Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

STS-129 Ascent Video Highlights

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the only-five-launches-left dept.

NASA 117

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.

cancel ×

117 comments

Cue... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30258938)

All the anti-NASA posts... 3, 2, 1...

HEIL HITLER (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30258940)

SIEG HEIL! Long hail myg0t!

alternative shuttle pr0n (-1, Troll)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30258962)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310288/ [imdb.com]

I have absolutely no idea what's in that movie, but could some p3rv3rt slashdotter possibly summarize it for the rest of us prude5?

Oblig SW quote. (0, Offtopic)

munehiro (63206) | more than 4 years ago | (#30258998)

That's not pr0n, that's a space station

Re:Oblig SW quote. (2, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259434)

It's too big to be a space station.... so it's definitely pr0n.

Re:Oblig SW quote. (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259512)

I find the lack of rule 34 disturbing.

Re:Oblig SW quote. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30260858)

I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know what rule 34 was [xkcd.com] .

Re:Oblig SW quote. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30262110)

I find the lack of rule 34 disturbing.

Anonymous Delivers [flickr.com] !

Rule 34 (0, Offtopic)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259018)

I was about to ask if anyone had already done it, but then I remembered the rule.

Ahh, shuttle (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259042)

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 (3, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259202)

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? ;)

Re:Ahh, shuttle (2, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259242)

Indeed. Pretty impressive telemetry shots. I especially like the SRB landing in the water.

Totally cool and worth every taxpayer cent we pour into NASA. We even learn stuff as a bonus!

Re:Ahh, shuttle (2, Informative)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259296)

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 (3, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259342)

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)

Re:Ahh, shuttle (1)

david.given (6740) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260638)

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:Ahh, shuttle (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259950)

You'll miss the old girl when she's gone.

My tax wallet certainly wont. It's a cool-looking bird, but an expensive bird.

Re:Ahh, shuttle (1, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260116)

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:Ahh, shuttle (1)

mforbes (575538) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260264)

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 were slightly low-balled.

Re:Ahh, shuttle (1)

SBrach (1073190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30262496)

His numbers were only low-balled if he is in the top few percent of taxable income. You can't just divide the cost of a program by the number of tax payers when the top 20% pays over 80% of total taxes.

Re:Ahh, shuttle (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264234)

It's not cost-effective for what it does. That's what I'm looking at. There are proven technologies that do it cheaper.

Re:Ahh, shuttle (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264620)

There are proven technologies that do it cheaper.

So long as you define "it" as "not what the shuttle does" then sure.

There's no other vehicle with the same capabilities as the shuttle. As a result of this our "full utilization of the space station" will be significantly limited once the shuttle is retired.

Just wait and see, when the old girl is retired you'll be saying "gee, wouldn't it be great if we had a vehicle with high down mass?" and people will say "well, ya know, we used to have this vehicle called the shuttle..."

Re:Ahh, shuttle (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30261454)

I always preferred STS-9 [sts9.com] .

Re:Ahh, shuttle (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30263052)

You know what's sad about rockets and space... all that fire and fury, and the capacity of the shuttle (24.4K Kg) is lifting about one standard 20 foot shipping container (24K Kg). To LEO, mind you, not GEO. And not a "heavy" container, a standard container.

Wow (4, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259062)

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:Wow (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259384)

> 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 (3, Interesting)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259398)

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...

Re:Wow (1)

Tisha_AH (600987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30263158)

Ingrain those images and sounds in your brain, they represent the pinnacle of our civilization. As a whole, we have given up on dreams of things bigger than we are, of goals that take decades to come to fruition. Of making the impossible happen.

Having lived my life through the glory days of the space program. Watching the Apollo landings on the moon, the tragic losses of Apollo 1 the Challenger and the Columbia. The creation of a space station and our exploration of our planetary neighbors. The days when anything was possible, the childhood dreams that inspired many of us into the sciences and engineering.

We will no longer have scientific legacies that define our generation. Everything has been reduced to what fits within the agenda of the most recently elected representatives or for cuddly, cutesy feel-good quasi-science programs.

Maybe some civilization will colonize the moon and set foot upon the other planets but it will not be ours, we have fallen into the trap of decadence and slow decay. Once the final space shuttle mission flies we will be reduced to observer status as other, more aggressive and visionary cultures step into the forefront of exploration.

Rome faced a similar inward turning and decline. At one time they ruled most of western civilization from Britannia to Egypt. When they lost their vision of who they were as a people they contacted into the areas immediately around Rome, eventually they could not even hold onto that. Even until the times when the barbarians were beating on the gates of Rome they were comfortable in their belief that their civilization was the center of the world.

Read the Book "Titan" by Steven Baxter for a more sobering piece of fiction on where we may be heading.

Low Taxes and Societal Decay (1)

catchblue22 (1004569) | more than 4 years ago | (#30263338)

The movement for the continual reduction of taxes is symptomatic of the decay of our society. It represents a shift from a grand vision of our society as seen through organizations such as NASA to an inward looking consumeristic vision of society where most of our vital energies are spent either producing goods to consume or consuming those goods. It used to be that if you were really smart, you became a rocket scientist. That was where the money was...and the prestige. Now you get a degree in law or business and become an investment banker, and you use your intelligence not to build grand projects, but to figure out ways to pick the pockets of less intelligent investors or to convince consumers to buy useless gadgets that they don't really need.

Camera info (5, Informative)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259082)

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:Camera info (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259156)

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 (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259356)

Even the cheepie low end Nikon D300 will utterly blow your mind with its amazing capability. You are understating the case when you say they have come a long way.

Re:Camera info (5, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259258)

Except for changes in lubrication oil to meet NASA specifications and the adoption of a specialized firmware, the D2XS cameras used aboard the Space Shuttle and in the ISS were basically the same as commercial models. The D2XS, released in June 2006, is a high-end Nikon digital SLR camera.

(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.

Re:Camera info (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30261236)

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;
}

Re:Camera info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30262878)

Won't work. In the first function, 'c' needs to be passed as a pointer (or a reference if you're doing C++).

Re:Camera info (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30263468)

No, you do not want to see what kind of code I write.....

There's a reason I went into Biology. You should also see my shop!

All sorts of hammers.

Re:Camera info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30263150)

OMG, Shuttle pr0n and camera pr0n...best Sunday ever!

12-/12 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30259088)

Lol

Re:12-/12 (2, Funny)

mdenham (747985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259252)

kdawson's excellent journalistic track record remains spotless!

Huge photo of "shuttle flying over rugged terrain" (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30259096)

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:Huge photo of "shuttle flying over rugged terra (1)

adnonsense (826530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260362)

That "rough terrain" is clearly the surface of Mars.

If you look closely enough you can even see the canals!

Nice (1)

Cobra Spaz (1480491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259110)

This is my favorite type of pr0n. Good video... those guys did a great job with it.

Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (3, Informative)

rah1420 (234198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259126)

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 (4, Insightful)

Scutter (18425) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259194)

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.

Re:Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259390)

>Pull back the curtain, so to speak.

We're talking about pR0n, so let's change that to "pull down the panties, so to speak"

Re:Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259504)

I'm sure somebody kept a copy. This is the web, after all.

Re:Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (5, Insightful)

TopSpin (753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259576)

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.

Re:Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (4, Informative)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30261432)

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.

Re:Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (3, Informative)

florescent_beige (608235) | more than 4 years ago | (#30261522)

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.

Re:Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30262164)

I've always found the sound of those large rockets fascinating.

One interesting thing is that I always assumed the somewhat crackly sound of the rockets was from the microphones or preamps overloading. However, it actually sounds like that in real life! The sheer sound pressure makes air go into non linear compression, and you are hearing a series of little sonic booms as the air tries to go faster than itself. (If that makes any sense :)

Re:Reminds me of the old "Pad Rat" posts on Usenet (1)

GreyFish (156639) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264840)

It's worth seeing the Spacestation 3d IMAX film - it has a IMAX sequence of a Soyuz taking off with the camera at ground level very close to the launch pad, it practically takes your head off :)

Shadows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30259142)

re: the shuttle flying over rugged terrain - I am surprised that the shadows aren't deeper and sharper. What is the diffuse source that is lighting the port engine nacelle and the portion of the nose that are in shadow?

Re:Shadows? (1)

The Yuckinator (898499) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259228)

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:Shadows? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259234)

...

Earth

Re:Shadows? (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259300)

That diffuse light source on the left is the Earth. The nose has bright spots where you'd expect reflections of the earthlight. The port engine is most bright where reflection off the open door concentrates light from the Earth's limb off to the left -- probably mostly clouds reflecting light back toward the Sun.

Re:Shadows? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30260684)

Well, the dark areas were too contrasty, so the Area 51 engineers put a few extra spotlights on the ceiling.

rofl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30259246)

assent?

assent?

someone's got a case of 'porn finger' :\

They are nice to watch (1)

johngaunt (414543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259260)

While the Space Shuttles have had their share of problems, and have cost lives, they are beautiful to watch launch.

C'mon, fix it please (2, Insightful)

ThreeGigs (239452) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259274)

"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:C'mon, fix it please (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30259368)

So what exactly did STS129 agree to?

Apparently,

12-/12 minutes of Space Shuttle pr0n

Re:C'mon, fix it please (1)

dtmos (447842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260558)

And while you're at it, s/12-\/12/12-1\/2/g

Re:C'mon, fix it please (2, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259496)

So what exactly did STS129 agree to?

They gave their assent to ascent in order to affect effects for our affection. Okay, now I'm confused again.
     

Re:C'mon, fix it please (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260312)

Some of the video is a little..uh.."creative", what with the large logo spinning around etc. I'd be very interested to just see each of the videos, on its own, with no crap all over it, rather than that patchwork affair. It's very good footage, ruined by what looks like someones first attempt at using video editing software.

Space Shuttle what? (1)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259382)

C'mon, none of this imagery is in the least bit commercial, let alone exploitative...why set off all the work filters for such a worthwhile topic???

HD link?? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259560)

Anyone??

Re:HD link?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30260980)

STS-129 Ascent Video Highlights (Full version, HD)
http://exposureroom.com/members/minterbartolo.aspx/assets/f18be10bed174e46bc71d3c04c9008d7/ [exposureroom.com]

STS-129 Ascent Video Highlights (Edited)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQSCn8O6omY [youtube.com]

Re:HD link?? (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 4 years ago | (#30264226)

640x480 is hardly HD!

Wow... (1)

mingle (1121231) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259580)

Absolutely stunning stuff! Everyone with even the slightest interest in the Shuttle should watch this... Amazing...

Hey, NASA! Hey, Google! (1)

Aggrav8d (683620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259648)

You know the relative position of every camera. Why can't you build a real time 3D model of the launch, vehicle, pad, their positions relative to each other, and then broadcast the whole show in 3D in Google Earth - with simulated sound effects? I'd love to, say, tether my viewpoint to the outside of the ship, watch the launch, then get "pulled along" up to space. Even show the cockpit so we can sit with the astronauts during the trip. It could be a great way to visualize launch data, and generate more interest in launches.

Re:Hey, NASA! Hey, Google! (1)

lewko (195646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259860)

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:Hey, NASA! Hey, Google! (1)

Aggrav8d (683620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30262528)

There's a lot of people who aren't near an IMAX theater. Virtually anyone with a computer could watch this online.

Help me out here... (2, Insightful)

labradore (26729) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259686)

Am I the only one who had to choke back tears watching this? Porn doesn't usually do that for me. Though I was thinking "Oh my god! I want to do that!" Which also happens when I... nevermind. This is awesome stuff!

Re:Help me out here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30263224)

I'm too 'manly' to post this under my username, but me too.

Even though I've watched these my whole life, I have to remind myself I'm not watching a movie every time. I think, "Look what we can really do." If we can do this, we can do anything.

I don't know how to convey the emotion in words. It's almost like, every time I watch a launch, it rekindles my faith in humanity itself.

My pics (1)

Leebert (1694) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259726)

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:My pics (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260708)

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

How to find the location of the background? (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259756)

I'm always curious what part of earth is in a shot from space. Suppose this picture is the only info you've got. How to go about and find the spot on earth visible in the picture? Is it doable with stuff accessible to anyone? I see roads (fields at the bottom) and ice/salt plane at the left. Now what?

Bert

Re:How to find the location of the background? (1)

GPSguy (62002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30261620)

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 track, and access to GoogleEarth (even GoogleMaps but the reduced resolution hurts) you should be able to establish where they're over. Some areas in view from the vehicle are real easy to spot if you've the right perspective, while others aren't so easy.

Clouds can really screw up ad hoc location determination, too.

Video Schmideo. (-1, Flamebait)

lewko (195646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30259856)

Fake.

What happens to the external tank? (1)

Tracy Reed (3563) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260068)

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? (3, Interesting)

teridon (139550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260516)

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)

Re:What happens to the external tank? (1)

david.given (6740) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260536)

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?

There does seem to be a bit of a phobia in the space industry about showing things going wrong, though. Remember the SpaceX Falcon 1 test flights that didn't make it? They would shut off the rocketcam footage at the first sign of trouble. I'm sure they've got footage of the vehicle tumbling/disintegrating, but they're not going to make it public. Perhaps NASA have decided that rocketcam footage of the external tank burning up is not something sufficiently reassuring to be shown.

Space shuttle factoid: the pipe which pumps propellant from the external tank to the shuttle is 43cm wide.

Re:What happens to the external tank? (1)

the-bobcat (1360969) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260848)

They're not too keen on showing it, seeing as it always lands in the same village in Zimbabwe, and they're starting to get annoyed.

SRB separation (1)

blixel (158224) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260302)

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:SRB separation (1)

teridon (139550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260528)

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. (1)

dtmos (447842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260672)

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:SRB separation (1)

huge (52607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260758)

Does anyone know the altitude that SRB separation occurs?

Around 150000ft (source [nasa.gov] )

Doctored picture??? (1)

random_phil (1689122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30260938)

Is it just me or is the "beautiful photo of the shuttle flying over rugged terrain" doctored?

The shadows on the ground and on the shuttle just don't match...

Looks like the sun is on the top-right side for the shuttle, and bottom left side for the ground...

Re:Doctored picture??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30262452)

Looks like it's only you dude...

Can I keep it? (1)

gefferyjones (1168499) | more than 4 years ago | (#30261110)

Does anyone have a link to download this? It is this kind of video I am always afraid of losing. You either lose the link or it is not posted anymore, just at the time you want to show a friend this video you have been talking about.

Fox News FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30261130)

If you have access to an apparatus called a "TV" connected to a wiggly thing called "Cable", you could have watched the launch live. Same cameras, same amazing coverage, just one week earlier in higher def. Yup, it was on Fox News. Pretty amazing.

Re:Fox News FTW (1)

GPSguy (62002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30261634)

I didn't think Fox carried anything that couldn't be blamed on the Democrats?

Original HD footage (1)

e-Flex (1219042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30261662)

Why on earth does this look like it has gone through a VHS conversion?

And also many here does not seem to know that all NASAs imagery is free and available on the net: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/index.html [nasa.gov]

ISS and Shuttle on Thanksgiving (1)

NotWallaceStevens (701541) | more than 4 years ago | (#30261752)

We watched the ISS with the shuttle chasing behind as they passed overhead on the evening of Thanksgiving. I looked up and thought, this is the best thing we've ever done, and it may be the best thing we ever do.

Sell this to me, yesssss (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30261906)

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.

NASA TV (1)

phme (1501991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30262402)

Amazing indeed. I just wish NASA TV showed a bit more of this kind of footage -- advocate for NASA to hire a couple of good video editors?

For those who don't know it, a good source of NASA video archives (besides Youtube) is http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/ [eu.org] .

10G (1)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30262484)

They'd have been better off just launching an STS-192 and being done with it.
That's enough bandwidth to have half the moon covered in cell towers.

Wonderful! Also recommended (1)

StarfishOne (756076) | more than 4 years ago | (#30263310)

Awesome video material, no doubt about that! It's great to see this amazing machine from these perspectives. Especially after the SRB's were disconnected with their jets still flaming while falling away.. jaw dropping!

Also I'd like to recommend to the Space Shuttle fans the videos you can find online with a launch from an airliner.

E.g.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv5J5cBwwFc [youtube.com]

Beautiful! (1)

cyberzephyr (705742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30263478)

I'm sure there may be comparable videos out there but i was very impressed by what i saw. It was worth watching and i intend to show it to friends. I have always been impressed by the Shuttle program and look forward to the new program when it come out.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...