Discovery Launches at 11:38 EDT. Expects to Reach and Dock With ISS in 44 Hours!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I think it's hardly Mr.IgnoreTheFacts' fault that most of what Mr.Lear says does not square with the facts. Do you think if somebody is in favor of posting verifiable, solid data that does not contradict the facts observable by you, Mr.Ninja, this constitutes some kind of nefarious agenda?

I'm firmly in the "don't know" camp about everything i ever read on these boards, when a user on this board calls themselves something like "ignore the facts" or "SkepticSultanOfDoom" it's fairly obvious that they've established for themselves a position in relation to other people, who might call themselves "ibelieveeverything" Once you set up your position you cannot be objective anymore, you become either a believer or a debunker (of varying degrees of course) That's the reason skeptics and believers hold each other in such poor regard :/ It becomes about personalities instead of the pursuit of truth.

In our day and age, a lot of interesting information is there for asking! If you choose to intentionally ignore it, you hardly have an argument against people who don't.

I agree, of course information is important. The problem is when someone might for example, know a lot about physics etc, and know that his "opponent" knows very little about it, and exploit that fact as a kind of straw man argument. Very few people really understand such stuff, and that becomes a useful tool to use against them. If you decide to throw in a few guesses of your own about space and time, who's going to know?

So the fierce debate, as you describe it, typically goes like that:

A. There is XYZ and that is weird and a conspiracy!
B. But look, Mr.A, there is an explanation for XYZ, which goes like that /insert a law of physics here/ due to these data /insert published data here/
A. Your "laws of physics" are a product of conspiracy! Your data is false! And you don't know the rest of the facts! And I don't have to prove anything to you anyway!

Yep that's pretty accurate shame isn't it.

Again, if you prefer the guesswork, fine. It's just when we are trying to learn something we need to use something better than guesswork. When you are flying in an airplane, you sure do hope that the engineers who designed it used strict laws of physics and not some kind of wild guesses.

Sure, but it fires the imagination, which is the precursor to learning and understanding. If someone never progresses past the stage of imagining, and theorizing, that is their own decision.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Here, let me make it easy for you. Fleet 21 is also know as Seapower 21. See what you can find with that.

Thanks for the post COOL HAND. No, Fleet 21 is not also known as Seapower 21.

Fleet 21, as I have explained before is a new secret Navy battleship which just finished sea trials southwest of Coronado.

But thanks for your post.

Originally posted by zorgon
As to the "verifiably false", Herein lies the problem... your sources tell you that you are absolutely correct...

Ok, Mr.Z, let's consider my sources: newtonian mechanics and observations by the naked eye. Which one of this components is wrong?

As to the gravity and atmosphere on the Moon... that was an idea that I found 'difficult' to accept at the beginning

I can imagine!

but now I am finding things that indicate that there is more to this than we have been told...

All right, again, do some calculations regarding Moon orbiting Earth. Can you do that? Then tell me what sort of gravity fits in with what you see out of your window.

Has anyone seriously studied the antics of the Astronauts racing around in the Moon Buggy? I used to Rally... I have had my car airborne several times... Yet they seem to have no effort 'keeping it on the ground'

They are better drivers

Originally posted by johnlearThanks for the post COOL HAND. No, Fleet 21 is not also known as Seapower 21.

Fleet 21, as I have explained before is a new secret Navy battleship which just finished sea trials southwest of Coronado.

But thanks for your post.

Yes john, it is. If the CNO uses them interchangeably, who am I to argue with him?

Where was this battleship built? Who were the designers? Who were the builders? Who certified it for service? Who observed the sea trials?

You seem to know so much about this "program," the answers to my questions should be easy to provide. Assuming of course that you choose to answer those questions.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Hello, while I am certainly not going to start an argument here, I am curious what a 'solar beta angle' is. Again, my understanding relative to your comments about the Shuttle blocking the Solar panels on the ISS...I've seen the models, the CGI mockups, and the ISS seems far larger than Discovery. Also, I'm guessing the ISS is using conventional tech, is orbiting at a height that provides about a 90 minute period for each revoloution. Correct me, please. So, I'm trying to picture in my head an Earth orbit wherein the Solar panels remain out of Earth's umbra (shadow). OR, do they pass thru the umbra only breifly on each orbit?

I'm not trying to foment controversy, just lazy right now, hoping some will have answers. I'll be doing some more study when I can.

Thanks

Originally posted by buddhasystem

....there won't be enough power

AH!! I see where the problem lies... power and fuel

Okay I think I can dig up something about that....

Originally posted by zorgon
AH!! I see where the problem lies... power and fuel

Okay I think I can dig up something about that....

Well yes Zorgon, guess what, power and fuel are important in space travel.

And while you are at it, please do the lunar orbit exercise I humbly asked you to do.

reply to post by zorgon


*leans forward*

OoooOOOoo this is gonna be good!

*fastens seatbelt*

Alllll-righty, I'm READY!

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Where was this battleship built? Who were the designers? Who were the builders? Who certified it for service? Who observed the sea trials?

Thanks for the post COOL HAND. That information is not available to me. If I had to guess where it was built it would probably be the Naval stockyards in Melbourne, Australia. Theres a new place up near Darwin that might have a hand in it I really don't know. As far as who designed it, are you kidding?

You seem to know so much about this "program," the answers to my questions should be easy to provide. Assuming of course that you choose to answer those questions.

Seapower 21 and Fleet 21 are used like Sandia is used. Sandia could be a mountain range, or a laboratory or a Corporation. Or it could be a secret undergrouned base under the Pahute Mesa half way between TTR and Area 51. The advantage of this ruse was that an accidental mention of the name wouldn't arouse any suspicion. Same thing with Fleet 21.

If you are as well informed as you think you are ask around. Oh, and ask about the 70 ft. nuclear powered Fast Attack Sub that goes 120 knots. You can see them once in a while around Pearl.

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by johnlear
As far as who designed it, are you kidding?

Newslash john, the Navy does not design its own ships. They put out a requirement list of what they need it to do and then let the companies take care of the design aspect.

Seapower 21 and Fleet 21 are used like Sandia is used. Sandia could be a mountain range, or a laboratory or a Corporation. Or it could be a secret undergrouned base under the Pahute Mesa half way between TTR and Area 51. The advantage of this ruse was that an accidental mention of the name wouldn't arouse any suspicion. Same thing with Fleet 21.

Whatever, they "accidentally" mention it with almost any speech that talks about the future of the Navy. Are you saying that it is a giant disinfo program from the Navy to confuse its own members?

If you are as well informed as you think you are ask around. Oh, and ask about the 70 ft. nuclear powered Fast Attack Sub that goes 120 knots. You can see them once in a while around Pearl.

You know this how? Have you seen this with your own eyes? Did someone you trust told you about it?

Is this what you do to everyone who asks you questions directly related to the topic? You do your smoke and mirrors thing and put out more useless info?



[edit on 19/11/07 by COOL HAND]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Basic info can be found in this Powerpoint presentation and you can google it up too:

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post COOL HAND. That information is not available to me. If I had to guess where it was built it would probably be the Naval stockyards in Melbourne, Australia.

Right now, as I type from work, I am around 10km away from the Navy Dockyards in Williamstown (Melbourne). It would barely be a fifteen minute drive for me, in easy traffic to get there. Do you have any leads as to when they were built and if they are still being built there? That would be very interesting, if true, to know that some of them were built almost in my backyard, so to speak.

Later this week, I might take my boys for a drive down the beach and see what ships I can see!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well yes Zorgon, guess what, power and fuel are important in space travel.

well thank you kindly for that revelation. So I guess I will have to focus on methods that 'might' explain where this extra power and fuel 'may' come from to make changes in orbits...

Sigh it would be so much easier to just go to the 'other' shuttles' but well... I know there is anticipation

And while you are at it, please do the lunar orbit exercise I humbly asked you to do.

John has already posted the formula on the gravity issue in several threads... redoing the work using your figures would produce the results you expect... yet if those values are in question... whu would I use those?

Are you telling me John's calculations using Von Braun's number of 43,495 is incorrect? Oh wait you did say that von Braun was incapable of converting from metric and the instrument reading on two spacecraft were faulty.

Well when we get our ship finished... we will take our own measurements and report back to you.... and I'll take a few pictures of the stars while I'm at it

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Basic info can be found in
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Basic info from NASA presented as evidence in a "NASA is lying thread... Hmmmm good tactics

NASA also claims there is a giant jellyfish devouring stars... And you guys harp on us for using silly names on images

BEWARE THE JELLYFISH:

"...a giant space-faring jellyfish gobbling a phosphorescent treat."



Gotta love those NASA 'scientists' at least they have crowd appeal

Originally posted by zorgon
So I guess I will have to focus on methods that 'might' explain where this extra power and fuel 'may' come from to make changes in orbits...

Thank you, Z, I'm looking forward to your results.

John has already posted the formula on the gravity issue in several threads...

Well that's not what I meant. Look at:
en.wikipedia.org...

you can calculate the revolution time of the Moon according to JL and compare it with the available astronomical data. It's not hard at all.

Exercise two (easy): dig up the orbital period of the Apollo CSM while in lunar orbit. The radius of the orbit is also known (and quoted by John). From that, it's easy to calculate gravity on the Moon. (Hint: JL's claims won't match your result).



[edit on 19-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by buddhasystem


Thanks for the link, buddha. Unfortuately I'm just a lowly Terran with no PowerPoint program. Alas.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Thanks for the link, buddha. Unfortuately I'm just a lowly Terran with no PowerPoint program. Alas.

I believe you can download Open Office or a comparable product. It should work.

Dear Z,

since you obviously didn't have to for there calculations yesterday (see below for detail) maybe you could entertain yourself today! All it takes is a decent calculator (or even a piece of paper) and 30 min of your time, tops. It's incredibly satisfying, trust me.

In fact, I invite everyone who's following this thread to do these simple exercises.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well that's not what I meant. Look at:
en.wikipedia.org...

you can calculate the revolution time of the Moon according to JL and compare it with the available astronomical data. It's not hard at all.

Exercise two (easy): dig up the orbital period of the Apollo CSM while in lunar orbit. The radius of the orbit is also known (and quoted by John). From that, it's easy to calculate gravity on the Moon. (Hint: JL's claims won't match your result).

Just a dumb question, to keep the ball rolling. In layman's terms, I will ask: STS-120 (Discovery) carried a payload that included a new module for ISS, am I correct? Could the mass of that unit make it more difficult for Discovery to achieve the height equal to the ISS orbital height in a simple ETO launch?

In a simple world, could a shuttle be launched into an orbit that would be X number of minutes (behind) the target, then whilst on station use the RCS system 'catch-up', as it were? Too much additional thrust would boost to a higher orbit, so this is a delicate thing. However, using the RCS would allow a 'fine-tuning' as the more maneuverable Shuttle approached the ISS. Once in the vicinity, the Shuttle would be 'steered', that is, re-oriented graduslly and slowly coaxed into position for the docking.

Having said this, as a thought excerise...one still must find a way to reconcile why it takes approx 29 orbits (44 hours at 90 minutes, or so, per orbit).

As I said, dumb question...

Sorry, should not have written 'RCS system', it's redundant. Kinda like 'ATM machine' ! (one of my pet peeves).