Have come across a mention of anomalies in spacecraft using earth to fly-by and unexplained momentum gain. Does anyone know anything about this?
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 20 2011, 11:14 AM)
Have come across a mention of anomalies in spacecraft using earth to fly-by and unexplained momentum gain. Does anyone know anything about this?
Any unexplained momentum gain in spacecraft orbiting the Earth would almost certainly end with the destruction or loss of the spacecraft.
Any unexplained momentum gain in spacecraft orbiting the Earth would almost certainly end with the destruction or loss of the spacecraft.
It was just a couple of sentences in a book, we need to talk about kelvin I think was the title, and claimed it had happened 5 or 6 times. Guess youve not heard about it.
Have found it here - See 13 things that dont make sense New Scientist.
Have found it here - See 13 things that dont make sense New Scientist.
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 21 2011, 09:49 AM)
It was just a couple of sentences in a book, we need to talk about kelvin I think was the title, and claimed it had happened 5 or 6 times. Guess youve not heard about it.
Have found it here - See 13 things that dont make sense New Scientist.
I think this is the first paper, written on the subject, by John Anderson of JPL. It's an interesting story. You can search arXiv using John's name and get a thorough history of the anomaly [which lo and behold really wasn't an anomaly].
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9808081
The most recent paper sums it up.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222
Have found it here - See 13 things that dont make sense New Scientist.
I think this is the first paper, written on the subject, by John Anderson of JPL. It's an interesting story. You can search arXiv using John's name and get a thorough history of the anomaly [which lo and behold really wasn't an anomaly].
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9808081
The most recent paper sums it up.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 21 2011, 09:49 AM)
Have found it here - See 13 things that dont make sense New Scientist.
You should LINK to stuff on the web, so we know if you mean
this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1852...make-sense.html (2005)
See the last paragraph of section 8 "The Pioneer Anomaly"
Or chapter 2 of a 2009 book of the same name with the following Wikipedia summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_Things_Tha...%27t_Make_Sense
Review of this anti-scientific claptrap: http://scienceblogs.com/bookclub/2009/01/1..._make_sense.php
Or chapter 2 of a 2009 book of the same name with the following Wikipedia summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_Things_Tha...%27t_Make_Sense
Review of this anti-scientific claptrap: http://scienceblogs.com/bookclub/2009/01/1..._make_sense.php
in physics circles, New Scientist is known for publishing three or four articles a year proclaiming the imminent overthrow of relativity or quantum mechanics, usually with an "Einstein Was Wrong" sort of headline. They have a very consistent bias toward quirky or unconventional work, and that's exactly what bugs me about this book.
... The problem is, none of them are explained in anywhere near enough depth, and the omissions are always in the direction of making unconventional theories seem much more plausible.
...
There are convenient omissions all through the sections where I know something about the subject, which means that when the topic turns toward sciences outside my range of expertise, I am completely unwilling to trust what Brooks is saying. It might be that, as he says, careful and reproducible studies suggest that there's something to the central claims of homeopathy, but he's given me no reason to believe that the data haven't been cherry-picked to point in that direction. Which kind of ruins the whole book.
You should LINK to stuff on the web, so we know if you mean
this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1852...make-sense.html (2005)
See the last paragraph of section 8 "The Pioneer Anomaly"
QUOTE
"An explanation will be found eventually," Nieto says. "Of course I hope it is due to new physics - how stupendous that would be. But once a physicist starts working on the basis of hope he is heading for a fall." Disappointing as it may seem, Nieto thinks the explanation for the Pioneer anomaly will eventually be found in some mundane effect, such as an unnoticed source of heat on board the craft.
Or chapter 2 of a 2009 book of the same name with the following Wikipedia summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_Things_Tha...%27t_Make_Sense
Review of this anti-scientific claptrap: http://scienceblogs.com/bookclub/2009/01/1..._make_sense.php
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "An explanation will be found eventually," Nieto says. "Of course I hope it is due to new physics - how stupendous that would be. But once a physicist starts working on the basis of hope he is heading for a fall." Disappointing as it may seem, Nieto thinks the explanation for the Pioneer anomaly will eventually be found in some mundane effect, such as an unnoticed source of heat on board the craft. |
Or chapter 2 of a 2009 book of the same name with the following Wikipedia summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_Things_Tha...%27t_Make_Sense
Review of this anti-scientific claptrap: http://scienceblogs.com/bookclub/2009/01/1..._make_sense.php
in physics circles, New Scientist is known for publishing three or four articles a year proclaiming the imminent overthrow of relativity or quantum mechanics, usually with an "Einstein Was Wrong" sort of headline. They have a very consistent bias toward quirky or unconventional work, and that's exactly what bugs me about this book.
... The problem is, none of them are explained in anywhere near enough depth, and the omissions are always in the direction of making unconventional theories seem much more plausible.
...
There are convenient omissions all through the sections where I know something about the subject, which means that when the topic turns toward sciences outside my range of expertise, I am completely unwilling to trust what Brooks is saying. It might be that, as he says, careful and reproducible studies suggest that there's something to the central claims of homeopathy, but he's given me no reason to believe that the data haven't been cherry-picked to point in that direction. Which kind of ruins the whole book.
Concerning the Earth flyby (gravity assist) anomalous velocity increases.
"While Galileo and NEAR had appreciable speed increase, Cassini and Messenger did not."
"Rosetta itself gained more speed than expected from it's 2005 fly-by, but only the expected amount from it's 2007 fly-by"
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/11/13...nomaly?from=rss
The Pioneer anomaly can also mean the tiny deceleration the craft show after passing 20 astronomical units from the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
"While Galileo and NEAR had appreciable speed increase, Cassini and Messenger did not."
"Rosetta itself gained more speed than expected from it's 2005 fly-by, but only the expected amount from it's 2007 fly-by"
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/11/13...nomaly?from=rss
The Pioneer anomaly can also mean the tiny deceleration the craft show after passing 20 astronomical units from the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 20 2011, 03:36 PM)
Any unexplained momentum gain in spacecraft orbiting the Earth would almost certainly end with the destruction or loss of the spacecraft.
I understand the "loss" (going further and further away from the planet or star) but not the "destruction" of the spacecraft.
I understand the "loss" (going further and further away from the planet or star) but not the "destruction" of the spacecraft.
QUOTE (kowalskil+Aug 11 2011, 09:42 PM)
I understand the "loss" (going further and further away from the planet or star) but not the "destruction" of the spacecraft.
Ask the Mars Polar Lander about the consequences of having the wrong momentum close to a planet.
Ask the Mars Polar Lander about the consequences of having the wrong momentum close to a planet.
I read somewhere(I don't remember the source)that the anomalies may be thrust generated by light on the solar panels, the irregularity coming from the specific angle relative to trajectory. Just saying.
Grumpy
Grumpy
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.