>I wonder how long it will be before the station gets some real damage?
> is it still true the station requires a atmosphere to cool station
> keeping equiptement. when the station was new there was discussions a
> depressurization could result in loss of control;. if a atmosphere
> leak occurred. no atmosphere control devices would overheat and shut
> down.
> is that still the case today?
The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
Hmm, let's see what I can google.....
NASA, DARPA Host Space Junk
Wake-Up Call
"There are some 300,000 objects larger than one centimeter
and they are all moving at hyper-velocity. The only way to
address this huge population is with laser technology,
Campbell noted.Orbital debris removal is a complex
problem, one that will require an umbrella of technologies
to do a complete solution, he stated."
"Responded to DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR) Request
for Information (DARPA-SN-09-68). PA&S developed and
submitted a concept for a Pneumatic Impingement Stabilization
of Unstable space debris for Orbital Debris Removal System
(ODRS). The PA&S ODRS is designed to stabilize larger
Orbital Debris by apply precisely targeted jets of highly energetic
gasses [pneumatic (gas) impingement] from an external source.
http://pouloscorp.com/news/darpa-orbital-debris-removal/
Here's a nicely detailed paper on space debris removal, it's a bit
dated, but according to this research....
"An elegant, cost effective, and feasible approach is to use laser
technology to solve this problem. It is estimated that a single.
Ground- based laser facility that costs about $100 million and
that operated near the equator could remove all orbital debris
up to an altitude of 800 km in two years Since satellites typically
cost several hundred million and given the half billion price tags
on shuttle and Titan launchers, this investment is relatively small
given the potential losses of rockets "
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf
And here's the brand new ground based laser facility....
"The Space Development and Test Wing from Kirtland AFB, NM
successfully launched the second-ever mission of the Minotaur IV
launch vehicle."
"The payload for the launch was the Space Based Space Surveillance
(SBSS) spacecraft, a revolutionary technology which will usher in
a new era in space situational awareness. The SBSS space vehicle,
developed by Boeing and Ball Aerospace, uses an 11.8-inch telescope
mounted on a highly agile, two-axis gimbal to provide data needed
to keep better tabs on space debris and guard against accidental
collisions."
http://www.kirtland.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123224585
> >I wonder how long it will be before the station gets some real damage?
> > is it still true the station requires a atmosphere to cool station
> > keeping equiptement. when the station was new there was discussions a
> > depressurization could result in loss of control;. if a atmosphere
> > leak occurred. no atmosphere control devices would overheat and shut
> > down.
> > is that still the case today?
> The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
> to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
> Hmm, let's see what I can google.....
> NASA, DARPA Host Space Junk
> Wake-Up Call
> "There are some 300,000 objects larger than one centimeter
> and they are all moving at hyper-velocity. The only way to
> address this huge population is with laser technology,
> Campbell noted.Orbital debris removal is a complex
> problem, one that will require an umbrella of technologies
> to do a complete solution, he stated."
> "Responded to DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR) Request
> for Information (DARPA-SN-09-68). PA&S developed and
> submitted a concept for a Pneumatic Impingement Stabilization
> of Unstable space debris for Orbital Debris Removal System
> (ODRS). The PA&S ODRS is designed to stabilize larger
> Orbital Debris by apply precisely targeted jets of highly energetic
> gasses [pneumatic (gas) impingement] from an external source.http://pouloscorp.com/news/darpa-orbital-debris-removal/
> Here's a nicely detailed paper on space debris removal, it's a bit
> dated, but according to this research....
> "An elegant, cost effective, and feasible approach is to use laser
> technology to solve this problem. It is estimated that a single.
> Ground- based laser facility that costs about $100 million and
> that operated near the equator could remove all orbital debris
> up to an altitude of 800 km in two years Since satellites typically
> cost several hundred million and given the half billion price tags
> on shuttle and Titan launchers, this investment is relatively small
> given the potential losses of rockets "http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf
> And here's the brand new ground based laser facility....
> "The Space Development and Test Wing from Kirtland AFB, NM
> successfully launched the second-ever mission of the Minotaur IV
> launch vehicle."
> "The payload for the launch was the Space Based Space Surveillance
> (SBSS) spacecraft, a revolutionary technology which will usher in
> a new era in space situational awareness. The SBSS space vehicle,
> developed by Boeing and Ball Aerospace, uses an 11.8-inch telescope
> mounted on a highly agile, two-axis gimbal to provide data needed
> to keep better tabs on space debris and guard against accidental
> collisions."http://www.kirtland.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123224585
> s
This does not deal with the smaller debris that is also dangerous.
Why not launch a sub-orbital rocket that ejects a cloud of Tungsten
dust so the dust cloud is going the opposite way most debris is
moving. The dust cloud would reduce the speed of small debris causing
it to fall into the atmosphere. The dust cloud could be launched so
it has almost orbital velocity so it travels almost once around the
earth before it re-enters the atmosphere.
On Apr 6, 1:49 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
> to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
Not true, missile defense warheads only need to intercept targets and
not rendezvous and capture. Missile defense systems only need less
than 1/4 orbital velocity.
On Apr 6, 7:15 pm, Frogwatch <ohara...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> This does not deal with the smaller debris that is also dangerous.
> Why not launch a sub-orbital rocket that ejects a cloud of Tungsten
> dust so the dust cloud is going the opposite way most debris is
> moving. The dust cloud would reduce the speed of small debris causing
> it to fall into the atmosphere. The dust cloud could be launched so
> it has almost orbital velocity so it travels almost once around the
> earth before it re-enters the atmosphere.
Or even cheaper, since its already there:
Why not stick a pipe on the vacuum and hoover it all up?
This does not deal with the smaller debris that is also dangerous.
Why not launch a sub-orbital rocket that ejects a cloud of Tungsten
dust so the dust cloud is going the opposite way most debris is
moving. The dust cloud would reduce the speed of small debris causing
it to fall into the atmosphere. The dust cloud could be launched so
it has almost orbital velocity so it travels almost once around the
earth before it re-enters the atmosphere.
...................
The paper I linked to indicated that different systems
would be needed for different sizes of debris.
The Russians were talking about an automated
tug that would approach the larger pieces and
alter the orbits.
> The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
> to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
Not true, missile defense warheads only need to intercept targets and
not rendezvous and capture. Missile defense systems only need less
than 1/4 orbital velocity.
.....................
But lasers are the future, and for the larger pieces, missile
defense and orbital debris have the same difficult tasks,
tracking and intercepting objects in orbit. If you can knock
down a chunk of debris, you can take out someone else's
satellite. A fine line between weapon and utility.
> On Apr 6, 7:15 pm, Frogwatch<ohara...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> This does not deal with the smaller debris that is also dangerous.
>> Why not launch a sub-orbital rocket that ejects a cloud of Tungsten
>> dust so the dust cloud is going the opposite way most debris is
>> moving. The dust cloud would reduce the speed of small debris causing
>> it to fall into the atmosphere. The dust cloud could be launched so
>> it has almost orbital velocity so it travels almost once around the
>> earth before it re-enters the atmosphere.
> Or even cheaper, since its already there:
> Why not stick a pipe on the vacuum and hoover it all up?
seems that how vacuum pump works escapes you... (hint: the debris are *already* in a vacuum environment)
> > On Apr 6, 7:15 pm, Frogwatch<ohara...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> This does not deal with the smaller debris that is also dangerous.
> >> Why not launch a sub-orbital rocket that ejects a cloud of Tungsten
> >> dust so the dust cloud is going the opposite way most debris is
> >> moving. The dust cloud would reduce the speed of small debris causing
> >> it to fall into the atmosphere. The dust cloud could be launched so
> >> it has almost orbital velocity so it travels almost once around the
> >> earth before it re-enters the atmosphere.
> > Or even cheaper, since its already there:
> > Why not stick a pipe on the vacuum and hoover it all up?
> seems that how vacuum pump works escapes you... (hint: the debris are
> *already* in a vacuum environment)
WEll then. it's already there. What's the problem?
> On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:
> > Il 07/04/2012 01:25, Weatherlawyer ha scritto:
> > > On Apr 6, 7:15 pm, Frogwatch<ohara...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >> This does not deal with the smaller debris that is also dangerous.
> > >> Why not launch a sub-orbital rocket that ejects a cloud of Tungsten
> > >> dust so the dust cloud is going the opposite way most debris is
> > >> moving. The dust cloud would reduce the speed of small debris causing
> > >> it to fall into the atmosphere. The dust cloud could be launched so
> > >> it has almost orbital velocity so it travels almost once around the
> > >> earth before it re-enters the atmosphere.
> > > Or even cheaper, since its already there:
> > > Why not stick a pipe on the vacuum and hoover it all up?
> > seems that how vacuum pump works escapes you... (hint: the debris are
> > *already* in a vacuum environment)
> WEll then. it's already there. What's the problem?
> On Apr 7, 1:35 pm, Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:
>>> Il 07/04/2012 01:25, Weatherlawyer ha scritto:
>>>> On Apr 6, 7:15 pm, Frogwatch<ohara...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>> This does not deal with the smaller debris that is also dangerous.
>>>>> Why not launch a sub-orbital rocket that ejects a cloud of Tungsten
>>>>> dust so the dust cloud is going the opposite way most debris is
>>>>> moving. The dust cloud would reduce the speed of small debris causing
>>>>> it to fall into the atmosphere. The dust cloud could be launched so
>>>>> it has almost orbital velocity so it travels almost once around the
>>>>> earth before it re-enters the atmosphere.
>>>> Or even cheaper, since its already there:
>>>> Why not stick a pipe on the vacuum and hoover it all up?
>>> seems that how vacuum pump works escapes you... (hint: the debris are
>>> *already* in a vacuum environment)
>> WEll then. it's already there. What's the problem?
> -- > "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
> "Fred J. McCall"<fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> "Jonathan"<Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
>>> to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
>> No. The two things are very different. In fact, it is missile
>> defense tests that can be one of the CAUSES of orbital space debris.
> You're a complete moron, you and Allen should leave
> this ng and never come back, neither of you are
> welcome here.
<flame war pause>
Fred's right. Any high-energy collision in orbit generates lots more, smaller debris. An ASAT test or operational mission breaks the target up into many, many smaller pieces. Those pieces (in very low orbits) do decay faster than the larger satellite but they do exacerbate the debris problem, since even very small objects ruin your whole day when they hit at 20,000 miles per hour (your orbital velocity, hitting another whose vector is orthogonal to yours).
There's no simple way (or even complex way as far as I know) to remove the inventory of small (1-10mm) objects in orbit. Launcher manufacturers now try to minimize the numbers of springs n'things that get released along with the satellite after boost and in GEO, there's been a policy of long standing to boost satellites into the graveyard when some critical system exhausts its redundancy pool or consumables supply but orbital debris is a problem that's here to stay. BMD technology doesn't offer any solutions.
Any debris sweeper would need the characteristic of hugely inelastic collision that dissipates kinetic energy in something like a gas that dissipates and then allows both the sweeper and the swept to de-orbit quickly. Think about ice-cube projectiles.
> It's morons like you, Navia, The Guthball, and Bobbert that have
> wrecked this newsgroup and driven off most of the contributing
> posters. These are 'sci' groups. They don't exist for mentally
> deficiant juveniles to blather about this and that. Posters are
> expected to rationally and logically support their positions with
> facts. When they fail to do so, people are going to point it out.
> When they persist in posting the same thing over and over and over
> again while failing to ever support it, people are likely to ridicule
> them.
this is why warhol ought to be driven out of s.m.n. (not necessarily by hard means....)
>> It's morons like you, Navia, The Guthball, and Bobbert that have
>> wrecked this newsgroup and driven off most of the contributing
>> posters. These are 'sci' groups. They don't exist for mentally
>> deficiant juveniles to blather about this and that. Posters are
>> expected to rationally and logically support their positions with
>> facts. When they fail to do so, people are going to point it out.
>> When they persist in posting the same thing over and over and over
>> again while failing to ever support it, people are likely to ridicule
>> them.
> this is why warhol ought to be driven out of s.m.n. (not necessarily by > hard means....)
Warhol is really Fred McCall, which is really Allen Erstine, Fred
uses multiple nics including mine now. Which is why I'm outta
this space ng.
>>> It's morons like you, Navia, The Guthball, and Bobbert that have
>>> wrecked this newsgroup and driven off most of the contributing
>>> posters. These are 'sci' groups. They don't exist for mentally
>>> deficiant juveniles to blather about this and that. Posters are
>>> expected to rationally and logically support their positions with
>>> facts. When they fail to do so, people are going to point it out.
>>> When they persist in posting the same thing over and over and over
>>> again while failing to ever support it, people are likely to ridicule
>>> them.
>> this is why warhol ought to be driven out of s.m.n. (not necessarily by
>> hard means....)
> Has Warhol been stupid enough to actually publicly threaten to try to
> trash a newsgroup? I only see the bits of his idiocy that Eugene
> quotes, since Warhol has been in my killfile since pretty much Day
> One.
believe it or not, but has actually done this:
nonsense of warhole below:
yes imagine... ha ha ha... In two weeks WE(me) will be surprised to see you inglorious bastard all moved in a moderated group where you belong... like rats in a nest.
Oh, wait a moment,you're the one who doesn't believe Experiment "Led Effort" coming from the Sali edge... you & your gang wanted war well we shall have fun... when you shall hate this group because I will be in your brain... Than Imagine me... hi hi hi.
Run run run...
/end nonsense
go figure....
Best regards from Italy, and apologies for the unpleasant reporting :(
Dott. piergiorgio.
> On 4/8/2012 8:17 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>> "Fred J. McCall"<fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> "Jonathan"<Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
>>>> to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
>>> No. The two things are very different. In fact, it is missile
>>> defense tests that can be one of the CAUSES of orbital space debris.
>> You're a complete moron, you and Allen should leave
>> this ng and never come back, neither of you are
>> welcome here.
> <flame war pause>
> Fred's right. Any high-energy collision in orbit generates lots more,
> smaller debris. An ASAT test or operational mission breaks the target up
> into many, many smaller pieces.
But lasers, not interceptors, are becoming the weapon of choice, and
lasers also can remove debris. Dual purpose!
Using Lasers in Space
Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection
"Claude Phipps suggested the use of laser propulsion with
a ground-based pulsed laser as a solution to the orbital debris
problem in 1994 (Phipps 1994). The Orion Project, which was
a study conducted by NASA and the USAF in 1995-96,
concluded that the concept of using ground-based lasers for
removing orbital debris is feasible and cost effective relative
to the cost of placing objects in orbit (Campbell 1996).
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf
And since we've recently built just such a ground based
laser facility the paper suggests is needed, I think this
approach is becoming reality for both issues.
> decay faster than the larger satellite but they do exacerbate the debris
> problem, since even very small objects ruin your whole day when they hit
> at 20,000 miles per hour (your orbital velocity, hitting another whose
> vector is orthogonal to yours).
> There's no simple way (or even complex way as far as I know) to remove the
> inventory of small (1-10mm) objects in orbit. Launcher manufacturers now
> try to minimize the numbers of springs n'things that get released along
> with the satellite after boost and in GEO, there's been a policy of long
> standing to boost satellites into the graveyard when some critical system
> exhausts its redundancy pool or consumables supply but orbital debris is a
> problem that's here to stay. BMD technology doesn't offer any solutions.
> Any debris sweeper would need the characteristic of hugely inelastic
> collision that dissipates kinetic energy in something like a gas that
> dissipates and then allows both the sweeper and the swept to de-orbit
> quickly. Think about ice-cube projectiles.
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:40:00 +0200, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> Il 08/04/2012 19:15, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>> It's morons like you, Navia, The Guthball, and Bobbert that have
>> wrecked this newsgroup and driven off most of the contributing posters.
>> These are 'sci' groups. They don't exist for mentally deficiant
>> juveniles to blather about this and that. Posters are expected to
>> rationally and logically support their positions with facts. When they
>> fail to do so, people are going to point it out. When they persist in
>> posting the same thing over and over and over again while failing to
>> ever support it, people are likely to ridicule them.
> this is why warhol ought to be driven out of s.m.n. (not necessarily by
> hard means....)
"Did you know that there are men who, for a fee, will drive you out of the country?"
"Who?"
"The Taxi Drivers"
I'm willing to take up a collection to provide Warhole, Guth, et al an opportunity to
observe in situ:
1) That rockets work in a vacuum.
2) The International Space Station in orbit.
Pressurized cabins and space suits are deprecated as unnecessary costs.
-- Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:40:00 +0200, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>> Il 08/04/2012 19:15, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>>> It's morons like you, Navia, The Guthball, and Bobbert that have
>>> wrecked this newsgroup and driven off most of the contributing posters.
>>> These are 'sci' groups. They don't exist for mentally deficiant
>>> juveniles to blather about this and that. Posters are expected to
>>> rationally and logically support their positions with facts. When they
>>> fail to do so, people are going to point it out. When they persist in
>>> posting the same thing over and over and over again while failing to
>>> ever support it, people are likely to ridicule them.
>> this is why warhol ought to be driven out of s.m.n. (not necessarily by
>> hard means....)
> "Did you know that there are men who, for a fee, will drive you out of the country?"
> "Who?"
> "The Taxi Drivers"
> I'm willing to take up a collection to provide Warhole, Guth, et al an opportunity to
> observe in situ:
> 1) That rockets work in a vacuum.
> 2) The International Space Station in orbit.
> Pressurized cabins and space suits are deprecated as unnecessary costs.
Millions of people know that you are wrong...
Rockets CANNOT work in space
Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
one of the biggest hoaxes of all time!
rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has to push the rocket.
but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the rocket/vehicle itself.
can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar creating force in a vacuum?
>>> It's morons like you, Navia, The Guthball, and Bobbert that have
>>> wrecked this newsgroup and driven off most of the contributing
>>> posters. These are 'sci' groups. They don't exist for mentally
>>> deficiant juveniles to blather about this and that. Posters are
>>> expected to rationally and logically support their positions with
>>> facts. When they fail to do so, people are going to point it out.
>>> When they persist in posting the same thing over and over and over
>>> again while failing to ever support it, people are likely to ridicule
>>> them.
>> this is why warhol ought to be driven out of s.m.n. (not necessarily by
>> hard means....)
> Warhol is really Fred McCall, which is really Allen Erstine, Fred
> uses multiple nics including mine now. Which is why I'm outta
> this space ng.
yeah that too... ha ha ha... Hmmm I guess, everything is a lie.
But I am the Son of the Lion... Raisuli The Magnificent.
> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar > creating force in a vacuum?
Try this experiment for yourself. Put a chair with wheels on
a smooth floor, so that is moves easily. Sit down on the
chair with a bowling ball or other heavy object in your
hands. Then suddenly extend your arms outward with
the mass. You'll see the chair moves backwards, and
then back to original spot when you retract your arms.
The center of mass is conserved. It's no different for
a rocket engine, by spitting out mass in one direction
it must move in the opposite direction to so the
center of mass remains in the same spot. It has
nothing to do with air friction.
> > is it still true the station requires a atmosphere to cool station
> > keeping equiptement. when the station was new there was discussions a
> > depressurization could result in loss of control;. if a atmosphere
> > leak occurred. no atmosphere control devices would overheat and shut
> > down.
> > is that still the case today?
> The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
> to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
> Hmm, let's see what I can google.....
Actually, no. The typical way that a missile defense system works is by impacting the incoming warhead at very high speeds. This approach would create more, admittedly smaller, bits of debris if it were applied to "orbital debris removal". Since it could only target objects which can be tracked (bigger than 1 cm), it would actually create more debris which would be smaller and therefore untrackable. Since debris smaller than 1cm can actually do great damage to orbiting satellites, this is
NOT a valid way to remove debris.
> NASA, DARPA Host Space Junk
> Wake-Up Call
> "There are some 300,000 objects larger than one centimeter
> and they are all moving at hyper-velocity. The only way to
> address this huge population is with laser technology,
> Campbell noted.Orbital debris removal is a complex
> problem, one that will require an umbrella of technologies
> to do a complete solution, he stated."
Note that such "debris removal" methods have NOT yet been developed.
Since there are unknowns involved, it's hard to say with certainty how effective such methods would be at the task "grab somebody's operational satellite and bring it down".
> Darpa is looking into the issue with this solicitation a couple
> of years ago for possible technologies for a system.
> DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
> Solicitation Number: DARPA-SN-09-68
DARPA looks at lots of "far out" technologies. If, and only if, they've developed them into operational systems can we evaluate what they're actually good for.
> Here's one response...
> "Responded to DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR) Request
> for Information (DARPA-SN-09-68). PA&S developed and
> submitted a concept for a Pneumatic Impingement Stabilization
> of Unstable space debris for Orbital Debris Removal System
> (ODRS). The PA&S ODRS is designed to stabilize larger
> Orbital Debris by apply precisely targeted jets of highly energetic
> gasses [pneumatic (gas) impingement] from an external source.
> http://pouloscorp.com/news/darpa-orbital-debris-removal/
In other words, a research topic, not an operational system.
> Here's a nicely detailed paper on space debris removal, it's a bit
> dated, but according to this research....
> "An elegant, cost effective, and feasible approach is to use laser
> technology to solve this problem. It is estimated that a single.
> Ground- based laser facility that costs about $100 million and
> that operated near the equator could remove all orbital debris
> up to an altitude of 800 km in two years Since satellites typically
> cost several hundred million and given the half billion price tags
> on shuttle and Titan launchers, this investment is relatively small
> given the potential losses of rockets "
> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf
Again, yet another research topic, not an operational system.
> "The Space Development and Test Wing from Kirtland AFB, NM
> successfully launched the second-ever mission of the Minotaur IV
> launch vehicle."
> "The payload for the launch was the Space Based Space Surveillance
> (SBSS) spacecraft, a revolutionary technology which will usher in
> a new era in space situational awareness. The SBSS space vehicle,
> developed by Boeing and Ball Aerospace, uses an 11.8-inch telescope
> mounted on a highly agile, two-axis gimbal to provide data needed
> to keep better tabs on space debris and guard against accidental
> collisions."
> http://www.kirtland.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123224585
That's an observation system, not a debris removal system, nor an anti-
missile system. It therefore has nothing to do with your baseless assertion that "technology needed for missile defense should be very similar to that needed for orbital space debris removal system".
Jeff
-- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
> >The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
> >to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
> No. The two things are very different. In fact, it is missile
> defense tests that can be one of the CAUSES of orbital space debris.
Agreed, at least for today's missile defense systems.
> >Hmm, let's see what I can google.....
> <unrelated Googlespew elided>
Jonathan Googled a lot of stuff about possible future technologies, some of which *might* not cause additional debris to be created. Still, I agree that it was largely Googlespew which does not support his original assertion.
Jeff
-- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
> That's an observation system, not a debris removal system,
> nor an anti-
> missile system.
> It therefore has nothing to do with your baseless
> assertion that "technology needed for missile defense should be very
> similar to that needed for orbital space debris removal system".
So, you're saying neither tasks involve tracking and
somehow effecting objects in orbit? You can't be
serious.
> Jeff
> -- > " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
> up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
> - tinker
You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.
A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other". A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane.
>Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>one of the biggest hoaxes of all time!
>rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the >propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has to >push the rocket.
>but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed from the >other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum (zero force) >so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the rocket/vehicle >itself.
>can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar >creating force in a vacuum?
