And follow orders from Houston. So much for sticking it to the man.
* Return it home, unmanned. If it burns up, relief. Go home in Soyuz.
Believe it or not you actually need a pilot for the first few and last few moments of reentry. See below for my Soyuz comments.
* Fix it, fly it home.
Not sure how feasible this is without ground support. They may or may not have written procedures onboard.
* Park it, fly home in Soyuz (in shifts because of number of people). Repair on subsequent flight, or when repair kit is sent up on next Soyuz.
Good luck convincing the Russians:) And going through food stocks quicker than the Russians can prepare Soyuz. And overloading the life support systems. You do realize the Soyuz are not exactly available until constructed? I don't think they have more than 1 on reserve. There is 1 docked on the station. You would need three for a complete evac.
Does anyone see a need for a better lifeboat than Soyuz?
Only meant to be a station lifeboat. It serves that purpose wonderfully.
IMO it seems unlikely in the extreme, (based on previous mission reported experiences), that an astronaut would damage the underbelly of the shuttle by fixing it. It's possible of course, but these kinds of manouvres have been carried out for many years, mostly without incident.
Underbelly operations are not par for the course. In fact they were impossible before Columbia. The Canadarm could not reach the belly of the Shuttle prior. The top of the Shuttle is mostly not composed of fragile tiles. After Columbia protocol was developed for extending the Canadarm and for operating against fragile tiles. As a last resort.
And even if they did damage it, thats a commercial loss, not a loss of human life, right?
If there were issues with a rescue mission, it could be a loss of human life.
He can decide not to return to earth, but they are on the clock, they got to come home sometime:) He can have all the balls in the world but when the power goes out, and the CO2 levels start rising, and the food supply is running low (whatever order it occurs)... its life or death. On earth it isn't.
Well if we are talking about product names...
Longhorn is a codename.
SAP and Oracle are company names, and products inherit from that.
Access makes sense. Think about it.
Vista, Silverlight, Excel, Delphi - OK maybe you have a point. Vista conjures up certain thoughts and feelings (or it is supposed to). Not sure about silverlight or Delphi (but wasn't there an oracle at the last one?:P). Excel? Well maybe people who use it, excel at what they do:P
Everyones a skeptic, I know, but there are a few good signs. For one, the dev work isn't being done at Microsoft, its being spearheaded by the MONO crew. The Microsoft folks are kind of technical advisors, in direct contact with the Linux developers, giving advice and recommendations on implementation, etc. That I think is the biggest sign this will be a success. This isn't an internal project that we know of based on a memo or press release, this is an active project which has screenshots and source that can be downloaded and played with...
Ignoring air resistance, which won't be much different for similarly-shaped pieces, once detached from the shuttle, pieces of ice and foam would accelerate towards the ground at the same rate.
You can't ignore air resistance at low altitudes (the impact happened in the first 2 minutes) at supersonic speeds! Acceleration due to gravity is negligible due to the timeframe, we are talking fractions of a second. So for similarly shaped pieces, the drag force will be similar. The lighter piece, foam being much lighter than ice, will slow down very quickly. Now we approach the shuttle which has not slowed down. We have a large speed differential between the foam and the shuttle, whereas between the ice and the shuttle, there is very little speed difference.
It isn't momentum, again, it is kinetic energy that causes damage, KE = 0.5 * m * V^2. The velocity, squared, overcomes the density difference in short order. Again, go do some research on Columbia. It is consensus that foam did the damage.
That's not to say that ice does not cause damage; just that the physics of the flow field cause the foam to be more damaging contrary to intuition. It is pretty much consensus that a suitcase-sized piece of foam did Columbia in, and most sources I've heard this week are citing foam although I have heard ice thrown around.
Probability of a critical hit doomed Columbia, and it has been protocol to check for damage before re-entry ever since. The media then keeps tabs on Nasa TV and the press conferences and blows it into a huge deal, regardless of severity.
Its like Jim Lovell's wife said in Apollo 13 (rough, sorry, its been awhile): "No one was interested in his transmission, but now that they are up there and in trouble the world is interested?"... "Get off my lawn! If they have a problem with it they can take it up with Jim when he gets back!"
More like a month or two, disconnected from ISS, though it would not be fun. If shit hit the fan, the backup plan is to fast-track the next orbiter for a rescue mission. Or at least that is my understanding.
They are in the wind tunnel doing test studies on a similar gouge crafted from the laser data taken on Monday. The Shuttle people know what they are doing. You have to remember, this gouge was downgraded from the size stated earlier this week, its only about the size of a business card, half the size that was being reported on Monday and less a quarter of the size that was thought to have dealt Columbia in.
You also have to consider position. This is at the very rear of the vehicle. Reentry heating evironments are most severe near the stagnation point at the front of the vehicle. Towards the back you can actually get some recirculation that provides some cooling. It may not be worth the risk/reward to go and patch it, based on locale. I guarantee you if this was on the front of the orbiter, it would be a whole different story.
Slashdot Mirror
273.15 is nowhere near round. And it converts by a simple fraction Rankine/kelvin=1.8.
Again, your point?
* Fly it home, unfixed. Maybe burn up.
:) And going through food stocks quicker than the Russians can prepare Soyuz. And overloading the life support systems. You do realize the Soyuz are not exactly available until constructed? I don't think they have more than 1 on reserve. There is 1 docked on the station. You would need three for a complete evac.
Does anyone see a need for a better lifeboat than Soyuz?
And follow orders from Houston. So much for sticking it to the man.
* Return it home, unmanned. If it burns up, relief. Go home in Soyuz.
Believe it or not you actually need a pilot for the first few and last few moments of reentry. See below for my Soyuz comments.
* Fix it, fly it home.
Not sure how feasible this is without ground support. They may or may not have written procedures onboard.
* Park it, fly home in Soyuz (in shifts because of number of people). Repair on subsequent flight, or when repair kit is sent up on next Soyuz.
Good luck convincing the Russians
Only meant to be a station lifeboat. It serves that purpose wonderfully.
IMO it seems unlikely in the extreme, (based on previous mission reported experiences), that an astronaut would damage the underbelly of the shuttle by fixing it. It's possible of course, but these kinds of manouvres have been carried out for many years, mostly without incident.
Underbelly operations are not par for the course. In fact they were impossible before Columbia. The Canadarm could not reach the belly of the Shuttle prior. The top of the Shuttle is mostly not composed of fragile tiles. After Columbia protocol was developed for extending the Canadarm and for operating against fragile tiles. As a last resort.
And even if they did damage it, thats a commercial loss, not a loss of human life, right?
If there were issues with a rescue mission, it could be a loss of human life.
He can decide not to return to earth, but they are on the clock, they got to come home sometime :) He can have all the balls in the world but when the power goes out, and the CO2 levels start rising, and the food supply is running low (whatever order it occurs) ... its life or death. On earth it isn't.
Fahrenheit maps directly to Rankine, your point?
Yeah, Excel we just use for a quick run at the numbers. But sometimes you need to compare 2 data sets :)
We have an internal tool we use for presentation quality plots.
Doesn't look like it. Basically, if I want to plot, say X vs. time coincident on the same chart with Y vs. distance, I can't do that now.
Try making a chart with 2 separate sets of independent and dependant variables.
At least as of 4 months ago, last I used it, could not be done.
The charting UI system and click context interface is pretty gay too, if I can say so.
good to know. I must have missed that somehow. my kids are too young for cartoons yet and I must have been too old ...
Well if we are talking about product names... :P). Excel? Well maybe people who use it, excel at what they do :P
Longhorn is a codename.
SAP and Oracle are company names, and products inherit from that.
Access makes sense. Think about it.
Vista, Silverlight, Excel, Delphi - OK maybe you have a point. Vista conjures up certain thoughts and feelings (or it is supposed to). Not sure about silverlight or Delphi (but wasn't there an oracle at the last one?
sssh, don't spoil the plot :P
Everyones a skeptic, I know, but there are a few good signs. For one, the dev work isn't being done at Microsoft, its being spearheaded by the MONO crew. The Microsoft folks are kind of technical advisors, in direct contact with the Linux developers, giving advice and recommendations on implementation, etc. That I think is the biggest sign this will be a success. This isn't an internal project that we know of based on a memo or press release, this is an active project which has screenshots and source that can be downloaded and played with ...
Think they were referring to .NET when they said "excellent development ecosystem cross-platorm"
If you consider russians european, sure. the majority of russians do not.
"if they ever fight, triangle wins, triangle man" -they might be giants
Ignoring air resistance, which won't be much different for similarly-shaped pieces, once detached from the shuttle, pieces of ice and foam would accelerate towards the ground at the same rate.
You can't ignore air resistance at low altitudes (the impact happened in the first 2 minutes) at supersonic speeds! Acceleration due to gravity is negligible due to the timeframe, we are talking fractions of a second. So for similarly shaped pieces, the drag force will be similar. The lighter piece, foam being much lighter than ice, will slow down very quickly. Now we approach the shuttle which has not slowed down. We have a large speed differential between the foam and the shuttle, whereas between the ice and the shuttle, there is very little speed difference.
Charles Siymoni purchased a ticket on the Soyuz, which is lauched by the Russians.
It isn't momentum, again, it is kinetic energy that causes damage, KE = 0.5 * m * V^2. The velocity, squared, overcomes the density difference in short order. Again, go do some research on Columbia. It is consensus that foam did the damage.
Mark Shuttleworth kiss it and make it all better?
That's not to say that ice does not cause damage; just that the physics of the flow field cause the foam to be more damaging contrary to intuition. It is pretty much consensus that a suitcase-sized piece of foam did Columbia in, and most sources I've heard this week are citing foam although I have heard ice thrown around.
No problems here :) Havent had a Vista BSOD yet.
Probability of a critical hit doomed Columbia, and it has been protocol to check for damage before re-entry ever since. The media then keeps tabs on Nasa TV and the press conferences and blows it into a huge deal, regardless of severity.
... "Get off my lawn! If they have a problem with it they can take it up with Jim when he gets back!"
Its like Jim Lovell's wife said in Apollo 13 (rough, sorry, its been awhile): "No one was interested in his transmission, but now that they are up there and in trouble the world is interested?"
Leave the launching to the Europeans, they're the only ones who seem to be able to get it right.
...
Whens the last time the Europeans have launched humans into space? *crickets*
More like a month or two, disconnected from ISS, though it would not be fun. If shit hit the fan, the backup plan is to fast-track the next orbiter for a rescue mission. Or at least that is my understanding.
They are in the wind tunnel doing test studies on a similar gouge crafted from the laser data taken on Monday. The Shuttle people know what they are doing. You have to remember, this gouge was downgraded from the size stated earlier this week, its only about the size of a business card, half the size that was being reported on Monday and less a quarter of the size that was thought to have dealt Columbia in.
You also have to consider position. This is at the very rear of the vehicle. Reentry heating evironments are most severe near the stagnation point at the front of the vehicle. Towards the back you can actually get some recirculation that provides some cooling. It may not be worth the risk/reward to go and patch it, based on locale. I guarantee you if this was on the front of the orbiter, it would be a whole different story.