Mystery of Saturn's Two-Faced Moon Solved

Originally posted by yfxxx

so if you think otherwise, you need to show a lot more than just your word. I'm waiting ... Regards
yf

Thanks for your input yfxxx, it is genuinely appreciated and much more so because there is so little of it.

You have made my day yfxxx. Thanks. :

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for your input yfxxx, it is genuinely appreciated and much more so because there is so little of it.

So little?!?

I replied to all of your points, except for one which was unintelligible, and for which I asked for a clarification! Yet all you come up with is a snide remark :shk:! Yeah, "great" work, Mr. "Conspiravcy Master" .

Again: Define " 'discordance' employment of the inverse-square law", or admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. And by the way, this thread is supposedly in a science subforum, and not in one of the "BS Unlimited" areas.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx
Nonsense! It takes a long time to tidally lock the rotation of a large and heavy moon, but for a satellite with its much lower mass it's a very quick process.

Hey, what other non-NASA satellites use gravity-gradient stabilization, do you know? Not that it matters much to me, but some people will probably not trust it if it's a NASA satellite.

Interesting to note that the NASA satellites that use this technique are called ATS (Applications Technology Satellites).

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Hey, what other non-NASA satellites use gravity-gradient stabilization, do you know? Not that it matters much to me, but some people will probably not trust it if it's a NASA satellite.

Err ... I thought it was a not-so-uncommon technique. Anyway, appropriate googling yields many satellites (often small experimental ones) which are completely or partially gravity-gradient stabilized.

Just to pick one , here's one from Japan:

directory.eoportal.org...

Anyway, I guess all those non-NASA satellite launches are just part of the conspiracy, too !

Interesting to note that the NASA satellites that use this technique are called ATS (Applications Technology Satellites).

Regards
yf

reply to post by yfxxx


It's conspiracy!

I googled and the first three pages were all NASA ATS satellites.

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks for the post cdrn. Regarding the moon: if that were the case then the far side would be on the near side as Hansen (Peter Andreas) hypothesized (and was never proven wrong) that the centery of gravity of the moon is 59 kilometers beyond the geometric center.

OK, so we're going to trust some dude who made such a hypothesis without:
- Not accurately knowing the shape of the moon
- Accurately knowing the altitude map of the moon
- Knowing the density difference between the lunar highlands and maria
- Not having an accurate map of the lunar gravitational field
- Not knowing about lunar geology, and thus about the most likely theory of the moon's origin
...and let's not forget:
- Not having even seen the far side of the moon! Oh wait, I forgot all the photos of it released now are the result of a massive conspiracy between NASA, the former Soviet space program, (in the very, very near future) JAXA and in the not-too-far future, India and China.

Sure, his hypothesis might not have been challenged that much during his time because nobody had the means to contest it, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't thrown out as soon as actual data was found.

Either 'discordance' employment of the Bullialdus/Newton inverse-square law or gyro aided-stabilization. I would respectfully suggest that gyro aided stabilization would be much more likely as we wouldn't have to wait one hundred thousand years or more and both Lear-Siegler and Sperry could use the business.

First off, your use of the term "Bullialdus/Newton" is completely unnecessary and makes you look like a pompous jackass. A cursory Google search indicates that you're the only one on Earth who actually uses that term. For future reference, "inverse square law" will do. And what do you mean by 'discordance'? Nothing scientific, that's for sure. I'm curious, though. Additionally, what kind of force are we talking about? Gravity? In that case, you're pretty much agreeing with what I said. Your use of the term "law" is meaningless here, though. I'm also glad that you know that many satellites are stabilized with the aid of gyros. However, that isn't what I meant. The very advantage of gravity-gradient stabilization is that it avoids the use of active attitude control, which is what "gyro-aided stabilization" would require.

I'm not sure why I'm typing this, come to think of it. It's sure as hell not the case that you'll actually pick anything up from this. *SNIP* Of course, I'm not sure which of those two you are. My gut feeling is both.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by cdrn]

[edit on 11-10-2007 by cdrn]


Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

Civility & Decorum are Expected

Edited personal attack

From the T&C's

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.





[edit on 11-10-2007 by Jbird]

[edit on 11/10/07 by masqua]

Ok, lets attack the topic, not the members.

There's plenty of ways to refute an opposing opinion,

with out resorting to name calling.

Originally posted by Jbird

Ok, lets attack the topic, not the members.

There's plenty of ways to refute an opposing opinion,

with out resorting to name calling.

Oh, really? And postings like this one are OK?! Postings, which do not reply to any single point made, but instead only deride the original poster? But of course I forgot ... as long as it's from a "Conspiracy Master", it's apparently fine :shk: .

Anyway, back on topic ... if we don't hear any meaningful statement, why "gravity-gradient stabilization" (term used for artificial satellites) a.k.a. "tidal lock" (term usually used for natural moons) should not work, can we regard this question closed?

Regards
yf