Christopher Posted November 24, 2016 Report Share Posted November 24, 2016 Schiaparelli Lander Doomed by Negative Altitude Damit, not again! The altitude/sensor things are really an issue with ESA. What does heated air have to do with anything? And it's not at all clear that they measured thrust, when what signal they did get is so noisy and doesn't match what would ordinarily be expected, and when so little effort was made to rule out thermal effects. All they had to do was put the thing on a balance and turn it on and measure the CG shift. There's nothing wrong with further testing, but only if that testing is going to be way less sloppy than it has been so far. Otherwise it's just going to waste more time and money and not answer anything. Measuring a force in ten-thousandths of a gram is not going to be easier remotely, in hard vacuum, with limited telemetry, after a violent rocket launch. The logical next step is a finely made apparatus in an abandoned salt mine in Nevada, not the hard radiation and vacuum of orbit. There are two explanations for the holes in the Paper: a) they are really bad at doing the testing they keep it vague to intentionally keep the process a secret This could be either due to pre-existing Military Applications (for all we know X-37 is already using that technology to keep up there so long) Or it could be to have a "edge" on the other space agencies. NASA budget is not exactly high (considering how hard it is to get into space). And having income from providing sattellite operations in the future might be worth a pretty penny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NuSoardGraphite Posted November 24, 2016 Report Share Posted November 24, 2016 What does heated air have to do with anything? And it's not at all clear that they measured thrust, when what signal they did get is so noisy and doesn't match what would ordinarily be expected, and when so little effort was made to rule out thermal effects. All they had to do was put the thing on a balance and turn it on and measure the CG shift. There's nothing wrong with further testing, but only if that testing is going to be way less sloppy than it has been so far. Otherwise it's just going to waste more time and money and not answer anything. Measuring a force in ten-thousandths of a gram is not going to be easier remotely, in hard vacuum, with limited telemetry, after a violent rocket launch. The logical next step is a finely made apparatus in an abandoned salt mine in Nevada, not the hard radiation and vacuum of orbit. One of the criticism was that for the initial test in-air, the thrust may have come from thermal expansion as the microwaves heated the air or heated the resonant chamber itself, which in turn would heat the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NuSoardGraphite Posted November 24, 2016 Report Share Posted November 24, 2016 Damit, not again! The altitude/sensor things are really an issue with ESA. There are two explanations for the holes in the Paper: a) they are really bad at doing the testing they keep it vague to intentionally keep the process a secret This could be either due to pre-existing Military Applications (for all we know X-37 is already using that technology to keep up there so long) Or it could be to have a "edge" on the other space agencies. NASA budget is not exactly high (considering how hard it is to get into space). And having income from providing sattellite operations in the future might be worth a pretty penny. It would not at all surprise me to discover that the military has been using this technology for the past 20 years or more. As much as people love to claim that our government is terrible at keeping secrets, they tend to forget that our military and intelligence apparatus are exceedingly good at doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted November 24, 2016 Report Share Posted November 24, 2016 Damit, not again! The altitude/sensor things are really an issue with ESA. There are two explanations for the holes in the Paper: a) they are really bad at doing the testing they keep it vague to intentionally keep the process a secret This could be either due to pre-existing Military Applications (for all we know X-37 is already using that technology to keep up there so long) Or it could be to have a "edge" on the other space agencies. NASA budget is not exactly high (considering how hard it is to get into space). And having income from providing sattellite operations in the future might be worth a pretty penny. It's just option a. There isn't even enough information in the paper for us to check the math. How long is the arm? What is it made of? How rigid is it? What is the oscillation frequency? How are they correcting for horizontal torque since the device's "thrust" axis is offset from the long axis of the arm? Instead we are supposed to take their numbers for granted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted November 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2016 Lithospheric buckling observed in Mercury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Onassiss Posted November 25, 2016 Report Share Posted November 25, 2016 Schiaparelli Lander Doomed by Negative Altitude Hmph. When I first saw this link, I thought it said "Negative Attitude." And I was like, science reporting is really going down the tubes these days.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted November 25, 2016 Report Share Posted November 25, 2016 Schiaparelli Lander Doomed by Negative Altitude The Inertial Guidance System. Every. Single. Time. the Intertial Guidance System: https://around.com/ariane.html And the worst part about firing the guy that made the mistake? The new guy can make it all over again, plus a thousand others that were avoided beforehand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted November 25, 2016 Report Share Posted November 25, 2016 Hmph. When I first saw this link, I thought it said "Negative Attitude." And I was like, science reporting is really going down the tubes these days.... It'd be hard for science reporting to get any worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Boy Posted November 26, 2016 Report Share Posted November 26, 2016 It'd be hard for science reporting to get any worse. Jupiter's net worth doesn't make any sense! Mar's net worth is unbelievable! Why Hollywood won't cast the asteroids any more. You won't believe how this primordial planetoid looks now! Five sketchy things about Hermit Saturn that everyone just ignores! This planetary mission will break NASA! pinecone, Old Man and megaplayboy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 The Nov. 26 issue of the Economist has a pair of space-related stories in its Science & Technology section. First is an article about the programs, plural, to image exoplanets directly. It's already been done a few times, but a number of super-sized telescopes and coronagraphs are in the works that will image many more, with a lot more information about each exoplanet. I expect to be gobsmacked. The next article, "Ye Cannae Break the Laws of Physics (Or Can Ye?" is about the EmDrive paper. A clear and concise look at the experiment, with the reasons why it's exciting -- and why, despite this, you might want to curb your enthusiasm. Notably, the experimental team admits they did not wait to rule out every source of experimental error they could think of. (And peer review is less impressive than it might sound, too. That just means some qualified people agree that the experiment could find the intended phenomenon -- not that it actually did so.) For me, though, the most interesting datum was that NASA's Eagleworks lab investigates other "fringe" ideas about propulsion, not just the EmDrive. I must work this into a Champions adventure. Dean Shomshak Christopher and Netzilla 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted December 16, 2016 Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 WHY DO YOU LIVE THERE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
novi Posted December 16, 2016 Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 WHY DO YOU LIVE THERE Because Killer bees don't, and mosquitoes barely manage 5 months out of the year, in addition to being ones that can't carry malaria or zika. And essentially no risk of earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, or armed conflict. And the food is great. But that is an interesting comparison on the high temperatures there. At least the low here is a much more reasonable 0F. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted December 16, 2016 Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 That sounds like a lovely day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted December 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2016 We can add Ceres to the list of places where life may have formed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted December 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2016 NASA releases spectacular image of NGC 6357 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 Boeing selected to develop High Energy Laser pod for tactical aircraft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 Boeing selected to develop High Energy Laser pod for tactical aircraft C&C Generals - Zero Hour Confirmed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted January 4, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 Purple rocks on Mars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolgroth Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 Purple rocks on Mars Well, looks like Prince is settling in nicely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 Discover magazine's latest issue features its end-of-year roundup of the top science stories of 2016. No surprise, #1 is the detection of gravity waves from colliding black holes. This isn't just another successful prediction from General Relativity -- it's a whole new form of astronomy, since the LIGO detectors are precise enough that scientists can calculate the direction and distance of the event, the masses and spins of the black holes, and other details. The article says that since that first detection, other black hole collisions have been observed, too. #2 was the Proxima planet. A bit further down the list was something not observed. The Large Hadron Collider has not detected evidence of a new class of particles predicted by a theory called "supersymmetry." This theory is an important part of the "Standard Model" for unifying the weak and strong nuclear forces with electromagnetism. The greatest triumph of the Standard Model was perhaps the successful prediction of the Higgs particle. Among other things, the hypothetical supersymmetric particles, or "sparticles," are necessary for explaining the mass of the Higgs particle. (Without them, its mass should be quadrillions of times greater.) Sparticles, predicted to interact only weakly with normal matter, are also one of the leading contenders for dark matter. So, failure to detect them is a problem for physicists and cosmologists. (This comes on top of other experiments meant to detect weakly-interacting dark matter particles, which have also failed.) Theoreticians can tweak and complicate supersymmetry to raise the mass of sparticles, explaining why the LHC hasn't found them yet. But it's one more cosmological puzzle to add to the pile. Dean Shomshak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Boy Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 Well, duh. Dark matter doesn't exist. I mean, how could it? I haven't seen any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 Among other things, the hypothetical supersymmetric particles, or "sparticles," are necessary for explaining the mass of the Higgs particle. (Without them, its mass should be quadrillions of times greater.) Sparticles, predicted to interact only weakly with normal matter, are also one of the leading contenders for dark matter. So, failure to detect them is a problem for physicists and cosmologists.direction and distance of the event, the masses and spins of the black holes, and other details. The article says that since that first detection, other black hole collisions have been observed, too. "Gravitons? WE. ARE. SPARTILCES!" I guess with that name, a "this is sparta" joke was asked for. Rails 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeropoint Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 It's pronounced sparti-kleez. You know, because Greek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 It's pronounced sparti-kleez. You know, because Greek. And now I am thinking of the "I am Spartacus" scene. Would explain why it is so hard to find - others keep claiming to be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 The Dec. 2016 issue of Scientific American features an article about more new discoveries about the formation of the Solar System. As the author notes, 20 years ago we had a clear and simple model of planet formation: In the course of a few hundred million years, a spinning disk of dust and gas condenses into dust bunnies, then pebbles, boulders, planetesimals and planetary embryos, that finally consolidate into planets. Thanks to studies of exoplanetary systems, accretion disks around other stars and new techniques for very precise measuring of isotopes and magnetic fields in meteorites, that stately picture is now dead. The author recounts new evidence that a lot of early planetesimals generated enough internal heat for their insides to melt, segregate and even generated their own magnetic fields. (Radioactive aluminum-26 is proposed as the chief heat source.) Along the way, it looks like the entire process of planet formation took less than 10 million years. In fact, planetesimals with liquid iron cores might have formed in only 500,000 years. The article concludes with a proposed mission to asteroid Psyche, a big nickel-iron asteroid that may be the stripped-off core of one such planetesimal. Dean Shomshak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.