Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Evan
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
On closest approach to the moons, the inertial capacity of the system changes significantly, and this is as if the mass of each atom increases slightly. As a result, the moment of inertia of the gyroscopes spinning at angles neither perpendicular nor tangent to the plane of the moon suffer differential inertia effects.
|
Jerry, this is total bafflegab. It has no basis in reality or science. You have not the slightest basis for this supposition or any experimental evidence to support your claims. It is not consistent with observed results and there is no reason to think that the universe works in the way you suggest. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NASA Press Release
February 1, 1998
NASA's Galileo spacecraft entered safing mode about four hours after last night's close approach to Europa, and one hour after its close approach to Jupiter. The spacecraft is stable and status information received from the spacecraft suggests that Europa observations were successfully stored on the spacecraft's on-board tape recorder. It appears that this latest event is not related to anomalies that occurred during two previous Europa flybys.
The Galileo project team is currently analyzing events leading up to the safing. Preliminary analysis indicates the spacecraft entered safing made after the fault protection software detected that a spacecraft turn was taking too long to complete.
July 29, 1998
The Galileo spacecraft has resumed transmitting science data to Earth in real time. Last night, engineers uplinked command sequences that should enable the spacecraft to resume playing back recorded science information as of 7:15 tomorrow morning, Pacific time. This will restore complete functioning of the spacecraft's science operations, which were disrupted last week when the spacecraft put itself into "safing" mode because of an anomaly.
The anomaly was caused by multiple resets, triggered when debris shorted a signal line in one of the spacecraft's two onboard command and data subsystems. The two subsystems receive commands from Earth and transmit information to the ground. Because the anomaly occurred during a flyby of Jupiter's moon Europa, nearly all data from that encounter were lost.
|
Both of these incidents occurred AFTER NASA had found and isolated the ‘chip’ that was causing the 'gyroscope error'. In the February 1998 incident, the rotating portion of Galileo was a defacto gyro, and the “turn was taking too long to complete.” This error mode is certainly consistent with a change in the inertial moment of the system, as I have hypothesized.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Evan
To counter your suppositions only requires that a single part of your house of cards be invalidated. It then falls down.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NASA
September 26, 1996
NASA's Galileo spacecraft is operating normally and returning data somewhat ahead of schedule from its last major event -- a flyby of Jupiter's moon Ganymede. No repeat problems have occurred with Galileo's radio receiver since it had a problem two weeks ago when it failed on two occasions to lock onto radio signals sent from Earth. Jupiter's radiation remains a possible cause of the problem. New, wider uplink frequency sweeps -- much like tuning in a radio -- easily overcame the problem, and moreover, the receiver itself seems to be back to normal, project officials said…
|
A
variance in Doppler shift beyond the error bars calculated by the radio and navigation gurus? Come on! These guys know the laws of physics, and they use extremely conservative error bars.
This anomaly is consistent with the
unexplained Doppler events in the initial encounter of Cassini with Pheobe, and the six minute shift in the rotation of Saturn. The radio dudes are much better at keeping track of frequencies that the record suggests, and each of these events is consistent with unexplained accelerations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Evan
Regardless of how a gyroscope is oriented, regardless of the mass of the rotating component, regardless of the rpms of that component, regardless of the method used to sense the position of the rotating component and regardless of the actual construction of the gyroscope it will not be affected in any way by a change of an "inertial field" or the amount of gravity present or any other force.
|
If I stick a chunk of mud on one side of a gyroscope, it will not behave very well. Conventional physics does not allow variations in inertia – but I am saying inertia is not a function of the mass in motion, but of the mass of the system. If I make a significant change in the mass of the system near the gyroscope, it is just like sticking mud on one side...but only if the gyroscope is not relatively close to a massive object.
I don’t know the size, mass distribution, composition, rotational velocity, magnetic shielding etc, etc, of the gyroscopes used in Galileo, so you may be correct that a significant error could not be introduced into the gyroscope stability via the differential I am suggesting. But the differential effects I am predicting should be enough to effect the
stability of the spin stabilized portion of the Galileo probe, and since shutdown occurred even when the gyro’s were not running, I can be wrong about the magnitude of error introduced into the gyroscopes, but still right about the
root cause of these failures, which may not have been a crazy sequence of events caused by a funky gyroscope, a chip, a radiation storm, a 'slow turn' a software glitch, a pair of hardware glitches, a piece of junk, or a metric/Texan conversion error.