Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Sorta-OT: Movies and Electronic Design

M

Martin Brown

Hello,

it is true today, but back in 1969, the available microprocessors were
not suitable for that task.

The Russians managed to do it only a year after the Apollo 11 landing
with their Luna 16 arguing that the risk to astronauts was too great
(and so avoiding admitting that they couldn't send any to the moon).

They did have a point as Luna 16 was just after the Apollo 13 near
disaster. Manned space exploration is inherently dangerous.
 
U

Uwe Hercksen

Martin said:
The Russians managed to do it only a year after the Apollo 11 landing
with their Luna 16 arguing that the risk to astronauts was too great
(and so avoiding admitting that they couldn't send any to the moon).

They did have a point as Luna 16 was just after the Apollo 13 near
disaster. Manned space exploration is inherently dangerous.

Hello,

the Russians did a good job with Luna 16, but collection of lunar rocks
requires in my opinion a rover driving around and looking for
interesting samples which are brought back to earth.
Landing at one point and taking some moon dust at only this place is not
my definition of "collecting samples".

Bye
 
Have you noticed that when someone in a movie is driving, and talks to
someone else, he always turns and takes his eyes off the road? That's
a deliberate "dramatic" trick. Or maybe it's just that all Hollywood
actors are idiotic drivers.

I've ridden with enough such drivers to expect that behavior. It's
not fiction.
n>>> As a potential bad guy, I'd definitely make the bomb explode at
t-10
 
Or was it that their quality control was so poor that they shipped a
lot of duds? A lot of the bombs would never be disarmed, unless they
were dug up some time in the future. It doesn't make much sense to
waste critical war materials to kill a few individuals who have little
effect on the outcome of the war.

The fear for delayed fuses kept the fire brigades away, allowing the
houses to burn down.
 
M

Martin Brown

It was more for the nuisance factor preventing roads from being used and
tying down specialists. Bomb disposal guys got pretty good at it. It
wasn't until 1943 that there were fuzes that were actually designed to
kill the bomb disposal officers working on them.

It also made it harder for firefighters if there was the odd UXB nearby
then they would sometimes have to leave buildings to burn.

They blitzed plenty of other major UK cities as well with the same MO.
Or was it that their quality control was so poor that they shipped a
lot of duds? A lot of the bombs would never be disarmed, unless they

German engineering and poor quality control in the same sentence you
just have to be kidding! The time fuses were deliberate and effective.
were dug up some time in the future. It doesn't make much sense to
waste critical war materials to kill a few individuals who have little
effect on the outcome of the war.

UXBs were a huge nuisance after a night raid since they had to be
treated as if they were potentially about to explode until disarmed.
They used various delay fuses some chemical, some clockwork and a few
with fancy anti tamper mechanisms. The bomb disposal people that got
very good at their job were moved to training others how to do it.

There are collectors of German bomb fuzes eg.

http://reviews.ebay.com/German-Bomb-Fuzes-A-laymans-guide?ugid=10000000003686178

It meant that any failed munitions would also be treated as serious
threats and tie up resources preventing roads from being used etc.

Every now and then the odd WWII bomb comes to light in a building site
and has to be decommissioned. The now very elderly explosive has to be
assumed to be a bit volatile to err on the safe side.
 
F

Fred Abse

Kinda like the Ram Air Turbine?

Known as the "Joshua (or Jericho) Trumpet".

Not nice to be on the receiving end.

On the plus side, Stukas weren't difficult for a Spitfire, or Hurricane,
or Mustang, to shoot down. They worked well in the European Blitzkrieg,
and the Russian campaign, not so well in the Battle of Britain.
 
F

Fred Abse

The Germans, when they blitzed London, loaded some of the bombs with
random delay fuses, all the better to kill the bomb disposal crews.

There was a war of wits between the British BD people, and the German
designers of yet more ingeniously deadly booby trap devices.

"Butterfly" bombs were particularly evil. Designed to kill or maim
unwitting civilians. Almost always had to be detonated in situ.
 
M

Martin Brown

There are several areas in the US that were used to train bomber
pilots that have soem unexploded bombs. The land was federal property
at the time, and few records were kept. Some developer built a
subdivision on one such area years ago, and the Army Corp of Engineers
had to check the area for unexploded bombs, and other munitons.

They still have a drop zone in the Ocala National Forest where they
drop dummy bombs, and a couple morons were caught trying to sell some
they stole as scrap metal, last year.

USAF have a particularly bad reputation in the UK for not being able to
find a target and hit it reliably. They also used to prang widowmakers
into the East Anglian marshes with monotonous regularity. The SR-71s
were very impressive though on take off and final approach.

Even today the USAF are pretty sloppy about dropping munitions in
entirely the wrong place a long way from the Otterburn practice range:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/3389957.stm

In pre GPS days the US display team were notorious for being heard but
not seen at the small grass runway Barton Airshow near Manchester and on
one occasion were about to start their display lined up with the much
larger and busy Ringway civilian airport about 10 miles away.

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-354110.html

I quote from an ATC of that era (this one a Woodford RAFA airshow):

The F 1/11 did its fast pass at Manchester instead of at the Woodford
airshow. I did my RT exam in 1978 with the controller who was on
'Manchester Approach' that day. He told me he saw the primary return
coming across the Pennines at several miles per 'paint', and soon
realised it was headed for Ringway instead of Woodford. It was, of
course, on the Woodford frequency so the Manchester controller picked up
his phone to advise Woodford of the situation. As he did so, he heard
the roar of its low pass past his tower!

It missed an approaching Vanguard east of Stockport, and a Viscount
climbing out over Knutsford, did a big 'U' turn, and went back east,
home and probably unaware of his mistake (until he landed at base!).

The USAF could often not find Barton - the RAF always did. Some US
display aircraft went fuel critical trying to find us, so never got to
the show, and one F 1/11 did one fast pass, turned left, and lost the
field. He never found it again before he had to go home due fuel critcality

Civilian aircraft like Concorde had no difficulty in finding either
Woodford or Barton airfields reliably every time. Concorde pilots had a
trick of coming in quietly and switching to full power and afterburners
about half way along the strip. Every car alarm went crazy.
 
M

Martin Brown

How about explosions in space? Any and all explosions?

They are just very slightly more symmetrical than they would be under
gravity, and the bits just keep going in a straight line and don't fall
downwards in a parabola. The rate of energy release in an explosion is
such that gravity is only a minor bit player in the early dynamics.

There are plenty of examples of extremely large explosions in space to
study - the brightest one being the supernova remnant Cass A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiopeia_A

It isn't quite spherically symmetrical because the star was spinning and
losing mass from its equatorial bulge before it went pop.

They are widely studied as standard candles that can be seen from almost
the edge of the observable universe. A single type II supernova at its
brightest can outshine an entire galaxy for a few days.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050719.html
Of course, I'll admit that I have no idea what a weightless explosion
in a vacuum _should_ look like, but I'm fairly certain that it won't
involve puffy clouds of smoke billowing out or flames that burn
"upward". <grin!>

It is the burning paraffin flames that look the strangest in space!

Fire in space is much more interesting although dangerous to play with.
Without gravity to move air into the burn zone it becomes a diffusion
limited spherical shell burn front and progresses slowly.

Scale model people do a great job with dimensional analysis to make
things behave approximately right for full scale but some things like
smoke and the wetness of water are not so amenable to being cheated.
Basically they film it at a different rate to actual playback to make it
look right for the full scale real world.
S'funny... this seems like a MythBusters natural, but I don't think
theyve ever done a show on what substances do... or do not... make
nice, exciting explosions in space. Maybe NASA launches are outside
their budget?

Frank McKenney

It is generally considered very bad form to explode things in Earth
orbit since the fragments produced can damage other satellites.
 
C

Charlie E.

There are several areas in the US that were used to train bomber
pilots that have soem unexploded bombs. The land was federal property
at the time, and few records were kept. Some developer built a
subdivision on one such area years ago, and the Army Corp of Engineers
had to check the area for unexploded bombs, and other munitons.

They still have a drop zone in the Ocala National Forest where they
drop dummy bombs, and a couple morons were caught trying to sell some
they stole as scrap metal, last year.

Here in the desert of California, there are several still active
target ranges, as well as quite a few 'decommissioned' ones. There is
an area in the Anza Borrego National Forest that is still off limits,
as well as an area of the Chocolate Mountains that Patton used as a
gunnery range...
 
C

Charlie E.

Taxpayers don't want to spend the money to 'safe' those old ranges,
then complain that they are closed off. They can't have it both ways. :(

Well, as I understand it, they have 'safed' these areas... several
times, and each time they find stuff that wasn't found before! The
terrain here is pretty wild, up and down, with fun flora and fauna to
deal with as well as summer temps in the 110's!
 
M

MrTallyman

The only way to really 'safe' it is with bulldozers to turn up every
square inch as deep as they can be embedded with their weight & speed at
impact. :(

They sit in a high power LASER fitted tank a couple thousand feet away
and detonate ordinance from a distance with the laser. There are no
bulldozers on ANY ranges where there is ANY chance that live ordinance
still exists.
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Aside from the reversal, did they badly touch it up to eliminate the
landing gear?

According to IMDB the nuclear scientist has a cat named "Neutron"
because he is "so positive". That would make my eyes roll.

--sp
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

We have two cats named Ajax and Comet, because they are very clean
cats.

Being cats, with abrasive personalities, right?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
That funny! My cat came to me when my neighbors abandoned him.
He's great since he prefers outside for a toilet. He has all his
sharp ends but use 4 of them outside to climb trees. He never tears
up anything in the home. I've never had a cat before but this 16+
pounder is a great pet. He even comes when I call him!

Ours are only sharp on half of their ends. One is about 17 pounds,
the other half that. We lost the 27lb Maine Coon the day before we
moved the stress got to him and he developed an auto-immune disease
and died within 48 hours.
 
Top