Astronaut EDC

Goldtanker

Goldtanker

Joined
Oct 22, 2004
Messages
2,746
I'm watching the continuing coverage of the Discovery and the problem with those pieces of underlament that are protruding from between the tiles. Can't you just send one of the crew out with his/her EDC to slice those pieces off so they can get back to business? Anyone know if they actually carry anything as mundane as a knife?
 
Supposedly they carry a modified Emerson specwar folder, with a kind of guthook for opening food packages. I don't know how easy it would be to handle with a spacesuit on.
 
On discovery channel, I have seen them use Swiss Army Knives, and there is a vid on Emerson's website of an astronaut using his Emerson NASA knife to slice salami or something.
 
Napoleon Dynamite said:
I'm watching the continuing coverage of the Challenger and the problem with those pieces of underlament that are protruding from between the tiles. Can't you just send one of the crew out with his/her EDC to slice those pieces off so they can get back to business?
Click to expand...

Wow :rolleyes:
 
That is not easy to do when you weight zero, and have nothing to hold onto. Just bounce once against the bottom of the shuttle and you will die in space (would cause too much tile damage to repair).

n2s
 
Goldtanker said:
I'm watching the continuing coverage of the Challenger and the problem with those pieces of underlament that are protruding from between the tiles. Can't you just send one of the crew out with his/her EDC to slice those pieces off so they can get back to business? Anyone know if they actually carry anything as mundane as a knife?
Click to expand...

the Challenger and all crewmembers were lost in 1986.


Maybe you mean "Discovery"?
 
I doubt it would be as easy as taking a SAK or the Emerson and just cut the stuff off. Im sure they must have some more specialized and safer tools for use when outside the shuttle. Seems to me one slip of the knife that might puncture the suit would be near instant death.
 
Intended the first part of the post as sort of tongue in cheek. Sorry it went over the heads of some people timmy. :D
 
not2sharp said:
That is not easy to do when you weight zero, and have nothing to hold onto.
Click to expand...
Actually, they only weigh a little less than they do on earth. The reason they float about is because they're centripetally accelerated, just as the water is in a bucket that's swung over one's head in a loop (and doesn't fall out of the bucket).
 
Actually, that's not quite right - because the water in that bucket "feels" g-forces strong enough to keep the water in the bucket, although Earth's gravity is pulling the water down.

What it actually is is a non-terminating free-fall, where contact forces are eliminated and everything "falls" at the same rate. Weight is eliminated (as it's really only the effect of gravity on mass). Inertia remains the same.

And to get back on topic, I think the Earth is a touch safer without an open Emerson floating around in LEO, don't you?
 
Goldtanker said:
Intended the first part of the post as sort of tongue in cheek. Sorry it went over the heads of some people timmy. :D
Click to expand...
That isn't tounge-in-cheek at all. That is just bad taste.
 
knife saber said:
Actually, that's not quite right - because the water in that bucket "feels" g-forces strong enough to keep the water in the bucket, although Earth's gravity is pulling the water down.

What it actually is is a non-terminating free-fall, where contact forces are eliminated and everything "falls" at the same rate. Weight is eliminated (as it's really only the effect of gravity on mass). Inertia remains the same.

And to get back on topic, I think the Earth is a touch safer without an open Emerson floating around in LEO, don't you?
Click to expand...
In my analogy, the bucket provides both the tangential force and the centripetal force. In the case of the space shuttle, the rocket engines provide the force for the shuttle to gain its tangential inertia, and the earth's gravity provides the centripetal force.

I used the water and bucket analogy because it's palpable to most people.
 
The mass is the same the weight is ~zero. That is what being "weightless" is all about; the force of inertia is balanced with the force of gravity.


n2s
 
not2sharp said:
The mass is the same the weight is ~zero. That is what being "weightless" is all about; the force of inertia is balanced with the force of gravity.


n2s
Click to expand...

Weight is mass multiplied by gravity. Gravity is providing the centripetal force; therefore, the objects in orbit have weight.
 
Weight=mass x acceleration

If you weight 100 lbs on earth

When your scale reads 100 it is equal to Weight = 100lbs(mass) x 9.8 m/s^2 (acceleration due to gravity)

An astronaut in a stable orbit (neither falling nor pulling away) weighs nothing

His weight = 0 = 100lbs(mass) x 9.8 m/s^2(gravity) - 100 lbs(mass) x -9.8 m/s^2 (acceleration due to centrifugal force)

n2s
 
I should have said that the feeling of weight is eliminated in orbit. The only force acting on a shuttle in orbit is Earth's gravity. The thrusters simply get you up and create your tangential velocity. So really, you've got the same weight you have on Earth, it's simply that you have nothing against which to feel that weight, since everything is falling at the same rate you are.

Practically speaking, though, an astronaut in orbit is weightless because nothing in his immediate surroundings is able to apply contact forces that allow you to measure that weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top