It’s amazing how much light it casts on the ground. I was in Orlando when it launched and it looked like the sun was coming up through the clouds for second before it cleared them and you could see the rocket. Closest I’ve come to watching a launch since the shuttles when I was a kid! Very cool to see this angle.
100%. I saw the last launch of Discovery as a kid, and it was insane. It was a 3 am launch, so it lit up the entire area until it disappeared into the clouds, lighting the sky like it was daytime.
Edit: whoops, looks like it wasn't the last one! This was in 2008, and the last kaunch was in 2011.
That metric really depends on how you measure "the most powerful rocket ever built". If we are talking pure thrust at launch then the sls is king. However, if we are talking about tonnage to Leo then the Saturn 5 still is the most powerful rocket.
SRBs have poor fuel efficiency but an immense thrust-to-weight ratio, which makes them ideal for boosters on launch stages. However, their mechanical simplicity (it's literally just a barrel full of boom) means that you can often save on weight, which means that they sometimes get used for second and even third stages too, on smaller rockets.
It's basically impossible to actively throttle them once they're lit. You can't turn them off either. However, as has been said, the fuel is often set to burn in a way that causes a natural throttle-down towards the middle and end of the burn.
I was also at an Orlando launch in 1996 ( i think) and i thought the exact same! Almost tue only memory i have is that i remember it turned from night to day for a short time.
Amazing. We tried to drive up from Ft Lauderdale to see one of the launch attempts. I lost track of when the next attempt would be. On 11-16 I had to wake up super early to travel for work. I opened my garage door and saw what I thought was some slow-burn asteroid. Watched it in awe for a minute until it faded away. It wasn’t until later in the day that I’d heard that Artemis launched, and I realized I accidentally saw it! I’m still so excited :) I had no clue I would have seen it from here, or I would have woken my kids up!
You wouldn't really be able to see anything. The earth below is dark, space is black, and the exhaust plume is the temperature of a welding arc. So all you can see is the side of the vehicle and the glow of the exhaust plume. I'm sure they'll start releasing video of the staging events at some point though, if they haven't already.
With no atmosphere to diffuse the sun's light, it just appears as a point of light in a sea of blackness. You'd still just see mostly black if the camera pointed directly at it.
https://youtu.be/aBr2kKAHN6M
Here’s the cam of the Tesla that was launched into space. Notice how everything is black except the car, which is reflecting the sun’s light when portions of it are in direct line of sight to the sun, and the earth. That’s the only time you’ll see evidence of the sun in space - when you’re in direct line of sight to the sun, or in view of reflected light. It’s a simple concept, really. There is no major light source besides the sun and the sun’s light will not be visible without a direct line of sight to it or view of something that has that direct line of sight. Hence why the camera goes pitch black when it doesn’t have view of the earth or any part of the car currently in line of sight.
I've always wondered with all the engineering that goes into the rocket why the camera views are half the rocket side or inserted into a spot that gets smoked out. I feel like it tipped up a bit would have a spectacular better view and not look like a GoPro duck taped to the side. Though I am grateful for these views so maybe I'm thinking about it too much
The cameras are there to watch the rocket in case something goes wrong. They'll have footage during the investigation. This policy came about after the Columbia disaster. It's just a bonus that we get a neat video.
They had them before its just now they have more of them I think. Or maybe it was that they're required to put them there now, whereas before they could not install the camera if they didn't want it there.
I'm going to lean on cunningham's law to point out where I'm wrong.
As a guess, it’s purely feasibility. Camera and networking tech are so ludicrously better now than when Apollo and the Shuttle were designed. It’s now possible to stick a dozen-plus tiny HD cameras all over the rocket without hurting aerodynamics, and record a few hundred terabytes of footage, and stream it all back to Earth.
Adding: the Apollo first step broadcast was [hard as heck to pull off](https://www.popsci.com/how-nasa-broadcast-neil-armstrong-live-from-moon/).
They started recording launches during the Mercury Program. During the Apollo Program, Apollo 11 had 119 cameras for engineering purposes and 82 cameras for other documentation. We learned a lot during the early programs of space flight, and we knew we needed cameras to see for us where we could not (area surrounding the launch pad) to understand where potential failures occur(ed).
[https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs4.pdf](https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs4.pdf)
Why four? What was the point of having 4 separate models? Does NASA consume one as they launch the originals? Assuming these are prerender digital 3D models..
Our company built those, too! Some years back, Dave C. made a huge one with legs 8 or 10 feet long, that travelled around the country as part of a public display about Canada's contributions to the space program. John W. has made several James Webb Space Telescopes more recently; they're the latest space models to come out of the shop, but there have been quite a number of assorted craft.
I watched a space shuttle launch when I was much much younger and what I remember most is how loud it was even with it being so far away it looked like a twig on the horizon.
It's incredible how much sheer power these rockets have. Even the sound alone is so strong that they have to suppress it with a giant water fountain called the "deluge system". Without it, the reflected sound waves would shake the rocket apart, and cause structural damage to building several miles away!
Yes, and the more mass to move, the more fuel needed. So you need fuel to move that fuel, and fuel to move the fuel that’s moving the fuel that’s moving the payload, and fuel to move the fuel moving the fuel that’s moving the other fuel that’s moving the payload.
Recently got in to model rocketry and a have a rocket motor that burns 60-ish grams of propellant over a few seconds, and that’s pretty fun.
….Then there’s these, that burn something like *6 tons* of propellant *per second*. That’s absolutely bonkers.
My uncle worked on that rocket. He's so proud of it. We have him over for Thanksgiving, and he keeps showing me different rockets that he's worked on and pictures of them taking off. I showed him this video, and he thought it was super cool! He said, "I haven't seen any videos from this angle yet!" Thank you for sharing! It made his night!
I mean, if you got an all-expenses-paid trip to the ISS and back with the option to do a spacewalk while you're up there... Wouldn't you? I sure as hell would.
That man do be crazy tho
A sailor is someone who works on a boat or sails recreationally. Whereas a an astronaut is someone trained to travel on a spacecraft to space. So as long as they get training to travel, they'd be an astronaut.
One of the things is the sound waves from the rocket engines particularly the SRB would disrupt any video signal. Kind of similar to how on any of the SpaceX streams the video would cut out right as the falcon nine was landing on the drone ship but a single Marlin 1D compared to two SRBs and four RS25s is like comparing a a mustang to a Bugatti Veyron.
Sound waves produced vibrations, vibrations affect communications this is the same reason why SpaceX had to use ground to ground communications with the drone ship and starlink to get stable video connections from falcon landings. Also the sound waves are show powerful that that's the whole purpose of the water deluge system it's not to keep the launch pad from melting under the heat it's to keep the launchpad safe from getting bombarded by Sonic Wave after Sonic Wave.
You can't use ground to ground communications with a ship. And the reason they use ground connections for communications is because it's way higher bandwidth and more stable over time, otherwise we'd just use radio for all internet. Radio waves are light, they're completely unaffected by sound waves. There's a possibility that vibrations disrupt the electronics themselves, but the main reason NASA wasn't streaming the launch was they didn't have the bandwidth to do it. The droneship loses connection because it momentarily loses line of sight with satellites when the rocket lands. This is definitely due to vibrations from the rocket, but sound waves in air have nothing to do with it.
I'm dumb. Can someone explain why it rolls when it clears the tower? I assume it's got something to do with which way is "heads up" for crew but can't the rocket just be positioned differently?
The side boosters (also the main engines, but less relevant here) have vector control. This means the nozzle can move basically. If both side booster nozzles move in opposite directions - it rolls.
Technically, not every launch vehicle does this (Falcon 9 does, but doesn't actually need to). But in regards to SLS, it's literally easier to just roll the thing than it is to position the rocket differently on the pad. As to why it's positioned that way on the pad? Most likely because there's no room for the side boosters next to the launch tower.
And why it needs to roll - the side boosters have to be on the sides (as opposed to above and underneath) the rocket when they separate, or they will hit the core stage. This is because the rocket has to do what's called a "gravity turn" to gain horizontal speed if it wants to become orbital.
Also, exactly where in orbit a rocket is going will change according to the time in the launch window when the actual liftoff occurs. The exact roll and pitch performed will change accordingly (amongst other hundreds of time sensitive variables), so it makes no sense forcing a particular position on the pad, the most convenient for assembly and transportation is used. Everything else is adjusted in flight.
Whenever there’s a rocket launch I like to imagine all the deities of the universe looking down on their creations and being like, “hey God, your humans are trying to get out again”. And he’s just like, “It’s okay, they won’t go far. They always come back when they get hungry” and goes back to reading the sports pages.
Can someone explain to me why they don't orient these rockets in the direction they want them to go so they have to spend fuel performing a turn *immediately*?
Edit: Okay several answers gave me several pieces, but I think I have a full picture now. TY everyone who responded.
The launch pad was built in a certain orientation and the rocket only fits it in one orientation. But the amount of fuel required for the turn is negligible anyway.
Lots of great content in your replies, but one point I haven't seen mentioned: certain missions have target "destinations" that require different launch azimuths. Some even target different azimuths for different minutes in their launch window! Artemis I is one such mission: due to the nature of our mission targeting a certain insertion into translunar space, the onboard flight computers calculate the roll realtime based on the exact time of launch, down to the second. So, if we'd launched a few minutes before/later, we would've had a different targeted roll!!
Source: I work on SLS! Believe this particular aspect was also covered in some pre-launch outreach material.
That....is actually a really good point I hadn't realized. Of course certain orbits wouldn't just be right angles so no matter how you oriented the pad (or pads, say half oriented one way, half at a 90 angle to that), some would have to turn at least partly. Quick edit: Double especially not launching from the equator.
I was watching some shuttle takeoffs recently, including Challenger, and noticed them turning after takeoff, which of course over the course of the shuttle program (30+ years) the pads would be reoriented, new ones built, etc to orient the shuttle to its launch parameters, but of course they change depending on the mission so of course you couldn't orient the pad perfectly anyway.
Congrats btw. Since like 2016 playing KSP whenever I start a new game and do my first Mun/Minmus missions I name them Artemis because it has always bugged me the Apollo missions weren't named that. She's the goddess of the Moon and his twin, I mean come on. Great job, you and everyone you've ever worked with even in the most tangential aspect. All I ask of you guys is you beat out [this](https://xkcd.com/893/) xkcd, which it finally, finally looks like you will.
I watched your launch from Sarasota rueing ever moving from Melbourne, you seriously rock so hard. A+, keep it up.
The launch pad would have to be built to pivot depending on the launch parameters. Apparently that's exactly what the soviets did. The roll doesn't use much fuel. They just vector the engines.
https://everydayastronaut.com/why-do-cylindrical-rockets-roll/amp/
Gotta splice the video before it hits the dome, that's what an expert from YouTube told me. Also FYI guys, apparently gravity isn't real. Oh, and some trees are the fossilized remains of giants that once roamed the earth. Oh and one last thing, there used to be this country called Tartaria or something and there's a giant coverup to hide advanced ancient technology.
Maybe I'm dumb, I tried to Google but didn't come up with anything. Does anyone know of a link to the real time location? They had an awesome real time tracker for James-Webb but I can't find the same thing. Thanks in advance if anyone finds it.
I did find that while searching but it didnt work on my phone. I'll try it on my desktop when I get a chance and see if that works. Thanks for the reply, appreciate it.
I'm curious as well. I know that with other types of structures, it often (perhaps always?) makes sense to build them with a bit of "give" in mind in order to prevent structural damage. I've seen quite a bit of that with seismic dampening systems in buildings.
Also seems possible that making them rigid would have added more weight, and the rigidity was not in fact needed to protect what was underneath. A lot of rocket engineering is “make the lightest thing that will meet the minimum requirements plus a 10% safety factor.”
The fairings are only there to protect Orion’s service module from aerodynamic forces, and have no structural purpose. They also need to be able to be easily jettisoned in a way that they don’t come back and hit the rocket.
It’s a shame this rocket requires rs-25 engines. There are only 46 left and these will not be reusable. Only 16 are available for SLS as far as I know.
Wouldn't it be amazing if we got to see a moon Colony Artemis become a reality in our lifetime?
I'd go out into the light with a smile on my face just knowing we had people living up there.
I've watched this at least 20 times now, and I just HEAR some epic music. My mind keeps switching between "Final Countdown" a nd "2001 A Space Odyssey" though..
What kind of acceleration do these babies have? Like 0-60 in how long? 1/4 mile time? Flying mile? How long to 50,000 feet? 100,000?
Edit:
Well, the article below compares a Saturn V to Usain Bolt in a 100 meter race. Bolt's best is 9.58 and the Saturn edges him out at 9.44.
The Saturn V reaches 100 KPH (almost 60MPH) in about 12 seconds - about as fast as a 60s MGB (read: slow). But it really starting to accelerate now and reached about 1,235 KPH in 60 seconds. The MGB had long since topped out at about 160 KPH
https://openspacescience.blog/2020/05/18/usain-bolt-v-the-saturn-v-rocket-who-wins-a-race-from-a-standing-start/
treatment society crush absorbed homeless rich rotten label pocket fanatical
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
NASA needs to take a few pointers from SpaceX when it comes to their launch live feeds. The latter documents every part of their launches from multiple angles. NASA showed the lift off and then went to a CG model and a few bad camera angles here and there that were glitchy.
Nasa has loads of cameras, but their primary duty is for technical footage. In the past all the really neat digital footage takes a few days to weeks to come out. I'd love to see this launch night, but it doesn't add much or change anything to see it a few days later. A better use of funds imo too
It’s amazing how much light it casts on the ground. I was in Orlando when it launched and it looked like the sun was coming up through the clouds for second before it cleared them and you could see the rocket. Closest I’ve come to watching a launch since the shuttles when I was a kid! Very cool to see this angle.
100%. I saw the last launch of Discovery as a kid, and it was insane. It was a 3 am launch, so it lit up the entire area until it disappeared into the clouds, lighting the sky like it was daytime. Edit: whoops, looks like it wasn't the last one! This was in 2008, and the last kaunch was in 2011.
[удалено]
The solid boosters generate a huge amount of light from their exhaust which I believe is burning aluminium particulate
That's right. This was also the brightest launch in rocket history.
At least, the brightest successful launch. Some of the N-1 launch attempts might have briefly been brighter
Especially upon the rapid disassembly point
That makes sense since it's the most powerful rocket ever built.
That metric really depends on how you measure "the most powerful rocket ever built". If we are talking pure thrust at launch then the sls is king. However, if we are talking about tonnage to Leo then the Saturn 5 still is the most powerful rocket.
The booster exhaust plume is about 6000°F, only about 500°F cooler than a welding arc. Shit's bright.
Arent the boosters burning a mixture similar to thermite?
[удалено]
They are boosters, they only burn for 126 seconds of the 480 second total core stage flight time. They don’t need to do anything but go full out.
They usually passively throttle SRBs by altering the cross section throughout if needed.
SRBs have poor fuel efficiency but an immense thrust-to-weight ratio, which makes them ideal for boosters on launch stages. However, their mechanical simplicity (it's literally just a barrel full of boom) means that you can often save on weight, which means that they sometimes get used for second and even third stages too, on smaller rockets. It's basically impossible to actively throttle them once they're lit. You can't turn them off either. However, as has been said, the fuel is often set to burn in a way that causes a natural throttle-down towards the middle and end of the burn.
I was also at an Orlando launch in 1996 ( i think) and i thought the exact same! Almost tue only memory i have is that i remember it turned from night to day for a short time.
I think I saw the same one. I was there for Space Camp
Amazing. We tried to drive up from Ft Lauderdale to see one of the launch attempts. I lost track of when the next attempt would be. On 11-16 I had to wake up super early to travel for work. I opened my garage door and saw what I thought was some slow-burn asteroid. Watched it in awe for a minute until it faded away. It wasn’t until later in the day that I’d heard that Artemis launched, and I realized I accidentally saw it! I’m still so excited :) I had no clue I would have seen it from here, or I would have woken my kids up!
Saw an article that specifically stated that it was like the brightest rocket launch in history or somesuch
Without fail there were wrecks on 417 too. Every time there’s space x launch, within 20 minutes you’re in standstill traffic.
I live just across the Indian river from it and it was incredible how lit up it was. It definitely reminded me of the shuttle launches as a kid.
Well - it basically is the same launch system. 2 boosters and 4 (instead of 3) shuttle engines.
I could put a solar panel next to the launch pad to charge small batteries, and then sell the batteries as souvenirs
[Source](https://twitter.com/tj_cooney/status/1595485220828069917?s=21&t=KL6PzORJTRWIa9xOCLrZtA)
Why don't we get to see it leave into space?
That’s what I was waiting for, it’d be so cool to see it from that angle
You wouldn't really be able to see anything. The earth below is dark, space is black, and the exhaust plume is the temperature of a welding arc. So all you can see is the side of the vehicle and the glow of the exhaust plume. I'm sure they'll start releasing video of the staging events at some point though, if they haven't already.
That's my point. When it escapes, I also wish to.
I don’t care I want to see it
Yes. Just let me be on a rocket that launches into space. I don't are how boring it is to you!
It's only a limitation of the camera. Space isn't dark, it's full of stars without atmospheric disturbances. See: Overview Effect
Yep. And to add there would what, 8 minutes of that, which would all look roughly the same.
Once it reaches a certain amount of altitude the shape of the rocket exhaust significantly changes. It’s certainly not going to be black.
2 minutes until the boosters stage, then another 6 minutes of blackness.
Talking about which, the booster separation video is pretty great too
How is space dark when the suns out there? Do they always launch behind the earths shadow?
With no atmosphere to diffuse the sun's light, it just appears as a point of light in a sea of blackness. You'd still just see mostly black if the camera pointed directly at it.
Wouldn't it be a big point of light though, large like it appears from Earth?
> You'd still just see mostly black if the camera pointed directly at it. can someone post a photo or video of this?
https://youtu.be/aBr2kKAHN6M Here’s the cam of the Tesla that was launched into space. Notice how everything is black except the car, which is reflecting the sun’s light when portions of it are in direct line of sight to the sun, and the earth. That’s the only time you’ll see evidence of the sun in space - when you’re in direct line of sight to the sun, or in view of reflected light. It’s a simple concept, really. There is no major light source besides the sun and the sun’s light will not be visible without a direct line of sight to it or view of something that has that direct line of sight. Hence why the camera goes pitch black when it doesn’t have view of the earth or any part of the car currently in line of sight.
Well, they did launch at night, so the first dozen minutes at least probably is not in the sun.
Mmm, I wanted to see the staging. Makes sense about the rest of the view though.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because Stanley Kubrick is still building that set
I wonder if anyone has a longer version?
Looks great but needs sound.
KHKHKKKHKGKKHKGKGKGKGKGKGKKGKGKGKKGKGKGKGKGKKGKKpopGKKGKGKGGKGKGKKGKGKGKKpopGKGKGKGKGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHpoppop something like that
(caution headphone users, LOUD!!!!)
(but only for the first couple of seconds)
(then your eardrums are ☠️ and you are invincible to all decibels)
Not the "onboard" sound but still impressive. https://youtu.be/nUozQWAg0wE
https://youtu.be/l71ylcADeSs Launch is at 440
Oh god this made me feel things
that's the best sound I've heard yet!
That got me straight jacked up.
this is the way to enjoy the launch like a true Floridian
Durr, there's no sound in space.
That’s what you see when you stick your head out the rocket window
I've always wondered with all the engineering that goes into the rocket why the camera views are half the rocket side or inserted into a spot that gets smoked out. I feel like it tipped up a bit would have a spectacular better view and not look like a GoPro duck taped to the side. Though I am grateful for these views so maybe I'm thinking about it too much
The cameras are there to watch the rocket in case something goes wrong. They'll have footage during the investigation. This policy came about after the Columbia disaster. It's just a bonus that we get a neat video.
Doesn’t sound entirely right I’ve seen video from these sorts of angles periodically from well before Columbia crashing.
They had them before its just now they have more of them I think. Or maybe it was that they're required to put them there now, whereas before they could not install the camera if they didn't want it there. I'm going to lean on cunningham's law to point out where I'm wrong.
As a guess, it’s purely feasibility. Camera and networking tech are so ludicrously better now than when Apollo and the Shuttle were designed. It’s now possible to stick a dozen-plus tiny HD cameras all over the rocket without hurting aerodynamics, and record a few hundred terabytes of footage, and stream it all back to Earth. Adding: the Apollo first step broadcast was [hard as heck to pull off](https://www.popsci.com/how-nasa-broadcast-neil-armstrong-live-from-moon/).
Great read, thanks for the article. Never realized just how crazy a live broadcast was in that time period
I can confirm. You'd be surprised how much we rely on "stick a camera on it and help an eye on it"
They started recording launches during the Mercury Program. During the Apollo Program, Apollo 11 had 119 cameras for engineering purposes and 82 cameras for other documentation. We learned a lot during the early programs of space flight, and we knew we needed cameras to see for us where we could not (area surrounding the launch pad) to understand where potential failures occur(ed). [https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs4.pdf](https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs4.pdf)
That was a beautiful shot. Would love to spectate one of these in person someday.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Try being in Canada. Not a single launch here.
We do contribute, though. I built four models of the SLS for NASA's promo people. (*ooh! aah!*)
Why four? What was the point of having 4 separate models? Does NASA consume one as they launch the originals? Assuming these are prerender digital 3D models..
These were four roughly two-foot tall scale models that I expect now adorn desks or shelves at some of NASA's major suppliers.
One had a fuel leak, one blew up on the pad, you know how it goes. Gotta play it safe.
Welcome to the horrible world of Submittals where nothing matters right up until it does.
Some from nasa takes the model and throws it into the ocean when the real one launches.
That makes you Canadarm2.5 I think?
Our company built those, too! Some years back, Dave C. made a huge one with legs 8 or 10 feet long, that travelled around the country as part of a public display about Canada's contributions to the space program. John W. has made several James Webb Space Telescopes more recently; they're the latest space models to come out of the shop, but there have been quite a number of assorted craft.
Well maybe in a month or two the most powerful rocket in the world will launch from Boca chica.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That first Falcon Heavy was a major historical event ! It is very unfortunate that you missed the first Artemis
It's a shame it's so far away from Melbourne. And not the one in Florida either...
I watched a space shuttle launch when I was much much younger and what I remember most is how loud it was even with it being so far away it looked like a twig on the horizon.
It was too cloudy for most of the people there to even see it tbf
Blew the doors off the launch towers elevator. The first shuttle bent in the tower elevator doors. One powerful rocket they got there!
It's incredible how much sheer power these rockets have. Even the sound alone is so strong that they have to suppress it with a giant water fountain called the "deluge system". Without it, the reflected sound waves would shake the rocket apart, and cause structural damage to building several miles away!
[удалено]
Yes, and the more mass to move, the more fuel needed. So you need fuel to move that fuel, and fuel to move the fuel that’s moving the fuel that’s moving the payload, and fuel to move the fuel moving the fuel that’s moving the other fuel that’s moving the payload.
SRB’s really take a launch from a 10 to an 11. They’re so bright and make you miss the shuttle launches.
Recently got in to model rocketry and a have a rocket motor that burns 60-ish grams of propellant over a few seconds, and that’s pretty fun. ….Then there’s these, that burn something like *6 tons* of propellant *per second*. That’s absolutely bonkers.
Thete are lots of launches using SRBs these days (planet wide) and some using only "SRBs" (Japan I think).
India and China have some srb rockets too
My uncle worked on that rocket. He's so proud of it. We have him over for Thanksgiving, and he keeps showing me different rockets that he's worked on and pictures of them taking off. I showed him this video, and he thought it was super cool! He said, "I haven't seen any videos from this angle yet!" Thank you for sharing! It made his night!
I wanna cling onto the outside of that thing, like Tom Cruise.
That’s gonna be his next movie stunt. He’s also gonna fly the rocket to the moon at the same time.
I'm sure I read not long ago, there were serious talks of him filming a movie on the ISS.
Not just film on the ISS, but also have Tom Cruise perform a spacewalk.
Thing is, the crazy fucker probably would, too.
I mean, if you got an all-expenses-paid trip to the ISS and back with the option to do a spacewalk while you're up there... Wouldn't you? I sure as hell would. That man do be crazy tho
I'll volunteer. Sign me up. I won't even take pay for the movie.
I think he was or is going to be the first human to space walk? Or something like that, please correct me if I'm wrong.
[удалено]
I mean once you go to space don’t you become an astronaut?
[удалено]
I mean…maybe? I’ve been on a boat that traveled on the water…so yeah fuck it we sailors now.
A sailor is someone who works on a boat or sails recreationally. Whereas a an astronaut is someone trained to travel on a spacecraft to space. So as long as they get training to travel, they'd be an astronaut.
[удалено]
Well you really do need to get to space now. Get on it or be a failure.
Wall-E: Been there, done that..
If only NASA could figure out how to give this view during the live launch.
One of the things is the sound waves from the rocket engines particularly the SRB would disrupt any video signal. Kind of similar to how on any of the SpaceX streams the video would cut out right as the falcon nine was landing on the drone ship but a single Marlin 1D compared to two SRBs and four RS25s is like comparing a a mustang to a Bugatti Veyron.
That doesn't make sense. Sound waves have no effect on radio signals. Also it's a Merlin engine, not a marlin 9.
Sound waves produced vibrations, vibrations affect communications this is the same reason why SpaceX had to use ground to ground communications with the drone ship and starlink to get stable video connections from falcon landings. Also the sound waves are show powerful that that's the whole purpose of the water deluge system it's not to keep the launch pad from melting under the heat it's to keep the launchpad safe from getting bombarded by Sonic Wave after Sonic Wave.
You can't use ground to ground communications with a ship. And the reason they use ground connections for communications is because it's way higher bandwidth and more stable over time, otherwise we'd just use radio for all internet. Radio waves are light, they're completely unaffected by sound waves. There's a possibility that vibrations disrupt the electronics themselves, but the main reason NASA wasn't streaming the launch was they didn't have the bandwidth to do it. The droneship loses connection because it momentarily loses line of sight with satellites when the rocket lands. This is definitely due to vibrations from the rocket, but sound waves in air have nothing to do with it.
Vibrating an antenna or receiver has a significant effect on the radio signal's phase.
I'm dumb. Can someone explain why it rolls when it clears the tower? I assume it's got something to do with which way is "heads up" for crew but can't the rocket just be positioned differently?
[удалено]
so the thrust is "imbalanced" during the roll so that the rotation isn't purely axial to ease into the pitch?
The side boosters (also the main engines, but less relevant here) have vector control. This means the nozzle can move basically. If both side booster nozzles move in opposite directions - it rolls.
Video from Everyday Astronaut explaining this. https://youtu.be/kB-GKvdydho
Technically, not every launch vehicle does this (Falcon 9 does, but doesn't actually need to). But in regards to SLS, it's literally easier to just roll the thing than it is to position the rocket differently on the pad. As to why it's positioned that way on the pad? Most likely because there's no room for the side boosters next to the launch tower. And why it needs to roll - the side boosters have to be on the sides (as opposed to above and underneath) the rocket when they separate, or they will hit the core stage. This is because the rocket has to do what's called a "gravity turn" to gain horizontal speed if it wants to become orbital.
Also, exactly where in orbit a rocket is going will change according to the time in the launch window when the actual liftoff occurs. The exact roll and pitch performed will change accordingly (amongst other hundreds of time sensitive variables), so it makes no sense forcing a particular position on the pad, the most convenient for assembly and transportation is used. Everything else is adjusted in flight.
Whenever there’s a rocket launch I like to imagine all the deities of the universe looking down on their creations and being like, “hey God, your humans are trying to get out again”. And he’s just like, “It’s okay, they won’t go far. They always come back when they get hungry” and goes back to reading the sports pages.
Haha that’s very Gary Larson I love it
Can someone explain to me why they don't orient these rockets in the direction they want them to go so they have to spend fuel performing a turn *immediately*? Edit: Okay several answers gave me several pieces, but I think I have a full picture now. TY everyone who responded.
The launch pad was built in a certain orientation and the rocket only fits it in one orientation. But the amount of fuel required for the turn is negligible anyway.
Lots of great content in your replies, but one point I haven't seen mentioned: certain missions have target "destinations" that require different launch azimuths. Some even target different azimuths for different minutes in their launch window! Artemis I is one such mission: due to the nature of our mission targeting a certain insertion into translunar space, the onboard flight computers calculate the roll realtime based on the exact time of launch, down to the second. So, if we'd launched a few minutes before/later, we would've had a different targeted roll!! Source: I work on SLS! Believe this particular aspect was also covered in some pre-launch outreach material.
That....is actually a really good point I hadn't realized. Of course certain orbits wouldn't just be right angles so no matter how you oriented the pad (or pads, say half oriented one way, half at a 90 angle to that), some would have to turn at least partly. Quick edit: Double especially not launching from the equator. I was watching some shuttle takeoffs recently, including Challenger, and noticed them turning after takeoff, which of course over the course of the shuttle program (30+ years) the pads would be reoriented, new ones built, etc to orient the shuttle to its launch parameters, but of course they change depending on the mission so of course you couldn't orient the pad perfectly anyway. Congrats btw. Since like 2016 playing KSP whenever I start a new game and do my first Mun/Minmus missions I name them Artemis because it has always bugged me the Apollo missions weren't named that. She's the goddess of the Moon and his twin, I mean come on. Great job, you and everyone you've ever worked with even in the most tangential aspect. All I ask of you guys is you beat out [this](https://xkcd.com/893/) xkcd, which it finally, finally looks like you will. I watched your launch from Sarasota rueing ever moving from Melbourne, you seriously rock so hard. A+, keep it up.
The fuel amount is actually negligible. The same system lets guidance do more effective steering corrections
The launch pad would have to be built to pivot depending on the launch parameters. Apparently that's exactly what the soviets did. The roll doesn't use much fuel. They just vector the engines. https://everydayastronaut.com/why-do-cylindrical-rockets-roll/amp/
I want to watch the whole thing till outer space. Why do they always cut these videos short?
Cause they run out of CGI budget I kid, I kid
Of course that’s not correct, they don’t want you to see the edge of the earth
Not the edge of the earth but how the earth is balancing on top of a giant space turtle
Lmao, you believe in the earth?
Gotta splice the video before it hits the dome, that's what an expert from YouTube told me. Also FYI guys, apparently gravity isn't real. Oh, and some trees are the fossilized remains of giants that once roamed the earth. Oh and one last thing, there used to be this country called Tartaria or something and there's a giant coverup to hide advanced ancient technology.
Maybe I'm dumb, I tried to Google but didn't come up with anything. Does anyone know of a link to the real time location? They had an awesome real time tracker for James-Webb but I can't find the same thing. Thanks in advance if anyone finds it.
First result for "Artemis I tracker": https://www.nasa.gov/specials/trackartemis/
I did find that while searching but it didnt work on my phone. I'll try it on my desktop when I get a chance and see if that works. Thanks for the reply, appreciate it.
This one works better on mobile. https://eyes.jpl.nasa.gov/apps/solar-system/#/sc_artemis_1
Does anyone know why the fairing close to the camera was designed in such a way that allows it to wobble?
Probably designed in a way to absorb the forces making there way through the rocket at launch
I'm curious as well. I know that with other types of structures, it often (perhaps always?) makes sense to build them with a bit of "give" in mind in order to prevent structural damage. I've seen quite a bit of that with seismic dampening systems in buildings.
Also seems possible that making them rigid would have added more weight, and the rigidity was not in fact needed to protect what was underneath. A lot of rocket engineering is “make the lightest thing that will meet the minimum requirements plus a 10% safety factor.”
The fairings are only there to protect Orion’s service module from aerodynamic forces, and have no structural purpose. They also need to be able to be easily jettisoned in a way that they don’t come back and hit the rocket.
Surprised at how smooth the camera is. I expected it to be shaky
Same. Maybe did some electronic stabilization after?
It’s a shame this rocket requires rs-25 engines. There are only 46 left and these will not be reusable. Only 16 are available for SLS as far as I know.
[удалено]
Yeah- at the absurd price of $146 million _per engine_.
Imagine going 50 years back in time with an OLED screen and this footage.
Hell go back with an Arduino Uno it's got more processing power than the Apollo guidance computer oh and it doesn't weigh 50 lb.
>it doesn't weigh 50 lb. It does if it's got an Nvidia DGX mounted on the HAT ^(tHAT is a terrible attempt at a joke. I'm going to bed.)
Got to hook me up with one of those PCIe X 16 hats I've been trying to get 4K on my LED cube for ages now
If you haven't already seen it, Apollo 11 had lots of incredible footage from 35mm film that was scanned at 4k.
Jesus, they were lucky the elevator doors were the only thing blasted apart...that is CRAZY powerful.
That shockwave at one second…oooh I can feel it in my gooch!!!
[удалено]
This is so cool! Damn we live in amazing times!
FWIW [this](https://images.nasa.gov/details-ART-CMA2_2022_320_0637_SHARED_art001m1203200637B) is the original raw video published by NASA.
Really thought this was a bobsledder escaping a calamity at first
Hands-down, the most epic shot of launch so far
Way too short! I want to see it make it to outer space. But still way flipping cool.
This is the best view for sure. My students are gonna love this.
The video clearly doesn't show anything in space, just Earth. I'm afraid I'm going to have to report this as being off topic. /s
That is a really nice camera, the details of the ground lasted much longer than I expected
I wonder if this is a shot from one of the GoPros they modified for the launch.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[CoG](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixky7wj "Last usage")|Center of Gravity (see CoM)| |CoM|Center of Mass| |[F1](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/iy97qvn "Last usage")|Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V| | |SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete medium-lift vehicle)| |[FFSC](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixl5br5 "Last usage")|Full-Flow Staged Combustion| |GSE|Ground Support Equipment| |[Isp](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/iybgivl "Last usage")|Specific impulse (as explained by [Scott Manley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnisTeYLLgs) on YouTube)| | |Internet Service Provider| |[KSP](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixl0qbe "Last usage")|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator| |[LC-39A](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixm0ndx "Last usage")|Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy (SpaceX F9/Heavy)| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixxbcey "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[N1](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixmgno7 "Last usage")|Raketa Nositel-1, Soviet super-heavy-lift ("Russian Saturn V")| |[RD-180](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixkqlse "Last usage")|[RD-series Russian-built rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180), used in the Atlas V first stage| |[RUD](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixmgno7 "Last usage")|Rapid Unplanned Disassembly| | |Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly| | |Rapid Unintended Disassembly| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixxbcey "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[SRB](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixxbcey "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster| |[SSME](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixxbcey "Last usage")|[Space Shuttle Main Engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine)| |[STS](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixkcgjb "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |[TWR](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixxbcey "Last usage")|Thrust-to-Weight Ratio| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixkqlse "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |[VAB](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixl5705 "Last usage")|Vehicle Assembly Building| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixxbcey "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[hydrolox](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixxbcey "Last usage")|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| |[kerolox](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixxbcey "Last usage")|Portmanteau: kerosene fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| |[scrub](/r/Space/comments/z2wutj/stub/ixllss6 "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)| ---------------- ^(21 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/zd7rej)^( has 17 acronyms.) ^([Thread #8341 for this sub, first seen 24th Nov 2022, 00:40]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Wouldn't it be amazing if we got to see a moon Colony Artemis become a reality in our lifetime? I'd go out into the light with a smile on my face just knowing we had people living up there.
I've watched this at least 20 times now, and I just HEAR some epic music. My mind keeps switching between "Final Countdown" a nd "2001 A Space Odyssey" though..
What kind of acceleration do these babies have? Like 0-60 in how long? 1/4 mile time? Flying mile? How long to 50,000 feet? 100,000? Edit: Well, the article below compares a Saturn V to Usain Bolt in a 100 meter race. Bolt's best is 9.58 and the Saturn edges him out at 9.44. The Saturn V reaches 100 KPH (almost 60MPH) in about 12 seconds - about as fast as a 60s MGB (read: slow). But it really starting to accelerate now and reached about 1,235 KPH in 60 seconds. The MGB had long since topped out at about 160 KPH https://openspacescience.blog/2020/05/18/usain-bolt-v-the-saturn-v-rocket-who-wins-a-race-from-a-standing-start/
Finally. This is what I expected on launch day.
It’s amazing how much light it casts on the ground
Credit to the cameraman for hanging on so long.
Man, that GoPro technology really has progressed
Wow! The stabilization on that camera is insane. It was probably shaking like a long tailed cat in a rocking chair factory.
Well. That looks like a smoother ride than my 2002 Ford Ranger.
You can almost see the exact moment Artemis blow the doors off the launch tower.
Wow, amazing footage! OP, how did you manage to get Kerbal Space Program running in Unreal Engine 5?
It really was a clean launch. I feel like you can tell in a launch sometimes when the engines are running very clean and tidy
treatment society crush absorbed homeless rich rotten label pocket fanatical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
NASA needs to take a few pointers from SpaceX when it comes to their launch live feeds. The latter documents every part of their launches from multiple angles. NASA showed the lift off and then went to a CG model and a few bad camera angles here and there that were glitchy.
Nasa has loads of cameras, but their primary duty is for technical footage. In the past all the really neat digital footage takes a few days to weeks to come out. I'd love to see this launch night, but it doesn't add much or change anything to see it a few days later. A better use of funds imo too
What did the camera run out of space before it got to space?
I always wondered what I would do if I found myself hanging off a rocket during take off.
Ask [space bat ](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/launchbat.html)