Buzz Lightyear Goes to Space

smigaldi said:
So will a pound of lead cost more than a pound of feathers in a cost/lb proposition?
Click to expand...
The feathers will cost more than the lead. A pound of lead uses little room and stores easily.
 
jesse said:
The feathers will cost more than the lead. A pound of lead uses little room and stores easily.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that when someone is looking at a cost per weight issue they should take volume into account? How does volume affect the weight of these two objects that both weight one pound?
 
smigaldi said:
So you are saying that when someone is looking at a cost per weight issue they should take volume into account? How does volume affect the weight of these two objects that both weight one pound?
Click to expand...

I suspect that he means that both weight and volume are limited in a shuttle. So long as the load remains less than gross weight, you can load more one pound lead doo-dads in the volume of a shuttle as compared to one pound feather pillows which presumably require more space than the pillows.

Someone could probably make a word problem out of this...
A space shuttle can carry 5,000 kilograms payload over the weight of astronauts and has a volume of 100 cubic meters. A lead thingie weighs one 0.5kg and requires 0.044m**3 volume. An astronaut's feather pillow weighs 0.5kg and takes 1.00 m**3 volume.

Find the number of pillows and thingies tat maximizes the shuttles payload of 5,000 kg.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
I suspect that he means that both weight and volume are limited in a shuttle. .
Click to expand...
He could have meant that, but the question was cost/weight and was not discussing volume. Besides that feathers can be crushed to take up less space, possibly even into a volume equivalent to the density of lead. Probably would be expensive to do, but it illustrates why we were not speaking of volume and making the assumption that there would be sufficient volume. At least that is why I guess Richard brought it up in the first place.
 
OMG - that video is awesome.

You guys are a bunch of nitwits, debating lead vs feathers???!!!:loco: Enjoy the laugh.
 
smigaldi said:
He could have meant that, but the question was cost/weight and was not discussing volume. Besides that feathers can be crushed to take up less space, possibly even into a volume equivalent to the density of lead. Probably would be expensive to do, but it illustrates why we were not speaking of volume and making the assumption that there would be sufficient volume. At least that is why I guess Richard brought it up in the first place.
Click to expand...

The feathers could be crushed, but they would make a lousy pillow.

flyersfan31 said:
OMG - that video is awesome.

You guys are a bunch of nitwits, debating lead vs feathers???!!!:loco: Enjoy the laugh.
Click to expand...
It was just light talk. It is a fun video.
 
smigaldi said:
He could have meant that, but the question was cost/weight and was not discussing volume. Besides that feathers can be crushed to take up less space, possibly even into a volume equivalent to the density of lead. Probably would be expensive to do, but it illustrates why we were not speaking of volume and making the assumption that there would be sufficient volume. At least that is why I guess Richard brought it up in the first place.
Click to expand...
I guess I wasn't too into your word game and didn't read it that well. If you have to ship items volume and weight both need to be considered.

You could crush feathers to the density of lead but what in the hell would you do with the feathers? You'd effectively destroy them by doing so.
 
The reason I brought it up was because I had just read a thread on absurd aviation arguments. This thread presented an opportunity to mention a much older, but equally absurd argument, ie, feathers and lead.

Nitwits indeed. Yet, the corollary could be that from such reducto assphincter absurdio comes wisdom.

So...lead could be used as radiation shielding during transit. Feathers could be used as insulation. Now how much would you pay for delivery?
(This could be chapter II of this silly argument.):D
 
Without getting stuffed on the feathers versus lead argument ... Buzz actually fulfills a very critical function on the STS.

One of the mission specialists (cannot remember which) described how she invented using Buzz to track the orientation of a spacewalker riding on the stirrups on the end of the arm. They cover Buzz in Velcro and she can fix him to the bulkhead in the approximate orientation of the person working in space. This helped her with the coordinate transformations when the fellow asked to be "moved a bit to the left" yet might be upside down and backwards with respect to the operator.

I always like those examples of simple solutions amidst all the technology ...
 
smigaldi said:
So will a pound of lead cost more than a pound of feathers in a cost/lb proposition?
Click to expand...

Pound of feathers would cost more due to the size of the vessel required to carry it would be larger/heavier.
 
steingar said:
The operative term here is mass, gentlemen.
Click to expand...

Correct, and a lb of lead requires no container while a lb of feathers does. Said containment device will have mass. The size of the spacecraft required to carry it will have mass as well, and not only that, it will have drag which will cost fuel which has weight as well. The denser the unit one ships, the less costly it is to ship.
 
JeffDG said:
You realize that a "pound" is not a unit of mass, right?
Click to expand...

Well, there are pounds mass and pounds force, but you have to know when to use our friend the slug to make the units work out...


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Well, there are pounds mass and pounds force, but you have to know when to use our friend the slug to make the units work out...


Trapper John
Click to expand...

I believe the Imperial unit of mass is the "stone" actually...a pound is always a unit of force.
 
JeffDG said:
I believe the Imperial unit of mass is the "stone" actually...a pound is always a unit of force.
Click to expand...

Being rebel types, the U.S. never really adopted the Imperial system. That's how the U.S. Customary system came to be, although it borrows heavily from the Imperial system. Anyway, everyone finally agreed that 1 pound mass = 453.59237 grams through some form of offical agreement back in 1959.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Being rebel types, the U.S. never really adopted the Imperial system. That's how the U.S. Customary system came to be, although it borrows heavily from the Imperial system. Anyway, everyone finally agreed that 1 pound mass = 453.59237 grams through some form of offical agreement back in 1959.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Very well...I stand corrected, and fall back on the defense that I was raised in one of Her Majesty's Dominions, only recently having relocated here!
 
JeffDG said:
Very well...I stand corrected, and fall back on the defense that I was raised in one of Her Majesty's Dominions, only recently having relocated here!
Click to expand...

and you moved to Oak Ridge...that means....You must be a Terrorist!!!!
 
Henning said:
and you moved to Oak Ridge...that means....You must be a Terrorist!!!!
Click to expand...

LOL...they have historic rail tours that I can't go on here! You have to prove US Citizenship! We pesky Canadians are NOT to be trusted!
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Someone could probably make a word problem out of this...
A space shuttle can carry 5,000 kilograms payload over the weight of astronauts and has a volume of 100 cubic meters. A lead thingie weighs one 0.5kg and requires 0.044m**3 volume. An astronaut's feather pillow weighs 0.5kg and takes 1.00 m**3 volume.

Find the number of pillows and thingies tat maximizes the shuttles payload of 5,000 kg.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the life of a Logistics Planner.
 
JeffDG said:
You realize that a "pound" is not a unit of mass, right?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

In the rarely used slug (mass) pound (force) system it ain't.

In the even less often used pound (mass) poundel (force) system it are.

In the common pound mass (lbm) , pound force (lbf) system it is and it isn't.

edit: And I forgot about those English "stones"...

The offical U.S. government definition is that it is a mass (defined as 0.4535924 Kg in 1959)

Pick your system.
 
Last edited:
OK.. So if a 'pound' is used as a measure of weight, and weight is a measure of the force required to support an object in a given gravitational field, then the weight measurement (pound) of an object would decrease when moving away from Earth's gravitational field, right?

So if the shuttle has a certain 'weight' when returning to orbit, and if the angle at which the shuttle re-enters the atmosphere depends on its weight, is the approach angle calculated on its "space weight" or its "Earth weight", or is it as sliding scale with the angle of attack adjusted as the weight (which is dependent on gravitational force) changes as it gets closer to the Earth's gravitational constant?
 
JOOC how would you compute a weight and balance calulation in Zero G??? :D
 
if the shuttle experienced no gravity, it would not stay in orbit.
 
tonycondon said:
the constants are always changing...
Click to expand...

OK, so how did the Apollo missions perform reentry? They couldn't adjust their angle of attack/incidence during reentry could they? Did they shoot for the average of 'space weight' and 'earth weight' and hope for the best?
 
CJones said:
OK, so how did the Apollo missions perform reentry? They couldn't adjust their angle of attack/incidence during reentry could they? Did they shoot for the average of 'space weight' and 'earth weight' and hope for the best?
Click to expand...
Actually they could adjust their re-entry angle up to a certain point.

The Apollo capsules were guided through the atmosphere — the center of mass of the capsule was offset from the centre line, this angled the capsule's passage through the air providing some useful lift, and the astronauts and control system could steer the capsule by rotating it using thrusters. If they wished the capsule to go in a straight line the capsule would spin and the lift would essentially cancel out.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_capsule
 
i believe that the apollo capsule actually could use thrusters to adjust AoA during re-entry, and they did use that feature to "fly" the capsule to a precision landing. by the end of the missions there was actually some concern that they were landing the capsules too close to the recovery ships.

and I know that the shuttle is constantly changing AoA and bank angle during reentry to manage the energy.
 
smigaldi said:
Actually they could adjust their re-entry angle up to a certain point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_capsule
Click to expand...

tonycondon said:
i believe that the apollo capsule actually could use thrusters to adjust AoA during re-entry, and they did use that feature to "fly" the capsule to a precision landing. by the end of the missions there was actually some concern that they were landing the capsules too close to the recovery ships.

and I know that the shuttle is constantly changing AoA and bank angle during reentry to manage the energy.
Click to expand...

Well... You learn something new every day......... if you're not careful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top