Apollo: One gas environment?

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

The Babylonians or someone, as I recall.
Yeah, I knew that, I was being rhetorical. :-)

Seriously though, I do find it interesting that the world as far as I
know has standardized on the 7 day week (even if different cultures disagree
on when it starts, what a day is, etc.)



And you know what, we seem to manage for the most part.

You've got to admit that 60 is evenly divisible by a lot of numbers.

However, when I was doing my biweekly time cards, I got tangled up now
and then between hours:minutes and hours.(minutes/60). It's really
hard to get 4.30 and 3.30 to add up to 8 when you actually mean 4.5
and 3.5, as determined from 7:30 to 12:00 and 12:30 to 4:00.

Tell me about it... trying to log my biking time is a pain. Well would be
if I biked as much as I should.

Just let's stay away from Stardates for now.



Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Doug..." wrote in message
...

Pre-Fire, of course, the cabin was pressurized to roughly 17 psia of
pure oxygen. They also overpressurized the cabin at times during post-
Fire operations, but as Henry says, the air was 40% nitrogen.

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that it was pressurized to 17
psia during tests in order to confirm it could hold a ~3.5 psig.
Would they actually launch at 17psia?

Doug

Mary Shafer wrote:

Think of how much the peanut oil to fill that baby costs! What you
save on the fryer you spend on the oil. What a way to go.l


What you of course do is reuse the oil over and over; your dinner guests
will always remember the taste of fried chicken with the haunting
nuances of shrimp, fish, veal.....

pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Mary Shafer wrote:

Think of how much the peanut oil to fill that baby costs! What you
save on the fryer you spend on the oil. What a way to go.l


What you of course do is reuse the oil over and over; your dinner guests
will always remember the taste of fried chicken with the haunting
nuances of shrimp, fish, veal.....

Strain it out and stick it in a diesel engine.

In article , "Greg D. Moore
\(Strider\)" says...

"Doug..." wrote in message
...

Pre-Fire, of course, the cabin was pressurized to roughly 17 psia of
pure oxygen. They also overpressurized the cabin at times during post-
Fire operations, but as Henry says, the air was 40% nitrogen.

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that it was pressurized to 17
psia during tests in order to confirm it could hold a ~3.5 psig.
Would they actually launch at 17psia?

Oh, sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Part of the pre-launch check-out
after the spacecraft was buttoned up was the CM pressure integrity
check. During that check, the cabin was pressurized to roughly 3.5 psia
above ambient sea-level pressure, somewhere between 17 and 18 psia, and
the decay rate had to be lower than something like one-tenth of a pound
or less over a 10-minute monitoring period or the CSM was NO-GO for
launch.

That pressure was vented down to sea-level prior to launch, both pre-
Fire and post-Fire. But the pressure integrity check was done both pre-
and post-Fire.

Doug

On Tue, 4 May 2004 22:37:48 +0800, "Neil Gerace"
wrote:


"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
On Mon, 03 May 2004 23:22:51 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Mon, 3 May 2004 22:05:15 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:

And, of course, the truly important values - 6.0#/U.S. Gal. for
100/130, 6.5 #/USGal for JP-4, and 6.7#/USGal for JP-5.

At what temperature? And what the correction for other temps?

...And what values for my favorite, JP-7?

She could tell you, but then ...

Well, she could if she knew where her Pratt & Whitney Vest Pocket
Aeronautical Handbook, or whatever it's called, is.

I know, with absolute certainty, that it's in this house somewhere.
Unfortunately, I don't know where exactly. There are only about
eighty cartons that it might be in, none of them labeled.

Actually, that's not true. About four cartons are labeled "A/C" for
aircraft, space, and NASA stuff. Never mind that there are probably a
dozen cartons of aircraft, space, and NASA stuff, at least.

Anyway, I have a helper coming over to unpack cartons all this week
and I'll keep an eye out for the P&W Handbook and post the numbers for
JP-7 and the temperature data. If we don't find it this week, I'll be
back here for about a week later this month and I'll keep looking.

Mary


--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Kevin Willoughby wrote in message ...
In article , says...
I buy lumber in English units (no, a 2x4 isn't
two inches by four inches, [...])

Those of us with older houses know that 2x4s were once two inches by
four inches. This makes certain maintenance tasks difficult. The meter
hasn't changed all that much over the years...

Even a modern 2x4 was once two inches by four inches...the difference
is the trip through the planing machine on all 4 sides. Of course, in
the old days you could plane them down yourself if you were tired of
the splinters. I think a 16" shoe on the plane oughta be about right;
and how many different types of planes, not counting spokeshaves, are
there?

/dps

Hey, did you *expect* it to be ssh-specific?

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
news
Well, she could if she knew where her Pratt & Whitney Vest Pocket
Aeronautical Handbook, or whatever it's called, is.

snip

In your own time

BTW Who makes/made JP-7?

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Tomas Lundberg" wrote in message
...

Anders Celsius, professor in astronomy at Uppsala,
Sweden, originally placed the fixed-points of his thermometer scale the
other way around, with 0 C at the boiling point of water, and 100 C at
the freezing point.


So, how would you measure something at twice the boiling point of water? 2x0
C?

Yes, exactly :-) !
(In a recent article in the local newspaper it was stated that this year
April had been "*twice* as warm as usual": the average temperature over
the last 80 years for April was 0.5 C, and this year the average temperature
for April was 1 C... It didn't feel twice as warm, I can tell you...)

Seriously though, I'm not sure. I guess you started using negative degrees
for temperatures higher (lower? Ah, *warmer*) than the boiling point of
water. I think the main reason for having the inverted scale was that
you avoided negative degrees when you measured outdoor temperatures, which
I guess was almost the only usage of a thermometer back then. There were
other thermometer scales that used an inverted scale, for instance Hauksbee
(or Hawksbee?) and de L'Isle, and Celsius used a de L'Isle thermometer when
he calibrated his scale, and took over the "invertedness" from that.

Tomas

--
Tomas Lundberg | It doesn't make any difference how smart you are,
Ericsson AB | you better not ever prostitute physics.
Luleå, SWEDEN | Don Arabian
E-mail: - remove the obvious

"Tomas Lundberg" wrote in message
...
Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Tomas Lundberg" wrote in
message
...

Anders Celsius, professor in astronomy at Uppsala,
Sweden, originally placed the fixed-points of his thermometer scale the
other way around, with 0 C at the boiling point of water, and 100 C at
the freezing point.


So, how would you measure something at twice the boiling point of water?
2x0
C?

Yes, exactly :-) !
(In a recent article in the local newspaper it was stated that this year
April had been "*twice* as warm as usual": the average temperature over
the last 80 years for April was 0.5 C, and this year the average
temperature
for April was 1 C... It didn't feel twice as warm, I can tell you...)

Twice 0.5C is twice 273.65K or 547.3K or 274.15C or 525.47F