Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space Science

NASA Aircraft Videos Hayabusa Re-Entry 56

Posted by timothy
from the insert-intensifier-amazing dept.
astroengine writes "Flying above the Australian Outback, NASA's converted DC-8 jet videoed the violent re-entry of the Japanese Hayabusa spacecraft. Flying in front of the disintegrating probe, the mission's sample return capsule can be seen speeding though the atmosphere. According to reports, the capsule landed safely and will be collected by helicopter in the morning." "Bad Astronomer" Phil Plait posts about the successful return as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Aircraft Videos Hayabusa Re-Entry

Comments Filter:
  • by Belial6 (794905) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @04:39PM (#32558728)
    Probably soon after the introduction of the consumer level video camera. People would say things like, "Could you video tape that event?" Inevitably, someone would eventually shorten the statement shorten it to "Could you video that event?" Expect this to be more common now that far fewer people use tape as their recording medium. Since they are already used to using the adverb "video", and they will feel the need to drop the described verb "tape", the obvious result will be to use the adverb as the verb.
  • by Samy Merchi (1297447) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @05:07PM (#32558852) Homepage

    I'm a little skeptical of this claim.

    Can you elaborate on how the heat generated by the large asteroid (at ground level on impact) somehow ends up radiating off into space, yet the same heat generated higher up in the sky when the bits burn up in re-entry (closer to space) somehow doesn't end up radiating off into space?

    As I see it, breaking up an asteroid allows us to convert the kinetic energy to heat higher up in the sky (and closer to space) than a ground level impact would be.

    Do you have some links I could read up on?

  • Re:So far so good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by asylumx (881307) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @06:46PM (#32559436)
    Well, having redundant systems is great but it comes at a cost, too. They would have needed additional power; everything would have weighed twice as much; cost more; changed the amount of thrust necessary not only in launch but in any maneuver. You could then say "Well you should double up at least on systems that are likely to fail!" but then I'd ask... well how do you expect to know before-hand what is likely to fail? Maybe they tested the "pellet gun" a hundred times here and it worked fine?

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Working...