Diane wrote in news:vgoqs1jvgkku85 @news.supernews.com:
>
>>I just find it amazing that a chunk of low density insulating foam could
>>withstand the forces acting upon it.
>
> Kinetic energy...ever see those pictures of twigs that were shoved
> through brick walls after a tornado?
>
Exactly - this is an analogy a friend made.
Dan Major wrote in news:Xns93B4B5AAEBDBsoonerboomergbronlin@68.12.19.6:
ma is not momentum. Momentum is mv. And yes, you're correct, force is the time rate of change of momentum. But you've taken the derivative of the momentum with respect to velocity.
What that has to do with your assertion that the deceleration is independent of the mass escapes me at the moment: "The mass of the foam chunk is irrellevant in calculating the decelleration."
len.
They switched from a good foam to one that is "environmentally friendly". Bad idea.
A shuttle crash is far less environmentally friendly. The forest of paperwork alone is a killer.
Jerry
Is that true? I thought the foam had been coming off since the early days of the progam. If this crash is the result of environmental whackiness, isn't it time to lynch somebody?
Doug
On 10 Jul 2003 01:20:33 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) is alleged to have written:
Silly! Everyone knows that concrete doesn't _have_ feathers!
- Rick "Cement, on the other hand..." Dickinson
They did switch from the original foam to an ozone friendly foam. Don't know if the debris problem occured witht he old foam or not. I think it's recent, but it could have been there all along.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
"Doug Sams" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mygate.mailgate.org:
Yeah, last physics class was a *long* time ago. I can't remember everything, that's why we have books.
What makes you thiink the adhesive holding the foam to the tank failed? The foam was covered in some sort of "stuff" (plastic? epoxy?). This covering was to prevent a previous problem with the same foam, "popcorning", where small pieces of the foam seperated. The coating could have developed a crack allowing air to get in, and a less-than- full-thickness of foam could have peeled away. This would have been a failing withing the foam, not an adhesive failure.
But a pound of gold would weigh about 10% more than a pound of either feathers or concrete, since precious metals are typically measured in Troy weight instead of Avoirdupois.
See
What about Aerotech's Ecconojet label adhesive?
mike
Why does everything always end up as a "glue thread"? ;-)
Likewise, the field joint failures on Challenger's SRB's have been linked to the non-qualified sealant which replaced a previous asbestos-based compound. Another reactionary "across the board" mandate with no cause and affect proof.
Also in both cases there were failures to recognize the seriousness of the evidence from previous flights, both technically and through management procedures. (Damn it!).
-John DeMar NAR #52094
Sounds like you've got the makings of a good "bar bet" there!
LOL sounds more like the makings of a good "bar bet fight"...
man, i could just see it now!
RayDunak>feathers or concrete, since precious metals are typically measured in Troy
John DeMar wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@syr.edu:
Worse - the institutionalization of these almost failures as "we saw this theoretically potentially dangerous evidence, and nothing bad happened, so this must really be normal and OK and we don't have to worry about it any more."
len.
Not true. It actually breaks up into several pieces. The largest piece is the one that struck the wing.
Bob
What?
I don't get it...
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required