Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

io9.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#41

Post by joering2 »

asab wrote: post #28
joering2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm surprised they landed so close together. this doesnt make sense to me. On the orbit they look like they gaining a distance between each other. Any distance on that altitude would be 150-fold back on earth. How come they landed less than 20m from each other, no idea. Anyone?

Where do you get the figure of 150? I reason that if they are nearly identical pieces, and falling near each other, wind and other atmospheric forces would shift them about equivalently. Even if they veered hundreds of miles, it seems reasonable that they would do so together.

150 was a wild guess. I think there is so many variables when they orbit in space and drop to Earth, that I don't see it that simple to land one next to another. Its like taking two peppercorns and throwing them at the same time, very close to each other from the Empire State building.

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#42

Post by DanBC »

joering2 wrote: post #23
bigiain wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably only get the "For cheap." requirement fullfilled if you also leave out the so-far out-of-spec "and get me back again alive" requirement…

I hear what you saying, but is there anything else than an issue of material being burnt in atmosphere due to speed lost/air friction? Gravity will make sure you will get back on Earth so its not like you have to spend another million bucks to get on earth. Given you have a heat/damage-proof can and know when to open parachutes (I know its more complicated than that), you should be good to go (I mean - come back).

There have been a few accidents leaving Earth, so the "getting there" part is a bit risky. for sure, many people would be happy with that risk.

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#43

Post by nitrogen »

samstave wrote: post #31

The audio is chilling. It would be amazing to hear an AMA fron the booster recovery team. What is the housing that holds these cameras? What type of camera are they and how to they capture and store footage? Are they PTZ?

I wonder how much the audio was post processed (it says at the end of the video that Skywalker Sound worked on it). I also wonder how much information can be derived about the internal structure of the boosters based on the harmonics of the vibrations picked up by the microphones while outside the atmosphere.

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#44

Post by cinquemb »

lotharbot wrote: post #26
jballanc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will happen. One of the reasons the Concorde never really succeeded was due to the nature of faster than sound travel. A sonic boom doesn't just happen as you pass the sound barrier, but rather trails behind an aircraft the entire time it is traveling over that critical speed. This resulted in the Concorde only being able to travel faster than the speed of sound when it was over water (hence it's primary use for…

One of the other reasons Concorde never really succeeded was due to the other part of the nature of faster than sound travel: it uses a huge amount of fuel, which is a major expense. For comparison, the 747-100 (which made its first flight just before Concorde's) used perhaps 1.1 times more fuel to cross the Atlantic but carried about 4 times as many passengers. Suborbital space flight means any place on the globe is…

yeah we need a new way of powering our ships. for it to be affordable. the only cheap and responsible way i think would be to use solar thermal power and use molten salt storage onboard.

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#45

Post by cinquemb »

tstegart wrote: post #3

I'm surprised they landed so close together. amazing. Also, can anyone tell me why they are slowing down as they fall towards earth (before the parachutes deploy)? Shouldn't they be speeding up by 9.8m/s as they fall?

well they were released from the same point in space, and since they are similar objects traveling nearly at the same velocity, its not that surprising. im sure nasa calculated for it, and towards the end of the video there looked like a ship on the horizon for pick up.

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#46

Post by cinquemb »

joering2 wrote: post #41
asab wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you get the figure of 150? I reason that if they are nearly identical pieces, and falling near each other, wind and other atmospheric forces would shift them about equivalently. Even if they veered hundreds of miles, it seems reasonable that they would do so together.

150 was a wild guess. I think there is so many variables when they orbit in space and drop to Earth, that I don't see it that simple to land one next to another. Its like taking two peppercorns and throwing them at the same time, very close to each other from the Empire State building.

well they are similar objects, undergoing the same forces, and they were released from nearly the same spot (from which they were both traveling in the same direction) the difference is mostly from the forces due to slight differences in tumbling motion when interacting with the atmosphere. just try thinking about conducting the same situation with out an atmosphere. the objects would follow the same trajectory from the moment they were released back to the ground. I'm sure nasa has to try to calculate the specifics/landing location, you dont want SRB's falling on property.

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#48

Post by DanBC »

cinquemb wrote: post #44
lotharbot wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the other reasons Concorde never really succeeded was due to the other part of the nature of faster than sound travel: it uses a huge amount of fuel, which is a major expense. For comparison, the 747-100 (which made its first flight just before Concorde's) used perhaps 1.1 times more fuel to cross the Atlantic but carried about 4 times as many passengers. Suborbital space flight means any place on the globe is…

yeah we need a new way of powering our ships. for it to be affordable. the only cheap and responsible way i think would be to use solar thermal power and use molten salt storage onboard.

Thorium nuclear reactors are weirdly underdeveloped. There are lots of advantages to them, so it's a shame that we're so behind with them.

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#49

Post by bajsejohannes »

blahedo wrote: post #24

Can someone explain what the nominal "velocity" counter means? I thought it made sense going up (although I wasn't sure why its rate of change---which would be the acceleration---seemed to increase a bit), but then I was totally baffled after the separation. It goes down from 2900 to 2500, then back up to 2920, then it plummets to around 300, then gently lowers down to the 50 or so that it's at for splashdown; there…

My guess on why accelerating is increasing is that both air resistance and gravity is decreasing the higher you go (the former much more than the latter). So with constant force, the acceleration would increase.

Re: Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

#50

Post by dasil003 »

joering2 wrote: post #23
bigiain wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably only get the "For cheap." requirement fullfilled if you also leave out the so-far out-of-spec "and get me back again alive" requirement…

I hear what you saying, but is there anything else than an issue of material being burnt in atmosphere due to speed lost/air friction? Gravity will make sure you will get back on Earth so its not like you have to spend another million bucks to get on earth. Given you have a heat/damage-proof can and know when to open parachutes (I know its more complicated than that), you should be good to go (I mean - come back).

You watched the video right? Looks quite a bit more dangerous than you're average jumbo jet takeoff.
Post reply on HN