Shpaget

Ok, now we have some proper data. In this case, counting the wheel turns will work, and it could work really well. As someone who's been tinkering with Arduino for the last couple of years, I can assure you that what you want (get data into an Excel spreadsheet) is not that difficult. In fact, somebody has already done the hard part for you. Watch this: Also read this: https://medium.com/@islamnegm/quick-start-to-simple-daq-system-using-plx-daq-excel-arduino-d2457773384b I'd stay away from the attempts of hacking a bicycle odometer. It would likely require much higher knowledge to tap into the data stream and translate it to something that a computer can handle than just using Arduino.

Update! Launch date 3 February! http://www.ladbible.com/news/technology-viral-news-flat-earther-mad-mike-hughes-has-new-launch-date-for-homemade-rocket-20180124.amp.html

With an explanation of why it is not a good idea. Is that not what this thread is about? To share ideas and thoughts? I don't see why would me pointing out a flaw in a proposal be a bad thing. I still don't understand what point you are trying to make.

I don't understand what you mean. That was one of the proposed solutions. You were giving the list of proposals, stopping short of that one, then asked "what else?" which to me seemed as if you were having trouble remembering it, so I helped you out with that.

Yeah, accurate if you pour enough money into it, but by the definition of the word "enough" you can take any approach and "enough" the crap out out it until it works. The problem is that in this case "enough" means a lot more than OP can likely afford (otherwise OP would have already bought an off the shelf device that does the job). I won't go deep into comparing aviation or military grade devices to hobbyist stuff, since that is meaningless, but I will point out that neither aviation devices, nor, I would assume, submarine IMUs rely solely on inertial system. They are almost certainly augmented by other devices that correct the drift error (such as compass, GPS, radio navigation, maps etc). Furthermore they do not require 10 m accuracy. A cheap GPS was demonstrated to not work. A more expensive, dedicated tracking device might. It's not that I don't like inertial systems. They are great for certain application, just not this one. I'm not claiming there is a solution, just that the two mentioned are not what OP is looking for. The wheel rotation sensing method.

Anything measuring the wheel rotation is entirely useless in this application, since the wheels will mostly likely spin much faster than the pace at which the road goes by. It's a rally after all. IMUs are equally useless, they drift almost as much as the rally car itself.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/spacex-gets-good-news-from-the-air-force-on-the-zuma-mission/?amp=1 "Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status," Lieutenant General John Thompson, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, US Air Force.

Is there any serious study regarding the amount of water needed for Mars to have Eartlike atmospheric conditions (in addition to all the gasses, of course)? The Earth atmosphere alone contains about 13000 km^3 of water, but that's peanuts compared to oceans. How much would Mars soak up before any of that water forms a first puddle? Asteroidal bombardment does seem like the only reasonable sourcr of water, but even if ww could redirect asteroids, it would still require quite a few of them.

Hot Air Inc.?

I'd find that Babylonian comedian guy that decided it would be a funny prank to divide time based on 60, and smack some sense into him. What was he thinking cursing us like that for the rest of the history?

Speak for yourself! I've been pestering my colleagues at work for a week now with some rocket stuff thing.

Thanks. If the second stage managed to deorbit with the sat attached (after Northrop acknowledged the failure and the owner gave the go ahead for deorbit), that could still have been deemed a success on SpaceX's part of the deal. Furthermore, even if we agree and accept that "Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night", but what about Monday morning? I am trying to make a distinction between mission parameters and hardware performance. If the sat failed to separate but F9 operated as intended (correct burn times and vectors) but the trajectory is not as planned, I do not consider that as anything other than "Falcon 9 did everything correctly". Just because somebody else didn't do their part, it doesn't mean SpaceX is to blame or that their hardware failed to perform. Don't get me wrong, I'm playing a devils advocate here. I'm trying to read between the lines for the sake of argument. My position is that we just have no clue what is going on.

Irrelevant since SpaceX never said the mission was successful. They said the F9 operated nominally, which translated to your analogy is a "yes" - the taxi car would have operated nominally regardless of the passenger braking his leg or not due to his clumsiness.

Internal investigation. BTW, what is OMB? Not necessarily. Deorbit with an unplanned sat stuck to it may not be a nominal mission, but SpaceX never said the mission was nominal, only the F9 performance, so if there was a problem with separation, the mission profile would certainly change, but the upper stage and its Merlin engine could still perform nominally, an that is what SpeceX said happened. They never mention cargo or mission, only their own hardware. If the mission changed due to some outside event, it does not mean their hardware performed outside of what would be considered nominal. Upper stage once in orbit has a certain impulse (not specific impulse, but impulse of force) available. Usually it's enough for decent deorbit, but if it is hampered with unexpected mass, it may not achieve the same trajectory, but it will still produce the same impulse, and that is what SpaceX said happened - F9 performed nominally - as expected given the mass it has to push around.

Where does the billion figure come from? Isn't it just another rumor? Us not being able to see it does not mean there is no inveatigation. And I'll repeat myself, we don't know if the mision failed. All we have are rumors. SpaceX said that their rocket performed nominally, not that the mission status is nominal. Subtle difference, but important whet it comes to our mental gymnastics. It could have been a suborbital mission that is a complete sucess. It could have been a failure to separate. It could have been a proper separation but loss of contact with payload. It could have been a complete sucess and they just won't admit it for spooky spy reasons. So far, there are very few facts we do know to be confirmed: NG built something secret and SpaceX flung it upwards. SpaceX is rather pleased with themselves, and nobody else is talking. That's it. That is the total of facts available. Everything else is speculation based on rumors.

A proper technical drawing of attachment point would be enough for any competent machinist to make the thing. We don't even have the official confirmation that the sat is lost, only rumors and hear says. Even if the rumor that the "lawmaker was informed of total loss" is 100% true, that doesn't mean there was a loss, only that it was presented as such. I doubt that "the lawmaker" gets to know what is Zuma.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, in a uniform spherical shell, entire interior is in zero g.

Evev with some conservative cross section of 75 m^2 (based on 10 m diameter) at 6000 mph (3000 m/s) it would need to push 225 000 cubic meters of water out of its way each second. No.

If we give it enough time, and the Big Rip turns out to be a thing, we don't need to do anything but be patient. But I'd say the spirit of the OP is not dealing with cosmological time scales.

I believe you guys seriously underestimate the energies required to move the Earth. Even with all the gravity assists you can find and all the asteroids you smash into the planet, it's entirely unrealistic.

Who do you think considers themselves unspiable? A single sat in polar orbit can easily look at the entire surface of the Earth and each particular spot fairly often.

We don't know that and can't know. Lack of evidence of something is not the proof of contrary. We just don't know. What if intended trajectory was suborbital? Then the payload could have been heavier, up until the F9 thrust. This one ok.

High orbit spy sats of their own. I doubt there is a spot on Earth not monitored 24/7, except possibly near polar regions, which could have some periods of no coverage.

So, sat not in orbit, but mission acomplished? That would explain the NRO not claiming the sat. It's really not theirs. The reentry location is well clear of any civilisation and good for testing, but it's still imposible to hide it from other space nations. I suppose Russians could be gentlemen about it and not disclose the info they have.

So, what could be this Zuma thing? The go-to answer would be a spy sat, basically a telescope, but why such secrecy? US already opetates countless spy sats. Another one is not much of a news. If NRO (or whoever operates it) just said "Yeah, it's one of ours, and it's peeking into your bedroom." the reaction would be "Well, duh!" and it would have been the end of it. Remember the last SpaceX launch for NRO? They did it and there was next to no talk about it afterwards, but I wonder if this universal gag order isn't going to lead to another Streisand effect.