Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Actually, it was based upon a ratio between the velocity and the speed of sound - Mach 1.5 - although you mostly right - they measure the velocity to determine this parameter.
|
No, you're wrong again. They weren't measuring velocity, they were measuring acceleration. The parachute sequence was initiated by the CASU when it detected it's acceleration limit.
Quote:
|
The most important thing, is that the probe must have been slowed enough by the atmosphere enough not to totally shred the parachutes.
|
Stating the obvious again.
Quote:
|
The nail misses, if the ending was signaled by a timed or acceleration based event.
|
The nail hits right to the heart of the matter. We know that the parachute sequence was within seconds of the predicted time. We know we got signal acquisition at the predicted time. We know Huygens was on the chutes for 2hrs 27min. There's no getting around these facts.
Quote:
|
If the landing accelerometers were not sampled until the the probe was good-and-ready to sample them, the time stamp cannot be used to validate the landing time.
|
As I explained before, you wouldn't design a system to timestamp events at arbitrary times. You collect the timestamp
when the event occurs. That way the data is valid regardless of whether we telemeter the data in real-time or we send you to Titan to download the information directly.
Quit trying to obfuscate the situation with these silly notions of which you have not a shred of evidence.
Quote:
|
It should be easy to determine this with time-stamped radar data - and if you were able to see the radar plot I posted on Wikipedia, it is clear the descent during that minute looked nothing like the expected profile.
|
Where did you get the raw data to do this plot? Do you have access to telemetry the rest of us don't?
Quote:
|
Yes, but I am hoping someone who knows more than me and you, and the specific sequence - for example, does the transmitter send a special signal to confirm the landing - would jump in and explain when I threw that out. I know the polling of the devices by the software is somewhat the way I have described it, but the more detail, the better.
|
Whether there is a "special signal" or not is irrelevant. The landing can be inferred from the penetrometer data and by the timestamps on the images taken from the surface. We also have the reports from the Earth-based radio telescopes that detected the landing.
Quote:
|
I'm sure it has been, and will be, but not necessarily in the context of Newton and Einstein's curves not working.
|
Why would they do such an analysis when there's nothing to indicate they should? This is all in your fevered imagination. The scientists and engineers involved in the project have to work in the real world.