From: stmx3NOSPAMM@NOSPAMM.netscape.net   
      
   Wim Dekker wrote:   
   > "Mike Miller"  wrote in message   
   > news:5dcb47db.0309260349.711f770@posting.google.com...   
   >   
   >>DP  wrote in message   
   >   
   > news:<3f6e2897$1@nntp.unige.ch>...   
   >   
   >>That's a bit different than Jovian atmosphere re-entry. Like,   
   >>a lot slower. Cassini's RTGs were expected to (IIRC) burn off   
   >>33% of their mass if Cassini hit Earth during its sling shots   
   >>past Earth. Cassini swung by Earth at 19km/s. Galileo hit Jupiter   
   >>at 48km/s. 2.5 times the entry velocity translates into 6.25   
   >>times the kinetic energy to be converted into heat per kilogram   
   >>of spacecraft.   
   >   
   >   
   > I don't understand why kinetic energy increases quadratically   
   > with speed while the energy it costs to increase speed itself   
   > seams to be directly proportional to the speed. After all,   
   > speed = acceleration * time. What's wrong with my reasoning?   
   >   
   > Wim   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   Who said energy was proportional to speed?  What context?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)