Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
237 views
Skip to first unread message
Jonathan
Apr 6, 2012, 1:49:37 PM4/6/12
to
"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:82ef8263-8c61-41a0...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>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."
"Anything that can go up and grab a piece of debris and
bring it down well, it can also grab somebody's operational
satellite and bring it down. Thats a space weapon,
he cautioned."
http://www.space.com/7644-nasa-darpa-host-space-junk-wake-call.html
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
"Information is sought from all potential sources, domestic
and foreign, on innovative technological solutions that will
enable the Government to provide orbital debris removal
capabilities"
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a55fd6e5721284ee7df2068d2b300b5f
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/
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....
Starfire Optical Range
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfire_Optical_Range
Here's the space based sensor for space debris
"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
Frogwatch
Apr 6, 2012, 2:15:01 PM4/6/12
to
On Apr 6, 1:49 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "bob haller" <hall...@aol.com> wrote in message
> capabilities"https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a55fd6e5721284ee...
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.
> "bob haller" <hall...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> 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/
> 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
>
> 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....
>
> Starfire Optical Rangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfire_Optical_Range
> 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....
>
>
> Here's the space based sensor for space debris
>
> "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.
> Here's the space based sensor for space debris
>
> "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
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.
Me
Apr 6, 2012, 2:52:30 PM4/6/12
to
> 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
> to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
not rendezvous and capture. Missile defense systems only need less
than 1/4 orbital velocity.
Message has been deleted
Weatherlawyer
Apr 6, 2012, 7:25:54 PM4/6/12
to
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:
>
> 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.
Why not stick a pipe on the vacuum and hoover it all up?
Jonathan
Apr 6, 2012, 8:00:22 PM4/6/12
to
"Frogwatch" <ohar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:344c7eb1-b13c-43c6...@x17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
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.
Jonathan
Apr 6, 2012, 8:03:12 PM4/6/12
to
"Me" <charlie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5e16fcb-e479-438f...@h4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
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.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 7, 2012, 10:48:57 AM4/7/12
to
*already* in a vacuum environment)
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Weatherlawyer
Apr 7, 2012, 1:35:47 PM4/7/12
to
Dean
Apr 7, 2012, 3:22:12 PM4/7/12
to
Snidely
Apr 7, 2012, 7:06:46 PM4/7/12
to
Dean was thinking very hard :
<http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2110513_2110627_2110753,00.html>
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Jonathan
Apr 8, 2012, 8:17:38 AM4/8/12
to
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nknun7lar1kahe040...@4ax.com...
> "Jonathan" <Calli...@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
>
>>
>>The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
>>to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
>>
>
> 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.
>
>>Hmm, let's see what I can google.....
>>
>
>
> --
> "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
Paul F Austin
Apr 8, 2012, 9:33:46 AM4/8/12
to
>> "Jonathan"<Calli...@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>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
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.
Paul
Message has been deleted
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 8, 2012, 1:40:00 PM4/8/12
to
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....)
> 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....)
Message has been deleted
jonathan
Apr 8, 2012, 2:14:56 PM4/8/12
to
"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:Q3kgr.156280$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
uses multiple nics including mine now. Which is why I'm outta
this space ng.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 8, 2012, 2:16:52 PM4/8/12
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyYJ9HWcLq0&NR=1
This Group is Mine now... FCK YOU *DOG*.
http://wholesale.piratemerch.com/images/deathzone_pirate_flag.jpg
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.
jonathan
Apr 8, 2012, 3:01:26 PM4/8/12
to
"Paul F Austin" <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:wsqdnbqE3rxNDhzS...@supernews.com...
> On 4/8/2012 8:17 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>> "Fred J. McCall"<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> "Jonathan"<Calli...@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
>> "Fred J. McCall"<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> "Jonathan"<Calli...@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.
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.
Peter Stickney
Apr 8, 2012, 6:01:17 PM4/8/12
to
"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
Warhol
Apr 8, 2012, 6:56:52 PM4/8/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 0:01, Peter Stickney schreef:
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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk
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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk
Message has been deleted
Warhol
Apr 8, 2012, 7:13:27 PM4/8/12
to
Op 8-4-2012 20:14, jonathan schreef:
yeah that too... ha ha ha... Hmmm I guess, everything is a lie.
But I am the Son of the Lion... Raisuli The Magnificent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wae_NAYlixA
But I am the Son of the Lion... Raisuli The Magnificent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wae_NAYlixA
Message has been deleted
jonathan
Apr 8, 2012, 9:35:11 PM4/8/12
to
"Warhol" <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jlt53m$cvk$1...@dont-email.me...
> Op 9-4-2012 0:01, Peter Stickney schreef:
>
>
> 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
> creating force in a vacuum?
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNM5tHou4IQ
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk
jonathan
Apr 8, 2012, 9:39:48 PM4/8/12
to
news:vk64o7tbamd50epd5...@4ax.com...
> "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
I've got a groupie!
Why are you following me around?
Please just talk to someone else.
> "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
I've got a groupie!
Why are you following me around?
Please just talk to someone else.
Jeff Findley
Apr 8, 2012, 9:43:53 PM4/8/12
to
In article <j7idnSiwQK8OseLS...@giganews.com>,
Calli...@gmail.com says...
>
> "bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
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."
>
> "Anything that can go up and grab a piece of debris and
> bring it down well, it can also grab somebody's operational
> satellite and bring it down. Thats a space weapon,
> he cautioned."
> http://www.space.com/7644-nasa-darpa-host-space-junk-wake-call.html
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
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.
> And here's the brand new ground based laser facility....
>
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
Calli...@gmail.com says...
>
> "bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:82ef8263-8c61-41a0...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> >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?
>
> >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.
> 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."
>
> "Anything that can go up and grab a piece of debris and
> bring it down well, it can also grab somebody's operational
> satellite and bring it down. Thats a space weapon,
> he cautioned."
> http://www.space.com/7644-nasa-darpa-host-space-junk-wake-call.html
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
>
> "Information is sought from all potential sources, domestic
> and foreign, on innovative technological solutions that will
> enable the Government to provide orbital debris removal
> capabilities"
> https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a55fd6e5721284ee7df2068d2b300b5f
> of years ago for possible technologies for a system.
>
> DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
> Solicitation Number: DARPA-SN-09-68
>
> "Information is sought from all potential sources, domestic
> and foreign, on innovative technological solutions that will
> enable the Government to provide orbital debris removal
> capabilities"
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/
> 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....
>
> Here's the space based sensor for space debris
>
> "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-
>
> "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
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
Jeff Findley
Apr 8, 2012, 9:48:13 PM4/8/12
to
In article <nknun7lar1kahe040...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> >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.
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>
> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
> >to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
> >
>
> "Jonathan" <Calli...@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.
Agreed, at least for today's missile defense systems.
> defense tests that can be one of the CAUSES of orbital space debris.
> >Hmm, let's see what I can google.....
> >
>
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.
Message has been deleted
jonathan
Apr 8, 2012, 10:44:00 PM4/8/12
to
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.29ec08cde...@news.eternal-september.org...
> 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".
somehow effecting objects in orbit? You can't be
serious.
Greg (Strider) Moore
Apr 9, 2012, 12:08:28 AM4/9/12
to
"Warhol" wrote in message news:jlt53m$cvk$1...@dont-email.me...
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.
>
>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?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk
>
>
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
>
>
>
>Millions of people know that you are wrong...
You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
>
>
>Millions of people know that you are wrong...
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.
>
>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?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk
>
>
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Message has been deleted
Jeff Findley
Apr 9, 2012, 9:50:33 AM4/9/12
to
In article <1KCdneEl_5Uh_R_S...@earthlink.com>,
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong
conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the
pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When
those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel
for the rocket.
In fact, a rocket engine works *better* in vacuum.
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
>
> "Warhol" wrote in message news:jlt53m$cvk$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> >
> >
> >Millions of people know that you are wrong...
>
> You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
>
> BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.
>
> A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move
> lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other".
> A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane.
Absolutely true.
> "Warhol" wrote in message news:jlt53m$cvk$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> >
> >
> >Millions of people know that you are wrong...
>
> 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.
The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong
conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the
pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When
those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel
for the rocket.
In fact, a rocket engine works *better* in vacuum.
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 11:17:52 AM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 3:35, jonathan schreef:
well why don't you try this experiment in a vacuum chamber... without
air this experiment will have any effect...
http://youtu.be/mNM5tHou4IQ?t=1m58s
since in vacuum there is nothing to push against... so simple are the
facts you people refuse to see... and none of this experiments shown in
the video are proof of anything... I only hear a parrot repeating words
he doesn't understand... and certainly when he throws the big ball with
the two arms and says the AIR is pushing him... while it was the mass of
his own body which provide the force... come on people, are you serious?
but its true you people are between the lie and hell...
>
>
>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk
>
>
air this experiment will have any effect...
http://youtu.be/mNM5tHou4IQ?t=1m58s
since in vacuum there is nothing to push against... so simple are the
facts you people refuse to see... and none of this experiments shown in
the video are proof of anything... I only hear a parrot repeating words
he doesn't understand... and certainly when he throws the big ball with
the two arms and says the AIR is pushing him... while it was the mass of
his own body which provide the force... come on people, are you serious?
but its true you people are between the lie and hell...
>
>
>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk
>
>
Eugene Griessel
Apr 9, 2012, 11:28:45 AM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:17:52 +0200, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>since in vacuum there is nothing to push against... so simple are the
You entire argument is based on the fallacy that a rocket has to push
>since in vacuum there is nothing to push against... so simple are the
against something external. Like the air. In real fact the rocket is
pushing against the combustion chamber oppostie to where there is
nothing to push against. Very, very simple - easy to demonstrate,
even easier to prove with mathematics and logic. However it is a
scenario you will not look at or consider due to your "belief" (did
you know there is always a "lie" in "belief") in that a rocket pushes
against the atmosphere. No dear Warhol, the less atmosphere the
harder the combustion pushes against the opposite side which is at the
bottom of the rocket and the better the rocket works.
http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n559/eugenegriessel/rocket2.jpg
Now let's have the religious harangue you usually burst forth with
once your cherished "beliefs" are shown to be false.
Eugene L Griessel
'Hey, there's a gigantic wooden horse outside and all the Greeks
have left. Let's bring it inside!' Not a formula for long-term
survival. Now if they had formed a task force to study the Trojan
Horse and report back to a committee, everyone wouldn't have been
massacred. Who says middle management is useless?
Antares 531
Apr 9, 2012, 11:33:00 AM4/9/12
to
could survive the vacuum conditions. For a similar thought experiment,
contemplate a large loaded gun being somehow lost or dropped into the
vacuum of deep space, then after it had floated free form the source
that dropped it, let it somehow fire a bullet. Would the gun "kick"
back as the bullet accelerated through the gun's bore? You bet it
would! But, the bullet doesn't NEED any atmosphere to press against in
order to push the gun in the opposite direction. It is all a matter of
action-reaction. The bullet is accelerated in one direction and the
gun is accelerated in the opposite direction. The bullet is analogous
to the gasses being expelled by a rocket engine in deep space and the
gun is analogous to the rocket. Gordon
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk
>>
>>
Eugene Griessel
Apr 9, 2012, 11:38:59 AM4/9/12
to
http://www.howstuffworks.com/rocket.htm
should be simple enough - to anyone who WANTS to understand. He
doesn't. Either wilfully stupid or obstinate. Or it's obviously part
of the world conspiracy that involves millions who do nothing but
devote their lives to trying to fool just Warhol. If that isn't a
grossly inflated opinion of his worth then nothing is.
Eugene L Griessel
A conference is just an admission that you want somebody to join
you in your troubles.
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 11:52:07 AM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 6:08, Greg (Strider) Moore schreef:
"*move lots of mass*", in vacuum there is *no mass* to to move...
does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit? ha
ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went
up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come
down*... no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is
110km, the edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there
ain't no mass to move or to push against.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIpf6Yoyq9I
does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit? ha
ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went
up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come
down*... no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is
110km, the edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there
ain't no mass to move or to push against.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIpf6Yoyq9I
HVAC
Apr 9, 2012, 11:56:13 AM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 11:33 AM, Antares 531 wrote:
>
>>
> This chair thought experiment would apply in deep space if the person
> could survive the vacuum conditions. For a similar thought experiment,
> contemplate a large loaded gun being somehow lost or dropped into the
> vacuum of deep space, then after it had floated free form the source
> that dropped it, let it somehow fire a bullet. Would the gun "kick"
> back as the bullet accelerated through the gun's bore? You bet it
> would! But, the bullet doesn't NEED any atmosphere to press against in
> order to push the gun in the opposite direction. It is all a matter of
> action-reaction. The bullet is accelerated in one direction and the
> gun is accelerated in the opposite direction. The bullet is analogous
> to the gasses being expelled by a rocket engine in deep space and the
> gun is analogous to the rocket. Gordon
Very thoughtful anecdote, Gordon. I predict Warhole will dismiss it out
>
>>
> This chair thought experiment would apply in deep space if the person
> could survive the vacuum conditions. For a similar thought experiment,
> contemplate a large loaded gun being somehow lost or dropped into the
> vacuum of deep space, then after it had floated free form the source
> that dropped it, let it somehow fire a bullet. Would the gun "kick"
> back as the bullet accelerated through the gun's bore? You bet it
> would! But, the bullet doesn't NEED any atmosphere to press against in
> order to push the gun in the opposite direction. It is all a matter of
> action-reaction. The bullet is accelerated in one direction and the
> gun is accelerated in the opposite direction. The bullet is analogous
> to the gasses being expelled by a rocket engine in deep space and the
> gun is analogous to the rocket. Gordon
of hand.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 12:08:21 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 15:50, Jeff Findley schreef:
>
> Jeff
*prove your claims*... that must be easy for so a clever genie as you...
*but you can't*... so you need something else for damage control... ha
ha ha... *working better* without any evidence ha ha ha and dont start
twisting words sonny jeff.
the 'essay' would be no good for space travel.
although would be good if you just want to rock back and forth like many
do ;)
> In article<1KCdneEl_5Uh_R_S...@earthlink.com>,
> moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
>>
>> "Warhol" wrote in message news:jlt53m$cvk$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Millions of people know that you are wrong...
>>
>> You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
>>
>> BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.
>>
>> A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move
>> lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other".
>> A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane.
>
> Absolutely true.
>
> The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong
> conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the
> pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When
> those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel
> for the rocket.
>
> In fact, *a rocket engine works* *better* in vacuum.
> moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
>>
>> "Warhol" wrote in message news:jlt53m$cvk$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Millions of people know that you are wrong...
>>
>> You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
>>
>> BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.
>>
>> A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move
>> lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other".
>> A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane.
>
> Absolutely true.
>
> The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong
> conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the
> pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When
> those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel
> for the rocket.
>
>
> Jeff
*prove your claims*... that must be easy for so a clever genie as you...
*but you can't*... so you need something else for damage control... ha
ha ha... *working better* without any evidence ha ha ha and dont start
twisting words sonny jeff.
the 'essay' would be no good for space travel.
although would be good if you just want to rock back and forth like many
do ;)
jonathan
Apr 9, 2012, 12:08:36 PM4/9/12
to
news:jluuj2$oko$1...@dont-email.me...
accepted since....1687! And you'd be about the only person
in the last THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
....that thinks it's wrong. Maybe you should call CNN and
give them the historic news~
If that's what you want people to think about you, that's
your business. But some advice, you might not want
to utter that opinion around potential employers, friends
and dates etc.
Jonathan
s
> Op 9-4-2012 3:35, jonathan schreef:
>> "Warhol"<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jlt53m$cvk$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Op 9-4-2012 0:01, Peter Stickney schreef:
>>>
>>> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar
>>> creating force in a vacuum?
>>
>>
>> Try this experiment for yourself. Put a chair with wheels on
>> a smooth floor, so that is moves easily. Sit down on the
>> chair with a bowling ball or other heavy object in your
>> hands. Then suddenly extend your arms outward with
>> the mass. You'll see the chair moves backwards, and
>> then back to original spot when you retract your arms.
>>
>> The center of mass is conserved. It's no different for
>> a rocket engine, by spitting out mass in one direction
>> it must move in the opposite direction to so the
>> center of mass remains in the same spot. It has
>> nothing to do with air friction.
Well, all I can say is this physical principle has been
>> "Warhol"<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jlt53m$cvk$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Op 9-4-2012 0:01, Peter Stickney schreef:
>>>
>>> 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.
accepted since....1687! And you'd be about the only person
in the last THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
....that thinks it's wrong. Maybe you should call CNN and
give them the historic news~
If that's what you want people to think about you, that's
your business. But some advice, you might not want
to utter that opinion around potential employers, friends
and dates etc.
Jonathan
s
Greg (Strider) Moore
Apr 9, 2012, 12:28:14 PM4/9/12
to
"Warhol" wrote in message news:jlv0j9$5dh$1...@dont-email.me...
in the hopes you don't lead others astray...
See that flame that comes out of the rocket engine? THAT is the mass you
idiot.
>
>does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit?
Let me introduce you to the concept of a strawman. Which is what you just
raised. No one has made that claim. At least no one who isn't either
ignorant (which can be cured) or stupid (which in your case can't be.)
>ha ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went
>up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come down*...
>no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is 110km, the
>edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there ain't no mass to
>move or to push against.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIpf6Yoyq9I
>
>
>
>Op 9-4-2012 6:08, Greg (Strider) Moore schreef:
>> "Warhol" wrote in message news:jlt53m$cvk$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Millions of people know that you are wrong...
>>
>> You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
>>
>> BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.
>>
>> A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does:
>> "move lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the
>> other". A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the
>> plane.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Rockets CANNOT work in space
>>>
>>> Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>>> one of the biggest hoaxes of all time!
>>>
>>> rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>>>
>>> you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
>>> propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
>>> to push the rocket.
>>>
>>> but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
>>> from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
>>> (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
>>> rocket/vehicle itself.
>>>
>>>
>>> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
>>> similar creating force in a vacuum?
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>"*move lots of mass*", in vacuum there is *no mass* to to move...
I really should killfile you, because you obviously are an idiot. However,
>Op 9-4-2012 6:08, Greg (Strider) Moore schreef:
>> "Warhol" wrote in message news:jlt53m$cvk$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Millions of people know that you are wrong...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>"*move lots of mass*", in vacuum there is *no mass* to to move...
in the hopes you don't lead others astray...
See that flame that comes out of the rocket engine? THAT is the mass you
idiot.
>
>does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit?
raised. No one has made that claim. At least no one who isn't either
ignorant (which can be cured) or stupid (which in your case can't be.)
>ha ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went
>up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come down*...
>no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is 110km, the
>edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there ain't no mass to
>move or to push against.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIpf6Yoyq9I
>
>
Eugene Griessel
Apr 9, 2012, 12:35:01 PM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 12:28:14 -0400, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
<moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>I really should killfile you, because you obviously are an idiot. However,
>in the hopes you don't lead others astray...
Yep - so should we all. BUt he really is such a deliciously easy
<moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>I really should killfile you, because you obviously are an idiot. However,
>in the hopes you don't lead others astray...
target to mock, ridicule and scoff at. In fact he does all those
things to himself, we just have to nudge and bump occasionally.
Why anyone would want to expose himself to the world as such a fool is
a good question. He really is depriving a village of it's idiot.
Eugene L Griessel
Friends come and go but enemies accumulate.
HVAC
Apr 9, 2012, 1:00:52 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 11:52 AM, Warhol wrote:
>
>
> does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit? ha
> ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went
> up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come
> down*... no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is
> 110km, the edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there
> ain't no mass to move or to push against.
This is why muslums are mired in the 13th century.
>
>
> does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit? ha
> ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went
> up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come
> down*... no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is
> 110km, the edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there
> ain't no mass to move or to push against.
They're stupid....And damm proud of it!
HVAC
Apr 9, 2012, 1:04:29 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 12:28 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>
>>
>> does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit?
>
> Let me introduce you to the concept of a strawman.
Warhole emulates a strawman here every day.
>
>>
>> does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit?
>
> Let me introduce you to the concept of a strawman.
With the thoughts he'd be thinkin
Warhole could be another Lincoln
If he only had a brain....
HVAC
Apr 9, 2012, 1:06:57 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 12:08 PM, jonathan wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, all I can say is this physical principle has been
> accepted since....1687! And you'd be about the only person
> in the last THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
> ....that thinks it's wrong. Maybe you should call CNN and
> give them the historic news~
>
> If that's what you want people to think about you, that's
> your business. But some advice, you might not want
> to utter that opinion around potential employers, friends
> and dates etc.
Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
>
>
>
> Well, all I can say is this physical principle has been
> accepted since....1687! And you'd be about the only person
> in the last THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
> ....that thinks it's wrong. Maybe you should call CNN and
> give them the historic news~
>
> If that's what you want people to think about you, that's
> your business. But some advice, you might not want
> to utter that opinion around potential employers, friends
> and dates etc.
worry about girls, jobs and friends?
Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
Ivan I. Deer
Apr 9, 2012, 1:22:35 PM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:04:29 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/9/2012 12:28 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit?
>>
>> Let me introduce you to the concept of a strawman.
>
>
>Warhole emulates a strawman here every day.
>
>
>With the thoughts he'd be thinkin
>Warhole could be another Lincoln
>If he only had a brain....
>
He has a better brain than the rest of us. Most of his brain cells are
>On 4/9/2012 12:28 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit?
>>
>> Let me introduce you to the concept of a strawman.
>
>
>Warhole emulates a strawman here every day.
>
>
>With the thoughts he'd be thinkin
>Warhole could be another Lincoln
>If he only had a brain....
>
still like a new car sitting in the dealer's show room...new and
fresh...never been used, yet.
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 1:50:27 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 17:56, HVAC schreef:
this analogy has no connection with my claims and rockets ain't
bullets... a bullet in space would simply remain in the barrel of the
gun... and if we take the bullet as example... how can a bullet change
from direction??? or slow down to dock to the iSS???
Alfa copy... this is CGI and against all laws of physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RSnOiMVfHk
Why name it Atlantis? anyway,the missions are fake as fuck.
nobody but NASA psy-ops see it fly or floating above... Almost 30 years
of drifting in orbit doing "experiments"? WTF were they experimenting
with? How rat shit reacts to zero gravity?(and how do they obtain zero
G?) Who gives a shit about that? How many mundane, useless experiments
can you do? All the video we've ever been fed was nothing more that
bullshit, like drinking water out of the air, floating around the
shuttle and eating dinner.
btw why don't astronut fly like birds when they are in space???
Now you will be claiming it is in space? lol. I say it is fraudulent of
them calling it the international SPACE Station when it is not in space.
It is like making a pudding in Africa and calling it a Yorkshire pudding.
I know the ISS exists but it is not in space and the shuttle is a normal
plastic airplane... so you are in error. If they were in space there
would not be any contact with the crew because radio waves don't work in
vacuum and they would all be dead from sun heat radiation. So the
communication satellites are bullets too then by your logic .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFsaso5nUZ4
bullets... a bullet in space would simply remain in the barrel of the
gun... and if we take the bullet as example... how can a bullet change
from direction??? or slow down to dock to the iSS???
Alfa copy... this is CGI and against all laws of physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RSnOiMVfHk
Why name it Atlantis? anyway,the missions are fake as fuck.
nobody but NASA psy-ops see it fly or floating above... Almost 30 years
of drifting in orbit doing "experiments"? WTF were they experimenting
with? How rat shit reacts to zero gravity?(and how do they obtain zero
G?) Who gives a shit about that? How many mundane, useless experiments
can you do? All the video we've ever been fed was nothing more that
bullshit, like drinking water out of the air, floating around the
shuttle and eating dinner.
btw why don't astronut fly like birds when they are in space???
Now you will be claiming it is in space? lol. I say it is fraudulent of
them calling it the international SPACE Station when it is not in space.
It is like making a pudding in Africa and calling it a Yorkshire pudding.
I know the ISS exists but it is not in space and the shuttle is a normal
plastic airplane... so you are in error. If they were in space there
would not be any contact with the crew because radio waves don't work in
vacuum and they would all be dead from sun heat radiation. So the
communication satellites are bullets too then by your logic .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFsaso5nUZ4
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 1:58:38 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 19:06, HVAC schreef:
magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPgtq4EU-qs
> On 4/9/2012 12:08 PM, jonathan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, all I can say is this physical principle has been
>> accepted since....1687! And you'd be about the only person
>> in the last THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
>> ....that thinks it's wrong. Maybe you should call CNN and
>> give them the historic news~
>>
>> If that's what you want people to think about you, that's
>> your business. But some advice, you might not want
>> to utter that opinion around potential employers, friends
>> and dates etc.
>
>
> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>
> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, all I can say is this physical principle has been
>> accepted since....1687! And you'd be about the only person
>> in the last THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
>> ....that thinks it's wrong. Maybe you should call CNN and
>> give them the historic news~
>>
>> If that's what you want people to think about you, that's
>> your business. But some advice, you might not want
>> to utter that opinion around potential employers, friends
>> and dates etc.
>
>
> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>
> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPgtq4EU-qs
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 2:09:01 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 18:28, Greg (Strider) Moore schreef:
WOW... well why don't you do that... ha ha ha losers is that all you
have to say... I heard that song ten thousand times... and they all keep
flying like flies behind my shit...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI--5hAjOiM
have to say... I heard that song ten thousand times... and they all keep
flying like flies behind my shit...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI--5hAjOiM
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 2:31:21 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 18:08, jonathan schreef:
in 1687 they didn't believe man could escape earth attraction force...
and if you claim so, why don't you prove your words? And I still believe
and I am sure none can escape our prison planet... the laws of Newton
are not applicable in free fall under vacuum conditions...
And BTW its only in 1919 that the theory of Godard was published and the
people claimed he was crazy... Unlike most of his colleagues, Goddard
believed rocketry was a viable technology
For nearly 20 years, Goddard's theories were just theories of a fool...
until they made of the lie a standing fact, now they could fly in tin
air and vacuum.
and I can prove his theory is false and NASA lying... and for that only,
I deserve a Noble price...
and if you read good the theory of Godard you will discover he wasn't
talking about space travel... but about "A Method of Reaching Extreme
Altitudes," and that altitude is maximum 110km.
and if you claim so, why don't you prove your words? And I still believe
and I am sure none can escape our prison planet... the laws of Newton
are not applicable in free fall under vacuum conditions...
And BTW its only in 1919 that the theory of Godard was published and the
people claimed he was crazy... Unlike most of his colleagues, Goddard
believed rocketry was a viable technology
For nearly 20 years, Goddard's theories were just theories of a fool...
until they made of the lie a standing fact, now they could fly in tin
air and vacuum.
and I can prove his theory is false and NASA lying... and for that only,
I deserve a Noble price...
and if you read good the theory of Godard you will discover he wasn't
talking about space travel... but about "A Method of Reaching Extreme
Altitudes," and that altitude is maximum 110km.
HVAC
Apr 9, 2012, 2:40:06 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 1:50 PM, Warhol wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Very thoughtful anecdote, Gordon. I predict Warhole will dismiss it out
>> of hand.
>>
>>
>
>
> this analogy has no connection with my claims and rockets ain't
> bullets... a bullet in space would simply remain in the barrel of the
> gun... and if we take the bullet as example... how can a bullet change
> from direction??? or slow down to dock to the iSS???
When you let an inflated party balloon go, why does it fly
>
>>
>>
>> Very thoughtful anecdote, Gordon. I predict Warhole will dismiss it out
>> of hand.
>>
>>
>
>
> this analogy has no connection with my claims and rockets ain't
> bullets... a bullet in space would simply remain in the barrel of the
> gun... and if we take the bullet as example... how can a bullet change
> from direction??? or slow down to dock to the iSS???
around the room?
When a star explodes, why does stardust go off in all
directions?
What would happen if a bomb went off in space?
What directions would all the shit fly?
You can go ahead and give ANY answer. I am expecting nothing
but your typical lunatic fringe reply.
HVAC
Apr 9, 2012, 2:41:26 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 1:58 PM, Warhol wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
>> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>>
>> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
>
>
> my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by
> magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
> only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
I'm *already* laughing......
>
>>
>>
>> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
>> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>>
>> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
>
>
> my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by
> magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
> only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
Eugene Griessel
Apr 9, 2012, 2:43:15 PM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:40:06 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>You can go ahead and give ANY answer. I am expecting nothing
>but your typical lunatic fringe reply.
If you think Warhol is merely on the fringe of lunacy you need to
>You can go ahead and give ANY answer. I am expecting nothing
>but your typical lunatic fringe reply.
re-examine your criteria for lunacy.
Eugene L Griessel
Support the right to arm bears.
Metspitzer
Apr 9, 2012, 2:49:58 PM4/9/12
to
>On 4/9/2012 1:50 PM, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Very thoughtful anecdote, Gordon. I predict Warhole will dismiss it out
>>> of hand.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> this analogy has no connection with my claims and rockets ain't
>> bullets... a bullet in space would simply remain in the barrel of the
>> gun... and if we take the bullet as example... how can a bullet change
>> from direction??? or slow down to dock to the iSS???
>
>
>When you let an inflated party balloon go, why does it fly
>around the room?
>
>When a star explodes, why does stardust go off in all
>directions?
>
>What would happen if a bomb went off in space?
>
>What directions would all the shit fly?
>
>
>
>You can go ahead and give ANY answer. I am expecting nothing
>but your typical lunatic fringe reply.
Just keep bringing up anything about space. You can run him around
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Very thoughtful anecdote, Gordon. I predict Warhole will dismiss it out
>>> of hand.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> this analogy has no connection with my claims and rockets ain't
>> bullets... a bullet in space would simply remain in the barrel of the
>> gun... and if we take the bullet as example... how can a bullet change
>> from direction??? or slow down to dock to the iSS???
>
>
>When you let an inflated party balloon go, why does it fly
>around the room?
>
>When a star explodes, why does stardust go off in all
>directions?
>
>What would happen if a bomb went off in space?
>
>What directions would all the shit fly?
>
>
>
>You can go ahead and give ANY answer. I am expecting nothing
>but your typical lunatic fringe reply.
like a cat chasing a laser pointer. :)
Jeff Findley
Apr 9, 2012, 3:07:33 PM4/9/12
to
In article <jlv1ht$bob$1...@dont-email.me>, mol...@hotmail.com says...
my aerospace propulsion class. I don't need to do it again to know that
it still holds true.
> *but you can't*... so you need something else for damage control... ha
> ha ha... *working better* without any evidence ha ha ha and dont start
> twisting words sonny jeff.
I understood how a rocket engine worked in grade school, due to some
very nice diagrams in several books in my school library. I didn't know
how to do the math to prove it until college.
I suppose all of those comsats in geostationary orbit just flew up there
on their own, right? Hint: without a working rocket engine, they could
never be there because they could have never circularized their orbits.
That burn has to be done at apogee.
But I suppose you don't understand orbital mechanics any better than you
understand aerospace propulsion, do you?
It never ceases to amaze me that some people refuse to believe the
simplest of things which are based on basic physics.
>
> Op 9-4-2012 15:50, Jeff Findley schreef:
> > In article<1KCdneEl_5Uh_R_S...@earthlink.com>,
> > moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
> >>
> >> "Warhol" wrote in message news:jlt53m$cvk$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Millions of people know that you are wrong...
> >>
> >> You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
> >>
> >> BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.
> >>
> >> A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move
> >> lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other".
> >> A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane.
> >
> > Absolutely true.
> >
> > The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong
> > conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the
> > pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When
> > those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel
> > for the rocket.
> >
> > In fact, *a rocket engine works* *better* in vacuum.
>
> Op 9-4-2012 15:50, Jeff Findley schreef:
> > In article<1KCdneEl_5Uh_R_S...@earthlink.com>,
> > moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
> >>
> >> "Warhol" wrote in message news:jlt53m$cvk$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Millions of people know that you are wrong...
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Absolutely true.
> >
> > The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong
> > conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the
> > pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When
> > those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel
> > for the rocket.
> >
> > In fact, *a rocket engine works* *better* in vacuum.
>
> *prove your claims*... that must be easy for so a clever genie as you...
I did, but you're too lazy to do the math. I did the math years ago in
my aerospace propulsion class. I don't need to do it again to know that
it still holds true.
> *but you can't*... so you need something else for damage control... ha
> ha ha... *working better* without any evidence ha ha ha and dont start
> twisting words sonny jeff.
very nice diagrams in several books in my school library. I didn't know
how to do the math to prove it until college.
I suppose all of those comsats in geostationary orbit just flew up there
on their own, right? Hint: without a working rocket engine, they could
never be there because they could have never circularized their orbits.
That burn has to be done at apogee.
But I suppose you don't understand orbital mechanics any better than you
understand aerospace propulsion, do you?
It never ceases to amaze me that some people refuse to believe the
simplest of things which are based on basic physics.
Eugene Griessel
Apr 9, 2012, 3:14:19 PM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:07:33 -0400, Jeff Findley
<jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
>I understood how a rocket engine worked in grade school, due to some
>very nice diagrams in several books in my school library. I didn't know
>how to do the math to prove it until college.
>
>I suppose all of those comsats in geostationary orbit just flew up there
>on their own, right? Hint: without a working rocket engine, they could
>never be there because they could have never circularized their orbits.
>That burn has to be done at apogee.
>
>But I suppose you don't understand orbital mechanics any better than you
>understand aerospace propulsion, do you?
>
>It never ceases to amaze me that some people refuse to believe the
>simplest of things which are based on basic physics.
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/newton.html
<jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
>I understood how a rocket engine worked in grade school, due to some
>very nice diagrams in several books in my school library. I didn't know
>how to do the math to prove it until college.
>
>I suppose all of those comsats in geostationary orbit just flew up there
>on their own, right? Hint: without a working rocket engine, they could
>never be there because they could have never circularized their orbits.
>That burn has to be done at apogee.
>
>But I suppose you don't understand orbital mechanics any better than you
>understand aerospace propulsion, do you?
>
>It never ceases to amaze me that some people refuse to believe the
>simplest of things which are based on basic physics.
Of course this is the work of the evil wolves and not to be believed.
Eugene L Griessel
What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself.
HVAC
Apr 9, 2012, 3:42:45 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 2:49 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You can go ahead and give ANY answer. I am expecting nothing
>> but your typical lunatic fringe reply.
>
> Just keep bringing up anything about space. You can run him around
> like a cat chasing a laser pointer. :)
Now I've never put a cat in a microwave for 20 seconds,
>
>>
>>
>> You can go ahead and give ANY answer. I am expecting nothing
>> but your typical lunatic fringe reply.
>
> Just keep bringing up anything about space. You can run him around
> like a cat chasing a laser pointer. :)
but that's the type of cat that Warhole most resembles.
PS- Come to think of it, in the movie mentioned in my
sig, Kick Ass, they took a guy and put him in an industrial
microwave used for drying lumber. It wasn't pretty.
David E. Powell
Apr 9, 2012, 3:47:46 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 2:31 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
> And BTW its only in 1919 that the theory of Godard was published and the
> people claimed he was crazy... Unlike most of his colleagues, Goddard
> believed rocketry was a viable technology
>
> For nearly 20 years, Goddard's theories were just theories of a fool...
> until they made of the lie a standing fact, now they could fly in tin
> air and vacuum.
>
> and I can prove his theory is false and NASA lying... and for that only,
> I deserve a Noble price...
>
> and if you read good the theory of Godard you will discover he wasn't
> talking about space travel... but about "A Method of Reaching Extreme
> Altitudes," and that altitude is maximum 110km.
That was as high as he was thinking of aiming at the time with the
technology he had.
Technology improved since 1919.
It's like if a car designer in 1919 had envisioned a car that could do
100 miles per hour, and saying today no greater speed on land was
possible because that original designer had aimed at 100 miles per
hour as their target.
Also at the time high altitude research was massive. This was when
they took aircraft engines up Mount McKinley to test them at high
altitudes. In World War One Zeppelins had gotten up to some high
altitudes, and specialized Zeppelin interceptors, but even they could
only get up so high. Getting altitude data was big and Goddard saw a
use for his rockets, pushing the technology of the time. 110 KM was
really high in 1919.
Sounding rockets are still used today, a few were recently launched
from the Virginia Coast if I recall correctly.
snip
> And BTW its only in 1919 that the theory of Godard was published and the
> people claimed he was crazy... Unlike most of his colleagues, Goddard
> believed rocketry was a viable technology
>
> For nearly 20 years, Goddard's theories were just theories of a fool...
> until they made of the lie a standing fact, now they could fly in tin
> air and vacuum.
>
> and I can prove his theory is false and NASA lying... and for that only,
> I deserve a Noble price...
>
> and if you read good the theory of Godard you will discover he wasn't
> talking about space travel... but about "A Method of Reaching Extreme
> Altitudes," and that altitude is maximum 110km.
technology he had.
Technology improved since 1919.
It's like if a car designer in 1919 had envisioned a car that could do
100 miles per hour, and saying today no greater speed on land was
possible because that original designer had aimed at 100 miles per
hour as their target.
Also at the time high altitude research was massive. This was when
they took aircraft engines up Mount McKinley to test them at high
altitudes. In World War One Zeppelins had gotten up to some high
altitudes, and specialized Zeppelin interceptors, but even they could
only get up so high. Getting altitude data was big and Goddard saw a
use for his rockets, pushing the technology of the time. 110 KM was
really high in 1919.
Sounding rockets are still used today, a few were recently launched
from the Virginia Coast if I recall correctly.
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 3:56:08 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 20:40, HVAC schreef:
balloon... and which forms a kind of reactor where air pushed against
air... but in vacuum those condition would change...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmKIZtg9itA&NR=1
thrust or no thrust... the great question...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q8F3ClUuV0
My point is this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k-YH6TyTV4
in vacuum this experiment doesn't work... so is the law of Newton...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2D2wkHcPwM
> On 4/9/2012 1:50 PM, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Very thoughtful anecdote, Gordon. I predict Warhole will dismiss it out
>>> of hand.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> this analogy has no connection with my claims and rockets ain't
>> bullets... a bullet in space would simply remain in the barrel of the
>> gun... and if we take the bullet as example... how can a bullet change
>> from direction??? or slow down to dock to the iSS???
>
>
> When you let an inflated party balloon go, why does it fly
> around the room?
>
> When a star explodes, why does stardust go off in all
> directions?
>
> What would happen if a bomb went off in space?
>
> What directions would all the shit fly?
>
>
>
> You can go ahead and give ANY answer. I am expecting nothing
> but your typical lunatic fringe reply.
>
>
>
>
because of the force of the atmosphere which pushes the air out the
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Very thoughtful anecdote, Gordon. I predict Warhole will dismiss it out
>>> of hand.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> this analogy has no connection with my claims and rockets ain't
>> bullets... a bullet in space would simply remain in the barrel of the
>> gun... and if we take the bullet as example... how can a bullet change
>> from direction??? or slow down to dock to the iSS???
>
>
> When you let an inflated party balloon go, why does it fly
> around the room?
>
> When a star explodes, why does stardust go off in all
> directions?
>
> What would happen if a bomb went off in space?
>
> What directions would all the shit fly?
>
>
>
> You can go ahead and give ANY answer. I am expecting nothing
> but your typical lunatic fringe reply.
>
>
>
>
balloon... and which forms a kind of reactor where air pushed against
air... but in vacuum those condition would change...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmKIZtg9itA&NR=1
thrust or no thrust... the great question...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q8F3ClUuV0
My point is this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k-YH6TyTV4
in vacuum this experiment doesn't work... so is the law of Newton...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2D2wkHcPwM
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 3:58:47 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 20:41, HVAC schreef:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPhJb4O8RE
> On 4/9/2012 1:58 PM, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
>>> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>>>
>>> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
>>
>>
>> my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by
>> magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
>> only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
>
>
> I'm *already* laughing......
>
>
>
I know you are laughing...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
>>> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>>>
>>> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
>>
>>
>> my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by
>> magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
>> only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
>
>
> I'm *already* laughing......
>
>
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPhJb4O8RE
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 4:00:46 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 20:49, Metspitzer schreef:
thats what you think, but its just the other way round...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJNxj1FdKuo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJNxj1FdKuo
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 4:31:46 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 21:07, Jeff Findley schreef:
> In article<jlv1ht$bob$1...@dont-email.me>, mol...@hotmail.com says...
first you understand shit of orbit mechanics and you believe in bad
science fiction tales.
there is nothing there above that proves rocket gets thrust in vacuum
and have put any satellite in orbit.. this are facts.
BTW My ancestors invented math... hah what do you know of math...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcG-jek6aoE
> In article<jlv1ht$bob$1...@dont-email.me>, mol...@hotmail.com says...
science fiction tales.
there is nothing there above that proves rocket gets thrust in vacuum
and have put any satellite in orbit.. this are facts.
BTW My ancestors invented math... hah what do you know of math...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcG-jek6aoE
George152
Apr 9, 2012, 5:40:01 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/10/2012 6:41 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 1:58 PM, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
>>> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>>>
>>> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
>>
>>
>> my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by
>> magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
>> only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
>
>
> I'm *already* laughing......
>
It's time to sharpen the kook poking stick with this one...
> On 4/9/2012 1:58 PM, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
>>> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>>>
>>> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
>>
>>
>> my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by
>> magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
>> only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
>
>
> I'm *already* laughing......
>
Bat shit crazy and advertising the fact
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 6:25:29 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 21:47, David E. Powell schreef:
why don't you to prove your words?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbDx3M2YnKc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbDx3M2YnKc
Warhol
Apr 9, 2012, 7:51:09 PM4/9/12
to
Op 9-4-2012 20:41, HVAC schreef:
> On 4/9/2012 1:58 PM, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
>>> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>>>
>>> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
>>
>>
>> my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by
>> magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
>> only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
>
>
> I'm *already* laughing......
>
>
I see all the lunatics are laughing... but him that last laughs best
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
>>> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>>>
>>> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
>>
>>
>> my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by
>> magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
>> only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
>
>
> I'm *already* laughing......
>
>
laughs... it all depends on that one cometh day...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52dPHX22Hk8
Don't forget that my Gran'Da'Dy The Magnificent was the Last of the
Sallee Rovers... and I am the First of the Sallee Rovers, the most
feared lords of the seven seas and the seven universes...
jonathan
Apr 9, 2012, 8:30:03 PM4/9/12
to
"HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jlv4vh$v87$2...@hvac.motzarella.org...
> On 4/9/2012 12:08 PM, jonathan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, all I can say is this physical principle has been
>> accepted since....1687! And you'd be about the only person
>> in the last THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
>> ....that thinks it's wrong. Maybe you should call CNN and
>> give them the historic news~
>>
>> If that's what you want people to think about you, that's
>> your business. But some advice, you might not want
>> to utter that opinion around potential employers, friends
>> and dates etc.
>
>
> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
Maybe he should start worrying~
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, all I can say is this physical principle has been
>> accepted since....1687! And you'd be about the only person
>> in the last THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
>> ....that thinks it's wrong. Maybe you should call CNN and
>> give them the historic news~
>>
>> If that's what you want people to think about you, that's
>> your business. But some advice, you might not want
>> to utter that opinion around potential employers, friends
>> and dates etc.
>
>
> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>
> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
>
s
HVAC
Apr 10, 2012, 6:48:19 AM4/10/12
to
On 4/9/2012 3:56 PM, Warhol wrote:
> When a star explodes, why does stardust go off in all
> directions?
>
> What would happen if a bomb went off in space?
>
> What directions would all the shit fly?
Answer.
> When a star explodes, why does stardust go off in all
> directions?
>
> What would happen if a bomb went off in space?
>
> What directions would all the shit fly?
HVAC
Apr 10, 2012, 6:58:41 AM4/10/12
to
On 4/9/2012 3:58 PM, Warhol wrote:
>
>>> my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by
>>> magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
>>> only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
>>
>>
>> I'm *already* laughing......
>>
>
> I know you are laughing...
And I know *you* are crying.
>
>>> my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by
>>> magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
>>> only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
>>
>>
>> I'm *already* laughing......
>>
>
> I know you are laughing...
LOL!
HVAC
Apr 10, 2012, 7:06:13 AM4/10/12
to
On 4/9/2012 8:30 PM, jonathan wrote:
>
>>
>
>
>> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
>> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>
>
> Maybe he should start worrying~
I'm getting the iconic image of Alfred E. Newman.
>
>>
>
>
>> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
>> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>
>
> Maybe he should start worrying~
http://www.fullyinformed.com/wp-content/uploads/newman1.png
Jeff Findley
Apr 10, 2012, 8:41:38 AM4/10/12
to
In article <jlvgvt$cl7$1...@dont-email.me>, mol...@hotmail.com says...
science. I think it's time for you to go to killfile hell. Goodbye.
Enjoy your stay.
> first you understand shit of orbit mechanics and you believe in bad
> science fiction tales.
>
> there is nothing there above that proves rocket gets thrust in vacuum
> and have put any satellite in orbit.. this are facts.
>
> BTW My ancestors invented math... hah what do you know of math...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcG-jek6aoE
Too bad you seem to be too stupid to understand math, physics, or
> science fiction tales.
>
> there is nothing there above that proves rocket gets thrust in vacuum
> and have put any satellite in orbit.. this are facts.
>
> BTW My ancestors invented math... hah what do you know of math...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcG-jek6aoE
science. I think it's time for you to go to killfile hell. Goodbye.
Enjoy your stay.
Sylvia Else
Apr 17, 2012, 1:17:06 AM4/17/12
to
On 7/04/2012 4:15 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
> On Apr 6, 1:49 pm, "Jonathan"<Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "bob haller"<hall...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:82ef8263-8c61-41a0...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> 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."
>>
>> "Anything that can go up and grab a piece of debris and
>> bring it down well, it can also grab somebody's operational
>> satellite and bring it down. Thats a space weapon,
>> he cautioned."http://www.space.com/7644-nasa-darpa-host-space-junk-wake-call.html
>>
>> 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
>>
>> "Information is sought from all potential sources, domestic
>> and foreign, on innovative technological solutions that will
>> enable the Government to provide orbital debris removal
>> capabilities"https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a55fd6e5721284ee...
>>
>> 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/
>>
>> 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....
>>
>> Starfire Optical Rangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfire_Optical_Range
>>
>> Here's the space based sensor for space debris
>>
>> "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.
Or we could just sandblast spacecraft before we launch them for much the
same effect.
Sylvia.
> On Apr 6, 1:49 pm, "Jonathan"<Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "bob haller"<hall...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:82ef8263-8c61-41a0...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> 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."
>>
>> "Anything that can go up and grab a piece of debris and
>> bring it down well, it can also grab somebody's operational
>> satellite and bring it down. Thats a space weapon,
>> he cautioned."http://www.space.com/7644-nasa-darpa-host-space-junk-wake-call.html
>>
>> 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
>>
>> "Information is sought from all potential sources, domestic
>> and foreign, on innovative technological solutions that will
>> enable the Government to provide orbital debris removal
>> capabilities"https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a55fd6e5721284ee...
>>
>> 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/
>>
>> 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....
>>
>> Starfire Optical Rangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfire_Optical_Range
>>
>> Here's the space based sensor for space debris
>>
>> "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.
Or we could just sandblast spacecraft before we launch them for much the
same effect.
Sylvia.
David E. Powell
Dec 9, 2016, 11:11:37 AM12/9/16
to
Japan is making a go at it:
http://phys.org/news/2016-12-japan-space-junk-collector.html
<http://phys.org/news/2016-12-japan-space-junk-collector.html>
http://phys.org/news/2016-12-japan-space-junk-collector.html
<http://phys.org/news/2016-12-japan-space-junk-collector.html>
dav...@agent.com
Dec 9, 2016, 6:43:29 PM12/9/16
to
posing a growing threat to future space exploration, scientists say.
Researchers are using a so-called electrodynamic tether made from
thin wires of stainless steel and aluminium. The idea is that
one end of the strip will be attached to debris which can damage
working equipment葉here are hundreds of collisions every year.
The electricity generated by the tether as it swings through the
Earth's magnetic field is expected to have a slowing effect on the
space junk, which should, scientists say, pull it into a lower and
lower orbit. Eventually the detritus will enter the Earth's
atmosphere, burning up harmlessly long before it has a chance to
crash to the planet's surface.
0 new messages