Re: Terminal Velocity of Impacting our Moon

Brad Guth wrote:
Please define this term. It is not one I can find defined anywhere
else. "32" of what to 1 of what else?

Good grief, what's to define? other than you obviously have no
imagination whatsoever. OK, lets say it's of a 3.2 meter by 0.1 meter
spear like item, as in meaning a 32:1 ratio of javelin that's usually
pointed on at least the front end.

Obviously this javelin profile ratio might become better off at some
other ratio, such as 16:1 if we're going in for a good amount of bullet
like penetrator mass, although the tail end being where the probe
science instruments are situated seems as though somewhat better off if
there's more of the javelin mass situated in front that gets summarily
vaporised upon entering the moon. Of anything less than 8:1 seems a
bit short of a distance for the nearly instantaneous deceleration phase
of the science portion of this javelin probe to survive. Perhaps even
a pyramid like form is going to be best suited, whereas the actual
shape of this impactor/probe might otherwise be just that of a common
sphere. I've obviously confused the issue by way of my having
mentioned anything about shape or any other physical attributes that's
obviously causing yourself to go naysay postal.


You have never studied celestial mechanics, have you? Does it occur to
you that *direction* is important?

That's it. Perhaps you're simply too naysay and otherwise way too
minion dumbfounded and opinionated to waste any more time with. Your
following paragraph is all the proof we'll need in order to realize
that we're dealing with is nothing but another naysay e-spook, a
double-speak duh sort of pagan fool on the hill of disinformation
that's obviously too mindset bigoted to save his own soul.

The bottom line, Brad, is that for a body of any significant mass
(larger than a pea) there simply is not enough atmosphere around the
moon for the forces of gravity and drag to reach equilibrium.

What the sam hell are you talking about? Take your naysayism of only
assuming upon the worse, to hell, and then some. Why exactly are you
so into only looking for the purely negative aspects in absolutely
everything? Why are you assuming that all of humanity is dumber than
yourself? Are you God?

I believe there is a practical terminal velocity of space travel. Even
the ISM of 1~10 atoms/cm3 imposes a form of terminal velocity
(especially if it's involving that of a very large volume sort of
spacecraft), and that's even if having applied unlimited photon/laser
like thrust velocity, whereas there seems a physical speed limitation
factor, as otherwise small/micro probes shouldn't have any problems
making at least 50%'c', and going for the long shots of accomplishing
the likes of Sirius should otherwise pull such probes a bit faster yet
once their having gotten past the point of stellar gravity
nullification.

BTW; in spite of what you rusemasters what us village idiots to think,
the moon actually has an atmosphere, though a bit on the thin or sparse
side, so that also makes you into a certified liar to boot. If
intending to slow down prior to impact, as such we'd just need to
deploy a much larger aerobreaking/drag parachute, or perhaps a drag
balloon is even better if I were trying to arrive at something less
than the surface orbital velocity of 2.37 km/s, which might not even be
all that necessary if making this low speed impactor alternative as a
direct rear-ender, which might even suggest a naked probe arrival at
1.5 km/s unless the 1.623 m/s/s of lunar gravity simply isn't going to
allow such, in which case we deploy something large enough (such as
your fat naysay ***) that'll moderate this final arrival velocity.

If you're so freaking smart, how would you accomplish this task (call
it plan-b) of the javelin probe arriving at the least velocity, or
otherwise manage the initial task of plan-a going in at maximum
velocity that's obviously thruster, retrograde orbital mechanics and
good old gravity assisted?

The bottom line, Tom Davidson, I say again; duh! Where did I ever
insist upon a merely free falling probe (free fall is but only one
option), whereas my first objective (call it plan-a) was intending upon
using the likes of a LRn-->Rn-->ion laser cannon like thruster plus
retrograde orbital mechanics as a viable method of essentially keeping
the acceleration pedal to the metal, that is unless you've got a better
idea, such as using nuclear impulse methods ott to have the potential
of delivering the sort of velocity that I'm looking for (10%'c' or
better).

Once again; plan-a is per arriving extremely fast, and plan-b is for
the task of arriving slow. I do believe there is a difference. I also
believe this topic is simply too complicated for such a naysay (anti
everything under the sun) mindset as your's. Am I right?
-
Brad Guth


I'm having difficulty understand what you mean by "terminal velocity".
Please do me the kindness of explaining what you mean by the term.

Thanks.
.

Quantcast