IMPACT

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! =-----

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.

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! =-----

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

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! =-----

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! =-----

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! =-----

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

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

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! =-----