Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:24:01 +1000
> To: amsat-bb@amsat.org
> From: vk3...@gmail.com
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New Cubesat - the Ultimate Fox Hunt
>
> At 01:41 PM 8/10/2009, you wrote:
> >I'm crunching numbers right now, but just thought of something
> >
>
Why shouls someone spend money making measurements to get your figures?
The current system already works. There's nothing broken that needs to be fixed.
Joe wrote:
> But see where are the numbers to verify this? People make this statement
> all the time. but have yet to show any data that verif
Graham,
Cool. But still no cigar as far as Joe's question.
So.. the broad flat shape generates more compressive heating, than the
more pointy nose of the launch vehicle. But... the launch vehicle is
still going to generate a great deal of heat through the same process if
it is doing the same h
3
Graham G3VZV
PS The Haynes Manual is available from the RSGB
- Original Message -
From: "Sil - ZL2CIA"
To: "Bob Bruninga" ; "Amsat Reflector"
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 9:40 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New Cubesat - the Ultimate Fox Hunt
> Bob Brun
Joe,
I found a graph here
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/conghand/possibil.htm
that shows speed versus altitude (in obscure units, but never mind) for
both sounding rockets and orbital satellite launches (into a circular orbit)
It's not in the greatest detail.
Now to find the same data fo
Sil - ZL2CIA wrote:
> Bob Bruninga wrote:
>
>
>> The difference is that going up, you are going slowly in the higher density
>> atmosphere which is continually lessening as you go up letting you go faster
>> and faster with less and less friction. THus, no multiplying build up of
>> friction
g] On
Behalf Of g0...@aol.com
Sent: 10 August 2009 00:31
To: bruni...@usna.edu
Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New Cubesat - the Ultimate Fox Hunt
Or, the not so 'cube'sat structure is an aerodynamic shape made from a cast
ceramic material which glides in at a shallow ang
Bob Bruninga wrote:
> The difference is that going up, you are going slowly in the higher density
> atmosphere which is continually lessening as you go up letting you go faster
> and faster with less and less friction. THus, no multiplying build up of
> friction.
>
>
Bob,
I hesitate to say
At 01:41 PM 8/10/2009, you wrote:
>I'm crunching numbers right now, but just thought of something
>
>ICBM's If we were to nuke RUSSIA or visa versa, while these yes do not
>get to orbit, they do get to just shy of orbital velocity, and re enter
>the atmosphere, did they have all these elaborat
I'm crunching numbers right now, but just thought of something
ICBM's If we were to nuke RUSSIA or visa versa, while these yes do not
get to orbit, they do get to just shy of orbital velocity, and re enter
the atmosphere, did they have all these elaborate heat shields?
Alan VE4YZ wrote:
>
Joe and the group... Here is 25 year old data of STS5
http://www.habitablezone.com/columbia/Archive/Dryden/Documents/H-1254_Therma
lResponseShuttleWingReentryHeading.pdf
Go to page 7 of the PDF and see graph and you can take off altitude,
velocity over time.
Google is a wonderful thing. Google
Bob Bruninga wrote:
>>at take off we go from zero to 17580 Mph
>>in what 10 minutes or so and are in orbit.
>>Yet the other way around going from 1780
>>to zero in 45 minutes causes the fireball
>>effect with the friction.
>>
>>Why not on the way up?
>>
>>
>
>It does, its just that all th
ere, it gets very hot.
>Does this make sense?
>
>73,
>Pete
>WA6WOA
>
>--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Joe wrote:
>
>From: Joe
>Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New Cubesat - the Ultimate Fox Hunt
>To: g0...@aol.com
>Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org
>Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 4:47
> at take off we go from zero to 17580 Mph
> in what 10 minutes or so and are in orbit.
> Yet the other way around going from 1780
> to zero in 45 minutes causes the fireball
> effect with the friction.
>
> Why not on the way up?
It does, its just that all the energy is being burned at the rear
hat on the return trip it is still going very fast when it
>gets to the thick atmosphere and hence, since there is nothing to slow it down
>except the atmosphere, it gets very hot.
>Does this make sense?
>
>73,
>Pete
>WA6WOA
>
>--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Joe wrote:
>
>Fr
In the case of Delta II second stage tanks some analysis concluded that what
allows them to survive reenty is that a hole initially burns in one end which
results in a shape that creates a shockwave. The shockwave then deflects most
of the heat around the tank.
Some pictures if you're curious.
make sense?
73,
Pete
WA6WOA
--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Joe wrote:
From: Joe
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New Cubesat - the Ultimate Fox Hunt
To: g0...@aol.com
Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 4:47 PM
Exactly David,
This was my reasoning for trying to get the data I asked for in a
earli
Yeah, it might wind up being a super-sonic "Lawn Dart"!
Jim KQ6EA
--- On Sun, 8/9/09, g0...@aol.com wrote:
From: g0...@aol.com
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New Cubesat - the Ultimate Fox Hunt
To: bruni...@usna.edu
Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 4:31 PM
In a mes
Exactly David,
This was my reasoning for trying to get the data I asked for in a
earlier message.
I have been asking this for Years and No one EVER has been able to give
me this info.
if i was a conspiracy guy i'd be in the boat with the moon landing guys
that orbital space travel doesn't hap
In a message dated 09/08/2009 19:42:06 GMT Standard Time, n...@mwt.net
writes:
Why is it that all re-entries always end in the ball of fire over just a
few minutes. Why cannot the re-enetry energy be disipated over a longer
period to make it more survivable. Of course, if they could, th
Ok, Say can anyone find me this info?
The shuttle average orbital speed is 17580 MPh.
So launch starts at zero, and ends up at 17580
then coming back down goes from 17580 to zero.
Ok, Now what I want is,,
At Time = zero it's zero MPH, at t+1 min it's now at what altitude,
and what speed?
21 matches
Mail list logo
