|
Derek Smith
Original Poster
16,225 posts
118 months
|
MartG said: BarnatosGhost said: So if the moon were to be geosynchronous, it too would have to orbit at 37,000 (or whatever the figure was) km? Yes - well its centre of gravity would be at that distance, but the surface would be nearer. A nice distinction. I had to create some science questions for a quiz night (as well as some general knowledge ones). They had to vary in difficulty for a sort of knock-out towards the end, which the teams were aware of. For near the end I came up with: does the Moon orbit the Earth or the Earth orbit the Moon. The answer was, of course, neither, their common centre of gravity having a lot to do with it. I thought it clever but one bloke, who thought he was cleverer, said that the answer was that the Moon orbited the Earth as the CSG was below the surface of the Moon so by any sensible definition the Moon orbited the Earth. Just 'cause someone's got a Phd they think they know it all. Here was another two for a Sunday morning hangover cure. This was in general knowledge and not in the maths bit. Next one in the sequence: 11 - 8 - 16 - 7 - ? and 32 - 22 - 16 - 11 - 8 - ?
|
|
|
Bedazzled
4,308 posts
91 months
|
The first is 11, 8, 16, 7, 19, 3, 17, 2, etc... "one hundred and eighty!!!"
And I think the second one is 32, 22, 16, 11, 8, 5.6, 4... camera apertures
|
|
|
Derek Smith
Original Poster
16,225 posts
118 months
|
Bedazzled said: The first is 11, 8, 16, 7, 19, 3, 17, 2, etc... "one hundred and eighty!!!"
And I think the second one is 32, 22, 16, 11, 8, 5.6, 4... camera apertures
Well done. The first one I thought would be easy as there was a dartboard right behind me and the second I thought would give two teams an advantage because they were all from a camera club. When I said 5.6 I was told that I was wrong. Som out of the teams only one got both and only one other got one. I was not popular, but that's normal.
|
|
|
Simpo Two
54,618 posts
135 months
|
Derek Smith said: Next one in the sequence:
11 - 8 - 16 - 7 - ? You could make a case for 21 though. Derek Smith said: Som out of the teams only one got both and only one other got one. I was not popular, but that's normal. Well that's the idea of a knockout - if they all get every question there is no winner  You'd have to be a photographer to get the aperture one but that's the whole point of general knowledge. It might have been about gardening, or cheese.
|
|
|
Bedazzled
4,308 posts
91 months
|
Here's another... what's the final number in the sequence?
0.39 - 0.72 - 1.00 - 1.52 - 5.20 - 9.58 - 19.23 - ???
a clue... we're back on topic!
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
MartG
2,795 posts
74 months
|
Planetary distance from the Sun in AU ?
|
|
|
Derek Smith
Original Poster
16,225 posts
118 months
|
Liked the AU question. I'll nick that one.
Other ones that caused problems.
First English captain to tour Australia? Clue: from Yorkshire.
What was Instanbul originally called?
|
|
|
MartG
2,795 posts
74 months
|
Captain Cook, and Constantinople ( and no, I didn't use Google )
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
Instantbul?
Sounds like a good description of anything spoken by Ed Balls.
|
|
|
Simpo Two
54,618 posts
135 months
|
MartG said: Captain Cook 
|
|
|
AshVX220
1,817 posts
60 months
|
I have a question relating to the previous pages questions (and appreciating this is way off topic).
What's the difference between Geo-stationary and geo-synchronous?
As I understand it, Geo-Stationary means the satellite remains fixed above a specific point on Earth, does geo-Synchronous means it orbits at the same rate the Earth spins? If so, then surely, by default, it'll stay above the same point on Earth and there be Geo-Stationary or does it mean the lat stays the same, but the Longitude "wobbles"?
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
I've always though that they mean the same thing.
|
|
|
Bedazzled
4,308 posts
91 months
|
Good explanation here. It's interesting their definition of geosynchronous specifies a low inclination orbit, I think in theory you could also have a polar geosynchronous orbit at 90 degrees, but I guess it wouldn't be very useful to spy satellites.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
Aha - there IS a difference.
|
|
|
AshVX220
1,817 posts
60 months
|
Bedazzled said: Good explanation here. It's interesting their definition of geosynchronous specifies a low inclination orbit, I think in theory you could also have a polar geosynchronous orbit at 90 degrees, but I guess it wouldn't be very useful to spy satellites. Thank you, so my guess was right (except I got my Lat/Long mixed up).
|
|
|
wormburner
6,427 posts
123 months
|
AshVX220 said: Thank you, so my guess was right (except I got my Lat/Long mixed up). Latitude flatitude!
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
|
|
jmorgan
17,266 posts
154 months
|
The Russians use a fun orbit for some comms stuff.
|
|
|
MartG
2,795 posts
74 months
|
Bedazzled said: I think in theory you could also have a polar geosynchronous orbit at 90 degrees, but I guess it wouldn't be very useful to spy satellites. A polar synchronous orbit wouldn't stay in one spot in the sky, but would pass over the same lines of longitude each orbit ( if it didn't hit any of the equatorial synchronous orbit satellites as it crossed their path twice each orbit ). Spy satellites in polar orbit tend to be in a sun synchronous orbit, so they pass over at the same time every day - as it removes the possibility of different lighting conditions as the sun will always be in the same place, it makes it easier to spot anything that has chaged on the ground
|
|
|
wormburner
6,427 posts
123 months
|
How are collisions prevented? Or do they just work on the principle of them being hugely unlikely?
|
|