A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Near-misses between space station and debris on the rise



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 9th 12, 06:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.military.naval,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism
HVAC[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,114
Default Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)

On 4/9/2012 11:52 AM, Warhol wrote:


does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit? ha
ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went
up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come
down*... no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is
110km, the edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there
ain't no mass to move or to push against.



This is why muslums are mired in the 13th century.

They're stupid....And damm proud of it!










--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
  #32  
Old April 9th 12, 06:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.military.naval,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism
HVAC[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,114
Default Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)

On 4/9/2012 12:28 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:


does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit?


Let me introduce you to the concept of a strawman.



Warhole emulates a strawman here every day.


With the thoughts he'd be thinkin
Warhole could be another Lincoln
If he only had a brain....











--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
  #33  
Old April 9th 12, 06:22 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.military.naval,alt.astronomy,alt.atheism
Ivan I. Deer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:04:29 -0400, HVAC wrote:

On 4/9/2012 12:28 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:


does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit?


Let me introduce you to the concept of a strawman.



Warhole emulates a strawman here every day.


With the thoughts he'd be thinkin
Warhole could be another Lincoln
If he only had a brain....

He has a better brain than the rest of us. Most of his brain cells are
still like a new car sitting in the dealer's show room...new and
fresh...never been used, yet.
  #34  
Old April 9th 12, 07:09 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.military.naval,alt.astronomy
Warhol[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,588
Default Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)

Op 9-4-2012 18:28, Greg (Strider) Moore schreef:
"Warhol" wrote in message ...

Op 9-4-2012 6:08, Greg (Strider) Moore schreef:
"Warhol" wrote in message ...



Millions of people know that you are wrong...

You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.

BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.

A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does:
"move lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the
other". A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the
plane.




Rockets CANNOT work in space

Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
one of the biggest hoaxes of all time!

rocket propulsion cannot work in space.

you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
to push the rocket.

but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
(zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
rocket/vehicle itself.


can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
similar creating force in a vacuum?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk





"*move lots of mass*", in vacuum there is *no mass* to to move...


I really should killfile you, because you obviously are an idiot.
However, in the hopes you don't lead others astray...


See that flame that comes out of the rocket engine? THAT is the mass you
idiot.



does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit?


Let me introduce you to the concept of a strawman. Which is what you
just raised. No one has made that claim. At least no one who isn't
either ignorant (which can be cured) or stupid (which in your case can't
be.)



WOW... well why don't you do that... ha ha ha losers is that all you
have to say... I heard that song ten thousand times... and they all keep
flying like flies behind my ****...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI--5hAjOiM




ha ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went
up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come
down*... no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is
110km, the edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there
ain't no mass to move or to push against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIpf6Yoyq9I




  #35  
Old April 9th 12, 08:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.military.naval,alt.astronomy
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)

In article , says...

Op 9-4-2012 15:50, Jeff Findley schreef:
In article1KCdneEl_5Uh_R_SnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

"Warhol" wrote in message ...



Millions of people know that you are wrong...

You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.

BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.

A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move
lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other".
A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane.


Absolutely true.

The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong
conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the
pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When
those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel
for the rocket.

In fact, *a rocket engine works* *better* in vacuum.


*prove your claims*... that must be easy for so a clever genie as you...


I did, but you're too lazy to do the math. I did the math years ago in
my aerospace propulsion class. I don't need to do it again to know that
it still holds true.

*but you can't*... so you need something else for damage control... ha
ha ha... *working better* without any evidence ha ha ha and dont start
twisting words sonny jeff.


I understood how a rocket engine worked in grade school, due to some
very nice diagrams in several books in my school library. I didn't know
how to do the math to prove it until college.

I suppose all of those comsats in geostationary orbit just flew up there
on their own, right? Hint: without a working rocket engine, they could
never be there because they could have never circularized their orbits.
That burn has to be done at apogee.

But I suppose you don't understand orbital mechanics any better than you
understand aerospace propulsion, do you?

It never ceases to amaze me that some people refuse to believe the
simplest of things which are based on basic physics.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker
  #36  
Old April 9th 12, 09:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.military.naval,alt.astronomy
Warhol[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,588
Default Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)

Op 9-4-2012 21:07, Jeff Findley schreef:
In , says...

Op 9-4-2012 15:50, Jeff Findley schreef:
In article1KCdneEl_5Uh_R_SnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

"Warhol" wrote in message ...



Millions of people know that you are wrong...

You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.

BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.

A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move
lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other".
A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane.

Absolutely true.

The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong
conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the
pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When
those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel
for the rocket.

In fact, *a rocket engine works* *better* in vacuum.


*prove your claims*... that must be easy for so a clever genie as you...


I did, but you're too lazy to do the math. I did the math years ago in
my aerospace propulsion class. I don't need to do it again to know that
it still holds true.

*but you can't*... so you need something else for damage control... ha
ha ha... *working better* without any evidence ha ha ha and dont start
twisting words sonny jeff.


I understood how a rocket engine worked in grade school, due to some
very nice diagrams in several books in my school library. I didn't know
how to do the math to prove it until college.

I suppose all of those comsats in geostationary orbit just flew up there
on their own, right? Hint: without a working rocket engine, they could
never be there because they could have never circularized their orbits.
That burn has to be done at apogee.

But I suppose you don't understand orbital mechanics any better than you
understand aerospace propulsion, do you?

It never ceases to amaze me that some people refuse to believe the
simplest of things which are based on basic physics.

Jeff



first you understand **** of orbit mechanics and you believe in bad
science fiction tales.

there is nothing there above that proves rocket gets thrust in vacuum
and have put any satellite in orbit.. this are facts.

BTW My ancestors invented math... hah what do you know of math...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcG-jek6aoE
  #37  
Old April 10th 12, 01:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.military.naval,alt.astronomy
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)

In article , says...

Op 9-4-2012 21:07, Jeff Findley schreef:
In ,
says...

Op 9-4-2012 15:50, Jeff Findley schreef:
In article1KCdneEl_5Uh_R_SnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

"Warhol" wrote in message ...



Millions of people know that you are wrong...

You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.

BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.

A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move
lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other".
A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane.

Absolutely true.

The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong
conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the
pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When
those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel
for the rocket.

In fact, *a rocket engine works* *better* in vacuum.

*prove your claims*... that must be easy for so a clever genie as you...


I did, but you're too lazy to do the math. I did the math years ago in
my aerospace propulsion class. I don't need to do it again to know that
it still holds true.

*but you can't*... so you need something else for damage control... ha
ha ha... *working better* without any evidence ha ha ha and dont start
twisting words sonny jeff.


I understood how a rocket engine worked in grade school, due to some
very nice diagrams in several books in my school library. I didn't know
how to do the math to prove it until college.

I suppose all of those comsats in geostationary orbit just flew up there
on their own, right? Hint: without a working rocket engine, they could
never be there because they could have never circularized their orbits.
That burn has to be done at apogee.

But I suppose you don't understand orbital mechanics any better than you
understand aerospace propulsion, do you?

It never ceases to amaze me that some people refuse to believe the
simplest of things which are based on basic physics.


first you understand **** of orbit mechanics and you believe in bad
science fiction tales.

there is nothing there above that proves rocket gets thrust in vacuum
and have put any satellite in orbit.. this are facts.

BTW My ancestors invented math... hah what do you know of math...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcG-jek6aoE


Too bad you seem to be too stupid to understand math, physics, or
science. I think it's time for you to go to killfile hell. Goodbye.
Enjoy your stay.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker
  #38  
Old April 17th 12, 06:17 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.military.naval
Sylvia Else[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 458
Default Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)

On 7/04/2012 4:15 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Apr 6, 1:49 pm, wrote:
"bob wrote in message

...

I wonder how long it will be before the station gets some real damage?


is it still true the station requires a atmosphere to cool station
keeping equiptement. when the station was new there was discussions a
depressurization could result in loss of control;. if a atmosphere
leak occurred. no atmosphere control devices would overheat and shut
down.


is that still the case today?


The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
Hmm, let's see what I can google.....

NASA, DARPA Host Space Junk
Wake-Up Call

"There are some 300,000 objects larger than one centimeter
and they are all moving at hyper-velocity. The only way to
address this huge population is with laser technology,
Campbell noted.Orbital debris removal is a complex
problem, one that will require an umbrella of technologies
to do a complete solution, he stated."

"Anything that can go up and grab a piece of debris and
bring it down well, it can also grab somebody's operational
satellite and bring it down. Thats a space weapon,
he cautioned."http://www.space.com/7644-nasa-darpa-host-space-junk-wake-call.html

Darpa is looking into the issue with this solicitation a couple
of years ago for possible technologies for a system.

DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
Solicitation Number: DARPA-SN-09-68

"Information is sought from all potential sources, domestic
and foreign, on innovative technological solutions that will
enable the Government to provide orbital debris removal
capabilities"https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a55fd6e5721284ee. ..

Here's one response...

"Responded to DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR) Request
for Information (DARPA-SN-09-68). PA&S developed and
submitted a concept for a Pneumatic Impingement Stabilization
of Unstable space debris for Orbital Debris Removal System
(ODRS). The PA&S ODRS is designed to stabilize larger
Orbital Debris by apply precisely targeted jets of highly energetic
gasses [pneumatic (gas) impingement] from an external source.http://pouloscorp.com/news/darpa-orb...ebris-removal/

Here's a nicely detailed paper on space debris removal, it's a bit
dated, but according to this research....

"An elegant, cost effective, and feasible approach is to use laser
technology to solve this problem. It is estimated that a single.
Ground- based laser facility that costs about $100 million and
that operated near the equator could remove all orbital debris
up to an altitude of 800 km in two years Since satellites typically
cost several hundred million and given the half billion price tags
on shuttle and Titan launchers, this investment is relatively small
given the potential losses of rockets "http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf

And here's the brand new ground based laser facility....

Starfire Optical Rangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfire_Optical_Range

Here's the space based sensor for space debris

"The Space Development and Test Wing from Kirtland AFB, NM
successfully launched the second-ever mission of the Minotaur IV
launch vehicle."

"The payload for the launch was the Space Based Space Surveillance
(SBSS) spacecraft, a revolutionary technology which will usher in
a new era in space situational awareness. The SBSS space vehicle,
developed by Boeing and Ball Aerospace, uses an 11.8-inch telescope
mounted on a highly agile, two-axis gimbal to provide data needed
to keep better tabs on space debris and guard against accidental
collisions."http://www.kirtland.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123224585

s


This does not deal with the smaller debris that is also dangerous.
Why not launch a sub-orbital rocket that ejects a cloud of Tungsten
dust so the dust cloud is going the opposite way most debris is
moving. The dust cloud would reduce the speed of small debris causing
it to fall into the atmosphere. The dust cloud could be launched so
it has almost orbital velocity so it travels almost once around the
earth before it re-enters the atmosphere.


Or we could just sandblast spacecraft before we launch them for much the
same effect.

Sylvia.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
anti-space-nuke nuts rise again Jim Oberg Policy 37 October 30th 06 10:42 PM
'Space UFO' Nuts Rise Again -- (sigh!) OM History 8 August 19th 05 12:29 AM
Space Station Debris Craig Fink Space Shuttle 8 August 1st 05 03:38 PM
Space Station Debris Craig Fink Space Station 8 August 1st 05 03:38 PM
Headline News from Houston - Meteor misses Space Station Craig Fink Space Station 10 January 18th 05 02:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.