71–80 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes it easier for every country in the entire world, barring the US. Liberia and Myanmar switched over.
Everybody pretends to have switched. But even Canadians translate back to Fahrenheit in their heads (ask one).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody pretends to have switched. But even Canadians translate back to Fahrenheit in their heads (ask one).
Not true in my experience. I've lived in five different provinces and I've never met a Canadian who uses Farenheit. I've never met anyone under 40 who knows much more than >100F = hot either.
I would have expected them to start an infinite series of baby steps, “We went suborbital!” “We went almost as high as the ISS!”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes it easier for every country in the entire world, barring the US. Liberia and Myanmar switched over.
Everybody pretends to have switched. But even Canadians translate back to Fahrenheit in their heads (ask one).
They just stated that the force experienced by crew on reentry would be 8g, while the force on a Soyuz capsule is just 4g. 8g is more than enough for a person to black out, this seems like a major disadvantage.
The difference between Orion and Soyuz is a question of speed; the EFT profile was supposed to simulate a "deep space" reentry, which is faster and steeper than a low-earth-orbit rentry.
You can see the difference in the Apollo program, using the same capsule but with different flight profiles:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch5.htm - Table 2
Apollo 7 and 9 come in at 3.3G-ish, and the rest 6.5-7G-ish.
If it's actually 8G, that does seem a bit high; but Orion's actually a pretty huge thing, and denser than Apollo, so I guess that makes sense. And they only let the best trained very healthiest multiple-phD government employees ride the thing, so I don't think it's a big deal.
The stream went down for me too. Anyone have a link for a video?
This is awesome . Two thoughts spring to mind: 1. This is the equivalent of the Apollo 4 mission in that it also flew without a crew, and was used to prove, validate and verify that Saturn V and associated systems were fully mission-capable. 2. Events like this represent our future. Events like this are the catalysts for our future generation. The children around the world (perhaps one or more of your own) that are v…
>This is the equivalent of the Apollo 4 mission I'm not sure if that's the best comparision. I'm something of a cheerleader for the SLS program, but this is just a dumb capsule test. This isn't the rocket we're going to be using. That rocket isn't even built yet. Historically, rockets are hard and capsules are easy. Assuming that it stays on schedule, which is a big assumption, we won't have a test flight for the SLS…
"We should have had a SaturnV-level replacement the day the Shuttle was retired."
I think, in part, the historical reason involves the following [1]:
The reality is that we need something other than the threat to national security to polarize us towards a common goal. That's what happened during the Space Race. The Soviets launched Sputnik 1, and that lit the fuse on a world-altering journey.
In the US, this brought about the creation of NASA. NASA's budget soared to nearly 5% of the total federal budget during that time. This "money no consequence" era resulted in a drive by the government to inject capital into the education system by funding the National Defense Education Act. This was designed to address the fact that more engineers and mathematicians were needed to advance science forward.
Fast-forward, and NASA is probably at 0.5% of the federal budget now, if that. The Space Race ended, and funding levels couldn't be sustained, largely due to the fact that the threat to national security had faded. The enthusiasm faded, along with the funding; the need for Saturn V-level lift capability simply could not be convincingly sold to the public.
I've mentioned this before, but at this time, it often feels like there is an under-current feeling of, "Where are we heading, as a nation?" I know this is anecdotal, but today, I was asking colleagues if they watched this morning's launch, and the only response I received was, "What launch?"
I don't have all of the answers. Part of the answer is that our finest hour is when we innovate, when we explore, when we dream. Part of the answer is that it will take a change in attitudes towards science in general, and space exploration in specific. I think Neil deGrasse Tyson summed it best:
"Right now, NASA's annual budget is half a penny on your tax dollar. For twice that — a penny on a dollar — we can transform the country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary of economic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed its 20th century birthright to dream of tomorrow."
(I hope InclinedPlane chimes in. His/her knowledge on space-related topics exceeds mine, from what I've read in associated comments. Raising the bat signal...)
[1] I feel that I need to caveat that I'm speaking as an American here, although I believe that I am "a citizen of the world" in my world-view. I get excited about all launches, regardless of space program or country of origin. I realize that this is a global forum.
They just stated that the force experienced by crew on reentry would be 8g, while the force on a Soyuz capsule is just 4g. 8g is more than enough for a person to black out, this seems like a major disadvantage.
They don't have an option on that one. The acceleration experienced on re-entry depends on the speed of approach. Re-entry from low earth orbit is no big deal, hence being able to slow down with just 4G. Re-entry from a bit further away is more serious, as there is more velocity to shed. Remember that the module has been falling from more than 3600 miles up, which is a lot of energy to get rid of.
For example, the crews of several Soyuz missions experienced 8+ G's when the so-called "ballistic" re-entry mode occurred due to various systems problems.
Apollo crews returning from the moon commonly experienced 6 - 7 g loads during re-entry
The US space shuttle's entry profile was designed to limit decelerations to 3 g's (as was the ascent profile).
It isn't the speed, it's how you fly the ascent/descent profile. And yes, the conical Apollo capsule form (largely re-used by Orion) is a lifting body that is actually flown through the atmosphere.
http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/U-S-astronaut...
11 parachutes in 3 stages? Now that is some serious engineering. http://news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/final-co... This looks so complex BUT it is coming in so fast (20,000 MPH) into the atmosphere BUT there are so many points for failure. Surprised there wasn't a simpler and safer solution.