Moon landing - Page 3 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Moon landing
Sunday, August 02, 2009 8:31 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Looks like when you was running on your emotions...

Hey, what a surprise, you're trying to claim that the person you disagree with isn't thinking, or isn't intelligent to begin with. That's new.

By the way, you have yet again failed to offer your smarter suggestion. All you do around here is try to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you, or point out where you believe people are ignorant, and you never have any suggestions. You're always claiming to be the smarter one, but you have nothing but negativity to offer. Prove me wrong.








Re: Moon landing
Sunday, August 02, 2009 1:42 PM on j-body.org
Alex Yingling wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:



It is 2009 and we are "piggy-backing" the shuttle back to Cape Canaveral. And yes, this is the pinacle of technology? Yhea...we went to the moon, landed and came back forty years ago, lol.
Retirement for this thing could not come soon enough, btw.


The shuttle has at least 3 different places it can land. NASA chooses the best based on weather, and probably many other factors. If it can't land in Kennedy for whatever reason, it'll land somewhere else. How else are they going to get it back to Kennedy? It's far cheaper and less strenuous on the the shuttle to put it on the back of a 747 than fuel it back up with liquid rocket fuel and fly it back to Kennedy.

I'm sure when we can teleport objects larger than an atom, they'll consider that.

Congratulations you also missed the point just like the other schmuck did(insert a face-palm picture). Oh and before you say how "cheap" it is to piggyback the shuttle, read how much it cost to do so.

sndsgood wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Looks like when you was running on your emotions, it completely slipped your mind that the greatest minds in world is still using crude technology in 2009.
Plain and simple, either we were leaps and bounds in technology in 1969, or NASA is stagnant with mid 20th century transportation advancements. Either or, you decide.



no emotions, just common sence. or maybe just laughing at your post a little to hard. seriously dude. things don't have to be super advanced if they work. just because its 30 years later doesnt mean what worked before can't work now. its likely the cheapest way to get it from point a to point b since in the last 30 years nasa's budget has gotten smaller and smaller they have to make every dime count. and theres no sence spending tons of money on something that works and is efficient.

Then your common sense is not to reliable to begin with. How can I take you serious on this, when you think/say the technology we use to go to space is only 30 years old? Do you have a clue how old rocket propulsion to go to space is? And you think sending $hit up there is at a efficient price? Please look up how much it cost to do so?
And a sad note is when the brightest/smartest/still with the biggest wallets has to take this number in order to come up with something thing different then the antiquated vehicles NASA uses.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-06-23-NASA-prizes_x.htm

I urge both of you to take a trip to NASA and make a sound judgement, instead of running fingers dictated by emotions.

Quiklilpenis wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Looks like when you was running on your emotions...
By the way, you have yet again failed to offer your smarter suggestion.

I'll have one when the Republicans have a solution for the health care system or anything for that matter.
Now cue in Tonto to follow me and respond everything I have to say and show how much of my bitch he is. Now I know how the Beatles felt when the 12 year old girls went nuts over them. ROFLOLBBQABSLMAOASRBBDSWATLOL!1!1!http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefbQ63VKJ5IACD.jzbkF/SIG=12vujskl2/EXP=1249328464/**http%3A//www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/George_Bush_Middle_Finger.jpg
Ta-ta homo.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Moon landing
Sunday, August 02, 2009 4:16 PM on j-body.org
I never said it was cheap, I said it was cheaper.

And I see what point you're trying to make. But really, what other alternative would they have?
Re: Moon landing
Sunday, August 02, 2009 4:51 PM on j-body.org
Actually they first mounted the shuttle on a 747 for aeronautics testing..... and they figured it worked so well that they might as well transport it that way...

And the space shuttle is a lot smaller than I thought it was.... I used to load 747's and going by that picture the shuttle is about the size of a C-130





Re: Moon landing
Sunday, August 02, 2009 5:29 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Quiklilpenis wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Looks like when you was running on your emotions...
By the way, you have yet again failed to offer your smarter suggestion.

I'll have one when Hell freezes over.

Fixed for truth.

And the following returned to regular text for ease of reading. I bet you thought you were reeeeaaaally clever hiding that, huh?

Mr.Useless-G.T. wrote:

Now cue in Tonto to follow me and respond everything I have to say and show how much of my bitch he is. Now I know how the Beatles felt when the 12 year old girls went nuts over them. ROFLOLBBQABSLMAOASRBBDSWATLOL!1!1!http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefbQ63VKJ5IACD.jzbkF/SIG=12vujskl2/EXP=1249328464/**http%3A//www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/George_Bush_Middle_Finger.jpg
Ta-ta homo.

LMAO. You really amuse yourself with your childishness, don't you? I guess that's what you get with the mind of a 2 year old. Ignorance is bliss, right?

What makes your posts amusing to the rest of us is that, while you're so busy reassuring yourself of your superior intellect, you can't seem to make a single post without grammatical errors a 3rd grader would catch, as well as screwing up such a simple thing as posting an image. But you told me.

Good thing you used "penis" and "homo" to prove you're better than me. I guess I should go play by myself on the swingset now, since you put me down when I wanted to play on the monkey bars.







Re: Moon landing
Sunday, August 02, 2009 5:34 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


I'll have one when the Republicans have a solution for the health care system or anything for that matter.
Now cue in Tonto to follow me and respond everything I have to say and show how much of my bitch he is. Now I know how the Beatles felt when the 12 year old girls went nuts over them. ROFLOLBBQABSLMAOASRBBDSWATLOL!1!1!http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefbQ63VKJ5IACD.jzbkF/SIG=12vujskl2/EXP=1249328464/**http%3A//www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/George_Bush_Middle_Finger.jpg
Ta-ta homo.


wtf does health care reform have to do with the moon landing? are you just trying to change the subject, or is deflection the best sort of argument you can muster now?

and even if the republicans dont have a "better" answer for the health care situation doesnt make the democrats' bad idea good.
you're a fucking retard who just likes to hear himself talk. how do you like hidden text now, you little bitch?




Re: Moon landing
Sunday, August 02, 2009 7:28 PM on j-body.org
i cant wait til man walks on mars.



Every time I scream "Release", I mean it, you know it. I feel the day. Black 7.
Re: Moon landing
Monday, August 03, 2009 2:08 AM on j-body.org
everyone has their opinions and there is no need to argue it....it gets us nowhere.

but i do believe we landed on the moon. i also believe there is photoshop, so all the pictures on how it was faked..i see as fakes to make it see, like a coverup in the eyes of people who like to bad mouth the govt (aka hippies)

also if you take the video of them driving on the moon you can see the dust going straight up and down, unachievable on earth because earth actually has a noticable atmosphere. i think live action film is harder to fake. even todays cgi isn't all too great.

then there are the moon rocks. if you ever get to see one it might change your opinion, or you can say "that's a sweet prop!" again its all your own take.

the list can go on and on and on but i believe it happend. if you really want to know the truth then become part of the govt, and i'm not talking mail carrier here.

http://youtu.be/RXppsUVhJJE
my car ^
Re: Moon landing
Monday, August 03, 2009 4:47 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Alex Yingling wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:



It is 2009 and we are "piggy-backing" the shuttle back to Cape Canaveral. And yes, this is the pinacle of technology? Yhea...we went to the moon, landed and came back forty years ago, lol.
Retirement for this thing could not come soon enough, btw.


The shuttle has at least 3 different places it can land. NASA chooses the best based on weather, and probably many other factors. If it can't land in Kennedy for whatever reason, it'll land somewhere else. How else are they going to get it back to Kennedy? It's far cheaper and less strenuous on the the shuttle to put it on the back of a 747 than fuel it back up with liquid rocket fuel and fly it back to Kennedy.

I'm sure when we can teleport objects larger than an atom, they'll consider that.

Congratulations you also missed the point just like the other schmuck did(insert a face-palm picture). Oh and before you say how "cheap" it is to piggyback the shuttle, read how much it cost to do so.

sndsgood wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Looks like when you was running on your emotions, it completely slipped your mind that the greatest minds in world is still using crude technology in 2009.
Plain and simple, either we were leaps and bounds in technology in 1969, or NASA is stagnant with mid 20th century transportation advancements. Either or, you decide.



no emotions, just common sence. or maybe just laughing at your post a little to hard. seriously dude. things don't have to be super advanced if they work. just because its 30 years later doesnt mean what worked before can't work now. its likely the cheapest way to get it from point a to point b since in the last 30 years nasa's budget has gotten smaller and smaller they have to make every dime count. and theres no sence spending tons of money on something that works and is efficient.

Then your common sense is not to reliable to begin with. How can I take you serious on this, when you think/say the technology we use to go to space is only 30 years old? Do you have a clue how old rocket propulsion to go to space is? And you think sending $hit up there is at a efficient price? Please look up how much it cost to do so?
And a sad note is when the brightest/smartest/still with the biggest wallets has to take this number in order to come up with something thing different then the antiquated vehicles NASA uses.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-06-23-NASA-prizes_x.htm

I urge both of you to take a trip to NASA and make a sound judgement, instead of running fingers dictated by emotions.

Quiklilpenis wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Looks like when you was running on your emotions...
By the way, you have yet again failed to offer your smarter suggestion.

I'll have one when the Republicans have a solution for the health care system or anything for that matter.
Now cue in Tonto to follow me and respond everything I have to say and show how much of my bitch he is. Now I know how the Beatles felt when the 12 year old girls went nuts over them. ROFLOLBBQABSLMAOASRBBDSWATLOL!1!1!http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefbQ63VKJ5IACD.jzbkF/SIG=12vujskl2/EXP=1249328464/**http%3A//www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/George_Bush_Middle_Finger.jpg
Ta-ta homo.






okay mr. science guy, first off i wasn't claiming technology for rocket propultion was 30 years old. i was giving the 30 years as that was a good round number from when we went to the moon. you know since this post is about the moon landing and not about ohh lets say the health care system. and again mr. obvious i was responding to your post about how we transfer the space shuttle. when i said that was likely the most efficient way of getting it from point a to point b. and again you think im speaking with emotions. dude for me to go on emotions i'd actually have to care what you say, and get offended by what you say. all you offer is your opinion, and when someone differs with your opinion you try to tear them down. that to me is the sign of sad person really. you assume your the only one to have ever gone to nasa? are you serious? dude, at least when me and weeble disagree he can argue in a grown up manner. your just like a 10 year old that sits there and goes nuh uh , your a turd head when someone disagrees. it really is sad dude.


its weird how we are having a discussion on how the shuttle is transported and you somehow think im discussing the year rocket propulsion was first invented. are you bi-polar. is there some medial issue with you that we should know about? i mean you go from the moon landing, to how the shuttle is transported, to rocket propultion, to universal healthcare, to bashing republicans. maybe bi-polar isnt it, maybe its just really bad ADHD or something. if you tell us. we can at least know what were dealing with here. no one is going to look down on you if you do really have a medical condition.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, August 03, 2009 4:49 AM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Moon landing
Monday, August 03, 2009 10:37 AM on j-body.org
tabs wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:



wtf does health care reform have to do with the moon landing? are you just trying to change the subject, or is deflection the best sort of argument you can muster now?

and even if the republicans dont have a "better" answer for the health care situation doesnt make the democrats' bad idea good.


Great, now the wife comes out with the broom stick in Tonto's defense. Love it how these fools takes message boards so serious. Har-har-har.
Funnies aside, and since you're another figure that doesn't get in the tally, being I'm no way a aeronautical engineer, the chances of me mocking up prototype vehicles for space travel is as good as a "Republicans having a solution for the health care system or anything for that matter."
If you still don't get it, then (In the words of Mr.T) "I pity the fool."

slowcav (DesertTuners) wrote:



also if you take the video of them driving on the moon you can see the dust going straight up and down, unachievable on earth because earth actually has a noticable atmosphere. i think live action film is harder to fake. even todays cgi isn't all too great.


Before you believe what you wrote, take a look at a rally vid going through a desert.

sndsgood wrote:


okay mr. science guy, first off i wasn't claiming technology for rocket propultion was 30 years old. i was giving the 30 years as that was a good round number from when we went to the moon.


It was 40 years not 30 years.

Quote:

dude for me to go on emotions i'd actually have to care what you say, and get offended by what you say. all you offer is your opinion, and when someone differs with your opinion you try to tear them down. that to me is the sign of sad person really. you assume your the only one to have ever gone to nasa? are you serious? dude, at least when me and weeble disagree he can argue in a grown up manner. your just like a 10 year old that sits there and goes nuh uh , your a turd head when someone disagrees. it really is sad dude.

Yet here you are responding. How ironic, no?

Quote:

its weird how we are having a discussion on how the shuttle is transported and you somehow think im discussing the year rocket propulsion was first invented. are you bi-polar. is there some medial issue with you that we should know about? i mean you go from the moon landing, to how the shuttle is transported, to rocket propultion, to universal healthcare, to bashing republicans. maybe bi-polar isnt it, maybe its just really bad ADHD or something. if you tell us. we can at least know what were dealing with here. no one is going to look down on you if you do really have a medical condition.

Yes, Iím sick and... .


Edited 413 time(s). Last edited Today 6:49 AM


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Moon landing
Monday, August 03, 2009 12:26 PM on j-body.org
umm you can make a responce without being emotional....


you are actually right on the landing. guess i should have done the math in my head instead of just throwing 30 years out there. guess im getting old since that means ive been out of high school for about 18 years. god time is flying.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Re: Moon landing
Monday, August 03, 2009 1:04 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Great, now the wife comes out with the broom stick in Tonto's defense.
No one is coming to my defense, dumbass. It's yet another person pointing out your infantile foolishness. But nice attempt at deflecting again.
Mr.Clueless-G.T. wrote:

Love it how these fools takes message boards so serious. Har-har-har.
What no one takes seriously is the ridiculous babble that you post. It's just a source of amusement, and the sooner you realize it, the better off you will be.
Quote:

Edited 413 time(s). Last edited Today 6:49 AM
And it was still full of grammatical abortions.

Not to mention the fact that you're too cheap to anti-up the $20/year to help support the JBO community, so you don't have the luxury of editing your retarded posts. That just falls in line with your line of thinking: someone else should pay for it.







Re: Moon landing
Monday, August 03, 2009 6:08 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


Great, now the wife comes out with the broom stick in Tonto's defense. Love it how these fools takes message boards so serious. Har-har-har.

i wish there were something i could say to impart upon you the gravitas of your inanely childish posts, but there really isnt. seriously.....just @!#$ grow up already.

Quiklilcav wrote:

. That just falls in line with your line of thinking: someone else should pay for it.

maybe he should lobby obama to give hand outs for premium memberships. after all, we shouldnt have to pay for our own luxuries...thats what the government is for!





Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 12:01 AM on j-body.org
I skimmed past most the fighting... (might re read later)

And I really dont care if we landed on the moon or not.....

The answers I really want to know is....

When are the Aliens that put us here going to come back?

God I would love for some sexy green space bitches to take me way in their flying saucer away from this hell whole called the human race.........

and make me their sex toy....... LOL

(Like the green chick in the new star trek movie..... god I would so pound that)







Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:51 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilpenis wrote:

No one is coming to my defense, dumbass. It's yet another person pointing out your infantile foolishness. But nice attempt at deflecting again.

Pot meet kettle.
Quote:

What no one takes seriously is the ridiculous babble that you post. It's just a source of amusement, and the sooner you realize it, the better off you will be.

And yet here you still doing what you do best, sniffing my ass and guessing what I ate on every thread. If I'm what you claim I am, then why respond? Is your life that pathetic that you need to be heard on every thread here as you cry out for attention, like the bitch you are?
Quote:

And it was still full of grammatical abortions.

Good lord you're f-ing slow. Ever thought for an instance that's how JBO states the editing? Look at a edited respond on the lower left corner fool.
On the point on grammatical error, is that the new low for you? Is that what you have to result in order to stay on your high horse? Heh, maybe sniffing my ass is not what you do best, looks to still be hypocrisy. You have large ovaries to criticize me on grammar and not look at the crap you type.
Quote:

Not to mention the fact that you're too cheap to anti-up the $20/year to help support the JBO community, so you don't have the luxury of editing your retarded posts. That just falls in line with your line of thinking: someone else should pay for it.

Since it bothers you that much that I am not premium, quit your bitching and pay it. Because it sure as hell doesn't bother me.
Cue in Tonto's hypocritical &/or another ass sniffing statement in 3....2....1.... .


tabs wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


Great, now the wife comes out with the broom stick in Tonto's defense. Love it how these fools takes message boards so serious. Har-har-har.

i wish there were something i could say to impart upon you the gravitas of your inanely childish posts, but there really isnt. seriously.....just @!#$ grow up already


Yet here you are doing the same $hit that I did. Monkey see-monkey do, or hypocrisy at it's finest. You decide.



Lastly, can't you homos stay on topic and not make it about me? hahehaharhaheha. If your response is not about the moon landing, then don't expect a reply on your stupidity from me. I will say thanks for proving my point if you still stay out of topic.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 1:41 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Quote:

And it was still full of grammatical abortions.

Good lord you're f-ing slow. Ever thought for an instance that's how JBO states the editing? Look at a edited respond on the lower left corner fool.
On the point on grammatical error, is that the new low for you? Is that what you have to result in order to stay on your high horse? Heh, maybe sniffing my ass is not what you do best, looks to still be hypocrisy. You have large ovaries to criticize me on grammar and not look at the crap you type.
Quote:

Not to mention the fact that you're too cheap to anti-up the $20/year to help support the JBO community, so you don't have the luxury of editing your retarded posts. That just falls in line with your line of thinking: someone else should pay for it.

Since it bothers you that much that I am not premium, quit your bitching and pay it. Because it sure as hell doesn't bother me.

Cue in Tonto's hypocritical &/or another ass sniffing statement in 3....2....1....



I don't feel like bothering to respond to each section of your useless babble, but it's thoroughly amusing that you don't get it. The sh!t goes over your head so often you're responding to an assumed statement because you didn't get the real point in the actual one.

Bottom line is that I don't follow you around. Just because out of all the other forums there are, I posted something pointing out more of your ignorance in a single thread in a forum outside of the War Forum, you think I am really that interested in all of your posts. Get over yourself. You're not that important. I merely debunk all of your douchebaggery in this forum, and continue to point out your complete uselessness and immaturity, while having a little fun with it.

Just to clarify for you, the first statement had nothing to do with the format of the "edited" label, it was merely a joke about you having to edit a post that many times and it was still a grammatical disaster, because you're constantly acting like you're the most intelligent person around here, with your little "you're ignorant" and "that's a no-no" statements, and your infantile name-calling.

And you going premi or not has no bearing on my life. I was using that as another example of your way of thinking, and you just further illustrated it for me. Proving again, you just don't get it.

I bet you're still thinking you're super clever hiding your statements. Simple things amuse simple minds.

Now you can go cry that your thread was jacked to your humiliation. All that needs to be said about the original topic has been said. The entire concept of a conspiracy of that level is extremely laughable, and you're using the manner in which we transport the shuttle from one state to another as proof. Laughable.







Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:12 PM on j-body.org
i like how he takes a long ass post to try and get jabs at everyone and then at the bottom blame everyone for going off topic from the post when his post had absolutly no relevance to the topic, theres your pot meets kettle.


and they did land on the moon

(so im on topic)


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:34 PM on j-body.org
I'm sure it's getting under his skin how badly this thread got jacked, and pulled the attention away from his attempt at claiming a ridiculous government conspiracy. That makes it all the more amusing.






Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:41 PM on j-body.org
Weebel wrote:

I skimmed past most the fighting... (might re read later)

And I really dont care if we landed on the moon or not.....

The answers I really want to know is....

When are the Aliens that put us here going to come back?

God I would love for some sexy green space bitches to take me way in their flying saucer away from this hell whole called the human race.........

and make me their sex toy....... LOL

(Like the green chick in the new star trek movie..... god I would so pound that)



dude... I wish you were right... like some of them from star trek....like the orignal sieries....... But NOOOOOO

We have them in the white house.... damn, look at them!


Chris





shell suck your brain out!




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:52 PM on j-body.org
ahhh...that feels better




Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:31 PM on j-body.org
i'm a 2E1 SATCOM for USAF. The @!#$'s real. I can explain how orbits work as well. STFU, we landed there.

Also, close your mouth when you chew.






Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:56 PM on j-body.org
Srs though, Geosync, geostat, it's all pretty simple once you realize what's happening

However, seeing it is the complicated part.

The GPS constellation has 26 sats with 24 in op. Geosync orbit doesn't matter not one bit because of the GPS broadcast footprinting. they are ~20000 km off of the surface of the earth. that's a WHOLE LOT of space to fit in all kinds of other sats.

Anyway; peep this experiment at home.

if you had a basketball, and did the math and that basketball was the size of the earth; take the light from a mini mag and let that be the sat. move it away from the ball and you'll see that the further you move the light away the more of the ball it shines on; albeit weaker. if you've done the math, the distance the mini mag should be away from the ball is the scale distance of 20000 km

so how does GPS work? take 24 of those mags and distribute them evenly across the basketball on both planes and you will see that from any single dimple on the ball, the footprint of at least 4 lights is always available, overlapping, and completely covering the basketball in light.

the orbital period is not exactly to the second 12 hours; it's roughly. they aren't in geosync or geostat orbit either; so given a long enough time line (around 1 day); from YOUR eye-- sat 1 will be where sat 23 is and so on and so forth. during pars of the day you will be in the footprint of an avg of 9 satellites, with a peak of 12, and a low of 6. you need a minimum of 4 to triangulate your position according to their cesium (or rubidium, i can't remember) atomic clock ticks.

the US government can also lock out GPS so that no one except the US military has access to it for ANY purpose; including just plain old date and time.

isn't science fun?

fun fact: GPS receivers actually have 2 receivers built into them; to compensate for theory of relativity stuff that allows the sats to be younger than us because of their speed!!! time actually passes more slowly for the GPS satellites than it does for us due to SCIENCE!!!





Re: Moon landing
Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:19 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:

The funny thing is that the geostationary orbits are all at the equator, and they are further out than the majority of the geosynchronous satellites.


The geostationary are all at the equator because that is the only reasonable spot to place them. Any satellite, be it man-made or natural (ie- moons, meteors, even the planets in relation to the sun) follows an orbit along the circumference because the gravitation force acts in a straight line between the centers of mass. If you were trying to maintain a geostationary satellite say over Argentina, you would have to compenstate for the pull of gravity as well as centripetal acceleration. It would be be hugely inefficient and use a lot of fuel. It would be like spinning a yo-yo around yourself and maintaining a constant angle on the string, damn near impossible. Ideally, you want the the acceleration due to the pull of gravity perpendicular to the motion of the satellite; in this manner you wouldn't have to add any additional thrust to the satellite.

Also, they are so far out because the effects of gravity severely weaken with the square of the distance between the two bodies. F = (G*m1*m2)/(r^2). By placing the satellite further away, you lessen the amount of work you need to do to keep it out there. Also, there's a lot if sh!t floating around close to earth, and if you were investing in putting a satellite up there, you wouln't want some bolt to come flying through to wreck to. Both these reasons are why they are so far out.

Hope that helped a little. Oh, and I think it was you that mentioned the record spinning faster at the edge than the middle. Your right, the velocity of a point is determined by the angular velocity (how fast something is spinning around an axis) multiplied by how far it is from said radius. So just like the edge of the record is moving faster than the sticker in the middle, the satellite will be going faster, a lot faster in this case because of the distances involved.

KevinP, I always thought that all the compensation for relativistic effects was cool!
Re: Moon landing
Wednesday, August 05, 2009 5:59 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

I'll have one when the Republicans have a solution for the health care system or anything for that matter.


The republicans actually have what sounds to me like the most common sense approach to health care. Everyone has their own individual account to cover the everyday things and the government only provides coverage for catastrophic emergencies.

But why would we trust the government to do anything when they still have not fixed social security?



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Re: Moon landing
Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:46 AM on j-body.org
Wade Jarvis wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

I'll have one when the Republicans have a solution for the health care system or anything for that matter.


But why would we trust the government to do anything when they still have not fixed social security?

Good point indeed.
And that's another point that government could not achieve the goal of going/landing/launching to the moon and coming back safely. Government can not do anything right, at least that's what most of you are telling me, or am I wrong?



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search