
Video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch - daegloe
http://io9.com/5893615/absolutely-mindblowing-video-shot-from-the-space-shuttle-during-launch
======
blahedo
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 is no discernible change in acceleration
when the chutes blow around 190.

Here's what I would have expected: numbers increasing at a relatively constant
rate until separation, then a rapid decrease to zero (and since 1mph ~~ .5m/s,
expected decrease at about 20mph/s), then increasing again (maybe with a
negative sign) until atmosphere, then a decrease to terminal velocity, then
another big decrease when the chutes blow.

So aside from the fact that there is no direction (not even a minus sign), so
it's at best a speed counter, there still is something I really don't
understand about that number. But... what?

(Edit: fixed dumb math error)

~~~
lotharbot
The shuttle isn't going straight upward at separation. It's actually going
mostly eastward, so when the boosters separate they retain most of their
speed, and even regain a bit as they drop through the ultra-thin upper
atmosphere.

You're right about the rest -- a decrease to terminal velocity and then a big
decrease as the chutes take effect.

See also: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle#Launch>

~~~
tstegart
But there wasn't a big decrease when the chutes deployed. It took a while. I
found that odd. I expected an immediate decrease in speed the second the
chutes deployed. Maybe the counter wasn't synched with the video?

~~~
lotharbot
> _"there wasn't a big decrease when the chutes deployed. It took a while."_

They take some time to completely expand. They're actually deployed in a
constricted ("reefed") configuration, and then after several seconds they're
allowed to fully open.

They're also trying to slow down a large piece of metal -- the booster rockets
are about 150 feet long and weigh about 200,000 pounds (empty weight) each.
The chutes produce a lot of force, but they're pulling on a lot of mass too
(acceleration = force/mass.)

See also:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Boos...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster#Descent_and_recovery)

------
samstave
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?

~~~
sk5t
Agreed on the audio track - it does an excellent job of reflecting the
extremely inhospitable conditions to which the boosters are subjected. I'm
also curious about the cameras, although I wish they had been running at fixed
sensitivity rather than constantly trying to balance between black space and a
very reflective Earth.

------
EREFUNDO
I was wondering what that buildup of cloud was and then I saw the velocity
breaking 760 MPH and realized it was breaking the sound barrier. Pretty
awesome stuff!

------
tstegart
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?

~~~
joering2
> 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?

~~~
asab
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.

~~~
joering2
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.

~~~
cinquemb
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.

~~~
joering2
> just try thinking about conducting the same situation with out an
> atmosphere.

I can't since they DID travel through the atmosphere.

~~~
cinquemb
you can't imagine a simple physics problem? i understand that they DID travel
through an atmosphere, but the basic mechanics involved can be understood just
using projectile motion equation without taking the effects of air drag.

~~~
joering2
what are you talking about? in this example they were travelling through
atmosphere.

------
kibwen
Did nobody bother watching the credits at the end? The sound design credits
mention Ben Burtt, the sound designer for Star Wars (think: Darth Vader's
breathing, that lightsaber _fwoom_ noise, etc.).

Sort of makes me wonder how much of the sound in that video was real. I really
want to believe that's what space sounds like. :)

Edit: Oh, I guess that's his son! A splendid lineage.

------
rglover
Startup idea: put me into space. For cheap.

~~~
geoffschmidt
$995 - $12500, depending on where you want to go.

<http://www.celestis.com/services.asp>

~~~
jvoorhis
"Capsule Option (1 gram total) — Launches cremated remains sample of one
person $995"

No thanks!

------
dmfdmf
The Space Shuttle; coolest white elephant on the planet. Video was amazing.

------
mavhc
[http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-07/19/space-
shuttle...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-07/19/space-shuttle-
cameras) has the 30 min raw footage

------
balsam
i see the condensation/mist disappearing suddenly at about 797mph.. is this
the shuttle breaking the speed of sound?

------
Danieru
This is magically, I haven't felt this way about space since the first sci-fi
I read as a pre-teen.

We should build a space colony.

------
shingen
The title doesn't exaggerate

