So prove your BS claims. Should be simple. Yet you refuse. Liar.
PSA: SpaceX Starship's 7th Integrated Test Flight scheduled for Thursday January 16th at 4:00PM CST
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
What claims are you referring to, Moron?
BTW- What are you, about ten years old, or 98 or so? It must be one or the other.
Fvck off, troll. Worked for NASA with “science degrees” AND a “law degree”? 😂🤣😂
You way overplayed your hand there, junior. We’re done.
All true. BITE ME!!!! You bet we are done, punk. I don’t deal with scum like you.
Don't. Feed. The. Troll.
He has..."SCIENCE" degrees!!
And worked for..."NASA"!!!
And he's a..."LAWYER"!!!!
And it's "all true"!!!!!
He doesn't need you to feed him. 😂🤣😂🤣
Three months huh?
SpaceX Starship explosion spread particulate matter for miles
SpaceX Starship explosion leaves researchers looking for answers about health and environmental impacts from debris and particulate emissions.
They are going to have to completely redesign and build the pad too. I am sticking to no launches before 2025.
I hear the next launch is from the bed of the cybertruck. New for 2050, debuting in 2019. Totally on time.Three months huh?
SpaceX Starship explosion spread particulate matter for miles
SpaceX Starship explosion leaves researchers looking for answers about health and environmental impacts from debris and particulate emissions.www.cnbc.com
They are going to have to completely redesign and build the pad too. I am sticking to no launches before 2025.
Seems like a great place. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/03/tesla-ordered-to-pay-more-than-3-million-over-hostile-workplace.html
Sorry, poster boy for the Andy Kaufman “Moon landing was fake- Flat earth society.“ If you are referring to me, I subsequently said more like 6 months. Given the damage to the pad, sounds like it could be a year.
Look, the decision to launch that heavy-lift rocket without pad flame and thrust dampening was really dumb. And it was apparently Musk’s call, counter to the objection of his own engineers, and likely NASA’s advice given their experience with the Saturn V and Space Shuttle.
But as they always do, SpaceX will learn from its mistakes and do it better next time. There WILL be a next time. Certainly, space flight is risky and dangerous, even when done with precautions. But so are a lot of things that are worth doing. The exploration and development of the Moon and Mars WILL occur. The economic and social rewards are too great. Now, unfortunately, if there are a sufficient number of scared, whiney little children in this country like some of you whimperers on this thread, it might not be the U.S. that does it.
But believe you me, someone definitely will, notwithstanding the “we can’t do anything” post-modern cultists that are evident here.
There's the difference between being a govt entity vs a private enterprise. There was space shuttle debris spread across the southern tier after Columbia.
Meh, he didn’t work for Tesla and he said in court on the stand that Tesla handled all his complaints sufficiently. He still sued because a scum of the Earth lawyer wanted a payday. Fück him and his lawyer.
Sorry....what?
You claimed "3 months".
Just like you claimed "Orbital mechanics" are different for larger objects.
Now, the ORBITS will be different for larger stuff, but the EQUATIONS governing how object interact are only different when you consider relativistic effects of super-massive stuff. But in the context of what we are talking about (moving asteroids back to Earth), they most certainly are not.
Kinda amusing in a thread where Musk is "just adding more engines to his rocket" to carry bigger payloads, that you're claiming you cannot do this in space with........(wait for it) .......... bigger payloads!!!!
So you’re trying to tell me that the static payload that Starship could potentially lift is equivalent to the mass and inertia of an asteroid large enough to survive Earth’s atmosphere, make it to the surface of the planet and then whatever is left of the asteroid and humanity- could be mined on the Earth’s surface (your original stupidity)? I think not.
The applicable equations of orbital mechanics may not differ greatly, but the RESULTS of those equations sure as Hell do when you apply distance, mass, inertia, and the effects of gravity to the two objects you are trying to get together.
BTW, I amended it to another launch in six months, Andy Kaufman, Jr. Check the thread. And that possibly is still doable.
I'm saying that it takes WAY less "rocket energy" to move a massive space rock, not gravitationally tethered to Earth, than it takes to escape Earth's gravity with a payload a small fraction of that mass.
A HS physics student would be able to make that calculation.
THEY DO NOT DIFFER.
THEY ONLY DIFFER when you get to relativistic regimes, which is clearly NOT what we are discussing here.
Looks like you figured out, that you outkicked your coverage here.
You are completely leaving out the MASS AND INERTIA of an actual asteroid. They aren’t just little tiny specks of dust floating around in space. Ask any NASA employee about your crazy theory of strapping the Starship to the side of any substantial asteroid and pointing it at Earth.
You are playing with a football, they aren’t. I think the last punt you kicked went straight backwards and concussed your brain.
No; I'm not.
You attach engines that have constant force, and they will continue to accelerate that asteroid so long as that force is engaged. And the mechanics of where that asteroid is going to go, and how fast, is not a difficult calculation.
You claimed it was "not possible" to move such an asteroid, and I linked you to a page that describes EXACTLY what I'd posted.
BS, amateur physicist. You can accelerate it all you want, but that won’t get you where you wanna go. Most likely, it would throw you into into a larger orbit around the sun and FARTHER from Earth.
That so called article you sent me was referring to the unlikely possibility that somehow we could tow a tiny asteroid (helps with the mass/inertia issues) to Earth orbit and mine it there. But the article also noted that would take a LONG time to accomplish that. Why? Orbital mechanics, you dolt. Maybe it would be eventually doable but impractical.
It certainly will!
Were you unaware of the whole "inertia" thing, once something STARTS moving?
NO, IF YOU ACCELERATE ONE OF TWO OBJECTS IN SIMILAR ORBITS, OR EVEN DISSIMILAR ORBITS, IT WILL NOT CATCH UP TO THE OTHER OBJECT. INSTEAD, IT GOES INTO A HIGHER, DIFFERENT ORBIT AND GETS FARTHER AWAY.
Take a look here. This is oversimplified, but gives you an idea of SOME of the issues you are dealing with (it leaves out celestial mechanics, which is orbital mechanics on a larger scale):
The following rules of thumb are useful for situations approximated by classical mechanics under the standard assumptions of astrodynamics outlined below. The specific example discussed is of a satellite orbiting a planet, but the rules of thumb could also apply to other situations, SUCH AS ORBITS OF SMALL BODIES AROUND A STAR SUCH AS THE SUN.
- Kepler's laws of planetary motion:
- Orbits are elliptical, with the heavier body at one focus of the ellipse. A special case of this is a circular orbit (a circle is a special case of ellipse) with the planet at the center.
- A line drawn from the planet to the satellite sweeps out equal areas in equal times no matter which portion of the orbit is measured.
- The square of a satellite's orbital period is proportional to the cube of its average distance from the planet.
- Without applying force (such as firing a rocket engine), the period and shape of the satellite's orbit will not change.
- A satellite in a low orbit (or a low part of an elliptical orbit) moves more quickly with respect to the surface of the planet than a satellite in a higher orbit (or a high part of an elliptical orbit), due to the stronger gravitational attraction closer to the planet.
- If thrust is applied at only one point in the satellite's orbit, it will return to that same point on each subsequent orbit, though the rest of its path will change. Thus one cannot move from one circular orbit to another with only one brief application of thrust.
- From a circular orbit, thrust applied in a direction opposite to the satellite's motion changes the orbit to an elliptical one; the satellite will descend and reach the lowest orbital point (the periapse) at 180 degrees away from the firing point; then it will ascend back. Thrust applied in the direction of the satellite's motion creates an elliptical orbit with its highest point (apoapse) 180 degrees away from the firing point.
These rules of thumb are decidedly inaccurate when describing two or more bodies of similar mass, such as a binary star system (see n-body problem). Celestial mechanics uses more general rules applicable to a wider variety of situations. Kepler's laws of planetary motion, which can be mathematically derived from Newton's laws, hold strictly only in describing the motion of two gravitating bodies in the absence of non-gravitational forces; they also describe parabolic and hyperbolic trajectories. In the close proximity of large objects like stars the differences between classical mechanics and general relativity also become important.
WTF are you babbling about?
Nothing needs to "catch up to" Earth's orbit; it simply needs to be put on a trajectory to intercept it.
Totally weird that the space.com website describes EXACTLY what I'd presented here, ain't it?
ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. You can’t just point one object in space orbiting the sun at another object orbiting the sun and intercept it in any way that allows a direct rendezvous. THAT DOG DON’T HUNT, JUNIOR!
LOLWUT? You most certainly CAN.
Venus orbits the sun faster than Earth does. How do you s'pose those Venus probes got sent from Earth to intercept it?
#Mariner2-1962
Mariner 2 - Venus Missions - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Launch and mission information for NASA's Mariner 2 mission, the first successful mission to another planet.
Are you seriously this dumb? You do not appear to have ANY actual schooling on how this stuff works.
He's an imbecile. He should huff some hydrazine.LOLWUT? You most certainly CAN.
Venus orbits the sun faster than Earth does. How do you s'pose those Venus probes got sent from Earth to intercept it?
#Mariner2-1962
Mariner 2 - Venus Missions - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Launch and mission information for NASA's Mariner 2 mission, the first successful mission to another planet.www.jpl.nasa.gov
Are you seriously this dumb? You do not appear to have ANY actual schooling on how this stuff works.
We get there by using the equations of orbital mechanics, ya dope. That’s why there are only certain launch windows available for launches to Venus and Mars. That’s the only times when the orbits of Earth and those planets “match up“ so that a rendezvous is possible. We don’t just point and shoot rockets at Venus, or anywhere else, for that matter.LOLWUT? You most certainly CAN.
Venus orbits the sun faster than Earth does. How do you s'pose those Venus probes got sent from Earth to intercept it?
#Mariner2-1962
Mariner 2 - Venus Missions - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Launch and mission information for NASA's Mariner 2 mission, the first successful mission to another planet.
Are you seriously this dumb? You do not appear to have ANY actual schooling on how this stuff works.
It would a factor of about 10 times harder to do that with an asteroid farther away from the Sun in the Asteroid belt. You couldn’t just strap a rocket to it and accelerate it to Earth. Can’t Be Done. Idiot.
Yes....that's EXACTLY what I've told you here.
And - GUESS WHAT!!!?? - you could very likely use your attached rockets to send an asteroid towards Jupiter, and slingshot it straight back to where Earth will be in a few years....
#SlingshotEffect
#StandardDeepSpaceProbeTrajectories
HEY!!! He has "science degrees"!!! He also worked for NASA...(I'm beginning to wonder if there's another NASA out there). And he's a "lawyer" so you better watch out!!LOLWUT? You most certainly CAN.
Venus orbits the sun faster than Earth does. How do you s'pose those Venus probes got sent from Earth to intercept it?
#Mariner2-1962
Mariner 2 - Venus Missions - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Launch and mission information for NASA's Mariner 2 mission, the first successful mission to another planet.
Are you seriously this dumb? You do not appear to have ANY actual schooling on how this stuff works.
I finally blocked him...he's a troll. He just wants to keep you arguing and will say any stupid shit to get it.
