|
I understand METRIC units just fine. I convert back and forthe between metric and english all the time.
Why the HELL Can't NASA?
You are holding out their simplistic and superficial explanation of a failure to convert units of measure as a *REASONABLE* explanation why a multi-billion dollar space agency with many veteran experts on its pay, have to crash two probes on the surface of Mars?
So far the ability to LAND probes on Mars and to have them in the vacinity of the moon phobos (Russia's two Phobos missions) shows a particularly HIGH rate of failure... disturbingly so. .when the "landing" is the simpler part of the mission.
I suppose you are among those who believed Egpyt Air Flight 800 was crashed by a a "suicidal co-pilot"..who was supposed to be getting married shortly. MAYBE if you actually used your *EARS* and paid attention to RELEVANT DETAIL and.. FACTS.. yes facts. .those curious things that have a bearing on conclusions and reality.. then you might actually be an AWARE being!
FOr the record, were you paying attention to the initial investigation, Egypt Air Flight 800 was seen by THREE SEPERATE and DISTINCT U.S. RADAR STATIONS to plummet and wherapon it shortly lost power, it reached a low point and pulled out of its dive, the point of maximum G-forces and then CLIMBED over well over a MILE in altitude.. where, again, ALL THREE radar locations reported the radar reflection of flight 800 broke up into the multiple contacts.
What is so unique about this over mile climb after the dive? When Egypt Air lost power..and lost ALL power in backup systems too (a unique thing itself) this is the point where the "black box" stopped ALL recording. It never began recording again. Nevertheless a plane without power managed to climb over a mile in height. This is not a suicidal dive, as reported by the media. AND NO.. the plane was not able to climb that mile plus in height using the momentum of it's dive: this has been shown to be unreasonable using..again.. science.. physics. not even close to reasonable.
Your faith in the public explanation by NASA makes you nothing more than gullible. Go back to watch the evening news and NFL games where you can "keep score" on your own and validate what the broadcasters are saying the score is by what you see.
I don't believe for a moment they had a failure in "understanding of the spacecraft’s path as it approached Mars" as a result of a units conversion problem. They use modeling programs with tried and true software and mathematics and this would have been tested in numerous methods.
The single best rule in lying is "keep it simple" and then you are the LEAST likely to be caught in a lie. There is nothing more simple than a "units conversion". Even if a singular responsible employee were asked they'd say .."gee I dunno.. wasn't me, I dont think.. but maybe someone else." |
