Skip to comments.
Europe's 1st lunar mission reaches moon
Yahoo & AP ^
| September 2, 2006
Posted on 09/02/2006 11:38:19 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 161-167 next last
To: Coyoteman
61
posted on
09/03/2006 9:39:08 AM PDT
by
Gaffer
To: RightWhale; Gondring
This was not the first ion motor to fly. There are many ion rockets in space these days. We are using them for attitude control.
62
posted on
09/03/2006 9:39:17 AM PDT
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: Coyoteman
There are some negative comments on this thread. They planned the crash and figured out a way to get some good data. What's the beef? The beef appears to be, one would actually have to read the article to know what it was about, and not just the headline.
It is a waste of time to engage with folks who can't even do that. And it feeds the left-wing MSM with yet more annoying "Republicans are anti-science" Shinola.
Conservatives are NOT anti-science. But reading some of the foolish 'fly-by-postings' on this thread, I can see why that claim gets perpetuated.
Very depressing.
To: Iscool
And if there was any equipment in the vehicle to monitor the 'landing', likely it got destroyed in the crash...The "crash" was being monitored here from the Earth.
64
posted on
09/03/2006 9:40:31 AM PDT
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: Lunatic Fringe
Are these guys cutting edge or what ???
65
posted on
09/03/2006 9:40:47 AM PDT
by
Obie Wan
To: Obie Wan; Lunatic Fringe
Are these guys cutting edge or what ???Actually they are. (I have worked with the ESA)
66
posted on
09/03/2006 9:41:46 AM PDT
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: MarkL
One of these days, ones of these days...
67
posted on
09/03/2006 9:45:06 AM PDT
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
To: ToryHeartland; Coyoteman
Conservatives are NOT anti-science. But reading some of the foolish 'fly-by-postings' on this thread, I can see why that claim gets perpetuated.It is like that on many (if not most) science threads these days.
68
posted on
09/03/2006 9:45:50 AM PDT
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: Lunatic Fringe
Sounds like what we did over forty years ago withthe Ranger series.
To: martin_fierro; Charles Henrickson
70
posted on
09/03/2006 10:25:05 AM PDT
by
mikrofon
(Literal Astro BUMP)
To: jmcenanly
Except the Ranger series did not use ion propulsion, have a three year mission and gather the data this spacecraft did.
But OTOH, Ranger was 40 years ago.
71
posted on
09/03/2006 10:30:32 AM PDT
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: happinesswithoutpeace; Lunatic Fringe
<< Now that is a good title. >>
Now isn't that the Truth!
And, didn't we do something similar, insofar as aiming at and hitting the moon, is concerned?
Back in the Middle Ages?
72
posted on
09/03/2006 10:50:36 AM PDT
by
Brian Allen
("Moral issues are always terribly complex, for someone without principles." - G K Chesterton)
To: RadioAstronomer
There are many ion rockets in space these days. We are using them for attitude control. I resent the implicatiom that if I DON'T have an ion thruster, I might have a bad attitude!
73
posted on
09/03/2006 11:05:11 AM PDT
by
longshadow
(FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
To: Lunatic Fringe
If they were going to crash it, they could have saved a lot of money by dropping it from the nearest tall building.
74
posted on
09/03/2006 11:25:42 AM PDT
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
(Democrats. French, but more cowardly.)
To: jmcenanly
Ranger did not orbit the moon but augered in. They attempted to take the last image just before impact. I don't recall what the closest image was, but it was a few feet.
75
posted on
09/03/2006 11:28:16 AM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
To: AdmSmith
...until it was high enough to be grabbed by the moon's gravity. High enough? From memory, the Earth's gravitational effect, in relation to the Moon is something just under
90% of the distance between to the two masses. Say 250K miles, that means it has to be about
25K miles from the Moon to be captured by it.
Or did I miscalculate?
To: Calvin Locke; RightWhale; RadioAstronomer
"... From memory, the Earth's gravitational effect, in relation to the Moon is something just under 90% of the distance between to the two masses. Say 250K miles, that means it has to be about 25K miles from the Moon to be captured by it." Probably close enough. Now, how high does a beanstalk have to be on the moon, to get past the balance point with Earth?
77
posted on
09/03/2006 12:22:58 PM PDT
by
NicknamedBob
(If the "enemy of your enemy" is Ghengis Khan, Ghengis Khan is not your friend.)
To: RadioAstronomer
It is like that on many (if not most) science threads these days.In the genuine hope that most conservatives take an interest in science rather than making themselves look silly with sniggering posts, here's a link to the article (which is defective in this thread). here.
To: Lunatic Fringe
Europe's 1st lunar mission reaches moon where they immediately deployed their white flag and surrendered to the moonbats.
79
posted on
09/03/2006 3:56:10 PM PDT
by
UglyinLA
To: Lunatic Fringe
They better be careful up there or there'll be shots fired!
80
posted on
09/03/2006 4:15:16 PM PDT
by
Dumpster Baby
("Hope somebody finds me before the rats do .....")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 161-167 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson