Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NASA Plans to Drag an Asteroid Into Lunar Orbit!

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

you don't understand and don't want to understand, you want to actively dis-believe whatever the "mainstream" position is.
Yes, earth's rotation is measured,
Gravity works. Don't believe me?
I don't think your level of understanding is ready for that discussion yet.
you need to understand the basics before you understand all the ramifications. You're not ready for that yet.
it is simply that you are ignorant of it.
Again you demonstrate that you do not want to understand.

1) You can insult my "understanding" all you want. I will tell you what "I do believe", is that people who spend their precious time debunking are usually paid for debunking. They may even whole-heartedly believe that what they are doing is something positive because they are being paid and promoted for it by the government that has been elected by the people. But the way they typically go about it is by repeating insults often enough until the majority of readers will "believe" them even though their position merits no logic validity.

2) "Tide" is a word most of us can relate to and that sounds neutral. But "lock" will occur whenever the mass is not equally distributed. (it is that simple). Of course this would open doors for Conspiracy theorists to ask why? So debunkers want to avoid drawing attention to it and they "borrow the word tide", a misnomer, out of context, to distract from the implication of uneven internal mass distribution.

To make it clear: any moon which has one heavy/massive side and one less heavy side will become gravitationally locked. Not because of a "tide".


Tidal force is a force, it doesn't matter if it's land or water that is affected
The planets themselves are far more massive... most are sufficiently far from the sun

3) Why are you ignoring the obvious difference? Liquids flow. They move. Their movement is what slows down the rotation because the movement keeps changing the center of gravity (if it is big enough to be measured). A solid object always has the same center of gravity. There is no tide on the moon!

"earth's rotation is measured" That is great, I am glad you know this - but my question was "by how much the earth rotation is slowing?" So, please tell me the rate of decelaration (if you "didn't say that without knowing") - but maybe you do not know?

And the real reason why you did not address the canals or "rilles" on the moon surface is the same - that it draws attention to not so neutral sounding words or concepts to explain them. Or can you come up with one to explain them?


The lunar descent stage is the biggest thing left down there, about 4 meters across at the base, and at a distance of about 400,000km it's only 0.002 arcseconds wide... far too little to resolve anything left on the moon

4) Here you are trying to show that small detail is impossible to see - but as wildespace proudly pointed out, "you can even see the footprints"! And how was Google Earth able to image the earth from a much higher orbit showing objects that are "far too little"?

This is a good example of the dis-information you provide. We are not talking about images taken from earth distance (400,000km) but from moon orbit (100 km above moon surface). Sorry that this messes up your math!




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
1) You can insult my "understanding" all you want. I will tell you what "I do believe", is that people who spend their precious time debunking are usually paid for debunking.

Oh here we go again. When all else fails, cry "shill." Look, I'm not insulting you personally, but you're trying to jump ahead of where your level of understanding is. You have to understand the basics first before we can get into a discussion of the nuances.


They may even whole-heartedly believe that what they are doing is something positive because they are being paid and promoted for it by the government that has been elected by the people.

Lay off the insinuations. I'm not paid to debunk you.


2) "Tide" is a word most of us can relate to and that sounds neutral. But "lock" will occur whenever the mass is not equally distributed. (it is that simple).

Nope. Tidal lock will occur regardless of mass distribution. It is a function of gravity being greater on the near side than the far side, thus it is driven by the distance between the objects, their mass, and the radius of the object being affected. The distribution of mass within the object has nothing to do with it.


Of course this would open doors for Conspiracy theorists to ask why? So debunkers want to avoid drawing attention to it and they "borrow the word tide", a misnomer, out of context, to distract from the implication of uneven internal mass distribution.

You are simply wrong.
staff.washington.edu...


3) Why are you ignoring the obvious difference? Liquids flow. They move.

Irrelevant.
For the far side:
at = Gm((1/(r^2))-(1/(r+R)^2))
For the near side:
at = Gm((1/(r+R)^2)-(1/(r^2)))
Whether the object being affected has liquid on or in it or not does not affect the amount of force.


There is no tide on the moon!

Wrong.
For the far side:
at = Gm((1/(r^2))-(1/(r+R)^2))
For the near side:
at = Gm((1/(r+R)^2)-(1/(r^2)))


"earth's rotation is measured" That is great, I am glad you know this - but my question was "by how much the earth rotation is slowing?" So, please tell me the rate of decelaration (if you "didn't say that without knowing") - but maybe you do not know?

You asked if someone measured it, you did not ask me how much it was slowing by. The length of the day has increased by about 2 milliseconds over a century, thus requiring the addition of a leap second with a regularity of a little less than 1 per year.
ftp.itb.ac.id...
(page 112)


And the real reason why you did not address the canals or "rilles" on the moon surface is the same - that it draws attention to not so neutral sounding words or concepts to explain them. Or can you come up with one to explain them?

No, how about you take my words at face value rather than implying that I'm a liar. I ignored it because it's irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to have a discussion of lunar geography and geological features then go make a thread about it. They're rilles, collapsed lava tubes have nothing to do with this subject.


4) Here you are trying to show that small detail is impossible to see - but as wildespace proudly pointed out, "you can even see the footprints"!

Wildespace was talking about the LROC images. LROC is not Hubble. Do not bother responding to my post if you're not going to bother to read it. I was specifically talking about Hubble's inability to resolve it, and YOU were the one who brought Hubble up. LROC is in lunar orbit, far, far closer and CAN resolve it.


And how was Google Earth able to image the earth from a much higher orbit showing objects that are "far too little"?

Google earth uses aerial images for their high resolution views. Their satellite imagery comes from companies like DigitalGlobe whose satellites achieve a resolution of about half a meter ( en.wikipedia.org... ) the same as LROC. It's also much easier to put a massive satellite with a comparatively larger telescope into low earth orbit than it is to put it in lunar orbit; the latter requires a much more massive launcher to put the same amount of mass into lunar orbit. You're comparing apples and oranges.


This is a good example of the dis-information you provide. We are not talking about images taken from earth distance (400,000km) but from moon orbit (100 km above moon surface). Sorry that this messes up your math!

Again, it's much easier to put a massive satellite with a comparatively larger telescope into low earth orbit than it is to put it in lunar orbit; the latter requires a much more massive launcher to put the same amount of mass into lunar orbit. Stop with the accusations of "dis-info" or the discussion is over.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
"- Did somebody measure by how much the earth rotation is slowing or did you just say that without knowing? "
You asked if someone measured it, you did not ask me how much it was slowing by.

It seems you need to improve your basic reading skills.

Tidal lock will occur regardless of mass distribution. It is a function of gravity being greater on the near side than the far side, thus it is driven by the distance between the objects, their mass, and the radius of the object being affected. The distribution of mass within the object has nothing to do with it.

Nope. If the moon was an evenly distributed sphere then the mass that is turning away equals the mass that approaches on the other side. With mass and distance from the center of rotation the same, the momentum on both sides is equal but in opposite direction, the vectors cancel each other and the law of inertia requires that the moon maintains its speed of rotation.

The vector at the point that is closest to and furthest away from earth, tangents parallel to the orbit, are not affected by gravity and every other vector has an opposite one which cancels it. Gravity "being greater on the near side" as a reason for the rotation to slow down is a fairy tale.


They're rilles, collapsed lava tubes have nothing to do with this subject.

Wrong again, this thread is about an outrageous plan of putting an asteroid into orbit when it would be better advised to study the moon itself first and hopefully find some evidence to support your completely unsubstantiated claim about "lava tubes".


Wildespace was talking about the LROC images. LROC is not Hubble. Do not bother responding to my post if you're not going to bother to read it. I was specifically talking about Hubble's inability to resolve it, and YOU were the one who brought Hubble up. LROC is in lunar orbit, far, far closer and CAN resolve it.

Do not bother responding to my post if you do not want to answer it honestly. I was not talking about one telescope or another, I was questioning the lack of high quality surface images and maps. 40 years after we landed on it, and when they are planning to put an asteroid into its orbit - we can take decent quality images of front and back.


Oh here we go again. Lay off the insinuations.
how about you take my words at face value rather than implying that I'm a liar.

I am treating you with the respect you deserve. You are not the arbitrator of truth. Get off your high horse if you want to be respected accordingly.

Good job at debunking, but not good enough.

For those who are interested in finding out more about what is not known about the moon.
www.youtube.com...

edit on 11-1-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: to add the link
edit on 11-1-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by ngchunter
"- Did somebody measure by how much the earth rotation is slowing or did you just say that without knowing? "
You asked if someone measured it, you did not ask me how much it was slowing by.

It seems you need to improve your basic reading skills.

I answered both your questions, and yes, there were two questions.


Nope. If the moon was an evenly distributed sphere then the mass that is turning away equals the mass that approaches on the other side.

Nope.
For the far side:
at = Gm((1/(r^2))-(1/(r+R)^2))
For the near side:
at = Gm((1/(r+R)^2)-(1/(r^2)))
It seems you can't do basic math. A homogeneously distributed mass will experience tidal acceleration just fine. You are living in pure denial of the truth.


Gravity "being greater on the near side" as a reason for the rotation to slow down is a fairy tale.

So once again you prove that you simply refuse to believe the "mainstream science" out of pure obstinate stubbornness, nothing more. This isn't just ignorance, this is willful ignorance.


Wrong again, this thread is about an outrageous plan of putting an asteroid into orbit when it would be better advised to study the moon itself first and hopefully find some evidence to support your completely unsubstantiated claim about "lava tubes".

Luckily you do not run NASA, you do not get to decide what is most important right now, and NASA is not forced to cater to your bizarre and ignorant beliefs.


Do not bother responding to my post if you do not want to answer it honestly.

I answered it honestly.


I was not talking about one telescope or another,

You specifically asked about Hubble. LRO is a separate matter. It's only a fraction of the size of Hubble; Hubble is about twice as massive as an Apollo command module and about 6 times as massive as LRO. If you want to put a telescope that large into lunar orbit to far exceed the resolution of LRO you are going to need to use a much more massive launcher.


I was questioning the lack of high quality surface images and maps.

Half meter resolution IS high quality, it's the same quality Google earth gets out of its satellites! That's why they don't limit themselves to just satellite data, they also use aerial data!


I am treating you with the respect you deserve.

If you insinuate that I'm a "shill" or falsely insinuate that I'm lying again I'm just going to start reporting your posts and this discussion will be over. Your choice.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
you simply refuse to believe the "mainstream science" out of pure obstinate stubbornness....
If you insinuate that I'm a "shill" or falsely insinuate that I'm lying again I'm just going to start reporting your posts and this discussion will be over. Your choice.

For the record, for anybody who reads this to find the truth about the moon (please listen to the YouTube link I posted):

1) I have explained to you why and how the forces or vectors that apply to a sphere with equally distributed mass, all those forces have equal but opposite forces and why and how they cancel each other out. You have not explained with one word why the greater gravity on the front side would have ANY effect on the rotation of the moon. Not one word.

You instead hide behind terminology ("tidal force") and a bunch of math formulas (for which you have not shown their accuracy or that they even apply to this subject).

2) Confuse the reader by talking about this telescope or that telescope all you want. The fact is: you have not given ANY explanation why we do not have clear, detailed pictures and map of the lunar surface (we landed there when table-top computers did not exist, yet it took us less than 10 years starting from scratch) - front and back.

3) The "rilles" that I addressed seem to defy any theory provided by "mainstream science". You are not interested in discussing them which is your right. But for the record, I will state that you have not shared an explanation, beyond the terminology "collapsed lava tubes", for their existence.

In summary, you have not provided any explanation for anything. Mainstream science is rather disappointing.

"going to start reporting your posts and this discussion will be over" sounds like a threat to me. We disagree about a scientific theory and you talk about "lying", "insinuate", "shill" (whatever that is - it is NOT quoting me), and "reporting" me. You scare me. You have been bullying all along (e.g. with name calling such as "obstinate stubbornness") but since your arguments are not winning, you resort to threatening me.

Talking about "mainstream science", it seems to be going the way of "mainstream media", only say what is politically correct, politically permitted, and politically rewarded (if the scientist wants to qualify for future funding).
edit on 12-1-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by ngchunter
you simply refuse to believe the "mainstream science" out of pure obstinate stubbornness....
If you insinuate that I'm a "shill" or falsely insinuate that I'm lying again I'm just going to start reporting your posts and this discussion will be over. Your choice.

For the record, for anybody who reads this to find the truth about the moon (please listen to the YouTube link I posted):

1) I have explained to you why and how the forces or vectors that apply to a sphere with equally distributed mass, all those forces have equal but opposite forces and why and how they cancel each other out. You have not explained with one word why the greater gravity on the front side would have ANY effect on the rotation of the moon. Not one word.

It results in torquing of the moon due to the differential amount of gravity felt by the near side compared to the far side as it rotates and orbits earth. It's really simple, I don't get why you don't understand it.


You instead hide behind terminology ("tidal force") and a bunch of math formulas (for which you have not shown their accuracy or that they even apply to this subject).

Right, it all reduces to "conspiracy math." So predictable.


2) Confuse the reader by talking about this telescope or that telescope all you want.

Excuse me? YOU were the one who brought Hubble up. Don't whine just because I showed you that Hubble can't see the landing sites. Oh right, conspiracy math, nevermind.


The fact is: you have not given ANY explanation why we do not have clear, detailed pictures and map of the lunar surface (we landed there when table-top computers did not exist, yet it took us less than 10 years starting from scratch) - front and back.

Computers are not the rate limiting step. I already explained it to you; Dawes' limit. The half meter resolution images are as detailed as it gets right now, and that's frankly not bad as I showed by comparison to the satellites Google uses. Google supplements their satellite images with higher resolution aerial data.


3) The "rilles" that I addressed seem to defy any theory provided by "mainstream science".

No they don't. They're collapsed lava tubes.


You are not interested in discussing them which is your right.

Lava tubes have even less to do with the original subject than all this other garbage you keep bringing up. I'm not going to earn an infraction for off-topic posts. If you want to discuss lava tubes on the moon, make your own thread.


In summary, you have not provided any explanation for anything. Mainstream science is rather disappointing.

I explained everything, you simply refuse to understand it.


"going to start reporting your posts and this discussion will be over" sounds like a threat to me.

The only thing I'm "threatening" is a report of your posts for insinuating that I'm a liar. If you want to discuss the subject, fine, but if you want to make insinuations about my character that is out of bounds of the T&C's of this site.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Hubble is taking pictures with amazing resolution of objects billions of light years away, the surface a few hundred miles away requires a camera the size of a command module? Can you show me the math on that?



Originally posted by ngchunter
Do you know how big those galaxies are in angular size compared to the equipment left behind on the lunar surface? Yes or no? The galaxies Hubble sees are many arcseconds wide when viewed from earth, the equipment on the moon is a tiny, tiny fraction of an arcsecond wide. The lunar descent stage is the biggest thing left down there, about 4 meters across at the base, and at a distance of about 400,000km it's only 0.002 arcseconds wide. Dawes' limit gives us the formula for Hubble's resolving power. R = 11.6 / D D = 2.4 meters, so R = 0.05 arcseconds, far too little to resolve anything left on the moon (and by the Nyquist sampling theorem, it's effectively like 0.1 arcseconds).



Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Here you are trying to show that small detail is impossible to see - but as wildespace proudly pointed out, "you can even see the footprints"! And how was Google Earth able to image the earth from a much higher orbit showing objects that are "far too little"?



Originally posted by ngchunter
Wildespace was talking about the LROC images. LROC is not Hubble. Do not bother responding to my post if you're not going to bother to read it. I was specifically talking about Hubble's inability to resolve it, and YOU were the one who brought Hubble up. LROC is in lunar orbit, far, far closer and CAN resolve it.


And how was Google Earth able to image the earth from a much higher orbit showing objects that are "far too little"?

Google earth uses aerial images for their high resolution views. Their satellite imagery comes from companies like DigitalGlobe whose satellites achieve a resolution of about half a meter ( en.wikipedia.org... ) the same as LROC.



Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Do not bother responding to my post if you do not want to answer it honestly. I was not talking about one telescope or another, I was questioning the lack of high quality surface images and maps. 40 years after we landed on it, and when they are planning to put an asteroid into its orbit - we can take decent quality images of front and back.


You quite clearly a troll, or perhaps you're just don't want to understand because you can't. Do not bother asking questions if you discard the answers and engage in a war of words. I was going to give my 2 cents about the tidal locking and your other questions, but now I see I shouldn't bother.

P.S. one last try: the tidal force arises because the 2 sides of the bodies nearest to each other experience stronger gravitational pull than the far sides. Tidal force is responsible for the breaking up of the comet that impacted Jupiter, and for the existence of Saturn's rings. More info and maths here:

csep10.phys.utk.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 12-1-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Earn what? How about on-topic posts? What do you earn for those and who do you earn it from?

That's it. We're done. And for the record, you have not disproven the formulae I gave you. The problem is not that you disagree with me, the problem is that you insinuate I'm being paid to post and lie.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
YOUR Attentions Please

NASA Plans to Drag an Asteroid Into Lunar Orbit!,



IS the topic of discussion... (?)

Shall we now Get Back to

NASA Plans to Drag an Asteroid Into Lunar Orbit!,

?



Thank You





edit on 1/12/2013 by 12m8keall2c because: emphasis on YOUR ... carry on.




posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Obama wants to lasso an asteroid? Idiocracy has arrived.


the plan in NASA's hands calls for catching an asteroid with a robotic spacecraft and towing it back toward Earth, where it would then be placed in a stable orbit around the moon.

Does Obama Have a Plan to Capture an Asteroid?
www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/senator-bill-nelson-announces-obama-plan-capture-asteroid

Did Phage weigh in on this one yet?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Well, if we need to adjust the orbit of a large rock one day, we'll have needed practice way before then. Also space rocks are nice sources of metal ores if we could get to them.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I think they should send a manned diplomatic mission to the moon before they start playing around with large rocks in space. Anyway, such a mission would be technically viable but financially prohibitive.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
Obama wants to lasso an asteroid? Idiocracy has arrived.


the plan in NASA's hands calls for catching an asteroid with a robotic spacecraft and towing it back toward Earth, where it would then be placed in a stable orbit around the moon.

Does Obama Have a Plan to Capture an Asteroid?
www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/senator-bill-nelson-announces-obama-plan-capture-asteroid

Did Phage weigh in on this one yet?



No. To our knowledge Obama did not contact phage yet regarding this subject - things may change tho

Stay tuned.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Here's Phil Plait's take on things. www.slate.com...

He's the voice of reason in the sea of madness that is on the Internet, so I strongly recommend his articles.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Bumping this old thread, since it seems the best on the subject. Reading article on CNN about this and it looks like it is totally funded and a go.

They could save a huge amount of money if they could figure out how to drop a 10 meter or so asteroid on Antarctica.
Perhaps with a giant drogue chute and or even some kind of thermal barrier. It may come down hard, but certainly not at cosmic velocity. Wonder if they had any scenario's like that in the initial planning.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Having read the article, there are several things to consider, and that should be looked at.

The only way that the USA and the USSR got into space, is by experience. And unfortunately those who have the knowhow are either retiring or are no longer alive. But what needs to be considered with this, is the experience. If they can capture and bring an asteroid into the orbit of the moon, then it will allow for the experience on how to either nudge or alter the trajectory of an incoming asteroid and prevent a larger disaster from occurring.

And if they can make such work to use as a floating space station, then think of what else can be done with such, beyond weapons. The logistics on air, water and how to get the resources will be invaluable for the next step for the species. And when the foremost scientists all state, that in order for the species to survive, we will have to leave the confines of the planet and start moving out into the stars.

Technology is driven by innovation and by goals, this should be a goal that hopefully will jump start the USA space program back, to go beyond the confines of the planet and move us into the stars.

But there is one other thing, and if we can do this, then they can do things, like stabalize the moons orbit where it will keep the moon from leaving the planet.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Look at how they dropped Curiosity on Mars. That was a technical miracle, and they pulled it off flawlessly.
I say the experience in NASA was well preserved and used by some incredibly smart people who added their own wizardry.

As cool as this project is, it is still a baby step in what it would take to really command our solar system, which is most likely going to happen , if we don't destroy ourselves first.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

That's it. We're done. And for the record, you have not disproven the formulae I gave you. The problem is not that you disagree with me, the problem is that you insinuate I'm being paid to post and lie.


The problem is they can't understand your answers because they are scientifically illiterate and fail at math.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
my personal comment about it, the article that speaks about the comet around the moon, is tricky. Firstly they say, they will orbit a 6m comet around it, but then the article states about extracting gold from it, bigger than the overall gold mass exists on earth.

So I dont think they want to orbit a 6m comet around the moon. And that makes me feel suspicious about their intentions, also critical for earth!

I personally believe that all prophecies are plans under development, with some paranormal dressing, so people kept in darkness and make them believe atrocities.

What if, this comet can be locked in the moon, enchanted and used against earth it self in a point? The "bible" of prophecies (their plans) say it very clearly, a comet will fall in a specific spot and it will open a kind of gates... Now if they want a comet to fall into a specific spot, they must point the way, also enchance it, be able to survive the entry into our atmosphere. It cant be random, is it?

Taking all above as an account and also use the information from my country, in ancient years, God and Gods is 2 different things. Gods are the ones we call aliens today - those who run fast and GOD is the global organism - the entire cosmos. All these atrocities on youtube and newage craps, about "giving them permissions", tells me - what if nasa is giving permission (giving the gun and the bullet to those abominations) scums pretending gods, to shoot on earth! According to their plans always.

Its known that before atlantis, earth was invaded by ugly materialist entities (dragonians) and guess what, the moon is one of their flagships.... The true gods and GOD, will never ask permission for anything, as they respect the universal laws, the ones here, we call grays, dragonians, pleiadians and any other crap, they are occupiers. Those do ask permissions for their crimes and this projekt is one of them. Everything in the system we live on, is about permissions, religions, cults, black magic, etc, is all about giving permissions.

PS: So I am very suspicious for this project and I also as an individual, I dont give any permission for it, this one is one more crime against earth and its citizens... I consider it very dangerous for earth.
edit on 27-7-2014 by Ploutonas because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join