aiming instruments (such as telescopes) at astronomical targets. I worked on the software that tested the ability of the IPS to aim the telescopes toward the target while using guide stars to maintain the IPS in a stable position.
I'm more interested in how the flat earth community proposes that after a multi-decade career that included NASA and defense work that I have been fooled into thinking the earth is round if it is actually flat. That is what intrigues me and that is what I asked in my original post. No one has addressed how such a huge conspiracy could be pulled off and maintained.
-
Can anyone tell me how such a large conspiracy could succeed? How multiple countries could participate in this conspiracy? Even when some of those countries aren’t allies? What about exo-atmospheric weapons? Do those concern you?
-
Sounds interesting.
Could please share what specific math calculations you used in regard to STS-35 launch angle?
I didn't calculate any STS launch angles. My experience with trajectory calculations and flight path analysis were outside of my NASA experience.
But you do have experience with trajectory calculations and flight path analysis.
That's great!
Can you provide us with an example of what work you did perform with trajectory calculations and flight path analysis?
-
But you do have experience with trajectory calculations and flight path analysis.
Yes
Can you provide us with an example of what work you did perform with trajectory calculations and flight path analysis?
No.
I would like my conspiracy questions answered though. Perhaps you won't answer them because it is not reasonable to assume such a conspiracy could be maintained by 10s or 100s of thousands of scientists/engineers and a multitude of governments.
-
But you do have experience with trajectory calculations and flight path analysis.
Yes
Can you provide us with an example of what work you did perform with trajectory calculations and flight path analysis?
No.
I would like my conspiracy questions answered though. Perhaps you won't answer them because it is not reasonable to assume such a conspiracy could be maintained by 10s or 100s of thousands of scientists/engineers and a multitude of governments.
Well I find your lack of willingness to provide some more detailed background information troubling, perhaps even indicative of no real experience in the area.
Which, in and of itself, provides some insight as to how you could be fooled, not only by NASA and other agencies, but just about anyone else who comes along, in answering your OP question.
-
He could well be under NDA for all we know (or he could be lying but don't rule anything out)
-
He could well be under NDA for all we know (or he could be lying but don't rule anything out)
What could he possibly disclose?
I asked him for some background information regarding his work in trajectory calculations and flight path analysis.
He may have no clue as to how to even calculate a model rocket trajectory, for all we know.
-
How have I been fooled? Did my family and friends lie to me? Have I been living a fantasy? How does that play into your flat earth model?
No, I wouldn't say that your family and friends are lying to you. On the contrary, they most likely have been deceived as have you. So when you inputted all those calculations and got the angle correct and so on, you were calculating for a Globe. As such your calculations would have been correct. However, since the earth is a flat plane, what I suspect has happened is that your calculations and such have been adjusted behind your back, by the people at the top, and then false information has been fed into your system. Therefore what you think is happening is quite the the opposite, and if you watch shuttles Dock at the iss, then that's just cgi. I'm sure you'll agree nasas budget allows for very, very, very realistic cgi to be created.
-
if you watch shuttles Dock at the iss, then that's just cgi. I'm sure you'll agree nasas budget allows for very, very, very realistic cgi to be created.
Shuttles (NASA STS missions) have not docked at the ISS for 9 years or so. But when they did, astrophotographers on the ground were there to use their high-powered telescopes to photograph the event(s).
How would NASA manage to install CGI on every photographer's telescope?
-
if you watch shuttles Dock at the iss, then that's just cgi. I'm sure you'll agree nasas budget allows for very, very, very realistic cgi to be created.
Shuttles (NASA STS missions) have not docked at the ISS for 9 years or so. But when they did, astrophotographers on the ground were there to use their high-powered telescopes to photograph the event(s).
How would NASA manage to install CGI on every photographer's telescope?
I've seen some of those images and to be honest I was never quite sure where they came from but, sure enough
https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-02/amazing-pic-discovery-docking-iss-taken-earth/
This is an image of the Space Shuttle Discovery taken from the ground, no easy feat in itself. But it wasn't taken by an observatory or a massive scientific instrument. Rob Bullen snapped this image from the UK using an 8.5" telescope.
-
if you watch shuttles Dock at the iss, then that's just cgi. I'm sure you'll agree nasas budget allows for very, very, very realistic cgi to be created.
Shuttles (NASA STS missions) have not docked at the ISS for 9 years or so. But when they did, astrophotographers on the ground were there to use their high-powered telescopes to photograph the event(s).
How would NASA manage to install CGI on every photographer's telescope?
Would you be able to share some of these alleged photographs?
And all around the world, that alleged photo doesn't really count. It's a black and white, pixellated mess. Also there's a massive contradiction in that article saying the iss isn't hard to see yet then mentions the fact it's travelling at 17,000 mph. It it's going that speed, then if you did look at it with a crude telescope (as that article implies), it would very, very quickly move out of your shot.
-
Would you be able to share some of these alleged photographs?
Sure, once you come up with a plausible explanation for how NASA could know in advance which photographer was going to take a photo, and install CGI in his telescope or camera ...
It matters not that the one AATW cited is/was "a pixellated mess". Pixellation is no proof of fakery.
-
Would you be able to share some of these alleged photographs?
Sure, once you come up with a plausible explanation for how NASA could know in advance which photographer was going to take a photo, and install CGI in his telescope or camera ...
It matters not that the one AATW cited is/was "a pixellated mess". Pixellation is no proof of fakery.
So you don't have them. And when have I said nasa have installed cgi in someone's telescope?
-
And all around the world, that alleged photo doesn't really count. It's a black and white, pixellated mess.
I doubt it's a black and white photo but the objects it's photographing are not brightly coloured.
And sure, it's not that crisp but it's looking at objects 250 miles away through the atmosphere, what do you expect?
Also there's a massive contradiction in that article saying the iss isn't hard to see yet then mentions the fact it's travelling at 17,000 mph. It it's going that speed, then if you did look at it with a crude telescope (as that article implies), it would very, very quickly move out of your shot.
It's moving very fast but it's a long way away. I did a few rough calculations and if you imagine a meter line 5 meters above your head then the ISS would appear to go along it in about 10 seconds. Pretty quick, and that does present challenges for people trying to take photos of it, but I wouldn't say it's impossible for a skilled operator.
What do you think that photo is? Is the person who took it lying? Or wrong about what he's taken a photo of? Is it just fake?
-
So you don't have them. And when have I said nasa have installed cgi in someone's telescope?
Yes, I do.
(https://www.universetoday.com/83609/incredible-video-of-shuttle-approaching-iss-taken-from-earth/
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground
and here's some of the ISS on its own
http://www.mikesalway.com.au/the-iss-through-my-12-scope/
That's just from a minute or so of looking for them... not difficult to find)
You claimed that "if you watch shuttles Dock at the iss, then that's just cgi." and "NASA's budget allows for very, very, very realistic cgi to be created" - how could it be CGI, when the watchers are independents who are unknown to NASA? How would the CGI get into the process, where NASA are not involved?
-
The second is a crude photograph that has already been posted. More likely is that people uploading these are nasa informers. It's not nasa installing cgi on people's telescopes, it's fake news.
-
The second is a crude photograph that has already been posted. More likely is that people uploading these are nasa informers. It's not nasa installing cgi on people's telescopes, it's fake news.
And this is the trouble with arguing with people on the internet who are entrenched in their position.
You asked for evidence, it has been presented so you just hand wave it away and declare it fake without a scrap of evidence.
-
The second is a crude photograph that has already been posted. More likely is that people uploading these are nasa informers. It's not nasa installing cgi on people's telescopes, it's fake news.
And this is the trouble with arguing with people on the internet who are entrenched in their position.
You asked for evidence, it has been presented so you just hand wave it away and declare it fake without a scrap of evidence.
No. I asked for proof, and what was presented was crude images.
I also pointed out, to you as it happens, that the article you cited says the iss is moving at 17,000 mph. So assuming that is true, and you did somehow see it through a telescope, it would be moving so fast it would be out of view almost instantly. Which means you would have to keep moving your telescope.
And while we are at it, boffins keep saying we have about 100,000 pieces of space junk in orbit. So if the iss is travelling at 17,000 mph, how in the hell has it not so much as clipped one of these things?
-
for proof, and what was presented was crude images.
No you didn't. You said
Would you be able to share some of these alleged photographs?
They have been shared. Sorry they're not super high quality, the ISS is a long way away. It would be odd if they were very good quality
I also pointed out, to you as it happens, that the article you cited says the iss is moving at 17,000 mph. So assuming that is true, and you did somehow see it through a telescope, it would be moving so fast it would be out of view almost instantly. Which means you would have to keep moving your telescope.
Yes, people have to keep moving their telescope. As they do to track any celestial object. Have you never seen coverage of a sport like golf? Camera operators have to track a fast moving golf ball and they do. This is an odd thing to be incredulous about.
And while we are at it, boffins keep saying we have about 100,000 pieces of space junk in orbit. So if the iss is travelling at 17,000 mph, how in the hell has it not so much as clipped one of these things?
It has
http://thescienceexplorer.com/technology/space-debris-hit-international-space-station-causing-small-crack-window
-
No. I asked for proof, and what was presented was crude images.
Actually, you didn't. You just asked to see the photos. Crudity is not, of itself, a disproof of content.
" ... the article you cited says the iss is moving at 17,000 mph. So assuming that is true, and you did somehow see it through a telescope, it would be moving so fast it would be out of view almost instantly. Which means you would have to keep moving your telescope."
Astrophotographers have telescopes which can be moved. I fail to see the insurmountable problem here, given that I've seen the ISS cross my sky twice in one evening, and it takes around 5 - 7 minutes to completely pass over me. Hardly a challenge.
And while we are at it, boffins keep saying we have about 100,000 pieces of space junk in orbit. So if the iss is travelling at 17,000 mph, how in the hell has it not so much as clipped one of these things?
The ISS orbital height remains constant, essentially, so it is never anywhere near anything which occupies a constant higher or lower orbit. For instance, let's say a piece of debris is in orbit at 300 miles up. The ISS is at 254 miles. So there will always be 46 miles or more separating them, assuming each maintains a spherical orbit.
As for anything else in non-regular orbits; space is aptly named. There's a lot of room between orbital objects. Calculate the volume available to all the satellites and junk, and calculate average space available to each. It's huge.
-
The ISS orbital height remains constant, essentially, so it is never anywhere near anything which occupies a constant higher or lower orbit. For instance, let's say a piece of debris is in orbit at 300 miles up. The ISS is at 254 miles. So there will always be 46 miles or more separating them, assuming each maintains a spherical orbit.
As for anything else in non-regular orbits; space is aptly named. There's a lot of room between orbital objects. Calculate the volume available to all the satellites and junk, and calculate average space available to each. It's huge.
Before Parallax jumps in I want to point out that Tumeni's response is not a contradiction to mine.
The fact is the ISS has been hit by space debris, but Tumeni's response is a good explanation for why it doesn't happen regularly.
And Parallax - consider the contradiction in your arguments. You are simultaneously arguing it is difficult to get photos of the ISS because you'd have to keep moving the telescope (which is true) but then you are complaining that the resulting photos are not high quality. Why would you expect them to be if, as you say, they are hard to take well because of the speed of the ISS?
-
So basically what I'm hearing is one person saying the iss gets hit, and another saying it basically doesn't because there's so much space between everything.
The photo Tim Peake snapped has to be fake. Something moving at 17,000mph (according to a link posted here), in a vacuum, would pretty much be destroyed if something hit it. But no. What we apparently have is the equivalent of a pebble hitting a windscreen, and leaving a little crack. But a space version. Of something moving faster than any vehicle on earth. I'm fairly sure that picture is NOT conclusive proof from an actornaut, who snaps a picture of a cracked window against a blue screen, hence why we see cgi.
-
So basically what I'm hearing is one person saying the iss gets hit, and another saying it basically doesn't because there's so much space between everything.
I literally addressed that above because I knew you would in desperation leap on that apparent contradiction.
You asked why it has never been hit. It has. But Tumeni has correctly explained why it isn't constantly being hit - yes there are a lot of space debris items but they are spread out over a very large area.
The photo Tim Peake snapped has to be fake. Something moving at 17,000mph (according to a link posted here), in a vacuum, would pretty much be destroyed if something hit it.
It depends what the something is, if you read the article I posted you'd see they think the thing that hit the ISS was a tiny fleck of paint.
The rest of your post is you just claiming it's all fake again without any evidence provided.
-
I didn't leap on it in desperation at all. As a round earther, who has been here a long time, it seems you are desperately trying to convince yourself rather than other people.
And so you expect me to believe that a random blob of paint just happened to be in space and hit the window causing a crack? LOL the fact is, with all the debris it up there, and random rocks (meteor, pebble, orange sized, take your pick) up there, not ONE of those has hit the iss? And yes, if something is flying at 17,000 mph and hits a rock, in a vacuum, it's going to blow the iss to pieces. No ifs or buts, that rock is going to rip one hell of a hole in it. But no, it seems the single biggest danger the iss has to face while travelling 17,000 mph is not defunct /active satellites, rocks or general space junk. Nope, it's specs of paint. Fake news. Try harder.
-
So basically what I'm hearing is one person saying the iss gets hit, and another saying it basically doesn't because there's so much space between everything.
No. One is saying it has, on one occasion. The other is saying this is a remote possibility. But still a possibility. Your original was along the lines of "why isn't it getting hit lots of times?" and we've told you why. One hit is not "lots"...
The photo Tim Peake snapped has to be fake. Something moving at 17,000mph (according to a link posted here), in a vacuum, would pretty much be destroyed if something hit it. But no. What we apparently have is the equivalent of a pebble hitting a windscreen, and leaving a little crack. But a space version. Of something moving faster than any vehicle on earth. I'm fairly sure that picture is NOT conclusive proof from an actornaut, who snaps a picture of a cracked window against a blue screen, hence why we see cgi.
We don't know the speed or direction of the object that hit it. It might have been moving across the ISS's path, along with it, at a slower speed, etc. You don't know that the speed differential between the two was 17k mph.
Which picture is this?
-
I was saying 17,000 mph because that was the speed the article that was uploaded says the iss was moving. I find it hard to believe that something moving at that speed hasn't hit a little rock, considering space is full of the stuff.
-
if something is flying at 17,000 mph and hits a rock, in a vacuum, it's going to blow the iss to pieces.
Why? Because you say so?
Puncture a small hole in a battleship and it leaks. Does it break into pieces? No.
Do the maths on the average spacing between your "100,000" pieces of space junk
Find lowest stated orbit, highest, and calculate volumes of two concentric spheres based on these. Subtract smaller from larger to give volume of space available to satellites. Divide that by chosen number of satellites or other objects to derive average space available for each.
-
Battleships aren't moving at 17,000 mph though. Common sense would say if something is moving as fast as that, with windows, and it hits a rock flying towards it, it's going to smash a massive hole in that window, right?
-
Battleships aren't moving at 17,000 mph though. Common sense would say if something is moving as fast as that, with windows, and it hits a rock flying towards it, it's going to smash a massive hole in that window, right?
You haven't established the speed differential between the two was the 17k full speed of the ISS, nor the direction of the rogue object. It may well have been travelling at 15k in the same direction, yielding only a 2k speed differential. May have been less than this.
Have we established it was a rock?
-
I was saying 17,000 mph because that was the speed the article that was uploaded says the iss was moving. I find it hard to believe that something moving at that speed hasn't hit a little rock, considering space is full of the stuff.
.. but you have no data on speed or direction of the rogue object. If it was 16k in the same direction as the ISS, that's a speed differential of 1k.
How full is "full"? Like I said, do the maths on volume and number of objects.
Also, the cupola window was the one hit, chipping the outer pane of glass. The cupola is not single-glazed; not double-glazed; not triple-glazed - it is quadruple-glazed, with four layers to get through before the object penetrates to the interior.
-
Battleships aren't moving at 17,000 mph though. Common sense would say if something is moving as fast as that, with windows, and it hits a rock flying towards it, it's going to smash a massive hole in that window, right?
You haven't established the speed differential between the two was the 17k full speed of the ISS, nor the direction of the rogue object. It may well have been travelling at 15k in the same direction, yielding only a 2k speed differential. May have been less than this.
Have we established it was a rock?
No, it was a spec of paint apparently. I was talking about how it's hard to believe that something that size, orbiting a planet with over 100,000 pieces of space junk, along with plenty of rocks that are in space, not one of those things has hit it?
And even if a the difference was only 2k, I think a rock at that speed is going to, at the very least, shatter a window.
-
Battleships aren't moving at 17,000 mph though. Common sense would say if something is moving as fast as that, with windows, and it hits a rock flying towards it, it's going to smash a massive hole in that window, right?
You haven't established the speed differential between the two was the 17k full speed of the ISS, nor the direction of the rogue object. It may well have been travelling at 15k in the same direction, yielding only a 2k speed differential. May have been less than this.
Have we established it was a rock?
No, it was a spec of paint apparently. I was talking about how it's hard to believe that something that size, orbiting a planet with over 100,000 pieces of space junk, along with plenty of rocks that are in space, not one of those things has hit it?
And even if a the difference was only 2k, I think a rock at that speed is going to, at the very least, shatter a window.
What about a bullet?
Do a little poking around and check out the different grades/ratings of bullet resistant glass, especially military grade, that are available. You might find the results of your research interesting as it relates to your premise.
-
How did this thread go from NASA fooling someone to the ISS breaking? It's a valid question and all, but man, we get side-tracked a lot, don't we?
-
How did this thread go from NASA fooling someone to the ISS breaking? It's a valid question and all, but man, we get side-tracked a lot, don't we?
It's all part and parcel. The question is if a NASA/Space conspiracy exists, how is the lie maintained. First you may want to establish that there is a conspiracy. And if there is, what is the evidence for it. So far, there's fakery and implausibility.
- Fakery, ex., amateur photos of man made objects in space are actually taken by people who are part of the conspiracy
- Implausibility, ex., organic space objects would blow through a man made structure.
Those are debatable notions. And lead right back to how might the fakery and implausibility be maintained and are they justifiable, evidence bound claims that support the conspiracy idea.
-
No, it was a spec of paint apparently. I was talking about how it's hard to believe that something that size, orbiting a planet with over 100,000 pieces of space junk, along with plenty of rocks that are in space, not one of those things has hit it?
Why are you stating in one sentence what DID hit it, then in the next wondering why "not one" thing has hit it?
-
No, it was a spec of paint apparently. I was talking about how it's hard to believe that something that size, orbiting a planet with over 100,000 pieces of space junk, along with plenty of rocks that are in space, not one of those things has hit it?
Why are you stating in one sentence what DID hit it, then in the next wondering why "not one" thing has hit it?
I'm not saying it did hit it. I'm saying it allegedly hit it. I have already said the iss isn't up there. What I find impossible to believe is that a random spec of paint just happened to be floating in space, yet it somehow eludes space debris.
-
What I find impossible to believe is that a random spec of paint just happened to be floating in space, yet it somehow eludes space debris.
The speck of paint could be from another satellite which has (say) been hit by a micrometeorite.
=========================
Fitting satellites into the available space, assuming they and the ISS are actually "up there" ...
Low earth orbit starts at 160km or so, so let's take that as the lowest possible orbit for a satellite.
THe geostationary orbits are at around 36000km, so let's take that as the highest.
To find the available volume of space for satellites, we need to work out the volume of a sphere enclosed by each of these orbital heights, and subtract the smaller from the larger.
Radius of Earth = 3671km
Radius of lower orbit = 3671+161 = 3832km
Radius of higher orbit = 3671+36000 = 39671km
Calculate volumes of spheres = 4/3 * pi * Radius cubed
Using an online calculator
Volume of lower orbit sphere = 2.36 x 10 to 11th power, or 236,000,000,000 cubic km
Volume of higher orbit sphere = 2.62 x 10 to 14th power, or 262,000,000,000,000 cubic km
The available space for satellites is the difference between these numbers, or 261,764,000,000,000 cubic km
If we take the number of operational satellites (2300 or so), and put them in this space, each would have,
on average, 113,810,434,783 cubic km all to itself.
There are more than 8700 objects larger than 10 cm in Earth orbits, so if we take that figure, each
would have 30,087,816,092 cubic km all to itself.
Assume 100,000 objects, and each has 2,617,640,000 cubic km all to itself, on average.
Convert that volume back into a sphere around each object, and each has a sphere of space, on average, of 1,710km diameter around it, so on average, each other object is that distance away from it (each one being, on average, 2 radii away).
Space is big. Really big.
-
And so you expect me to believe that a random blob of paint just happened to be in space and hit the window causing a crack? LOL
So what is your argument here?
You just seem to be making an argument from personal incredulity, which isn’t an argument at all.
Some of the objects in space have paint on so yes, there are flecks of paint in space.
You started this by expressing personal incredulity that with all the space debris up there the ISS doesn’t regularly get hit.
Now when I’ve provided evidence that it was hit by something you are expressing personal incredulity about that ???
Earth’s circumference is about 40000km.
Let’s imagine there are 100,000 objects around it. If they were evenly spaced they would be 400m apart. From one you’d struggle to see the next if they were small. Tumeni has done more detailed maths explaining how far objects in space are spaced apart. It’s like the asteroid belt. In sci-fi movies things like that are always shown with ships bobbing and weaving in between a load of rocks. In reality the objects are something like 500,000km apart on average, you’d have to be very unlucky to hit one.
In brief, you wouldn’t expect there to be regular collisions.
But they can and do occur.
And yes, if something is flying at 17,000 mph and hits a rock, in a vacuum, it's going to blow the iss to pieces. No ifs or buts, that rock is going to rip one hell of a hole in it.
Again, it depends on the mass of the object that hits it. And you say, 17,000mph because that is the speed of the ISS. What matters is the relative speed. Two cars that are both going at 100mph and hit each other head on are going to total each other, the relative speed is 200mph. If one car is going at 90 and another comes from behind at 100 then the relative speed is only 10mph and much less damage will be done. I can’t sensibly talk about the speed of the paint fleck relative to the ISS as I don’t know. But as Tumeni noted, the ISS has quadruple glazed windows and I imagine they use some toughened glass to mitigate the potential dangers.
But no, it seems the single biggest danger the iss has to face while travelling 17,000 mph is not defunct /active satellites, rocks or general space junk. Nope, it's specs of paint. Fake news. Try harder.
Now you are just straw manning.
I note in another post you say you don’t believe the ISS is up there. I wonder what you think the photos posted earlier in the thread are of? If you don’t believe those, Jeranism of all people managed to film the ISS transiting the moon. And you can check this out for yourself. There’s a website which tells you where and when you can see it, you might need binoculars but you don’t need any special equipment. The ISS being up there is not a matter of belief, it can be observed by anyone with a bit of effort.
-
Rockets are so much fun to build when you're stoned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYeVnGL7fgw
-
Rockets are so much fun to build when you're stoned
Irrelevant. It's a test. If the test shows up some design flaw, it gets redesigned. So what?