Why not admit that Hubble is lost and gone ?

malbec

Muse
M
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
960
https://youtu.be/8ItXCzyUt-A
The video is Rob Bassano - a Stamford AI specialist -- in a near monologue to Nick Veronico who has worked on SOFIA for 8 years at their Science Centre .
Rob shows that NASA lost the Hubble telescope , probably around '08 , when they went to service it and tried to catapult it back to around 300 miles altitude from its 200 mile position --- this drop had resulted from orbital decay .
Hubble has no propulsion units and direction is handled by internal gyroscopes .
It could not be stopped and therefore disappeared into space .
Rob indicates that there are no photos in existence of Hubble in situ over 25 years and many servicing missions are not even logged into the FAN data base .
Hubble only had a maximum 5 micron range in the infra red frequency band ( but typically 2.5 ) compared to SOFIA at 250 microns , despite the latter flying at only a max of 45 000 feet , ( ISS ca 220 miles and Hubble at ca 330 miles max . )

Anybody here savvy enough to show that Robs work is incomplete or faulty ?

Remember , the only way you know Hubble exists is if you are assured it does by NASA . There is no other independent evidence over 25 years .
SOFIA can do everything Hubble does / did in terms of distance , albeit infra red rather than optical . And SOFIA has around 100 times more frequency width -- 2.5 vs 250 microns . Same technical specs / mirror size etc
Hubble's replacement -- the James Webb -- has been repeatedly delayed and one wonders what it is supposed to do that SOFIA presently does not already achieve .
I can readily believe that NASA lost Hubble but decided not to admit to a multi billion dollar blunder when it could be covered up .
Unless a Rob Bassano type figure accidentally appeared .
 
Why would a flat earther like Bassano have any conspiracy theories about NASA, I wonder? :rolleyes: This fruit loop also thinks the ISS is a fraud. The man's a half-wit.
 
Malbec said:
Rob shows that NASA lost the Hubble telescope , probably around '08 , when they went to service it and tried to catapult it back to around 300 miles altitude from its 200 mile position --- this drop had resulted from orbital decay .
Hubble has no propulsion units and direction is handled by internal gyroscopes
Click to expand...

Did they take along some strap-on jetpacks to push it further out?
 
MikeG said:
Why would a flat earther like Bassano have any conspiracy theories about NASA, I wonder? :rolleyes: This fruit loop also thinks the ISS is a fraud. The man's a half-wit.
Click to expand...

Couldn't imagine you handling this .
Try the message and its support and leave out rubbishing the guy for other matters -- which have no relevance here .
You did not watch the video
Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When you make statements like
Remember , the only way you know Hubble exists is if you are assured it does by NASA . There is no other independent evidence over 25 years .
Click to expand...
you pretty effectively discredit yourself. Hubble data is still coming in every day. University astronomy programs have arm wrestled to get their project into the schedule for years, because it's popular and there's a bit of a list. And then those university astronomy program scientists get their data.

If you were a scientist you could sign up yourself.
 
Hubble is visible from earth.. If it's gone what can we see?
 
Obvious troll thread is obvious.

Now, if you want to see some real "seat of the pants" science, look no further than this....(its something of a TL;DR but it IS worth the read)

In 2015, a young Nelson high school Third Form student (US 9th Grade) made an unusual entry in that year's Cawthron Institute Science Fair. Following is a reprint (with the student and her mum's permission) of her presentation, which was called - SPEEDY SATELLITES.

Question​

How many times does the International Space Station orbit the earth in one day?

Hypothesis​

I think that the space station will go around the earth 7 or 8 times a day because it seemed to be traveling extremely fast when I saw it.

Method​

To time the passes of the space station I needed to set up a datum line that could be used to watch when it passed.
To do this I have found a simple method using a bike wheel on a pole and a stop watch.

Step 1 - I removed the front wheel from a bike and remove the tyre.

Step 2 - I constructed a frame to attach the wheel to that can be adjusted to different vertical and horizontal angles, and attached the wheel to it.

Step 3 - I attached the frame to the top of a solid vertical pole that had a clear view to the sky.

Step 4 - I aligned the axle so that it points to the celestial South Pole. The rim of the wheel will now be closely aligned with the earth’s celestial equator. The space station will pass over this line. The celestial South Pole can be found by extending the vertical line of the Southern Cross and intersecting it with a line perpendicular from the midpoint between the Pointers. This is the position of which all of the stars appear to revolve around in the night sky.

ATT00119.png


Step 5 - By looking through the plane created by the bike wheel you are able to observe when the space station passes this plane, this can be used to accurately time when the space station passes the same projected plane in the sky.

Step 6 - With my mobile phone logged in to the international atomic clock, I recorded the time that the space station passed through the plane created by the bike wheel. I recorded this time in my log book.

Step 7 - I repeated steps 5 and 6 several times over a number of nights.

Step 8 - I can now use the times to calculate the number of passes between each reading, the average orbit period and calculate the number of orbits in a day.

Fair Testing​

1 - I used the International Atomic Clock each time to make sure the timing was accurate.
2 - I made sure that the wheel was protected from bumps and stayed stationary to ensure the timing was accurate.
3 - We aligned the wheel accurately with the Celestial South Pole to be sure that the space station would pass it each time.
4 - I checked the alignment of the wheel with the Celestial South Pole before each pass of the Space Station was timed.
5 - I used two spotters to ensure we identified the space station in the sky with plenty of time to prepare for it passing the wheel.
6 - I used two spotters to accurately identify when the space station crossed the plane of the wheel.
7 - I did multiple time tests over a long period of time so that we could average out the results and reduce errors.

Conclusion​

I was really surprised at how close the recorded times were to each other, even with using a basic method to time the space station passes. My testing showed that the International Space Station makes one orbit of the earth every 92 minutes and 32 seconds. This equates to orbiting the earth 15.56 times a day which is many more times than I expected. It must be travelling extremely fast – a lot faster than I thought.

Discussion​

I was surprised that the method I used to time the space station passes provided such accurate and consistent results. Measuring the results over a longer period of time gives a longer sample period which helps to reduce differences and the size of errors between individual results. Being able to time at least one set of consecutive passes was critical to the experiment working.

I was also surprised at how fast the space station is travelling. It needs to travel this fast so that as it is falling to earth it is also travelling past earth and never actually gets closer to the earth’s surface.

The method I used can be used to time any satellite that orbits the earth more than once a day – there are thousands of them out there!

Further Learning​

I have found out that you can calculate the orbit radius of a satellite from a formula based on Johannes Kepler’s 3rd law which he published in 1619. Using an online calculator the orbit radius for the space station works out at 6777km from the earth's centre. The earth has an average radius of 6371km which means that the space station is 406km high.

You can also work out the speed of the space station using the orbit period and orbit radius. The speed calculates at 7.67 km per second.

All satellites are in orbit around earth’s centre but not all rotate around the earth surface. These satellites appear to be stationary in relation to earth and they need to be a lot further away (thousands of kilometres) so that they are not affected as much by earth’s gravity. The satellite that SKY TV comes from is like this.

Bibliography​
Kepler’s Third law (on line orbit calculator):
http://www.1728.org/kepler3a.htm
Heavens above (satellite prediction tables):
http://www.heavens-above.com/
Atomic Clock Time (timing space station passes)
http://www.timeanddate.com/time/internatio
nal-atomic-time.html
Click to expand...

IMO, this is rough science it is very best. This young student has asked a question, and set about using real observation, real research and real experimentation (ie. real science) to answer it with just a rudimentary, but well designed contraption and naked eye observation.

So, how accurate were her results?

1. Measured the orbital period of the ISS as 1:32:32. The actual orbital period was 1:32:41; only 9 seconds error in 5561 seconds, or 0.16%. Her calculation of the orbital speed at 7.67 km/s is very close to the published figure of 7.66 km/s.

2. Calculated the ISS orbital altitude as 406 km. It was actually 399 by 408 km around the time of her observations which corresponds to 403.5 kms... about 0.5%.

SpeedySatellites.jpg

Here is the student alongside per presentation. (Photo courtesy of the Cawthron Institute, Nelson, NZ - http://www.cawthron.org.nz/

This young girl puts every conspiracy theorist to shame. IMO, she is smarter and a more clear thinker than any of them. Additionally, she did something that CTs in general are utterly incapable of (apart from the obvious; clear critical thinking and using scientific methods to get answers). When the results didn't match her hypothesis, she changed her opinion!! This does not even enter into CT thinking!

Her entry won two prizes...

The Albert Jones Memorial Award
Sponsor: Nelson Science Society / Earth and Sky Ltd.
Prize: A fully funded trip to Mount John Observatory
Criteria: The best oral communication of a project during the interview process

The Royal Aeronautical Society Award
Sponsor: Royal Aeronautical Society, Blenheim Branch
Prize: $100
Criteria: The best investigation relating to 'flow', including hydro and aero dynamics, vessel building and design.



Footnote:
Later that year, she gave a talk about her project to the Nelson Astronomical Society as a curtain raiser to the main speaker, Space Scientist, Author and Broadcaster, Duncan Steel.
http://itson.co.nz/2015/11841-speedy-satellites-speedier-asteroids

Abby's uncle is a friend of mine. He is an amateur astronomer, a physics and cosmology buff, and all-around very smart man; awarded the ONZM (Officer of the NZ Order of Merit) for services to Astronomy in the Queen's Birthday Honours list in 1999.
 
smartcooky said:
Obvious troll thread is obvious. blah blah
Click to expand...

How is something doubly obvious ?
That apart , on what possible grounds -- evidence would be too much -- do you think RB is a Troll , as you put it ?
Nobody has tried to answer my question sensibly because nobody can say with authority that they have ever seen Hubble .Even the SOFIA member admits they have never seen Hubble " in situ"
It might look a simple matter and it might seem to be ludicrous to MS thinkers , but nobody has yet proved RB misguided -- let alone plain wrong .
Just waffle and unconnected ridicule -- as expected from a chat site .
 
Malbec said:
How is something doubly obvious ?
That apart , on what possible grounds -- evidence would be too much -- do you think RB is a Troll , as you put it ?
Nobody has tried to answer my question sensibly because nobody can say with authority that they have ever seen Hubble .Even the SOFIA member admits they have never seen Hubble " in situ"
It might look a simple matter and it might seem to be ludicrous to MS thinkers , but nobody has yet proved RB misguided -- let alone plain wrong .
Just waffle and unconnected ridicule -- as expected from a chat site .
Click to expand...

It wasn't Bassano who was being accused of trolling.

No, I haven't seen Hubble. But I haven't seen the Andes either, nor Antarctica, nor bacteria or DNA. Don't let the burden of proof trouble you either: if facts don't, why should logic?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Obvious troll thread is obvious.

Now, if you want to see some real "seat of the pants" science, look no further than this....(its something of a TL;DR but it IS worth the read)

In 2015, a young Nelson high school Third Form student (US 9th Grade) made an unusual entry in that year's Cawthron Institute Science Fair. Following is a reprint (with the student and her mum's permission) of her presentation, which was called - SPEEDY SATELLITES.



IMO, this is rough science it is very best. This young student has asked a question, and set about using real observation, real research and real experimentation (ie. real science) to answer it with just a rudimentary, but well designed contraption and naked eye observation.

So, how accurate were her results?

1. Measured the orbital period of the ISS as 1:32:32. The actual orbital period was 1:32:41; only 9 seconds error in 5561 seconds, or 0.16%. Her calculation of the orbital speed at 7.67 km/s is very close to the published figure of 7.66 km/s.

2. Calculated the ISS orbital altitude as 406 km. It was actually 399 by 408 km around the time of her observations which corresponds to 403.5 kms... about 0.5%.

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/SpeedySatellites.jpg[/qimg]
Here is the student alongside per presentation. (Photo courtesy of the Cawthron Institute, Nelson, NZ - http://www.cawthron.org.nz/

This young girl puts every conspiracy theorist to shame. IMO, she is smarter and a more clear thinker than any of them. Additionally, she did something that CTs in general are utterly incapable of (apart from the obvious; clear critical thinking and using scientific methods to get answers). When the results didn't match her hypothesis, she changed her opinion!! This does not even enter into CT thinking!

Her entry won two prizes...

The Albert Jones Memorial Award
Sponsor: Nelson Science Society / Earth and Sky Ltd.
Prize: A fully funded trip to Mount John Observatory
Criteria: The best oral communication of a project during the interview process

The Royal Aeronautical Society Award
Sponsor: Royal Aeronautical Society, Blenheim Branch
Prize: $100
Criteria: The best investigation relating to 'flow', including hydro and aero dynamics, vessel building and design.



Footnote:
Later that year, she gave a talk about her project to the Nelson Astronomical Society as a curtain raiser to the main speaker, Space Scientist, Author and Broadcaster, Duncan Steel.
http://itson.co.nz/2015/11841-speedy-satellites-speedier-asteroids

Abby's uncle is a friend of mine. He is an amateur astronomer, a physics and cosmology buff, and all-around very smart man; awarded the ONZM (Officer of the NZ Order of Merit) for services to Astronomy in the Queen's Birthday Honours list in 1999.
Click to expand...


Sniff, she didn't find Hubble though, did she?
 
Malbec said:
How is something doubly obvious ?
Click to expand...
Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 12


Malbec said:
That apart , on what possible grounds -- evidence would be too much -- do you think RB is a Troll , as you put it ?
Click to expand...

Bassano is just an idiot.

Malbec said:
Nobody has tried to answer my question sensibly because/
Click to expand...

Sometimes, a question really is so stupid that doesn't merit comment, only contempt, because the sheer stupidity of the question is self-evident.

Malbec said:
nobody can say with authority that they have ever seen Hubble
Click to expand...

I have, several times when I was living in North Queensland in 2000. It passed over within seconds of its predicted time on each occasion.

Malbec said:
Even the SOFIA member admits they have never seen Hubble " in situ"
Click to expand...

Why would they see it?

1. The vast majority of SOFIA's missions are conducted at high N & S latitudes. HST's orbit is fairly close to the equator (it never gets further from the equator than about 28.6° N or S, so HST would not even be potentially visible on most of their anyway. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

2. SOFIA flies at about 45,000 ft, about 8½ miles high. HST is at 336 miles, so SOFIA is 2.5% closer to it than an observer on the ground. No effective advantage.

NOTE. Bassano's assertion that there are "no photographs of Hubble in the last 25 years" is a demonstrable lie. Servicing Mission 4 was flown by Atlantis in May 2009, only seven years ago, There are hundreds of photographs and videos of this event.

Its also misleading of Bassano to claim that the fact the launch mission is not listed on the FAI database is somehow significant. There are literally thousands of major flights that are not listed.

Norad Tracks it as object 20580
 
Last edited by a moderator:
applecorped said:
Sniff, she didn't find Hubble though, did she?
Click to expand...

Damned difficult to see from our location. It always passes to the north and it never gets above 14° of elevation. I have seen it once from near here; out at Awaroa Bay where there is a clear, northerly aspect over the sea and skies are really dark.

In any case, Abby's method would not have worked for HST because, unlike ISS, it would never cross the datum point (the plane of the bike wheel)
 
That is a very smart girl and I sincerely hope she continues to question and observe. Well done!
 
Malbec, when the ISS was the topic of conversation, you eventually admitted that you had never looked for it yourself.

How about in this case? Have you, personally, ever tried to see if Hubble is up where they say it is? If I thought that something visible had vanished and the disappearance covered up, the first thing I would do is look to see whether or not it is actually there.
 
This Topic , inspired by the interesting work of Bassano is a perfect vehicle for examining response behaviour and measuring Topic comprehension .
It is remarkable how non consensus ideas are fought as though they were the next worst enemy to ISIS jihadists .
Fortunately real and hard science does not work this way . It likes evidence and results which will be reproduced time after time .
Nobody yet has been able to begin to dissect the evidence for Hubble having shuffled off into outer space , but the subject is perhaps too complex and demanding for this audience .
 
Malbec said:
.......Nobody yet has been able to begin to dissect the evidence for Hubble having shuffled off into outer space......
Click to expand...

Apart from the person who did, you mean? Did you bother reading all the replies? Did you bother checking on the photos referenced by Smartcooky of Service Mission 4?
 
Malbec, when the ISS was the topic of conversation, you eventually admitted that you had never looked for it yourself.

How about in this case? Have you, personally, ever tried to see if Hubble is up where they say it is? If I thought that something visible had vanished and the disappearance covered up, the first thing I would do is look to see whether or not it is actually there.
 
smartcooky said:
In 2015, a young Nelson high school Third Form student (US 9th Grade) made an unusual entry in that year's Cawthron Institute Science Fair.
Click to expand...

That kid is awesome! :thumbsup: Good on her.

Captain_Swoop said:
Hubble is visible from earth.. If it's gone what can we see?
Click to expand...

It is, of course. Not sure it is visible from the UK, though where Malbec could check personally. ;)

Hubble orbits with an inclination of 28 degrees and doesn't venture too far north or south. This is the default inclination for objects launched from Cape Canaveral and it corresponds to its latitude. Where possible, satellites are launched close to the equator to take advantage of the Earth's rotation and inclinations are not changed, both to save fuel. Earth observation satellites are often put in higher inclinations to allow them to see more of Earth's surface. The ISS has an inclination of 52 degrees to allow for easier resupply from Baikonur. That's why it can be seen well in most inhabited areas.
 
Malbec said:
https://youtu.be/8ItXCzyUt-A
The video is Rob Bassano - a Stamford AI specialist -- in a near monologue to Nick Veronico who has worked on SOFIA for 8 years at their Science Centre .
Rob shows that NASA lost the Hubble telescope , probably around '08 , when they went to service it and tried to catapult it back to around 300 miles altitude from its 200 mile position --- this drop had resulted from orbital decay .
Hubble has no propulsion units and direction is handled by internal gyroscopes .
It could not be stopped and therefore disappeared into space .
Rob indicates that there are no photos in existence of Hubble in situ over 25 years and many servicing missions are not even logged into the FAN data base .
Hubble only had a maximum 5 micron range in the infra red frequency band ( but typically 2.5 ) compared to SOFIA at 250 microns , despite the latter flying at only a max of 45 000 feet , ( ISS ca 220 miles and Hubble at ca 330 miles max . )

Anybody here savvy enough to show that Robs work is incomplete or faulty ?

Remember , the only way you know Hubble exists is if you are assured it does by NASA . There is no other independent evidence over 25 years .
SOFIA can do everything Hubble does / did in terms of distance , albeit infra red rather than optical . And SOFIA has around 100 times more frequency width -- 2.5 vs 250 microns . Same technical specs / mirror size etc
Hubble's replacement -- the James Webb -- has been repeatedly delayed and one wonders what it is supposed to do that SOFIA presently does not already achieve .
I can readily believe that NASA lost Hubble but decided not to admit to a multi billion dollar blunder when it could be covered up .
Unless a Rob Bassano type figure accidentally appeared .
Click to expand...

Malbec you're back and right into proving yet again you need to work on your education - badly.

...lets see 8.5 seconds on google to find information on the last visit to Hubble in 2009 (as mentioned by others), 14 seconds after that to find out who runs its and where they work at - all those people just sit around for years huh - and of course all the science information feed and people around the equator can see it pass over.....

Suggestion learn that people who are flat earthers are NOT a good source for anything but humor.

lol
 
Last night I saw up in the air,
the satellite that wasn't there.
It wasn't there again today;
Oh how I wish it would go away!
 
Can someone would explain to me why anyone would accept that a visible object doesn't exist without first looking for it?
 
AdamSK said:
Can someone would explain to me why anyone would accept that a visible object doesn't exist without first looking for it?
Click to expand...
It would mean going outside and knowing what to look for while he was outside, which would require research other than looking at kooky videos
 
The pissing contest of who has more/better/sufficient qualifications is a quintessential rule 12 breach. Please concentrate on addressing the arguments.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
AdamSK said:
Can someone would explain to me why anyone would accept that a visible object doesn't exist without first looking for it?
Click to expand...

I forget which member it is, bjarne or malbec, but one of them calls themselves a true skeptic and except nothing on face value, authority and because everyone says it's true. The other calls himself a contrarian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom