You must log in or # to comment.
Fun fact: Columbia, pictured with the white tank, was the heaviest shuttle and was not modified to have the airlock necessary to dock with the ISS because the performance losses compared to the other shuttles made it difficult to use for ISS operations.
But didn’t it have ejection seats at one point?
IIRC the original Shuttle design called for an ejection mechanism around the entire cockpit. During STS-1 and I believe STS-2, which was also Colombia, there were extra emergency mechanisms present, but I don’t think the seats themselves ejected through the roof like a fighter pilot’s would. For the most part though these were useless as they could not be used above 30,000 feet or something like that so it could only be used during the first minute or two of the flight.
Several of the safety mechanisms and other things that were going to be part of the original design that had not already been scrapped for weight (like jet engines for powered decent) were scrapped for weight when the DOD stepped in and offered NASA extra money for the Shuttle if the Shuttle could hit very specific, higher and less fuel efficient, orbits. This came from an offhand comment that Jimmy Carter made, and then had to make good on the threats and implications of.
Context hat
Back when NASA was flinging things into space for the first time, the tolerances that were even possible were extremely tight. Every pound mattered (every pound still matters, but because we have other things to do once we get to space nowadays, plus every pound is expensive).
600 pounds of white paint for the fuel tank was considered unnecessary, once the engineering team figured that it didn’t actually protect the special foam covering of the fuel tank anyway. Thus the distinctive orange color!
For all the people in the world except the ones from Liberia, Myanmar and the United States, 600 freedom units = ~272 kg
You can just give a conversion without being snarky about it
And you could just use standardized metrics that is used by the entire world. Like many Americans claim they can. Yet here we are.
Orange makes it go faster. Not the fastest color but it’s up there.
Is NASA run by orcs
deleted by creator
We put a lot of meaning on ‘Boots on the ground.’
deleted by creator
Though isn’t that decreasing the aerodynamics and increasing the friction?
No the purpose of the white pant was to help keep the external tank cool to reduce fuel boil off. The foam insulation was incredibly rough, not something a thin layer of paint could smooth over.
Probably, but the slowest part of the trip is in the most dense air. Probably still a net benefit!
I always thought it looked cooler with the orange tank anyway
Cooler with white, but heavier.
Cooler depends on the amount of sunlight available
No that’s cooler
I thought Cell was green?
No that’s when Cooler fuses with Picollo to become even cooler.
Pooler? Coocollo? Picoler?
Coolio.
High end bicycle equipment has weight specs in grams.
It’s always hillarious to me to see boomers on expensive bikes that aim to save every gram while they could save 20kg on themselves.
Perhaps that’s why they are on a bike?
If the point is to burn calories, then shaving weight off your equipment is counterproductive.
But if it makes you want to ride more, then great!
If you are trying to lose weight, you should be using the worst, heaviest bike possible.
Well, not necessarily. A bike that’s got a full carbon frame also absorbs shock and vibration from the road better. This means you can ride longer distances without getting fatigued in places like your wrists or ass. Longer rides = more exercise.
But once you have a carbon frame, chasing grams on other components gets to be a bit silly.
You could also just walk whenever possible, burns more kcals/distance
That’s less efficient time-wise though, since it takes significantly longer to walk the same distance compared to riding.
Ie, riding 2 hours burns FAR more calories than walking for 2 hours.
I enjoy walking and don’t mind walking even for 40 minutes in the morning. Not every day, but if it fits in the schedule it gives me more movement in practice than a bike (also due to some local circumstances).
The point was more generally that walking is a great alternative. Everyone hypes bicycles, walking has no lobby and is one of the healthiest things to add to your day.
Also, if the goal is to lose weight, cardio is fine but only supportive at best. It’s way more effective to eat less calorie dense food than trying to run/bike it off. The difference between an hour walking and biking is negligible for most people compared to dietary changes.
The difference between an hour walking and biking is easily 10+ miles, not exactly negligible if you have somewhere to go.
Well, not if you still want to have some fun while doing so.
But I agree, that a regular bike should suffice and you don’t need to worry about optimizing gear weight if you’re not competing for anything and just ride it for your own well-being.
