If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   NASA balloon carrying an expensive gamma-ray telescope gets amazing closeups of Australia   (content.usatoday.com) divider line 53
    More: Sad, gamma rays, closeups, telescopes, launch vehicle, University of Calgary, NASA, Australian, Northern Territory  
•       •       •

5316 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Apr 2010 at 9:37 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-04-30 09:39:49 AM
No Hulk jokes?
 
2010-04-30 09:47:26 AM
Because man has only been launching balloons into the air for just a few hundred years...

yay nasa for once again being in more of a hurry than they were careful. i bet the crane contractor had zero experience at this, but the bid came in really low.
 
2010-04-30 09:51:49 AM
Yoiks, and AWAY! *BAM!*
 
2010-04-30 09:59:05 AM
PsyLord: No Hulk jokes?

Hulk Smash?

Seriously though, sad day for these people. Years of effort and research, down the tubes.
 
2010-04-30 10:01:47 AM
Watch the video, the SUV gets rolled like a toy. And the SUV next to that one almost gets hit too, and it had people in it. Massive NASA FAIL. No big deal, just a couple billion dollars of our tax dollars down the drain.
 
2010-04-30 10:02:48 AM
Actually, the gamma ray telescope story is a cover: We're trying to find where the Nazis hid their secret nuclear reactor, hidden somewhere in the Australian Alps. Little do those vacationing skiers suspect...
 
2010-04-30 10:13:18 AM
Ball of Confusion: Because man has only been launching balloons into the air for just a few hundred years...

yay nasa for once again being in more of a hurry than they were careful. i bet the crane contractor had zero experience at this, but the bid came in really low.



Apparently they've been launching balloons from that Australian Balloon Launch Station (ABLS) since the 1960s.

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt your reasoned and researched argument.
 
2010-04-30 10:42:30 AM
From TFA in Stratocat:

"The director of the Australian Launch Station, Ravi Sood, says no one was hurt adding that the scientists involved in the NASA-sponsored project are crushed. "

From the video, it looks like they were really lucky no one was physically crushed.
 
2010-04-30 10:46:41 AM
Is NASA proper in charge of the launch or were they just the ones who sponsored the build? It wasn't clear.

Also, read some information saying that it might have been a sudden shift in the wind or an improper reading of high level winds put the crane in the wrong direction, screwing up the launch.
 
2010-04-30 10:46:58 AM
FAIL
 
2010-04-30 11:04:52 AM
NASA scientists, pissed at lunar cutbacks, scuttle another experiment.

EIB at work and play.
 
2010-04-30 11:05:45 AM
Walker: Watch the video, the SUV gets rolled like a toy. And the SUV next to that one almost gets hit too, and it had people in it. Massive NASA FAIL. No big deal, just a couple billion dollars of our tax dollars down the drain.

Umm... no. Just under two million, but go ahead and make up whatever you want if it makes you feel better.
 
2010-04-30 11:05:49 AM
So what's the current score?

China: Planning a manned moon mssion

Japan: launching a freaking solar -sail powered spaceship last year

NASA: can no longer even sucessfully launch a Hot-air Balloon

/where have you gone Neil Amstrong? , a national turns its lonely eyes to you...whoo-hoo-hoo
 
2010-04-30 11:10:27 AM
Sir Vanderhoot: Walker: Watch the video, the SUV gets rolled like a toy. And the SUV next to that one almost gets hit too, and it had people in it. Massive NASA FAIL. No big deal, just a couple billion dollars of our tax dollars down the drain.

Umm... no. Just under two million, but go ahead and make up whatever you want if it makes you feel better.


I couldn't remember if it was $2 million or $2 billion. When guessing government spending I always go with the larger number. These are the same people who spend $500 for a nail. Or was that a toilet seat?
 
2010-04-30 11:14:30 AM
Sky lab!
 
2010-04-30 11:14:39 AM
Magorn: So what's the current score?

China: Planning a manned moon mssion

Japan: launching a freaking solar -sail powered spaceship last year

NASAABLS: can no longer even sucessfully launch a Hot-airHelium Balloon

/where have you gone Neil Amstrongreading comprehension? , a nationalFark turns its lonely eyes to you...whoo-hoo-hoo


FTFY
 
2010-04-30 11:19:03 AM
Just fund the damn space elevator already. It would be a much better investment than bailing out rich people.
 
2010-04-30 11:43:27 AM
Reminds me of the time that NASA failed to catch a returning satelite filled with samples from a meteor.

/And that was a couple billion dollars, and 5 years of research, wasted.
 
2010-04-30 11:54:53 AM
RatOmeter: Ball of Confusion: Because man has only been launching balloons into the air for just a few hundred years...

yay nasa for once again being in more of a hurry than they were careful. i bet the crane contractor had zero experience at this, but the bid came in really low.


Apparently they've been launching balloons from that Australian Balloon Launch Station (ABLS) since the 1960s.

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt your reasoned and researched argument.


The first hot air balloon was launched in 1783. I said MAN not AUSTRALIANS, but hey reading is a skill, right?
 
2010-04-30 12:00:16 PM
Walker: Sir Vanderhoot: Walker: Watch the video, the SUV gets rolled like a toy. And the SUV next to that one almost gets hit too, and it had people in it. Massive NASA FAIL. No big deal, just a couple billion dollars of our tax dollars down the drain.

Umm... no. Just under two million, but go ahead and make up whatever you want if it makes you feel better.

I couldn't remember if it was $2 million or $2 billion. When guessing government spending I always go with the larger number. These are the same people who spend $500 for a nail. Or was that a toilet seat?


You're an idiot, aren't you?
 
2010-04-30 12:01:41 PM
Just fund the damn space elevator already. It would be a much better investment than bailing out rich people.

Someone invented Silksteel already? Because I am not sure what you would make the cable from otherwise.
 
2010-04-30 12:09:49 PM
Cubicle Jockey: Just fund the damn space elevator already. It would be a much better investment than bailing out rich people.

Someone invented Silksteel already? Because I am not sure what you would make the cable from otherwise.


Current candidate is carbon nanotubes (only thing that's strong enough), but manufacturing currently taps out at less than a meter or two (I think, going off of memory here) and you would need a way to make them essentially endless.

A bigger issue for me is how the hell you get a counterweight big enough up there. I've heard ideas as out-there as pulling in rogue asteroids and using that.
 
2010-04-30 12:12:43 PM
forbiddenplanet.co.uk

\Hulk Smash!
 
2010-04-30 12:24:29 PM
Cubicle Jockey: Just fund the damn space elevator already. It would be a much better investment than bailing out rich people.

Someone invented Silksteel already? Because I am not sure what you would make the cable from otherwise.


I had an idea about that. I must point out I have no research on this at this point.

Using struts and mechanically raises the elevator platform. Each corner would have a series of cogs one above the over that interlock with the elevator platform. This will pass the platform up in a hand over hand motion with a ratchet system similar to a rollercoaster to prevent the platform from falling back down.
It would eliminate the need for long heavy cables but I think the weight of the struts might cause similar problems.
 
2010-04-30 12:39:20 PM
Yaxe: Reminds me of the time that NASA failed to catch a returning satelite filled with samples from a meteor.

/And that was a couple billion dollars, and 5 years of research, wasted.


To be fair, they did still retrieve and study samples from the downed receptacle.
 
2010-04-30 12:41:19 PM
Cubicle Jockey: Just fund the damn space elevator already. It would be a much better investment than bailing out rich people.

Someone invented Silksteel already? Because I am not sure what you would make the cable from otherwise.


They call it nanotubes, but pretty much, yeah.
 
2010-04-30 01:14:27 PM
Why am I not seeing the link to TFA?
 
2010-04-30 01:15:25 PM
flexflint: Why am I not seeing the link to TFA?

Ah, got it.
 
2010-04-30 01:18:09 PM
Tinderlock: Cubicle Jockey: Just fund the damn space elevator already. It would be a much better investment than bailing out rich people.

Someone invented Silksteel already? Because I am not sure what you would make the cable from otherwise.

I had an idea about that. I must point out I have no research on this at this point.

Using struts and mechanically raises the elevator platform. Each corner would have a series of cogs one above the over that interlock with the elevator platform. This will pass the platform up in a hand over hand motion with a ratchet system similar to a rollercoaster to prevent the platform from falling back down.
It would eliminate the need for long heavy cables but I think the weight of the struts might cause similar problems.


This is a big misconception with the whole idea, and the main reason I'm not excited that it's referred to as a space elevator.

You're not building a platform to climb up, you're hanging a big rope down from a counterweight.

That's the fundamental difference. You get a big, heavy thing and have it floating just beyond GEO and then drop the super-long cable down until it touches the ground. Once the cable is attached, you have something that your little elevator can climb up and down and no need for any more rockets.

Unfortunately, this is really only useful for GEO orbits, if you wanted to get something into LEO you would have to climb a fraction of the distance (hundreds of km out of 35,000 km) then launch a horizontal rocket to get going fast enough.

But, on the other hand, the primary reason so much stuff is in LEO is because it's so much cheaper than GEO, so there's not much reason not to go to GEO if it's borderline free.
 
2010-04-30 01:25:26 PM
ubisurv.files.wordpress.com

Sorry but that video was LOL funny!

Ironclad2: Yoiks, and AWAY! *BAM!*

indeed
 
2010-04-30 01:28:05 PM
Rats...same time next week fellas? What'dya mean that's the only one we have!?!

/missed opportunity for the FAIL tag
 
2010-04-30 01:44:03 PM
Sir Vanderhoot: This is a big misconception with the whole idea, and the main reason I'm not excited that it's referred to as a space elevator.

You're not building a platform to climb up, you're hanging a big rope down from a counterweight.

That's the fundamental difference. You get a big, heavy thing and have it floating just beyond GEO and then drop the super-long cable down until it touches the ground. Once the cable is attached, you have something that your little elevator can climb up and down and no need for any more rockets.

Unfortunately, this is really only useful for GEO orbits, if you wanted to get something into LEO you would have to climb a fraction of the distance (hundreds of km out of 35,000 km) then launch a horizontal rocket to get going fast enough.

But, on the other hand, the primary reason so much stuff is in LEO is because it's so much cheaper than GEO, so there's not much reason not to go to GEO if it's borderline free.


I will have to do some reading into the subject. I would really like to understand what it is that stops the counter weight being pulled in. An explanation of the forces involved would be fab.
 
2010-04-30 01:59:13 PM
That's because they didn't convert from imperial to metric. =)



/posted from my farking iPad 3g
 
2010-04-30 02:00:32 PM
I bet the researchers feel a bit deflated.
 
2010-04-30 02:07:30 PM
Tinderlock: Sir Vanderhoot: This is a big misconception with the whole idea, and the main reason I'm not excited that it's referred to as a space elevator.

You're not building a platform to climb up, you're hanging a big rope down from a counterweight.

That's the fundamental difference. You get a big, heavy thing and have it floating just beyond GEO and then drop the super-long cable down until it touches the ground. Once the cable is attached, you have something that your little elevator can climb up and down and no need for any more rockets.

Unfortunately, this is really only useful for GEO orbits, if you wanted to get something into LEO you would have to climb a fraction of the distance (hundreds of km out of 35,000 km) then launch a horizontal rocket to get going fast enough.

But, on the other hand, the primary reason so much stuff is in LEO is because it's so much cheaper than GEO, so there's not much reason not to go to GEO if it's borderline free.

I will have to do some reading into the subject. I would really like to understand what it is that stops the counter weight being pulled in. An explanation of the forces involved would be fab.


It's fairly simple. At Geosynchronous Orbital height, it takes exactly 24 hours to rotate the Earth. The Earth also rotates, so if you're over the equator then you will be sitting directly above a point below you constantly (quick aside, you can be at the same height but not above the equator, and make a little figure-eight that keeps repeating. I had some fun times with the orbital simulator at school).

If you have a big counterweight (like, say, a small asteroid) that sits just beyond this point but rotates at the same speed as the GEO stuff, it will naturally want to move into a higher orbit. That's how you get from one orbital height to another, you don't thrust up and down, you speed up and slow down (the simplest way to do this is a Hohmann transfer (new window).

Anyway, so you have this asteroid that is going faster than it should for the orbit that it's in (orbits at higher altitudes orbit slower, less centrifugal force required to overcome the weaker gravity) so in order to keep it from moving into a higher orbit, you attach a rope to it. This anchors it to the Earth not really from the base, but more from the weight of the rope itself.

This also has the added benefit of being less suseptable to small changes in orbital momentum, without it (just having the station at GEO with no counterweight) very small changes in the mass of the station (like when you build it in the first place) would likely cause some balance problems.

So the interesting thing about the space elevator is that it gets thicker at the top, because the stuff at ground level doesn't have to support any weight at all, but the base (up at the space station) has to have this 35,000 km long ribbon of carbon hanging off of it.
 
2010-04-30 02:14:07 PM
Sir Vanderhoot: So the interesting thing about the space elevator is that it gets thicker at the top, because the stuff at ground level doesn't have to support any weight at all, but the base (up at the space station) has to have this 35,000 km long ribbon of carbon hanging off of it.

The exact reverse of how you would expect a tall structure to be.
Love it. I cannot wait for my courses to start in the summer.
 
2010-04-30 02:14:57 PM
Cubicle Jockey: Just fund the damn space elevator already. It would be a much better investment than bailing out rich people.

Someone invented Silksteel already? Because I am not sure what you would make the cable from otherwise.


Silksteel Alloys is a ways below the tech one needs to unlock the Space Elevator project, which is Super Tensile Solids. By that point, Silksteel is long obsolete, since one of the prerequisites for that tech is Matter Compression, which unlocks Neutronium armor.
 
2010-04-30 02:17:54 PM
Tinderlock: Sir Vanderhoot: So the interesting thing about the space elevator is that it gets thicker at the top, because the stuff at ground level doesn't have to support any weight at all, but the base (up at the space station) has to have this 35,000 km long ribbon of carbon hanging off of it.

The exact reverse of how you would expect a tall structure to be.
Love it. I cannot wait for my courses to start in the summer.


I had a homework assignment in my first aerospace structures class that had us calculate the width at the top for a variety of materials, depending on tensile strength and density.

It's been a few years, but I think that steel was something like Mt. Everest turned upside down.

Carbon nanotube was a couple meters wide, I think.
 
2010-04-30 02:28:25 PM
Sir Vanderhoot:
So the interesting thing about the space elevator is that it gets thicker at the top, because the stuff at ground level doesn't have to support any weight at all, but the base (up at the space station) has to have this 35,000 km long ribbon of carbon hanging off of it.


How did your analysis compensate for the fact that "tugging" on the counterweight will reduce it's effectiveness? You'd probably need some big-ass rocket motors...

Do you attach rockets to the asteroid and fire them every so often (probably based on mass transfer up) adjust orbital speed/height?
 
2010-04-30 02:30:19 PM
musashi1600: Neutronium armor


www.firaxis.com

LET'S DO THIS shiat.
 
2010-04-30 02:32:42 PM
DrakeLabatt: Sir Vanderhoot:
So the interesting thing about the space elevator is that it gets thicker at the top, because the stuff at ground level doesn't have to support any weight at all, but the base (up at the space station) has to have this 35,000 km long ribbon of carbon hanging off of it.

How did your analysis compensate for the fact that "tugging" on the counterweight will reduce it's effectiveness? You'd probably need some big-ass rocket motors...

Do you attach rockets to the asteroid and fire them every so often (probably based on mass transfer up) adjust orbital speed/height?


Also, does the 3-body problem come into play with an object of such mass acting as a counterweight?
 
2010-04-30 02:35:44 PM
Maths is always . . .

www.todaysgolfer.co.uk
 
2010-04-30 02:40:17 PM
DrakeLabatt: Sir Vanderhoot:
So the interesting thing about the space elevator is that it gets thicker at the top, because the stuff at ground level doesn't have to support any weight at all, but the base (up at the space station) has to have this 35,000 km long ribbon of carbon hanging off of it.

How did your analysis compensate for the fact that "tugging" on the counterweight will reduce it's effectiveness? You'd probably need some big-ass rocket motors...

Do you attach rockets to the asteroid and fire them every so often (probably based on mass transfer up) adjust orbital speed/height?


That's the reason most people consider a captured asteroid to be both the only real option and the most unrealistic one at the same time. But those issues are with the construction, not the day-to-day use.

The counterweight is just there to give tension and stability to the ribbon, that's about it. It doesn't move, and it's positioned just beyond GEO distance to give the weight of the ribbon something to pull on. All the stuff at GEO (the station or whatever it is you're building) doesn't put any stress on the ribbon or counterweight.

Khoja: DrakeLabatt: Sir Vanderhoot:
So the interesting thing about the space elevator is that it gets thicker at the top, because the stuff at ground level doesn't have to support any weight at all, but the base (up at the space station) has to have this 35,000 km long ribbon of carbon hanging off of it.

How did your analysis compensate for the fact that "tugging" on the counterweight will reduce it's effectiveness? You'd probably need some big-ass rocket motors...

Do you attach rockets to the asteroid and fire them every so often (probably based on mass transfer up) adjust orbital speed/height?

Also, does the 3-body problem come into play with an object of such mass acting as a counterweight?


It did occur to me the fact that the Earth wobbles due to the Moon could have effects on the counterweight. I'm not sure how you could fix that... maybe have the lower sections of the ribbon be able to flex a km or two to accomodate the changes in altitude.
 
2010-04-30 02:42:13 PM
www.popcrunch.com
 
2010-04-30 02:47:54 PM
HULK SMASH, Mate!
 
2010-04-30 03:54:52 PM
They did it for the show.

/barf
 
2010-04-30 05:34:23 PM
Looks like they needed more helium in the balloon
 
2010-04-30 06:00:45 PM
Walker: just a couple billion dollars of our tax dollars down the drain.

You know how I know you're retarded?
 
2010-04-30 07:07:38 PM
Does anybody else see something different when they glance at this advert?

static.pulse360.com

/woulda been adblocked, using my girlfriend's computer
 
2010-04-30 07:53:10 PM
GurneyHalleck: Just fund the damn space elevator already. It would be a much better investment than bailing out rich people.

We don't have the technology, energy or resources to do so. Not by a long shot. Too much sci-fi blunts your sense of reality.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report