RE: [Utah-astronomy] Today's NASA Briefing
There is something that I have been really curious about that I haven't seen mentioned (please forgive me if I somehow just missed it). We know that the shuttle was following an atypical reentry track - because we were able to observe it over southern Utah. I'm wondering if this reentry profile presents times when there are greater stresses on the orbiter than a typical reentry profile? I.e., more severe banking that might overly stress an already somewhat damaged wing; which wouldn't have caused a failure in a more typical reentry profile. Certainly, this wouldn't be a root cause - but might be a contributing factor. Obviously, I've entered into second tier speculation. <g>
I don't think the re-entry path was atypical. The shuttle has passed over s. Utah several times for landing at Kennedy. This was the second time I have seen it, and I believe Patrick has seen it three times now. (Patrick?) The path is whatever it is depending on where in the earth/orbit relation the orbiter is when it de-orbits. I have looked at many re-entry tracks, and they are not the same. Brent --- Dale Hooper <Dale.Hooper@sdl.usu.edu> wrote:
There is something that I have been really curious about that I haven't seen mentioned (please forgive me if I somehow just missed it). We know that the shuttle was following an atypical reentry track - because we were able to observe it over southern Utah. I'm wondering if this reentry profile presents times when there are greater stresses on the orbiter than a typical reentry profile? I.e., more severe banking that might overly stress an already somewhat damaged wing; which wouldn't have caused a failure in a more typical reentry profile.
Certainly, this wouldn't be a root cause - but might be a contributing factor. Obviously, I've entered into second tier speculation. <g>
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Oribital inclination to the equator determines the maximum north/south extremes of the orbit itself. Inclination is mission-specific. Has absolutely no effect on physical stress on the spacecraft structure. C. --- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't think the re-entry path was atypical. The shuttle has passed over s. Utah several times for landing at Kennedy. This was the second time I have seen it, and I believe Patrick has seen it three times now. (Patrick?) The path is whatever it is depending on where in the earth/orbit relation the orbiter is when it de-orbits. I have looked at many re-entry tracks, and they are not the same.
Brent
--- Dale Hooper <Dale.Hooper@sdl.usu.edu> wrote:
There is something that I have been really curious about that I haven't seen mentioned (please forgive me if I somehow just missed it). We know that the shuttle was following an atypical reentry track - because we were able to observe it over southern Utah. I'm wondering if this reentry profile presents times when there are greater stresses on the orbiter than a typical reentry profile? I.e., more severe banking that might overly stress an already somewhat damaged wing; which wouldn't have caused a failure in a more typical reentry profile.
Certainly, this wouldn't be a root cause - but might be a contributing factor. Obviously, I've entered into second tier speculation. <g>
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Dale As an example of what Brent just wrote, if you go to Patrick's web site http://planet.state.ut.us and scroll down to International Space Station Data and the select Salt Lake City you will see that the Space Station like the Shuttle comes over Utah on different orbits. SATELLITELOCALDURATIONMAX ELEVAPPROACHDEPARTUREDATE/TIME(MIN)(DEG)(DEG-DIR)(DEG-DIR)ISSThr Feb 06/07:44 PM< 11310 above NNW13 above NNWISSFri Feb 07/06:46 PM31310 above NNW11 above NEISSSat Feb 08/07:23 PM22211 above NNW22 above NISSSun Feb 09/06:25 PM41610 above NNW10 above ENEISSMon Feb 10/07:03 PM43610 above NW30 above ENEISSTue Feb 11/07:45 PM< 15139 above W51 above SWISSWed Feb 12/06:49 PM57423 above NW13 above ESEISSThr Feb 13/07:32 PM22323 above SW10 above SISSFri Feb 14/06:37 PM34949 above SW11 above SE Which, by the way, the space station will be visible tonight for 5 minutes. Jim Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:I don't think the re-entry path was atypical. The shuttle has passed over s. Utah several times for landing at Kennedy. This was the second time I have seen it, and I believe Patrick has seen it three times now. (Patrick?) The path is whatever it is depending on where in the earth/orbit relation the orbiter is when it de-orbits. I have looked at many re-entry tracks, and they are not the same. Brent --- Dale Hooper wrote:
There is something that I have been really curious about that I haven't seen mentioned (please forgive me if I somehow just missed it). We know that the shuttle was following an atypical reentry track - because we were able to observe it over southern Utah. I'm wondering if this reentry profile presents times when there are greater stresses on the orbiter than a typical reentry profile? I.e., more severe banking that might overly stress an already somewhat damaged wing; which wouldn't have caused a failure in a more typical reentry profile.
Certainly, this wouldn't be a root cause - but might be a contributing factor. Obviously, I've entered into second tier speculation.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
The space station is in a very inclined orbit, selected to accommodate the latitude of the Russian launch site. The ISS should actually be visible, therefore, much more often than non-polar shuttle flights not related to ISS. C. --- Jim Gibson <xajax99@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dale As an example of what Brent just wrote, if you go to Patrick's web site http://planet.state.ut.us and scroll down to International Space Station Data and the select Salt Lake City you will see that the Space Station like the Shuttle comes over Utah on different orbits.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Chuck Hards wrote:
The space station is in a very inclined orbit, selected to accommodate the latitude of the Russian launch site.
Much like HST (and most of the early shuttle flights) is/were inclined 28 degrees which just happens to be the same as Canaveral's latitude. Funny how that works out that way. And if we look to the ESA, they launch from near the equator to put many of their payloads in geostationary orbits over the equator. So now I'm wondering why about 11 shuttle flights have been inclined 39 degrees and a few others 57 degrees. Any guesses out there? Patrick
--- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
So now I'm wondering why about 11 shuttle flights have been inclined 39 degrees and a few others 57 degrees.
Any guesses out there?
Well, let's see... the lower the inclination, the less energy required to orbit, -or- a larger possible orbit. With an inclination equal to your latitude, you could probably effect an emergency re-entry over most of each orbit & make your launch/landing site. The higher the inclination, the more geography you can cover, though this removes a lot of the re-entry options. 39 & 57 degrees? What's at that latitude, either south or north, that some branch of the US government would be interested in seeing? Is this where you're heading, Patrick? C. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Chuck Hards wrote:
39 & 57 degrees? What's at that latitude, either south or north, that some branch of the US government would be interested in seeing? Is this where you're heading, Patrick?
No conspiracy thoughts here. Just curious. But then, now that you mention it, maybe if we look close enough at the ground track under those orbits, maybe we'd find the movie studio where they shot the Moon landings... <grin> Patrick
How about the need to dock with the Space Station? Barney ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Wiggins" <paw@trilobyte.net> To: <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:22 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] I'm "inclined" to wonder
Chuck Hards wrote:
The space station is in a very inclined orbit, selected to accommodate the latitude of the Russian launch site.
Much like HST (and most of the early shuttle flights) is/were inclined 28 degrees which just happens to be the same as Canaveral's latitude. Funny how that works out that way.
And if we look to the ESA, they launch from near the equator to put many of their payloads in geostationary orbits over the equator.
So now I'm wondering why about 11 shuttle flights have been inclined 39 degrees and a few others 57 degrees.
Any guesses out there?
Patrick
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
--- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
Would not work. ISS (and Mir before it) is/was in a 51 degree orbit. 39 too low. 57 too high.
57 might work if one wanted to deploy satellites that could look at Mir every once in a while...or most of industrial Asia. Maybe environmental research instrumentation/satellites also. Isn't there a list of missions & objectives on-line somewhere? C. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Chuck Hards wrote:
Isn't there a list of missions & objectives on-line somewhere?
I've got a couple of links on my ambassador page ( http://planet.state.ut.us ). Once there, try the following links: NASA Guide to Past Shuttle Flights Unofficial Guide to Past Shuttle Flights Patrick
The following is excerpted from "An Astronomer's Life", the autobiography of Edwin Brandt Frost, first director of Yerkes observatory. Frost wrote the book in the 1930's, and is here reflecting on WW1 & the Great Depression. Bear in mind that Frost was a lifelong 'liberal' Republican, a species not often seen anymore. There are many parallels with the world situation of today: My residence in such an armed camp as was Strassburg in 1890, with its garrison of twenty or more regiments, and later at the imperial country seat in Potsdam, where military uniforms were almost more abundant than civilian dress, naturally led me to think often of the effect of such armaments on world peace. The haughty attitude of the gay officers when they walked the streets of Berlin and Potsdam always seemed to me offensive to the spirit of liberty. There was a class consciousness among the army men that the destiny of the nation lay in their hands, and this was, of course, fostered by the authorities in power around the Emperor. I often tried to impress my German friends with the fact that I seldom saw a soldier in the United States and that the peaceful expansion of a country could take place without the use of the sword. An army was the plaything of a king, and the best entertainment that he could lay before a visiting sovereign was a review of his picked troops. Of course the Hohenzollern family had developed into an imperial dynasty from being petty margraves in Prussia chiefly by pure military aggression against less powerful neighbors. The whole system was provocative. I came home from Germany thoroughly convinced of the futility of the constant striving for supremacy in military equipment and that it could only lead to trouble. A state of war quickly develops public hysteria. Of course we in America were affronted by the deliberate disregard of the treaties on the part of Germany in respect to the invasion of the rights of Belgium, but the propaganda that was being circulated throughout the world against Germany because of alleged inhuman treatment of the citizens of Belgium was decidedly unjust. It was, of course, inevitable that if we entered the war we should oppose the Central Powers, but the false propaganda developed on all sides constitutes one of the many outrages of the war. The idealistic utterances of Wilson in some of his great state papers certainly gave our intervention the character of a crusade in behalf of justice and liberty, and I believe that this was genuinely felt by a great part of our population and particularly by the troops which were being trained for service overseas. The aggressive action of our troops when they reached France under the strong leadership of Pershing was clearly in behalf of the French people who had suffered so heavily in a war that they had in no wise provoked. We also felt a strong sympathy for the sad losses of England and here dominions, as they played the role of defenders of the rights of weaker nations. The terrible losses on all sides were shocking to me as an ardent supporter of peace and strongly in favor of the outlawing of war, but it was apparent that the situation could not be brought to a definite conclusion except by the successful proscecution of the American effort. It certainly is a profound regret to all thinking Americans that our idealistic intentions were not realized after the Treaty of Versailles had been finally adopted. I thoroughly sympathized with Wilson's efforts in behalf of the League of Nations despite our traditional avoidance of European entanglements, and I believe that the cause of peaceful rehabilitation was greatly delayed by the selfish action of a few jealous Senators, chiefly in the Republican Party. When broad-minded statesmen like Taft and Hughes and Root threw thier influence on behalf of the League of Nations, I see no reason why less influential Republican members of Congress should not have followed their lead. General W.T. Sherman in his famous utterance declared 'War is Hell', but he little dreamed of the indescribable hellishness and the awful turmoil of modern warfare as practiced in the World War and which would be experienced even beyond our conception should we ever be plunged into another such devilish conflict. We are a generation saddened and sullied, saddened by the most fearful tragedy of our times and sullied by the filth and terror of crime which had its birth on the battlefields. What is civilization if it cannot abolish war, if it fails to give us happiness, freedom, and justice, and hence 'peace on earth'? It seems to me very strange that none of our many able ecconomists have as yet suggested a satisfactory solution for the plight in which our country, favored by nature more than any other, finds itself in this year of 1933. There should be some way to break the vicious circle of overproduction, unemployment, and hunger. After the depression is over, we shall doubtless look back and find that it had some benefits. There must be less extravagance, less profligate expenditure of taxes, and better standards of conduct in the new order of things, or our civilzation will break down. *** How shocked Frost would have been had he known about the coming second World War, the atomic bomb, modern terrorism and the dog-wagging tail that is the middle East of today. One can't help but wonder what the world would be like if his dreams had come true. C. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Chuck, Excellent and timely post. Thanks! -Rich __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Kim, Patrick, et al: If and when the experiment happens, I want to donate a HEWLETT PACKARD Deskjet 610CL printer as a test projectile. I know in my heart that this is the best use of this piece of, er, hardware. By donating it to science, the engineers at HEWLETT PACKARD would at least have something to be proud of. C. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Here's an example of a comparison of mirrors of similar diameters: The first is a 6" (~150mm) of 2000mm focal length. With a 40mm eyepiece, it yields 50x and an apparent field of X. The second is also 6" dia., with a focal length of 1000mm. Using a 20mm eyepiece with an apparent field identical to the 40mm used above, it also yields 50x and an apparent field of X. Brightness is identical at identical magnifications. (determined by aperture, remember?) The views are identical except for one thing: The diffraction-limited area of the focal plane for the first example wil be larger than the second. It is optically a better telescope. A secondary benefit is that higher powers are achieved with the longer-focal length scope given the SAME eyepiece. Better eye-relief, a more comfortable view. Longer is always better unless there is a specific need for shortness. As a personal note, it took me 20 years to "come-around", Brent has known this for decades. Consider him the "Yoda" of local optical gurus, I'm more of a Han Solo (a *good-looking* scoundrel in the right place at the right time) Gee, Brent, I hope that nickname doesn't stick! ;) C. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe's statement before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science has been posted to http://www.nasa.gov/formedia/MP_okeefe_hearing_030212.pdf .
Patrick, I appreciate your postings of this and NASA information. Thanks for keeping us informed. Brent --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe's statement before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science has been posted to
http://www.nasa.gov/formedia/MP_okeefe_hearing_030212.pdf
.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Thanks guys. Maybe it will at least partially make up for my not being as active in SLAS as I used to be. Patrick the Wannabe Reporter :-) Brent Watson wrote:
Patrick,
I appreciate your postings of this and NASA information. Thanks for keeping us informed.
Brent
David L Bennett wrote:
Patrick,
An Official SLAS Ditto!
Dave Bennett
Patrick, of ALL people, you certainly have no reason to regret not giving more to the club and larger community. In fact, I've heard the rumors that the restroom complex to be added to SPOC will be named in your honor! ;) (Just kidding!) I applaud your lifetime of service to Utah astronomy! Huzzah! C. --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
Thanks guys. Maybe it will at least partially make up for my not being as active in SLAS as I used to be.
Patrick the Wannabe Reporter :-)
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Chuck Hards wrote:
In fact, I've heard the rumors that the restroom complex to be added to SPOC will be named in your honor! ;)
(Just kidding!)
Well, maybe you shouldn't be. After all, now that I'm getting a bit longer in the tooth I need to use such facilities much more than in the old days... <g>
I applaud your lifetime of service to Utah astronomy! Blush...
Patrick
Patrick- Keep up the good work! Thanks from the expatriot Kelleys. Bill And Lois
Thanks guys. Maybe it will at least partially make up for my not being as active in SLAS as I used to be.
Patrick the Wannabe Reporter :-)
Brent Watson wrote:
Patrick,
I appreciate your postings of this and NASA information. Thanks for keeping us informed.
Brent
David L Bennett wrote:
Patrick,
An Official SLAS Ditto!
Dave Bennett
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Ditto! -- Joe
Patrick,
I appreciate your postings of this and NASA information. Thanks for keeping us informed.
Brent
--- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe's statement before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science has been posted to
http://www.nasa.gov/formedia/MP_okeefe_hearing_030212.pdf
.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Joe Bauman science & military reporter Deseret News bau@desnews.com (801) 237-2169
What was atypical about this re-entry track? It appeared to me to be normal for the orbit the shuttle was in. Norm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale Hooper" <Dale.Hooper@sdl.usu.edu> To: <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:32 AM Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Today's NASA Briefing There is something that I have been really curious about that I haven't seen mentioned (please forgive me if I somehow just missed it). We know that the shuttle was following an atypical reentry track - because we were able to observe it over southern Utah. I'm wondering if this reentry profile presents times when there are greater stresses on the orbiter than a typical reentry profile? I.e., more severe banking that might overly stress an already somewhat damaged wing; which wouldn't have caused a failure in a more typical reentry profile. Certainly, this wouldn't be a root cause - but might be a contributing factor. Obviously, I've entered into second tier speculation. <g> _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
participants (11)
-
B. Bettilyon -
Bill Kelley -
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
Dale Hooper -
David L Bennett -
Jim Gibson -
Joe Bauman -
Norm -
Patrick Wiggins -
Richard Tenney