NASA warns two asteroids hurtling closer to Earth than the MOON in 20,000mph

I think he has issues and they have nothing to do with NASA.

 

Automatic inflight refueling is more difficult than landing on an asteroid. In space you don't have air pressure and other climatic issues to contend with. And in flight refueling can be done automatically without any human interaction:
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/airbus-automatic-mid-air-refuelling/

 

Then why did you claim that the asteroid would not be there?

You do understand that there is no gravity and air resistance, ground resistance etc., there is no need to 'maintain' forward momentum, it's forward speed would not change, it's not like in car a car when you take your foot off the accelerator you start to slow down. The probe being in space does not change speed unless acceleration is applied, once its traveling at the same speed you can turn the engine off and you don't slow down.

Simply put when they are landing there is only relative movement in a vertical direction

And yes, they can survey the asteroid define landing areas visually or radar for example, an area can then be programmed into the probe and it can land, it can control its own decent via radar etc. no need for someone to control it in real time.

How the hell do you think adaptive cruise control in a car works, cars can maintain a distance or more correctly a time gap via radar from the car in front, more relevant to this discussion they can also gradually come to a stop behind the car in front, if that car slows down and stops, it's almost like landing on a surface, as you get closer you go slower and slower until you stop.

 

I don't agree, because where there is air pressure there is resistance, which is needed for finely-tuned controlability, which isn't the case in a vacuum. And although your link doesn't work, neither do I believe that in-flight refueling is more difficult than landing on an asteroid. I don't see how they're related to be honest. But let's not get into prolonged argument when we're obviously at opposite ends of the spectrum. You can if you like, but I said a few posts ago that I'm done on this thread.

 

Stop with the obfuscation and word-play. I have nothing to add to what I've already said, and there are other threads I want to join.

 

There is no word play in his commentary, you just cannot grasp it and want it to go away to avoid embarrassment....too late.

 

What about when he said this . . .

"they can survey the asteroid define landing areas visually or radar for example, an area can then be programmed into the probe and it can land, it can control its own decent via radar etc. no need for someone to control it in real time."

An asteroid is constantly tumbling through space, not moving in a stable fashion; nothing in nature is stable, everything is in flux. And what I've highlighted? You might have been born yesterday but I wasn't!

 

I'll try to make this as clear as possible for you, then provide an analogy to make it even easier. When an object in space is orbiting another they may both be "Tumbling from your perspective but neither is from their own, much like our moon does not notice the Earth is flying through space because it is as well.

Imagine you are on a skateboard cruising down a hill with a buddy and he hands you a piece of Bubble Gum....does it fly away even though it is going 20 MPH?

 

Just how fast do you think this tumbling is, you're the one with word play as you are clearly defining tumbling as meaning nothing can possible land, you have no basis for this assumption at all. Asteroids have different rates of spin. Some would be impossible some not, this asteroid takes days to rotate

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/tumbling-asteroid-toutatis

Your lack of understanding does not make it impossible

Nobody is playing word games, each question raised has been answered clearly, the Rosetta mission was nearly 20 years in total from the original concept, it was in flight for 10 years. No one was at the controls constantly.

 

Look, you believe what you want to believe, and I'll trust my acuity, which seldom fails me. I won't be posting any more on this thread, so if it makes you feel good that I've 'run away' then it just shows how small-minded you are.

'they can survey the asteroid define landing areas visually or radar for example, an area can then be programmed into the probe and it can land, it can control its own decent via radar etc. no need for someone to control it in real time.' You've been reading too many space mags.

 

You need to work on your flounce. This is about the dozenth (I can't believe that made it through spell check) time you've threatened to leave the thread and yet here you are.

If you want to remain wilfully ignorant then don't bother to read the links that people have provided but don't be too surprised if those same people are simply dismissive in the future.

 

No you just don't have a clue what you're talking as you have been told time and time again it's not a matter of belief. The math is there, examples of slowly spinning / tumbling asteroids have been given and you ignore every example because it doesn't fit your narrative.

No it doesn't make me happy to see you run away as you put it, just disappointed that you refuse to engage and explain what you see as impossible instead of saying 'you just know' or i trust my gut / feelings / acuity over math and science.

Your inability to discuss facts and interject hyperbole does nothing more than cast doubt and shadow on every one of your posts

 

Just go away both of you ffs, you're getting on my nerves. It's fantasy waffle from NASA and you're soaking it up like sponges. 'math and science' 'can then be programmed into the probe and it can land' - jesus wept! Some people will believe anything!

 

We have come to similar conclusions. Initially I got angry at the repeated point blank refusal to accept a bewildering array of factual data. Over time and after more interactions I realised that this is literally the best he can do. It really is pretty sad.

 

Oh and now they're all wibbling away about me to each other like a bunch of nattering old women - how truly pathetic is that! And I see my nemesis has snatched the opportunity to weasel his way in as well. And to think they're adults!

 

For someone who is allegedly abandoning the thread (repeatedly), you sure post here a lot.

Before you dismiss things out of hand, it's sensible to have some basic knowledge. It really isn't that difficult to calculate the trajectories of things moving in a vacuum.

 

Oh please, the only person acting like a child is you. It's like you've been shown that the easter bunny doesn't exist but you just 'know' it's true and the facts don't matter.

Just saying something is true doesn't make you right

Don't know why you bother to start Science threads when you have no intention to debate whatsoever.

 

So tell me how I can do it in rudimentary fashion at home, Don? But as to 'basic knowledge'? Someone can have expert knowledge of any of the sciences, but it doesn't necessarily mean they can excel in, or even fully understand the practicalities of it. For example, someone as smart as you obviously are might know everything there is to know about the human brain and more, but it doesn't necessarily mean you're capable of carrying out brain surgery. I mean, for all I know you might faint at the sight of blood? What I'm getting at is that there's a vast difference between the theory of any given thing, and the putting of it into practice.

 

Would you like cheese with that whine?

 

And yet with zero practice and experience you know what is and isn't possible

 

But when it becomes obvious there is never going to be agreement or a meeting of minds, there really is no point in continuing the discussion, is there?

 

Newton's laws of motion are a good starting point.

True, but with (close to) zero knowledge of the underlying science (in this case physics) then there's no chance of understanding the practicalities.

Understanding is a pre-requisite for doing. It doesn't matter how steady your hand, or how impervious to the sight of blood you are, unless you know where to cut and/or what to remove you are useless as a brain surgeon.

 

You have a Nemesis?

How did you pick him out of the crowd?

Is it me?....please........pretty please.....

 

I took it to be bigfella because it was the post immediately prior to cerberus'. Then again, I may have jumped to conclusions.

 

I think it is me, though it isn't something to be proud of. My 8 year old niece is a greater intellectual challenge.