Verifying a hypothesis
It never gets old to me to verify a theory. Pure science is the verification of theory through testing.
The thought of a vacuum chamber of this size was also pretty cool. :)
The thought of a vacuum chamber of this size was also pretty cool. :)
I think that Galileo and Newton would have enjoyed seeing that video.
chamber was a six-foot cube. this was a biggie,
and took a looooong time to pump down to a few
microns for welding. . but these folks are dealing
in acres, in comparison! -- j
R+D=Slavery
so with the chamber already existing (and probably paid for it's self after the first time or two it 'saved' a failed spacecraft) there is no real harm in doing this during lunch (which is the kind of thing lab geeks do instead of actually going out to lunch). And so much the better that they filmed it, and released it. Yes, the science is well established, but this video might be what inspires the next generation of scientists to move us even farther. I mean, just look at the reactions in the room. These are pretty smart guys, and they already know what is supposed to happen, but even they are amazed like joyful children seeing the magic that is science.
Pardon my scepticism. This is carefully choreographed video with a script designed to get a certain reaction in the audience. Just like cop shows on tv.
However, I do not doubt that the chamber has been used for other more practical experiments.
If I want to do an experiment at zero cost using the facility and the staff, should I get it for free at the expense of taxpayers?
Should Disney? Should General Electric? Should the BBC?
I wonder how much the cost was to operate it and pay the staff to set it all up and clean up afterward,
"OK, but come early and have it ready before the rest of us show up, or we are doing the test suck anyway."
Completely made up by me just now, yep. Totally believable as stuff I've heard around labs? yep. Extra cost incurred in my scenario? um, $0-ish. Having the TV crew there for it by calling ahead? no biggie... "hey, we have to 'bla' the chamber next week, and we are going to try the ball thing. You can film it if you are here by 7..." Heck, some of these big research labs have PR people who'd jump at a chance to get a film crew in for something like that.
1. Thet thar air resistance thang.
2, Doesn't NASA have something freaking better to do with our freshly printed money?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
so with the chamber already existing (and probably paid for it's self after the first time or two it 'saved' a failed spacecraft) there is no real harm in doing this during lunch (which is the kind of thing lab geeks do instead of actually going out to lunch). And so much the better that they filmed it, and released it. Yes, the science is well established, but this video might be what inspires the next generation of scientists to move us even farther. I mean, just look at the reactions in the room. These are pretty smart guys, and they already know what is supposed to happen, but even they are amazed like joyful children seeing the magic that is science.
I think it is cool; I would not have assumed that people would 'hate' this. OK, it might be expensive (but we do not know what else was taking place when the evacuated the chamber. There may have been satellite modules to be tested at the same time). It is OK to comment that something is expensive without 'hate' coming into the equation.
Jan
Jan
What weighs more, a kilogram of iron or a kilogram of feathers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence...
so with the chamber already existing (and probably paid for it's self after the first time or two it 'saved' a failed spacecraft) there is no real harm in doing this during lunch (which is the kind of thing lab geeks do instead of actually going out to lunch). And so much the better that they filmed it, and released it. Yes, the science is well established, but this video might be what inspires the next generation of scientists to move us even farther. I mean, just look at the reactions in the room. These are pretty smart guys, and they already know what is supposed to happen, but even they are amazed like joyful children seeing the magic that is science.
Oh, and this thing is no doubt WAY cheaper than a supercollider.
Giving an expensive example of something that has been scientifically proven for decades is not acceptable use of tax dollars in a bankrupted country.
As far as spending tax money on space -- well, I'm glad we're not doing it now (and now Obama is unlikely to get his Mars mission past Congress). But in the sixties, it was an important part of the arms race, even if it wasn't marketed that way to the public.
Anyone who puts a missile base on the moon can threaten the world. (With today's ICBMs they can threaten us all anyway, but that wasn't so when Kennedy started the ball rolling.)
PS. I think Mythbusters already did spitting into the wind.