Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 218

Thread: Latest on ELENIN

  1. #101
    .999 Unobtanium Horn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Out
    Posts
    25,647
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked 2,868 Times in 2,349 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe King View Post
    By "ejection", do you mean ejected from Earths gravitational pull?

    If so, all the fuel it ever had wouldn't be enough to do that.
    You're leaving out centrifugal force.

  2. #102
    Joe King
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Horn View Post
    You're leaving out centrifugal force.
    How exactly are you going to harness said "force"?

  3. #103
    .999 Unobtanium Horn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Out
    Posts
    25,647
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked 2,868 Times in 2,349 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe King View Post
    How exactly are you going to harness said "force"?
    You're getting too E-motional, Joe

    Your total mass is being retained, in a re preserved and pre-harnessed stasis.




    http://astrologyexplored.net/home/?p=2165

  4. #104
    Joe King
    Guest
    You said centrifugal force. Not the Force. lol

    It takes a lot of fuel to "eject" something beyond Earths gravitational influence to the point of it not falling back down here to us. More fuel than it went up there with.

  5. #105
    .999 Unobtanium Horn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Out
    Posts
    25,647
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked 2,868 Times in 2,349 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe King View Post
    You said centrifugal force. Not the Force. lol

    It takes a lot of fuel to "eject" something beyond Earths gravitational influence to the point of it not falling back down here to us. More fuel than it went up there with.
    Joe, your so wrong my computational sensors are failing to compute your theory.

    Your body must be doing all the motions, because your head isn't glued on.

    A body moving at 5km/s has some force.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

  6. #106
    Joe King
    Guest
    Try not to confuse a paltry orbital velocity of 5km/s with escape velocity, which requires 11.2km/s

    Which by any measure is considerably faster.

  7. #107
    .999 Unobtanium Horn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Out
    Posts
    25,647
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked 2,868 Times in 2,349 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe King View Post
    Try not to confuse a paltry orbital velocity of 5km/s with escape velocity, which requires 11.2km/s

    Which by any measure is considerably faster.
    Ahh , so now we cut our required velocity in half, add (or subtract) from that the shedded weight of the fuel and casing needed to get there.

  8. #108
    .999 Unobtanium Horn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Out
    Posts
    25,647
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked 2,868 Times in 2,349 Posts
    After my cost analysis, I've decided its easier to just let it crash onto Joe's house..

    http://astrologyexplored.net/home/?p=2165

    “Getting there was only half the fun,” says March 2011 issue of Scientific American. Because of Mercury’s proximity to the sun’s gravitational field, a direct flight to Mercury was not possible. The craft could not slow enough to be captured by Mercury’s atmosphere. To get to Mercury required one flyby of earth, two of Venus and three of Mercury itself. Each flyby slowed the craft so at the last pass it could be caught by Mercury’s gravity. The entire trip took 6 1/2 years.

  9. #109
    Joe King
    Guest
    Still gotta have enough fuel to begin with to get it out of the Earths gravitational pull the first time.

    Ask yourself this. Had they known there was a hole in the wing that would doom the craft, why couldn't Columbia have simply gone to the ISS to await help?
    Answer that question and you will have the answer to your question.

  10. #110
    .999 Unobtanium Horn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Out
    Posts
    25,647
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked 2,868 Times in 2,349 Posts
    The answer is simple, its the accountant's fault.

    You probably think it was the Sun's gravitational force as the reason behind the MESSENGER's 6-1/2 year flight plan in the aforementioned article, don't you?

    You either do, or you don't.

    There is no try in the ex-centrifugal force, padwan.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •