Somewhat Useful Facts Thread

[RCgothic]

Mythbusters isn't exactly rigorous science. FACT

[Senator]

Mythbusters isn't exactly rigorous science. FACT

[Armondikov]

Mythbusters isn't exactly rigorous science. FACT

Well, compared to how Brainiac went...

[Weasel]

The two shows were obviously meant to appeal to widely differing demographics.

[Senator]

For those caring about these things, there has been a couple of space developments lately:

First, the ISS got Columbus, the European Laboratory. About the biggest piece ESA is going to do so the books are closed on that one. (It was ready on time mind you years ago)

It got lifted with the Shuttle (Atlantis), pulled out with Canada Arm II, and will be taking American energy and Russian life support. Isn't that internationally cute?

Next, also (part) of Kibo, the Japanese Labortatory from JAXA got lifted of as well. That's JAXA's contribution.

(Ze Americans have been doing the ferrying again)

And today the ATV docked. That would be the Automated resupply ship. It is also the biggest out there (3 times of the cargo of Russian ones I think) again from ESA, this time ESA launched as well (on top an Ariane 5)

The interesting thing with that thing is that it went and docked by itself. Until now, all ships dock by eye & joystick, including the unmanned Russian ones.

It also does this:

It's in your orbits, stealing your stations. It reboosts the space station's orbit, so technically it's also the space station's engines. In other words at that point the whole station gets to move like a big spaceship. (albait I am sure it's more of the "slow and steady" than "ignite and hold on something" school) After than it detaches, gets filled with waste and goes to burn in the atmosphere. 

[Weasel]

It's too bad it's got to burn up, it seems a bit wasteful. Would it have been too difficult or expensive to design it with an aerodynamic lifting body, and/or parachute/airbag assisted landing?

[MLeo]

Re-usability is hard to design (see spaceshuttles, Russia didn't continue after their Space Shuttle adventure).

[Weasel]

It's THAT hard to design it like the Apollo capsule, and lower it back to Earth on a parachute? I mean, it's the EU's money- do what you want with it. It just seems a bit wasteful.

It's a great vehicle though. A couple weeks or so ago, my wife and I watched the Jules Verne, the ISA, and the Discovery do an amazing fly-over the day before the Discovery landed. All three had crossed over from horizon to horizon in less than ten minutes.

[captain_obvious]

It's THAT hard to design it like the Apollo capsule, and lower it back to Earth on a parachute? I mean, it's the EU's money- do what you want with it. It just seems a bit wasteful.

It's THAT hard to design something to survive getting up there ;)

As werner von braun once said
"I only send them up, I don't care where they come down!"

[Senator]

It's too bad it's got to burn up, it seems a bit wasteful. Would it have been too difficult or expensive to design it with an aerodynamic lifting body, and/or parachute/airbag assisted landing?

Yep, for a couple more Billions.

Reusable unfortunatly in real terms ended up meaning "tons of cracks, stress, have to unscrew everything, rescrew, replace the ceramics in the engines, replace other stuff you worry about from weather corrosion alone, and whose production line might have stopped so you have to redevelop" and so on. Which is why NASA's new Orion Program has little to do with it as well.

The classic example is the space shuttle.

Space Shuttle launch cost: $500 million per launch.
Crew + Payload 24,4 tonnes to LEO.

Soyuz: $50 million per launch.
+Bonus: Each time they get a new aircraft.
+Bonus: Soyuz is a modular aircraft. It can launch a manned Soyuz, or the same rocket can launch the manned module's weight worth in cargo.

Now granted, the Soyuz in a single launch can't actually carry any cargo, only people. But:

Ariane 5: $150 million per launch
Payload 21 tonnes to LEO

They could book 3 of those and still be within the cost of a space shuttle launch.

[Senator]

Soyuz: $50 million per launch.
+Bonus: Each time they get a new aircraft.
+Bonus: Soyuz is a modular aircraft. It can launch a manned Soyuz, or the same rocket can launch the manned module's weight worth in cargo.

Now granted, the Soyuz in a single launch can't actually carry any cargo, only people. But:

Ariane 5: $150 million per launch
Payload 21 tonnes to LEO

They could book 3 of those and still be within the cost of a space shuttle launch.

And something tells me NASA figured that out as well.

(Ariane 5 like cargo thingy) <-I-> (Soyuz like crew thingy)

[Senator]

"Imagining the Tenth Dimension"

(and here was you thinking that time travel was confusing)

[majormagna]

Hmmm... interesting, I may be one of the only people my age (16) to be interested and understand that video...

By the way, Limey, when you said raising your legs slowly and lying on your back will stop you sinking into quicksand sounded like rubbish, it isn't. Even if you stand straight up, you'll bob half-in, half-out of the quicksand.


God I'm sad. (A somewhat useful fact, i.e. dont talk to me about science... ever)
Ok, proper one:

In the city of York, England, it is legal to kill a Scottish man if:
He is carrying a bow and arrow within the city walls.

[Senator]

I always thought quicksand was a bit of a cartoon creation. If the human body can float in water, how can the human body not float in water & sand. (which is even more dense).

Materials are irrelevant, if something for it's volume, is less dense that something else for the equivalent volume, it floats, period. A solid iron cannonball floats in a tank of mercury like a piece of wood.

To sum up, quicksand has the potential of being as annoying as stepping into a pool you didn't know was there, but it can't possibly be more dangerous than stepping into a pool you didn't know was there.

On the other hand if you step into alcohol you are screwed.

[Senator]

(I'd sooo gift that to someone but I am not telling who :P)

[Weasel]

(I'd sooo gift that to someone but I am not telling who )

Well, Jodi would probably think it's cute here at home- but I doubt she'd willingly carry it into battle, unless it came down to a choice of using the Hello Kitty M16A4, or her boot knife. Ridiculous paint job or not, it's still a fairly lethal weapon. 

As for me, I'll take a good 'ole Mk14/Mod-0 any day.

[Armondikov]

I'm sure there's something iffy with the overtly pop-science explaination of Quantum Physics in that 10th dimension video...

[captain_obvious]

(I'd sooo gift that to someone but I am not telling who )

Well, Jodi would probably think it's cute here at home- but I doubt she'd willingly carry it into battle, unless it came down to a choice of using the Hello Kitty M16A4, or her boot knife. Ridiculous paint job or not, it's still a fairly lethal weapon. 

As for me, I'll take a good 'ole Mk14/Mod-0 any day.

I'll take my SLR ta very much

I AM the sex.

[Senator]

Your Single Lens Reflex camera?

[Senator]

This is from the scaled "test" private space station component from Bigelow Aerospace.

In this small video clip taken from one of Genesis I's exterior cameras on March 3, a bright spot of some kind can be seen in the lower-middle portion of the images. The bright spot doesn't stay in the same position, neither does it correlate with the same locations above the Earth based on the cloud formations below. Each picture is separated by 20 to 30 seconds.

Yay, now with private aerospace all the UFO videos government censors will come back!

(Or maybe its just a reflection from a satellite/debri nearby but wheres the fun in that)