NASA need 1960's saturns to inspire them..

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   



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

Trust me it isnt, it's moving at the same speed of the planet, it's just like the satelite would be part of the planet, it moves with the planet and it does not circle the planet.




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

yes so that is not really circling, that some one does not get to see the back of me, and I'm moving the person, like the mass of the earth is moving satelites with them.
Circling would mean that that person would get a view of my back.



...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?

Yes, because I'm moving them, and they are moving at the same speed as me, it's like they are standing still from my view and from their view also going in circle means going around some one, if you never get to see the other side how can you get around them?


geo stationary satelites are just like they would be part of the planet.


[edit on 23-8-2006 by pepsi78]



apc

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
ERRRR. The planet is not dragging them along. Their orbit is timed to match the rotation. Yes, they are orbiting. Not held in place.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
No-one has answered my question. Granted it may be fundamental knowledge but still.

It is this: which types of orbits are ones that can maintain a steady altitude around a celestial body for a length of time (say a year or more) without decaying, and without using lots of fuel. Am I describing geo-sync only or are there other orbits that can accomplish this?

Thanks



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Yes, a planet's rotation doesn't have too much to do with what's orbiting it. If the Earth stopped its rotation, then the orbits of the ISS, Moon, etc. wouldn't really change. Geosynchronous orbit is only a technicality; there is nothing special about such an orbit that makes it more stable, or more/less attainable, or anything than any other orbit.

If something wasn't moving in relation to the Earth, it would just fall down. Gravity works, even in space. The only reason why orbiting objects don't smash into whatever they're orbiting is that they're moving fast enough to always miss it.

Pepsi78, you need to just chill for a while and read up on some things. I don't even know why I'm posting this.


apc

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
[SteveR:] You're probably thinking of Lagrange points... where a mass can rest safely due to the interacting gravitational forces of two other masses.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by apc]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
How would you have a semi-pernament (say 5 year) observation post above the moon? Someone said earlier that geosync is useless because the sat. cannot turn it's field of view or something?



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
No-one has answered my question. Granted it may be fundamental knowledge but still.

It is this: which types of orbits are ones that can maintain a steady altitude around a celestial body for a length of time (say a year or more) without decaying, and without using lots of fuel. Am I describing geo-sync only or are there other orbits that can accomplish this?

Thanks


If something is orbiting something with an atmosphere (e.g. the Earth) then the higher the orbit, the more stable it will be. That's why geosync orbits are much more stable than LEOs; there's nothing special about geosync orbit per se, but the fact that the body orbits at 40+ thousand km as opposed to 200+ km means that the atmosphere is vastly thinner, causing less drag. An orbit higher than geosync would be even more stable, though I'd think that the difference would be a bit less.

Oh, and I think that increased distance also would mean less inductance from the Earth's magnetic field, meaning even less drag. Obviously neither the atmosphere nor the magnetic field have anything to do with the Moon. A 100km orbit around the Moon should be stable for quite a while.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by cdrn]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by cdrn
there's nothing special about geosync orbit per se, but the fact that the body orbits at 40+ thousand km as opposed to 200+ km means that the atmosphere is vastly thinner, causing less drag. An orbit higher than geosync would be even more stable.


Got it, thanks
So I suppose the only real use of geosync is to keep them at specific positions so they don't crash into each other?



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by cdrn
there's nothing special about geosync orbit per se, but the fact that the body orbits at 40+ thousand km as opposed to 200+ km means that the atmosphere is vastly thinner, causing less drag. An orbit higher than geosync would be even more stable.


Got it, thanks
So I suppose the only real use of geosync is to keep them at specific positions so they don't crash into each other?


Not really. If two bodies are in the same orbit (same height, same eccentricity) then they will have the same orbital speed and will run no risk of crashing into each other. Geosync orbit isn't any different here. Also remember that objects orbiting in geosync orbit are moving. Fast. They only don't look like they're moving from the surface of the planet, but that's pretty much irrelevant when it comes to orbital mechanics.

The biggest reason for keeping things in geosync orbit is to have them at specific points over the surface. That's why most geosync satellites are used for communications.

This is pretty much irrelevant anyway, since synchronous orbit around the Moon is nearly (if not completely) impossible.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
ERRRR. The planet is not dragging them along.
Not held in place.


en.wikipedia.org...


Derivation of geostationary altitude
So calculating the altitude simplifies into calculating the point where the magnitudes of the centripetal acceleration derived from orbital motion and the gravitational acceleration provided by Earth's gravity are equal.



Their orbit is timed to match the rotation

Yes but gravity maintains the speed it was launched at.
It does keep it in place.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cdrn
This is pretty much irrelevant anyway, since synchronous orbit around the Moon is nearly (if not completely) impossible.


Thanks for the reply.. but why do you say it's impossible? Does this rule out the possibility of a semi-pernament observation post above the moon?



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by cdrn
This is pretty much irrelevant anyway, since synchronous orbit around the Moon is nearly (if not completely) impossible.


Thanks for the reply.. but why do you say it's impossible? Does this rule out the possibility of a semi-pernament observation post above the moon?


The higher the orbit, the longer it takes. LEOs around Earth take 90 minutes or so. Geosynchronous orbit around the Earth takes (surprisingly!) 1 day. That's the trick of synchronous orbit: to have the object orbiting high enough to have its orbital speed match up with the rotational period of whatever it's orbiting.

The problem with the moon is that it takes 28 days to rotate, as opposed to the Earth's 1 day. Thus, if something would be in synchronous orbit it would have to be really far away. The problem with that is that the moon's gravity is fairly weak, and the Earth is right near it and exerts a pretty strong gravitational attraction. This means that most likely, something in synchronous orbit with the Moon would be perturbed by the Earth enough to keep from staying in a stable orbit.


apc

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
There's a microwave background radiation satellite in the L...3? I think... maybe L2 legrange point past the orbit of Earth...

An equivalent point should exist beyond the orbit of the Moon... so you could plop a little observation station up there and it wouldn't get nailed with noise from Earth.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Until we dont have something in permanent orbit with the moon we will never go to the far side of the moon.
Comunication is just not posible with out it.
I would expect them to go to the far side
,who knows what might they find.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
An equivalent point should exist beyond the orbit of the Moon... so you could plop a little observation station up there and it wouldn't get nailed with noise from Earth.


That's right, I was thinking there should be a sweet spot somewhere that it could be possible.


apc

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
ding ding ding... once again, the truth comes out. You think that:
A: there is something hidden on the farside of the Moon, and
B: we've never even been to the Moon at all.

HMMMM. Wow... you're real edumacated.

And why do you think not being able to communicate TODAY with the far side means no travel to the farside? Do you think that stopped the first researchers from camping out in Antarctica? You are very short sighted and closed minded for someone with some pretty far out-there beliefs.


jra

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   
In regards to far side landings. I just read something the other day about that. Apperently Jack Schmitt, who was the Apollo 17 Lunar Module Pilot, had wanted to try for a far side landing with Apollo 17. His plan was to use a couple of satellites that would be sent to the LaGrange points and act as comm relays, but the plan never went further then what Jack Schmitt came up with. NASA no doubt, felt it would have been too risky at the time.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Until we dont have something in permanent orbit with the moon we will never go to the far side of the moon.
Comunication is just not posible with out it.
I would expect them to go to the far side
,who knows what might they find.


We have had satellites in orbit around the Moon, we do now and we will. Some of the old ones are still in orbit but aren't functional anymore, such as Luna 10. Putting a satellite in lunar orbit is fairly easy, and it doesn't require one of your grand megaspaceshipplanewhatever schemes. All that is needed is a rocket with a stage that can propel it towards the moon. That's it. No engines are required to maintain something in lunar orbit, since there isn't much atmosphere to speak of and thus there is almost no drag.

You can go ahead and deny reality if you want; that's your call. I'll just laugh.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by cdrn
A bit offtopic here, but is it even possible to go into synchronous orbit around the moon? It seems that with its slow rotation, low mass and proximity to the Earth, such an orbit would fall outside of its Hill sphere. I guess I could do/find some calculations, but I'm too lazy for that.

edit: pepsi78, please don't reply to this. Thank you.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by cdrn]

Well, you don't need to do any calculations. You just have to change the point of view from Earth to the Moon. In a lunar point of view the Earth is orbiting the Moon and because the Earth is fix in the Moon's sky means that the Earth is on a synchronous orbit around the Moon. You could do the math but you'll get the same result, that is the radius of a synchronous orbit around the moon is the average Earth-Moon distance.


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.


Do you know what GEO stands for in geographic?


geo - a combining form meaning “the earth,” used in the formation of compound words
dictionary.reference.com...



Originally posted by pepsi78
1 orbiting and moving with the body of the planet at the same time.
2 orbiting and moving around the planet, not at the same time with the planet.
Most of the apollo missions aplyed number 1, simply because there was no need to circle the moon, the landing site was in front of them on the visible part of the moon.

About the TV transmision, I have my doubds but this in not up for discusion here in this thread, we can talk about it in the moon hoax thread , because I think man never made it to the moon, it's just my opinion.

What scares me in his beliefs is that if the Moon hoax is true then he's wrigth also about the synchronous orbit around the moon..since the whole thing was staged here on Earth and that the Earth is on a synchronous orbit around the moon....



Originally posted by jra
In regards to far side landings. I just read something the other day about that. Apperently Jack Schmitt, who was the Apollo 17 Lunar Module Pilot, had wanted to try for a far side landing with Apollo 17

You can find something about landing on the far side in the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report (it's a 87MB pdf!) in the section about the landing site selection. I'll edit the post when the download finishes to add some quotes form there


A far-side site - most notably in Tsiolkovsky - was also briefly considered. Although it was shown to be possible, at first look, to support the mission using a communication relay satellite beyond the moon, it was believed that the time schedule for the mission preparation was too short and that the probability of a successful mission was less than that for a convetional near-side site.


[edit on 24-8-2006 by Apass]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   


What scares me in his beliefs is that if the Moon hoax is true then he's wrigth also about the synchronous orbit around the moon..since the whole thing was staged here on Earth and that the Earth is on a synchronous orbit around the moon....


Earth is on a what, what are you talking about?
I'll let you belive that geostational satelites go around the earth
belive what you want, but posting and sustaining geo stational satelites go around the earth

and then posting things such as the flowing will make you look like you're arguing with your self.


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.

That would be because that geostationa satelites do not go around the earth, but because they move with the earth at the same time, they are moving alright but not around the earth but at the same time with the earth, if you would have a rope to reach the geostationary orbit and you would tie an object to the end of that rope it would be the same as geostationary satelites, the object would stand above you , does that mean that the object tied to the rope is moving around the earth? no it means it's moving at the same time with the earth and it's not realy going around the earth.
Your idea of how things are, is compared to the ones when man thought the earth is flat

Why don't you stop posting from other sources and post your idea of geo orbital satelites with out other external sources.
So far I can see a few words of yours backed by a ton of copy paste material from external sources which get's you in contradiction with your self, like the example above.
You post a few words and then you post material from other sites which are in contradiction with your saing.
If I were standing in front of you and you were with out a internet connection you would be dead in the water, I could imagine what kind of aswers I would get, probaly I would get a good laugh, 70% of you posts are just copy paste material.
thank god for the internet you can search fast what geo orbitalpositioning means
But you still get it wrong when you comment on it all by your self, maybe you should just copy and paste with out saing anything, that way you will get it right.




[edit on 24-8-2006 by pepsi78]





top topics
 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join