Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

[simonshack]

"Good job" video production crew!

Yes, good job...*cough-cough* - and this should bring peace between those folks who debate whether our beloved Mother Earth is convex or concave. It appears that BOTH factions are right !




That is...if this short EVA video represents any sort of 'real world' reality, of course...

[rusty]

Yes, good job...*cough-cough* - and this should bring peace between those folks who debate whether our beloved Mother Earth is convex or concave. It appears that BOTH factions are right !

This is certainly due to wide angle lens distortion. You know, they have to use cheap wide angle lenses out there or else they would not capture much of anything.

[queuebert]

NASA claims they can't photograph planets and stars at the same time due to the difference in brightness levels yet, for some reason, they can photograph planets and dimly lit dickheads at the same time.

What is the temperature supposedly outside the space shuttle? I am not a scientist, and know little about physics but Iwould think that the windows would frost. Does NASA have some special glass that is not subject to frosting?

Regards,

Steve O.

I doubt the windows would get cold enough to frost for the same reason coffee can stay hot for hours in a vacuum thermos. It may eventually do so but I think it would take a long time.

[hoi.polloi]

Right. The supposedly real conceptual problem, as stated by Bill Kaysing and others, is that there is nowhere for the heat to transfer its energy and so anything up in space for an extended time would heat up indefinitely. Bake. Fry. Roast. Melt. Turn to ash. Atomize.

I guess that's if space works how they say it does and there really is a threat of deadly radiation, x-rays and gamma rays and so on from the Sun.

The Moon is supposed to be incredibly hot in the Sun's unshielded light and incredibly cold in its umbra. Allegedly, if the Moon is just rock, it can handle such intensity. I don't know about the lightweight tin-foil contraptions they claim to be floating in orbit. The astronauts should be popping like popcorn kernels.

[Farcevalue]

It seems counter-intuitive as my experience has be that the air gets colder with increases in altitude. Many mountain peaks are always covered in snow. One explanation is that the denser atmosphere at lower altitudes traps heat better that the thinner air at higher altitudes.

Logic would dictate that one could extrapolate a reduction in temperature at corresponding ever higher altitudes.

I understand much of the information available states that there are very high temperatures in space, but I am at a loss to understand why. On the one hand, atmosphere attenuates temperature, but attenuates it less as the atmosphere gets thinner. It's a paradox.

[omaxsteve]

I did a quick search and according to universe today; http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/ the temperature outside the (alleged) Space Station, is extremely hot in sunlight up to 240% F (115% C) and extrememly cold when dark -290%F (-180%C). Again, that is one awesome window glass that can handle those types of temperature swings without frosting over, and/or melting.

here is an excerpt from the page:

So, modules on the International Space Station — and even the Moon — and astronauts working outside must endure temperatures as high as 115°C (240°F) when they are in direct sunlight, and conversely, when they are in shadow temperatures as low as -180°C (-290°F), as there is nothing to hold in the heat on the “night” side. Compare this to the average day/night temperature of the Earth in the northern US (even though it is the same distance from the Sun as the ISS) during a typical June is 21°C/11°C (70°F/52°F) because of our life-friendly atmosphere.

regards,

Steve O.

[Flabbergasted]

that is one awesome window glass that can handle those types of temperature swings without frosting over, and/or melting.

I don´t see why the glass should be frosted over. As far as I can understand, there is no air (thus no humidity) at 400 km altitude, and the inside environment would be kept at room temperature. However, I wonder how strong the glass/wall would have to be to prevent the ISS from being ripped apart. I am thinking of a video posted by Simon elsewhere showing an accident with a vacuum chamber. I know it has been said that the vacuum is not a "force" but an "effect", but I can´t see how that makes a difference.

Anyway, all this is just a theoretical exercise, while some talent-forsaken wag-the-dog composer is sitting outside a recording studio, sipping a tequila and laughing his ass off.

[john gault]

What is the velocity of the ISS?

According to NASA, it is 7706 m/s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ce_Station

Newton and Galileo disagree.

The ISS “like any orbiting object, it is in continuous freefall" -wiki

Acceleration due to gravity (g) at the 400km altitude of the ISS is 8.69 m/s2. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/phy ... ce-station

There is no terminal velocity in space as there is no wind resistance to balance gravitational pull. (by definition of space vacuum)

As of June 26, 2013, the ISS has been in orbit for 5332 days or 460,684,800 seconds. -wiki

Having accelerated 8.69 m/s2 for 460,684,800 seconds in the vacuum of space the ISS should have a current velocity of ~ 4,003,350,912 m/s or just over four million kilometers per second or more than 10 times the ‘speed of light’ (c).

The math is correct. 5332*24*60*60 = 460,684,800 seconds *8.69g = 4,003,350,912 m/s = 4,003.351 km/s.

Please confirm the math for yourself, as well as all facts stated above.

To be exact, we also need to add the initial escape velocity of 11.2 km/s for a grand total of 4,003,362 km/s, but a “velocity of 4 million km/s” should suffice for purposes of this discussion.

Thoughts?

-JG

[rusty]

To be exact, we also need to add the initial escape velocity of 11.2 km/s for a grand total of 4,003,362 km/s, but a “velocity of 4 million km/s” should suffice for purposes of this discussion.

Thoughts?

-JG

John,

it may not be intuitively clear, but an object in a perfect orbit would be accelerated and slowed down by gravitational pull at the same time, keeping it on a perfectly circular course.

If the orbit is less than perfect, i.e. elliptical, the object is accelerating when nearing the closest point, then it's slowing down again until it reaches the farthest position.

Believe me, the theoretical math behind these orbits is fairly simple. I wrote this discrete simulation program for a simple 2D model some time ago, using only initial speed and gravitational pull (plus atmospheric drag, if desired) for one moving object and one planetary body. The most surprising thing for me was how hard it is to achieve a perfectly circular orbit. The speed and the position must match exactly, the slightest deviation will lead to notably elliptical orbits.

So we must not wonder about the theoretical and mathematical foundations, we have to wonder how they claim to make these fantasies come true.

[omaxsteve]

What is the velocity of the ISS?

According to NASA, it is 7706 m/s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ce_Station

Newton and Galileo disagree.

The ISS “like any orbiting object, it is in continuous freefall" -wiki

Acceleration due to gravity (g) at the 400km altitude of the ISS is 8.69 m/s2. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/phy ... ce-station

There is no terminal velocity in space as there is no wind resistance to balance gravitational pull. (by definition of space vacuum)

As of June 26, 2013, the ISS has been in orbit for 5332 days or 460,684,800 seconds. -wiki

Having accelerated 8.69 m/s2 for 460,684,800 seconds in the vacuum of space the ISS should have a current velocity of ~ 4,003,350,912 m/s or just over four million kilometers per second or more than 10 times the ‘speed of light’ (c).

The math is correct. 5332*24*60*60 = 460,684,800 seconds *8.69g = 4,003,350,912 m/s = 4,003.351 km/s.

Please confirm the math for yourself, as well as all facts stated above.

To be exact, we also need to add the initial escape velocity of 11.2 km/s for a grand total of 4,003,362 km/s, but a “velocity of 4 million km/s” should suffice for purposes of this discussion.

Thoughts?

-JG

According to this site: http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/realdata/tracking/

the ISS is traveling at slightly over 27,500 Kilometers per hour (or approximately 17,000 MPH) . That must make those space walks really exciting.

regards,

Steve O.

P.S. "Who is John Gault?" Great choice of Screen names. ( I just watched part II of Atlas Shrugged, the movie last night. Nowhere near as good as the book, but worth watching just the same)

[john gault]

Steve O,

As to my screen name, glad you like it. I have used it for 8 years. Never seen the movie. Excellent book.

Now, regarding the ISS and this rather large problem of velocity, newton and such…

Yes, all of the NASA “literature” indicates that the ISS has a velocity of ~7700 meters per second (m/s).

However, as I detailed above, according to Newtonian Physics the ISS has a current velocity of over 4,000,000,000 m/s.

As NASA declares Newton the god of all things outer space, this looks like a no-way-out dilemma for the rocketboys.

-JG

[anonjedi2]

According to this site: http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/realdata/tracking/

the ISS is traveling at slightly over 27,500 Kilometers per hour (or approximately 17,000 MPH) . That must make those space walks really exciting.

regards,

Steve O.

P.S. "Who is John Gault?" Great choice of Screen names. ( I just watched part II of Atlas Shrugged, the movie last night. Nowhere near as good as the book, but worth watching just the same)

This astronot attempts an explanation:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8SV9Rz_958

[john gault]

To be exact, we also need to add the initial escape velocity of 11.2 km/s for a grand total of 4,003,362 km/s, but a “velocity of 4 million km/s” should suffice for purposes of this discussion.

Thoughts?

-JG

John,

it may not be intuitively clear, but an object in a perfect orbit would be accelerated and slowed down by gravitational pull at the same time, keeping it on a perfectly circular course.

If the orbit is less than perfect, i.e. elliptical, the object is accelerating when nearing the closest point, then it's slowing down again until it reaches the farthest position.

Believe me, the theoretical math behind these orbits is fairly simple. I wrote this discrete simulation program for a simple 2D model some time ago, using only initial speed and gravitational pull (plus atmospheric drag, if desired) for one moving object and one planetary body. The most surprising thing for me was how hard it is to achieve a perfectly circular orbit. The speed and the position must match exactly, the slightest deviation will lead to notably elliptical orbits.

So we must not wonder about the theoretical and mathematical foundations, we have to wonder how they claim to make these fantasies come true.

Rusty,

Is the ISS in free-fall? Yes or no? If your answer is ‘no’, please offer supporting evidence (as I have).

Is there terminal velocity in space? Yes or no?

As my post was quite clear in both its contention and reasoning, I will ask that you respond to any specific point with your counter-argument and/or evidence, if you have either.

Intuitively clear? FFS mate, this is about logic and reason, not intuition.

Believe me, it's time to jettison the nasaspeak and address the points presented in my post, if you are able.

Thanks.

-JG

[rusty]

Is the ISS in free-fall? Yes or no? If your answer is ‘no’, please offer supporting evidence (as I have).

Is this a trick question? OK, here's my answer: The hypothetical object called ISS with a hypothetical velocity of 7706 m/s in tangential direction and some 400 or what not km of distance from the surface of the earth would be attracted by the hypothetical or real gravity of the earth, thus at the same time preventing it from escaping into the hypothetical or real endlessness of space (i.e. slowing it down) and accelerating it towards the gravity center. In this process, a hypothetical orbit with constant speed would be achieved.



This can also be explained by simple vector geometry (that's what my discrete simulation program does). For a given time T the current movement vector (vinitial) is altered by the added velocity gained by acceleration towards the gravity center (vgravity). The speed (length) of the resulting velocity vector (vresult) can be smaller (if the object is moving away from the gravity center), equal (if the object is in a perfect orbit) or greater than the initial speed. If you use a sequence of very small time spans (T->0) you can simulate the continuous process, i.e. the course and speed of the object, quite closely. That's called discrete simulation.

Is there terminal velocity in space? Yes or no?

No, in the hypothetical near total vacuum of an endless space there'd be no terminal velocity. Apart from the speed of light, perhaps.

Intuitively clear? FFS mate, this is about logic and reason, not intuition.

Exactly.

Believe me, it's time to jettison the nasaspeak and address the points presented in my post, if you are able.

Nasaspeak? Me, myself and I? I'm just trying to teach simple maths here. I don't believe anything stemming from NASA or any other letter soup entity, fwiw.

[john gault]

Rusty,

FWIW, you are an infection of nonsense. You speak blackwhite.

Let’s try again.

1) Free-fall is a specific, defined motion: In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where its weight is the only force acting upon it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall

2) A is A. (see: Aristotle)

3) A is not B. (see: Aristotle)

4) “a free-falling object” is not “a non-free-falling object”

The Question for Rusty:

Is the ISS a free-falling object as defined by Newtonian physics? Yes or No

The Follow up question for Rusty:

If your answer is “NO”, please indicate the name and amount of the force or forces, other than weight, which are acting upon the ISS. That is, please share the reasoning behind your answer.

Thanks.

-JG