[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
- From: Robert Bennett <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:49:38 -0400
from PD:
You've gone to considerable trouble -- you obviously want to see me
convinced!
Really? Then why is the posting addressed to the whole forum? A bit
cheeky, old boy..
Clearly I have not had the time to do it justice, but there does seem to
be a
misunderstanding here -- at no time have I suggested that a satellite in
high
orbit is moving faster than, or even as fast as, a satellite in low
orbit -
at no time ..? how about Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:42:52 +0000 (GMT)
The sacred Freelist archives are now invoked.
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:42:52 +0000 (GMT)
Robert B
From Robert Bennett Sun Jul 1 23:09:46 2007
Also, according to the citations, the Artemis team decided to slow down the
satellite by ~200 m/s by firing RITA continuously in the opposite direction
of
motion for 340 days. Since the velocity is inversely proportional to the
square
root of the radius from Eq(3), this operation would cause the satellite to
rise
~ 5000 km. You can't be serious. Reducing your velocity while in orbit
will reduce your
altitude not raise it. Unless of course you are basing your statement upon
your
own private definition of which direction any given satellite is orbiting.
Are
you so doing?
Paul DMS offers many ways to resolve this contradiction. 1.. DENY! DENY!
DENY!2.. There is no problem - MS allows contradictions.... in fact, thrives
on them.3.. Say you were misquoted in one of the two posts4.. Blame Neville
and Freelists for tampering with the archives. 5.. 'Reducing velocity to
reduce altitude' does not mean that 'increasing velocity will increase
altitude'. (see #2)Which one shall it be... or maybe a new creative one? I
Googled 'Holmann transfer orbit' (you did offer it as a viable alternative)
I don?t recall this offer. The author should either give us the
corroborating
quote, or stop misquoting my posts.
I read this as such an offer -
My suggestion...
Here's two sites that I have patronized
1. http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/ask_nasa_form.html
2. http://www.bautforum.com/
If it was a condition of engagement that I limit myself to just the sites
you
preferred, then you should have so specified.
Let's see. RB suggests two links to find out the relation of speed and
altitude for the Artemis spiral maneuver according to MS.
PD interprets this as an offer to switch the subject to Hohman transfers,
because he found that topic on the Web.
RB says (now) that he doesn't care from whom, what or where PD gets the MS
info - Stick to the subject!
So, just a very liberal translation (PD) or a misquote (RB)? You decide,
oh fair and balanced reader.
At the moment I've got my numbers sorted on the geo orbital period problem
and producing a pretty picture to illustrate these data is my current
preoccupation
Paul D
A good thing we didn't hold our breath for this magnum opus - the sat.
periods in GS frame . :)
Neville wants proof of the counter-rotating aether - he anxiously awaits
your summary chart...
RB
Other related posts:
