[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 20:08:12 +0000 (GMT)
Robert B
I'll address your points by inserting in teal.
Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper From Robert Bennett Thu Aug 2 21:49:38 2007
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.. The post to which you are responding is addressed to you in the same
fashion in which I address both you and all forum members -- it is addressed as
this post is addressed. If you have pressing concerns about this -- speak
plainly.
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? You never did answer this question. It is actually quite relevant
as you never tell us whether you are wearing your heliocentrist or your
geocentrist hat when you start quoting. We are reduced to making deductions
from context.
Now, to the two quotations you've highlighted in red. From what you have said
here, I infer that you are claiming that there is some sort of conflict between
these two statements. I don't see that. I see these two statements as being
mutually supportive. If you can't see this, I can only deduce that you do not
use English as others do.
Paul D
MS offers many ways to resolve this contradiction.
DENY! DENY! DENY!
There is no problem - MS allows contradictions.... in fact, thrives on them.
Say you were misquoted in one of the two posts
Blame Neville and Freelists for tampering with the archives.
'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 won't comment here --
it would serve no purpose.
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. I'm familiar with both
sites but I did not at the time realise that you were suggesting that I should
ask a direct question of the personnel fielding questions from the public. I
generally try to solve my problems myself and prefer not to bother others.
Sorry. If it becomes absolutely necessary I may feel obliged to go this route.
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 Frankly, I don't believe you. I think
you are just exercising your tendency to ridicule those you with whom you
disagree.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Re: Geosynchronous Satellites Paper From Robert Bennett Fri Aug 3 03:21:27 2007
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Paul Deema
........ I think it might be instructive to go back to why Rita was
firing continuously in the first place. The final stage of the Arianne 5 did not
deliver the expected impulse. It ceased early. This left Artemis in a lower
than expected orbit. To salvage the mission and place the payload in
geosynchronous orbit, Rita was fired up to complete the task. And you are you
suggesting that it was fired in the direction opposite to the direction of the
thrust of the already deficient Arianne 5?
The thrust was actually radially outward, as I discovered w/ more research, but
could have been opposite to the motion (antapex) , as I indicated, with the
same effect - Artemis would rise. And of course so long as you keep all your
information sources concealed from others, I for one will remain at a
disadvantage in this debate. I strongly suspect this is intentional. Moving
right along, why then would ESA waste fuel accelerating the Arianne 5 if it was
not necessary? Why not cut the thrust even earlier and deliver the satellite to
GSO for even less fuel? Hell man -- we might be able to dispense with the
Arianne 5 altogether and use a shangai instead! (Good thing they're nailed down
ordinarily -- the slightest breeze from the East might sent it to Pluto
otherwise).
I say again -- you can't be serious!
But this acceleration does not make it rise; it doesn?t even change its height
!! Who said it did? Certainly not I!
Once again...
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date:
Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:42:52 +0000 (GMT)
......
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? Once again... You never did answer this question. It is actually
quite relevant as you never tell us whether you are wearing your heliocentrist
or your geocentrist hat when you start quoting. We are reduced to making
deductions from context.
Now, to the two quotations you've highlighted in red. From what you have said
here, I infer that you are claiming that there is some sort of conflict between
these two statements. I don't see that. I see these two statements as being
mutually supportive. If you can't see this, I can only deduce that you do not
use English as others do.
Paul D
PD only states what reducing velocity will do; not what increasing velocity
does. Technically he's right - he didn't say what would make it rise. However,
to say that increasing velocity will also reduce altitude (making a rise in
altitude impossible) is a contradiction. Try to concentrate Robert -- I didn't
say that. What I said was that that was implied by what you said. But MS and PD
ignore contradictions. Unbelievable! Those realists who hold that
contradictions are logical fallacies believe the premise "reducing velocity
reduces altitude," implies " increasing velocity increases altitude or keeps it
constant" . Both these options are false by observation of satellite operations
and classical mechanics.
Yes it does, but does a decrease in speed cause an increase in height? No of
course not! If it did, as I've remarked before, the SST etc would go to a
higher orbit if they fired their thrusters against the direction of travel
(deceleration) instead of the reality -- they decrease their speed and fall
towards Earth.
He still doesn't get it. Using math is of no avail, for he doesn't understand
an inverse variation relationship. Using tables of measured satellite speeds
vs. altitudes, he either doesn't understand or ignores. Here you demonstrate
either that you haven't read a great deal of what I've said, you haven't
understood what you've read, you are again misconstruing what I've said, or you
are just plain telling porkies. Using his own MS links to get the answer... he
ignores. He just states what the SST would do based on.... based on what? His
intuition? His logic of contradictions? No -- it comes from an almost 60 year
fascination with anything to do with space exploration. Of listening to
contemporary radio reporting, and when it was available in later years,
watching on TV. Of devouring every technical article I could get my hands on
when such views were the subject of popular scorn and ridicule. And when it all
became 'respectable' and the ignorant stopped
laughing, a great deal more information became available, from even more
avenues, all of which received and still receive the same interest and
attention by this afictionado. A CHALLENGE: Show the forum who and where it
confirms that "the SST etc would go to a higher orbit if they fired their
thrusters against the direction of travel (deceleration) instead of the reality
-- they decrease their speed and fall towards Earth.
A very simple explanation here should suffice. There are numerous examples of a
phenomenon known as aero-braking -- Mars Global Surveyor used it to save fuel
which otherwise would have been required for deceleration to change an
elliptical orbit to a -- lower -- circular orbit suitable for mapping; and MIR
was similarly decelerated by atmospheric drag which caused it to descend in a
spiral, resulting in its crashing to Earth. The reason this occurred was that
there was not fuel available to counteract this drag by accelerating. And
please don't pull that 'changing the subject' ploy here -- we are talking about
delta-v. It matters not what mechanism is employed, the only thing that does
matter is that to climb to a higher orbit you must accelerate and to descend to
a lower orbit you must decelerate. Read the profile of any mission.
It might also be opportune to add some clarifying comments at this juncture.
First. When I say '...climb to a higher orbit...' higher means a greater radius
in the case of a circular orbit, and a greater semi major axis in the case of
an elliptical orbit. I include this specific to counter any reference to the
fact that a body in an orbit upon accelerating in the direction of travel at
periapsis, will enter an orbit with greater eccentricity which causes an
apparent initial 'lowering of altitude'. Second. When I say '...descend to a
lower orbit...' lower means a lesser radius or semi-major axis as applicable.
The expected answer is silence, based on past history : the aether research,
You'll have to refresh my memory here -- I do not recall indicating that I was
going to do any particular research into aether, especially I don't recall
undertaking to share any results of this alleged intended research. I do recall
that on several occasions I (and others) invited you to share your concepts in
this matter and that you always declined.
the explanation of spacecraft simultaneously accelerating and not accelerating,
Again, I do not recall giving or promising to provide any such explanation. I
do recall your accusation that I so claimed but in the spirit of not wishing to
provoke a dispute, I thought it better to just ignore this contrivance. Since
you raise the matter, I suggest that you deliberately misconstrued what I said
with the intention of trying to make me look foolish. I am aware that a body in
an elliptical (or circular) orbit is said to undergo an acceleration. However
this is an acceleration which does not increase the rate of travel. I was
talking about an acceleration which does increase the rate of travel,
specifically in this case, the gravity slingshot manoeuvre. Also be aware that
I know that the comment about foolishness presents an easy target but having
drawn attention to this awareness, it seems to me that most of any propaganda
value you might reap from exploiting
this is now greatly diminished.
computing satellite periods in the GS frame,.. If I didn't feel obliged to
spend time countering your misrepresentations, I'd have more time to do just
that.
or changing the subject: the Hohman orbit diversion It was explanation not
diversion. The -- basic -- physics text upon which I place a great deal of
reliance states 'Since circular motion is simpler to discuss than elliptical
motion, and since the physical ideas involved in circular motion and elliptical
motion are equivalent, we shall focus our attention on circular motion and
leave elliptical motion to more advanced treatments'. Further down it also
states 'But Kepler's third law asserts that t^2 is directly proportional to r^3
(when the ellipse is replaced by a circle, the semi-major axis a becomes the
radius r of the circle). If it is permissible to discuss elliptical orbits as
circles because they are equivalent and it is simpler than using ellipses, it
seems to me that discussing year long spirals must be capable of being viewed
as ellipses. I may be wrong in detail, but I doubt I am wrong by 180 deg.
Regardless -- there are no back alley short
cuts in space navigation. It all comes down to gravity and delta-v. If a
Hohmann orbit requires acceleration to reach a higher orbit (as previously
defined) then an ascending spiral will also require acceleration. Now it must
also be noted that as the satellite rises in free fall, it loses velocity. But
in the case of a rise under thrust, even if the acceleration from the motors is
less than the deceleration due to gravity (and I'm not suggesting that it is or
isn't) while the velocity is decreasing it will be decreasing more slowly than
it would in free fall, thus the vehicle is still being accelerated and rising
to a higher orbit (as previously defined).
Out of sequence I know but I've saved this till last. You don't like the Wiki
drawing of Hohmann orbit manoeuvres I sent you, drawing attention to certain
deficiencies and in typical fashion, hinting darkly at the possibility of
duplicitous intentions. Firstly, it's hardly a correct-to-scale engineering
drawing -- it's designed to convey concepts.
It does - the wrong concept. The rocket burn must be followed by an immediate
drop in altitude and change in direction, not continuing motion on the original
orbit. Ah! Yes! The classic Bennet Spin! Always home in on the trivial, the
pointless, the irrelevant -- it saves having to actually engage.
Second, despite your comments regarding the deficiencies of the modified orbit
at the first acceleration
point, to my eye, the dashed line does fall inside the circular orbit though
perhaps not as far as it should.
Stop hedging. The rocket burn must be followed by an immediate drop in altitude
and change in direction, not continuing motion on the original orbit You mean
in the manner depicted in my illustration -- Artemis.jpg? (Yet another copy
provided if requested).
All this is pointless however as the correct solution
pivots upon the location of the Earth-satellite barycentre -- it must be at one
of the focii of the elliptical orbit and none of
these drawings are likely to be accurate in that respect.
Paul D
What relevance has the actual focus to the general issue of an immediate drop
in altitude and change in direction, not continuing motion on the original
orbit ? Another smoke screen of subject change ... ... and nothing can go wrong
(Click) ...can go wrong ...(Click) ...can go wrong ...(Click) ...can go wrong
...(Click) ...can go wrong ...(Click) ...can go wrong ...
RB
Finally, in closing, I believe that we are debating. I suggest that failing to
address me by name and when referring to me, this constant use of the third
person is a long, way short of polite. If you are not debating with me, then
this tactic is akin to the practice of whispering in company, which practice I
was brought up to regard as displaying common rudeness.
Paul D
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all
webmail accounts.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
