Satellite falls on Canada?

In article 60298c84-c464-4f55-a643-
, says...

Perhaps not until a multi-tonne items smashes through the new and
improved world trade tower.

Since the odds of an uncontrolled reentering object hitting the
"improved world trade tower" are infinitesimal, your secenario would
require a controlled reentry. You seem to be thinking of another
terrorist plot, which is very unlikely. It would be far easier and far
cheaper to charter a large commercial aircraft (or even a retired
fighter jet like an F-104) than it would be to do the same with a
spacecraft.

Of course, without specialized and highly
controlled demolition charges like those recorded taking down WTC7,

There were no "controlled demolition charges" used on WTC7, you
conspiracy nut-job. Either you have not read up on what really caused
WTC7 to collapse, or you're too stupid to understand what you read.
Perhaps it's both.

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

In article 7ebeb47a-1109-48c1-a67a-a22a7ff527d6
@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

NASA and apparently even Fred doesn't really know, or more likely they
don't wish to tell us exactly where that debris fell to the ground.
They're talking as though it stayed pretty much as a whole unit if the
debris field was only worth 500 miles.

Final Update: NASA's UARS Re-enters Earth's Atmosphere
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=38584

From above:

NASA's decommissioned Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
fell back to Earth at 12 a.m. EDT (0400 GMT), as Friday,
Sept. 23, turned to Saturday, Sept. 24 on the United States
east coast. The Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg
Air Force Base in California has determined the satellite
entered the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean at 14.1
degrees south latitude and 189.8 degrees east longitude
(170.2 west longitude).

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

In article 87873837-2b74-4d17-8e46-29172c0a37e3
@z8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 25, 10:02*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 25/09/2011 12:08 AM, Pat Flannery wrote:

Poor Canada, first the Soviet satellite with the reactor on it, now this:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/na...-up-plunges-ba...

Pat

"It completed its mission in 2005 and had been slowly losing altitude
ever since, pulled by the planet's gravity."

Whereas previously it wasn't being pulled by gravity?

sigh It will probably never be possible educate journalists.

Sylvia.

ISS supposedly looses 167 meters per day, and it's still way the hell
up there.

That's not the point. The point is that the article made it sound like
the earth's *gravity* is what causes a satellites orbit to *decay*.

Atmospheric drag and tital effects are the main causes of orbital decay
for a satellite orbiting the earth.

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

The above mentions "gravitational radiation", but it says a cite is
needed, so....

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

Pat Flannery scribbled something like ...

Poor Canada, first the Soviet satellite with the reactor on it, now
this:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/na...p-plunges-back
-to-earth/851157/

Isn't the revised report that everything ended up in the South Pacific?

But we can try again with Rosat. The Germans made it smaller, but the
mirror (or mirrors?) are expected to be among 30 pieces surviving because
they are especially heat resistant. I'm not sure if Rosat has beryllium
tanks like UARS did, but it would be interesting to compare expected and
actual piecework.

/dps

On Sep 28, 11:21*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 60298c84-c464-4f55-a643-
, says...



Perhaps not until a multi-tonne items smashes through the new and
improved world trade tower. *

Since the odds of an uncontrolled reentering object hitting the
"improved world trade tower" are infinitesimal, your secenario would
require a controlled reentry. *You seem to be thinking of another
terrorist plot, which is very unlikely. *It would be far easier and far
cheaper to charter a large commercial aircraft (or even a retired
fighter jet like an F-104) than it would be to do the same with a
spacecraft.

Of course, without specialized and highly
controlled demolition charges like those recorded taking down WTC7,

There were no "controlled demolition charges" used on WTC7, you
conspiracy nut-job. *Either you have not read up on what really caused
WTC7 to collapse, or you're too stupid to understand what you read. *
Perhaps it's both.

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

Of course I was just kidding, although it seems our crack NASA doesn't
really know when and where space junk is going to fall, and with so
much up there that isn't officially tracked or required to be safely
disposed of because it's DoD or similar, makes the odds of something
hitting a populated structure more likely.

Obviously objective evidence doesn't matter to FUD-masters like
yourself, so it's perfectly understandable how you would either
implode or self-destruct if having to review any objective evidence
that proves otherwise about WTC7 or anything else going against the
mainstream status-quo.

You seem rather bipolar. Doesn't "motive, means and opportunity" mean
anything to those of your bipolar kind?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Sep 28, 12:01*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 87873837-2b74-4d17-8e46-29172c0a37e3
@z8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...











On Sep 25, 10:02 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 25/09/2011 12:08 AM, Pat Flannery wrote:

Poor Canada, first the Soviet satellite with the reactor on it, now this:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/na...-up-plunges-ba...

Pat

"It completed its mission in 2005 and had been slowly losing altitude
ever since, pulled by the planet's gravity."

Whereas previously it wasn't being pulled by gravity?

sigh It will probably never be possible educate journalists.

Sylvia.

ISS supposedly looses 167 meters per day, and it's still way the hell
up there.

That's not the point. *The point is that the article made it sound like
the earth's *gravity* is what causes a satellites orbit to *decay*. *

Atmospheric drag and tital effects are the main causes of orbital decay
for a satellite orbiting the earth.

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

The above mentions "gravitational radiation", but it says a cite is
needed, so.... *

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

Seems as Earth loses mass and thus the tidal binding force of gravity
becomes less, should help keep stuff in orbit. The Earth-moon L1
(Selene L1) with as little as 20 atoms/cm3 to contend with, might be a
super terrific location for the next generation space station or
gateway/oasis, though actually Venus L2 would be considerably cooler.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

::: Perhaps not until a multi-tonne items smashes through the new and
::: improved world trade tower. =A0

:: Since the odds of an uncontrolled reentering object hitting the
:: "improved world trade tower" are infinitesimal,

: Obviously objective evidence doesn't matter to FUD-masters like
: yourself,

Actually, "a bit satellite is gonna hit a building, oh my!"
is FUD, and "very unlikely" is the opposite of FUD.

In article 213efe35-ac2c-42b4-92e8-5cd31fc0c566
@n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...

Obviously objective evidence doesn't matter to FUD-masters like
yourself, so it's perfectly understandable how you would either
implode or self-destruct if having to review any objective evidence
that proves otherwise about WTC7 or anything else going against the
mainstream status-quo.

You seem rather bipolar. Doesn't "motive, means and opportunity" mean
anything to those of your bipolar kind?

"motive, means and opportunity" become important *after* it has been
determined that a crime has been committed. The evidence gathered about
WTC7 does not indicate that "controlled demolition charges" were used to
bring it down.

"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." ? Marcello
Truzzi, On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification, Zetetic
Scholar, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978

"A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence" -
David Hume.


The conspiracy theorists "proof" concerning WTC7 is as convincing as
that of their "proof" that the US never landed astronauts on the moon.

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

In article 2a4ebb55-cf6e-4547-99ce-0ff033ed0933
@fx14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

Seems as Earth loses mass

The Earth is losing a significant portion of its mass? Cite?

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

On Sep 30, 12:30*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 2a4ebb55-cf6e-4547-99ce-0ff033ed0933
@fx14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...



Seems as Earth loses mass

The Earth is losing a significant portion of its mass? *Cite?

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

Loss of helium, and more than a wee bit of hydrogen.

I've given numbers before. Go fish.

BTW; how much did Earth initially weigh?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”