Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2020, 06:12:49 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2020, 06:37:43 PM »
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?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2020, 06:51:14 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2020, 06:55:36 PM »
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.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2020, 07:10:44 PM »
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?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2020, 07:21:39 PM »
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? 
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2020, 07:23:27 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 07:27:33 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2020, 07:27:48 PM »
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.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1602
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2020, 07:57:15 PM »
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.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline FlatEarthdoeswork

  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • (: Time to spread some truth! :)
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2020, 08:02:45 PM »
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?
The Earth, as far as I can tell, is pretty messed up.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1602
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #50 on: February 28, 2020, 09:51:53 PM »
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.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #51 on: February 29, 2020, 12:07:26 AM »
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?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #52 on: February 29, 2020, 12:16:15 AM »
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.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #53 on: February 29, 2020, 09:25:09 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 02:02:16 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #54 on: March 01, 2020, 09:42:23 AM »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 787
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #55 on: March 02, 2020, 01:21:59 AM »
Rockets are so much fun to build when you're stoned.

What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: NASA and Rockets
« Reply #56 on: March 02, 2020, 08:36:22 AM »
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?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?