Great view of dropped camera drifting away

Great view of camera drifting away -- about 6:27 PM EST:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...chmentid=16026

Tools have been dropped before -- one was dropped by Fuglesang on his
first EVA a few days ago. The last camera lost in space, AFAIK, was
by Mike Collins on his spacewalk from Gemini-10 in July 1966.

It was not clear from the audio if it had actually been lost. I assume it
has then? I thought these were in some form of clip to stop this happening?

I do hope nothing important was on it.

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
...
Great view of camera drifting away -- about 6:27 PM EST:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...chmentid=16026

Tools have been dropped before -- one was dropped by Fuglesang on his
first EVA a few days ago. The last camera lost in space, AFAIK, was
by Mike Collins on his spacewalk from Gemini-10 in July 1966.

Jim Oberg wrote:

Great view of camera drifting away -- about 6:27 PM EST:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...chmentid=16026

Tools have been dropped before -- one was dropped by Fuglesang on his
first EVA a few days ago. The last camera lost in space, AFAIK, was
by Mike Collins on his spacewalk from Gemini-10 in July 1966.


Boy, wouldn't you like to see the camera end view of that?
We have _got_ to get our astronauts more of that alien-developed Velcro.
:-)

Pat

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
Great view of camera drifting away -- about 6:27 PM EST:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...chmentid=16026

Tools have been dropped before -- one was dropped by Fuglesang on his
first EVA a few days ago. The last camera lost in space, AFAIK, was
by Mike Collins on his spacewalk from Gemini-10 in July 1966.

Baseball comes to ISS.

Tomorrow's EVA, astronaut on end of robotic arm with big fielder's mitt (or
a Louisville Slugger for offensive types) .... so he can catch that camera
...... as it comes back around in neighborhood or
hit is out to their orbital ball park :-)

Steroids are banned from this event. ;-|

gb

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
Great view of camera drifting away -- about 6:27 PM EST:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...chmentid=16026

Tools have been dropped before -- one was dropped by Fuglesang on his
first EVA a few days ago. The last camera lost in space, AFAIK, was
by Mike Collins on his spacewalk from Gemini-10 in July 1966.


Maybe they should deduct it from their paychecks, that'll stop it!

Jim Oberg wrote:
Great view of camera drifting away -- about 6:27 PM EST:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...chmentid=16026

Tools have been dropped before -- one was dropped by Fuglesang on his
first EVA a few days ago. The last camera lost in space, AFAIK, was
by Mike Collins on his spacewalk from Gemini-10 in July 1966.

According to the nasa tv pao commentator, as of today ground tracking
of the lost camera showed it to be about 1/2 nm below and 68 nm in
front of the space station complex.

Jim That camera might have cost us tax payers over $35,000,but that is
a drop in the bucket. We pay over a million bucks each time a shuttle
toilet is flushed.,and that's no **** It makes me mad when I did not
have a nickel,and went in my pants. I always as a kid carried a nickel
on me after than (even today) Planes today have lots of toilets,and
since they are not making any money they should charge $10 its worth
it. It could help the people in New Jersey. They would not see so many
of those orange comets. I wonder if the Wright brothers as they held
onto the wings of their first plane flights visualized that someday
planes would have 6 toilets,and at no extra charge. Go figure Bert

In article ,
nmp wrote:
According to the nasa tv pao commentator, as of today ground tracking of
the lost camera showed it to be about 1/2 nm below and 68 nm in front of
the space station complex.

So, nm = nautical miles I guess?

Seems likely. :-)

How can it be in front of the ISS? Less drag = higher velocity? Then why
is it also *below* the station and not at same height? I may be missing
something very obvious here, I'm afraid. But I wouldn't mind being told
what it is

Air drag. The camera is much more affected by air drag than the station,
because being smaller, it has much more surface area per unit mass. The
details get a bit complicated, but the ultimate bottom line is that drag
shrinks the orbit, and since lower orbits move faster, it moves below and
ahead.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

nmp wrote:
Op Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:52:26 -0800, schreef columbiaaccidentinvestigation:


Jim Oberg wrote:
Great view of camera drifting away -- about 6:27 PM EST:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...chmentid=16026

Tools have been dropped before -- one was dropped by Fuglesang on his
first EVA a few days ago. The last camera lost in space, AFAIK, was by
Mike Collins on his spacewalk from Gemini-10 in July 1966.

According to the nasa tv pao commentator, as of today ground tracking of
the lost camera showed it to be about 1/2 nm below and 68 nm in front of
the space station complex.

So, nm = nautical miles I guess?

How can it be in front of the ISS? Less drag = higher velocity? Then why
is it also *below* the station and not at same height? I may be missing
something very obvious here, I'm afraid. But I wouldn't mind being told
what it is

Oh, and BTW, what kind of camera was it?

In addition to the aerodynamic drag differences between the two objects
a couple of possible explanations for the orientation of the lost
camera being ½ nm (nautical mile) below and 68 nm in front of the
space station complex, may be the iss is under normal attitude control
and the camera is not, and or the fact the iss's orbit was going to be
re-boosted as listed in the sts-116 press kit, both of which would
cause a different separation between the two objects than if the iss
were in free drift like the camera.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Jim That camera might have cost us tax payers over $35,000,but that is
a drop in the bucket. We pay over a million bucks each time a shuttle
toilet is flushed.,and that's no **** It makes me mad when I did not
have a nickel,and went in my pants. I always as a kid carried a nickel
on me after than (even today) Planes today have lots of toilets,and
since they are not making any money they should charge $10 its worth
it. It could help the people in New Jersey. They would not see so many
of those orange comets. I wonder if the Wright brothers as they held
onto the wings of their first plane flights visualized that someday
planes would have 6 toilets,and at no extra charge. Go figure Bert


Maybe you can send that $10 pay toilet idea to Delta, as they are
trying to find a way to get out of bankruptcy. If I have to pay $10 to
do my business, do suppose I could decuct that as a business expense?

Double-A