Re: STS51L Accident Questions

From: Peter Stickney (p-stickney_at_Mineshaft.local)
Date: 03/17/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:08:36 -0800

In article <sFb_d.707104$8l.596168@pd7tw1no>,
        Dave Michelson <davem@ece.ubc.ca> writes:
> Derek Lyons wrote:
>> Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Remember that story about the bats running into the F-117 because they
>>>couldn't see it with their sonar? And the camera that used a acoustical
>>>focusing system not being able to focus on it? Did they even have those
>>>back then?
>>
>>
>> That sounds like a bull*** story, because sound doesn't behave like
>> radar.
>
> To paraphrase a certain former submariner,
>
> "ROTFLMAO. Stick to sub stories. There you have a clue."

Let's see now - Three Points:
Bats use their echolocation to detect food in the air,
at distances long enough to allow maneuvering to intercept the target.
Are you suggesting that an F-117 has a lower acoustical cross-section
than a Mosquito?

One of the reasons that an F-117's RCS is as low as it is is the
incorporation of RAM (Radar Absorbing Materials) in the outer skin of
the airframe. That stuff's only effective over a small band of
frequencies.

If that thing were so good at reflecting _all_ types of
wave-propagation phenomena, you wouldn't be able to _see_ the bloody
thing, _would_ you? After all, light & radio are only different
colors of Electromagnetic Radiation.

So, like, you might want to Reset & Run From 0 on your assessment of
Derek's assessment of Ben Rich's (quite misleading, if no downright
inaccurate) claims.

Jive Turkey, ain't never jammed a Radar in his life. 

-- 
Pete Stickney			
p-stickney@nospam.adelphia.net
Without data, all you have in an opinion.
Quantcast