Av Week: What Is Wrong With This News Item?

Av Week: What Is Wrong With This News Item?


Arctic Action (In Orbit, by Frank morring, Jr.), May 8, 2006, p. 13

"...On May 2, a big Maxus 7 rocket exposed a package of five
European Space Agency experiments to microgravity for
12 min. as it fell from an apogee of 702 km. (436 mi.)."

I'm not referring to the news of the story, but the basic physics.

Jim Oberg wrote:
Av Week: What Is Wrong With This News Item?


Arctic Action (In Orbit, by Frank morring, Jr.), May 8, 2006, p. 13

"...On May 2, a big Maxus 7 rocket exposed a package of five
European Space Agency experiments to microgravity for
12 min. as it fell from an apogee of 702 km. (436 mi.)."

I'm not referring to the news of the story, but the basic physics.

It's a common misconception that one is only weightless during descent
on a parabola, when in fact the weightlessness begins at engine cutoff,
on the way up.

"Rand Simberg" wrote
It's a common misconception that one is only weightless during descent on
a parabola, when in fact the weightlessness begins at engine cutoff, on
the way up.

egg-ZACK-lee.....

Well it was not an orbit obviously.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
Av Week: What Is Wrong With This News Item?


Arctic Action (In Orbit, by Frank morring, Jr.), May 8, 2006, p. 13

"...On May 2, a big Maxus 7 rocket exposed a package of five
European Space Agency experiments to microgravity for
12 min. as it fell from an apogee of 702 km. (436 mi.)."

I'm not referring to the news of the story, but the basic physics.

On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:30:51 +0000, Jim Oberg wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote
It's a common misconception that one is only weightless during descent on
a parabola, when in fact the weightlessness begins at engine cutoff, on
the way up.

egg-ZACK-lee.....

And here I thought it was the conspicuous lack of
any mention of catgirl sightings at the edge of
the lower Van Allen belt...

The same data is in the press release off of the
official site of the Swedish Space Corporation.

http://www.ssc.se/default.asp?groupid=200451411504851

Since Jim' is busy denigrating the Soviets I'll
take on the Swedes... If you're going for a
straight drop then 2540 km gets you 12 minutes of
free fall... not counting drag and thus terminal
velocity... ... so what's the drag coefficient
of the Swedish Bikini Team?... No, OM, I don't
think those count as ballutes...

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

Well, it depends on what you consider an orbit...

Yes, I know, everybody knows what an orbit is. What I mean is that the
fraction of parabola where the payload is already not propelled and is
out of the atmosphere (no external forces except gravity), that is in
fact a fraction of an elliptic orbit around the center of mass of the
Earth. If the Earth would be small and dense enough (let's say, like a
neutron star...) and without atmosphere, it would be an orbit.

(Comment: this post would be better in sci.space.tech, don't you think
so?)

Regards,

Javier Casado
http://es.geocities.com/fjcasadop
Madrid, Spain

"Chuck Stewart" wrote
The same data is in the press release off of the
official site of the Swedish Space Corporation.
http://www.ssc.se/default.asp?groupid=200451411504851

By no means -- the words I read say:

"The sounding rocket Maxus 7 was successfully launched
from the Swedish Space Corporation's (SSC) launch facility
at Esrange Space Center this morning at 06:16 UT and
reached an apogee of 702 km which enabled 12 minutes
of microgravity."

An apogee of 702 km does, exactly, enable 12 minutes
of microgravity. "Reaching" the apogee, however, does NOT --
by then you're halfway through the 12 minutes.

Does the 'which' refer to the apogee, or the reaching thereof?

"JotaCé" wrote in .
Well, it depends on what you consider an orbit...

No, it depends on whether Brian has a clue about the basic physics, or not.

and as the other (correct) branch of this thread shows, THIS branch is a
wild space goose chase.

Yes, but it ain't not in orbit, end of story.

IN tech, is that a moderated group, 10 years between updates?

:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
"JotaCé" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, it depends on what you consider an orbit...

Yes, I know, everybody knows what an orbit is. What I mean is that the
fraction of parabola where the payload is already not propelled and is
out of the atmosphere (no external forces except gravity), that is in
fact a fraction of an elliptic orbit around the center of mass of the
Earth. If the Earth would be small and dense enough (let's say, like a
neutron star...) and without atmosphere, it would be an orbit.

(Comment: this post would be better in sci.space.tech, don't you think
so?)

Regards,

Javier Casado
http://es.geocities.com/fjcasadop
Madrid, Spain

No, i do understand about what to call an orbit and what not to call an
orbit.


Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...

"JotaCé" wrote in .
Well, it depends on what you consider an orbit...

No, it depends on whether Brian has a clue about the basic physics, or
not.

and as the other (correct) branch of this thread shows, THIS branch is a
wild space goose chase.