Pajaholic Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 I think that's the one with one enormously long finger for picking its nose out grubs DING! It also uses that finger for finding its prey. It taps the trunks of trees with that finger and listens with its very large and sensitive ears for the right type of noise, then it chews away the bark and wood over the grub's home, and finally picks out the grub with that finger. Over to MartyBartfast. Quote
+MartyBartfast Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Leaving natural history behind and enterring another realm altogether: What was the name of the individual who was tasked to push a boulder up a hill, but it would roll down before reaching the top, thus he was condemed for ever to push the boulder up the hill. Ding for the name, and a Dong for the correct speeeling !!!! Quote
+keehotee Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Leaving natural history behind and enterring another realm altogether: What was the name of the individual who was tasked to push a boulder up a hill, but it would roll down before reaching the top, thus he was condemed for ever to push the boulder up the hill. Ding for the name, and a Dong for the correct speeeling !!!! Sisyphus! Quote
+MartyBartfast Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Leaving natural history behind and enterring another realm altogether: What was the name of the individual who was tasked to push a boulder up a hill, but it would roll down before reaching the top, thus he was condemed for ever to push the boulder up the hill. Ding for the name, and a Dong for the correct speeeling !!!! Sisyphus! DING DONG Quote
+keehotee Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 A five tonne, 20-year-old satellite has fallen out of orbit and is expected to crash somewhere on Earth on or around 24 September, according to Nasa. But.....what's the height of the lowest sustainable Earth orbit - and what velocity would a satellite need to stay there? Quote
Pajaholic Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 I don't think this is a pub question as it'd take more than a minute or so to calculate. Nonetheless (and making lots of simplifications): Limit of Earth's atmosphere is normally reckoned to be circa 200 km, which is the minimum altitude a spacecraft would need to be to avoid speed loss due to friction with the atmosphere. The diameter of Earth about is about 12,750 km. So a satellite in circular orbit would need to travel at a speed at which the centripetal force of gravity is equal to the centrifugal force due to angular acceleration. That is: mg = mrw2 ;or g = rw2 Therefore w = sqrt(g/r) Now the radius is 6375+200 km = 6575000 m, so w (the angular velocity) = sqrt(9.81 ms-2 / 6575000 m) ~ 0.00122 radians per second. Thus the speed is rw = 6575000 x 0.00122 = 8,030 ms-1 Summarising: Minimum orbital height is approximately 200 km, with orbital speed approximately 8,030 ms-1 which is equivalent to a velocity of approximately 0.00122 radians per second! (Phew!) Quote
+keehotee Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 I don't think this is a pub question as it'd take more than a minute or so to calculate. Nonetheless (and making lots of simplifications): Limit of Earth's atmosphere is normally reckoned to be circa 200 km, which is the minimum altitude a spacecraft would need to be to avoid speed loss due to friction with the atmosphere. The diameter of Earth about is about 12,750 km. So a satellite in circular orbit would need to travel at a speed at which the centripetal force of gravity is equal to the centrifugal force due to angular acceleration. That is: mg = mrw2 ;or g = rw2 Therefore w = sqrt(g/r) Now the radius is 6375+200 km = 6575000 m, so w (the angular velocity) = sqrt(9.81 ms-2 / 6575000 m) ~ 0.00122 radians per second. Thus the speed is rw = 6575000 x 0.00122 = 8,030 ms-1 Summarising: Minimum orbital height is approximately 200 km, with orbital speed approximately 8,030 ms-1 which is equivalent to a velocity of approximately 0.00122 radians per second! (Phew!) Not the answer I've got, unfortunately. But impressive workings out nonetheless..... Quote
+Simply Paul Posted September 22, 2011 Author Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) Trick question as it depends entirely on the drag co-efficient of the body and its mass. Even 150 miles up there's enough drag to bring big things down 'eventually'. The usual figure given is 100 miles/160km or 200km but 200 miles/320Km is probably more realistic, unless the object was able to 'power' itself against drag long-term, perhaps by sunlight-driven ion propulsion. As for speed, it's about 7km per second or 4.5 miles per second, relative to the Earth's surface. That gets more complicated if the object is in a polar orbit, but you wanted a general figure so... Edit - I didn't see this had moved onto another page. Lucky the correct (tbc!) answer hasn't yet been given Edited September 22, 2011 by Simply Paul Quote
Pajaholic Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) Hmmm ... I've just googled and the method of most people's calculation seems to be similar to mine. However, the answer depends a lot on just where you take the minimum altitude for negligible atmospheric drag. Wikipedia suggests this is much higher than the figure I gave and claims this to be the minimum altitude for a stable orbit. However, a quick check shows that Sputnik was placed into an elliptical orbit at an altitude of 215km with an orbital velocity of ~ 18,000 mph (8,046 m-1), the excess velocity giving rise to the ellipse. That fact that the Russians actually put a satellite into a lower orbit than Wikipedia suggests to be the minimum very strongly suggests they're wrong! Edited to add: ... unless the object was able to 'power' itself against drag long-term, perhaps by sunlight-driven ion propulsion. ... In which case the orbital height an velocity are a lot less than you might suspect because Pathfinder can stay up indefinitely at a very low speed as most of its 'anti-gravitational' force is aerodynamic lift rather than centrifugal! (Although few would consider Pathfinder to be a satellite) Edited September 22, 2011 by Pajaholic Quote
+Simply Paul Posted September 22, 2011 Author Posted September 22, 2011 ..That fact that the Russians actually put a satellite into a lower orbit than Wikipedia suggests to be the minimum very strongly suggests they're wrong! It was light though, so came down after just three months. A far from sustainable Earth orbit! Quote
+Betelgeuse Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Stable LEO (Low Earth Orbit) is generally accepted to be around 350km altitude. Anything below 200km is going to decay relatively quickly due to atmospheric drag. Orbital velocity for satellites in LEO is approximately 7,800m/s although that's going to vary with altitude as it's the angular velocity that matters (as Pajaholic pointed out). Truly stable satellites are placed in geostationary orbit at an altitude of 35,780km and an orbital velocity of a shade over 3km/s. Even in geostationary orbit corrections still have to be made for the effects of precession though. Quote
+thehalibutkid Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 I hate to be a killjoy but this is a pub quiz not a physics class. Quote
+keehotee Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 As there seem to be so many differences of scientific opinion (boundary of "space" varying from 100 to 200km, definition of "sustainable, etc) in the interests of keeping things moving, I'm going to give the ding to...................... (drum roll) Simply Paul! Quote
+Simply Paul Posted September 23, 2011 Author Posted September 23, 2011 Simply Paul!I don't think I deserve it, but in the interests of keeping things moving, who had a minor hit with "The Future's So Bright I've Gotta Wear Shades" in 1986? Quote
+eusty Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Timbuk Three...but please don't listen to it...it's 'singing' in my head now!! Quote
+Simply Paul Posted September 23, 2011 Author Posted September 23, 2011 The correct spelling is Timbuk3, but you're clearly good enough for a DING! Over to you Quote
+eusty Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 Back to music. The band The Specials used to have AKA the end of their name (The Specials AKA) on their early releases...what does AKA mean? Quote
+keehotee Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 (edited) Back to music. The band The Specials used to have AKA the end of their name (The Specials AKA) on their early releases...what does AKA mean? Also known as. And it was The Special AKA, not The Specials AKA Edited September 25, 2011 by keehotee Quote
+NattyBooshka Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 The Special Also Known As The Coventry Automatics Quote
+drdick&vick Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 (edited) duplication of Keehotees's answer, whoops. Edited September 25, 2011 by DrDick&Vick Quote
+eusty Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 @ irisisleuk Ding! over to you @ keehotee You get the Pedantic Award I was only a young lad at the time...I should have googled it first though Quote
+keehotee Posted September 26, 2011 Posted September 26, 2011 (edited) @ irisisleuk Ding! over to you @ keehotee You get the Pedantic Award I was only a young lad at the time...I should have googled it first though M'eh Edited September 26, 2011 by keehotee Quote
+eusty Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 This needs a bump as it's nearly dropped off the first page! Quote
+MTH Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 This thread looks like it might die (some might say about time). Since irisisleuk doesn't look likely to come up with a new question can I suggest the Eusty nominates someone else for the next question... Mark Quote
+eusty Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 can I suggest the Eusty nominates someone else for the next question...I nominate you!! Go for it... Quote
+MTH Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) I wasn't expecting that! Something topical... Dan Crowley, John Eales, Tim Horan, Phil Kearns, Jason Little. Who's next on the only other member of this exclusive list? Mark [Edited to clarify the question] Edited October 4, 2011 by MTH Quote
+The Duckers Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Well, I know they are Australian rugby union players, so I will guess at Captains and go for George Gregan being next. Quote
+MTH Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) Not captains. And, although these are all Australian, the one you're after isn't... Mark Edited October 4, 2011 by MTH Quote
+MazdaRoy Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 The last hint swung it for me, (I hope) they have all won the Rugby World Cup twice and the only other player to do so is a South Africian Os du Randt. Quote
+MTH Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 DING! The Australians won in 1991 and 1999. Os Du Randt won with SA in 1995 and 2007. Hopefully there will be a few Englishmen joining them this time Seriously though, the "northern" half of the draw is very open and any of the four teams could make the final. England will have to improve considerably if they're to beat France and either Wales or Ireland. The favourites have to come from the "southern" half. Dan Carter's injury has no doubt weakened NZ, but they should still have more than enough firepower to win (unless they choke again ). Australia or SA could still spoil the party, and we've seen both are far from invincible. Mark Quote
+MazdaRoy Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Keeping it topical (sorry for non rugby fans) Who was the first Rugby Union player to win 60 international caps? Quote
+eusty Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (sorry for non rugby fans) that would be me then! Quote
+The Patrician Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (sorry for non rugby fans) that would be me then! For a moment there I thought you meant you'd won 60 caps! Quote
+The Patrician Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Keeping it topical (sorry for non rugby fans) Who was the first Rugby Union player to win 60 international caps? Would it be that Scotsman? The name temporarily escapes me...... Quote
+The Patrician Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 Hastings is the bloke I was trying to remember. Quote
+MazdaRoy Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 No right guesses so far, so I will give you all a hint, He played for Ireland but came from Northern Ireland. And he was years before Hastings. Quote
+MTH Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 Well I know (now) having looked it up, but that's cheating Great player, great captain. If you count playing for the Lions you could argue he was the 1st to 80 caps. Quote
+NattyBooshka Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Willie John Mcbride? I seem to recall he didn't play more than a handful more Quote
+MazdaRoy Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Ding.... A great Ballymena man.. Over to NattyBooshka Quote
jadenrich2101 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Hey hey im back....i know its been a while...had a shocking time with getting my tooth out 2 weeks ago been in constant agony this whole time n wasnt interested in doing ANYTHING......so Natty....Bring on the question Quote
+The Patrician Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Going back to 2006 the original thread said: "I'm going to ask a question, whoever answers correctly can post the next question and so on... Rule 1 - No googling! Rule 2 - Try and keep your question at the level someone in a pub quiz might be able to answer..." I think we may at times be drifting away from "the level someone in a pub quiz might be able to answer"! Quote
+Fianccetto Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Hey hey im back....i know its been a while...had a shocking time with getting my tooth out 2 weeks ago been in constant agony this whole time n wasnt interested in doing ANYTHING......so Natty....Bring on the question Hi jady! Welcome back, was wondering where you were, thought you had just got busy with change in weather/ new term. Sorry to hear your tooth was giving you so much trouble - sounds nasty! Glad you're better now! Quote
jadenrich2101 Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Hey hey im back....i know its been a while...had a shocking time with getting my tooth out 2 weeks ago been in constant agony this whole time n wasnt interested in doing ANYTHING......so Natty....Bring on the question Hi jady! Welcome back, was wondering where you were, thought you had just got busy with change in weather/ new term. Sorry to hear your tooth was giving you so much trouble - sounds nasty! Glad you're better now! Ooo its been shocking! it took him 20 mins to pull the thing and whilst he was pulling me all over the room he ended up messing up the muscles in my jaw so ive been going to a massage person at the hospital to try get it back to normal Didnt like it at all !!! Soooo what mensa question am i attempting then ??? x Quote
+Fianccetto Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Going back to 2006 the original thread said: "I'm going to ask a question, whoever answers correctly can post the next question and so on... Rule 1 - No googling! Rule 2 - Try and keep your question at the level someone in a pub quiz might be able to answer..." I think we may at times be drifting away from "the level someone in a pub quiz might be able to answer"! Who knows, since you can't smoke in pubs anymore, maybe they've become full of non-smoking intellectual Mensa gurus trying to get away from the washing up? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.