Apparently NASA scientists are surprised that bird droppings have survived on the outside of the shuttle, despite the thunderstorms before launch, the 300,000 gallons of cooling water sprayed on it at launch, the 0-17,500 mph in one minute acceleration and the associated temperatures.
I'm surprised at the implication no NASA scientist has ever washed a car !
p.s. - should they send somebody out to clean it off, before it eats through those thermal tiles ? ;-)
--
Go on, get out of the car...
www.mikes-walks.co.uk
|
|
Obviously they were British Seagulls on their hols in Florida.
|
|
|
>>the 0-17,500 mph in one minute acceleration >>
I think you may be confusing the actual orbital speed of the 236 miles up International Space Station (17,180mph) with the Space Shuttle's acceleration from launch...:-))
The Space Shuttle would be quite a lot of the way to the moon on your figures soon after takeoff.
You can work out the Shuttle's acceleration speeds from launch for yourself if you wish (!):
www.ent.ohiou.edu/~et181/shuttle/shuttle.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
It could also explain why there are so many droppings on the Shuttle before the astronauts finally clamber into their seats....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
speculation, not fact as yet.
NASA scientists are surprised that bird droppings have survived
no, no, no.
www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9491-shuttle-h...l
Some whitish streaks showed up during the inspection, but NASA believes they may be bird droppings that were seen on the orbiter while it was still on the launch pad. "Basically, it's in exactly the same place," Ceccacci said, according to CBS News. "This is my speculation ? it's bird droppings."
as for accleration, it is not one minute but nine minutes:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060705/ap_on_sc/brf_shuttle_...d
Discovery went from zero to 17,500 mph in just under 9 minutes...
|
I watched the launch live - there was a point out over the Atlantic where it was accelerating to such an extent that it couldn't have made an emergency landing in Spain if it had been necessary.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
I think the shuttle is the first launch vehicle without a proper escape mechanism for the crew. Previous rockets had a small rocket on the top that would pull the crew vehicle clear in the event of disaster. They can bail out via an escape hatch once they have gained some height but it's not exactly quick.
I wonder what the miles per gallon and 0-60 figures are?
|
I don't know what mpg it would be but obviously it won't be great
Does the U.S tax their fuel as out rageously as our chancellor does.
20 years ago in Key West- Florida, poor student, agreed to "auto-drive" with 4 others upto N.Y to coincide with a launch, collected it the day before and set off, only for the launch to be cancelled, absolutely gutted, still an experience I hope to see , one day
|
I don't know what mpg it would be but obviously it won't be great
Oh I don't know, it will be up there for 9 days I believe, travelling at 17.5k mph, that means it will travel about 38 million miles in those nine days, not sure how much fuel it has on take off but per mile it probably isnt too bad.
|
Once it is moving in outer space and away from the pull of gravity I doubt if much, if any, propulsion is required unless it is for manoeuvring purposes.
When it approaches the Space Station both will be moving at the same speed give or take a few miles an hour and this is where the initial manoeuvring will be required.
The launch time is fixed to ensure that the orbiting of the Space Shuttle allows it to rendezvous with the station at a particular time and point in space a day or so later.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Apologies for the pedantry;
Once it is moving in outer space and away from the pull of gravity...
If the shuttle were truly away from the pull of gravity, it would no longer be in orbit!
The shuttle only needs fuel to change the total energy of its orbit, which, during a constant orbit (which may still be highly elliptical), it doesn't. Or, put another way, while the shuttle is in free-fall around the earth, no fuel is required to maintain its path (unless it is in a low earth orbit, where there are felt the vestigial effects of atmospheric drag). During free orbital motion, if you disregard perturbations like the solar radiation pressure, the shuttle will follow a geodesic path in spacetime.
Having got the pedantry over with! - I agree that the main reasons for fuel burn once in orbit are for orbit corrections, attitude control and pointing manouvres, docking, and any burns required for orbit changes, for example to slow the craft to reduce the orbit radius ready for re-entry.
Number_Cruncher
|
>>If the shuttle were truly away from the pull of gravity, it would no longer be in orbit!>>
I meant, of course, the orbiting point and momentum where it wouldn't be pulled back towards Earth - I was aware of what you have kindly relayed.
Otherwise even the Americans, so used to cheap fuel, might complain at the running costs...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
>>I was aware of what you have kindly relayed.
From the rest of your post, I had no doubt that your understanding was clear Stuart! On my part, it was just a bit of pedantry for pedantry's sake - sorry! :-)
Number_Cruncher
|
>>On my part, it was just a bit of pedantry for pedantry's sake - sorry! :-)>>
To be even more pedantic, you will never, ever be as pedantic as me in a million years.....:-))
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
Re: Shuttle mpg. Wikipedia says on take-off the fuel burnt in the first 8.5 minutes releases about 3300 GJoules of energy, which equates to about 12 feet per US gallon of petrol (or 100000 litres per 100km). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon - scroll down to "Rockets".
I agree that the main reasons for fuel burn once in orbit are for orbit corrections, attitude control and pointing manouvres, docking, and any burns required for orbit changes, for example to slow the craft to reduce the orbit radius ready for re-entry.
I recently read "Moon Dust - The Men Who Fell To Earth" by Andrew Smith, about the Apollo astronauts. Interestingly it briefly explains about the lunar module docking with the re-entry vehicle in orbit. In order to catch up with it in orbit, you need to slow down, so that you drop into a lower orbit (smaller radius) and therefore travel faster relative to the re-entry vehicle. If you fire thrusters for too long, you go into a higher orbit, and therefore slow down relative to the re-entry vehicle. That must have been tricky to get right!
|
For a crazy and weird orbit specification, see;
sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobject...4
Number_Cruncher
|
|
|
|
|
|
At last we may soon have the answer to the age-old question of whether "bird-droppings" are tough enough to survive re-entry? What does it reach - 5,000 degrees?
Are William Hill running a book?? Good odds? Worth a punt?
|
|
I'm not going near the bookies till I know if they've packed the Meguiars for the space walk
|
|
|
|
|
