Soviet Mars 3 lander found?

On Apr 26, 10:34*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 26, 8:38*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d16ffdd4-abb0-4821-b1fc-2aa8814a8768
@i5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...

sorry as I said before VANGUARD...... there are several in earth
orbit, along with their spent boosters.....

They could make for excellent exhibits

No, they wouldn't. *Most people don't care about such trivia. *The cost
to recover and display this sort of space junk is far too high for the
small interest it would generate.

well there is a plan to return vanguard to a earth museum

Cite? *I REAL plan?



Just like there was a plan to recover gus grissoms capsule and saturn
5 engines.....

Plus some historic things may be recovered before they burn
up .........

vanguard recovery has a lot going for it, it was a first, and is small
and realtively close, plus ion engines are now available, and its
small enough to bring home in a capsule

And what it has against it is it is a waste of several billion dollars
that could have been spent actually DOING something. *But that's why
you natter on about recovering past glories, isn't it, Bobbert? *You
don't want there to be any future ones.

--

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23639980/n...ars-old-orbit/

The saturn engines were recoved with private funds.

This would be a excellent demo of how satellites could be
repoisitioned in orbit.

At some point there may be 2 derelict satellites on a collision
course. assume 2 non functional satellites, a collision could ruin
that orbital area.....

so a ability to move derelict satellites could be very useful

On Apr 28, 12:50*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 26, 10:34*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 26, 8:38*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d16ffdd4-abb0-4821-b1fc-2aa8814a8768
@i5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...

sorry as I said before VANGUARD...... there are several in earth
orbit, along with their spent boosters.....

They could make for excellent exhibits

No, they wouldn't. *Most people don't care about such trivia. *The cost
to recover and display this sort of space junk is far too high for the
small interest it would generate.

well there is a plan to return vanguard to a earth museum

Cite? *I REAL plan?

Just like there was a plan to recover gus grissoms capsule and saturn
5 engines.....

Plus some historic things may be recovered before they burn
up .........

vanguard recovery has a lot going for it, it was a first, and is small
and realtively close, plus ion engines are now available, and its
small enough to bring home in a capsule

And what it has against it is it is a waste of several billion dollars
that could have been spent actually DOING something. *But that's why
you natter on about recovering past glories, isn't it, Bobbert? *You
don't want there to be any future ones.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23639980/n...ience-space/t/...

So, no real plan, then. *Just a random mention in an email from a guy
who doesn't have the wherewithal to do the job.



The saturn engines were recoved with private funds.

Yes, I know. *An ego project by a billionaire. *That won't do for
recovering Vanguard. *Developing the capability to do that job is
simply too expensive for someone to do it as an ego project.



This would be a excellent demo of how satellites could be
repoisitioned in orbit.

Perhaps, but if I was going to tie up the kind of funds you're talking
about, I'd make my 'demo' with a working satellite that needs
repositioning. *You see, we already know how to reposition them in
orbit. *The problem is that they run out of fuel.



At some point there may be 2 derelict satellites on a collision
course. assume 2 non functional satellites, a collision could ruin
that orbital area.....

At some point we may reposition them by farting at them from the
ground. *But that point is nowhere near today.



so a ability to move derelict satellites could be very useful

So you want to throw billions of dollars to develop a capability that
might be useful one time someday, because you think the sky is
falling. *Yeah, typical....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

a impact of two derelict satellites can begin a cascade failure that
will ruin that orbital area. its not the sky is falling its the very
real possiblity of being unable to launch satellites.

we already had a derelict satellite and working one collide. in that
case people dropped the ball it could of been prevented......

the day of docking with satellites and moving or efueling them is
practically here....

On Apr 28, 5:32*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

a impact of two derelict satellites can begin a cascade failure that
will ruin that orbital area. its not the sky is falling its the very
real possiblity of being unable to launch satellites.

Preposterous twice.



we already had a derelict satellite and working one collide. in that
case people dropped the ball it could of been prevented......

the day of docking with satellites and moving or efueling them is
practically here....

For a definition of 'practically here' that will occur long after
you're dead and long before the odds of your 'sky is falling' scenario
occurs.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

well orbital debris can be dangerous? one could easily put a hole in
ISS someday.......

yep i know the sky is falling fred is very repetive in his rants

http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/...-the-hull-quot

imagine what that hole could of done if it ent thru the aitable prtthe
station

On May 1, 11:08*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 28, 5:32*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

a impact of two derelict satellites can begin a cascade failure that
will ruin that orbital area. its not the sky is falling its the very
real possiblity of being unable to launch satellites.

Preposterous twice.

we already had a derelict satellite and working one collide. in that
case people dropped the ball it could of been prevented......

the day of docking with satellites and moving or efueling them is
practically here....

For a definition of 'practically here' that will occur long after
you're dead and long before the odds of your 'sky is falling' scenario
occurs.

well orbital debris can be dangerous? one could easily put a hole in
ISS someday.......

And some day someone may fart and expand the atmosphere enough to
deorbit things from the drag. *But the odds are pretty damned small.
The danger to ISS is higher because of the stupid orbit we've put it
in to accommodate the Russians.



yep i know the sky is falling fred is very repetive in his rants

Perhaps if you would stop persisting in being such a clueless
alarmist...



http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/...-missed-the-hu...

Can't see it.



imagine what that hole could of done if it ent thru the aitable prtthe
station

If it ent thru ut?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Its a pretty big hole in a ISS solar panel. If it had impacted a
pressurized area real damage could of been done

In article 41e379e9-fa5d-4fd9-840d-b0ba366138a1
@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com, says...

On May 1, 11:08*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
yep i know the sky is falling fred is very repetive in his rants

Perhaps if you would stop persisting in being such a clueless
alarmist...

http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/...it-missed-the-
hu...

Can't see it.

imagine what that hole could of done if it ent thru the aitable prtthe
station

If it ent thru ut?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Its a pretty big hole in a ISS solar panel.

After a bit of Google searching, I found a picture of the hole.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekq...causes-bullet-
hole-iss-solar-panel-192257475.html

The hole actually looks quite *tiny*.

If it had impacted a
pressurized area real damage could of been done

Please note that the ISS solar panels don't have the MMOD protection
that all pressurized modules have. You're not an MMOD expert, so I'm
not convinced that this "could of" caused "real damage" if it had hit a
"pressurized area".

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Jeff Findley wrote:
After a bit of Google searching, I found a picture of the hole.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekq...causes-bullet-
hole-iss-solar-panel-192257475.html

The hole actually looks quite *tiny*.

Any reports of the degree to which power generation is affected?

rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On May 2, 12:03*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On May 1, 11:08*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 28, 5:32*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

a impact of two derelict satellites can begin a cascade failure that
will ruin that orbital area. its not the sky is falling its the very
real possiblity of being unable to launch satellites.

Preposterous twice.

we already had a derelict satellite and working one collide. in that
case people dropped the ball it could of been prevented......

the day of docking with satellites and moving or efueling them is
practically here....

For a definition of 'practically here' that will occur long after
you're dead and long before the odds of your 'sky is falling' scenario
occurs.

well orbital debris can be dangerous? one could easily put a hole in
ISS someday.......

And some day someone may fart and expand the atmosphere enough to
deorbit things from the drag. *But the odds are pretty damned small.
The danger to ISS is higher because of the stupid orbit we've put it
in to accommodate the Russians.

yep i know the sky is falling fred is very repetive in his rants

Perhaps if you would stop persisting in being such a clueless
alarmist...

http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/...-missed-the-hu....

Can't see it.

imagine what that hole could of done if it ent thru the aitable prtthe
station

If it ent thru ut?

Its a pretty big hole in a ISS solar panel. If it had impacted a
pressurized area real damage could of been done

Ah, something else Bobbert either doesn't know about or he isn't
thinking at all.

Hint: *Space solar panels tend to be very light, very thin, and very
fragile. *Pressure vessels tend to be somewhat less so.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

even a one inch bolt moving very fast can do a lot of damage. speed is
everything. one of the shuttles on re entry had a window badly damaged
by a tiny piee of paint. nasa was able to find out where the paint
speck came from.....

sooner or later ISS will be damaged badly by space debris.

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

Its a pretty big hole in a ISS solar panel. If it had impacted a
pressurized area real damage could of been done

Ah, something else Bobbert either doesn't know about or he isn't
thinking at all.

Hint: Space solar panels tend to be very light, very thin, and very
fragile. Pressure vessels tend to be somewhat less so.

On top of that, all pressure vessels on ISS are covered in layers of
material which provides MMOD protection. No doubt if this had hit a
pressure vessel's MMOD protection layers, the damage would be visible
due to the hole it would have punched in the outer layer. But that does
not mean that the debris would have been able to get through *all* of
the layers *and* still poke a hole in the pressure vessel.

From the looks of it, this was virtually a non-event.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article e2cb5aba-f608-4d1b-af46-
, says...

even a one inch bolt moving very fast can do a lot of damage.

There is zero evidence that the object which hit the array was as big as
a "one inch bolt". That hole in the array looks to be much smaller.

speed is
everything. one of the shuttles on re entry had a window badly damaged
by a tiny piee of paint.

No, Bob, it was not "badly damaged". The outer pane was damaged. That
outer pane was designed to stop debris like that *and* it was designed
to be easily replaced. The outer pane isn't even needed to hold
pressure inside the crew cabin. The window design has multiple
redundant layers for a reason. Engineers aren't as dumb as you seem to
think they are.

nasa was able to find out where the paint
speck came from.....

sooner or later ISS will be damaged badly by space debris.

No doubt you're waiting for that day so you can yell "I told you so".
But, the possibility also exists that it will *never* be "damaged badly
by space debris". ISS isn't going to be manned forever, so only time
will tell if your "prediction" comes true.

I'd like to note that sooner or later you'll stop posting your useless
drivel to Usenet News.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 8:08:48 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
On May 2, 12:03*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

bob haller wrote:

On May 1, 11:08*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

bob haller wrote:

On Apr 28, 5:32*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

bob haller wrote:



a impact of two derelict satellites can begin a cascade failure that

will ruin that orbital area. its not the sky is falling its the very

real possiblity of being unable to launch satellites.



Preposterous twice.



we already had a derelict satellite and working one collide. in that

case people dropped the ball it could of been prevented......



the day of docking with satellites and moving or efueling them is

practically here....



For a definition of 'practically here' that will occur long after

you're dead and long before the odds of your 'sky is falling' scenario

occurs.



well orbital debris can be dangerous? one could easily put a hole in

ISS someday.......



And some day someone may fart and expand the atmosphere enough to

deorbit things from the drag. *But the odds are pretty damned small.

The danger to ISS is higher because of the stupid orbit we've put it

in to accommodate the Russians.



yep i know the sky is falling fred is very repetive in his rants



Perhaps if you would stop persisting in being such a clueless

alarmist...



http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/...-missed-the-hu...



Can't see it.



imagine what that hole could of done if it ent thru the aitable prtthe

station



If it ent thru ut?



Its a pretty big hole in a ISS solar panel. If it had impacted a

pressurized area real damage could of been done



Ah, something else Bobbert either doesn't know about or he isn't

thinking at all.



Hint: *Space solar panels tend to be very light, very thin, and very

fragile. *Pressure vessels tend to be somewhat less so.



--

"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar

*territory."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn



even a one inch bolt moving very fast can do a lot of damage. speed is

everything. one of the shuttles on re entry had a window badly damaged

by a tiny piee of paint. nasa was able to find out where the paint

speck came from.....



sooner or later ISS will be damaged badly by space debris.

And you wonder why people compare you to Chicken Little