... about how the miniscule NASA budget could be better spent "saving the world" in some way. Perhaps they want to spend it on change this time around.
The budget for NASA's Constellation programme - comprising the Orion and Ares vehicles - looks like it may have run to a few billion cubic metres of road surfacing after the agency admitted the Kennedy Space Center crawlerway over which spacecraft are trundled to their launchpads could collapse under the weight of the Ares V …
Why the hell are you talking in the order of many millions of kilograms?! I'd have thought 7,700 tons would be easier to work with (and visualise) than 7.7 million kgs.
In fact, why not go for one of the Reg's arbitrary weight scales - 7.7 million kgs equates to what, 192,500 midgets on unicycles, or 58 million iPhone 3Gs?
"could fail to support the load, resulting in severe impacts..."
Best accidental pun of the week.
You think 58 million iPhone 3Gs would way 7.7 million KG? You're saying each iPhone 3G weighs about 7.5KG? I don't think even the mactards would want to carry that in their pockets (I could be wrong though!)
As for "7,700 tons would be easier to work with"... that's true, seeing as 7.7 million KG is 7,700 tonnes which in turn is 8,470 tons, so sure, if they could suddenly reduce it weight, it would certainly be easier to work with! (1 tonne is 1000KG, 1 ton is 2000lb, 1KG is 2.2lb therefore 1 tonne is 2200lb)
58million iphones weighing (NOT waying...) 7.7million KG would come in at 133g per phone,
for your 7.5kg you distributed the phones amongst the weight, not the weight amongst the phones, by your maths its 7.5 phones to the kg, rather than 7.5 kg to the phone
if you are going to correct people you should make damn sure you are correct yourself (especially if you then call yourself a pedant)
Urm... 58 million iPhones @ 7.5kg each is 435x10^6kg not 7.7x10^6kg.
Did you forget to use the divide button... lets see...
7.7x10^6 / (divide, see that?) 58x10^6 = 0.132kg... or just over 130g... Even a "mactard" can carry that in their pocket (as their wallet will be much lighter after buying said iPhone). Obviously you are not well practiced at being a pedant.
"(I could be wrong though!)" - Indeed.
'You think 58 million iPhone 3Gs would way 7.7 million KG? You're saying each iPhone 3G weighs about 7.5KG? I don't think even the mactards would want to carry that in their pockets (I could be wrong though!)'
What the hell kind of maths is that?
If each iPhone weighed 7.5kg, and there were 58 million, then that'd 435 million kilos in total, not 7.7 million. 7.7m total weight / 58m iPhones = 132.75g, which is about right.
I think what's needed is a test load or three to see what happens to the roadbed with extra weight.
Let's see...10.9 million Kg divided by about 80 Kg per "unit" means they'd need no more than 136,250 fanbois to get the desired weight. Easy! Go to any Merkin shopping mall on Sunday afternoon and shout "Free 3G iPhones!" You'd need a lot of buses, though.
weight approximately 2,000 tons MORE than the shuttle does at lift off. So we are talking about an increase of 1,000 tons over the Apollo.
Of course, this IS a different NASA these days. Back in the day, it was a bunch of kids (average age of 27 at one point) and a few PHDs. Now, it is a bunch of bureaucrats (who are PHDs) and a handful of engineers.
If Apollo 13 happened today, the crew would be dead before the ground team could even identify the chair of the committee that was going to investigate the REPORT of the problem.
Most of us can automatically convert from kilogrammes to tonnes in our heads without any conscious thought, so what does it matter. Indeed given that a tonne is only 1000kg surely a bigger unit of measurement would be better, so measuring in millions of kg makes perfect sense. Would that be a terragramme?
Paris because even she can add or knock of a few zeroes.
Is this some kind of merkin ton then? I always thought that an old-fashioned ton was 20 hundredweight, where a hundredweight was eight stone (or 112 lbs), making a ton something like 2240lb. Or 40lb (18 or so kg) more than a metric tonne. Well, probably not 18kg 'cos the 2.2lb to the kg thing isn't quite accurate, but you know what I mean.
Or maybe they just taught me the wrong stuff at school or something.
Or is this where long tons and short tons come in? I can't remember...
Hold on a mo'
1 ton (imperial) is 20 cwt* and therefore 2240lb.
2000lb is often referred to as a short ton or net ton, but it's not a real ton it's just for people too lazy to do the maths. So a ton is actually slightly heavier than a tonne, which is only 2204.6lb. So 7,700 tons is actually 7,823,641kg which is almost certainly harder to work with that 7,700,000kg in any sense.
Please note that pedants should be properly pedantic.
*Note for furriners: cwt is an abreviation of hundredweight, which is 8 stone, 1 stone is 14lb, so 1 cwt is 112lb
While you're all ripping into eachother for fluffing your arithmetic, you might be interested to know the composition of the crawlerway. There are some bare factoids on the KSC website:
What they don't mention is that the river gravel was specially selected to be the lowest sparking material available. While the main tank isn't fuelled until the vehicle gets to the launch complex, you still really do not want your crawler setting off sparks underneath a million kilograms of ammonium perchlorate, aluminium and iron oxide.
Flames, not because I'm angry...
Well, what about a more technical and univeral measurement of weight... how many DD cup female breasts (or technically known as jugs) would I have to hold in the palm of my hands to have held the equivilent weight of the new shuttle on the asumption that the average pair weighs 2.5kg (and a nice weight it is too!)?
(Should keep this thread going!)
Paris cause she wishes she had another 2.5kg in the right place!
The Ares V is too big, and the Ares I is too small (having trouble lifting a fully kitted out Orion capsule).
Solution: Instead of 1 huge and 1 small, why not launch 2 large? That way, you don't have to rebuild the infrastructure, and you only have to design one launch vehicle.
Designed by NASA engineers, but blocked by NASA management.
The NASA bureaucracy will overrule the engineers on grounds of political expediency ("don't let the facts get in the way of truth, justice, and the American way), the crawler will set out on its journey overloaded, the crawlerway will fail under the excess load as the subsoil gives way, and the entire apparatus will slowly sink into the Florida muck. And then fall over on its side.
I'd be very interested in comments by a civil engineer on the various failure modes.
Yes, I too posses the ability to knock a few zeros off a number, but the point is, why should I? Why list something's weight (sorry, mass) in x millions kgs when there is a larger better unit available, which shrinks the number to something tangible.
Going by your logic they might as well have listed it in micrograms? That would be 7,700,000,000,000,000 µg. There, easy isn't it. How about yoctograms? That makes it 7.7e+33 yg. Oooh yes, much clearer.
The difference between Apollo and Ares is that Apollo was entirely liquid fuelled while Ares uses solid 1st stage boosters. That makes a huge difference to the weight of the vehicle during roll-out from the assembly building to the launch pad.
Apollo was nothing but empty tanks containing enough compressed air to stop the stack from collapsing. All its fuel was loaded once it was on the launch pad.
The Ares solid boosters will be in place, just like the Shuttle's solid boosters are, during the roll-out. Solid boosters are HEAVY, so I wouldn't be surprised if Shuttle is heavier than Apollo at this stage. Ares will certainly be heavier.
Somebody beat me to the MJbs, so instead:
@Joey Y: Re-read the article: 200mm of gravel, 900mm below that and *then* about 1.1 meters of substrate. Which makes (roughly) a road 2m-2.2m deep.
It just happens that the upper two levels and the lower two levels of stratum both add up to ~1.1m each.
tonne is not recognized by International System of Units (SI), proper SI unit for a tonne would be a "megagram" (7.7 million kg = 7 700 Mg = 7.7 Gg - gigagrams)
(ironically only three nations have not officially adopted the International System of Units as their primary or sole system of measurement: Liberia, Myanmar and United States - welcome to 21st century?)
its important to use international standards esp. in science and space research to avoid errors in calculations because of different systems of units (this already caused several critical failures)
stuff all this weight mass mumbo jumbo, they just need to build a giant weighing scales, rockets on one end, giant bath tub on the other. Fill with water until balanced then shift bath tub on said bull dozers down the walk way. If it sinks, cracks, slips, you lose some water. If not then you're probably safe to shift the real rocket. Do it a few times to be sure, maybe even on a windy day. Daft civil engineers and surveyors panicking when all they need is me giant tub.
"Yes, I too posses the ability to knock a few zeros off a number, but the point is, why should I? Why list something's weight (sorry, mass) in x millions kgs when there is a larger better unit available, which shrinks the number to something tangible.
Going by your logic they might as well have listed it in micrograms? That would be 7,700,000,000,000,000 µg. There, easy isn't it. How about yoctograms? That makes it 7.7e+33 yg. Oooh yes, much clearer."
Well the kg is actually the SI unit, so makes the logical choice. We are talking about a scientific organisation (well, one with scientific roots at any rate).
What's odd is that the SI unit is the only one to require a prefix. We should redefine the gram to 1000 times its current value, and maybe rename it for simpletons. Then the SI unit would be a "proper" unit and not a multiple.
TBH I'm happier knowing how many zeroes I'm dealing with - maybe 7.7E+6 kg
Eh? Let's assume the whole thing, including mid-strip, gets resurfaced. 40m width x 2.5m depth (average) x 4800m length = 480,000 cubic metres!
A "few billion cubic metres of road surfacing" could put a crawlerway around the widest circumference of the planet! (40m x 2.5m x 40076000m = 4.0076 bn m^3)
(Yes, yes, I know, there's this inconvenient thing called sea in the way, but you get my meaning.)
Paris, because she could have worked that out...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019