| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Jul 2006 05:29:09 AM |
| Object: |
Shuttle lift-off questions |
I watched the shuttle take off yesterday on CSPAN (bless that
TV channel).
Question 1: The camera shot from the last stage booster rocket
(I think that is its name..it's the big center silo the shuttle
is bolted to) shows white spots increasing in area as time went
on. Was that heat or cold?
Question 2: One of the reporters, who was talking about the
reason for one of the delays (cracks in the insulation) said
that the fuel tank expands when emptied and contracts when filled.
This is counterintuitive to me. If the reporter is correct,
why does this happen? I'm assuming that filling the tank
decreases inside pressure?
/BAH
.
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
05 Jul 2006 02:19:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I watched the shuttle take off yesterday on CSPAN (bless that
TV channel).
Question 2: One of the reporters, who was talking about the
reason for one of the delays (cracks in the insulation) said
that the fuel tank expands when emptied and contracts when filled.
This is counterintuitive to me. If the reporter is correct,
why does this happen? I'm assuming that filling the tank
decreases inside pressure?
The tank is filled with cryogenic liquid, which cools the metal
structure containing it, which causes contraction. That's why there is
insulation on it in the first place.
Think about filling a thermos bottle (or a cryostat) with cold liquid.
Does the vacuum gap between inner and outer vessels increase or
decrease?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
06 Jul 2006 06:56:04 AM |
|
|
In article <1152127155.717121.185940@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
I watched the shuttle take off yesterday on CSPAN (bless that
TV channel).
Question 2: One of the reporters, who was talking about the
reason for one of the delays (cracks in the insulation) said
that the fuel tank expands when emptied and contracts when filled.
This is counterintuitive to me. If the reporter is correct,
why does this happen? I'm assuming that filling the tank
decreases inside pressure?
The tank is filled with cryogenic liquid, which cools the metal
structure containing it, which causes contraction. That's why there is
insulation on it in the first place.
Think about filling a thermos bottle (or a cryostat) with cold liquid.
OK. Thermos bottle; I don't know what a cryostat looks like.
Does the vacuum gap between inner and outer vessels increase or
decrease?
Neither. If it did the glass lining would crack. I don't see
why this is an example. There isn't a vacuum in the fuel
tank outer layers. Things are complicated enough so I wouldn't
depend a vacuum being mainntained throughout all that jiggling
and acceleration. Of course, I'm only talking from my experience
which has never applied to space program nor physics.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
06 Jul 2006 08:39:19 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1152127155.717121.185940@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
wrote:
I watched the shuttle take off yesterday on CSPAN (bless that
TV channel).
Question 2: One of the reporters, who was talking about the
reason for one of the delays (cracks in the insulation) said
that the fuel tank expands when emptied and contracts when filled.
This is counterintuitive to me. If the reporter is correct,
why does this happen? I'm assuming that filling the tank
decreases inside pressure?
The tank is filled with cryogenic liquid, which cools the metal
structure containing it, which causes contraction. That's why there is
insulation on it in the first place.
Think about filling a thermos bottle (or a cryostat) with cold liquid.
OK. Thermos bottle; I don't know what a cryostat looks like.
Like a thermos bottle.
Does the vacuum gap between inner and outer vessels increase or
decrease?
Neither. If it did the glass lining would crack. I don't see
why this is an example. There isn't a vacuum in the fuel
tank outer layers.
I didn't mean to imply that. But in a thermos bottle, there is a cold
layer and a warm layer. One changes dimension while the other does not
(appreciably) and so a gap change forms. As you say, this should cause
some stress at the points where the two layers are connected, and in
fact a thermos bottle has a plastic suspension point between the two
layers that allows for this flex.
In the shuttle tank, the warm layer is the insulation and the cold
layer is the metal wall of the tank. Since there is no gap and no
plastic suspension point between the layers, this introduces some
stress in both the cold layer and in the warm layer. It should not be
surprising that repeatedly stressing the insulation might risk some
flaking.
Things are complicated enough so I wouldn't
depend a vacuum being mainntained throughout all that jiggling
and acceleration. Of course, I'm only talking from my experience
which has never applied to space program nor physics.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
07 Jul 2006 05:54:38 AM |
|
|
In article <1152193159.136279.237930@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1152127155.717121.185940@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
I watched the shuttle take off yesterday on CSPAN (bless that
TV channel).
Question 2: One of the reporters, who was talking about the
reason for one of the delays (cracks in the insulation) said
that the fuel tank expands when emptied and contracts when filled.
This is counterintuitive to me. If the reporter is correct,
why does this happen? I'm assuming that filling the tank
decreases inside pressure?
The tank is filled with cryogenic liquid, which cools the metal
structure containing it, which causes contraction. That's why there is
insulation on it in the first place.
Think about filling a thermos bottle (or a cryostat) with cold liquid.
OK. Thermos bottle; I don't know what a cryostat looks like.
Like a thermos bottle.
That is a trite comment. There has to be more to it otherwise
people would buy a thermos and the cryostat biz would be out
of business. I require detail.
Does the vacuum gap between inner and outer vessels increase or
decrease?
Neither. If it did the glass lining would crack. I don't see
why this is an example. There isn't a vacuum in the fuel
tank outer layers.
I didn't mean to imply that. But in a thermos bottle, there is a cold
layer and a warm layer. One changes dimension while the other does not
(appreciably) and so a gap change forms. As you say, this should cause
some stress at the points where the two layers are connected, and in
fact a thermos bottle has a plastic suspension point between the two
layers that allows for this flex.
I'm trying to remember what a broken thermos looked like. I've
only seen one. I can remember correctly...I didn't think that
the lining was thing that moved. It was the lip that adjusted.
The glass of that thermos (~1958) was pretty fragile.
In the shuttle tank, the warm layer is the insulation and the cold
layer is the metal wall of the tank. Since there is no gap and no
plastic suspension point between the layers, this introduces some
stress in both the cold layer and in the warm layer. It should not be
surprising that repeatedly stressing the insulation might risk some
flaking.
I'm not surprised. Are you reading what I write and what I mean?
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy L. Fuchs" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
06 Jul 2006 09:50:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jul 06 11:56:04 GMT, Gave us:
In article <1152127155.717121.185940@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
wrote:
I watched the shuttle take off yesterday on CSPAN (bless that
TV channel).
Question 2: One of the reporters, who was talking about the
reason for one of the delays (cracks in the insulation) said
that the fuel tank expands when emptied and contracts when filled.
This is counterintuitive to me. If the reporter is correct,
why does this happen? I'm assuming that filling the tank
decreases inside pressure?
The tank is filled with cryogenic liquid, which cools the metal
structure containing it, which causes contraction. That's why there is
insulation on it in the first place.
Think about filling a thermos bottle (or a cryostat) with cold liquid.
OK. Thermos bottle; I don't know what a cryostat looks like.
Uh... pretty much just like the working portion of a thermos
bottle. :-]
I referred to them as "dewars". Pronounced like "morning dew" and
"wars".
http://m-w.com/dictionary/dewar
Does the vacuum gap between inner and outer vessels increase or
decrease?
These devices are even pretty slow at all surfaces settling at a
given temperature. In fact, they are very good at that NOT happening.
Unless immersed in ambient temp water, the inside of the device will
attempt to stay right where it was in temperature. If warm air was
introduced, and the initial state was cool, it will warm it some until
their is an equilibrium between the amount of heat energy the air slug
had and the amount that can be absorbed by the vessel inner walls.
If a shot of propane or the like gets placed in there, cap it, and
slosh it around, it will cool the air inside back down a lot.
If they settle back at ambient, when one goes to use it again, there
is a lot of wasted material that boils off while the inner walls are
being chilled. Once chilled, the vessel will begin to take on
cryogenic liquid.
Neither. If it did the glass lining would crack.
The type of glass they use is particularly hardy against such
aberrant motions. I have seen cocktail glasses crack when ice is
added to a warm, empty glass, but these are much thicker, and likely
use a glass that has a low expansion factor.
I don't see
why this is an example. There isn't a vacuum in the fuel
tank outer layers.
It isn't needed. The tanks get emptied during the insertion flight.
That is why all the fill gear stays on the craft until just before
launch. It is one big foam and Aluminum cooler with two big cryo
tanks in it.
They are kept at their designated fill level at all times, and
refrigerant may even be used to chill certain elements of the craft
while it is on the pad.
Things are complicated enough so I wouldn't
depend a vacuum being mainntained throughout all that jiggling
and acceleration.
That is likely why it isn't that way. Cryo storage vessels... the
LAND based versions have vacuum separated walls. Those on the craft
don't need to because the media is only going to be in the tanks for a
very short period of time. The amount lost to vaporization is likely
very low. Like a gallon or such of each.
No smoking at the launch pad.
Of course, I'm only talking from my experience
which has never applied to space program nor physics.
You probably know more than you give yourself credit for.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
07 Jul 2006 04:43:54 AM |
|
|
In article <p2ira2tb8q2f4hfsr1g64u906vav0opvnv@4ax.com>,
Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 06 11:56:04 GMT, Gave us:
In article <1152127155.717121.185940@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
wrote:
I watched the shuttle take off yesterday on CSPAN (bless that
TV channel).
Question 2: One of the reporters, who was talking about the
reason for one of the delays (cracks in the insulation) said
that the fuel tank expands when emptied and contracts when filled.
This is counterintuitive to me. If the reporter is correct,
why does this happen? I'm assuming that filling the tank
decreases inside pressure?
The tank is filled with cryogenic liquid, which cools the metal
structure containing it, which causes contraction. That's why there is
insulation on it in the first place.
Think about filling a thermos bottle (or a cryostat) with cold liquid.
OK. Thermos bottle; I don't know what a cryostat looks like.
But won't those pieces of gear used in labs be bigger? I would
think they would also have some flavor of meter to measure coolness
or vacuum. Gregory talked about these things quite a bit and
he kept trying to achieve perfect vacuum (unless I misunderstood).
<snip>
Neither. If it did the glass lining would crack.
The type of glass they use is particularly hardy against such
aberrant motions. I have seen cocktail glasses crack when ice is
added to a warm, empty glass, but these are much thicker, and likely
use a glass that has a low expansion factor.
Glass expands?! I thought one of its functions was no expansion.
The more I learn, the more I learn that I had no idea.
I don't see
why this is an example. There isn't a vacuum in the fuel
tank outer layers.
It isn't needed. The tanks get emptied during the insertion flight.
No,no,no. The problem with the sponges falling off is that those
tanks keep getting filled and emptied. I was thinking of doing
it once. As you observe, I've already leapt before I learned enough
about the problem. One of these days I'll grow up to be a Real
Crank.
That is why all the fill gear stays on the craft until just before
launch. It is one big foam and Aluminum cooler with two big cryo
tanks in it.
They are kept at their designated fill level at all times, and
refrigerant may even be used to chill certain elements of the craft
while it is on the pad.
They can't be kept full at all times. Based on the report I heard,
the foam gets cracked because the fuel tank is filled then has
to be emptied if the liftoff is scrubbed.
Things are complicated enough so I wouldn't
depend a vacuum being mainntained throughout all that jiggling
and acceleration.
That is likely why it isn't that way. Cryo storage vessels... the
LAND based versions have vacuum separated walls. Those on the craft
don't need to because the media is only going to be in the tanks for a
very short period of time. The amount lost to vaporization is likely
very low. Like a gallon or such of each.
See above about filling and emptying. I'd decided that you can't
have a proper thermos bottle because it would weigh too much. And
the tradeoff was to have a single wall, with all the emptying
and filling activities, instead of having a tank that would have
to be (number pulled out of my *****) 10 times larger so it could
boost itself and pull the shuttle up with it.
No smoking at the launch pad.
Smoking is the least of worries. This is Florida, the lightning
capital. And there are tons of wires laying around and computers
sparking that would bother me more.
Of course, I'm only talking from my experience
which has never applied to space program nor physics.
You probably know more than you give yourself credit for.
Nope. I'm pretty good at figuring out what I don't know or
I used to be. As you can see in this thread, my common sense
was based on water experience, which is an exception to the rule.
I had tons of questions watching. I just can't write them
so you'ld understand what I was asking.
For instance, there was very weird camera shot. I wondered where
and how they took those pictures. But I can't describe it; I have
no words for it.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy L. Fuchs" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
07 Jul 2006 09:54:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Jul 06 09:43:54 GMT, Gave us:
But won't those pieces of gear used in labs be bigger?
They can be several quarts, or even gallons.
Outside our building is a refrigerant chilled tank that holds LN2.
It is at least 50 gallons, and that measure is not a "full" measure.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy L. Fuchs" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
07 Jul 2006 10:07:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Jul 06 09:43:54 GMT, Gave us:
Glass expands?! I thought one of its functions was no expansion.
The more I learn, the more I learn that I had no idea.
The CRC handbook is a great book to glance through. They aren't
cheap, but any from the last three decades is pretty informative.
Glass is anamorphic.
Neatly ALL solid media has a coefficient of thermal expansion.
Aero-gel, and shuttle skin tiles could be one on the list of
exceptions.
Even diamonds have a measurable rate which has allowed scientists to
rate it with a fairly hard and fast "coefficient of expansion" or
"expansion factor".
Or maybe my brain is exercising its own "modulus of elasticity". ;-]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
08 Jul 2006 06:28:25 AM |
|
|
In article <u08ua25a5nv70b7aj44bpd1u4rvkl809qh@4ax.com>,
Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jul 06 09:43:54 GMT, Gave us:
Glass expands?! I thought one of its functions was no expansion.
The more I learn, the more I learn that I had no idea.
The CRC handbook is a great book to glance through. They aren't
cheap, but any from the last three decades is pretty informative.
yea, I know.
I have a couple of the math ones. I lost the debate with myself
when I saw a chemistry one "on sale" for $100 at Barnes&Noble.
These books of tables are on my reading list.
Glass is anamorphic.
I'll look this up later. So far I've batted 1000 trying
to find word meanings in my dictionary and they're simply
not there. It's getting annoying.
Neatly ALL solid media has a coefficient of thermal expansion.
Doesn't this have something to do with those R factor ratings?
Aero-gel, and shuttle skin tiles could be one on the list of
exceptions.
Even diamonds have a measurable rate which has allowed scientists to
rate it with a fairly hard and fast "coefficient of expansion" or
"expansion factor".
This is the neat thing about science. You try to scratch one
itch and you end up with a million more to satisfy.
Now I want to see that measuring device. And don't bother
with a picture; that won't help.
Or maybe my brain is exercising its own "modulus of elasticity". ;-]
Or something. In certain areas, it is hitting an obsidian wall.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy L. Fuchs" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
08 Jul 2006 05:10:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Jul 06 11:28:25 GMT, Gave us:
This is the neat thing about science. You try to scratch one
itch and you end up with a million more to satisfy.
Now I want to see that measuring device. And don't bother
with a picture; that won't help.
A Laser. Or perhaps a micro-probe. Maybe even an atomic probe...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy L. Fuchs" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
08 Jul 2006 05:11:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Jul 06 11:28:25 GMT, Gave us:
Or maybe my brain is exercising its own "modulus of elasticity". ;-]
Or something. In certain areas, it is hitting an obsidian wall.
Glass houses? Obscured no less... :-]
I have some obsidian from the Yellowstone area...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy L. Fuchs" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
07 Jul 2006 10:02:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Jul 06 09:43:54 GMT, Gave us:
I would
think they would also have some flavor of meter to measure coolness
or vacuum.
It is a closed system. Made of glass. Just like a light bulb or CRT
tube. Once the vacuum is pulled, and the glass is sealed, it NEVER
"leaks in". It NEVER needs to be measured either. It has ONE
function. That of a thermal barrier between two unlike temperature
objects and their surfaces.
The glass has three functions. That of a vessel. That of a
pressure vessel (negative or zero), and that of a slow thermally
conductive media (the junction between the two sides.
The container has two. A structural frame or carrier for the
vessel, and as a protector for the glass medium it is made from.
There is usually also a cap, not unlike that of a wine decanter.
Taper fit, plastic / foam / etc. work face, a slow thermally
conductive material.
It is not like a Hydrogen cell where pressures have to be monitored
all the time to determine condition.
Thermal vessels always work, unless the glass has been breached.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy L. Fuchs" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
08 Jul 2006 12:57:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Jul 06 09:43:54 GMT, Gave us:
They can't be kept full at all times. Based on the report I heard,
the foam gets cracked because the fuel tank is filled then has
to be emptied if the liftoff is scrubbed.
I'll rephrase.
ON the pad, while awaiting liftoff, the tanks are kept at the fill
level the design calls for. Note that that level is not a completely
full tank. There is always "head space" designed into fuel tanks
whether cryo in nature or not. Compressed gas tanks also require
"head space" allocations to be made when filling them. Even your ROTM
Bic Lighter needs it.
The SRB shells are recovered. I think the main LO/LH tank housing
and tanks burn up as they fall back into the atmosphere. Not sure,
however.
I think the foam gets cracked because it takes on water at some point
in its life cycle, and upon launch, if not at fill time, the water
freezes up and expands, as well as the pressure induced expansion,
setting up the stresses required for cracking, then, I think the
actual cracks are caused by sonic shocks.
You can bet if a piece of nearly any size gets caught in a
supersonic jetsream such as that passing over the craft, it is going
to have a huge velocity differential compared to the craft as it
"falls" away.
The tiles are VERY fragile.
Perhaps we could make a silica shell (ALA Reactive Armor) that
becomes the "skin" of the craft, and if it gets burned away, the tiles
are still underneath in perfect condition. The leading edges of the
craft could have these "tile skins" added.
Yes the payload would decrease as silica is not cheap on the mass
budget. even if it is only an eighth inch thick.
All the leading edges would likely cost about 300 Lbs as a guess.
Also, couldn't plastic "stays" be attached to the understructure of
the main container to hold the foam? You know, an 8 inch long (or
however thick the foam is) rod of plastic with a hot on top for
retention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
09 Jul 2006 05:40:47 AM |
|
|
In article <fb8ua2dracn857uhb152rdeuc1c9ttt75q@4ax.com>,
Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jul 06 09:43:54 GMT, Gave us:
They can't be kept full at all times. Based on the report I heard,
the foam gets cracked because the fuel tank is filled then has
to be emptied if the liftoff is scrubbed.
I'll rephrase.
ON the pad, while awaiting liftoff, the tanks are kept at the fill
level the design calls for. Note that that level is not a completely
full tank. There is always "head space" designed into fuel tanks
whether cryo in nature or not. Compressed gas tanks also require
"head space" allocations to be made when filling them. Even your ROTM
Bic Lighter needs it.
The SRB shells are recovered. I think the main LO/LH tank housing
and tanks burn up as they fall back into the atmosphere. Not sure,
however.
I think the foam gets cracked because it takes on water at some point
in its life cycle, and upon launch, if not at fill time, the water
freezes up and expands, as well as the pressure induced expansion,
setting up the stresses required for cracking, then, I think the
actual cracks are caused by sonic shocks.
Now I'm confused. I have no idea what you are talking about. My
question had to do with the emptying and filling of the tanks.
This is a fact. When a mission is scrubbed the tanks are emptied.
So far, I have had no reason to doubt this news report, mostly
because it is a common news item ever since we started shooting
humans up, even before that. If there is a thunder storm coming,
I sure as hell would leave all that volatile fuel laying around
with all that metal sticking up in the air.
You can bet if a piece of nearly any size gets caught in a
supersonic jetsream such as that passing over the craft, it is going
to have a huge velocity differential compared to the craft as it
"falls" away.
The tiles are VERY fragile.
Perhaps we could make a silica shell (ALA Reactive Armor) that
becomes the "skin" of the craft, and if it gets burned away, the tiles
are still underneath in perfect condition. The leading edges of the
craft could have these "tile skins" added.
Yes the payload would decrease as silica is not cheap on the mass
budget. even if it is only an eighth inch thick.
All the leading edges would likely cost about 300 Lbs as a guess.
I am not trying to reengineer the shuttle. I wanted to know
why the new report was so odd; Randy and Mati posted the answer.
My experience is very narrow and based on an exception to the
usual rule--water.
Also, couldn't plastic "stays" be attached to the understructure of
the main container to hold the foam? You know, an 8 inch long (or
however thick the foam is) rod of plastic with a hot on top for
retention.
There has to be at least a million man-hours spent on this
design. I'm not about to edict that it should all be
thrown away and replaced with a foobar. I don't enough
and people much smarter than I am dealt with projects
over the last 35 years. There isn't any way I would
be able to catch up.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
11 Jul 2006 07:55:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I watched the shuttle take off yesterday on CSPAN (bless that
TV channel).
Question 1: The camera shot from the last stage booster rocket
(I think that is its name..it's the big center silo the shuttle
is bolted to) shows white spots increasing in area as time went
on. Was that heat or cold?
Question 2: One of the reporters, who was talking about the
reason for one of the delays (cracks in the insulation) said
that the fuel tank expands when emptied and contracts when filled.
This is counterintuitive to me. If the reporter is correct,
why does this happen? I'm assuming that filling the tank
decreases inside pressure?
I haven't responded yet because I did not see the video. There's some
video posted on nasawatch.com
http://www.nasawatch.com/
Do any of those show the phenomena of which you speak?
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
27 Jul 2006 08:30:13 AM |
|
|
Andy Resnick wrote:
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
Hey Andy, have you figured out yet why WTC 7 could not of have
spontaneously freefallen into itself according to official account that
you have implicitly given your ringing endorsement to?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5101488991907845273
You guys are a historical laughing stock.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phat Bytestard" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
27 Jul 2006 08:54:35 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jul 2006 06:30:13 -0700, "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com>
Gave us:
Hey Andy,
Double posting same baby *****. TOTAL proof that you are an
utter retard as well as a Usenet idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
27 Jul 2006 08:53:08 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
Hey Andy, have you figured out yet why WTC 7 could not of have
spontaneously freefallen into itself according to official account that
you have implicitly given your ringing endorsement to?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5101488991907845273
You guys are a historical laughing stock.
WTC 7 sustained a lot of damage before collapsing. Get a life Schoenfeld.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
13 Jul 2006 05:11:17 AM |
|
|
In article <e9077s$llh$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
I watched the shuttle take off yesterday on CSPAN (bless that
TV channel).
Question 1: The camera shot from the last stage booster rocket
(I think that is its name..it's the big center silo the shuttle
is bolted to) shows white spots increasing in area as time went
on. Was that heat or cold?
<snip second question>
I haven't responded yet because I did not see the video. There's some
video posted on nasawatch.com
http://www.nasawatch.com/
[MUTTER] I am completely, utterly, 100% web-challenged. I got
access to one video and after that it either wanted to write bad
stuff to the disk or charge me money. I wouldn't do either on
a public library terminal. I don't think I'll ever cope well
with that webshite stuff.
Do any of those show the phenomena of which you speak?
Now, I fooled around a lot and stumbled somehow on a
site whose web address is [warning typed by hand]:
NBC30.com/slideshow/nationalnews/9467070/detail.html followed
by lots of untypeable characters. The slideshow has 39 slides
and is not the smaller one. The pictures are not as clear as
on TV due to, I suspect, computtering the pictures.
Now, look at slides 18, 29, 31.
31 is a good picture as it shows the beginnings of the white
spots (they aren't very white nor distinct in these slides).
Then look at slides 33, 35 (another good one), 36. 36 shows
that these spots almost completely cover the surface. Then
slides 37, 38 seem to show that the lens is getting covered.
Now this caused me to think that the white was frost.
But wouldn't that evaporate in space? Or is evaporation another
odd thing that is different in space?
In addition, I now can ask my Question #3:
In the same slide show, slides 27 and 28 show a picture of the
shuttle and seem to have been taken from the ground. But you
can see the shuttle as if there were no atmosphere between the
camera and the shuttle. I know you can't chase it with another
airplane. So how did they take those movies? Where was the
camera? I am assuming that some kind of filter was used to
elminate the atmosphere but isn't that impossible during the
day time?
Conjecture: they had staged high altitude jets flying around
from here to Europe with a cameraman shooting. If so, which
window does he look out of? Are there windows on the top
of the fuselage?
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
13 Jul 2006 08:31:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
Now, I fooled around a lot and stumbled somehow on a
site whose web address is [warning typed by hand]:
NBC30.com/slideshow/nationalnews/9467070/detail.html followed
by lots of untypeable characters. The slideshow has 39 slides
and is not the smaller one. The pictures are not as clear as
on TV due to, I suspect, computtering the pictures.
Now, look at slides 18, 29, 31.
31 is a good picture as it shows the beginnings of the white
spots (they aren't very white nor distinct in these slides).
Then look at slides 33, 35 (another good one), 36. 36 shows
that these spots almost completely cover the surface. Then
slides 37, 38 seem to show that the lens is getting covered.
Now this caused me to think that the white was frost.
But wouldn't that evaporate in space? Or is evaporation another
odd thing that is different in space?
Yeah, my guess would be that the spots are junk directly deposited on
the front surface of the camera lens. It will sublimate, but the rate
may not be as fast as you expect. Plus, as the water sublimates, any
particulate matter that was entrained or nucleated will be left behind
on the lens cap.
The process is not instantaneous. There is a record of a crewman who,
during (ground) training, was exposed to explosive decompression to
levels near space (this occured in the 70's, IIRC). He described the
feeling of saliva boiling off his tongue before passing out.
In addition, I now can ask my Question #3:
In the same slide show, slides 27 and 28 show a picture of the
shuttle and seem to have been taken from the ground. But you
can see the shuttle as if there were no atmosphere between the
camera and the shuttle. I know you can't chase it with another
airplane. So how did they take those movies? Where was the
camera? I am assuming that some kind of filter was used to
elminate the atmosphere but isn't that impossible during the
day time?
Yep, those are ground-based cameras. When those pictures were taken the
shuttle was approximately over Africa. Impressive, no? Now a few
things help with the atmospheric aberrations. First, the exhaust is
*really* bright, so fast shutter speeds are possible, which "freezes"
the atmospheric lensing. Second, the field of view is so small, the
daytime sky is not really seen- supposedly it's possible to see stars in
the daytime if one looks up a chimney.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
27 Jul 2006 08:30:52 AM |
|
|
Andy Resnick wrote:
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
Hey Andy, have you figured out yet why WTC 7 could not of have
spontaneously freefallen into itself according to official account that
you have implicitly given your ringing endorsement to?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5101488991907845273
You guys are a historical laughing stock.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phat Bytestard" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
27 Jul 2006 08:55:55 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jul 2006 06:30:52 -0700, "Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com>
Gave us:
Hey
Triple posted. Proof that you are a spamtard idiot as well.
Hey, dumbfuck.. don't you know that google groups users are dumber
than dogshit?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
27 Jul 2006 08:53:17 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
Hey Andy, have you figured out yet why WTC 7 could not of have
spontaneously freefallen into itself according to official account that
you have implicitly given your ringing endorsement to?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5101488991907845273
You guys are a historical laughing stock.
WTC 7 sustained a lot of damage before collapsing. Get a life Schoenfeld.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
14 Jul 2006 07:27:46 AM |
|
|
In article <e95i2r$pit$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
Now, I fooled around a lot and stumbled somehow on a
site whose web address is [warning typed by hand]:
NBC30.com/slideshow/nationalnews/9467070/detail.html followed
by lots of untypeable characters. The slideshow has 39 slides
and is not the smaller one. The pictures are not as clear as
on TV due to, I suspect, computtering the pictures.
Now, look at slides 18, 29, 31.
31 is a good picture as it shows the beginnings of the white
spots (they aren't very white nor distinct in these slides).
Then look at slides 33, 35 (another good one), 36. 36 shows
that these spots almost completely cover the surface. Then
slides 37, 38 seem to show that the lens is getting covered.
Now this caused me to think that the white was frost.
But wouldn't that evaporate in space? Or is evaporation another
odd thing that is different in space?
Yeah, my guess would be that the spots are junk directly deposited on
the front surface of the camera lens.
No,no. In the beginning the spots only showed on the struts
and the structure that was at the top of the picture and no
place else.
It will sublimate, but the rate
may not be as fast as you expect. Plus, as the water sublimates, any
particulate matter that was entrained or nucleated will be left behind
on the lens cap.
Nothing was growing on the lens (or it didn't appear to) until just
before the shuttle dropped that last piece of gear. The slides
over the computer net that I saw did not have the clarity that
the film on the TV did.
The process is not instantaneous. There is a record of a crewman who,
during (ground) training, was exposed to explosive decompression to
levels near space (this occured in the 70's, IIRC). He described the
feeling of saliva boiling off his tongue before passing out.
One of the things I wanted to watch was the film of this piece
falling down back to earth but it wasn't shown.
In addition, I now can ask my Question #3:
In the same slide show, slides 27 and 28 show a picture of the
shuttle and seem to have been taken from the ground. But you
can see the shuttle as if there were no atmosphere between the
camera and the shuttle. I know you can't chase it with another
airplane. So how did they take those movies? Where was the
camera? I am assuming that some kind of filter was used to
elminate the atmosphere but isn't that impossible during the
day time?
Yep, those are ground-based cameras. When those pictures were taken the
shuttle was approximately over Africa. Impressive, no?
More than impressive. I can't describe how cool that all was.
Now a few
things help with the atmospheric aberrations. First, the exhaust is
*really* bright, so fast shutter speeds are possible,
But how does the shuttle get captured on film then? I can understand
the bright spot but that seemed muted to get some of the shuttle
snapped.
which "freezes"
the atmospheric lensing. Second, the field of view is so small, the
daytime sky is not really seen- supposedly it's possible to see stars in
the daytime if one looks up a chimney.
Ah!!! Ok that helps. But how do you aim a chimney structure at
a spot going as fast, horizontally, as the shuttle. In the olden
days, the picture jiggled so you knew somebody was trying to keep
up; they occasionally lost the shuttle and had to sight the
target again. I don't see any jiggling anymore. Could it have
been computer-aimed? Somehow the positional feedback was fast
enough for the computer to aim the camera?
And was it only one camera or were there a series of cameras.
If it's more than one wouldn't some of them have to be on a
boat in the Atlantic?
Oh...Maybe I'm screwing up perspective again. I still have
problems with the notion that you see the top of a sail
post first when a boat comes over the horizon.
Anyway, thanks all for spending the time answering. There
was so much to wonder how things got done in ten minutes,
it could take me three lifetimes to find out.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy L. Fuchs" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
15 Jul 2006 12:40:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 06 12:27:46 GMT, Gave us:
Ah!!! Ok that helps. But how do you aim a chimney structure at
a spot going as fast, horizontally, as the shuttle.
Radar tracking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
16 Jul 2006 05:19:34 AM |
|
|
In article <b3aib29vdqa3hce5ppu61kaju64h7s4b0e@4ax.com>,
Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 06 12:27:46 GMT, Gave us:
Ah!!! Ok that helps. But how do you aim a chimney structure at
a spot going as fast, horizontally, as the shuttle.
Radar tracking.
EMF is slow is it not? Or is a shuttle's telemetry so
constant that no variation is allowed? This one doesn't
sound possible to me. Or is this another bad assumption
based on Earthy common sense again?
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
16 Jul 2006 10:25:02 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <b3aib29vdqa3hce5ppu61kaju64h7s4b0e@4ax.com>,
Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 06 12:27:46 GMT, Gave us:
Ah!!! Ok that helps. But how do you aim a chimney structure at
a spot going as fast, horizontally, as the shuttle.
Radar tracking.
EMF is slow is it not? Or is a shuttle's telemetry so
constant that no variation is allowed? This one doesn't
sound possible to me. Or is this another bad assumption
based on Earthy common sense again?
/BAH
The speed of light is about 700,000,000 miles per hour.
The speed of the shuttle is insignificant compared to that.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
17 Jul 2006 05:27:15 AM |
|
|
In article <e9fk00$8qk_001@s915.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, writes:
In article <pp1qo3-0fg.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, wrote:
wrote:
In article <b3aib29vdqa3hce5ppu61kaju64h7s4b0e@4ax.com>,
Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 06 12:27:46 GMT, Gave us:
Ah!!! Ok that helps. But how do you aim a chimney structure at
a spot going as fast, horizontally, as the shuttle.
Radar tracking.
EMF is slow is it not? Or is a shuttle's telemetry so
constant that no variation is allowed? This one doesn't
sound possible to me. Or is this another bad assumption
based on Earthy common sense again?
/BAH
The speed of light is about 700,000,000 miles per hour.
The speed of the shuttle is insignificant compared to that.
You didn't understand what I wrote about. IF the camera was
aimed based on feedback from the position of the shuttle, it
would take a long time to transfer the position from the
shuttle to the camera so it could remain aimed at the
shuttle _concurrently_.
What? Where did you take it from.
This implies instantaneous signal exchanges. Electricity is slow.
Again, what? Wehre did you take if from? Electric signals in wires
are at approximately 2/3 of the speed of light.
This is the reason that a phone call from Europe to the US has a delay
in it.
No, this is most certainly *not* the reason. You may get a delay, if
you've a bad connection, due to all the handshakings between the
various exchanges on the way. That's all.
The shuttle is moving too fast
The shuttle is moving at snails pace relative to any electric signals.
You're about as far off as reasonably possible over here. Snap out of
it.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
27 Jul 2006 08:37:33 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Hey Mati, have you figured out yet why WTC 7 could not of have
spontaneously freefallen into itself despite your enthusiastic and
clearly non-evidence based ringing endorsement of the official physics
fable of this event?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5101488991907845273
If you had any decency, you would go back to all your older threads
where you insult others who raise these questions and offer your
apology. Good luck.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Shuttle lift-off questions |
27 Jul 2006 08:53:26 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Hey Mati, have you figured out yet why WTC 7 could not of have
spontaneously freefallen into itself despite your enthusiastic and
clearly non-evidence based ringing endorsement of the official physics
fable of this event?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5101488991907845273
If you had any decency, you would go back to all your older threads
where you insult others who raise these questions and offer your
apology. Good luck.
WTC 7 sustained a lot of damage before collapsing. Get a life Schoenfeld.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
