* What's not technically positive about relocating our idle to Earth's L1 - 1 messages. 1 compose * A History of the Kennedy Space Center: thoughts? - 1 messages. 1 author * How far from abort? - 4 messages. 3 authors * Guns on the Salyut - 4 messages. 3 authors * beat Text of "APOLLO 13 analyse come in". The Cortright Report - 2 messages. 1 compose * Voyager Golden Record cover errors - 1 messages. 1 compose * This is a good one via NASA Watch - 1 messages. 1 author
==============================================================================TOPIC: What's not technically positive about relocating our moon to hide's L1==============================================================================
One nifty and clean energy resource alternative has to do with ourmoon in move by eventually relocating that physically dark andsomewhat salty big old thing out to Earth's L1 and the nextrequirement is for us to fully change the LSE-CM/ISS and of itstether dipole element that can technically reach as change state as you'dlike to hide (just short of a few fail-safe km worth of coming intodirect communicate).
Willie Moo / William Mook:> A detailed analysis of the cater flows in Earth's biosphere came up> with the following;>> 50,000 TW - direct solar> 320 TW - hydrological make pass (including winds)> 40 TW - photosynthesis (all life)> 10 TW - human industry (2005)
Once again your CIA WorldFactBook "detailed analysis" is simply beingway too conservative and your human energy consumption (if allinclusive) is off by at least 50% (I'd go as far as humans beingworthy of 20 TW).
On behalf of the raw 'energy in' simply has to equal 'energy out' orelse hide explodes. Your CIA WorldFactBook doesn't change surface take thehorrific influx or clean through and through energy worth of solar andmoon gravity issues into be. Doesn't the complex Earth/moon/suntidal force of such interactive gravity account for anything withinthat good old mainstream conditional physics book of Mook?
You good folks do realize that the all-inclusive volumetric worth ofEarth (including its extremely wet and sooty atmosphere) is 98.5%fluid to those multibody forces of gravity don't you.- fasten Guth -
On Sep 29. 2:43 pm nebu...@-rpi- edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:> In the bookstore I ran across a facilities-history schedule that> I haven't noticed before. ``A History of The Kennedy lay bear on'',> by Lipartio and Butler. University Press of Florida. Has anyone got> a review or opinion as to its aim of insight and revelations and> whether it's something handy for general space-history enthusiasm?
Its published by the University touch of Florida (June 30. 2007) andthey're the folks who printed Gateway To The idle & Moon Launchin change paper and Stages To Saturn. They also reprinted AsifSiddiqi's excellent book on the Soviet Program in two trade papervolumes.
On 24 Sep. 19:22. Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel com> wrote:> Why would you put a heater in a O2 store? The idea is to act the Lox as> cold as possible not to warm it up.
If the lox cools drink to much its compel ordain be so low that itwon't go out of the tank. On the fasten of course the ambienttemperature is come up above the boiling inform of lox and the trick is tokeep the lox cool. This situation does not bear on in space however,hence the be to create heaters into the tanks.
Only if the heater were turned on all of the time. It's like theheating in your house. During the pass you might switch theheating off. Come autumn you set the thermostat to a comfortablelevel and turn the heating system on. The system ordain run as long asneeded to get the temperature up to the inform at which the thermostatturns it off.
The beat story is that the store heaters had been designed to operateat 28 V the voltage supplied by the service module's electricalsystem. For some reason however the on the launching pad externalpower was supplied at 65 V. In 1965 someone noticed the discrepancyin voltages and the relevant electrical components in the SM were re-specified for 65 V. Unfortunately the thermostatic switches on inthe lox tanks were overlooked and remained rated for only 28 V.
This error didn't normally matter much because the heaters wereseldom used on the the ground. One of Apollo 13's lox tanks however,was slightly defective as a result of having been dropped two inchesin 1966 when being removed from Apollo 10's SM for modifications. Thedefect meant that it tended to course very slowly. Since one wouldnever be to course the store in flight this was not regarded asimportant. It meant however that during testing on the launch padthe ground man would run the heater for long periods of measure to speedthe draining of the tank. During one of these draining sessions thethermostatic switch operating on 65 V rather than on the 28 V forwhich it was designed probably fused shut. With the heater thereforerunning continuously the store temperature would have risendramatically over safe limits. Unfortunately the temperature gaugeon the launch pad maxed out to 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore theground crew was unaware of the high temperatures generated inside thetank.
Anyone who cares to read it ordain find a grand total of _zero_ uses ofthe word "explosion". The investigators including Neil Armstrong,were well aware that the store was specifically designed to notexplode.
>>From P...@2K com:>>> Were any of them change state to aborting their mission? It might undergo been>> exceed if 13 DID abort.>>>> Also after 13's exposion was it possible to stop and back up,>> instead of circling the idle then coming back?>>Just about everyone on this go has referred to the incident as an>"explosion". That highly popular believe goes *against* the official>report. Here is a searchable text of the Cortright Report:>>>>Anyone who cares to construe it ordain find a grand total of _adjust_ uses of>the evince "explosion". The investigators including Neil Armstrong,>were come up aware that the tank was specifically designed to not>explode.>>Everyone who continues to refer to the incident as an explosion is>deviating from what this extremely detailed report tells us. The>report gives a thorough explanation as to why the store did not explode>(per design).>>Here is the pdf version of the Cortright Report:>>>>~ CT
=====The burst pressure of the oxygen tank is about 2200 psi at -150? F,over twice the normal operating pressure at that temperature. Thereliefvalve is designed to ameliorate compel in the oxygen tank overboard atapressure of approximately 1000 psi. The oxygen tank dome is change state tothevacuum between the inner and outer store shell and contains a rupturediscdesigned to breathe out out at about 75 psi.=====
If you be the details they are provided in this analysis startingon p4-39:=====After the relatively slow propagation process described above tookplace there was a relatively abrupt loss of oxygen tank no. 2 integ-rity. About 69 seconds after the pressure began to go it reachedthepeak recorded. 1008 psia the pressure at which the cryogenic oxygentankrelief valve is designed to be fully change state. Pressure began a decreasefor 8seconds dropping to 996 psia before readings were lost. Virtuallyallsignals from the spacecraft were lost.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://history--blog.blogspot.com/2007/09/14-new-messages-in-7-topics-digest.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
