Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Thoughts on my follow up posts though??
how about the mount on that 16" dob? which one are you using again? you havent responded on that.
Or would you like to disclose that you did not in fact track the ISS with a 16" dobsonian? its hard enough to hold on a planet that appears motionless in the sky by naked eye without it going out of the eyepiece's view for more than 15 seconds or so, but you are able to maneuver a very large telescope and keep it on a object travelling across the sky at that rate of angular speed.
in 1998 (same year as ISS launch BTW), they talk about the Pathfinder Plus solar plane that tested and reached an elevation of 80,000 feet.
later the Centurion/Helios prototype hit 100,000 feet. check out the photos. MANY similarities to the ISS images you see.
Oh wait there is more! the ERAST project which says 100,000 feet elevations and would be able to fly continously for weeks or MONTHs at a time with the assistance of a fuel cell. Wow. kind of what i have been saying. crazy. and all this straight from NASA.
now do you think there is a small chance that NASA doesnt disclose all there technology and what they really have is far more advanced? thats not some wacky conspiracy theory....that would be a classified government program, like all these other ones we found out about well after the fact.
On the contrary, I'm providing evidence of the best use of solar energy that has ever been seen. They didn't fail, they did a phenomenal job. Fell way short of sustainable flight though.
Seems to me that Round Eyes is claiming the existence of perpetual solar powered aircraft without any evidence that such things can realistically exist. I can provide a known example of my claim that solar isn't technically able to sustain long term flight...Can you provide a documented example of yours?
that was over 3 years ago and did almost 5 days. that was a relatively low altitude plane as well. interesting that the pictures look kind of like a type of ISS. solar power in general on the private sector has made leaps in the past 5 years alone...and the government's solar capabilities are unknown but i can guarantee light years ahead of commercial applications. They also have access to lighter/stronger materials than was used on the plane that did 5 days.
So your argument against the issue of solar in this case is to provide an example of one that was privately funded and operated at a much lower altitude, ignoring the fact governments have access to more advanced tech...D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine
Solar? C'mon give me a break. Solar doesn't have the capability to "work just fine". The Impulse Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse was a wonderful and noble idea, but seriously that plane couldn't stay airborne for any real length of time. Courses were meticulous planned, weather conditions had to be analyzed over and over. That plane had to be grounded for weeks at a time, or months for repairs and recharging. And still it took over a year for that plane to circumnavigate the earth.
C'mon give us a break...
D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine
Yes, if you look at an unrepresentatively small sample of something, you're likely to arrive at funny conclusions.
Someone please help me understand.
so far no evidence has been provided showing that things are located and appear exactly where they are supposed to be.