|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Micro-acceleration environment ( Relevancy of the Educator Astronaut to the Space Program)
In article , says...
Can they "walk the dog"?--let the YO YO spin at the bottom of the cycle : -} I don't know, but a yo-yo in orbit could do the "around the world" trick with *very* little effort on the part of the operator... *grin*... -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. | |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Relevancy of the Educator Astronaut to the Space Program
From Greg Moo
"Stuf4" wrote I am amazed to see so much support posted on this thread backing the widely held belief that there is "no gravity" in Earth orbit, let alone other regions of the solar system and universe. I look forward to the day that NASA will be clear and accurate in teaching that zero/micro-g is NOT zero/micro-gravity. It surprises you because no one said that. I saw at least six posts supporting (or at least rationalizing) the term "no gravity". What they said was the term zero-gravity was just fine. Yes, there were lots more posts in this thread backing the term "zero-gravity". Now I am left with a distinct impression that at least one person here feels that there is some significant distinction between the terms... "zero gravity" and "no gravity". I say that both are identically bogus in this usage. ~ CT |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Relevancy of the Educator Astronaut to the Space Program
From Jorge:
This will be my first, and last, post on this thread. ....and this will probably be my last post for roughly the next few weeks as I take time to focus on a private project that has become a top priority of mine. (Stuf4) wrote This branch of the thread started from the topic of toys in space. My concern was not only regarding NASA physics PhDs who are promoting bogus terminology. It included grade school teachers and their students as well. I see these ends of the spectrum to thoroughly bracket sci.space. I am amazed to see so much support posted on this thread backing the widely held belief that there is "no gravity" in Earth orbit, let alone other regions of the solar system and universe. I see no one backing that belief. I do see people acknowledging the fact that "zero/microgravity" have evolved from technical terms into the popular lexicon, where they have become figures of speech. And I see people acknowledging the fact that technical personnel sometimes use figures of speech when speaking to laypeople, even while knowing that they're not strictly correct. I have a hard time seeing how anyone here would want to support a NASA astronaut with a physics PhD from MIT speak about experiencing "no gravity" while in orbit. NASA takes pride in promoting science. I would consider it to be a lot less harmful if NASA astronauts would go around telling the public that: 2 + 2 = 5 At least the public could easily pick up on this error without getting led astray. This is not unique to the terms "zero/microgravity". I've heard scientists use the term "quantum leap" to describe leaps that were decidedly non- quantum, "exponential growth" to describe any kind of rapid growth, or "schizo" to describe behavior better described by other psychological terms. Does this mean that they don't know the difference? Of course not - if they didn't, they'd be unable to function professionally. They still use figures of speech since they're convenient shorthand and, for 99.99% of their audiences, the distinction is of no practical importance. I would give these rough estimates: 80% of the audience gets confused, 15% of the audience wouldn't follow either the accurate or inaccurate terminology, 4% are aware of the error but don't speak out for whatever reason, and 1% are aware of the error and voice objection. ....and I would continue by saying that "zero-g" vs "zero gravity" is of practical importance to 100% of all NASA audiences because we can experience it in our daily lives by simply jumping off the ground (or driving a car fast over a hill, etc). We feel zero-g during freefall while remaining cognizant that gravity stayed the same. This same principle applies while in orbit and NASA could easily communicate accurate physics to the public (as well as internally) and NASA could decide tomorrow to trash bogus "figures of speech". O'Keefe, if he so desired, could take this on as one step toward shifting "culture" away from that insidious emperor's clothes phenomenon. Regarding the notion that NASA *does* know better, here is the full set of "OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS" advertised on that website referenced earlier in this thread, http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/FACILITY/ZERO.HTM : _____ o Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds (free fall: evacuated chamber at 10 to the second Torr) o Gravitational acceleration: 10 to the negative 5 g o Deceleration levels: a linear ramp from 0 to 65 Gs in 150 milliseconds _____ ....so it appears that at least *one* person at Glenn Research Center believes that there is some way to achieve "low gravity" at the surface of the Earth, and that "Gravitational acceleration" changes radically during a short freefall. I look forward to the day that NASA will be clear and accurate in teaching that zero/micro-g is NOT zero/micro-gravity. I look forward to the day when you gain the social sophistication to understand that misuse of figures of speech, even by a professional, does not imply a lack of understanding of the underlying phenomena. I also look forward to the day when you gain enough sense of proportion to realize that this trivia is not worth starting a 100+ post thread on a newsgroup. If everyone beside me held this issue as meaningless trivia, this thread would have been a lot shorter than 100+ posts. The fact of the matter is that many people are confused by this. And my suggestion, for whatever it may or may not be worth to anyone, is that replacing the term "zero/micro-gravity" with "zero/micro-g" would go a long way toward eliminating that confusion. ~ CT |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Relevancy of the Educator Astronaut to the Space Program
Stuf4 wrote:
[snip] I am amazed to see so much support posted on this thread backing the widely held belief that there is "no gravity" in Earth orbit, let alone other regions of the solar system and universe. I look forward to the day that NASA will be clear and accurate in teaching that zero/micro-g is NOT zero/micro-gravity. Cite 1 post where someone in ths ng supported the belief that there is no gravity in Earth orbit. [snip] I have nothing more to add to this thread at this time. Incite flamers then leave? Is that what a troll is? ~ CT |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Relevancy of the Educator Astronaut to the Space Program
Stuf4 wrote:
[snip] Regarding the notion that NASA *does* know better, here is the full set of "OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS" advertised on that website referenced earlier in this thread, http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/FACILITY/ZERO.HTM : _____ o Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds (free fall: evacuated chamber at 10 to the second Torr) o Gravitational acceleration: 10 to the negative 5 g o Deceleration levels: a linear ramp from 0 to 65 Gs in 150 milliseconds _____ ...so it appears that at least *one* person at Glenn Research Center believes that there is some way to achieve "low gravity" at the surface of the Earth, and that "Gravitational acceleration" changes radically during a short freefall. This is a far cry from *all* NASA researchers are confused. But, if you don't understand what the Microgravity Research Facility is advertising in the above list, then you should stay away from all science related matters and indulge yourself in eastern philosophy. There, your deep thoughts and a vow of silence will satisfy everyone, especially the managers of the top secret program to spread "microgravity" like an indestructible meme. Viva microgravity! [snip] |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
Relevancy of the Educator Astronaut to the Space Program
From stmx3:
Stuf4 wrote: [snip] Regarding the notion that NASA *does* know better, here is the full set of "OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS" advertised on that website referenced earlier in this thread, http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/FACILITY/ZERO.HTM : _____ o Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds (free fall: evacuated chamber at 10 to the second Torr) o Gravitational acceleration: 10 to the negative 5 g o Deceleration levels: a linear ramp from 0 to 65 Gs in 150 milliseconds _____ ...so it appears that at least *one* person at Glenn Research Center believes that there is some way to achieve "low gravity" at the surface of the Earth, and that "Gravitational acceleration" changes radically during a short freefall. This is a far cry from *all* NASA researchers are confused. But, if you don't understand what the Microgravity Research Facility is advertising in the above list, then you should stay away from all science related matters and indulge yourself in eastern philosophy. There, your deep thoughts and a vow of silence will satisfy everyone, especially the managers of the top secret program to spread "microgravity" like an indestructible meme. Viva microgravity! Thanks for the good laugh. Perhaps this link offers a clue to the origin of the term "zero gravity": http://permanentpeace.org/technology/yogic_flying.html (Although I didn't see any NASA research referenced under their "What's the Technology?" link.) ....beginning my vow of silence in lotus position... meditating on grasshopper in weightless hop through tall grass... ~ CT |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Relevancy of the Educator Astronaut to the Space Program
Stuf4 wrote:
...and this will probably be my last post for roughly the next few weeks as I take time to focus on a private project that has become a top priority of mine. Really? Really Really? I have a hard time seeing how anyone here would want to support a NASA astronaut with a physics PhD from MIT speak about experiencing "no gravity" while in orbit. Can a human experience micro gravity compared to no gravity? I doubt it. Otherwise why have the 0.05g indicator on the Apollo capsules? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |