#21
|
|||
|
|||
While reading in the bathroom on Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:32:35 -0400, I
saw that Richard had written: Couldn't they just separate out "Utah" from it and see what's left? Not as difficult as you might think. The collected particles were traveling at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, and are embedded comparatively deeply into the collection plates. "Utah" was relativistically traveling at less than 200 mph when it impacted the plates; whatever particles (if any) that actually penetrated below the surface are comparatively shallow. Add to this that the plates and pieces of plates are going to be inspected by people who make their living examining something molecule by molecule. It won't be easy, by any means, but it's perfectly do-able. -------------- Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring one imaginable." -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
John Beaderstadt wrote: While reading in the bathroom on Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:32:35 -0400, I saw that Richard had written: Couldn't they just separate out "Utah" from it and see what's left? Not as difficult as you might think. The collected particles were traveling at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, and are embedded comparatively deeply into the collection plates. "Utah" was relativistically traveling at less than 200 mph when it impacted the plates; whatever particles (if any) that actually penetrated below the surface are comparatively shallow. Add to this that the plates and pieces of plates are going to be inspected by people who make their living examining something molecule by molecule. It won't be easy, by any means, but it's perfectly do-able. Too bad they wasted all the $$$ on a parachute and recovery helos. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
While reading in the bathroom on Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:37:25 GMT, I saw
that Phil Wheeler had written: Add to this that the plates and pieces of plates are going to be inspected by people who make their living examining something molecule by molecule. It won't be easy, by any means, but it's perfectly do-able. Too bad they wasted all the $$$ on a parachute and recovery helos. So, are you saying it still can't be done? Or are you complaining because it can be? Either way, I'd be interested in hearing your arguments. -------------- Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring one imaginable." -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
John Beaderstadt wrote: While reading in the bathroom on Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:37:25 GMT, I saw that Phil Wheeler had written: Add to this that the plates and pieces of plates are going to be inspected by people who make their living examining something molecule by molecule. It won't be easy, by any means, but it's perfectly do-able. Too bad they wasted all the $$$ on a parachute and recovery helos. So, are you saying it still can't be done? Or are you complaining because it can be? Either way, I'd be interested in hearing your arguments. Hmmm .. "perfectly doable" implies they will achieve 100% of the science objectives. Having worked in the space biz for over 32 years, I can tell you with authority that they will not. No need to "argue". Phil |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Richard wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:40:01 -0400, starman wrote: TommyBoy wrote: The genesis probe slammed into thte UTAH desert..watched the whole thing on NASA TV. A wobbling discus without a chute it hit at about 100 mph..wild! Closer to 200-mph. They still have hope for recovering some of the solar samples. Why should the samples be unsalvageable? Weren't they just plates designed to collect the particles via impact? -Rich The main problem is contamination. The sample canister was broken by the impact. It was supposed to be opened in a clean room. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
While reading in the bathroom on Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:15:42 GMT, I saw
that Phil Wheeler had written: Hmmm .. "perfectly doable" implies they will achieve 100% of the science objectives. All I intended was to explain that salvaging the purpose of the mission is "perfectly doable," because contamination resulting from the crash did not necessarily render the plates unreadable. Any interpretation other than I intended is your own, for which I am not responsible. Having worked in the space biz for over 32 years... First, it's been my experience that people who attempt to establish their own authority by invoking credentials without corroboration can usually be classed with those who cite the lurkers supporting them in email. Second, "the space biz" covers a hell of a lot of territory. The janitors at NASA also work in "the space biz," as do all the private subcontractors throughout the nation who design and manufacture various widgets for various space-related projects. Third, this guy also used to work in "the space biz": http://www.mission51l.com/aboutus.htm I leave it to anyone following the link to judge whether a vague claim to being in "the space biz" lends a person automatic credibility. All of which is to say that I'm neither impressed nor intimidated by your puffery. No need to "argue" No, there isn't. The pieces of the plates exist. The particles the plates were designed to capture are embedded far more deeply into the pieces than are the particles of the Utah dessert. The personnel who are charged with examining the plate pieces know what they are doing. Salvaging the mission is "perfectly doable." You're just going to have to live with it. -------------- Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring one imaginable." -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
While reading in the bathroom on Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:50:01 -0400, I
saw that starman had written: The main problem is contamination. The sample canister was broken by the impact. It was supposed to be opened in a clean room. As explained by NASA authorities and news consultants, this doesn't necessarily invalidate the experiment. The canister was broken, as were the plates, themselves, but canister and pieces are still there. The solar particles were driven comparatively deeply into the plates at several hundred-thousand mph, while the particles of Utah impacted the plates at less than two hundred mph; those particles can be expected to be almost entirely on the surface and can be disregarded. As I've said elsewhere, salvaging the experiment is perfectly doable. -------------- Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring one imaginable." -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
John Beaderstadt wrote: While reading in the bathroom on Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:15:42 GMT, I saw that Phil Wheeler had written: Hmmm .. "perfectly doable" implies they will achieve 100% of the science objectives. All I intended was to explain that salvaging the purpose of the mission is "perfectly doable," because contamination resulting from the crash did not necessarily render the plates unreadable. Any interpretation other than I intended is your own, for which I am not responsible. "Perfectly" is not a vague word, subject to "interpretation". If you meant something less than perfect, you had the option of saying that and no one could have taken issue. Don't blame others for your "imperfect" choice of words; for those you *are* responsible. My own estimate is that they may acheive 50-75% of the science goals, in the end -- with a substantial increase in processing cost and time. The NASA PR machine will eventually claim 90% success or more. I recall one early mission where a 3-axis stabilized satellite ended up spinning for its entire lifetime (a design error in which I was involved). NASA claimed the science mission was 98% successful. Not even close: Maybe 50% success to be generous. And the leader of the design team was promoted. Phil |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
John Beaderstadt wrote: While reading in the bathroom on Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:50:01 -0400, I saw that starman had written: The main problem is contamination. The sample canister was broken by the impact. It was supposed to be opened in a clean room. As explained by NASA authorities and news consultants Perhaps the scientists will give us better info than "NASA authorities and news consultants". Or perhaps that's what you meant to say? Phil |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
While reading in the bathroom on Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:21:19 GMT, I saw
that Phil Wheeler had written: Perhaps the scientists will give us better info than "NASA authorities and news consultants". Or perhaps that's what you meant to say? At the risk of sounding like I have authority I don't actually claim, I am also paraphrasing the opinions of personal acquaintances who are active in a couple of other ongoing missions. Unfortunately, I'm not free to identify them, and I'll just have to take any lumps I get here for mentioning them. One acquaintance I can mention, however, is Jim Oberg, consultant to MSNBC. He has the credentials and has stated publicly and (semi)privately the views I have repeated. As for anything else, you'll hear and read whatever fits your own purpose, regardless of actual words or context. -------------- Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring one imaginable." -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Web-Based Program Calculates Effects of an Earth Impact | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 9 | April 8th 04 07:38 PM |
Discovery of a double impact crater in Libya (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 17th 03 04:00 PM |
Deep News - Newsletter for the Deep Impact Mission - Issue 2 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 21st 03 11:04 PM |
Deep News - Newsletter for the Deep Impact Mission - Issue 2 | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | August 21st 03 11:04 PM |
Deep News - Newsletter for the Deep Impact Mission | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 15th 03 07:15 PM |