On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:32:50AM -0500, mikea wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:14:59AM -0400, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
>
> [a vacuum-filled Hindenburg]
>
> > Absolutely. However, the weight of a structure that size that could
> > withstand the forces of a vacuum would well exceed the forces of
> > buoyancy!
>
> Just so. I got to see a very large vacuum chamber that had collapsed:
> the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center's space environment chamber, which was
> something like 5 meters diameter and 8 or 10 meters long. I drove to work
> one morning, and it had changed shape from a vertical cylinder to something
> like a crushed Coke can. This chamber was _heavily_ braced on the outside,
> instead of being designed for flight. Oooopsie!
I got it w0rng; a press release from the commissioning of that chamber
says:
HOUSTON_ TEXAS -- Formal acceptance of the 65 ft. diameter vacuum
chamber at the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center took place here today after
the completion of acceptance tests by Industrial-Fisher-Diversified,
prime contractors for the facility. The transfer of the facility to NASA
was accomplished by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, technical monitor
for NASA facility construction. The 120 ft. high chamber will be used to
conduct thermal tests of Apollo spacecraft under vacuum conditions.
That's press release MSC 66-2, January 7, 1966
--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mikea@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|