Relevancy of the Educator Astronaut to the Space Program
stmx3
-1- A mission specialist with specific skills in K-12 education
-2- Required to fulfill same duties as traditional MS
(e.g. EVA, remote manipulator arm operator, payload specialist, ISS
construction, etc.)
The purpose of the Educator Astronaut is to "help lead the Agency in the
development of new ways to connect space exploration with the classroom,
and to inspire the next generation of explorers." According to
http://edspace.nasa.gov/faq/faq.html , they will "experience something
unique that they can use to engage students and to inspire them to
consider a career in science, technology, engineering and mathematics."
Currently, 3-6 educator astronaut candidates will be selected to be
among the next Astronaut Candidate group.
Indeed, NASA lists Educational Excellence as one of its contributions to
National Priorities within its Strategic Roadmap. In this
self-proclaimed role, some specific actions NASA is taking (under
various categories) include
-Produce teaching tools (cat: Educational Technology)
-Coordinate and articulate student programs (cat: Student Support)
-Provide professional development in standards-led education (cat:
Support of Systemic Improvement)
See "The Role of Education in NASA's Strategic Plan" at
http://education.nasa.gov/implan/role.html for additional information.
I see pros and cons to this program.
PROS:
-NASA offers a unique perspective to inspire children because it gives a
glimpse of the future that can be attained via math, science and
engineering.
-NASA astronauts are positive role models and outstanding spokespersons
for the sciences.
-As Barbara Morgan said in a 2000 interview with NEA, NASA is showing
that teachers are as important as geologists, engineers, physicians and
scientists to the space program.
CONS:
-NASA's foray into the education arena may be viewed as a Public
Relations campaign to inspire support for NASA more than for education.
-There are other agencies tasked with promoting K-12 education (e.g.
NSF) in math and science. NASA should concentrate its resources on its
primary missions.
-NASA can do more to inspire children and adults with successful
missions and driving towards a National goal (e.g. Hubble Space
Telescope, Mars Pathfinder).
-Why teachers and not politicians, journalists or artists?
Additional PROS/CONS and your comments welcome.
Thanks for reading.
Craig Fink
-Space provide a unique environment to conduct various demonstrations
(especially Newtonian physics) that can't be done on earth.
>
> CONS:
> -NASA's foray into the education arena may be viewed as a Public
> Relations campaign to inspire support for NASA more than for education.
> -There are other agencies tasked with promoting K-12 education (e.g.
> NSF) in math and science. NASA should concentrate its resources on its
> primary missions.
> -NASA can do more to inspire children and adults with successful
> missions and driving towards a National goal (e.g. Hubble Space
> Telescope, Mars Pathfinder).
> -Why teachers and not politicians, journalists or artists?
>
Sure, the on-orbit experiance should be made available for everyone to
enjoy. Not just hand picked government agents to fly on government run
monopolies. Thats why we should return to Capitalism wrt to space travel so
that the journalists, artists or just plain tourist can enjoy the
experiance.
Craig Fink
stmx3
[snip]
>>PROS:
>>-NASA offers a unique perspective to inspire children because it gives a
>>glimpse of the future that can be attained via math, science and
>>engineering.
>>-NASA astronauts are positive role models and outstanding spokespersons
>>for the sciences.
>>-As Barbara Morgan said in a 2000 interview with NEA, NASA is showing
>>that teachers are as important as geologists, engineers, physicians and
>>scientists to the space program.
>
> -Space provide a unique environment to conduct various demonstrations
> (especially Newtonian physics) that can't be done on earth.
>
Duh! The most obvious one. Thanks.
[snip all after]
Rod Stevenson
lucky to be part of a 60 strong party of teachers from England who visited
Kennedy Space Centre in May of this year. We were allowed access to the
whole range of NASA educational resources as well as mind blowing visits to
the main sites at KSC and CCAFB. It has inspired my teaching and through
that hundreds of English school children.
I wish the Educator Astronauts every success and hope that if they ever
travel to England that I will get a chance to meet them and introduce them
to some of my pupils.
Rod Stevenson
Norwich
England
MattWriter
"Relevance."
(Climbs off grammatical soapbox)
Matt Bille
(MattW...@AOL.com)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR
Henry Spencer
stmx3 <stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> wrote:
>The purpose of the Educator Astronaut is to "help lead the Agency in the
>development of new ways to connect space exploration with the classroom,
>and to inspire the next generation of explorers."
To be nasty and cynical, the purpose of the Educator Astronaut was to give
NASA a way to co-opt Barbara Morgan into the astronaut corps, thus
shutting her up. She'll pretty definitely get to fly. The chances that
*another* EA will get to fly are no better than 50-50, and it will go
downhill fast after that.
>Currently, 3-6 educator astronaut candidates will be selected to be
>among the next Astronaut Candidate group.
Realistically, NASA is already oversupplied with astronauts.
>-Why teachers and not politicians, journalists or artists?
Because the demise of the original Citizens In Space program, after
Challenger, left a determined and vocal teacher hanging in there, politely
and persistently harassing NASA about a flight opportunity, and it did not
leave any already-selected representatives of those other occupations in
similar positions.
Politicians, yes, undoubtedly, when a half-baked excuse can be found, as
one was for Senator Glenn. The others, no chance.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | he...@spsystems.net
stmx3
Thanks...I learn something new everyday.
stmx3
[snip all before]
>
> To be nasty and cynical, the purpose of the Educator Astronaut was to give
> NASA a way to co-opt Barbara Morgan into the astronaut corps, thus
> shutting her up. She'll pretty definitely get to fly. The chances that
> *another* EA will get to fly are no better than 50-50, and it will go
> downhill fast after that.
Thanks for the up front caveat on your post. I do not know what they
had to 'shut her up' about. I take your comment either
1) she would incessantly complain to the media, or
2) she would divulge something nasty that would threaten to bring down NASA.
I don't think NASA would have created an entire section in their
strategic roadmap for #1; #2 smacks of a half-baked conspiracy and not
at all realistic, IMO.
The EA (Educator Astronaut) website says that Ms. Morgan will definitely
fly. I can't imagine other EA's not flying if NASA is specifically
recruiting them.
>
[snip]
>
> Politicians, yes, undoubtedly, when a half-baked excuse can be found, as
> one was for Senator Glenn. The others, no chance.
I do not think your average Joe Politician will fly again because of the
controversy it would generate. John Glenn, however, wasn't your average
politician.
Rand Simberg
<stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>The EA (Educator Astronaut) website says that Ms. Morgan will definitely
>fly. I can't imagine other EA's not flying if NASA is specifically
>recruiting them.
You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
little ambition to actually fly them.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Christopher
Simberg) wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:05:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, stmx3
><stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
>glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>The EA (Educator Astronaut) website says that Ms. Morgan will definitely
>>fly. I can't imagine other EA's not flying if NASA is specifically
>>recruiting them.
>
>You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
>astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
>little ambition to actually fly them.
Why does NASA keep recruiting them then?
Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill
stmx3
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:05:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, stmx3
> <stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>The EA (Educator Astronaut) website says that Ms. Morgan will definitely
>>fly. I can't imagine other EA's not flying if NASA is specifically
>>recruiting them.
>
>
> You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
> astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
> little ambition to actually fly them.
>
I understand your point. My point is that NASA is recruiting a certain
number of candidates specifically for the K-12 education experience
(minimum 3 yrs experience required). Why go through these maneuvers if
there is no intent to fly them in the future? What better way to
highlight their EA program?
Rand Simberg
<stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
>> astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
>> little ambition to actually fly them.
>
>I understand your point. My point is that NASA is recruiting a certain
>number of candidates specifically for the K-12 education experience
>(minimum 3 yrs experience required). Why go through these maneuvers if
>there is no intent to fly them in the future?
For PR purposes.
>What better way to
>highlight their EA program?
They highlighted their space station program for years without
actually flying any hardware. Why should they have to fly EAs? They
get adequate publicity just recruiting them.
Do you really think that EAs are going to go to the head of the line
when many non-EA astronauts have never flown?
stmx3
[snip]
>
> Do you really think that EAs are going to go to the head of the line
> when many non-EA astronauts have never flown?
>
I'm tempted to say that cutting in line at NASA isn't unheard of. But I
don't have specific examples at hand. If they're hiring EAs for PR,
then EAs may leapfrog the line, for PR.
Rand Simberg
<stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> Do you really think that EAs are going to go to the head of the line
>> when many non-EA astronauts have never flown?
>
>I'm tempted to say that cutting in line at NASA isn't unheard of.
Of course not, but not for that reason (well, for Glenn, but there
were very powerful political reasons for that)
>But I
>don't have specific examples at hand. If they're hiring EAs for PR,
>then EAs may leapfrog the line, for PR.
Unlikely since, as I said, they can get adequate PR without flying
anyone.
Christopher P. Winter
wrote:
I'm all for the "Educator Astronaut" program. However, I agree with your
point that success in its primary missions is the most effective component in
NASA's ability to inspire. Were it more successful, it would have to issue
big sticks to all astronauts so that, on their PR tours, they could beat back
the hordes of people seeking to get closer to the source of inspiration. And
of course, we would not have been hearing about a "crisis in aerospace" these
past few years: American students would not be abandoning engineering
curricula in droves, and aerospace executives would not be worrying (at least
not in public) about how to replace their talented workers when the baby
boomers retire en masse.
Henry Spencer
stmx3 <stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> wrote:
>> To be nasty and cynical, the purpose of the Educator Astronaut was to give
>> NASA a way to co-opt Barbara Morgan into the astronaut corps, thus
>
>Thanks for the up front caveat on your post. I do not know what they
>had to 'shut her up' about. I take your comment either
>1) she would incessantly complain to the media, or
>2) she would divulge something nasty that would threaten to bring down NASA.
Neither, exactly. She just kept politely pointing out that she was still
around and still ready and willing to fly, whenever NASA was brave enough
to assign her a seat. And every now and then she got some press coverage
for it. She was becoming an embarrassment to NASA.
>I don't think NASA would have created an entire section in their
>strategic roadmap for #1...
Creating things on paper is really pretty easy, and they can be uncreated
just as easily after their public-relations usefulness has passed.
>The EA (Educator Astronaut) website says that Ms. Morgan will definitely
>fly. I can't imagine other EA's not flying if NASA is specifically
>recruiting them.
As Rand has noted, NASA has more astronauts than it needs already. Any
decision to recruit more is as much public relations as a real requirement.
>> Politicians, yes, undoubtedly, when a half-baked excuse can be found, as
>> one was for Senator Glenn. The others, no chance.
>
>I do not think your average Joe Politician will fly again because of the
>controversy it would generate.
Like I said, it requires some sort of plausible excuse. One will be found
if there is sufficient incentive.
>John Glenn, however, wasn't your average politician.
Correct; he was a politician that the President owed a big favor to.
Rod Stevenson
"I'm all for the "Educator Astronaut" program. However, I agree with your
point that success in its primary missions is the most effective component
in
NASA's ability to inspire. Were it more successful, it would have to issue
big sticks to all astronauts so that, on their PR tours, they could beat
back
the hordes of people seeking to get closer to the source of inspiration. And
of course, we would not have been hearing about a "crisis in aerospace"
these
past few years: American students would not be abandoning engineering
curricula in droves, and aerospace executives would not be worrying (at
least
not in public) about how to replace their talented workers when the baby
boomers retire en masse."
When I was at KSC, the staff at The Centre for Space Education made the
comment that most of the teachers they get coming through the centre seem to
be from England and that it is an English organisation that is trying to get
more US teachers to visit the centre. MORE TEACHERS = MORE INSPIRATION =
MORE ENGINEERING GRADUATES!!
Rod Stevenson
(An inspired English Science teacher)
Joann Evans
>
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:32:39 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
> Simberg) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:05:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, stmx3
> ><stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
> >glow in such a way as to indicate that:
> >
> >>The EA (Educator Astronaut) website says that Ms. Morgan will definitely
> >>fly. I can't imagine other EA's not flying if NASA is specifically
> >>recruiting them.
> >
> >You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
> >astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
> >little ambition to actually fly them.
>
> Why does NASA keep recruiting them then?
My best guess would be to always have whatever they consider an
adequate pool to choose from at any given time, as existing ones retire,
pass away (hopefully not *during* a mission), or go on to other careers
after either:
Getting one or more mission assignments, or;
Giving up on ever being on *any* mission.
Stuf4
> Craig Fink wrote:
> [snip]
> >>PROS:
> > -Space provide a unique environment to conduct various demonstrations
> > (especially Newtonian physics) that can't be done on earth.
> >
>
> Duh! The most obvious one. Thanks.
Previous shuttle astronauts have performed some excellent educational
demos, particularly the "Toys in Space" series.
~ CT
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"MattWriter" <mattw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030929164619...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> Someone has to say it: there is no such word as "Relevancy." The word is
> "Relevance."
>
Actually no one has to say it since that's not true.
Checking several sources shows relevancy is indeed a word and can be used
interchangeably with Relevance.
Craig Fink
I agree, and they are some of the most interesting space videos to watch.
"Toys in Space", hammer and feather, and just plain ordianry things like
water or food. Can a teacher add more to what generic astronauts can do.
Probably, just like sending a geologist to the moon, instead of teaching a
generic astronaut some geology.
Craig Fink
Craig Fink
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:09:21 GMT, in a place far, far away, stmx3
> <stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>Rand Simberg wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> Do you really think that EAs are going to go to the head of the line
>>> when many non-EA astronauts have never flown?
>>
>>I'm tempted to say that cutting in line at NASA isn't unheard of.
>
> Of course not, but not for that reason (well, for Glenn, but there
> were very powerful political reasons for that)
>
>>But I
>>don't have specific examples at hand. If they're hiring EAs for PR,
>>then EAs may leapfrog the line, for PR.
>
> Unlikely since, as I said, they can get adequate PR without flying
> anyone.
>
Adequate PR without flying an EA, but far more superior PR by flying her. A
teacher that can tour this countries schools with video and personal
experiances in hand so to speak. If NASA selects people who were
exceptional teachers in the classroom, they will be exceptional public
relation spokespersons after they fly.
Andm, it wouldn't hurt the future space tourist industry either.
Craig Fink
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
> > Previous shuttle astronauts have performed some excellent educational
> > demos, particularly the "Toys in Space" series.
> >
>
>
> I agree, and they are some of the most interesting space videos to watch.
> "Toys in Space", hammer and feather, and just plain ordianry things like
> water or food. Can a teacher add more to what generic astronauts can do.
> Probably, just like sending a geologist to the moon, instead of teaching a
> generic astronaut some geology.
What the teacher adds is a person that kids can relate to.
I don't see it as any special expertise, such as the geologist on the
Moon. When kids see a teacher, it's not like a test pilot or someone
with a PhD or a politician. It's someone who is not so far removed
from the desks they are sitting at. From there, it's not so far
removed for them to think, "I can do that."
So the biggest benefit of flying a teacher, as I see it, is to provide
inspiration to youth.
The sad part is that it works both ways. When Christa died, the
tragedy was felt deeply by young kids and I don't know any way to
measure how many were *turned off* from science/engineering by that.
~ CT
stmx3
[snip]
>
> Previous shuttle astronauts have performed some excellent educational
> demos, particularly the "Toys in Space" series.
>
>
> ~ CT
Not to mention the
1) Liquid Globule Retrieval via Oral Cavity experiments
2) M&M Free Dispersion (and Subsequent Retrieval via Oral Cavity)
experiments
3) Verification of Classical Physics with a Slinky experiment
etc.
However, there are some decent experiments planned with onboard
materials under a new program. Data collection methods, however, will
limit their usefulness, although the fact that they are being done may
help in the detailed planning stages of follow-on experiments, when the
big bucks will be spent. For more info, see
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/25sep_ingenuity.htm?list683223
Christopher
A pretty depressing outlook for any would be astronauts then, I
remember the American guy who was the first one to fly the jet pack
thing the shuttle crews used to take out there-what ever happened to
the jet packs as you never see shuttle crews use them anymore? But,
he had to wait close to 20 years to get his change to go into space,
his reward though for his long wait was to be the first human to fly
unconnected to any spacecraft while in orbit.
And as the shuttle fleet is now down to just 3 shuttles, most members
of the said 'pool' of astronauts are in for a long wait for their turn
to go into space. IF *I* was an American, and was qualified enough to
join NASA as an trainee astronaut, and got to be selected to the pool,
I'd have have chosen that career path to go into space, and not just
wait in a long que with my fellow astronauts on the off chance I'd be
picked for a flight. Its like being an aircraft pilot, who never gets
to fly.
Christopher
wrote:
>And, it wouldn't hurt the future space tourist industry either.
Unless of course the first one goes the way Christa McAuliffe's did.
stmx3
[snip]
>
> I agree, and they are some of the most interesting space videos to watch.
> "Toys in Space", hammer and feather, and just plain ordianry things like
> water or food. Can a teacher add more to what generic astronauts can do.
> Probably, just like sending a geologist to the moon, instead of teaching a
> generic astronaut some geology.
>
> Craig Fink
What did a geologist on the moon add to the science of rock collecting,
other than being an individual who might have a deeper appreciation for
what he was seeing? (This question meant to demonstrate my ignorance
rather than incite old debates)
I think "PRO" for having a Teacher in space is that he/she will have a
better relationship with the intended audience.
A "CON" is that the Teacher may only be a slightly better presenter of
materials than your avg. Joe Astronaut. I have seen videos of teachers
and astronauts presenting material with the driest of personalities.
For kids raised on TV, I say send Bill Nye, the Science Guy.
Henry Spencer
Christopher <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I remember the American guy who was the first one to fly the jet pack
>thing the shuttle crews used to take out there-what ever happened to
>the jet packs as you never see shuttle crews use them anymore?
They don't show up any more because the main requirement for them turned
out to be superfluous. The idea was that the orbiter was too clumsy to
link up direct with something like a satellite that needed repairing, so a
guy would go out with one of the MMUs -- as Nelson did on the Solar Max
repair flight -- and bring the bird in. Trouble was, it turned out that
if you did things right, the orbiter and its arm *could* be maneuvered
delicately enough to link up direct.
>he had to wait close to 20 years to get his change to go into space...
However, that time there was a real reason. :-) He, like a number of
others at the time, got taken on to build up the astronaut corps for
the ambitious post-Apollo programs... which evaporated in the budget
disaster of summer 1967.
John Penta
wrote:
>Previous shuttle astronauts have performed some excellent educational
>demos, particularly the "Toys in Space" series.
<big booming voice> Tooooyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyysssss
innnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace! <bbv>
Hehe. Anyhow, I have to ask...Where can I get copies?
That just sounds cool.:-)
John Penta
penta j 2 at scranton dot edu
Christopher
wrote:
>In article <3f7adbb2...@news.dsl.pipex.com>,
>Christopher <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I remember the American guy who was the first one to fly the jet pack
>>thing the shuttle crews used to take out there-what ever happened to
>>the jet packs as you never see shuttle crews use them anymore?
>
>They don't show up any more because the main requirement for them turned
>out to be superfluous. The idea was that the orbiter was too clumsy to
>link up direct with something like a satellite that needed repairing, so a
>guy would go out with one of the MMUs -- as Nelson did on the Solar Max
>repair flight -- and bring the bird in. Trouble was, it turned out that
>if you did things right, the orbiter and its arm *could* be maneuvered
>delicately enough to link up direct.
That has a familiar ring to it, I wonder how many millions of dollars
got spend developing the things. They are most probably in a glass
case in the NASA tourist centre now.
>>he had to wait close to 20 years to get his change to go into space...
>
>However, that time there was a real reason. :-) He, like a number of
>others at the time, got taken on to build up the astronaut corps for
>the ambitious post-Apollo programs... which evaporated in the budget
>disaster of summer 1967.
Yeah, the year sounds about right for that guy to have joined the
astronaut pool, but his persistance and patience did pay off as he
made it, AND his No 1 fan i.e. his Mother was at the pad to see him
attain his goal.
Henry Spencer
stmx3 <stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> wrote:
>What did a geologist on the moon add to the science of rock collecting,
>other than being an individual who might have a deeper appreciation for
>what he was seeing? (This question meant to demonstrate my ignorance
>rather than incite old debates)
Having an appreciation for what he was seeing changed the crew's sampling
priorities. He was able to make fairly good guesses about the site's
geological structure on the fly, which led to sampling of specific
materials because they were likely to represent structures that otherwise
were out of reach.
Sander Vesik
> Craig Fink wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> I agree, and they are some of the most interesting space videos to watch.
>> "Toys in Space", hammer and feather, and just plain ordianry things like
>> water or food. Can a teacher add more to what generic astronauts can do.
>> Probably, just like sending a geologist to the moon, instead of teaching a
>> generic astronaut some geology.
>>
>> Craig Fink
>
>
> What did a geologist on the moon add to the science of rock collecting,
> other than being an individual who might have a deeper appreciation for
> what he was seeing? (This question meant to demonstrate my ignorance
> rather than incite old debates)
You migh *almost* ask the opposite question - why send non-geologists
if you intend to study moon?
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Henry Spencer
Christopher <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>a guy would go out with one of the MMUs -- as Nelson did on the Solar Max
>>repair flight -- and bring the bird in. Trouble was, it turned out that
>>if you did things right, the orbiter and its arm *could* be maneuvered
>>delicately enough to link up direct.
>
>That has a familiar ring to it, I wonder how many millions of dollars
>got spend developing the things. They are most probably in a glass
>case in the NASA tourist centre now.
Last I heard, the flight articles were in protected storage, against the
possibility that they might someday be needed for something. They'd
probably need significant refurbishing and re-testing, but at least
theoretically they are still available for flight use.
John Schilling
>Craig Fink wrote:
>[snip]
>> I agree, and they are some of the most interesting space videos to watch.
>> "Toys in Space", hammer and feather, and just plain ordianry things like
>> water or food. Can a teacher add more to what generic astronauts can do.
>> Probably, just like sending a geologist to the moon, instead of teaching a
>> generic astronaut some geology.
>What did a geologist on the moon add to the science of rock collecting,
>other than being an individual who might have a deeper appreciation for
>what he was seeing?
The ability to make educated, as opposed to wild, guesses as to which
of the rocks at his feet was most worth collecting and where to go,
maybe even dig, to find a rock that would be even more worth collecting.
This is actually a Big Deal, which is why geologists, prospectors, et
al actually go out into the field rather than just stay in a nice,
comfortable office and pay natives and/or footlose college students
minimum wage to send them random bags of rocks.
The first couple missions, we knew so little of lunar geology that
everything was going to be random guessing anyhow, so sending test
pilots with an "Intro to Geology" short course behind them was not
a bad idea. Planning for the last missions to have actual geologists
who had studied the rocks brought back from the first missions, that
also was not a bad idea.
The same, incidentally, will be true when we eventually get to Mars.
The first test pilot will trump all the robots who went before, and
the first trained geologist will trump all the test pilots who went
before.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Stuf4
> stmx3 <stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> wrote:
> >What did a geologist on the moon add to the science of rock collecting,
> >other than being an individual who might have a deeper appreciation for
> >what he was seeing? (This question meant to demonstrate my ignorance
> >rather than incite old debates)
>
> Having an appreciation for what he was seeing changed the crew's sampling
> priorities. He was able to make fairly good guesses about the site's
> geological structure on the fly, which led to sampling of specific
> materials because they were likely to represent structures that otherwise
> were out of reach.
Paraphrase:
-Joe Engle got kicked off so that we could get better rocks.-
In looking at Professor Jack's recent course notes on lunar theory, it
doesn't look to me that it made all that big a difference in the
longer run. But it did satisfy the outcry from the scientific
community at the time (on top of Curt Michel's walkout).
Follow-up paraphrase":
-We still don't know "Jack" about the Moon.-
The reasons I'm most glad about Jack getting in on Gene's crew had
nothing to do with his PhD. I'm glad that a citizen with no military
background got to fly to the Moon. And I'm glad that a lunar mission
got pulled off by a crew with no test pilot background. This is as
close to "routine" as you can get in eight lunar lander missions.
~ CT
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"stmx3" <stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3F7AE4A1...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net...
> Craig Fink wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > I agree, and they are some of the most interesting space videos to
watch.
> > "Toys in Space", hammer and feather, and just plain ordianry things like
> > water or food. Can a teacher add more to what generic astronauts can do.
> > Probably, just like sending a geologist to the moon, instead of teaching
a
> > generic astronaut some geology.
> >
> > Craig Fink
>
>
> What did a geologist on the moon add to the science of rock collecting,
> other than being an individual who might have a deeper appreciation for
> what he was seeing? (This question meant to demonstrate my ignorance
> rather than incite old debates)
Context. It's all about context.
Stuf4
> > Previous shuttle astronauts have performed some excellent educational
> > demos, particularly the "Toys in Space" series.
> Not to mention the
> 1) Liquid Globule Retrieval via Oral Cavity experiments
> 2) M&M Free Dispersion (and Subsequent Retrieval via Oral Cavity)
> experiments
<snip>
These classics seem to be mission *requirements* (as in "...don't come
home til you try THIS!")
> However, there are some decent experiments planned with onboard
> materials under a new program. Data collection methods, however, will
> limit their usefulness, although the fact that they are being done may
> help in the detailed planning stages of follow-on experiments, when the
> big bucks will be spent. For more info, see
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/25sep_ingenuity.htm?list683223
Looks like some neat stuff.
(But I'm amazed at how NASA talks about promoting science yet has no
qualms about referring to weightlessness by that completely bogus term
"microgravity". I'd go so far as to call that *anti-science*.)
~ CT
Stuf4
> >Previous shuttle astronauts have performed some excellent educational
> >demos, particularly the "Toys in Space" series.
>
> <big booming voice> Tooooyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyysssss
> innnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace! <bbv>
>
> Hehe. Anyhow, I have to ask...Where can I get copies?
>
> That just sounds cool.:-)
Gotta see it to believe it! I googled ["toys in space"] and got this
link:
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/products/Toys.In.Space.II/
...with video ordering info. And this page is one click away:
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructional.Materials/NASA.Educational.Products/.index.html
...with the whole gamut of NASA educational offerings. Hope this
helps. Have fun playing Bill Nye with your students.
~ CT
Stuf4
<snip>
> The same, incidentally, will be true when we eventually get to Mars.
> The first test pilot will trump all the robots who went before, and
> the first trained geologist will trump all the test pilots who went
> before.
I'd be interested to hear your example of Schmitt's "trump" of the SETPnauts.
But I do agree that Neil and the others *did* trump the bots!
~ CT
John Penta
wrote:
Oh, who said I was a teacher? Nooooooooooooo, I'm just a cousin and
"uncle" with a silly mind.
John
John Wilcock
> The same, incidentally, will be true when we eventually get to Mars.
> The first test pilot will trump all the robots who went before, and
> the first trained geologist will trump all the test pilots who went
> before.
Is there any logical reason why test pilot and trained geologist
should be mutually exclusive? In the years leading up to the Mars
expedition there ought to be plenty of time to give the test pilot
astros a little more training than just Geology 101.
John.
--
-- Over 2000 webcams from ski resorts around the world - www.snoweye.com
-- Translate your technical documents and web pages - www.tradoc.fr
Jan C. Vorbrüggen
> should be mutually exclusive? In the years leading up to the Mars
> expedition there ought to be plenty of time to give the test pilot
> astros a little more training than just Geology 101.
It's a question of time - you need to train your perceptive abilities
on a large number of samples, and that takes exercise, exercise, excercise.
Compare your driving abilities 1) immediately after obtaining your license,
2) ten years later. And the test pilot became a test pilot because he wanted
to be a test pilot, presumably, and not a geologist.
Jan
Paul F. Dietz
> (But I'm amazed at how NASA talks about promoting science yet has no
> qualms about referring to weightlessness by that completely bogus term
> "microgravity". I'd go so far as to call that *anti-science*.)
Please explain this objection. You *are* aware that relative
gravitational accelerations of objects in the space station are
not necessarily zero, right?
Paul
John Schilling
>On 1 Oct 2003 14:36:15 -0700, John Schilling wrote:
>> The same, incidentally, will be true when we eventually get to Mars.
>> The first test pilot will trump all the robots who went before, and
>> the first trained geologist will trump all the test pilots who went
>> before.
>Is there any logical reason why test pilot and trained geologist
>should be mutually exclusive? In the years leading up to the Mars
>expedition there ought to be plenty of time to give the test pilot
>astros a little more training than just Geology 101.
If we're getting into this level of detail, note that "test pilot"
probably means "flight test engineer"; stick-and-rudder expertise
is really not what we need. And "flight test engineer" usually
means at least an MS degree in aerospace engineering or a closely
related field, plus a year at Edwards or Mojave.
Meanwhile, professional geologists need at least an MS in geology,
so you're talking a baker's dozen years of specialized training
before they begin to accumulate the field experience that will
probably also be required of Mars astronaut candidates.
On top of which, however this comes about it will be at least an
unwritten job requirement that everybody be an attractive and
talented actor or star performer capable of putting on a good show
for the cameras. That's been true since the Mercury 7.
It's a bit much to ask for all of this in a single candidate, and
you won't be sending one man alone to Mars anyhow. So you select
two flight test engineers who have had Geology 101 and two serious
geologists who have had Aerospace Engineering 101.
If you've got two more seats, one goes to the doctor/exobiologist
and the other to the cinematographer.
Henry Spencer
John Wilcock <john-...@tradoc.net> wrote:
>> The same, incidentally, will be true when we eventually get to Mars.
>
>Is there any logical reason why test pilot and trained geologist
>should be mutually exclusive? In the years leading up to the Mars
>expedition there ought to be plenty of time to give the test pilot
>astros a little more training than just Geology 101.
Given effort and interest, you can make them pretty good amateur
geologists, as the Apollo 15 crew were.
This is not the same, however, as somebody who's spent his entire
professional life learning about and studying rocks. Will the test pilot
be interested enough in the subject to read geological journals in his
spare time? Not likely.
For something like a Mars expedition, where the whole justification is
presumably surface science, you want the surface scientists to be the very
best that can be had -- people who are passionate about their field, and
eat, drink, and sleep thinking about it. You don't get that level of
expertise by cross-training a test pilot.
If you must have someone who's both a geologist and a pilot, almost
certainly it is preferable to put a geologist in pilot training rather
than vice-versa. The mission is only going to need a pilot for about ten
seconds.
Stuf4
My bad. From your U of Scranton .edu email address I thought that
students would be involved somehow.
~ CT
Mary Shafer
wrote:
>If we're getting into this level of detail, note that "test pilot"
>probably means "flight test engineer"; stick-and-rudder expertise
>is really not what we need. And "flight test engineer" usually
>means at least an MS degree in aerospace engineering or a closely
>related field, plus a year at Edwards or Mojave.
Or Patuxent River or RAF Boscombe Down or Epner. Actually, Mojave is
less likely than any of the four others, being civilian. Most FTEs
learn their stuff through gov't channels or sitting by Nellie (OJT).
The US Navy has long held that it's easier to teach a Naval Aviator to
be an MD than the reverse, although they've only tried it with
selected NAs.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer mil...@qnet.com
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC
Terrell Miller
news:3f799ce5...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
> >astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
> >little ambition to actually fly them.
>
> Why does NASA keep recruiting them then?
First rule of government agency budgeting: NEVER give up your funding unless
somebody holds a gun to your head
Second rule of government agency budgeting: There is no second rule.
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"In the early days as often
as not the (rocket) exploded on or near the launch pad; that
seldom happens any longer."
-Columbia Accident Investigation Board report, vol.1 p.19
John Penta
wrote:
Cuz I am a student.:-) I have hordes of little cousins, and, well..I'm
the silly one of the family.:-)
Stuf4
> The mission is only going to need a pilot for about ten
> seconds.
Ha, if you're going to go *THAT* far, you might as well just push for
autonomous landing with a 3-geologist crew!
(Typical NSF suggestion.)
~ CT
Stuf4
I don't know what a "relative gravitational" acceleration is.
I do know what relative acceleration is. And I do know what
gravitational acceleration is. And they are quite distinct concepts.
This is the problem with the term "zero-gravity". It promotes a view
that when relative acceleration goes to zero, gravitational
acceleration somehow goes to zero. And that's just whacky.
(And that's one more fault in Gehman's report: No objection to the
concept of -microgravity-. One more strong indicator of NASA's
preference for *flash* over expediency.)
Lots more details distinguishing between gravity and acceleration are
available in the archives by googling ["zero gravity" bogus].
~ CT
Stuf4
<snip>
> Or Patuxent River or RAF Boscombe Down or Epner.
Speaking of EPNER, I wonder what's the status on NASA's plans for
using Istres as a TAL site. I expect that -107 has forced a change
toward TAL strips near the western shore.
~ CT
Stuf4
drop me an email.
~ CT
Christopher
<mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3f799ce5...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>
>> >You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
>> >astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
>> >little ambition to actually fly them.
>>
>> Why does NASA keep recruiting them then?
>
>First rule of government agency budgeting: NEVER give up your funding unless
>somebody holds a gun to your head
>
>Second rule of government agency budgeting: There is no second rule.
It seem's then that NASA is no differnt then any other government
bureaucracy, and it's controlling members are more concerned with
maintaining their little empires/fiefdoms, and keeping their slice of
the federal money pie.
Brian Pemberton
news:3f7d4efc...@news.dsl.pipex.com:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:57:50 -0400, "Terrell Miller"
> <mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> It seem's then that NASA is no differnt then any other government
> bureaucracy, and it's controlling members are more concerned with
> maintaining their little empires/fiefdoms, and keeping their slice of
> the federal money pie.
>
NASA is run by people. When was the last time you heard someone saying
"Hey, I've got too much money - could someone take it off me, please?"
Paul F. Dietz
> I don't know what a "relative gravitational" acceleration is.
>
> I do know what relative acceleration is. And I do know what
> gravitational acceleration is. And they are quite distinct concepts.
The gravitational accelerations on different points in a spacecraft
are not the same. There are tides, in other words. The residual
accelerations are on the rough order of 10^-6 gee, so 'microgravity'
is an entirely appropriate term.
Self-gravity in the spacecraft also contributes nonzero gravitational
acceleration. One can arrange for this to cancel (to some extent)
the tidal forces, but it's not entirely trivial.
Paul
John Penta
wrote:
>John, if you have any problem getting a copy of the video from NASA,
>drop me an email.
>
>
>~ CT
Thanks.:-) Of course, I'm not entirely sure who I'll get this year for
Xmas...(On that side of the family, we figure who tries to unlock
their heads on behalf of everybody else by picking names out of
hats.:-)) Besides, it's so far from Santa right now...:-)
Christopher
<daily...@spammenot.pemberton.me.uk> wrote:
>mcai...@hotmail.com (Christopher) wrote in
>news:3f7d4efc...@news.dsl.pipex.com:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:57:50 -0400, "Terrell Miller"
>> <mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>
>> It seem's then that NASA is no differnt then any other government
>> bureaucracy, and it's controlling members are more concerned with
>> maintaining their little empires/fiefdoms, and keeping their slice of
>> the federal money pie.
>>
>
>NASA is run by people.
Since when were bureaucrat's deemed to be people?
>When was the last time you heard someone saying
>"Hey, I've got too much money - could someone take it off me, please?"
Every time I get my paycheck, unfortunately it ain't me saying it.
John Schilling
>On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:57:50 -0400, "Terrell Miller"
><mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> >You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
>>> >astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
>>> >little ambition to actually fly them.
>>> Why does NASA keep recruiting them then?
>>First rule of government agency budgeting: NEVER give up your funding unless
>>somebody holds a gun to your head
>>Second rule of government agency budgeting: There is no second rule.
>It seem's then that NASA is no differnt then any other government
>bureaucracy, and it's controlling members are more concerned with
>maintaining their little empires/fiefdoms, and keeping their slice of
>the federal mooney pie.
And so another mind experiences the dawn of enlightenment...
Stuf4
Well, by *that* explanation, we can say that there's microgravity
*everywhere*. See, here! There's microgravity from our computer
screens.
We can save NASA big bucks in launch costs and they can study
microgravity right here on Earth. They can study the microgravity
tides on the space station mockup that sits at JSC.
What NASA is going after is not microgravity. They're going for
microacceleration. And I don't see anything "relative" about
gravitation in LEO. Saying that you are in "relatively low
gravitation" is like going tubing down the Mississippi river saying
that you are getting "relatively wet" because you're spraying yourself
with a mist bottle.
You cannot avoid getting soaking wet while tubing down the
Mississippi. And you cannot avoid the intensely strong pull of
gravity when orbiting in space.
"Microgravity" is an erroneous concept.
To analyze your reply...
"The residual accelerations are on the rough order of 10^-6 gee, so
'microgravity' is an entirely appropriate term."
...I agree with the first part about "residual accelerations". But it
goes south from there.
I'm not aware of *any* way to cancel gravity.
~ CT
stmx3
> From Paul Dietz:
>
>>Stuf4 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't know what a "relative gravitational" acceleration is.
"gravitational acceleration" is like saying accelerational acceleration.
>>>
>>>I do know what relative acceleration is. And I do know what
>>>gravitational acceleration is. And they are quite distinct concepts.
>>
>>The gravitational accelerations on different points in a spacecraft
>>are not the same. There are tides, in other words. The residual
>>accelerations are on the rough order of 10^-6 gee, so 'microgravity'
>>is an entirely appropriate term.
>>
>>Self-gravity in the spacecraft also contributes nonzero gravitational
>>acceleration. One can arrange for this to cancel (to some extent)
>>the tidal forces, but it's not entirely trivial.
>
>
> Well, by *that* explanation, we can say that there's microgravity
> *everywhere*. See, here! There's microgravity from our computer
> screens.
>
> We can save NASA big bucks in launch costs and they can study
> microgravity right here on Earth. They can study the microgravity
> tides on the space station mockup that sits at JSC.
>
Ahhh...now you're just being silly.
>
> What NASA is going after is not microgravity. They're going for
> microacceleration. And I don't see anything "relative" about
> gravitation in LEO. Saying that you are in "relatively low
> gravitation" is like going tubing down the Mississippi river saying
> that you are getting "relatively wet" because you're spraying yourself
> with a mist bottle.
>
> You cannot avoid getting soaking wet while tubing down the
> Mississippi. And you cannot avoid the intensely strong pull of
> gravity when orbiting in space.
>
> "Microgravity" is an erroneous concept.
How is gravitation different from acceleration? Einstein says you can't
tell the difference. "Gravity" is the name of the force that gives rise
to gravitation (an acceleration = 9.8 m/s^2 ). Interestingly, Merriam
Webster actually has a definition for the "acceleration of gravity".
We say micro-gravity when it would be more correct to say
micro-gravitation or, equivalently, micro-acceleration because, in the
strictest sense, you can achieve micro-gravity by having a micro-mass.
Note, the micro-mass will still fall with the same acceleration as a
bowling ball.
But I get your point. Free falling in a gravitational field doesn't
mean the gravitational pull has gone down by 10^-6 . But it's all
semantics. I guess Spock, Data or a few anal professors would have a
problem with it. You can be cool because you wear Ray-Bans or you can
be cool because you're in the morgue.
>
>
> To analyze your reply...
>
> "The residual accelerations are on the rough order of 10^-6 gee, so
> 'microgravity' is an entirely appropriate term."
>
> ...I agree with the first part about "residual accelerations". But it
> goes south from there.
>
> I'm not aware of *any* way to cancel gravity.
>
Given the definition above for gravity, you merely cancel out forces.
Omni magazine, in one of its first issues, discussed the construction of
a very thick lead ceiling supported by columns of pure diamonds. The
gravitational forces cancel out and you can float around inside. Same
thing as having a chamber in the center of the earth.
>
> ~ CT
Sander Vesik
> Stuf4 wrote:
>> From Paul Dietz:
>>
>>>Stuf4 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know what a "relative gravitational" acceleration is.
>
> "gravitational acceleration" is like saying accelerational acceleration.
No. You can have non-grivatational acceleration and not all gravitational
forces acting on you cause acceleration (if its overcome by say friction).
>>
>> You cannot avoid getting soaking wet while tubing down the
>> Mississippi. And you cannot avoid the intensely strong pull of
>> gravity when orbiting in space.
>>
>> "Microgravity" is an erroneous concept.
>
> How is gravitation different from acceleration? Einstein says you can't
> tell the difference. "Gravity" is the name of the force that gives rise
> to gravitation (an acceleration = 9.8 m/s^2 ). Interestingly, Merriam
> Webster actually has a definition for the "acceleration of gravity".
>
consider a speeding car. three of the forces acting on you are:
* earths garvitational pull on you
* the cars gravitational pull on you
* inertia from the cars acceleration
it is very easy to show that there is no gravitation involved in the third
by showing the lack of the body that would excert that force on you.
Remember F= m*a ?
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
> > From Paul Dietz:
> >
> >>Stuf4 wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I don't know what a "relative gravitational" acceleration is.
>
> "gravitational acceleration" is like saying accelerational acceleration.
"Gravitational acceleration" is a necessary term when distinguishing
between other types of acceleration. I have no problem with that.
> >>>I do know what relative acceleration is. And I do know what
> >>>gravitational acceleration is. And they are quite distinct concepts.
> >>
> >>The gravitational accelerations on different points in a spacecraft
> >>are not the same. There are tides, in other words. The residual
> >>accelerations are on the rough order of 10^-6 gee, so 'microgravity'
> >>is an entirely appropriate term.
> >>
> >>Self-gravity in the spacecraft also contributes nonzero gravitational
> >>acceleration. One can arrange for this to cancel (to some extent)
> >>the tidal forces, but it's not entirely trivial.
> >
> >
> > Well, by *that* explanation, we can say that there's microgravity
> > *everywhere*. See, here! There's microgravity from our computer
> > screens.
> >
> > We can save NASA big bucks in launch costs and they can study
> > microgravity right here on Earth. They can study the microgravity
> > tides on the space station mockup that sits at JSC.
> >
>
>
> Ahhh...now you're just being silly.
Yes, that was facetious.
But do you want to know how silly the situation is? NASA operates a
"Zero Gravity Research Facility" right here on the surface of Planet
Earth. This official link even has photos of the facility in action:
http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/FACILITY/ZERO.HTM
They even give you the specs:
"Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds"
The scientists who operate this chamber apparently believe that
dropping an object down a shaft does something to *lower gravity*!
As Dave Barry would say, "I'm not making this up." But sadly, NASA is
not joking. The leading organization on the planet for investigating
space is fundamentally mistaken on what gravity is and isn't.
> > What NASA is going after is not microgravity. They're going for
> > microacceleration. And I don't see anything "relative" about
> > gravitation in LEO. Saying that you are in "relatively low
> > gravitation" is like going tubing down the Mississippi river saying
> > that you are getting "relatively wet" because you're spraying yourself
> > with a mist bottle.
> >
> > You cannot avoid getting soaking wet while tubing down the
> > Mississippi. And you cannot avoid the intensely strong pull of
> > gravity when orbiting in space.
> >
> > "Microgravity" is an erroneous concept.
>
> How is gravitation different from acceleration? Einstein says you can't
> tell the difference. "Gravity" is the name of the force that gives rise
> to gravitation (an acceleration = 9.8 m/s^2 ). Interestingly, Merriam
> Webster actually has a definition for the "acceleration of gravity".
Again, "acceleration of gravity" is an ok term.
(If you want to be exact, the proper term is the "acceleration due to
the force of gravity". Scratch "of" and replace with "due to" and M-W
would fit accurate science.)
How is gravitation different from acceleration?
Gravitational force causes acceleration, but any force can cause
acceleration.
The "g" in zero-g is simply a convenient reference scale where 1-g is
the equivalent acceleration (gravity or any other accel) experienced
on the surface. Mistaking 1-g with 1-gravity is akin to mistaking an
object with a measured length of 1-ft as actually *having*
1-human-foot. "g" shares the common property of acceleration with
gravity (standardized to the accel at the surface) and "ft" shares the
common property of length with a human foot (standardized to the
length of the King's foot, or whatever).
That's where the similarity ends.
So next time we hear NASA speak of zero-gravity or micro-gravity, we
can see that they are metaphorically putting their *foot* in their
mouth.
Back to Relativity Theory. This states that gravity is
indistinguishable from constant acceleration *when you are limited
from observing the cause of that acceleration*. The space shuttle has
windows. They can look outside and see that it is the big blue planet
that is causing their trajectory to -orbit-, rather than go in a
straight line (as would be the case if indeed there were
zero/micro-gravity up there).
Shuttle GPCs can crunch actual computations of what's happening
because they are programmed with a gravity model (known as "super-g").
STS-107 wore patches that stated u-g ("mu-" being "micro-"). If the
onboard nav state vectors were this ignorant, they would sent the
Kalman filters straight off plotting an impossibly straight
interplanetary trajectory.
> We say micro-gravity when it would be more correct to say
> micro-gravitation or, equivalently, micro-acceleration because, in the
> strictest sense, you can achieve micro-gravity by having a micro-mass.
> Note, the micro-mass will still fall with the same acceleration as a
> bowling ball.
I hope after all this the distinction btwn gravity and acceleration is
clear: gravity causes accel, but so do all forces. So when we are
experiencing zero-g accel, that could be happening from a
non-gravitational force. In fact, it *must* be happening from a
non-gravitational force, because gravity isn't getting turned off.
> But I get your point. Free falling in a gravitational field doesn't
> mean the gravitational pull has gone down by 10^-6 . But it's all
> semantics. I guess Spock, Data or a few anal professors would have a
> problem with it. You can be cool because you wear Ray-Bans or you can
> be cool because you're in the morgue.
No, this is not semantics. This is hard physics.
And NASA is promoting bogus physics when it uses the terms
micro-gravity and zero-gravity.
Spock, Data and the handful of profs are a different story altogether.
Those folks are smart enough to tell you that no one knows what
gravity really is (just like no one knows what inertia is).
But my grounds for speaking with certainty here is that we do know, to
a large extent, what gravity *isn't*.
> > To analyze your reply...
> >
> > "The residual accelerations are on the rough order of 10^-6 gee, so
> > 'microgravity' is an entirely appropriate term."
> >
> > ...I agree with the first part about "residual accelerations". But it
> > goes south from there.
> >
> > I'm not aware of *any* way to cancel gravity.
> >
>
> Given the definition above for gravity, you merely cancel out forces.
> Omni magazine, in one of its first issues, discussed the construction of
> a very thick lead ceiling supported by columns of pure diamonds. The
> gravitational forces cancel out and you can float around inside. Same
> thing as having a chamber in the center of the earth.
Interesting thought, but you'd need *lots* of lead and diamonds to
pull that one off anywhere on or in the Earth's crust.
~ CT
Jim Davis
> But do you want to know how silly the situation is? NASA
> operates a "Zero Gravity Research Facility" right here on the
> surface of Planet Earth. This official link even has photos of
> the facility in action:
>
> http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/FACILITY/ZERO.HTM
>
> They even give you the specs:
>
> "Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds"
>
> The scientists who operate this chamber apparently believe that
> dropping an object down a shaft does something to *lower
> gravity*!
Nonsense.
The term "zero gravity" derives from the reading of 0 on a g-meter.
All that "Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds" means is that a g-
meter attached to the object will read 0 for 5.18 seconds. By
extension the term microgravity means that a g-meter will read very
small values. Certainly the terms "zero gravity" and
"microgravity" are subject to misinterpretation by laymen but they
are hardly unique in that respect.
There is no excuse for slandering the scientists involved by
stating that they "apparently believe that dropping an object down
a shaft does something to *lower gravity*". You might as well say
that scientists that use the term "asteroid" believe that asteroids
are little stars.
This tactic of yours of lashing out at and ridiculing people who
use terms you don't like or hold beliefs you don't share or did
things you don't approve of is wearing thin.
Jim Davis
Christopher
wrote:
>mcai...@hotmail.com (Christopher) writes:
>
>>On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:57:50 -0400, "Terrell Miller"
>><mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>>> >You don't have much of an imagination, then. NASA has recruited many
>>>> >astronauts who may never fly. NASA has too many astronauts, and too
>>>> >little ambition to actually fly them.
>
>>>> Why does NASA keep recruiting them then?
>
>>>First rule of government agency budgeting: NEVER give up your funding unless
>>>somebody holds a gun to your head
>
>>>Second rule of government agency budgeting: There is no second rule.
>
>>It seem's then that NASA is no differnt then any other government
>>bureaucracy, and it's controlling members are more concerned with
>>maintaining their little empires/fiefdoms, and keeping their slice of
>>the federal mooney pie.
>
>
>And so another mind experiences the dawn of enlightenment...
Makes' you wonder what the founding father's of NASA would make of the
NASA today, or if they'd even notice any difference if they were still
alive.
Herb Schaltegger
tdadamemd-...@excite.com (Stuf4) wrote:
> But do you want to know how silly the situation is? NASA operates a
> "Zero Gravity Research Facility" right here on the surface of Planet
> Earth. This official link even has photos of the facility in action:
>
> http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/FACILITY/ZERO.HTM
>
> They even give you the specs:
>
> "Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds"
>
> The scientists who operate this chamber apparently believe that
> dropping an object down a shaft does something to *lower gravity*!
>
> As Dave Barry would say, "I'm not making this up." But sadly, NASA is
> not joking. The leading organization on the planet for investigating
> space is fundamentally mistaken on what gravity is and isn't.
Can you be more intentionally ridiculous? And you wonder why so many
people hold you in such contempt. Please. Stop being such an ass and
recognize that free-fall, for all intents and purposes, IS
"zero-gravity" in the sense of popular conversation and convenient
discussion. "Free fall" is all anything, anywhere in the known universe
will ever likely experience in terms of reduced effects of gravity since
gravitational fields (and waves, if such turn out to exist) permeate the
entire universe.
Get over yourself.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous
Stuf4
Please check your own explanation for validity. A g-meter does not
read gravity.
Gravity manifests as a force. G-meters read acceleration. A g-meter
can read acceleration due to gravitational force, but when an object
is dropped from the top of NASA's tower, there is absolutely no change
in gravity. There is no low gravity. There is no low gravity
duration.
Yes, the g-meter will go to '0' when you drop it, but let's not
confuse acceleration with gravity.
"Low gravity" mandates "low force". And if the force is low, then you
need to come up with another explanation as to why the object is
dropping at all, or decide to clean up the wording and the
comprehension of the concepts behind them.
~ CT
Stuf4
> tdadamemd-...@excite.com (Stuf4) wrote:
>
> > But do you want to know how silly the situation is? NASA operates a
> > "Zero Gravity Research Facility" right here on the surface of Planet
> > Earth. This official link even has photos of the facility in action:
> >
> > http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/FACILITY/ZERO.HTM
> >
> > They even give you the specs:
> >
> > "Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds"
> >
> > The scientists who operate this chamber apparently believe that
> > dropping an object down a shaft does something to *lower gravity*!
> >
> > As Dave Barry would say, "I'm not making this up." But sadly, NASA is
> > not joking. The leading organization on the planet for investigating
> > space is fundamentally mistaken on what gravity is and isn't.
>
> Can you be more intentionally ridiculous? And you wonder why so many
> people hold you in such contempt. Please. Stop being such an ass and
> recognize that free-fall, for all intents and purposes, IS
> "zero-gravity" in the sense of popular conversation and convenient
> discussion. "Free fall" is all anything, anywhere in the known universe
> will ever likely experience in terms of reduced effects of gravity since
> gravitational fields (and waves, if such turn out to exist) permeate the
> entire universe.
>
> Get over yourself.
It's people with PhDs in physics who get this messed up. That's a
case in point where higher education and degrees do nothing to prevent
bogus concepts from propagating.
Any field of expertise is succeptible to such "naked emperor"
problems. Another exposure of the deficiency of appeals to authority.
~ CT
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d3af8584.03100...@posting.google.com...
>
> It's people with PhDs in physics who get this messed up. That's a
> case in point where higher education and degrees do nothing to prevent
> bogus concepts from propagating.
>
No, it's PhD's in Physics who don't get hung up on pedantics.
> Any field of expertise is succeptible to such "naked emperor"
> problems. Another exposure of the deficiency of appeals to authority.
No, another exposure is your continued insistence in making something out of
nothing.
Drop it. You only continue to prove people's first impression of you.
>
>
> ~ CT
Jim Davis
> Please check your own explanation for validity. A g-meter does not
> read gravity.
It did not say it read gravity. Don't place words in my mouth.
Jim Davis
Stuf4
...nor did *I* say that you said it.
I offered that statement for the purpose of clarification of a widely
confused topic (even by people with PhDs in astrophysics).
~ CT
Stuf4
<snip>
> recognize that free-fall, for all intents and purposes, IS
> "zero-gravity" in the sense of popular conversation and convenient
> discussion.
I'd like to add:
Gravity does not turn off when an object is dropped or is in orbit, so
it is clear that gravity did not go anywhere near zero.
I fail to see why popularization and convenience should excuse gross
inaccuracies.
As another example, it may be popular and convenient to say that the
Wright brothers were "First in Flight", as advertized on North
Carolina license plates. But this neglects the accomplishments of
many who flew before them such as Lilienthal, Cayley, all those who
flew in balloons since the Montgolfier brothers. It even neglects to
recognize the very birds who served as inspiration to the Wright's.
I'm all for giving credit where credit is due.
Maybe it is unpopular and inconvenient to point out such inaccuracies
that are so easily dismissed as trivial. But consider that other
example of how SOFI impact was a widely known problem. Stronger WLEs
were designed...
As with terms like "zero-gravity", it was much more impressive
sounding to call this upgrade "MicroMeteoroid/OrbitalDebris"
protection. "Foam Protection" may have been more accurate. It may
have been the primary concern.
It's easy to imagine how "cultural" pressures induce changes that
morph the accurate into the inaccurate, like:
- zero-acceleration > zero-gravity,
- the Wright's invented a huge advance for airplanes
> the Wright's invented the airplane,
- WLE SOFI impact > WLE MMOD.
From this analysis, it's not hard to conclude that skewing terms into
gross inaccuracies can, in certain cases, have potentially
catastrophic consequences.
~ CT
Stuf4
> > It's people with PhDs in physics who get this messed up. That's a
> > case in point where higher education and degrees do nothing to prevent
> > bogus concepts from propagating.
> >
>
> No, it's PhD's in Physics who don't get hung up on pedantics.
The distinction between gravity and acceleration is a matter of
fundamental principle, not pedantics.
> > Any field of expertise is succeptible to such "naked emperor"
> > problems. Another exposure of the deficiency of appeals to authority.
>
> No, another exposure is your continued insistence in making something out of
> nothing.
This is a classic "naked emperor" response. Just because you refuse
to see the issue, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> Drop it. You only continue to prove people's first impression of you.
Greg, I hope you are clear that your comment is promoting groupthink.
Elsewhere at other times I have seen you take a stand for principle.
I much prefer the latter.
Consider the recent case over in ssh where I made a comment about how
the Wright brothers are often miscredited with inventing the airplane.
Several of those who believed that the Wrights *did* invent the
airplane attacked me. Several of those who knew that the Wrights were
preceded in the invention of the airplane attacked me too.
I see a severe problem with the way these forums operate.
~ CT
Herb Schaltegger
tdadamemd-...@excite.com (Stuf4) wrote:
>
> Maybe it is unpopular and inconvenient to point out such inaccuracies
> that are so easily dismissed as trivial. But consider that other
> example of how SOFI impact was a widely known problem. Stronger WLEs
> were designed...
Now who's being inaccurate? That's a fundamental mischaracterization of
the proposed upgrade you suggested some time ago and of the addition of
the thin Nextel-440 fabric (which, I pointed out, was referenced in
Volume I of the CAIB final report).
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> From Greg Moore:
> > > It's people with PhDs in physics who get this messed up. That's a
> > > case in point where higher education and degrees do nothing to prevent
> > > bogus concepts from propagating.
> > >
> >
> > No, it's PhD's in Physics who don't get hung up on pedantics.
>
> The distinction between gravity and acceleration is a matter of
> fundamental principle, not pedantics.
And you have yet to show that PhD's don't understand the difference other
than they use a shortcut in language when referring to Zero-G.
>
> > > Any field of expertise is succeptible to such "naked emperor"
> > > problems. Another exposure of the deficiency of appeals to authority.
> >
> > No, another exposure is your continued insistence in making something
out of
> > nothing.
>
> This is a classic "naked emperor" response. Just because you refuse
> to see the issue, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I don't refuse to see the issue. I have yet to see you actually support
your statement. Give us at least one peer-reviewed paper where the author's
conclusions are wrong because he didn't understand the force due to gravity
vs. accerelation. And don't bother showing us a paper where the math and
conclusions are right, but he uses the verbal short-cut of "zero-g" or
"zero-gravity".
>
> > Drop it. You only continue to prove people's first impression of you.
>
> Greg, I hope you are clear that your comment is promoting groupthink.
> Elsewhere at other times I have seen you take a stand for principle.
> I much prefer the latter.
Stuf, if pointing out how much of an ass you are is groupthink, so be it.
>
> Consider the recent case over in ssh where I made a comment about how
> the Wright brothers are often miscredited with inventing the airplane.
> Several of those who believed that the Wrights *did* invent the
> airplane attacked me. Several of those who knew that the Wrights were
> preceded in the invention of the airplane attacked me too.
Again because your arguments are centered on pedantry. Any knowledgeable
person (which means most people in these forums) already knows the
contributions of Wright's predecessors. And anyone knowledgeable in the
fields of science or engineering knows that very rarely if at all can you
point to a design or advance w/o looking to all the predecessors. Isaac
Newton best said this.
>
> I see a severe problem with the way these forums operate.
If that's because they criticize your continued desire to be a pedant and a
rabble-rouser, so be it. You will continue to have a severe problem.
The truth is Stuf4, some of the stuff you present is to me a fun and
interesting reading. It's your attitude that turns me off. That's not
group think, that's personal opinion.
As I've said to one or two other posters, if you continue to get the same
criticism from many people, perhaps it's you, not them.
>
>
> ~ CT
Jim Davis
> I offered that statement for the purpose of clarification of a
> widely confused topic (even by people with PhDs in
> astrophysics).
What PhDs in astrophsics are confused? What PhDs in astrophsics
believe that zero g conditions imply the absence of a gravitational
field? What PhDs in astrophsics believe that a reading of 0 on a g-
meter imply the absence of a gravitational field?
Name some names. You seem to be imputing confusion to a whole class
of people without proof.
Jim Davis
Stuf4
> tdadamemd-...@excite.com (Stuf4) wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe it is unpopular and inconvenient to point out such inaccuracies
> > that are so easily dismissed as trivial. But consider that other
> > example of how SOFI impact was a widely known problem. Stronger WLEs
> > were designed...
>
> Now who's being inaccurate? That's a fundamental mischaracterization of
> the proposed upgrade you suggested some time ago and of the addition of
> the thin Nextel-440 fabric (which, I pointed out, was referenced in
> Volume I of the CAIB final report).
Recap:
You see my position as a mischaracterization. I see your position as
founded upon the unlikely scenario that those who designed the
strengthened WLEs had no concern for dealing with the SOFI impact
issue.
To answer your question, this leads to an impasse where I see your
position as inaccurate and you see my position as inaccurate. If
anything changes on either side of this issue then there may be
potential productivity in revisiting it.
~ CT
Stuf4
> > > > It's people with PhDs in physics who get this messed up. That's a
> > > > case in point where higher education and degrees do nothing to prevent
> > > > bogus concepts from propagating.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, it's PhD's in Physics who don't get hung up on pedantics.
> >
> > The distinction between gravity and acceleration is a matter of
> > fundamental principle, not pedantics.
>
> And you have yet to show that PhD's don't understand the difference other
> than they use a shortcut in language when referring to Zero-G.
Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative explanation as to their
silence amidst all these NASA projects and facilities that are focused
on the study of "zero gravity".
Actually, I can think of another explanation. These gravity
scientists are perfectly aware of how bogus the terminology is. They
simply remain quiet because they don't want to do anything that might
jeopardize the funding of their projects. They bow to the naked
emperor.
> > > > Any field of expertise is succeptible to such "naked emperor"
> > > > problems. Another exposure of the deficiency of appeals to authority.
> > >
> > > No, another exposure is your continued insistence in making something
> out of
> > > nothing.
> >
> > This is a classic "naked emperor" response. Just because you refuse
> > to see the issue, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
> I don't refuse to see the issue. I have yet to see you actually support
> your statement. Give us at least one peer-reviewed paper where the author's
> conclusions are wrong because he didn't understand the force due to gravity
> vs. accerelation. And don't bother showing us a paper where the math and
> conclusions are right, but he uses the verbal short-cut of "zero-g" or
> "zero-gravity".
In this thread alone I've given thorough explanation of gravity as a
force and the distinction between acceleration. That is all that is
required to see how erroneous the term "zero gravity" is.
And I have cited a lot more than a peer reviewed paper. I have
provided you with reference to an entire research facility! That
claim to "Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds" is subject to review by
any and all peers with internet access.
> > > Drop it. You only continue to prove people's first impression of you.
> >
> > Greg, I hope you are clear that your comment is promoting groupthink.
> > Elsewhere at other times I have seen you take a stand for principle.
> > I much prefer the latter.
>
> Stuf, if pointing out how much of an ass you are is groupthink, so be it.
Sad to see how few people are immune to argument-by-insult.
> > Consider the recent case over in ssh where I made a comment about how
> > the Wright brothers are often miscredited with inventing the airplane.
> > Several of those who believed that the Wrights *did* invent the
> > airplane attacked me. Several of those who knew that the Wrights were
> > preceded in the invention of the airplane attacked me too.
>
> Again because your arguments are centered on pedantry. Any knowledgeable
> person (which means most people in these forums) already knows the
> contributions of Wright's predecessors.
<snip>
Perhaps the forums could be further divided into the group that is
already so knowledgeable that they have no need to discuss such
matters, and those who are ok with any productive topic. These
polarized forums could be titled:
sci.space.knowitall
sci.space.inquisitive
> > I see a severe problem with the way these forums operate.
>
> If that's because they criticize your continued desire to be a pedant and a
> rabble-rouser, so be it. You will continue to have a severe problem.
We obviously see the problem quite differently.
Inquisitive thinking amidst close-mindedness will always experience
friction.
> The truth is Stuf4, some of the stuff you present is to me a fun and
> interesting reading. It's your attitude that turns me off. That's not
> group think, that's personal opinion.
>
> As I've said to one or two other posters, if you continue to get the same
> criticism from many people, perhaps it's you, not them.
My early response to such criticism, as you know, has been
introspection. And I continue to look for faults within myself.
But here is something I find puzzling...
Before I came to Usenet, sci.space in particular, I spent lots of time
on other internet forums. There was one forum dedicated to a certain
military organization that I posted on many ocassions my views on
alternatives to violent conflict resolution. The conversations were
refreshingly mature. They were open to views I presented. I was open
to their arguments. Pacifism and militarism are about as oppositional
as you can get. In that forum, mutual respect was the standard.
In this forum, you get attacked for stating that the Wright brothers
are often miscredited with inventing the airplane. As you point out
yourself, there's nothing controversial in that.
Yes, I have raised many topics that do lead to controversy. I was
first flamed at sci.space in my second week here. My "offense"?
Questioning how Armstrong got to be first on the Moon. So why do we
have this forum? Is it to promote mythology and legend? I prefer an
environment where it is ok to question the reasons why cows are being
upheld as sacred.
~ CT
Stuf4
I already offered the proof that zero gravity is a bogus concept. And
you want to know who speaks in confusion? I say *all* of them. Every
single scientist who supports the notion of zero/micro-gravity
maintains a deficient understanding of what gravity is and isn't.
That includes all of the NASA scientists with a PhD, MS, BS, what have
you.
Yes, that includes astronauts. Whenever an astronaut speaks the word
"microgravity", they are promoting erroneous science. There are many,
many people within NASA who fall into this category. If you want one
name I will give you this quote:
______
According to [astronaut, PhD in applied physics], the sensation of
weightlessness is much like one might expect. "With no gravity, it's
just like you're floating," he said. "You can fly like Peter Pan."
______
There you have it. A NASA physics PhD is telling you about his
orbital experience with "no gravity". That is patently bogus.
(You can click on this link if the name is that important to you:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2000/05/12/news/998.shtml)
If science had quality control mechanisms of, say, the legal
profession, scientists throughout the entire NASA administration would
be in jeopardy of being "disbarred".
~ CT
Sander Vesik
> From Greg Moore:
>> > > > It's people with PhDs in physics who get this messed up. That's a
>> > > > case in point where higher education and degrees do nothing to prevent
>> > > > bogus concepts from propagating.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > No, it's PhD's in Physics who don't get hung up on pedantics.
>> >
>> > The distinction between gravity and acceleration is a matter of
>> > fundamental principle, not pedantics.
>>
>> And you have yet to show that PhD's don't understand the difference other
>> than they use a shortcut in language when referring to Zero-G.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative explanation as to their
> silence amidst all these NASA projects and facilities that are focused
> on the study of "zero gravity".
>
> Actually, I can think of another explanation. These gravity
> scientists are perfectly aware of how bogus the terminology is. They
> simply remain quiet because they don't want to do anything that might
> jeopardize the funding of their projects. They bow to the naked
> emperor.
But what relevance does this have in practice? The environments studied
and their effects in materials science, biology and medicine don't really
depend on how you name the environment.
>
> ~ CT
Stuf4
<snip>
> But what relevance does this have in practice? The environments studied
> and their effects in materials science, biology and medicine don't really
> depend on how you name the environment.
I agree that the experiments will turn out the same. This goes back
to the equivalency principle credited to Einstein. These experiments
don't care about looking out the window to see that it is a planet
causing the gravitational field.
So what is the problem? This is a thread focused on education in
space. Usage of erroneous terms creates erroneous understanding of
concepts. Consider how widely people hold a belief that there is no
gravity in space. This is a logical conclusion from the term
zero-gravity. Zero means no.
So think of all the millions of people who bite this hook to get
reeled in by the idea that there is no gravity in space. I've already
posted a quote of a famous astronaut speaking about experience in "no
gravity".
Consider this quote:
"What happens when you pour a liquid in space? There is no gravity!
Liquids tend to form small droplets."
That was a direct quote from an educational website of the SWE, an
*engineering* organization.
(http://www.swe.org/iac/LP/space_03.html)
This is from a headline on Space.com:
"Space: No Air. No Gravity."
(http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/tax_free_space_000310.html)
We could find thousands of other examples.
NASA is doing a huge disservice to science.
~ CT
Brian Pemberton
@news.dsl.pipex.com:
See that thing that you just whizzed by?
That was my point, that was.
stmx3
[snip all before]
> But do you want to know how silly the situation is? NASA operates a
> "Zero Gravity Research Facility" right here on the surface of Planet
> Earth. This official link even has photos of the facility in action:
>
> http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/FACILITY/ZERO.HTM
>
> They even give you the specs:
>
> "Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds"
>
> The scientists who operate this chamber apparently believe that
> dropping an object down a shaft does something to *lower gravity*!
>
> As Dave Barry would say, "I'm not making this up." But sadly, NASA is
> not joking. The leading organization on the planet for investigating
> space is fundamentally mistaken on what gravity is and isn't.
NASA and others who do not suffer from a severe reductionist philosophy,
adopts the common definition for microgravity environment as "...one
that imparts to an object a net acceleration that is small compared with
that produced by Earth at its surface." So, by *definition* (using
micro- to mean one part in a million), the acceleration imparted to an
object in microgravity will be *one-millionth (10^-6) of that measured
at Earth's surface.* However, this term has also been adopted for use
with drop towers, parabolic aircraft trajectories and Earth-orbiting
laboratories.
Reference: http://tinyurl.com/pvpq (note, this is a NASA educational site)
You may disagree with the use of this term and characterize it as a
misnomer, but once it is defined, it can be freely used as long as
everyone knows the definition. If you would rather be pedantic, you can
forego "microgravity" and couch your discussion in phrases of the "net
acceleration less than X% of that at the Earth's surface, to a precision
of Y significant figures". Your choice, but your argument *is* a
semantic one and you would do better to argue against "strange" and
"charm" quarks.
>
>
[snip]
>
> Again, "acceleration of gravity" is an ok term.
>
> (If you want to be exact, the proper term is the "acceleration due to
> the force of gravity". Scratch "of" and replace with "due to" and M-W
> would fit accurate science.)
If you are going to be a pedant, then you should be consistent.
"Acceleration of gravity" is not ok. "Acceleration due to Earth's
gravity at the surface" is ok.
>
[snip]
> So next time we hear NASA speak of zero-gravity or micro-gravity, we
> can see that they are metaphorically putting their *foot* in their
> mouth.
>
When microgravity is properly defined, then only those ignorant of the
definition yet attempt to speak with authority on the matter are subject
to ridicule by their peers. You are deriding NASA, scientists,
astronauts, et. al. for no reason I can see other than spite over a term.
>
> Back to Relativity Theory. This states that gravity is
> indistinguishable from constant acceleration *when you are limited
> from observing the cause of that acceleration*.
Hmmm...where does Einstein say that? The famous "elevator" gedanken
experiment established Einstein's Principle of Equivalence (POE)
(technically, the "weak" form of POE) and it was the cornerstone of the
General Relativity Theory. From this, trajectories along a spacetime
geodesic is curved when in the presence of mass. You can open a window
and let light stream in and find the light curves "down" as it crosses
to the other end of the elevator or spaceship. So, General Relativity
accommodates both, acceleration due to gravitational forces and
acceleration due to other forces. Therefore, your statement is correct
if you limit it to "This states that gravity is indistinguishable from
constant acceleration." The additional stuff is yours and not required
for the theory. Einstein never addressed making EVA's
Isn't it
1) a force between two bodies of mass (Newton), or
2) a curvature in spacetime due to the presence of mass (Einstein)
??
Now, we really don't know what *mass* is or if there is a quantum
treatment for gravitation.
[snip for bandwidth]
>>>
>>>I'm not aware of *any* way to cancel gravity.
>>>
>>
>>Given the definition above for gravity, you merely cancel out forces.
>>Omni magazine, in one of its first issues, discussed the construction of
>>a very thick lead ceiling supported by columns of pure diamonds. The
>>gravitational forces cancel out and you can float around inside. Same
>>thing as having a chamber in the center of the earth.
>
>
> Interesting thought, but you'd need *lots* of lead and diamonds to
> pull that one off anywhere on or in the Earth's crust.
>
I was only hoping to make you aware of one way to cancel the force due
to gravity.
>
> ~ CT
To recap...your argument, despite your protestations, is a semantic one
originating from your nonacceptance of the common definition of
"microgravity".
stmx3
> From Greg Moore:
>
>>>>>It's people with PhDs in physics who get this messed up. That's a
>>>>>case in point where higher education and degrees do nothing to prevent
>>>>>bogus concepts from propagating.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, it's PhD's in Physics who don't get hung up on pedantics.
>>>
>>>The distinction between gravity and acceleration is a matter of
>>>fundamental principle, not pedantics.
>>
>>And you have yet to show that PhD's don't understand the difference other
>>than they use a shortcut in language when referring to Zero-G.
>
>
> Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative explanation as to their
> silence amidst all these NASA projects and facilities that are focused
> on the study of "zero gravity".
Here's one...from NASA itself...the real reason they don't want you to
know where microgravity comes from:
http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/ug_man/ug1.html
Seriously, all this talk about PhDs, Scientists, Engineers, etc.
propagating "bogus" science is borderline CRANK posting.
>
> Actually, I can think of another explanation. These gravity
> scientists are perfectly aware of how bogus the terminology is. They
> simply remain quiet because they don't want to do anything that might
> jeopardize the funding of their projects. They bow to the naked
> emperor.
>
Conspiratorial and a sad reflection on you because you obviously have
the potential to be above this type of nonsense.
[snip]
>
> In this thread alone I've given thorough explanation of gravity as a
> force and the distinction between acceleration. That is all that is
> required to see how erroneous the term "zero gravity" is.
>
> And I have cited a lot more than a peer reviewed paper. I have
> provided you with reference to an entire research facility! That
> claim to "Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds" is subject to review by
> any and all peers with internet access.
>
Your one reference does not provide a basis for your conspiracy of
scientists. You don't like "zero gravity" and I don't like root canals,
but I don't think there is a conspiracy of dentists. Well, except for
that 'flouridation of the water' thing, of course.
[snip]
>>If that's because they criticize your continued desire to be a pedant and a
>>rabble-rouser, so be it. You will continue to have a severe problem.
>
>
> We obviously see the problem quite differently.
>
> Inquisitive thinking amidst close-mindedness will always experience
> friction.
Inquisitive thinking vs. objective thinking. Certainly, there are
close-minded individuals who are against you and others, who would like
to support you, find it difficult because you lack objectivity in
supporting your conclusions. For instance, even if you were correct in
stating that "micro-gravity" is a misnomer (in an earlier post, I
provided a link to its commonly accepted definition), you invite attacks
by presenting the "misnomering" as some premeditated plan by the world's
PhDs.
[snip all after]
stmx3
[snip]
>
> It's easy to imagine how "cultural" pressures induce changes that
> morph the accurate into the inaccurate, like:
>
> - zero-acceleration > zero-gravity,
> - the Wright's invented a huge advance for airplanes
> > the Wright's invented the airplane,
> - WLE SOFI impact > WLE MMOD.
>
> From this analysis, it's not hard to conclude that skewing terms into
> gross inaccuracies can, in certain cases, have potentially
> catastrophic consequences.
>
>
> ~ CT
So, in general, your argument is with the Language-Arts? Humanities?
Philosophy? I'm trying to find the common denominator between the 3
above mentioned examples because I, myself, am a reductionist up to a
point. What societal change do *you* think should be made to prevent
these things from happening? Certainly, there are many more examples
throughout history, so the answer must lie in some basic understanding
of human nature.
For example, why does a large percentage of the population believe
humans coexisted with dinosaurs? Why did the brontosaur persist? Why
do some believe the earth is still flat? Why does a
not-so-insignificant portion of the population believe the sun goes
around the earth? Indeed, some answers are tied to religion just as
some are tied to the Flintstones.
I believe if you find this common thread, it will supply the answer to
your first 2 examples. The third is doubtful.
Jim Davis
> According to [astronaut, PhD in applied physics], the
> sensation of weightlessness is much like one might expect.
> "With no gravity, it's just like you're floating," he said.
> "You can fly like Peter Pan."
I'll take one more crack at this and then give up.
Your argument, cast in syllogistic form, is:
Premise 1: Terms like "zero gravity" and "microgravity" are
confusing.
Premise 2: Astronauts and physicists use terms like "zero
gravity" and "microgravity".
Conclusion: Therefore astronauts and physicists are confused.
I submit that your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
If you have trouble seeing this, try the same argument on a
different, commonly used term.
Premise 1: The term "asteroid" means "little star".
Premise 2: Astronauts and physicists use the term "asteroid".
Conclusion: Therefore astronauts and physicists believe that
asteroids are little stars.
Surely you can see how absurd your conclusion is?
Jim Davis
Joann Evans
>
> From Henry Spencer:
> > The mission is only going to need a pilot for about ten
> > seconds.
>
> Ha, if you're going to go *THAT* far, you might as well just push for
> autonomous landing with a 3-geologist crew!
>
> (Typical NSF suggestion.)
>
> ~ CT
But that's one of the other reasons for sending humans. Robots are
still bad at last-minute landing site judgement, as we've seen. And
we've had to pick some geologically bland places on the Moon and Mars,
because of it. (and still sometimes blow it)
Hell, we still want a human at the controls, even when there are all
kinds of radionavigation aids, and runways of known length involved. If
we don't ride autonomus landers at LAX, we won't ride them to unknown
sites on another world...
Stuf4
Here's the difference:
I don't see anyone confusing an "asteroid" with "little stars". But
"zero gravity" means "no gravity" and there are multitudes of people
who believe that there is no gravity in space because of this bogus
term.
Am I being absurd? I was hoping you would see how absurd it is for an
astronaut with a physics PhD from MIT telling the world about the
sensation of floating around with "no gravity".
I don't see how I can present this any more clearly than that.
~ CT
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
> > From Greg Moore:
> >
> >>>>>It's people with PhDs in physics who get this messed up. That's a
> >>>>>case in point where higher education and degrees do nothing to prevent
> >>>>>bogus concepts from propagating.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it's PhD's in Physics who don't get hung up on pedantics.
> >>>
> >>>The distinction between gravity and acceleration is a matter of
> >>>fundamental principle, not pedantics.
> >>
> >>And you have yet to show that PhD's don't understand the difference other
> >>than they use a shortcut in language when referring to Zero-G.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative explanation as to their
> > silence amidst all these NASA projects and facilities that are focused
> > on the study of "zero gravity".
>
> Here's one...from NASA itself...the real reason they don't want you to
> know where microgravity comes from:
> http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/ug_man/ug1.html
>
> Seriously, all this talk about PhDs, Scientists, Engineers, etc.
> propagating "bogus" science is borderline CRANK posting.
You may be comfortable with astronauts talking about "no gravity" in
space, but I'm not.
> > Actually, I can think of another explanation. These gravity
> > scientists are perfectly aware of how bogus the terminology is. They
> > simply remain quiet because they don't want to do anything that might
> > jeopardize the funding of their projects. They bow to the naked
> > emperor.
> >
> Conspiratorial and a sad reflection on you because you obviously have
> the potential to be above this type of nonsense.
I was purposely s--t--r--e---t----c-----h---i--n-g for an alternate
explanation.
(And there may be others that have not yet been considered.)
> > In this thread alone I've given thorough explanation of gravity as a
> > force and the distinction between acceleration. That is all that is
> > required to see how erroneous the term "zero gravity" is.
> >
> > And I have cited a lot more than a peer reviewed paper. I have
> > provided you with reference to an entire research facility! That
> > claim to "Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds" is subject to review by
> > any and all peers with internet access.
> >
> Your one reference does not provide a basis for your conspiracy of
> scientists. You don't like "zero gravity" and I don't like root canals,
> but I don't think there is a conspiracy of dentists. Well, except for
> that 'flouridation of the water' thing, of course.
There is an interesting argument regarding how water fluoridation
happened as a result of nuclear weapons production, but THAT's a whole
other can of worms.
Back to "zero gravity", I do not support any conspiracy theory here.
The cause that I've been highlighting is simple ignorance. People
don't know (or forget) that gravity is *not* acceleration.
An experience in orbit *feels* like there is no gravity, so it gets
confused with "no gravity"/"zero gravity".
> >>If that's because they criticize your continued desire to be a pedant and a
> >>rabble-rouser, so be it. You will continue to have a severe problem.
> >
> >
> > We obviously see the problem quite differently.
> >
> > Inquisitive thinking amidst close-mindedness will always experience
> > friction.
>
> Inquisitive thinking vs. objective thinking. Certainly, there are
> close-minded individuals who are against you and others, who would like
> to support you, find it difficult because you lack objectivity in
> supporting your conclusions. For instance, even if you were correct in
> stating that "micro-gravity" is a misnomer (in an earlier post, I
> provided a link to its commonly accepted definition), you invite attacks
> by presenting the "misnomering" as some premeditated plan by the world's
> PhDs.
You might want to check your own statements for distortion. I
remember stating that NASA PhDs are confused over the concepts. I was
then asked to provide a specific reference. That was provided. If
anyone would like more, I can post them.
~ CT
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
> > It's easy to imagine how "cultural" pressures induce changes that
> > morph the accurate into the inaccurate, like:
> >
> > - zero-acceleration > zero-gravity,
> > - the Wright's invented a huge advance for airplanes
> > > the Wright's invented the airplane,
> > - WLE SOFI impact > WLE MMOD.
> >
> > From this analysis, it's not hard to conclude that skewing terms into
> > gross inaccuracies can, in certain cases, have potentially
> > catastrophic consequences.
> So, in general, your argument is with the Language-Arts? Humanities?
> Philosophy? I'm trying to find the common denominator between the 3
> above mentioned examples because I, myself, am a reductionist up to a
> point. What societal change do *you* think should be made to prevent
> these things from happening? Certainly, there are many more examples
> throughout history, so the answer must lie in some basic understanding
> of human nature.
>
> For example, why does a large percentage of the population believe
> humans coexisted with dinosaurs? Why did the brontosaur persist? Why
> do some believe the earth is still flat? Why does a
> not-so-insignificant portion of the population believe the sun goes
> around the earth? Indeed, some answers are tied to religion just as
> some are tied to the Flintstones.
>
> I believe if you find this common thread, it will supply the answer to
> your first 2 examples. The third is doubtful.
The common thread I see is a need to simplify complex ideas coupled
with a desire to glamorize that simplification.
~ CT
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
> > But do you want to know how silly the situation is? NASA operates a
> > "Zero Gravity Research Facility" right here on the surface of Planet
> > Earth. This official link even has photos of the facility in action:
> >
> > http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/FACILITY/ZERO.HTM
> >
> > They even give you the specs:
> >
> > "Low gravity duration: 5.18 seconds"
> >
> > The scientists who operate this chamber apparently believe that
> > dropping an object down a shaft does something to *lower gravity*!
> >
> > As Dave Barry would say, "I'm not making this up." But sadly, NASA is
> > not joking. The leading organization on the planet for investigating
> > space is fundamentally mistaken on what gravity is and isn't.
>
> NASA and others who do not suffer from a severe reductionist philosophy,
> adopts the common definition for microgravity environment as "...one
> that imparts to an object a net acceleration that is small compared with
> that produced by Earth at its surface." So, by *definition* (using
> micro- to mean one part in a million), the acceleration imparted to an
> object in microgravity will be *one-millionth (10^-6) of that measured
> at Earth's surface.* However, this term has also been adopted for use
> with drop towers, parabolic aircraft trajectories and Earth-orbiting
> laboratories.
>
> Reference: http://tinyurl.com/pvpq (note, this is a NASA educational site)
Let's take a short break, put those terms aside, and have a look at
this:
"Airplanes can achieve low-gravity for periods of about 25 seconds or
longer."
This is a direct quote from a NASA Educational Brief with
acknowledgement to one of the writers being credited to:
Michael J. Wargo, Sc.D.
Microgravity Science and Applications
Division
(From p12of18, http://tinyurl.com/pz26 - full url:
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructional.Materials/NASA.Educational.Products/Mathematics.of.Microgravity/Mathematics.of.Microgravity.pdf)
I hope we can agree that airplanes are incapable of achieving low
gravity. I hope we can find common ground in agreement on the error
of this one statement.
> You may disagree with the use of this term and characterize it as a
> misnomer, but once it is defined, it can be freely used as long as
> everyone knows the definition. If you would rather be pedantic, you can
> forego "microgravity" and couch your discussion in phrases of the "net
> acceleration less than X% of that at the Earth's surface, to a precision
> of Y significant figures". Your choice, but your argument *is* a
> semantic one and you would do better to argue against "strange" and
> "charm" quarks.
I see no need for cumbersome terminology. It's been previously stated
that perfectly accurate terms are "zero-g", "micro-g" and
"weightlessness". All very easy to use.
> > Again, "acceleration of gravity" is an ok term.
>
> >
> > (If you want to be exact, the proper term is the "acceleration due to
> > the force of gravity". Scratch "of" and replace with "due to" and M-W
> > would fit accurate science.)
>
> If you are going to be a pedant, then you should be consistent.
> "Acceleration of gravity" is not ok. "Acceleration due to Earth's
> gravity at the surface" is ok.
If you look back to the statement I was responding to, you'll see that
I was responding to your non-specific reference to a dictionary
definition.
In that statement you also said:
"Einstein says you can't tell the difference. "Gravity" is the name of
the force that gives rise to gravitation (an acceleration = 9.8 m/s^2
)."
Einstein was very clear on how easy it is to tell the difference
between gravitational acceleration and linear inertial acceleration.
His thought experiment had very specific restrictions, and even given
those restrictions, Einstein *linearized* the inverse square property
of gravity!
An issue with your next part is that you call gravitation "an
acceleration".
> > So next time we hear NASA speak of zero-gravity or micro-gravity, we
> > can see that they are metaphorically putting their *foot* in their
> > mouth.
> >
>
> When microgravity is properly defined, then only those ignorant of the
> definition yet attempt to speak with authority on the matter are subject
> to ridicule by their peers. You are deriding NASA, scientists,
> astronauts, et. al. for no reason I can see other than spite over a term.
I have provided a quote from a NASA astronaut with a physics PhD from
MIT talking about "no gravity" while floating in space. This person
is succeptible to error. I can provide many other quotes of this kind
of error for anyone interested. I see no derision. These are hard
facts.
> > Back to Relativity Theory. This states that gravity is
> > indistinguishable from constant acceleration *when you are limited
> > from observing the cause of that acceleration*.
>
> Hmmm...where does Einstein say that? The famous "elevator" gedanken
> experiment established Einstein's Principle of Equivalence (POE)
> (technically, the "weak" form of POE) and it was the cornerstone of the
> General Relativity Theory. From this, trajectories along a spacetime
> geodesic is curved when in the presence of mass. You can open a window
> and let light stream in and find the light curves "down" as it crosses
> to the other end of the elevator or spaceship. So, General Relativity
> accommodates both, acceleration due to gravitational forces and
> acceleration due to other forces. Therefore, your statement is correct
> if you limit it to "This states that gravity is indistinguishable from
> constant acceleration." The additional stuff is yours and not required
> for the theory. Einstein never addressed making EVA's
Additional stuff is mine? The room ("elevator") *needs* to have no
windows or else you would simply look out to see if you were
accelerating.
If you don't like my telling of that thought experiment, here is
another:
"The consequence of this type of resoning, as Einstein correctly
pointed out, is that, in principle, we have no way to state whether
certain effects are caused by a force or an acceleration: if the room
where we drop the object has no windows, and we do not know where we
are, we would have no way to tell whether the object is falling to the
floor because of gravity, or whether the floor is coming towards it
because it is accelerating..."
(From http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/102/lec17/lec17.html)
> > Spock, Data and the handful of profs are a different story altogether.
> > Those folks are smart enough to tell you that no one knows what
> > gravity really is (just like no one knows what inertia is).
>
> Isn't it
> 1) a force between two bodies of mass (Newton), or
> 2) a curvature in spacetime due to the presence of mass (Einstein)
> ??
And what is the mechanism for an attractive force? There is no known
"sticky" exchange particle with negative momentum transfer.
Getting to an answer that you find satisfying often means that you
just stopped asking.
> Now, we really don't know what *mass* is or if there is a quantum
> treatment for gravitation.
Many, many unanswered questions. All teachers communicate what they
know. The wisest one's that I've run into will also teach what they
*don't* know.
> >>>I'm not aware of *any* way to cancel gravity.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Given the definition above for gravity, you merely cancel out forces.
> >>Omni magazine, in one of its first issues, discussed the construction of
> >>a very thick lead ceiling supported by columns of pure diamonds. The
> >>gravitational forces cancel out and you can float around inside. Same
> >>thing as having a chamber in the center of the earth.
> >
> >
> > Interesting thought, but you'd need *lots* of lead and diamonds to
> > pull that one off anywhere on or in the Earth's crust.
> >
>
> I was only hoping to make you aware of one way to cancel the force due
> to gravity.
Here's a gravitational theory factoid:
The net gravitational force at any point within an ideal spherical
shell is zero.
(The math of such cancellation works for any inverse square law
force.)
> To recap...your argument, despite your protestations, is a semantic one
> originating from your nonacceptance of the common definition of
> "microgravity".
Here's my recap:
- Gravity is a force, not an acceleration.
- Zero-g is a measure of no relative acceleration, regardless of
forces.
- The term "zero gravity" is used to mean "zero acceleration,
gravitational or otherwise".
Please note that the issue I am highlighting is conceptual, not
semantic.
~ CT
George William Herbert
>Please note that the issue I am highlighting is conceptual, not
>semantic.
No, that's the problem. It's not conceptual. It is semantic.
Zero-G and related terms such as microgravity are specific terms
of the art in aerospace, different from what 'zero gravity' would
mean in a strict pure physics sense.
There isn't anyone clued in at NASA or here who does not understand
that parabolic or orbital flight in which you follow an inertial
path and appear weightless is not the same as truly experiencing
no external gravitational forces.
By refusing to acknowledge that the terminology is different
between pure physics and aerospace usage, you are creating a
conflict that is in fact purely in your own head.
Welcome to the real world: there is no single consistent
vocabulary in English, or any other language, across all
technical disciplines. Often even within a large discipline,
among the subspecialties. You can rail against this all you
want, but there are grossly more aggrevious examples in common
usage than aerospace's "Zero-G".
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Paul Blay
> From Jim Davis:
> > Surely you can see how absurd your conclusion is?
>
> Here's the difference:
>
> I don't see anyone confusing an "asteroid" with "little stars".
True.
> But
> "zero gravity" means "no gravity"
True
> and there are multitudes of people
> who believe that there is no gravity in space
True
> because of this bogus term.
Not shown.
People don't confuse 'asteroid' with 'little star' because they've _seen_
asteroids in news in sci-fi movies etc. In other words they are (at least semi)
informed on the subject.
If people think there is no gravity in space it is my assertion that this is
because they haven't been taught any better, _not_ because of a couple of
words capable of mis-interpretation.
People refer to "The West". Despite the fact that the great majority of the
EU is East of the longitude zero they are still part of "The West". If this
causes confusion it's because of crappy education on geography and history
_not_ because of the word 'West'. The English language (and the American ;-)
are full of words with multiple or even self-contradictory meanings, learn to
put up with it.
Stuf4
George, I have the distinct impression that you're jumping into this
thread without having read from the top:
- I've never criticized the term "Zero-G".
- In criticism of the term "zero gravity", I've provided examples
where NASA PhDs project this into an ability to create "low gravity"
on the surface of the Earth, as well as "no gravity" in orbit.
This is *not* semantics. It is not pedantics. These are gross
conceptual errors.
I am astonished to see multiple members of this forum speak in support
of astronauts that go around relating experiences of "no gravity" in
orbit. To repost another absurd statement:
"Airplanes can achieve low-gravity for periods of about 25 seconds or
longer."
(From p12of18, http://tinyurl.com/pz26)
Seeing how much support these fictional concepts are getting, maybe we
should drop the "sci" from "sci.space".
~ CT
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>
> George, I have the distinct impression that you're jumping into this
> thread without having read from the top:
>
> - I've never criticized the term "Zero-G".
>
> - In criticism of the term "zero gravity", I've provided examples
> where NASA PhDs project this into an ability to create "low gravity"
> on the surface of the Earth, as well as "no gravity" in orbit.
>
> This is *not* semantics. It is not pedantics. These are gross
> conceptual errors.
No, you have still failed to show a case for it being a conceptual error
except in your own head.
It's semantics.
>
>
> I am astonished to see multiple members of this forum speak in support
> of astronauts that go around relating experiences of "no gravity" in
> orbit. To repost another absurd statement:
>
> "Airplanes can achieve low-gravity for periods of about 25 seconds or
> longer."
> (From p12of18, http://tinyurl.com/pz26)
Right. That's a semantic short-hand. You have yet to show one bit of
evidence that as a result of this semantic short-hand anyone at NASA with a
PhD is incapable of understanding what is really meant.
Rand Simberg
<stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>How is gravitation different from acceleration? Einstein says you can't
>tell the difference.
Not quite. He said that you couldn't tell the difference between a
*uniform* gravity field and an acceleration. I, or anyone, with a
gravity gradiometer can tell the difference between a real-world
gravity field and an acceleration.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Rand Simberg
<jimd...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>This tactic of yours of lashing out at and ridiculing people who
>use terms you don't like or hold beliefs you don't share or did
>things you don't approve of is wearing thin.
"Wearing"?
How about worn, with holes?
Rand Simberg
tdadamemd-...@excite.com (Stuf4) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Gravity manifests as a force.
No, gravity manifests as an acceleration field.
Rand Simberg
tdadamemd-...@excite.com (Stuf4) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> And you have yet to show that PhD's don't understand the difference other
>> than they use a shortcut in language when referring to Zero-G.
>
>Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative explanation as to their
>silence amidst all these NASA projects and facilities that are focused
>on the study of "zero gravity".
>
>Actually, I can think of another explanation. These gravity
>scientists are perfectly aware of how bogus the terminology is. They
>simply remain quiet because they don't want to do anything that might
>jeopardize the funding of their projects. They bow to the naked
>emperor.
Ahhh...now it becomes a conspiracy. T'was only a matter of time.
George William Herbert
>- In criticism of the term "zero gravity", I've provided examples
>where NASA PhDs project this into an ability to create "low gravity"
>on the surface of the Earth, as well as "no gravity" in orbit.
>
>This is *not* semantics. It is not pedantics. These are gross
>conceptual errors.
You are taking in the literal physics sense what are,
and everyone is telling you this over and over and over
and over and over again, terms of the art in aerospace
with different specific meanings than the literal physics
meanings of those terms.
This is *exactly* a semantics problem.
The combination of words do not mean the same thing
in the aerospace field as they do in the physics field.
Your criticism is entirely correct from the literal
physics meaning and yet amazingly wrong, because you
fail to grasp that different fields use vocabularly in
different, often incompatable precise technical meanings.
Again: words can mean different things in different fields.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com