[geocentrism] Re: Proof of Heliocentric Incorrectness and Deception
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:28:50 +0100 (BST)
See below:
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neville J
[ From Dr. Neville Jones Thu Apr 5 12:01:40 2007 ]
It is possible that we do not need liquid fuel thrusters for height
adjustments as solar powered electrical thrusters have been developed for this
purpose and have been in successful long-term operation since about 1993, I
believe. Such a method would negate your comments above.
I understand that ion propulsion systems are around 10 times as fuel
efficient as chemical fuel combustion engines but all the references I found
specified xenon gas as the 'fuel' and this was not mentioned in the example I
gave. Further, the fuel specified is found here -
The spacecraft propulsion system to take the satellite from GTO to its
final geosynchronous orbit employs a 440 N Liquid Apogee Motor with 1594 kg of
MON-3 (Mixed Oxides of Nitrogen) and MMH (Mono Methyl Hydrazine). The satellite
will be 3-axis body stabilised in orbit using sensors, momentum and reaction
wheels, magnetic torquers and eight 10 Newton and eight 22 Newton Reaction
Control Thrusters. The satellite has two solar arrays together generating 2,400
Watt of electrical power backed up by two 70 Ah Nickel Hydrogen Batteries that
support full payload operation during eclipse period.
These fuels are not xenon, and though I cannot state that they cannot be used
by an ion propulsion engine, I suggest that they are not so used.
This line of enquiry is a carryon from the suggestion that if 'zero gravity'
is not found at 22,000 miles altitude, then thrusters could be employed to keep
the (stationary) vehicle at that altitude. We've already looked at this and
more or less come to the conclusion that not enough fuel was available by
orders of magnitude. The suggestion that this might be overcome by supposing
that ion thrusters might be in use (oddly not mentioned by the agency in
question) then begs the question -- is the electrical energy available
sufficient for the task. The maths required here is beyond my ability, and we
really have no way of knowing how much is left over after supplying the
communications load anyway. But given a starting value for electrical energy
available, and factoring in the efficiency of ion propulsion systems and
without breaking the laws of thermodynamics, I suspect that you are able to do
some rough calculations. How about enlightening us all Neville?
Certainly, Paul. The best ion thrusters that I have seen "advertised" were
capable of sustaining 15 mN for many years. As you will note from my previous
post, though, this thrust would be insufficient to maintain a 3,000 kg
satellite at the parking orbit altitude, even under my tentative equation for
gravity. I freely admit that this is a problem. As for ion thrusters being
"oddly not mentioned," I do not see anything "odd" about such an omission. They
are not thought of as being of much interest to the general public anyway.
Neville.
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more
at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
Other related posts:
