Wow we made a hole!

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 01:36:44 +0000, Skorpious wrote:

Lets run that test over by putting the wing section in a wind tunnel with a
600 mph wind.

Non-sequitur... the airstream between the ET and the wing was quite a
bit more than 600 mph.

To run the test in conditions resembling the actual envoronmental
circumstances of the impact you'd have to use a supersonic wind
tunnel... a big one.

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

irony/

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 04:08:03 +0000, Derek Lyons wrote:

"Chuck Stewart" wrote:

To run the test in conditions resembling the actual environmental
circumstances of the impact you'd have to use a supersonic wind
tunnel... a big one.

A big one that the owners thereof are willing to allow you put loose
debris in to perform the test and endanger the tunnel.

What? You'd have us believe that foam, mere foam, could endanger
anything as stoutly built as a mach-plus wind tunnel? Pshaw!

I don't forsee a long list of volunteers.

Ha! I, my good man, will volunteer to serve as a foam-catcher to
protect that wind tunnel from those vicious bits of foam.

/irony

D.

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

In a post a little bit ago somebody was comparing the Rogers Report on
Challenger to the CAIB final report. The Rogers Report seems to have a lot
of solid engineering. The best thing the CAIB report has was firing a piece
of insulation foam at the broad side of an RCC panel and punching a hole in
it. And on an ABC TV special no less.

Lets run that test over by putting the wing section in a wind tunnel with a
600 mph wind. Then start dropping pieces of foam in the air stream. I
think they would be dropping pieces of foam into the test chamber for a very
long time.

"Skorpious" wrote in message
...

The Rogers Report seems to have a lot
of solid engineering.

LMAO. Solid waste maybe. Solid engineering? Nope.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

"Charleston" wrote in

The Rogers Report seems to have a lot
of solid engineering.

LMAO. Solid waste maybe. Solid engineering? Nope.

You haven't looked hard enough at the entire work, then.

In article jmf3b.29232$cj1.17850@fed1read06,
"Charleston" wrote:

"Skorpious" wrote in message
...

The Rogers Report seems to have a lot
of solid engineering.

LMAO. Solid waste maybe. Solid engineering? Nope.

Since we know you're using your father's "work" as a basis of
comparison, your opinion on the matter is highly suspect.

So, again Daniel, tell us all about the niobium spatters and, most
importantly, why they matter?

Put up or shut up.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous