What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy finds gold in Iowa. view!
youtube.com - Best Buy employee, Danielle Kelly, sings her way into holiday campaign.
67 Comments
- 582ND3R5, on 07/19/2009, -1/+36Someone post a low res still image of Endeavor's external fuel tank and within minutes diggers post high res images and video.
Digg rocks. - vroom101, on 07/19/2009, -0/+29High-res photos of Space Shuttle Endeavour's (STS-127) external fuel tank falling back to Earth . . .
1. S127-E-005015: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle ... (spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-127/html/s127e005015.html)
2. S127-E-005033: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle ... (spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-127/html/s127e005033.html) - DeskFlyer, on 07/19/2009, -0/+19Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njQNZrb89Oo
- DeskFlyer, on 07/20/2009, -0/+19Good questions.
The foam on the ET is a very lightweight spray-on foam that is applied prior to the entire stack being assembled. The purpose of this foam is to insulate the extremely cold fuel from inducing ice build up on the tank from the hot humid air of Florida. The vibrations induced during liftoff, transition through max-Q, and other aerodynamic loads is more than enough to shake some of it loose during the journey to orbit (a rocket launch, especially one as powerful as the STS, is an extremely violent event - it may appear nice and smooth from a distance, but if you ever get a chance look up some videos from inside the cockpit during SRB ignition you can see the astronauts are being tossed around like they are experiencing several severe car accidents at the same time. I'd be more surprised if there were no loss of foam.
As far as comparisons between the Saturn V vehicle against the STS besides re-usability, well, there really are none. One was designed to get man to the moon, the other to LEO. I wouldn't say either one was more superior to the other since they are radically different in every way, including the time frame they were developed and implemented. Both were extremely successful launch systems and the development of both have led to strides in science, engineering and technology that have benefited us all in ways that most don't know.
Hope that helps. :) - Alexbalix, on 07/20/2009, -2/+10Hey! What's this thing suddenly coming towards me very fast? Very very fast. So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like ... ow ... ound ... round ... ground! That's it! That's a good name — ground!
I wonder if it will be friends with me? - strangewill, on 07/20/2009, -0/+7It is nearly 30 years old, back then it wasn't a step back, but a huge feat.
- TaeKwonDonkey, on 07/20/2009, -1/+7Can someone please explain, in depth, how exactly the foam is able to come off the external fuel tank during launch? I feel as though the external fuel tank should not disintegrate until after it is jettisoned and allowed to burn up the Earth's atmosphere.
Also, can someone explain how the Space Shuttle is superior to the Saturn V other than its reuse-ability? - NightC, on 07/20/2009, -3/+8IMO the Space Shuttle is an awkward and fudged way to get into space, all this foam that always falls off and hits it, these reusable tanks and stuff are nice but it still is a weird way to do things if you ask me. That is why they are retiring it, I think NASA took a step back and was like "We can do better."
They need a more streamlined, modern way of getting work done in space. - boardthis, on 07/20/2009, -1/+6giant floating cuban cigar. impressive!
- ASSASSYN360, on 07/20/2009, -0/+5$ Cost. Saturn V per launch cost is $2.4-3.5 billion per launch compared to approximately $1.3 billion per launch for the space shuttle.
- WeBeGood, on 07/20/2009, -0/+4At this point in the External Tank's orbit, it is still on it's way up and gaining altitude. It is in the same Orbit as the Orbiter and going towards Apogee, where the Orbiter will do a small burn to raise Perigee. The External Tank does not, so it reenters the earth's atmosphere above the Pacific Ocean.
- Tanktunker, on 07/20/2009, -1/+5Or rather within four and a half hours.
- fandyboy, on 07/20/2009, -1/+5"weld on an airlock at one end (or both), and start the moving-in process."
Easy as that, huh? - Atario, on 07/20/2009, -1/+5[Insert Beavis & Butt-Head laugh here]
- sonofabiscuit, on 07/20/2009, -0/+4RIP
- WeBeGood, on 07/20/2009, -0/+3It would take 5 or more Shuttle Launches to put the mass of Skylab in orbit. So, the one Saturn V launch ($2.4-3.50 billion) is equivalent to $7 billion worth of Shuttle Launches.
- neoquietus, on 07/20/2009, -0/+3They don't get left out in space as junk; it's in a decaying orbit and will burn up in a little bit.
As for a "craft that can hold it's own fuel", it sounds like you are talking about a SSTO craft (Single Stage To Orbit). They are possible, but physics and chemistry limit their capabilities severely. A nuclear SSTO would be almost trivial to build (look up "Project Orion"), but comes with it's own drawbacks. - WeBeGood, on 07/20/2009, -0/+3Residual liquid/gaseous hydrogen from the hydrogen tank. It is heating up and venting through the pressure relief valve so the tank doesn't rupture.
- CiDaemon, on 07/20/2009, -1/+4Alright, let's get something straight here.
Endeavour is U.S. built, owned, and operated.
This video is of U.S. airspace.
Space.com is owned by a U.S. company.
So, for God's sake, THERE IS NO "E" IN THE WORD "STORY". - CiDaemon, on 07/20/2009, -0/+3FWP:
"A storey (usually spelled story in American English[1]), floor, deck or level is the level of a building above (or below) the ground." - WeBeGood, on 07/20/2009, -1/+4The external tank reenters the earths atmosphere above and lands in the pacific ocean, which would be about 3/4 of a full orbit. It's essentially in an orbit that intersects the earth's atmosphere.
- Paranor01, on 07/20/2009, -0/+3Skylab WAS a Saturn V. It was a fuel tank for the late stage booster, converted into the lab, using the earlier booster to get into orbit.
- smcnow, on 07/20/2009, -0/+2It would have been nice if a science site did not confuse falling with floating.
- neoquietus, on 07/20/2009, -1/+3It doesn't appear to be burning up because it isn't... yet. It's still too high in it's orbit to be encountering dense enough atmosphere to burn up.
- dynamojoe, on 07/20/2009, -1/+3I've thought this too. If it would mean slapping an extra two SRBs to the side to give it the extra lift to get to a stable orbit, why not? Half the work has been done already. Imagine fifty of these things in a parking orbit, waiting for someone with a torch to weld them together, fill them with atmosphere, and lay out a welcome mat.
In fact, wasn't Skylab a converted Saturn third stage? - dynamojoe, on 07/20/2009, -1/+3A later visit from a shuttle or other vehicle could add the stuff needed for habitation or whatever else needed. You know, kinda like they're doing with the ISS now.
The point is that the external tank is halfway to space when it's cut free. It's already over most of the atmosphere and has tremendous forward speed. Why not give it that extra push to get to orbit? It's a huge structure that the uses of which could be determined later. The savings would be tremendous (payloads are like $5k per pound to get to orbit). - greendalek, on 07/20/2009, -1/+3I've never quite understood the wisdom of letting the ET burn up; you have this massive empty cylinder that could EASILY be converted into a habitable module --just expose the interior to vacuum for a couple of minutes, haul it into upper orbit, attach a small engine to get it spinning, weld on an airlock at one end (or both), and start the moving-in process. Why the hell do we waste more than a quarter of the launch assembly EVERY DAMNED TIME? I'm sure the price tag on an ET isn't exactly bargain basement.
- rusty0101, on 07/20/2009, -0/+2Actually they are not quite space junk. The tank is released at a point in the launch cycle where it is not in an orbital trajectory and it ends up burning up on re-entry and the debris falls into the Indian ocean. Space junk would mean that it stays in orbit and has the potential to impact and otherwise affect the orbits of other objects in orbit.
You can find out more, including thoughts on converting the tank to orbital equipment at http://aeromaster.tripod.com/paper1.htm - DouglasScott, on 07/20/2009, -0/+2Wasn't the Skylab launch on a Saturn V? That looked like an expensive way to go, but similar to some of the launches for Russian parts of the ISS.
- neoquietus, on 07/20/2009, -0/+2The tank isn't burning up because it hasn't encountered significant atmospheric resistance yet. It will begin to burn, but by then the shuttle will be elsewhere, in a stable orbit.
- WeBeGood, on 07/20/2009, -0/+2You said, "What's that to the left of the tank?" That was a piece of ice floating by, the ice was much closer to the Orbiter than to the External Tank. That's why it looks so big.
- WeBeGood, on 07/20/2009, -1/+3Those are not thrusters on the External Tank, what you are seeing is the pressure relief valve on the Hydrogen tank opening and closing so that it won't rupture. It is venting some of the residual liquid/gaseous hydrogen that wasn't used.
- fandyboy, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1That's not chocolate....
- jwolcott, on 07/20/2009, -1/+2Gaia's Dildo.
- w1cked1, on 07/20/2009, -1/+2What's going on ~4:15? The tank seems to be venting, are they using remote thrusters to try and better control where it eventually hits?
What's that to the left of the tank?
Why doesn't the tank burn up, is it dropped too low for that, or too gradual a re-entry angle? - username7410, on 07/20/2009, -2/+3Struggling to make a penis joke comment here...
- TetchyTony, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1What's the 'story'? Morning Glory?
- nashrafeeg, on 07/20/2009, -1/+2nope only the solid rocket boosters are reused the Main tank burns up in atmosphere
- jordanmoore, on 07/20/2009, -1/+2I'd love to see that land on a cow.
- FKnight, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1I dugg the question up because it was a good question. The answers are correct, though.
- WeBeGood, on 07/20/2009, -1/+2The coming sequel "Apollo on Steroids" program that is following the Space Shuttle is a huge step backwards, at least 45 years.
- WeBeGood, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1Pacific Ocean, no OMS-1 burn is required on flight today as they were in the early days when the ET fell into the Indian Ocean.
- Paranor01, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1naw, it's a chocolate bar someone tossed in the pool.
the pool guy will clean it up and have it as a snack later. - strangewill, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1Meh they say it's MUCH cheaper, and it's how private companies want to put things into space.
- ASSASSYN360, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1Too both of you...I wasn't being serious. At all! I am fully aware the external fuel tank is in a degrading orbit with intent to re-enter earths atsmosphere.
- TylerDurden76, on 07/20/2009, -1/+1And exactly how would you get all of the equipment, wiring and what not installed in your new mythical structure?
- engalicorn, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1Huge comment fail!
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is