• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Don't go out on Friday"

Collapse

  • TimberWolf
    replied
    Originally posted by PAH View Post
    Yet space shuttles are still able to navigate up to the space station and back.

    It's another logic glitch in the matrix as everything should be getting destroyed by bits of the first thing abandoned in space.
    Kessler syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Leave a comment:


  • PAH
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    Very true; mere flakes of paint are dangerous at Mach 17 or so.

    Yet space shuttles are still able to navigate up to the space station and back.

    It's another logic glitch in the matrix as everything should be getting destroyed by bits of the first thing abandoned in space.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
    AtW already did this one, or very similar, recently where I pointed out that you're comparing two different things. The chance of anyone being hit may be 1 in 3200, but the chance of you being hit are much less, just as the chance of anyone winning the lottery is much more than 1 in 14 million; more like 1 in 1.
    Don't crush poor prawn's attempts at maths. It does throw a lot of light on how trustworthy his calculations about stocks/gold are though.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    Originally posted by wobbegong View Post
    Satellites are regularly falling to earth but because of their size only a few pieces make it through re-entry. If this bus-size one was broken into smaller bits before re-entry there would be lass chance of sizable pieces making it through, shirley? Additional charges should be deployed on the bigger structures to ensure they were reduced to a 'burnable' size.
    Yes, but explosives have exhaust speeds in excess of 1000 m/s (TNT = 7 km/s), which could put junk into stable orbit, and it doesn't have to be large junk to be a problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • PAH
    replied
    They should have coated it in something highly flammable to encourage burn up, like a giant fat ball.

    Alternatively they could have put a big electromagnet in it, and turned it on to collect some space debris on the way down.

    Leave a comment:


  • wobbegong
    replied
    Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
    Blowing stuff up may not be a great option as that could create a lot of space debris, which is bad. But I wonder whether a simple change of the dimensions of objects would do it, where this is possible, e.g. the batteries. More surface area/volume or better aerodynamics (less brick-like) the more chance it has of burning up, I imagine.
    Satellites are regularly falling to earth but because of their size only a few pieces make it through re-entry. If this bus-size one was broken into smaller bits before re-entry there would be lass chance of sizable pieces making it through, shirley? Additional charges should be deployed on the bigger structures to ensure they were reduced to a 'burnable' size.

    Leave a comment:


  • PAH
    replied
    Why didn't they get the space shuttle to bring it home on it's last trip? Too big for the cargo bay?

    Maybe it's one of those distraction events orchestrated to pull the rug from under your feet while you're busy looking up at the sky. Let's see what bad news gets buried in the next 24 hours....

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    Blowing stuff up may not be a great option as that could create a lot of space debris, which is bad. But I wonder whether a simple change of the dimensions of objects would do it, where this is possible, e.g. the batteries. More surface area/volume or better aerodynamics (less brick-like) the more chance it has of burning up, I imagine.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
    Couldn't they borrow AtW's 40 watt plasma gun and zap it?
    I can't get two references to get one

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    Couldn't they borrow AtW's 40 watt plasma gun and zap it?

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by PAH View Post
    If only they had missiles that could destroy it, or at least break it up in the upper atmosphere, ensuring total burn up before it hits the ground.
    It's much cheaper to settle insurance claim.

    HTH

    Leave a comment:


  • PAH
    replied
    If only they had missiles that could destroy it, or at least break it up in the upper atmosphere, ensuring total burn up before it hits the ground.

    Leave a comment:


  • wobbegong
    replied
    Maybe in future they'll consider a remotely activated self destruct option?

    Leave a comment:


  • PAH
    replied
    Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
    Terminal velocity () for sky divers might well be a lot less than for a piece of space debris. At least for skydivers whose mass/area is less than the debris, for example.

    Ooops. I forgot that different shapes will fall differently, unless on the moon where there isn't air resistance.

    Feather & Hammer Drop on Moon - YouTube

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    Originally posted by PAH View Post
    Seeing as there's a thing called terminal velocity, that afaik also applies to falling space debris, why don't they use skydivers to attach a parachute to it?
    Terminal velocity () for sky divers might well be a lot less than for a piece of space debris. At least for skydivers whose mass/area is less than the debris, for example.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X