A simple challenge for those who claim they like topics related to space exploration

[rodsky]

---

A parade of wits with rodsky as the conductor, let man showcase his wisdom.

OnT:
No, the ISS is not moving(with regards to the shuttle and not to the earth)... he will reach in a time appropriate to his speed.

That's a very confusing statement. If the ISS is "not moving" with respect to the shuttle, then how can it "reach in time appropriate to his speed"? That's almost like saying "I will go to the store, but I will not move towards the store", diba?

-RODION

[josephG]

You and ethznuron have reached 2nd base! But the point of the exercise is, to illustrate the difference between atmospheric flight and orbital/space flight. Your responses are very much related to the answer, but you still haven't answered as to WHY the shuttle has to do what you have stated.

-RODION

looking from your illustration if the shuttle mo lower orbit than sa ISS ang gravititional force pulling the shuttle ky much higher na sa ISS then tendency is madala ang shuttle og tuyok base from earth rotation from right to left which brings the shuttle to the ISS from behind

[bluedes]

this is a funny exercise.. people don't have to be rocket scientists to know the answer to this.

what's the point of this exercise again? to debunk that star wars or star trek physics don't work? to dispute "time travel" "worm holes" or "space warps"?

pffft..

i don't get why people view the science and the math behind this to be dauntingly difficult when one can explain it simply to a 5th grader.

kudos to the effort in preparing the lengthy exercise though (and with matching images too).. great for astronomy presentations in astronomy 101.

[rodsky]

this is a funny exercise.. people don't have to be rocket scientists to know the answer to this.

what's the point of this exercise again? to debunk that star wars or star trek physics don't work? to dispute "time travel" "worm holes" or "space warps"?

pffft..

i don't get why people view the science and the math behind this to be dauntingly difficult when one can explain it simply to a 5th grader.

kudos to the effort in preparing the lengthy exercise though (and with matching images too).. great for astronomy presentations in astronomy 101.

Exactly. I used to be president of the MSU-IIT Astronomical Society back in 2004-2007, so yeah I do miss giving lectures

Instead of being cynical, why not join the discussion and try to give a good answer to the exercise question. I don't know what you're trying to aim by posting in the manner that you did, but it doesn't matter--it's just an exercise, so to the rest of you readers, just answer away!

-RODION

[bluedes]

Exactly. I used to be president of the MSU-IIT Astronomical Society back in 2004-2007, so yeah I do miss giving lectures

Instead of being cynical, why not join the discussion and try to give a good answer to the exercise question. I don't know what you're trying to aim by posting in the manner that you did, but it doesn't matter--it's just an exercise, so to the rest of you readers, just answer away!

-RODION

sorry, not trying to be cynical.. just pushing further your challenge to the other people here..
if a 5th grader with basic astronomy can answer this, then why not..




but its not enough to debunk worm holes and space warps though.. that's in the realm of theoretical physics which is still *in progress*.

as for startrek and starwars, hollywood has its own universe..

[ethzneuron]

daghan pa diay ni og base sir rod? mo-quote lang ko kay dili man ko kabalo mo-ininglis gud matud pa sa uban istoyan diri..

From an article by George Adcock: Flying is space requires a completely different way of thinking. You don't simply move in a straight line from one point to another. You are always moving in an ellipse as a result of gravitational forces from the planet or the sun in the case of interplanetary flight.

[rodsky]

daghan pa diay ni og base sir rod? mo-quote lang ko kay dili man ko kabalo mo-ininglis gud matud pa sa uban istoyan diri..

Great find ethzeneuron! Yes, that's yet another "base" or "pointer" to answering the question. But again, the question remains, and has yet to receive a clear and concise answer Sige, lang, bisan binisay-on ang tubag, ang importante is ma-share ang unsa natong nahibaw-an or nabasa ba, or na-dig-up via the internet Information sharing lang

-RODION

[rodsky]

sorry, not trying to be cynical.. just pushing further your challenge to the other people here..
if a 5th grader with basic astronomy can answer this, then why not..




but its not enough to debunk worm holes and space warps though.. that's in the realm of theoretical physics which is still *in progress*.

as for startrek and starwars, hollywood has its own universe..

I didn't intend to show (by this exercise) that knowledge of basic celestial mechanics would automatically debunk worm holes and space warps--I basically am simply reminding those who are "excited" and "eager" to participate in discussions involving such topics, to refrain from "inserting" ideas that are in the realm of pseudo-science or "Hollywood" science, and if you may not have noticed, a lot of posters tend to do that here (i.e. ginasagol ang Hollywood science with real science)! That is my intent--just cleaning things up.

And while you are correct (i.e. " startrek and starwars, hollywood has its own universe.."), the point is, most people don't really appreciate this fact, and thus, whenever REAL situations occur, they tend to "insert" their own hollywoodized ideas into the discussion and thus tainting/spoiling the topic.

To demonstrate this phenomenon, let me cite a typical example of "hollywoodization" of science in a serious science discussion thread. Remember the space shuttle Columbia's tragic burnup back in Feb of 2003? Well I was participating in a science thread about the matter, and we were discussing plasma glow and temperatures in different parts of the underside of the shuttle, when all of a sudden, some guy comes along and posts "Those astronauts are stupid...why didn't they just fly the shuttle back to the ISS to have those broken tiles repaired? If they weren't stupid they wouldn't be dead." So, this is a post of someone who has obviously mistaken orbital flight for atmospheric flight. The person thought that, like in some cartoon wherein you can see a rocket take off and zoom around from planet to planet, nga ing-ana pod ang pag-move in space sa space shuttle. And do you know what the more alarming effect was? It was that some people in the thread began to agree with the guy.

My goal is simply to clarify to those not in the know, why it is important to distinguish Hollywood type physics or science from real science, in the hopes that the viewer (or the viewer's children) can gain better understanding of the reasons behind a real event.

-RODION

[pepau]

nindot ni ai murag game ka na ba educational pa jud..

testing ta b..

move the shuttle to lower orbit para lesser ang arc distance nga i travel.. just guessing hehehe

[moz_k2]

you still haven't answered as to WHY the shuttle has to do what you have stated.

-RODION

It will move faster at lower orbit.