| Science Forum Index » Space - History Forum » LCROSS Impact coverage E-... |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Pat Flannery... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Damon Hill wrote:
[quote:95ba3ab259]At several thousand MPH, a crumpled ball of paper would be the
equivalent of an armor-piercing round. A couple of tons of metal
is going to make a hell of a bang and throw regolith around.
[/quote:95ba3ab259]
Since this is probably going to come up at some point along the thread,
the impact velocity of the Centaur stage was 2.5 km/sec (or 2500
meters/sec) = 5592 miles/hr., = 8202 ft./sec.
For comparison purposes, the M1 Abrams tank's 120 mm gun has a muzzle
velocity of 1575 m/sec when firing its depleted uranium projectile.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
rwalker wrote:
[quote:e9c36494f7]
Despite no visible plume, NASA seems satisfied with the outcome:
[/quote:e9c36494f7]
You know the NASA PAO; it could have missed the Moon entirly, and they
would still be saying it was a 'limited success". :-D
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
[quote:a776ac9bda]Sigh. OK, let me spell it out for you, real slowly.
[/quote:a776ac9bda]
That's it Jorge, keep insulting the newsgroup member's intelligence; it
reflects well on your NASA career and will certainly encourage people to
buy your books.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pat Flannery <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
[quote:2f911c090f]The only two things I can think of right off the top of my head would be
that it hit solid rock with nothing atop it that could be blown into a
debris cloud, or exactly the reverse... that it hit something so soft
that it went right on through and ended up deep underground
[/quote:2f911c090f]
You missed the third possibility - that the PAO (once again) waaaay
overhyped what would happen (complete with sexy CGI video), and you
fell for it completely.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Derek Lyons wrote:
[quote:171da96976]
You missed the third possibility - that the PAO (once again) waaaay
overhyped what would happen (complete with sexy CGI video), and you
fell for it completely.
[/quote:171da96976]
I ran into the PAO's observing guide for the impact last night:
http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/observation/amateur.htm
You were supposed to be able to see it with a 10-14" Dobsonian.
In actuality, even the Keck and Hale telescopes saw nothing.
Just over-hyping it to TV was bad enough, but getting thousands of
amateur astronomers cranked up into a tizzy about it - only to see nada
- is a really bad tactical move with a quest for more NASA funding going on.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rwalker... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:28:05 -0500, Pat Flannery <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com>
wrote:
[quote:e759491e5c]rwalker wrote:
Despite no visible plume, NASA seems satisfied with the outcome:
You know the NASA PAO; it could have missed the Moon entirly, and they
would still be saying it was a 'limited success". :-D
Pat
[/quote:e759491e5c]
That thought did cross my mind. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Chomko... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 9, 2:13 pm, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
[quote:b59e5ecc18]Dr.Colon Oscopy wrote: I
couldn't get NASA channel coverage so I recorded ABC and CNN.
The little brunette ditz on CNN and her telescope-penis joke were a good
reminder why I am watching less-and-less TV these days.
Anyway, the preliminary results are baffling, with no ejecta plume
observed by anyone and the spectrum of the impact flash showing sodium
for some reason.
[/quote:b59e5ecc18]
The moon is really salt?!? One of Guth's rants is true? Say it ain't
so.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 13, 9:45 am, Eric Chomko <pne.cho... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote:be2b8e38c8]On Oct 9, 2:13 pm, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
Dr.Colon Oscopy wrote: I
couldn't get NASA channel coverage so I recorded ABC and CNN.
The little brunette ditz on CNN and her telescope-penis joke were a good
reminder why I am watching less-and-less TV these days.
Anyway, the preliminary results are baffling, with no ejecta plume
observed by anyone and the spectrum of the impact flash showing sodium
for some reason.
The moon is really salt?!? One of Guth's rants is true? Say it ain't
so....
[/quote:be2b8e38c8]
It's at least half so, because sodium is at least worth the better
half of what terrestrial salt is all about, although perhaps other
minerals or raw elements suitable to that extreme vacuum and solar
+cosmic bombardment have recombined to create a sodium+whatever
composite crystal that's equivalent to salt. I'm not exactly sure how
much nitrogen exist on or within that naked moon of ours, though I bet
with that much spare sodium there's more than enough nitrogen to make
its very own fair share of table salt.
I've also deductively suggested/speculated there's a darn good chance
of some brine layers or geode pockets of brine existing within that
robust crust, and for certain underneath where the average density of
our Selene/moon isn't all that great (by rights of limited seismic
data could even suggest that it's semi-hollow).
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 9, 11:13 am, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
[quote:23770fe43b]Dr.Colon Oscopy wrote: I
couldn't get NASA channel coverage so I recorded ABC and CNN.
The little brunette ditz on CNN and her telescope-penis joke were a good
reminder why I am watching less-and-less TV these days.
Anyway, the preliminary results are baffling, with no ejecta plume
observed by anyone and the spectrum of the impact flash showing sodium
for some reason.
Pat
[/quote:23770fe43b]
I would have been quite surprised it there wasn't a strong indication
of sodium. So what's the big deal, just because I'm 100% correct
every once in a while?
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
