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

Genesis: a dumb question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 11th 04, 01:13 PM
AA Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Genesis: a dumb question

The photos of Genesis show it dented and damaged, but mostly intact.
Wouldn't a satellite falling from space without a parachute either burn up
in the atmosphere or get completely pulverized upon impact?



  #2  
Old September 11th 04, 01:51 PM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

AA Bob wrote:
The photos of Genesis show it dented and damaged, but mostly intact.
Wouldn't a satellite falling from space without a parachute either burn up
in the atmosphere or get completely pulverized upon impact?


The parachute failed, but the heat shield didn't. The chute is deployed only
in the last part of the entry, after most of the slowing has been accomplished.

Paul

  #3  
Old September 11th 04, 02:36 PM
Christopher M. Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

AA Bob wrote:
The photos of Genesis show it dented and damaged, but mostly intact.
Wouldn't a satellite falling from space without a parachute either burn up
in the atmosphere or get completely pulverized upon impact?


Yes, for the most part, because they are not designed
to survive atmospheric entry. A heat shield allows
a spacecraft to reenter the atmosphere without
burning up. A parachute, or a wing, allows a reentering
spacecraft to survive a fall from the upper atmosphere
without hitting the ground at unsafe speeds.
  #4  
Old September 11th 04, 04:46 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Christopher M. Jones
writes
AA Bob wrote:
The photos of Genesis show it dented and damaged, but mostly intact.
Wouldn't a satellite falling from space without a parachute either burn up
in the atmosphere or get completely pulverized upon impact?


Yes, for the most part, because they are not designed
to survive atmospheric entry. A heat shield allows
a spacecraft to reenter the atmosphere without
burning up. A parachute, or a wing, allows a reentering
spacecraft to survive a fall from the upper atmosphere
without hitting the ground at unsafe speeds.


Unsafe speed in this case presumably being terminal velocity (I've used
that phrase twice recently and it still fits all too well :-( )
They'd have got away with it on Venus...
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
  #5  
Old September 12th 04, 12:12 AM
Tim K.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...

They'd have got away with it on Venus...


heh, nice!


  #6  
Old September 12th 04, 02:23 AM
Jud McCranie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 12:13:50 GMT, "AA Bob"
wrote:

Wouldn't a satellite falling from space without a parachute either burn up
in the atmosphere or get completely pulverized upon impact?


Something falling in the atmosphere reaches a terminal velocity, and
doesn't get any faster. That velocity depends on the object. For a
human body it is something like 120MPH. Genesis hit at 190 MPH,
slowed from the thousands of MPH when it was in space.

---
Replace you know what by j to email
  #7  
Old September 12th 04, 02:47 AM
Aussiesuffer3788
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

a dumb

aussis suffer

it's dum
  #8  
Old September 12th 04, 05:43 AM
Christopher M. Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , Christopher M. Jones
writes
Yes, for the most part, because they are not designed
to survive atmospheric entry. A heat shield allows
a spacecraft to reenter the atmosphere without
burning up. A parachute, or a wing, allows a reentering
spacecraft to survive a fall from the upper atmosphere
without hitting the ground at unsafe speeds.


Unsafe speed in this case presumably being terminal velocity (I've used
that phrase twice recently and it still fits all too well :-( )
They'd have got away with it on Venus...


Terminal velocity need not be an unsafe speed, depending on
design. But, of course, for Genesis it was. It's possible
to design such that it is not, as with lifting bodies like
the Shuttle.
  #9  
Old September 25th 04, 08:20 PM
Gallery Neolithica
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Christopher wrote:
Terminal velocity need not be an unsafe speed, depending on
design. But, of course, for Genesis it was.

By design. Now dispersal pattern of 'harmless' biowarfare marker organisms
can be studied to see what effect of rupture of 'live' Mars sample return
canister would be. There is always a backdoor, ask any Keyhole.


 




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
Genesis Crash - Problem uncovered in '01??? Ted A. Nichols II Amateur Astronomy 0 September 8th 04 10:30 PM
NASA to capture fiery Genesis re-entry with 'eyes in the sky' (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 September 5th 04 07:02 PM
ODDS AGAINST EVOLUTION (You listenin', t.o.?) Lord Blacklight Astronomy Misc 56 November 21st 03 03:45 PM
another moon question Holly Misc 20 September 24th 03 06:38 AM
PX question Bored Huge Krill Astronomy Misc 4 August 10th 03 02:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 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.