I love space but there is no space thread here so let's change that.
I like this thread already!
I always assumed the Earth would sit in a mostly fixed point in the Moon's sky. I know there's libration, but I didn't think that would mean the Earth would move around that much
Although now that I think about it, it only seems like it's moving a lot because we can see the whole moon. If the camera in this webm was on the surface of the moon, the Earth would still be doing pretty much the same thing...
>I know there's libration, but I didn't think that would mean the Earth would move around that much
You can't actually tell how much the earth is moving around, because you can't tell how zoomed in or zoomed out that video is taken from. It could be very far away from the moon but just very very zoomed in.
Sorry about the number of cuts to CG, this is just what I had on hand to transcode.
It's ice. In order to stay as a liquid, the fuel has to be kept incredibly cold and this causes a layer of frost to form around the lower stages of the rocket while it's sitting on the launchpad.
Short video, because it was cloudy and those Vega rockets are damn fast.
First of a two parter, because it was a pretty launch.
The ground camera actually captures the fairing separation at about +03:28.
I fucking hate it when people say, "humans are the worst, they do so many bad things. Animals are better!"
Humans are fucking incredible. All of the things that we have accomplished, it's almost unbelievable.
Man, the way people walk in that looks so wrong for a spacecraft. Their shoulders move with their steps, and they put weight through their legs. They even stand straight, rather than the "microgravity slouch".
I know it's an unfair criticism, but it's weird to see that when you're used seeing how people walk, stand, and move on the ISS.
You have it the wrong way around. That's not what tidally locked means. The Moon is tidally locked to Earth, not the other way around. Standing on the Earth, you side of the moon would never change for you.
>That's because they have magnets on their shoes to anchor them.
I thought it was velcro?
Anyway, having your feet stick to the floor isn't enough to walk. Walking isn't just pulling yourself along with the soles of your feet, we push off against the ground and coast over in a double pendulum movement. None of that would work without gravity.
Other than a very brief mention of New Horizons, I can't remember the last time I heard about space exploration on the news.
It's kinda depressing really - there's all this neat stuff out there, but we think the world's going to shit because that's all that people want to focus on. There are real problems out there, but hopelessness won't fix them.
I've been reading some Clarke lately, and this comes up all the time. People using systems that let them walk in microgravity, I mean. I wonder why he thought that would be such a big deal.
the closest anyone has ever come to recovering an orbital booster.
tune in Jan. 8th for another attempt.
(orbcomm mission, date actually hasent been confirmed and im not sure there is fuel capacity for a recovery attempt on that one actually.)
damn that got way the fuck up there
Ive never seen a rocket achieve such a height as to get to such low gravity
For a second I thought you meant the actual distances between the planets in space, but then I realized you just meant the diameters stacked together.
That's interesting, but not unreasonable, considering the radius of the sun is something like twice the distance to the moon, and I know the rest of the planets are all just tiny fractions of the sun's size.
looks like this event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antares_(rocket)#October_2014_incident
Rocket was made by american consortium ULA. They used old Russian rockets that were originally built for the russian moon rocket, but were never used since that project was scrapped. Turns they are prone to exploding.
>use the velcro to pull yourself down with the attached foot so you can bring the other down
You could, but you wouldn't actually be walking. If you're going to be weightless anyway, you may as well just float around. It's the most convenient way of moving, and it's no more alien than anything else you could do.
What's really crazy is that you have to remember that the dude speaking is Walter Fucking Cronkite; He kept his shit more or less together while breaking the news of the assassination of John F Kennedy to the country at large.
>american idol or something important
>thinking that american idol is important while landing a rocket back on the ground, which will make spaceflight 90% cheaper, isn't important
>Took 14 seconds for the sound to reach them in that video
>Sound travels at around 340.29 m / s
>They were 4764 meters away or almost ~3 miles.
>Still so deafeningly loud
Holy shit is right.
Rocket/shuttle launches are the coolest. I was once at cocoa beach with my family and we saw the space shuttle launch miles away. As it was clearing the stratosphere (?) a hearty boom hit us. I'd like to live closer to cape Canaveral one of these days as the space industry kicks into gear.
I always wonder why they don't bolt down the pool chairs
Damn, it's such a shame they cancelled the shuttle program. If you read about what caused them to fail they were both quite avoidable, one was just because they were pressured to launch when it was too cold.
Sorry to disagree but that movie was shit. It smacked so hard of a contrived art project. We watched it in a creative writing course in college. She asked us what we thought and this old guy in the back of the room that looks like William Burroughs said, and I quote, "It felt like that movie was de-creating me." Such an apt review.
>Rocket was made by american consortium ULA.
no, it was famed rocket integrator Orbital Sciences. Their main products are satellites, but they also refurbish ICBMs for small government launches, as well as the only air-launched orbital rocket, Pegasus.
The Antares was even more of an integration job: two surplus Russian moon rocket engines (NK-33), a Ukrainian rocket body, American solid fuel upper stage, Italian cargo capsule.
"Hey Bob, are you sure the Shuttle is properly secured?"
>On December 21, 2015, SpaceX's Falcon 9 delivered 11 satellites to low-Earth orbit and landed the first stage of the rocket back on land.
I can't even imagine how incredible it must have felt to be there, to say nothing of actually being on the SpaceX team.
I was watching from home and it was still hype as fuck. I think it was actually slightly more exciting than the Curiosity landing back in 2012.
Christ, can't believe it's almost been 4 years since that.
lmao. The Enterprise shuttle was built solely to demonstrate the subsonic gliding capabilities of the vehicle, the shrouds on the engines would be a tip-off if you didn't know that.
>It can take off from a plane and go into space, there were other planes that could do it too.
No, there weren't. There are no Single-stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicles yet because of the engineering challenges on building such a thing. Even the Space Ship One requires some sort of booster vehicle to get it from the ground and fly it to an altitude where its rocket engines can operate. The closest thing ATM is the Pegasus rocket which is launched by a 747, it can put 0.5 ton payloads in Low Earth Orbit, less than a subcompact car.
From earlier today's launch and barge landing attempt
That must have been so disappointing, it looked like a 5/5 landing and I wouldn't be surprised if people were already cheering when they saw it touch down.
How come the landing leg just gave away like that?
>I wouldn't be surprised if people were already cheering when they saw it touch down.
The live feed froze a few seconds before touchdown. They didn't recover that video until loss of contact had already indicated failure.
I just don't get it, how is this any better than just strapping parachutes to the rocket? NASA used to do this all the time with the spent booster rockets from the shuttle, and they were reusable as well.
This is what SpaceX is aiming to do;
>It lands on a barge in the ocean
>Gets picked up and shipped back
>Inspected for damage, repairs made
Compared to what NASA were doing decades ago
>Boosters land in the water
>Get picked up and shipped back
>Inspects for damage, repairs made
How is the latter any worse?
There are a few benefits. Enough parachutes to slow down a rocket is quite a significant mass itself, whereas engines are already attached to the rocket and incur no extra weight penalty. Using the engines also allows you to control where the rocket lands, allowing you to drop it gently near the refurbishment plant, rather than delicate-bits first into a saltwater bath where it soaks for a few hours until your expensive specialist boat gets to it and retrieves it.
1. Parachutes count as part of your payload. Every extra pound of payload mass you attach to the rocket has to be made up for by anywhere from five to fifteen pounds of extra fuel. Increasing your payload even marginally increases your total rocket size exponentially. By contrast, it only takes a little bit of extra fuel, and thus a little bit of extra rocket size, in order to perform a powered landing.
2. Saltwater destroys rocket engines almost irreparably. It costs a fortune to refurbish them. You need to be able to land the rocket on a solid surface, to prevent that damage.
It's not strictly space, but it's related and I wanted to contribute.
I was 5 or so (20 now) and me and my dad went to watch a shuttle lift off in Cape Canaveral. We snuck onto a privately owned beach like 3-4 miles from the lift-off site.
I was playing around in the waves since I lived on the Gulf Coast and there aren't big waves, but when the rocket lifted off, (it took a couple of seconds for the sound to reach us), it felt like an earthquake, and actually pushed the tide back a couple of inches from the vibrations.
Collapsed a sand castle we made too.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite video on thrust vectoring.
God, alkane rockets produce such fucking beautiful plumes. I've been wanting to build an amateur propane rocket of my own for a while, but I'll probably never have the spare time or disposible income.
2 SuperDraco engines ignite simultaneously & throttle as they would during the Pad Abort flight test
- launch rocket which has half the payload capability but more than 20 times cheaper.
- land on land or a barge
- picked up
- check engines and such
- launch 7 astronauts in an unsafe vehicle costing more than 1 billion dollars per flight, using solid rocket boosters that preclude use of any meaningful launch escape system in the first 2 minutes of flight.
- boosters land in salt water, with enough speed to potentially damage the booster
- picked up after soaking in a salt bath for a few hours
- dismantled, sent half way across america to be refurbished
- refurbishment costs more than making a new booster
- takes months
- some small part of the dismantled rocket may be reused in another booster that is 75% new parts.
- Claim reusability while in reality you are desperate to drop the thing as soon as possible so you are not strapped to one of the greatest missteps in technological development.
The shuttle concept as first proposed was not bad, once the Nixon administration got hold of it along with the airforce it was turning into something it should never have been and then kept running despite its severe failings for 30 years, as NASA simply could not get rid of it as every new president cancelled the replacement rocket and/or said that they were not allowed more money as they had the 'cheap' and 'reusable' shuttle.
All I want is to watch a single gigantic phallus pierce the heavens and fuck the gods in the ass. Is that so much to ask?
I ain't got time for this namby-pamby hermaphroditic three booster Mickey Mouse bullshit.
>can't even afford a decent animation team
I love how all the other launch companies are fucking panicking right now. Spacex has a fucking decade of research on them, and there's no way they can possibly catch up.
That we suggest that we're doing things we were never meant to do, that we're disrupting the planet's processes. Being inhabitants of the planet renders this impossible as we are part of it's processes.
>400,000,000,000 suns in the Milky Way
>that's 10,000 suns for every grain of sand on earth
Thats pretty funny considering there are roughly 7 quintillion grains of beach sand on earth. That's not even including dirt sand or underground sediment.
This entire video is scientifically incorrect. Probably made by a children's tv show.
actually it's between 10^20 to 10^24 grains of sand on the earth and not 7.5x10^18
there are roughly 3x10^22 stars in the observable universe (about the same amount of molecules in a drop of water) that gives us a ratio varying from 0.2 to 4000 stars for every grain of sand on earth
We weren't "meant" to do anything, nothing is.
That's a really arbitrary criteria.
The point is that our actions are effecting large-scale change in the climate system, change that will negatively impact other parts of the biosphere, and by extension, us, because we rely heavily on existing biospheres that are acclimated to the current climate regime.
Careful. Next he's going to argue that "negative" doesn't have an objective meaning in biology. Then, after you switch to using a different word, he'll argue that there's no fundamental chemical difference between a living organism and a dead one.
He's just some 2-deep-4-us 15 year old who's recently discovered philosophical relativism for the first time, and thinks he's got everything figured out.
Which is funny cause he's under the impression that just because "nothing really MEANS anything, man", nothing can hurt us or anything
Which probably comes with the territory of being 15, that sweet feeling of invincibility, like nothing can ever go seriously wrong
there is a clear design flaw whit the legs, though I assume, they had to be like this in order to launch in the first place.
they look to small for a body with a center of gravity that tall.
I wanted to put "your mom's dildo" to the end, but, nah...
Yeah, cool thing I noticed that the USA flag 'disappeared' at the moment of all the Saturn V launches... then I realised that this was because of the ice building around the first stage when it had just been fueled up.
so, how did they made this? a lunarstationary orbit? I didn't think that was feasible considering the lunar day is like 28 earth days, the satellite would have to be so fucking far away.
detonating a nuke in space is a complete waste.
Nukes rely on the surrounding medium (water or air) to propagate the energy.
In outer space all the energy is basically contained within a few Kg of high kinetic alpha particles and protons. Oh, I forgot, you also get a bit of light from it, but that's about it. No shock-wave, no nothin. I think if you detonated a nuke like 1 km from a spaceship the spaceship wouldn't even suffer from it.
Actually, it produces a very strong EMP that can knock out electronics for hundreds of miles around, which was seen on this test:
>Starfish Prime caused an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), which was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements. The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link. The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands
It also does some anti-satellite shit as well:
>While some of the energetic beta particles followed the Earth's magnetic field and illuminated the sky, other high-energy electrons became trapped and formed radiation belts around the earth. T...These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low Earth orbit. Seven satellites failed over the months following the test, as radiation damaged their solar arrays or electronics, including the first commercial relay communication satellite, Telstar, as well as the United Kingdom's first satellite, Ariel 1. Detectors on Telstar, TRAAC, Injun, and Ariel 1 were used to measure distribution of the radiation produced by the tests.
>I think if you detonated a nuke like 1 km from a spaceship the spaceship wouldn't even suffer from it.
It would, actually. The thermal radiation would likely damage the ship's surface, and the ionizing radiation could injure the crew.
Just thinking about the space shuttle – and even worse, the fact that they continued using it for another thirty years after that – makes me fucking steaming mad. That they would put SEVEN of the greatest übermenschen on the planet in a vehicle and then try to send it into space without any form of safe launch abort system whatsoever is fucking criminal negligence of the highest, most unforgiveable order. Heads should have fucking rolled after Challenger, and a new vehicle should have been commissioned by the end of the decade.
If you look just above the exhaust port on the right SRB you can see the leaking fuel from the bad O-ring, which caused the support between the SRB and the external tank to fail. The SRB then collided with the external tank and caused the "major malfunction"
The Space Shuttle could not achieve orbit when "launched" from the back of the 747, it had no thrust capability whatsoever - the 747 itself had to be stripped clean to the bone, basically a flying gas tank, and so did the Shuttle itself in order for flight to even be possible.
Considering this, it's easy to see that since the Shuttle couldn't be carrying a full load of fuel on the back of the 747 that even if the engines weren't masked (for aerodynamics on the 747) it still wouldn't be able to get into orbit on its own. The Shutte was not capable of powered sub-orbital flight on it's own - it was a glider in our atmosphere which was by design.
Learn how this shit worked, son, before spouting off from the last place your Daddy fucked you.
Wait, there"s always been this thing I saw on scientific facts shows about how your dna strings being put one after another would be longer than the distance from Earth to the moon.
Would that mean that you dna is basically longer than the diameters of all the planets put together.
That can't be possible right?