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.

 

NASA need 1960's saturns to inspire them..

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
The SMART-1 was not in orbit.


What? SMART-1 when from several orbits of the Earth and then into transfer through the L1 point of the Earth-Luna system to a Lunar orbit...




posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
It was not a stable orbit. It was decaying from the start, by design.

You can see on the animation here even
www.esa.int...


If left on the course of its lunar orbit, SMART-1 would have naturally hit the Moon on 17 August 2006 on the lunar far side, not visible from Earth.

A 2-week series of manoeuvres started on 19 June and concluded on 2 July allowed SMART-1 to adjust its orbit to avoid having the spacecraft intersect with the Moon at a disadvantageous time from the scientific point of view, and to obtain a useful small mission ‘extension’.


[edit on 23/8/06 by SteveR]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
It was an oscilating orbit, by design... It let them see more of Luna that way.


What does SMART-1 have to do with NASA using updated Saturn technology to get to the Moon?



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Not much, but the point was it was not a stable orbit.

Besides, is having a stable orbit around the moon feasible?


When a spacecraft orbits around the Moon, as SMART-1 does, it is doomed by the law of gravity. Tugs from the Sun, the Earth, and irregularities in the Moon itself, all disturb its orbit. Sooner or later, any lunar orbiter will impact the Moon surface unless it has very big amounts of fuel left to be re-boosted and escape the lunar gravity.


[edit on 23/8/06 by SteveR]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
What do you mean that it was not a stable orbit? Generally, when they want to map a planet or moon they put into an orbit similar in order to do that. There was nothing unstable about it...



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
What I mean by a stable orbit is one that is not "doomed" in the short term, as this was. I don't know how you can call that an orbit.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
How was it "doomed?" They're using the engine aboard the craft to crash it into Luna. It wasn't just on its way on its own to the surface. Sure, maybe over many years, but that would happen to any artificial satellite orbiting a celestial body...



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
If you read the site, commander... the sat was going to crash naturally this month. Their engine provided a mini extension until next month. You don't seem to understand what I am saying, but this sat. was NOT designed to have a stable orbit for any long period of time.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I understand what you mean...But your still wrong.

And its orbit is stable.

We have tons of things orbiting our planet, whether that be sats or just debris, its still in orbit. Whether the object is slowly falling or slowly rising…is irrelevant.

You dont seem to understand. all the satellites we send to other planet are eventually "doomed", because once there out of fuel, and there mission is over, we let them crash onto whatever their above.

It would be dumb to put satellites bound for other planets into a Geo-sync orbit...since then we could only see the part that their above, and not the whole planet, not to mention that they to, overtime, would run out of fuel...and once ther3e all out...then the sat is dead to us, regardless if its still in geo above the planet.


BTW, Nasa just gave the CEV a name...Orion.

also, just so nobody gets confused, Ares is the name of the rockets. (IE:Apollo used Saturn rockets)

NASA Names New Crew Exploration Vehicle Orion



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Alright, so no orbit can be long term and consistant unless it is geosync?


apc

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Long term is relative. The Moon technically will fail orbit in the "long term" ... Very long term. She will drift away, and Earth's rotation will wobble around and everything will get all crazy and stuffs.

commander: it's just the whole "pods wont work because something has to orbit!!!" argument... if nothing can orbit, then pods are bad. But since everything orbits just fine, pods are good.
Good good good good good good!



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Dear Apass
okay this is just too much, do you know what the term of geo means?
It means it's fixed on a geographic position, and it will rotate along with that position and not around the earth.

You are talking about another thing, that is low orbiting and not geostational, low orbiting is used like a sling-shoot you, pick up speed due to the mass of gravity, geostational satelites like the TV satelites do not move around the earth, but with the earth.
does the word stationary means anything to you?



[edit on 23-8-2006 by pepsi78]


apc

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
It would if [geostational] were a word. But since you say English is not your first language, we'll let that slide.



Originally posted by Apass
You should do a better search and try to understand what to orbit means


A geosynchronous orbit is a geocentric orbit that has the same orbital period as the sidereal rotation period of the Earth. It has a semi-major axis of 42,164 km (26,200 miles). In the special case of the geostationary orbit, an observer on the ground would not perceive the satellite as moving and would see it as a fixed point in the sky. Such orbits are useful for telecommunications relays. In the more general case, when the orbit has some inclination and/or eccentricity, the satellite would appear to describe a more or less distorted figure-eight in the sky, and would rest above the same spots of the Earth's surface once per sidereal day.
wikipedia

(my emphesis)


[edit on 23-8-2006 by apc]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

okay this is just too much, do you know what the term of geo means?
It means it's fixed on a geographic position, and it will rotate along with that position and not around the earth.

You are talking about another thing, that is low orbiting and not geostational, low orbiting is used like a sling-shoot you, pick up speed due to the mass of gravity, geostational satelites like the TV satelites do not move around the earth, but with the earth.
does the word stationary means anything to you?



Did somebody else type that for you? Your grammer and spelling just got thousands of times better than previous posts... I thought English wasn't your first language?



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by pepsi78

okay this is just too much, do you know what the term of geo means?
It means it's fixed on a geographic position, and it will rotate along with that position and not around the earth.

You are talking about another thing, that is low orbiting and not geostational, low orbiting is used like a sling-shoot you, pick up speed due to the mass of gravity, geostational satelites like the TV satelites do not move around the earth, but with the earth.
does the word stationary means anything to you?



Did somebody else type that for you? Your grammer and spelling just got thousands of times better than previous posts... I thought English wasn't your first language?

trust me, it isnt.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Alright, so no orbit can be long term and consistent unless it is geosync?


Depends on what you mean by long-term? are you talking a few years...or few decades?

The longer you want your satellite to be in orbit, the more fuel you will need, and the more fuel you have, the heavier the sat is, which then ups the cost of the launch. Then you get into the "is it economically feasible" argument.

Theres just no need for satellites to last a long time, because of the fast rate that technology is progressing.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
trust me, it isnt.


Alright, just I find it odd that in some posts your grammer and spelling are just horrible to the point of it seeminly being contrived, yet in others it's just the opposite. I'm just beginning to think because of that your sole purpose here is to disrupt the flow of threads, that's all. No harsh feelings, I hope.

[edit on 8/23/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
It would if [geostational] were a word. But since you say English is not your first language, we'll let that slide.


This is what I was saying, I see he contradicts his own posts
it's hilarius


In the special case of the geostationary orbit, an observer on the ground would not perceive the satellite as moving and would see it as a fixed point in the sky.

first he says that it moves around the earth, and then he posts some example showing it just has a fixed geographic position.
I am amased



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Dear Apass
okay this is just too much, do you know what the term of geo means?
It means it's fixed on a geographic position, and it will rotate along with that position and not around the earth.

You are talking about another thing, that is low orbiting and not geostational, low orbiting is used like a sling-shoot you, pick up speed due to the mass of gravity, geostational satelites like the TV satelites do not move around the earth, but with the earth.
does the word stationary means anything to you?


It still is circling the earth...its just staying above a certain spot while doing so.

real world example: If you stand in the middle of a room, and somebody is walking in a circle around you, and while there doing that you keep your body pointing towards them...meaning you never have your back pointing towards them. Just because they haven’t seen your back, are you saying they were never circling (aka: orbiting) you?

BTW, satellite has two “L”s, not one.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Alright, just I find it odd that in some posts your grammer and spelling are just horrible to the point of it seeminly being contrived, yet in others it's just the opposite. I'm just beginning to think because of that your sole purpose here is to disrupt the flow of threads, that's all. No harsh feelings, I hope.

[edit on 8/23/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]
Some time I make mistakes in my writing, so what, not a problem for me, I think people can understand my writing just fine, and no english is not my first languege, I dont even live in a country that speaks english.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join