| |
VK5QX > TREK 26.02.04 01:47l 105 Lines 3184 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 0E0826VK5QX
Read: DB0FHN GUEST
Subj: Re: G0TEZ > ablative hull plating
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<VK6HGR<VK5UJ<
VK5BRC<VK5SPG<VK5LZ
Sent: 040225/1321Z @:VK5LZ.#ADL.#SA.AUS.OC #:14401 [Elizabeth] $:0E0826VK5QX
From: VK5QX@VK5LZ.#ADL.#SA.AUS.OC
To : TREK@WW
DID SOMEONE MISS SOMETHING ?
We have seen the following nonsense:-
__________
" From: G0TEZ@GB7YFS.#26.GBR.EU
To : TREK@WW
Warren seems to engine a bit of a fight in public. Anyone else who want's
to, please feel free to join in.
I don't think he'll stop 'til he has prooved his superiority. Ian.
(G0TEZ, not the Ausssie one.).
Ian G0TEZ wrote
Warren says:
"events leading to the Challenger explosion was the cause. A bit of
insulation on the main fuel tank impacted the wing and damaged it which
led to the engress of plasma upon reentry. Had NASA had a working
brain............................."
^ Plasma ?
Go on brains.....what was it then Ian?
Do tell.
Ablative shields were fitted simply because, at re entry speeds,
spacecraft heat up due to the speed of the airflow and melt or, at least,
cook the crew.
No 'Plasma' of any kind that I can think of, seems to be involved.
Perhaps there is a syndrome caused by watching too much Star Trek that
leads people to believe that NASA spacecraft have 'Plasm manifolds'.
Any advance on the above explanation very welcome. Ian (G0TEZ).
All the best - Ian, G0TEZ @ GB7YFS.#26.gbr.eu "
__________
This particular matter seems to have been going on, "ad nauseam" for some
weeks now.
The fact of the matter is that in a number of NASA reports they referred
to the Challenger space shuttle disaster and stated that this was caused
by the entry of hot gases into the wing cavity.
In several of these reports the term "plasma" was used to describe the
gases.
I also seem to remember having seen the term "plasma" used in a similar
way on several occasions in the past and probably in each case to do with
the subject of physics.
Here is a definition of "plasma" as used in this sense.
"A highly ionised gas which, because it contains an approximately equal
number of positive ions and electrons, is electrically neutral and highly
conducting."
My reference here is "The Macquarie Concise Dictionary 2nd Edition."
An Internet "Quick Reference Definition" is shown as;
" noun: (physical chemistry) a fourth state of matter distinct from
solid or liquid or gas and present in stars and fusion reactors; a gas
becomes a plasma when it is heated until the atoms lose all their
electrons, leaving a highly electrified collection of nuclei and free
electrons (Example: "Particles in space exist in the form of a plasma") "
And yet another;
"Plasma - A physical state of matter which exists at extremely high
temperatures in which all molecules are dissociated and most atoms are
ionized.
There are no doubt many other sources from which a more detailed
explanation can be found.
It all sounds very frightening, horrendous and violent etc. No wonder the
shuttle did not make it home safely.
In any case, the term "plasma" would certainly seem to represent an
accepted and correct use of the word in the form indicated, and also as
used by Warren.
However, I have to ask, "Why all the argument over just one single word
accompanied by inferred insults?"
Regards,
Ian
__________
73 de Ian, VK5QX
@ VK5LZ.#ADL.#SA.AUS.OC
25 February 2004
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
