A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

STS51L Accident Questions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #521  
Old March 18th 05, 07:25 PM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:53:56 -0500, "Ami Silberman"
wrote:

That's odd. Because I seem to recall seeing a bat fly _through_ a chain
link fence.


Well, there are different sizes of bats...


....When we should *really* be concerned is if Paul suddenly reports
that he had a bat fly through a window in his study while he's
contemplating the deaths of his parents.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr
  #522  
Old March 18th 05, 08:37 PM
D Schneider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek Lyons wrote:

[...]
That's *not* to say the Shuttle is the is the best way to do things,
or that it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages. But to pretend
the Shuttle has no advantages is nothing but handwaving FUD.


Well said, Derek.

/dps

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
  #523  
Old March 18th 05, 08:42 PM
D Schneider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:47:47 -0500, Terrell Miller
wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

The Shuttle can carry it's destination with
itself, where the CSM has to have one provided.


erm...Derek, please take a moment and realize exactly what you just
said...


Don't poke sticks at the Zen master, please.

Also, as examples to support Derek's meaning: various Spacehab configs,
versus 1 Skylab.

However, to balance the savings on rendezvous equipment, fairings, etc:
the shuttle payload bay has a weight penalty in terms of longitudinal
reinforcements, door opening hardware, etc.

Have to see which way the scales tip on this issue.

/dps

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
  #524  
Old March 18th 05, 10:35 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Ami Silberman wrote:

I saw a bat fly into a chain link fence once. I'm still trying to figure
that one out.


That's odd. Because I seem to recall seeing a bat fly _through_ a chain
link fence.


Well, there are different sizes of bats...




Or some very big links on the fence. The bat that I saw hit the fence
bounced off, fell to the ground, and sat there looking confused for a
few seconds before flying off- it was pretty funny to watch.

Pat
  #525  
Old March 18th 05, 10:54 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



OM wrote:


...When we should *really* be concerned is if Paul suddenly reports
that he had a bat fly through a window in his study while he's
contemplating the deaths of his parents.




Yeah, normally it's the ball, not the bat, that comes through the window.

Pat (running) :-)
  #526  
Old March 19th 05, 01:42 PM
Dave Michelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek Lyons wrote:

Another fellow who did his PhD in electromagnetics at UBC almost
thirty years ago went on to work as a defence scientist. He made
quite a name for himself by taking techniques used to predict
scattering and diffraction of EM waves and applying them to
underwater sonar. Again, it was the similarity in wavelength that
made this work.


The problem is this, active sonars don't operate in the ultrasonic
range. Not the sub-hunting ones anyways. But then *I* know this
from experience.


Derek,

I'm sure you do. But where do I state that the underwater sonar
operated in the ultrasonic range?

Oh, I didn't state that. You assumed it. Then you offered a correction
to something that I didn't write.

You certainly know how to make an impression.

--
Dave Michelson

  #527  
Old March 19th 05, 07:23 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Michelson wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

Another fellow who did his PhD in electromagnetics at UBC almost
thirty years ago went on to work as a defence scientist. He made
quite a name for himself by taking techniques used to predict
scattering and diffraction of EM waves and applying them to
underwater sonar. Again, it was the similarity in wavelength that
made this work.


The problem is this, active sonars don't operate in the ultrasonic
range. Not the sub-hunting ones anyways. But then *I* know this
from experience.


Derek,

I'm sure you do. But where do I state that the underwater sonar
operated in the ultrasonic range?


Since every message you've written has dealth with ultrasonics.. What
else could you possibly mean?

Oh, I didn't state that. You assumed it. Then you offered a correction
to something that I didn't write.


No, I've offered corrections to what you have written several times.

You certainly know how to make an impression.


Ah, once again you resort to flame and insult to divert attention away
from your failures.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #528  
Old March 19th 05, 08:32 PM
Dave Michelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek Lyons wrote:

I'm sure you do. But where do I state that the underwater sonar
operated in the ultrasonic range?


Since every message you've written has dealth with ultrasonics..


Given that Pat's original question was about cameras with
ultrasonic range finders, that shouldn't be too surprising.

What else could you possibly mean?


I could have meant what I wrote: The EM wave/acoustics analog can often
be exploited when the wavelengths are similar and that I have direct
knowledge of people who have very successfully done so.

Practical EM waves have wavelengths ranging from 1000's of metres to
1/1000 of a metre. That's a fairly broad range. I haven't done any
work in underwater acoustics (my expertise includes RCS prediction,
modification, and measurement at microwave frequencies) but would hazard
a guess that underwater sonar wavelengths likely fall within that broad
range.

Ah, once again you resort to flame and insult....


In hindsight, I admit that I shouldn't have explicitly paraphrased your
earlier dismissive responses to Pat and others when I responded to you.

--
Dave Michelson

  #529  
Old March 19th 05, 08:38 PM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:32:40 GMT, Dave Michelson
wrote:

Ah, once again you resort to flame and insult....


In hindsight, I admit that I shouldn't have explicitly paraphrased your
earlier dismissive responses to Pat and others when I responded to you.


....Tsk.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr
  #530  
Old March 19th 05, 08:58 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Peter Stickney wrote:


No, actually - the bow wave of the boats would push the flaming oil
out of the way.


And to the sides, where it would still get you if there was a breeze;
the passing of the boat would also suck the fire in behind it.
These aren't five foot high flames, more like twenty-five foot high flames.

And the "Consuming all Oxygen" claim is, shall we
say, wildly exaggerated. How would the fire stay lit, after all?



It will go out if all the oxygen is expended- unfortunately the
upwelling column of rising heated air from the fire will suck in fresh
air from around the base of the fire....where the landing craft is, the
troops will find themselves surrounded by flames and trying to breathe
air heated to several hundred degrees and thick smoke.


Consider, if you will, that very early on, techniques for the survival
of unprotected (Unless you count a Kapok Life Jacket as protection)
survivors of torpedoed oil tankers were developed. Thet's certainly a
much worse situation. It might work for a castle moat.



But that's a case where you are in burning ship bunker fuel; fairly low
grade oil, that you can splash out of the way and that doesn't burn very
violently. And your head is close to the water where fresh air can
reach it as it's sucked toward the fire- the British system used
gasoline, not bunker fuel, and looking at the film of it rising out of
the water prior to ignition used hundreds if not thousands of gallons of
it.

Flame weapons, unless you've got some way to the fuel to stick to the
target, are wildly ineffective. Even when the fuel does stick
(Napalm, for example) It's really mostly effective against unprotected
personnel,


The guys crouching down in the landing craft aren't going to be
terribly protected. IIRC, the Germans did make a test of flame resistant
clothing at sometime during the war, and burnt a lot of troops to death
during it.
If you weren't expecting it, the physiological effect of suddenly seeing
the sea ahead of you go up in flames would have been severe.

Pat
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Jim Oberg Space Shuttle 0 December 13th 04 05:58 PM
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Jim Oberg History 0 December 13th 04 05:58 PM
"Hindsight bias" could hide real lessons of Columbia accident report,expert says (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Space Shuttle 0 September 3rd 03 01:54 AM
NASA Administrator Accepts Columbia Accident Report Ron Baalke Space Shuttle 3 August 27th 03 04:48 PM
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Releases Final Report Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 August 26th 03 03:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.