×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

275 comments

The footage as it appeared on /. (-1, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#15692955)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Re:The footage as it appeared on /. (0, Troll)

x1n933k (966581) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693039)

Unfortunately they don't have the genius film students jumping at the chance to edit the video for your entertainment.

In the End, like everything else in the world--I blame the American Government. I mean damn it people! If it doesn't have the world Terror or an Arab in the footage this isn't worth showing the world as news.

Re:The footage as it appeared on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693067)

wow, you are a freak!

Re:The footage as it appeared on /. (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693086)

Person above me was too cowardly to sign in and say it. So I will say it for those who have their filters set at +1 or higher: You are a freak.

Re:The footage as it appeared on /. (1)

x1n933k (966581) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693104)

Indeed. More Flamer than Freak, however I was joking specifically but my news has been filled with the topic of Terror for so long I sometimes forget there is cool footage of the rocket in re-entry.

It is too bad they can't sell more rides. [J]

Re:The footage as it appeared on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693165)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Have you thought about waiting a minute and then refreshing the page to see if the article is there instead of posting some stupid comment like that? I can't even believe I'm wasting my time replying to you. It's a bug in Slashdot and has been there for a year, deal with it.

In other news... (-1, Flamebait)

The Shrewd Dude (880136) | more than 7 years ago | (#15692963)

In other news, ranchers in Texas complain about finding an increased amount of cameras falling from space in their fields.

Re:In other news... (2, Informative)

ToxikFetus (925966) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693228)

In other news, ranchers in Texas complain about finding an increased amount of cameras falling from space in their fields.

FYI, the camera landed in the water. Unless Texas has a disproportionate number of hydroponic ranches, I don't think NASA will be fielding too many of these complaints.

Re:In other news... (1)

richdun (672214) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693383)

Yep, SRB seperation generally happens over the Atlantic, somewhere within range of the launch site so the ships can sail out and recover them (and so that in the event of an emergency landing at KSC or Spain, we don't send some very powerful rockets at Morocco). Now, those living in the Indian Ocean may see ET debris, but it re-enters at a very high altitude and disintegrates fairly quickly (the foam tends to shed fairly quickly before re-entry, so imagine during).

Nice to see... (0, Troll)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15692966)

Nice to see our government is looking out for the interests of all and protecting the freedom of all to access govt. publications by putting these in a proprietary format like Windows Media Video.

Exactly -- this issue needs more publicity (2, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#15692989)

Government access doesn't begin and end with office document formats, and proprietary video formats are probably one of the worst problems of this kind. Massachusetts' and Belgium's plans are a good start, but they need to start using things like Theora etc. too.

Re:Nice to see... (0, Troll)

sfontain (842406) | more than 7 years ago | (#15692997)

Nice to see our government is looking out for the interests of all and protecting the freedom of all to access govt. publications by putting these in a proprietary format like Windows Media Video.

Hold on a minute while I get my tiny violin.

Re:Nice to see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693257)

Well?? I'm waiting....

Re:Nice to see... (1)

Derkec (463377) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693000)

Go to a library or internet cafe. View the video from a computer there.

It's not like Windows Media is some obscure format that requires special access to use. Yes it's proprietary, but it's not like you are prevented from viewing this or have been oppressed. You have been at most inconvienced.

Kudos to NASA for releasing this at all.

Re:Nice to see... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693061)

Go to a library or internet cafe. View the video from a computer there.

Internet cafes cost money. Libraries might be inaccessable (too far away).

It's not like Windows Media is some obscure format that requires special access to use.

Having to buy proprietary software (i.e. Windows) counts as "requir[ing] special access."

The bottom line is that the government is arbitrarily restricting access because there's no good reason to use Windows Media instead of Theora, and that's not right.

Re:Nice to see... (2, Informative)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693122)

just install the codecs for MPlayer. Unless you are too lazy ... worked for me last shuttle mission ...

Not to mention theora is still alpha software. Too new, still unproven, there is a perfectly good reason.

I love how you complain about the use of WMV (2, Insightful)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693187)

And then you tout Theora to solve the problem. Are there even 500,000 people in the world who use Theora?

Let's try something like, oh, I don't know, MPEG-2 maybe?

Re:I love how you complain about the use of WMV (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693408)

MPEG-2 is still encumbered by licensing. Although more systems support it, it's not actually any better than WMV.

Re:Nice to see... (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693300)

Go to a library or internet cafe. View the video from a computer there.


This reminds me of the judge's response in the MPAA vs 2600 case to the defence's argument that the DMCA violates the US constitution because copy protections like css prevent people from making fair use of the material, and prevent it from ever entering the public domain even after copyright has expired. The jugde dismissed the argument by saying people could alway use versions of the material stored on other media, such as video tape, to make fair use, as if there would alway be choices like that available.

I suppose one could argue that NASA or whomever are under no obligation to make this material available, and we should just be happy with whatever they give us but I think that is very short-sited. If we don't demand and defend open standards at every instance, we will loose the ability to choose what media player, or word processor, or whatever, we use.

Re:Nice to see... (2, Insightful)

1stpreacher (848239) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693023)

agreed, I never understood why these guys choose the formats they do. Why not a simple mpg? (Honestly - why?)

Re:Nice to see... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693157)

Are you serious?

Shutup. Just shutup.

No.

Shutup.

Rocketcam (3, Informative)

amightywind (691887) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693032)

Nice to see our government is looking out for the interests of all and protecting the freedom of all to access govt. publications by putting these in a proprietary format like Windows Media Video.

The camera supplier [eclipticenterprises.com] has a history of offering these amazing videos in MPEG format. Lets hope the new Discovery videos will be added to the last. The image of the orbiter/ET accelerating from the spent boosters is some of the most spectacular aerospace footage I have ever seen.

Re:Rocketcam (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693095)

The camera supplier has a history of offering these amazing videos in MPEG format.

MPEG is constrained by patents. It's not Free either.

Re:Rocketcam (1)

amightywind (691887) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693107)

Is their a PNG or video formats? OGG?

Re:Rocketcam (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693149)

PNG has a moving-picture format, MNG. However, one wouldn't use PNG for video footage. Ogg has Theora, which would be the best format to use for these Nasa offerings.

Re:Rocketcam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693251)

Your ability to enjoy something truly amazing is contrained by your blind zealotry.

Re:Rocketcam (1)

iocat (572367) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693124)

Seeing how well the camera did from underwater was also pretty cool! And unexpected!

Re:Rocketcam (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693249)

Yeah, that was pretty cool, seeing the chute and the lines underwater like that. But the coolest was just after separation, seeing the shuttle's main engines fire up.

Re:Nice to see... (4, Informative)

DarthTaco (687646) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693102)

Re:Nice to see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693334)

Since the video from the blurb uses akamai, it's probably a good idea to use coral cache for the mpeg [nyud.net] .

How to download mms:// URIs under Linux (2, Informative)

YA_Python_dev (885173) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693336)

Probably a lot of people already know this, but you can download (instead of just watching it in streaming) WMV files with a "mms://" URI under Linux using MPlayer.

Just do something like this:

mplayer mms://server.invalid/filename.wmv -dumpstream -dumpfile filename.wmv

This is useful if you have a connection too slow for live streaming or you simply want to do something with the downloaded file.

Re:Nice to see... (2, Insightful)

GreggBz (777373) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693134)

I swear people here whine so much about NASA it's unbelievable.

I'm convinced that the mind boggling variety of publicly available NASA footage, pictures and video will never be enough for some. You can watch live NASA tv in Realplayer, Quicktime, Windows Media, or Browse to Yahoo and watch it with their flash player.

As the geek I am, NASA is one of the few govermental agencies that I cherrish. If I want to know something about some planet, any planet, it's probabbly thanks to the work that NASA has done.

excellent webcam quality (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15692998)


my logitech webcam has clearer imaging than the footage from these cameras
you would think a billion dollar org like NASA could put at least a broadcast quality (PAL) camera on the side, even an HDTV handycam would be better quality than these cameras give
perhaps they should speak to a few digital camera manufacturers before the next launch

in a word

meh

Re:excellent webcam quality (3, Interesting)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693030)

Does your webcam do that at Mach 25? How about at very high (hundreds or thousands of degrees F.) of heat? Something tells me the quality of your webcam suffers (ie, it melts) in those sorts of situations...

Re:excellent webcam quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693071)

Could it be that the actual camera data may have been resized, cropped and/or compressed? nah, never happens.

Re:excellent webcam quality (3, Informative)

trybywrench (584843) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693079)

my logitech webcam has clearer imaging than the footage from these cameras

but your webcam isn't strapped onto a continuously exploding bomb hurtling through all layers of the atmosphere in a matter of minutes.

Not "Windows Only" as (5, Informative)

CK2004PA (827615) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693008)

the NASA site suggests. The MPlayer plugin for Firefox (same thing you use for CNN's video) works fine. Great footage.

Re:Not "Windows Only" as (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693213)

the NASA site suggests. The MPlayer plugin for Firefox (same thing you use for CNN's video) works fine. Great footage.
Doesn't seem to work on my Mac with Flip4Mac. If you go to post something on a public website and have to add a disclaimer that it's "Windows Only", don't even bother to post it until you find someone with a fucking clue to convert it into an open format. MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 would be fine thanks.

worth watching (4, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693035)

For the one video linked, I'm amazed it didn't get slashdotted immediately. Very interesting to watch the launch sequence. At 3 min, I thought it was getting a bit boring, but wondered what else was interesting in the rest of the footage. At about 8 min, it got interesting again, with the very quick transition from "over the clouds" to "underwater". Not much new to see after 9 min though.

I do wish my webcam could deal with that wide a range of operating environments though! You quickly forget the engineering that goes into something as simple as a camera housing.

Re:worth watching (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693119)

Where would you need your webcamera to operate in such extremes?

Amazing footage of the inside of the oven?
Deep underwater bath coverage ? (actually, some folks might appreciate that, but you can buy waterproof kit)
Freezer cam, lets you know when your ice cream has been raided.

Re:worth watching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693426)

I need a hi-res outdoor webcam, capable of "staring at the sun" and able to withstand high temperatures, to monitor the weather. Admitted, one of NASA's cams might be over-engineered for this particular application, but what the hell, I'd rather it be too sturdy than have it die on me!

I hope the Mt. St. Helens cam is at least as sturdy, too; it may someday encounter "extreme conditions". ;-)

Re:worth watching (4, Interesting)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693207)

Its all running a little slow now...

Anyways, if you haven't seen it yet, check out the right SRB looking-down-o-cam [akamai.com] . Great shot of the shadow of the smoke trail, and as the main orbiter engines light off you can see the whole orbiter start to press up on the structure. Then the explosive bolts blow and the boosters rip to life. Very cool.

Re:worth watching (2, Interesting)

oni (41625) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693284)

At about 8 min, it got interesting again, with the very quick transition from "over the clouds" to "underwater".

That was pretty cool, wasn't it. I also thought it was pretty cool how the booster stood up after it hit the water. I wasn't aware that they were designed to do that. I guess that makes them easier to spot from the recovery ships.

Man, those engineeers thought of everything didn't they - here's another example that I heard recently: the metal that the external tank is made of isn't strong enough to withstand the stresses of launch with that big heavy shuttle hanging from the side - at least, it isn't strong enough at room temperature or above. But when they fill the tank, they let some of the fuel boil off and that freezes the metal and makes it stronger, allowing it to survive launch.

I mean seriously, how cool is that?

Rant: Streaming Video Blows Goats (3, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693350)

> For the one video linked, I'm amazed it didn't get slashdotted immediately.

If I could just download the copy of /right_forward_srb_camera.wmv being mirrored through (funky.dns.tricks.akamaistream.net), it would probably have stayed up longer.

But a certain DRM-infected media player doesn't welcome the SaveAs menu overlord. After all, how dare anyone think of downloading something (at whatever bitrate their client, or the overloaded server, might support) to your hard drive where you could play it back at your leisure, when you can just download the same content, asking the central server for permission over and over again, every time you wanted to see something?

Streaming video blows goats. The video's probably in the public domain. Put up a goddamn downloadable .MOV, .MPG, or yes, even a .WMV link. But enough of the streaming video, and don't even get me started on a site that requires a Javashit popup to load the goddamn .asx file that points to the streaming video in the first place. Web design ain't rocket science -- it's EASIER than rocket science. Last time I checked, there were a few folks at NASA who have the requisite skills, right?

To give credit to rocket scientists who do get it, check out how the JPL folks working on the Cassini mission [nasa.gov] handle videos. You know before you click, not just what format it's in, but how big it's gonna be, and you get to save everything to disk.

Earth to NASA: Dump the streaming video, at least for public domain content.

That was pretty cool. (2, Informative)

lpangelrob (714473) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693044)

Something like 4m 30s of freefall (3:00-7:30) on that video. Very neat. Can someone with greater knowledge than I explain how the camera survived re-entry, or is there no re-entry at that altitude yet?

Re:That was pretty cool. (1)

ManoSinistra (983539) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693070)

I don't know about re-entry, but how would that camera survive the impact of hitting the water? It still was giving back a beutifully clear picture (more or less)

Re:That was pretty cool. (2, Informative)

CK2004PA (827615) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693155)

No total re-entry at that altitude (otheriwse the entire booster would fry). Also, if you watch the entire footage you can see the parachute deployed. In addition I imagine NASA has some protective covering over the camera, to help a bit.

SRB's never technically leave... (5, Informative)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693088)

The SRB's never technically 'leave' the atmosphere so they can't re-enter. They are going pretty fast but not Mach 25 like the shuttle and station are doing on orbit. Maybe a few (2-4) Mach. Actually the shuttle goes quite slow while the SRB's are on because the atmosphere is so dense at low altitudes (the SRB's are only on for just over 2 minutes) because dynamic pressure builds up quickly ( a linear function of air density and a square of velocity ) so you keep your velocity at a fair clip until the atmosphere thins and then speed up. Long story short the SRB's aren't going that fast, and the cameras are in a good housing. The cam itself is made by these guys [eclipticenterprises.com]

Re:That was pretty cool. (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693118)

Re-entry heat is mostly about aerobraking from orbital speeds .. the SRBs separate fairly early while still in the atmosphere and travelling relatively slowlow - so while I'm sure there is some friction heat from the atmosphere it's nothing like what happens when you try and drop 20,000 mph by slamming into the upper atmostphere.

SQUID!!! (1)

r0ach (106945) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693050)

Woah, it almost nails a squid on the way down! Check it out at about 7:37

Rain of Ice (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693053)

These are cool views, but NASA has always had a set of cameras (albeit smaller) watching launches. In the "Leaving the Cradle - Apollo 8" series of DVDs from the NASA archives, you can (repetitively!) watch the launch from a variety of viewpoints.

In every view, you are amazed to see a shower of ice and who-knows-what kind of debris as these huge missiles shook themselves off and flung themselves into orbit.

Who decided on a delicate shuttle, anyway?

it's really not that delicate. (1)

rebelcool (247749) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693254)

The shuttle is stronger than nearly any plane on earth. However, the velocities, energy and stresses involved are far greater than any plane on earth faces.

A 1.5 lb chunk of foam travelling at >500 mph generates at least 10,000 lbs of force/sq ft when it impacts. There are not many materials that can survive that and still be light enough to fly into space with a decent sized cargo. At least, not at a reasonable cost (and many think the shuttle's cost is unreasonable as it is). It is simply a hazard of space travel - our ability to propel exceeds our ability to deflect.

In space, things are even worse. There are nuts and bolts, paint chips and various debris flying around in orbit at thousands of miles an hour. It is a miracle nothing has been destroyed yet by them.

Re:it's really not that delicate. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693301)

You'll notice that every single other system which has carried people into space was built with the people-carrier above all the falling ice, and with the heat shield buried in the rest of the structure.

Then the Shuttle came along and the flaming geniuses that designed it thought it would be a good idea to cover the entire thing in brittle, exposed heat shielding and to put it directly below a huge cryogenic fuel tank so all the ice and wet foam can fall on it.

All of your numbers and description of how difficult it is to withstand an impact make no sense when you consider that none of the other systems even have this problem in the first place.

Re:it's really not that delicate. (1)

rebelcool (247749) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693450)

the reason the crew module was on top of those was so if needed, it could be ejected (the very top of the stack was an ejection booster). Also, they were using rocket designs based on ICBMs which obviously had their payload in the nose. Heck, gemini missions were launched on the very icbm's that also carried nuclear warheads.

early shuttle designs actually did have the shuttle on top of the nose of the launch rocket. i'm not sure the reason for the change, but i do believe the shuttle on those designs was quite a bit smaller in size.

  I'd imagine trying to stick something like the shuttle on top of such a rocket makes flight difficult though for aerodynamic reasons. Also - think of the facilities you would need to handle a heavy lift rocket *AND* a 120 foot shuttle on top of that! the VAB wouldn't be tall enough and you'd need massively uprated crawler transport.

i'm sure someone with more knowledge about that part of the design can chime in...

Re:it's really not that delicate. (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693456)

pounds, miles, feet !

A 0.68kg chunk of foam travelling at > 223.52 m/s generates at least 48926.81 kg of force / square meter

or

1kg at 223.52 m/s generates 71951.19 kg of force / square meter

I hope =)

Sounds like (-1, Flamebait)

hsmith (818216) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693058)

Sounds like they are trying to drum up new "support" for shuttle missions by doing something "cool" to get people to be interested in the space program again. Meh.

Re:Sounds like (1)

Darth Maul (19860) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693077)

Let's see... we just launched humans INTO SPACE in a vehicle we designed and constructed, and that's all you can say? I'm sorry, but I feel really sad for you.

huuuuh? (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693162)

The webcams are on there to monitor the shuttle going up. They put video clips on the internet for all the people who like to see shuttle launches (how much closer can you get, sitting on the SRB?)

Besides, the shuttle is getting mothballed in 2010, the CEV will be in service (hopefully) in 2014. There is no support needed so long as shuttle tiles aren't being whacked off by falling foam/ice. (And if we do have problems, Griffin himself said he'd mothball the program early)

NASA good, naysayers bad.

Re:Sounds like (3, Interesting)

displaced80 (660282) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693164)

Has this stuff really become that run-of-the-mill to you?

There's been over 100 successful shuttle missions. Every single one of these is astonishing to me, even though I may agree with plenty of the criticisms of the programme. There's a visceral joy in seeing these things do their stuff -- ageing, expensive and cumbersome though they may be.

I cannot for a second understand how [i]anything[/i] to do with spaceflight -- even the simplest satellite deployment -- could be classed as mundane.

I call fake (-1, Flamebait)

CrazyTalk (662055) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693083)

Shuttle is not that high when SRBs separate - I call fake.

Re:I call fake (1)

necro81 (917438) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693154)

Are you kidding? You can see the curvature of the earth by the time they separate (T+3 min). You can still see the curvature as they tumble back to earth, even sections of continents, weather patterns, etc. The Shuttle and SRBs are definitely very high up when they separate. As other people have already pointed out, the SRBs don't go with the shuttle all the way into orbit, just give the orbiter a boost through most of the atmosphere.

Re:I call fake (2, Informative)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693209)

Well, from a NASA website.

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.

28 miles may not be space, per se, but it is pretty damn high.

Re:I call fake (1)

Don853 (978535) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693219)

SRB's separate at ~150,000 feet, so the sky should be pretty black at that height. Also, they probably have a fair amount of vertical velocity at the separation point so should take a while even before they begin to descend. Without doing any back-of-the-envelope arithmetic, it seems plausable that they could take a few minutes to land. Unless you know better than I do what the view is like from 150,000 feet, and that's why you're disputing it.

I call fake post (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693352)

Come on, posting that actualy footage from a launch is not real from a user called "CrazyTalk"? Doesn't that sort of give the whole thing away?

Conspiracy theorists (3, Insightful)

citking (551907) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693099)

Try THAT on a sound stage in a desert!!

Beautiful video. I imagine the part after it separates would be awesome drunk.

Re:Conspiracy theorists (2, Funny)

Mayhem178 (920970) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693208)

I imagine the part after it separates would be awesome drunk.

Why don't you ask the NASA engineers? They probably have some experience in that field.

Re:Conspiracy theorists (1)

Vorondil28 (864578) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693297)

Offtopic, but in response to your sig, (1, -n vs -N) no they shouldn't, and (2, "app installs need to be easier") RTFM.

Ontopic, (1, "Beautiful video") agreed, (2, "would be awesome drunk") agreed. ;-)

Re:Conspiracy theorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693479)

"Try THAT on a sound stage in a desert!!"

You don't even have a sound stage in the desert. Povray will work fine.

Solution to foam debris problem (4, Funny)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693103)

I am amazed at how these cameras manage to survive and produce a steady image from the atmosphere, into space, and back. This leads me to believe that instead of using foam insulation, we should cover the entire shuttle in cameras.

Was that the lochness monster caught in a net? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693116)

I swear nasa has some footage of nessy caught in a net at the end there.

Elvis (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693363)

Actually, just after it enteres the water it spends quite a while looking at something that looks an awful like like a slightly distorted head of Elvis as seen in side profile (sideburns and hair and all). Take a look.

Nice immersion (3, Funny)

lobsterGun (415085) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693138)

About 10 minutes into it I found myself thinking, "Man! I hope they pull me out soon, I can't hold my breath much longer."

That I would have had to hold my breath through the whole liftoff sequence didn't really bother me - just the being under water part.

Cool stuff post-separation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693177)

After the separation (at ~2:58, as mentioned), the booster tumbles and tumbles, but you can see a spot of light (to the lower left of the Sun) that I think is the departing shuttle, and on the horizon to the lower right of the Sun you can make out a slightly twisted, vertical puff of "cloud" sticking far above the normal clouds -- the smoke plume from the shuttle takeoff.

Once back in the thicker atmosphere, the tumbling lessens, and eventually you see the parachute deploy and splashdown. Very cool.

Don't stare at the tumbling phase for too long at full screen. You might get nauseated :-)

Wow, that's McCool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693183)

Neat-o.

String? (1)

skarphace (812333) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693188)

Did anyone see that string-looking thing coming from the atmosphere? I saw it during the fall back to Earth. Might that be the trail of smoke from the launch?

Whatever it was, it was awesome.

What happened to the camera in the water? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693189)

Did NASA recover the camera for analysis? I was amazed by this silent footage even though it was long.

Re:What happened to the camera in the water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693289)

The SRBs are reusable and are recovered after each launch, so when they recovered this SRB I assume they just pulled the footage off shortly thereafter.

Re:What happened to the camera in the water? (1)

richdun (672214) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693401)

A lot of the cameras are transmitting images during launch, so it's possible this was picked up in near real-time during the launch (that's how CNN got such cool video of the bits of foam flying off at T+3m or so.

Re:What happened to the camera in the water? (0)

CyBlue (701644) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693399)

Not sure, but my guess is that it's transmitted because if there was a severe explosion then any recorded footage could be lost. Probably recorded as well, though.

Re:What happened to the camera in the water? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693440)

They recover the whole booster, not just the camera.

As I understand it they do reuse at least part of the booster for a number of launches.

Re:What happened to the camera in the water? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693447)

Interesting. I wonder where the booster and its camera(s) crashed into?

You can see it break the sound barrier. (5, Informative)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693217)

Interestingly, watch closely, a couple minutes in, you can see pressure waves form small clouds on the leading edge of the shuttle as it breaks the sound barrier. *Very* cool stuff...

Re:You can see it break the sound barrier. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15693306)

A.k.a. the Prandtl-Glauert singularity [wikipedia.org] , at around 1:37 into the video.

Re:You can see it break the sound barrier. (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693366)

Thank you! I've always been curious what the technical term for that phenomenon was... and, ironically, it was right in the APOD article where I first saw the image of that F/A-18 hornet. Yay for poor reading!

Slashdotted... T.T (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693277)

The footage might have been good for the first 50 readers.. now it streams at a trickle thanks to the slashdot effect.

Since it is going at about 1/100 frames per minute though I'm sure in the next day or so i'll be able to see those pressure waves that mr. sound barrier was talking about ; )

Some interesting moments timelined (5, Informative)

Goldenhawk (242867) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693420)

There's a LOT of neat stuff in there. For example:

1:30-1:40 Mach transition (breaking the sound barrier - watch the nose)
2:39 a rather visible bit of debris flies right past the camera
2:58 separation from the orbiter/tank stack
3:59 as the booster tumbles, you can briefly spot the shuttle as a bright dot
5:18 you can see the smoke plume thru the upper atmosphere
7:13 some debris goes past the booster camera
7:17 you can see a shroud (parachute) line falling
7:25 you can very briefly see a chute
7:30 water entry
7:40 the chute falls into the water
8:00 as the booster floats, the chutes and shroud lines are clearly visible around the booster

underwater spacecraft (1)

wolff000 (447340) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693461)

OK I get tired of watching the shuttle go up forevr and figured the video was spliced so I jump to the end to see th good stuff and find the camera is underwater!?! then I realized that it just survided the slpash down and I missed the good stuff. awesome shots though the most spectacular space footage I have ever seen.

The other streaming video -- Forward SRB Camera (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 7 years ago | (#15693473)

Just in case NASA changes the links/Web page. Right Forward SRB Camera [akamai.com] . This one shows the space shuttle launching from the launch pad, to space, and then crashing into the water (not going underwater like the other video).

Amazing videos! If there are any more, then please share! :)
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...