Mars Rover

RetroProphet wrote in message ...

SO, you dot not swear that the Shuttle disappeared
"behind the horizon", when you saw a launch of a Shuttle,
because the Shuttle DID NOT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON!

No, It became to hard to track visually during day launches.


HA! TYPICAL COVERUP EXCUSE!

However, it was in orbit and back in view within 100 minutes of launch
through the telescope at my one night launch. (We had a motor failure
that stopped the smooth tracking during launch.)

How do you know that it was not a "asteroid"
that you saw 100 minutes later?

So, about "the thing" that you saw within 100 minutes of launch...
Did you see it "appear from behind the horizon"...?
I suppose the answer is "yes"!

And did you also see it "dis-appear behind the horizon"
(after five minutes)...?
I suppose the answer is "yes"!
Can you see this with the naked eye?
I suppose the answer is "yes"!

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

what a coincidence...

RetroProphet wrote in message ...

SO, you dot not swear that the Shuttle disappeared
"behind the horizon", when you saw a launch of a Shuttle,
because the Shuttle DID NOT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON!

No, It became to hard to track visually during day launches.


HA! TYPICAL COVERUP EXCUSE!

However, it was in orbit and back in view within 100 minutes of launch
through the telescope at my one night launch. (We had a motor failure
that stopped the smooth tracking during launch.)

How do you know that it was not a "asteroid"
that you saw 100 minutes later?

So, about "the thing" that you saw within 100 minutes of launch...
Did you see it "appear from behind the horizon"...?
I suppose the answer is "yes"!

And did you also see it "dis-appear behind the horizon"
(after five minutes)...?
I suppose the answer is "yes"!
Can you see this with the naked eye?
I suppose the answer is "yes"!

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

what a coincidence...

"bart janssens" wrote in message
om...
RetroProphet wrote in message
...

So, about "the thing" that you saw within 100 minutes of launch...
Did you see it "appear from behind the horizon"...?
I suppose the answer is "yes"!

That depends. One can only see the Shuttle, or any satellite in the night
sky, when the object is above the Earth's shadow and the observer is under
the Earth's shadow (the few hours after dusk, or before dawn). Depending on
how low the Sun has set, it may be possible to see a satellite rise from the
horizon, or it may be high in the sky, before it comes out of Earth's
shadow.

And did you also see it "dis-appear behind the horizon"
(after five minutes)...?

It may pass below the horizon, or it may pass into the Earth's shadow while
still high in the sky. It depends on the specific Sun/Observer/Object
geometry.

I suppose the answer is "yes"!
Can you see this with the naked eye?
I suppose the answer is "yes"!

Generally, yes. The Shuttle is a rather large object, painted white on the
top (which points toward the Earth, during most missions).

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

It's not a "motor failure". The main engine is intentionally stopped at
about 8 minutes into the flight. That is because, by that time, the Shuttle
has gained all the speed necessary to orbit the Earth. At that point and at
that height, the horizon is still a few minutes away.

what a coincidence...

No coincidence. MECO is generally scheduled at approximately T+ 8 minutes 28
seconds. At 28,164kph, the horizon is still a few minutes away. Your
argument is also blown by observers on the other side of the Atlantic, who
see the Shuttle, right on schedule, as it passes over them. Tristain Cools,
an amateur observer, has even taken a picture of STS99 as the external tank
was falling away and burning up, on it's way to the bottom of the Indian
Ocean. Here's the picture...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...3070/sts99.htm
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com

"bart janssens" wrote in message
om...
RetroProphet wrote in message
...

So, about "the thing" that you saw within 100 minutes of launch...
Did you see it "appear from behind the horizon"...?
I suppose the answer is "yes"!

That depends. One can only see the Shuttle, or any satellite in the night
sky, when the object is above the Earth's shadow and the observer is under
the Earth's shadow (the few hours after dusk, or before dawn). Depending on
how low the Sun has set, it may be possible to see a satellite rise from the
horizon, or it may be high in the sky, before it comes out of Earth's
shadow.

And did you also see it "dis-appear behind the horizon"
(after five minutes)...?

It may pass below the horizon, or it may pass into the Earth's shadow while
still high in the sky. It depends on the specific Sun/Observer/Object
geometry.

I suppose the answer is "yes"!
Can you see this with the naked eye?
I suppose the answer is "yes"!

Generally, yes. The Shuttle is a rather large object, painted white on the
top (which points toward the Earth, during most missions).

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

It's not a "motor failure". The main engine is intentionally stopped at
about 8 minutes into the flight. That is because, by that time, the Shuttle
has gained all the speed necessary to orbit the Earth. At that point and at
that height, the horizon is still a few minutes away.

what a coincidence...

No coincidence. MECO is generally scheduled at approximately T+ 8 minutes 28
seconds. At 28,164kph, the horizon is still a few minutes away. Your
argument is also blown by observers on the other side of the Atlantic, who
see the Shuttle, right on schedule, as it passes over them. Tristain Cools,
an amateur observer, has even taken a picture of STS99 as the external tank
was falling away and burning up, on it's way to the bottom of the Indian
Ocean. Here's the picture...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...3070/sts99.htm
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com

Bart, telecom satellites IN ORBIT
are being used every second of every day.

For some bizarre reason, you doubt this.
But, you have never presented one fact to
convince anyone. I think this is because
you do not have one fact. Nothing. Just
pure faith in your belief. Like a religion.

If some fact convinced you that telecom sats
are not a reality, but rather that an alternative
method is really being used, please share it
with us.

Without any facts, what you believe is exactly
the sort of ungrounded "religion" that you
accuse those who believe in space travel of
being believers in.

Ironic, isn't it?

Believing that "All telecom services are
provided from sub-orbital airplanes" is
a wonderful hypothesis -- if you can back
it up with facts.

Otherwise it is just a religious chant.

Are you a scientist? Or a priest?

Bart, telecom satellites IN ORBIT
are being used every second of every day.

For some bizarre reason, you doubt this.
But, you have never presented one fact to
convince anyone. I think this is because
you do not have one fact. Nothing. Just
pure faith in your belief. Like a religion.

If some fact convinced you that telecom sats
are not a reality, but rather that an alternative
method is really being used, please share it
with us.

Without any facts, what you believe is exactly
the sort of ungrounded "religion" that you
accuse those who believe in space travel of
being believers in.

Ironic, isn't it?

Believing that "All telecom services are
provided from sub-orbital airplanes" is
a wonderful hypothesis -- if you can back
it up with facts.

Otherwise it is just a religious chant.

Are you a scientist? Or a priest?

Lo, many moons past, on 19 Feb 2004 11:03:57 -0800, a stranger called
by some (bart janssens) came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism

RetroProphet wrote in message ...

How do you know that it was not a "asteroid"
that you saw 100 minutes later?

So, about "the thing" that you saw within 100 minutes of launch...
Did you see it "appear from behind the horizon"...?
I suppose the answer is "yes"!

Yup. We knew what the orbital track was, and had the telescope set up
in a place where we could spot it as it rose.

And did you also see it "dis-appear behind the horizon"
(after five minutes)...?

About ten, as I recall.

Can you see this with the naked eye?

Yes, as a small, fast moving dot. With the telescope we could clearly
see the shuttle wings, and the coloration differences between to and
bottom.

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

what a coincidence...

No, what a crappy motor. There were about 10,000 people on the beach
who also saw the launch. Many of them were using telescopes and high
powered binoculars. They tracked it to the horizon.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"

Lo, many moons past, on 19 Feb 2004 11:03:57 -0800, a stranger called
by some (bart janssens) came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism

RetroProphet wrote in message ...

How do you know that it was not a "asteroid"
that you saw 100 minutes later?

So, about "the thing" that you saw within 100 minutes of launch...
Did you see it "appear from behind the horizon"...?
I suppose the answer is "yes"!

Yup. We knew what the orbital track was, and had the telescope set up
in a place where we could spot it as it rose.

And did you also see it "dis-appear behind the horizon"
(after five minutes)...?

About ten, as I recall.

Can you see this with the naked eye?

Yes, as a small, fast moving dot. With the telescope we could clearly
see the shuttle wings, and the coloration differences between to and
bottom.

So, about the original night launch...
you wrote: "I DID NOT SEE IT DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE HORIZON"...
because you had a motor failure...

what a coincidence...

No, what a crappy motor. There were about 10,000 people on the beach
who also saw the launch. Many of them were using telescopes and high
powered binoculars. They tracked it to the horizon.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"

RetroProphet wrote in message ...
Bart, telecom satellites IN ORBIT
are being used every second of every day.

For some bizarre reason, you doubt this.
But, you have never presented one fact to
convince anyone. I think this is because
you do not have one fact. Nothing. Just
pure faith in your belief. Like a religion.

If some fact convinced you that telecom sats
are not a reality, but rather that an alternative
method is really being used, please share it
with us.

Without any facts, what you believe is exactly
the sort of ungrounded "religion" that you
accuse those who believe in space travel of
being believers in.

Ironic, isn't it?

Believing that "All telecom services are
provided from sub-orbital airplanes" is
a wonderful hypothesis -- if you can back
it up with facts.

And they also use "asteroids IN ORBIT" for GPS.
It reflects the radiosignal as you probably know!

You probably also know that TV-radiosignals are reflected
on the ionosphere...(ask mister Marconi)

Why would you uses "artificial satellites",
if you can uses "natural satellites",
like the moon (in orbit) and asteroids (in orbit)...

Otherwise it is just a religious chant.

Are you a scientist? Or a priest?

I am a scientist! And you? A priest, a prophet or a retroprophet?

RetroProphet wrote in message ...
Bart, telecom satellites IN ORBIT
are being used every second of every day.

For some bizarre reason, you doubt this.
But, you have never presented one fact to
convince anyone. I think this is because
you do not have one fact. Nothing. Just
pure faith in your belief. Like a religion.

If some fact convinced you that telecom sats
are not a reality, but rather that an alternative
method is really being used, please share it
with us.

Without any facts, what you believe is exactly
the sort of ungrounded "religion" that you
accuse those who believe in space travel of
being believers in.

Ironic, isn't it?

Believing that "All telecom services are
provided from sub-orbital airplanes" is
a wonderful hypothesis -- if you can back
it up with facts.

And they also use "asteroids IN ORBIT" for GPS.
It reflects the radiosignal as you probably know!

You probably also know that TV-radiosignals are reflected
on the ionosphere...(ask mister Marconi)

Why would you uses "artificial satellites",
if you can uses "natural satellites",
like the moon (in orbit) and asteroids (in orbit)...

Otherwise it is just a religious chant.

Are you a scientist? Or a priest?

I am a scientist! And you? A priest, a prophet or a retroprophet?