7358342
story
Comments: 117 +- Science: STS-129 Ascent Video Highlights on Saturday November 28, @10:58PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Saturday November 28, @10:58PM
from the only-five-launches-left dept.
from the only-five-launches-left dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnasa.gif); width:74px; height:67px;
nasa
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicspace.gif); width:73px; height:59px;
space
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicscience.gif); width:62px; height:75px;
science
An anonymous reader sends in this link to a video of 12-1/2 minutes of Space Shuttle pr0n. The people at the Johnson Space Center put together this video of the ascent of STS-129 using multiple imagery assets — ground, air, booster, and the shuttle itself. The booster's-eye view of splashdown and immersion is something you don't see every day. As a bonus, another anonymous reader shared a beautiful photo of the shuttle flying over rugged terrain after it separated from the ISS last week.
Related Stories
Submission: STS-129 Ascent Video Highlights by Anonymous Coward
No man in the world has more courage than the man who can stop after
eating one peanut.
-- Channing Pollock
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Ahh, shuttle (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll miss the old girl when she's gone.
The two months between STS-128 and STS-129 felt so long after the mere 28 days between STS-127 and STS-128.
Re:Ahh, shuttle (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if I'm a bit skeptical towards the overall concept (especially given the limits of tech) and how it stands in comparison to what we could do with alternatives, I will almost certainly be always able to agree with that; I don't expect we'll see any launcher that impresses more in our lifetime.
Especially in such superb selection of shots, editing. Real life footage much more dynamic and/or breathtaking than BSG or BBC Space Odyssey: Voyage to the Planets (BTW, if you haven't seen it DO IT NOW), who would've known? ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Totally cool and worth every taxpayer cent we pour into NASA. We even learn stuff as a bonus!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I had some trouble locating the video you recommended, but in the states, the video is called "Voyage to the Planets and Beyond". I hope that helps someone.
Re:Ahh, shuttle (Score:4, Informative)
To remove any ambiguity - it has its wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Odyssey:_Voyage_To_The_Planets [wikipedia.org]
(and since you might want to avoid "Story" section/spoilers ;) - the US version, "Voyage to the Planets and Beyond", is a bit different / shorter)
PS. Yes, recently canceled, awful TV-show "Defying Gravity" was based on this, supposedly. Yes, the original is unimaginably better (even when it comes to effects, despite being 5 years older)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Woo! Someone else who's seen this!
Yes, definitely worth watching. Good effects, good science, a good script and even good acting --- and given that this is a fake documentary that's saying something (documentary acting normally rivals training-video acting for awfulness). It's got a few rough edges but you have to look closely to spot them.
Do go get the uncut 4-hour BBC version, not the edited US version, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I always preferred STS-9 [sts9.com].
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ya, like your taxes will go down. It costs you less than $1/year to run the shuttle program, and if they weren't blowing it on that they'd be spending it in Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly more than that, but not by a whole lot. NASA's FAQ [nasa.gov] says each flight costs around $450m, which averaged over 138m taxpaying Americans (the 2007 taxpaying population) [wikipedia.org] is $3.26 per flight per taxpayer. Figure three flights per year and it's still dirt cheap at $9.78/year/taxpayer. That's about what I spend on gasoline over a period of two days, and less than a single meal at Arby's.
I don't begrudge this expense at all, given what the program has given us.
Your argument is valid, but your numbers wer
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of that was rather amazing. The shot near the start from the external fuel tank of the shuttle separating was great. I've never seen a shot of that before.
The two shots from the solid rocket boosters as they separate from the external fuel tank were the most incredible. They were so clean (probably since they were out of the atmosphere, and the scale) that they looked like effect shots. If you showed that to me without the rest of the context, I'd think it was a CGI simulation of what it would look like. On the other hand, the shot from the shuttle when the external fuel tank drops off looks like high-quality film from the 60s or 70s, with lots of film grain.
Very very cool.
Re: (Score:2)
> The two shots from the solid rocket boosters as they separate from the external fuel tank were the most incredible.
Yep pretty impressing indeed. Watching the video, I swear I felt nervous at some point although I knew that everything went well. Smaller rocket launches seem less scary to me.
My feelings could be justified since the NASA is going back to smaller rockets I believe, although cost considerations might also have influenced that choice.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
Agree, absolutely incredible. Over the years there were lots of angles I'd wanted to see during a launch, this covered almost all of them (the remaining video would be of the tank actually burning up in the atmosphere).
I found it odd though that the now-regular footage from the camera mounted on the fuel tank was of much lower resolution than that from other cameras. I realize the tank-cam is live stream while other footage (e.g. on the SRBs) is retrieved later, but the tank-cam looks great on TV...
Parent
Camera info (Score:5, Informative)
If anyone is interested, the camera they used for that shot was a Nikon D2Xs, a two-year old, 12.4MP, $5900 MSRP camera when new.
For some reason, I'm surprised NASA is using regular off-the-shelf cameras. I almost expected it to be a custom "space-camera".
Re: (Score:2)
Digital camera tech have come a long way recently... (and one can't forget also about new DSLRs...EOS 5D-II gives fabulous results for the price)
Re:Camera info (Score:5, Informative)
(Source [nikon.com])
Almost completely stock.... They are brutes of a camera (I have one). You could use it to pound nails in a pinch.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
lol.... if you're willing to use a $6k camera as a hammer, I'd love to see any code you'd write:
equals(a,b,c,plus);
public void equals(int a, int b, int c, void * func){
c=func(a,b);
}
public int plus(int a, int b){
return a+b;
}
Huge photo of "shuttle flying over rugged terrain" (Score:2, Interesting)
NASA's Space Shuttle Atlantis (STS-129) "flying over rugged terrain" in 4288 x 2846 pixels [chamorrobible.org] via the excellent photo gallery at http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200911.htm [chamorrobible.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this linked from a bible site? Are you trying to save NASA's bandwidth costs?
Original here:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-129/html/iss021e032919.html [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
That "rough terrain" is clearly the surface of Mars.
If you look closely enough you can even see the canals!
Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (Score:4, Informative)
There was a guy who once had a web site where he posted shots that nobody else would see of things like the mating in the VAB, the hardware itself (I remember seeing things like the charges that lit the explosive bolts that held the SRBs to the pad), etc., etc.)
Unfortunately USA (United Space Alliance) got wind of this and fired him because the photos weren't cleared through NASA PAO (the Public Affairs Office) and the site came down. A shame. I've never seen images of what the pad looks like after the shuttle launches except from here.
Now THAT was shuttle pr0n - but this was a respectable 2nd attempt.
Re:Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a guy who once had a web site where he posted shots that nobody else would see of things like the mating in the VAB, the hardware itself (I remember seeing things like the charges that lit the explosive bolts that held the SRBs to the pad), etc., etc.)
Unfortunately USA (United Space Alliance) got wind of this and fired him because the photos weren't cleared through NASA PAO (the Public Affairs Office) and the site came down. A shame. I've never seen images of what the pad looks like after the shuttle launches except from here.
Now THAT was shuttle pr0n - but this was a respectable 2nd attempt.
I'm with you. I'm sick of seeing press-release photos of stuff like that. For months, we kept seeing the artsy photos of the LHC (like the one of the CMS detector) and I kept thinking "Boy, I wish they'd take a picture of that at a slight angle instead of straight on so I can get a sense of detail or scale or something." The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is a great example of what we *should* be seeing. I want to see everything, not just what you want to show me. I want to see the nuts and bolts. Pull back the curtain, so to speak.
Parent
Re:Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (Score:5, Insightful)
I once caught a HD shuttle launch video at NASA's site right after the launch took place, apparently before it had been so carefully edited. The sounds were incredible; you could hear the turbo pumps wind up several seconds before the liquid rockets were lit. Those are large and very high speed pumps that operate at the limit of what materials science can provide; the sound they make is simply chilling. I watched it over and over because I could not f**king believe it.
Later versions of the same launch video had that audio removed. Can't let anyone witness any of that. Must appear as though the launch is a peaceful, happy moment that doesn't involve any sort of drama. Oh ponies!
NASA hurts itself by letting the cowardly nature of its bureaucracy dominate the editing process. If you handed the same raw material to a Hollywood film maker with a mandate to sell tickets you would get a balls out, violent, bare knuckle collection of aerospace machinery burning, shaking and raging its way into orbit and every god damn taxpaying mope that watched it would know exactly what sort of miracle those 100+ successful missions represent.
Parent
Re:Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (Score:5, Informative)
Check out the launch video for STS-112 [youtube.com], it has the rawest sounds from a live launch video I've ever heard, before or since. Usually the audio from the pad seems muffled or dampened, but not this one.
At T -15s you hear the clear whine of what I presume is the sound suppression system activating, and see water flood out of the fire trench (this was the first time a tank-mounted shuttle camera streamed launch video live). There's a sucking sound right as the shuttle's main engines ignite, but a second later the sound of pure, raw power cuts right through you as the SMEs reach full power. I get chills every time I see and hear this part of the clip.
Parent
Re:Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (Score:4, Informative)
Those are large and very high speed pumps that operate at the limit of what materials science can provide
The fuel pump puts out 69,000 horsepower at 37,000 rpm [utc.com] while being roughly the size of a car engine.
Parent
C'mon, fix it please (Score:3, Insightful)
"The people at the Johnson Space Center put together this video of the assent of STS-129"
So what exactly did STS129 agree to?
I won't grammar nazi the comments, but seeing a front page mistake like that is annoying. Especially when it's spelled right in the title.
s/assent/ascent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So what exactly did STS129 agree to?
Apparently,
12-/12 minutes of Space Shuttle pr0n
Re: (Score:2)
And while you're at it, s/12-\/12/12-1\/2/g
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They gave their assent to ascent in order to affect effects for our affection. Okay, now I'm confused again.
Space Shuttle what? (Score:2)
HD link?? (Score:2)
Help me out here... (Score:3, Insightful)
My pics (Score:2)
My pics of the ascent:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2003087&id=183100363&l=f3b4259571 [facebook.com]
The last one was pretty cool (that's the main reason I'm posting here...) I caught it just as it was passing through a cloud layer. I'd like to pretend that was good photography, but honestly it was just luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that your real UID? AND you shared photos that *you* took of the Shuttle?! You sir, for Slashdot, are The Right Stuff! /me, an ornery basement dweller, bows in worship
What happens to the external tank? (Score:2)
I know, it burns up. But I would kinda like to see that process. It seems that they have imagery from the ground of the thing in space even after it has separated. How long does it take to come down and what does that look like? That is what I found myself wondering at the end of the video.
Re:What happens to the external tank? (Score:4, Interesting)
The external tank reentry is about 80 minutes after launch. It takes 8.5 minutes to empty the tank; so reentry is ~71 minutes after separation.
You can find some images of the reentry with Google
http://www.google.com/search?q=shuttle+external+tank+reentry [google.com]
e.g.
http://www.eclipsetours.com/sat/shuttle.html [eclipsetours.com]
(scroll to bottom for image)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I know, it burns up. But I would kinda like to see that process. It seems that they have imagery from the ground of the thing in space even after it has separated. How long does it take to come down and what does that look like? That is what I found myself wondering at the end of the video.
What probably happens is that it goes over the horizon and is out of range for both telescopes and the rocketcam receivers. At that point the shuttle's done most of the boost into orbit and all that is left to do is circularisation (the shuttle's tiny internal tanks don't store much delta-vee). So the tank is going to go a long way before reentering.
But you're right --- I'd love to see its final moments. Surely, given how much money they're spending, they could station some observation stations downrange?
SRB separation (Score:2)
I live in Central Florida so I've watched at least a dozen launches in the last 10 years. In watching this video, it appears as though the solid rocket booster separation happens after the shuttle has reached "black sky" ... in watching from the ground, I always assumed SRB separation was happening when the shuttle was still in blue skies ... or at least dark blue skies. 100,000 feet or something like that. Does anyone know the altitude that SRB separation occurs?
Awesome video.
Re: (Score:2)
From this "Fact Sheet [spacearium.com]":
About 125 seconds after launch and at an altitude of about 150,000 feet, the SRB's burn out and are jettisoned from the ET. The jettison command originates from the Orbiter, and jettison occurs when the forward and aft attach points between the SRB's and ET are blown by explosive charges
Google is your friend. Sorta. (Score:2)
177,000 feet [flash] [nasa.gov] (about 54 km). However, this NASA site [spacedu.com] says 50 km (about 164,000 feet), while this source [about.com] says 24 nautical miles (about 146,000 feet, or 44 km). My guess is that the differences are due to variations in mass and trajectory of the shuttle for various missions, and in improvements in the design (less weight, more thrust) over the years.
Apogee of the SRBs is at approximately 220,000 feet [nasa.gov] (about 67 km).
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone know the altitude that SRB separation occurs?
Around 150000ft (source [nasa.gov])
Sell this to me, yesssss (Score:2)
Man, those crazy camera tracking rigs they have... Those initial tracking shots of the ascent are so stable and 'solid' they almost look like CG. Wow that was awesome. Kill those graphics and replace them with something that doesn't scream 'My other job is making powerpoint slideshows' and put it out on Blu-ray. I'll buy it.
10G (Score:2)
That's enough bandwidth to have half the moon covered in cell towers.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess would be the reflecting light from the planet. I figure it's probably like the effect you see in many Apollo moon photos that the tinfoil folks pitch as a light source, but is just reflection off the lunar surface.
Then again, I'm no expert.
Re: (Score:2)
...
Earth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
kdawson's excellent journalistic track record remains spotless!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's too big to be a space station.... so it's definitely pr0n.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would generate more interest in Google. It would do nothing for NASA, compared to (say) IMAX and the video you just saw.
Oh, and towing Rosie O'Donnell behind the rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, it helps to know the time the image was taken. Then, using the vehicle's location, determined using Kepler's laws and the data known as Keplerian elements, you can describe the vehicle's position in orbit, and thus the sub-satellite point (place on the ground where the vehicle is directly overhead. During ascent, however, the keps are not, well, easily maintained, so a rather simpler non-linear model is employed to estimate where the vehicle is over the ground.
If you've a rough idea of the tra