It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Donald Trump expected to slash Nasa's climate change budget in favour of sending humans back to the

page: 8
52
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Exactly.
It's no great secret that ALL the planets are warming up, as part of a solar-gravitic cycle we are as yet unaware of.

So unless we are also driving SUV's around on Mars, Jupiter & the rest, it's not our fault.
Certainly we are not helping matters, Dupont is still busy selling heavy CFK's as the new, green alternative, and every gallon of oil burnt is adding to the death toll down here.
We don't need it, there ARE viable alternatives.
But the OP is correct, NAZA have become an environmental monitor agency, nothing more.




posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

At 210 miles a satellite is still within the grav field of the earth, however weak, it will fall down eventually.....
Only at 4000+ miles would there be a similar attraction from the moon, even so that orbit is not stable so the sat will either fall back down or fly off into space.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

Think of a baseball after it is hit by a bat. It is experiencing 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration pull from Earth's gravity, but for the first few seconds it flies up instead of down because the force the bat just transferred to the ball resists the gravitational pull. But then the atmosphere slows the ball down and gravity takes over again. The satellite in orbit is likewise still being pulled by gravity, but it is not accelerating down to Earth because it has so much forward momentum in it's orbit and almost nothing to slow it down. Even at an altitude of 210 miles though, there are still very small traces of atmosphere and over time the satellite will slow down and be pulled back to Earth. This is why satellites have to be monitored and their orbits adjusted occasionally with controlled thruster burns.

a reply to: playswithmachines

Actually at 210 miles, the gravitational pull of the Earth is still quite strong. Here's a cool page with the relatively simple equations to calculate it. For ease I converted 210 miles to 338 kilometers. The calculation yields that Earth's gravitational pull at 210 miles altitude is still 8.84 m/s^2, or about 90% of the normal acceleration we feel on the surface. Many people believe astronauts in the ISS are "weightless" but they are actually in close to normal Earth gravity. The reason they float is because the station is moving the same speed and direction as they are. Their speed counteracts Earth's gravity the same way the station's speed counteracts Earth's gravity, so they are not pulled into the floor.

Also, where did you get the idea that at 4,000 miles the moon's gravitational pull would be similar to Earth's? This is nowhere close to correct. The moon is much less massive than Earth (off the top of my head I think it's about 10% of Earth's mass), so even at halfway between the 2 bodies, Earth's gravity would be significantly stronger. The moon is on average about 239,000 miles away from the Earth, so 4,000 miles isn't even remotely close to halfway, and as I said you'd have to get much closer than halfway for the Moon's gravity to become roughly equal. I don't know how much closer, but I'm sure a simple Google search could help you find it.
edit on 25-11-2016 by face23785 because: added 2nd reply to avoid double post

edit on 25-11-2016 by face23785 because: forgot to add link

edit on 25-11-2016 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: InachMarbank

Think of a baseball after it is hit by a bat. It is experiencing 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration pull from Earth's gravity, but for the first few seconds it flies up instead of down because the force the bat just transferred to the ball resists the gravitational pull. But then the atmosphere slows the ball down and gravity takes over again. The satellite in orbit is likewise still being pulled by gravity, but it is not accelerating down to Earth because it has so much forward momentum in it's orbit and almost nothing to slow it down. Even at an altitude of 210 miles though, there are still very small traces of atmosphere and over time the satellite will slow down and be pulled back to Earth. This is why satellites have to be monitored and their orbits adjusted occasionally with controlled thruster burns.

a reply to: playswithmachines

Actually at 210 miles, the gravitational pull of the Earth is still quite strong. Here's a cool page with the relatively simple equations to calculate it. For ease I converted 210 miles to 338 kilometers. The calculation yields that Earth's gravitational pull at 210 miles altitude is still 8.84 m/s^2, or about 90% of the normal acceleration we feel on the surface. Many people believe astronauts in the ISS are "weightless" but they are actually in close to normal Earth gravity. The reason they float is because the station is moving the same speed and direction as they are. Their speed counteracts Earth's gravity the same way the station's speed counteracts Earth's gravity, so they are not pulled into the floor.

Also, where did you get the idea that at 4,000 miles the moon's gravitational pull would be similar to Earth's? This is nowhere close to correct. The moon is much less massive than Earth (off the top of my head I think it's about 10% of Earth's mass), so even at halfway between the 2 bodies, Earth's gravity would be significantly stronger. The moon is on average about 239,000 miles away from the Earth, so 4,000 miles isn't even remotely close to halfway, and as I said you'd have to get much closer than halfway for the Moon's gravity to become roughly equal. I don't know how much closer, but I'm sure a simple Google search could help you find it.


If you could possibly accelerate constantly at 8.84 meters per second squared, I calculate it would be less than 15 minutes, and more than 14 minutes, before a speed of 17,000 miles per hour would be reached.

How often does the ISS use fuel to reboost its altitude?

If there is nothing to slow the forward speed of the ISS, how do you also calculate the down speed of the ISS?

If the down speed is a constant acceleration, does there ever reach a maximum down speed?



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

You're confusing yourself here. It doesn't have a down speed. It moves forward in it's orbit at such a great speed that it overcomes the downward acceleration of gravity. I don't know of a simpler way to explain it. Things cannot move in 2 directions at once. It doesn't continually accelerate downward while it's moving forward. It will only accelerate down if it loses enough speed for gravity to become the dominant force. Until then, gravity still tries to pull it down but is unsuccessful.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

Going back to the moon is a fantastic idea. It gives humans a chance to see what's like to be walking around on a dead sphere; an experience we will need to learn from in times to come, given we are killing our own.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: InachMarbank

You're confusing yourself here. It doesn't have a down speed. It moves forward in it's orbit at such a great speed that it overcomes the downward acceleration of gravity. I don't know of a simpler way to explain it. Things cannot move in 2 directions at once. It doesn't continually accelerate downward while it's moving forward. It will only accelerate down if it loses enough speed for gravity to become the dominant force. Until then, gravity still tries to pull it down but is unsuccessful.


It moves in both. An object in orbit has both a down vector and a forward vector. The forward vector is the force that's pushing it while the down vector is gravity. Try this on a piece of paper. Your forward vector is perpendicular to your down vector. So move your object both forward and down. Then orient your paper so the object is at the top again, and repeat. After you do this enough, your resulting shape will be a circle.

Orbits are basically nothing more than very long falls. In this case, gravity is a constant, but acceleration is close to a constant as well because there's nothing in space to create drag.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Yeah that's basically what I was trying to explain to him, but I didn't want to keep confusing him about why it isn't moving a million miles an hour downward because it's supposedly continually accelerating at almost 9 m/s^2. For all practical purposes it doesn't have a downward velocity. It actually does experience drag, that's why it will eventually fall because it will slow down and no longer be going fast enough to counteract the downward pull of gravity. The drag is just an extremely small amount, hence why it takes so long for it's orbit to decay.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: InachMarbank

You're confusing yourself here. It doesn't have a down speed. It moves forward in it's orbit at such a great speed that it overcomes the downward acceleration of gravity...


An object in orbit is both falling downward and moving at a forward vector. The balance between the forward vector and the downward vector is required to keep the object in orbit. If the forward motion is far far greater than the downward vector, then there would be no balance and no orbit. Instead, the object would escape orbit.


The thought experiment called "Newton's Cannonball" explains the concept.


Ball C is shot with a forward force that overcomes the downward vector just enough that the surface of the Earth curves out of the way of the cannonball's path that is the result of the two vectors (as it falls both down and forward at the same time).

In simple terms, the Earth's surface curves out of the way of the falling ball.

Ball D is similar to C, but is shot with a force that gives an elliptical orbit.

Ball E is shot with too much force to retain the balance between falling and moving forward (that balance being "an orbit"), and the ball instead breaks orbit and flies off into space.


Ball A is shot with a forward force that is not strong enough to overcome the downward vector.

Ball B has a little more forward force, and it almost has enough for the path resulting from the two vectors to clear the surface of the curving Earth, but it's just not enough.


edit on 2016-11-26 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
LOL.. who cares? NASA is the entertainment division of the real space program.. foolish normies.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: InachMarbank

You're confusing yourself here. It doesn't have a down speed. It moves forward in it's orbit at such a great speed that it overcomes the downward acceleration of gravity...


An object in orbit is both falling downward and moving at a forward vector. The balance between the forward vector and the downward vector is required to keep the object in orbit. If the forward motion is far far greater than the downward vector, then there would be no balance and no orbit. Instead, the object would escape orbit.


The thought experiment called "Newton's Cannonball" explains the concept.


Ball C is shot with a forward force that overcomes the downward vector just enough that the surface of the Earth curves out of the way of the cannonball's path that is the result of the two vectors (as it falls both down and forward at the same time).

In simple terms, the Earth's surface curves out of the way of the falling ball.

Ball D is similar to C, but is shot with a force that gives an elliptical orbit.

Ball E is shot with too much force to retain the balance between falling and moving forward (that balance being "an orbit"), and the ball instead breaks orbit and flies off into space.


Ball A is shot with a forward force that is not strong enough to overcome the downward vector.

Ball B has a little more forward force, and it almost has enough for the path resulting from the two vectors to clear the surface of the curving Earth, but it's just not enough.



Do you know what the balance between the forward vector and the downward vector is?
or in other words...
If the forward vector is 17,000 mph, what is the downward vector?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'm aware of Newton's thought experiment. I was trying to explain it in a simple enough fashion for this guy to understand it, not make it 100% technically correct. Your turn now I guess, maybe you can get through to him.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

That's billions of years in the future, I doubt the human race will survive that long. All I'm saying is that we need to learn how to take care of our own planet before we start destroying other ones.

Extinction is inevitable, no single species or race could ever survive the entire lifespan of the universe so yeah I am ok with extinction because it's part of the natural cycle.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'm aware of Newton's thought experiment. I was trying to explain it in a simple enough fashion for this guy to understand it, not make it 100% technically correct. Your turn now I guess, maybe you can get through to him.


I am trying to see if anyone can possibly explain, with close to 100% technically correct figures, how a NASA satellite stays in orbit.

The figures I am looking for...

The forward speed, which NASA claims to be 17000 mph.
The down speed, which I have yet to find an answer to.

Shouldn't this kind of data be readily available?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

When you spin a bucket of water over your head what is the downward speed of the water in the bucket at it passes over your head?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank

When you spin a bucket of water over your head what is the downward speed of the water in the bucket at it passes over your head?


If I spin a bucket of water over my head fast enough, the centrifugal force will push the water up, away from my head, not down toward my head.

This is not how I have read satellites operate. It is said gravity pushes satellites down (so centripetal force...)

What does centrifugal force of spinning a bucket of water have to do with centripetal force, said to be pushing down on a NASA satellite?



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

I think the issue here is you aren't even trying to understand. You are angling for something and I'm unsure what.

In both cases the forward inertia is the key.
edit on 28-11-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
While we do have the technology to deflect asteroids now, we can only deflect the ones that are relatively small and would only cause localized damage and moderate climate effects. The big kahunas are beyond our technology to move unless we had many decades or centuries to do it.


Umm...actually thats not true. we could literally put a solar sail on a giant comet or asteroid, and it would impact them enough to push them away for an earth impact. Hell, we could simply crash an empty probe into the thing with enough speed, and it would push it off an intercept course. I believe its called the comet research group, but there are putting out studies and research showing that major impact events may be alot more common than we think. Anywhere up too one or two events per millenia. There's actually alot of evidence being presented that shows that the last great extinction event, 12,600yrs ago could very well have been caused by a comet striking the ice cap causing huge inland tsunamis 1000ft high across the entire continental US. Throwing up enough water vapor to cause massive amounts of rainfall across the world. Were talking about feet of rain falling constantly for up too a week. Strange how most ancient civilizations have stories about ancient floods wiping out humanity, and as of now, the oldest confirmable civ's history go back about 12,000 years...just saying lol. /derail
edit on 28-11-2016 by SilentBob86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank

I think the issue here is you aren't even trying to understand. You are angling for something and I'm unsure what.

In both cases the forward inertia is the key.


I'm trying to understand if the NASA explanation of how a satellite works is even possible.

I can't seem to find an answer to how fast a satellite is falling if it is travelling 17,000 mph forward.

If there is something significant about your centrifugal force example, perhaps you can try to make it more explicit for me...

As I understand it, inertia, in the case of NASA's hypothetical satellite explanation, would be, the satellite accelerating forward to a speed of... such and such... and then ceasing to accelerate. Theoretically, if there is no resistance to push back on the satellite, the satellite should keep moving forward at whatever... such and such... speed it accelerated to.

In this example of inertia, it explains forward motion, but it doesn't explain downward motion.

Can you help me with an explanation of how fast a NASA satellite is falling if it is moving forward 17,000 mph?



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

It's not falling for all intents and purposes as it's forward momentum overcomes the gravitational force. As long as the forward momentum doesn't slow significantly The inertia is overcoming gravity that is acting on the moving object.

Think of it like this. The satellite is a projectile moving in a straight line. The centripetal force causes that line to curve towards the earth as it pulls the object "downward". This does NOT cause acceleration as the object never actually "falls". If the object were much faster, it would eventually overcome gravity and be slingshot into space, much slower and it's orbit would decay and it would slowly fall to the planet of the course of however many orbits and burn up in the atmosphere. The tangential velocity of the object keeps it in a relatively circular orbit.
edit on 28-11-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join