Recommended Posts

three weeks later after everyone has dispersed and the field has settled down.........

 

post-546174-0-61203200-1434061718.jpg

 

2 extra shots...hard landing...

 

post-546174-0-19650100-1434062151.jpg

 

back home...

 

post-546174-0-60585800-1434062183.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1

yeah Sam is awesome. If you look on the ESA youtube page she has posted a lot of videos and they recently also did a 3D tour of the Columbus Module.

 

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/International_Space_Station/Highlights/International_Space_Station_panoramic_tour

 

That is the link to the 3D tour of the Columbus Module. You can click on the Red Circles on it to get more information and even links to a few of Sam's Videos.

  • Like 1

Today's news.......

 

This video is of the departure of the capsule...it actually shows how the docking adapter works and shows the separation......good video...

 

Expedition 43 welcomed home....

 

And it would't be a good day unless I posted something..........different.........."SpaceSquatch".............. :woot:

 

post-546174-0-49437900-1434211480.jpg

 

http://www.space.com/29658-astronaut-statues-invade-seattle-museum-art.html

 

 

 

Ah right I understand more now how the latch system works I always wondered how they removed the spike [if I might call it that] used to latch onto the station

Pretty neat eh!......cheers

  • Like 1

The Bigelow expandable module will be launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 to the ISS this year..TBA......So here is a bit of info on the unit....

 

Video showing design and use...

 

Picture of packed unit for launch...

post-546174-0-93805700-1434223094.jpg

 

Prototype space station....

post-546174-0-83926800-1434223137.jpg

 

and an infographic......

post-546174-0-25796500-1434223207.jpg

 

http://spaceref.biz/company/bigelow/2015-could-be-a-milestone-year-for-bigelow-aerospace.html

 

http://www.space.com/28855-inflatable-space-station-habitat-bigelow.html

 

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/03/12/54848/

 

BEAM goes up on CRS-8, currently scheduled for September 2.

BEAM 2 will be equipped for use as an EVA airlock on Bigelow's Alpha Station propulsion/docking module. Prop/docking module at left in the photo & BEAM 2 in the patent drawing at the bottom. BEAM 2 is already under construction.

yru3yhaj.jpg

US20120318926A1-20121220-D00000.png

  • Like 1

Is there much difference in landing force of the Russian technique of solid ground with boosters versus the US water and parachute type and whats the advantage and disadvantages of both?

It depends on the spacecraft.

The Soyuz single parachute landing comes down at about 7.2 m/s then the solids fire for a 1.5 m/s touchdown, but on some flights the solid landing rockets have failed resulting in a hard landing and injuries. Astronauts have described this as like being in a car crash.

Soyuz then falls over on its side, or rolls down a hill, but the real excitement has come when it has overshot the landing zone and gone into a body of water. Soyuz 23 landed on a frozen lake, which . didn't go particularly well. The parachute filled with water, causing the escape hatch to be submerged. They weren't found until the next day.

A nominal US Orion water splashdown is at 7.6 m/s, and at worst about 11 m/s with only 2 parachutes open. The harnesses holds the spacecraft so the lower edge slices into the water for a much softer splashdown.

Dragon 2's 3 parschute water splashdown is at 4.9 m/s, a lot gentler, and it too lands lower edge first to further soften the solashdown.

Dragon 2's Soyuz-style 3 parachute landing fires the SuperDraco liquid thrusters at about 10 meters, then it comes to a near hover before gently settling on its 4 legs. Like a helicopter.

Full propulsive Dragon 2 landings (no parachutes) would start the SuperDracos at about 7,000 feet at low throttle and decelerate to also do a helicopter style landing.

If the SuprrDraco engines don't fire properly at 7,000 feet the parachutes are a backup and Dragon 2 can do a land touchdown without them. It would come down on the rear legs first then settle on the front legs.

Yup. Dragon 2 has four landing modes.

What happens with these inflatable modules if they get pierced by micro-metrorites or debris?

They're actually expandable rather than inflatable. Inflatable hints at a balloon which they really aren't. The Bigelow station modules have a wall thickness of .4 to .45 meter and they have a metal core.

NASA tests proposed ISS module designs by firing up to a 17 mm metal sphere at them at a velocity of 7,000 m/s (15,600 mph) using their (totally outrageous) Hypervelocity Gun.

Your typical ISS module wall ends up with an 8-10 cm hole blasted through most of its metal & fabric layers, usually stopping at the last layer.

The Bigelow module wall stopped the projectile cold in its outer layers, and it remained airtight. They kept trying but ended up breaking not the module wall but the Hypervelocity Gun.

  • Like 1

Better yet, because its mostly hydrogen-rich polymers the structure is a good radiation shield. For the DS (deep space) versions they can add water layers to enhance the shield. Add a boron compound to the water layers and it's a good neutron shield too.

  • Like 1

So much for a smooth Soyuz landing....

http://www.spacedaily.com/m/reports/Hard_landing_as_three_astronauts_return_to_Earth_from_ISS_999.html

'Hard landing' as three astronauts return to Earth from ISS

By Anna SMOLCHENKO

Moscow (AFP) June 11, 2015

>

Both Russian mission control and NASA reported no glitches, but Shkaplerov, the commander of the Soyuz spacecraft, said their landing was "hard and quick."

"For some reason, we were spinning," he said in comments broadcast on national television and cited by Russian journalists. No other details were provided.

The 43-year-old cosmonaut added however that "everything worked accurately."

>

DocM...you are right...check out the pictures I posted...one was a bad flare...the other was a very large dust cloud...if it wasn't for the form fitting seats, someone may have had a back injury.....Cheers..

 

Found it...

post-546174-0-72242300-1434252755.jpg

 

We have talked about space junk, micro meteoroids, frozen loose materials but not asteroids. Well, they are not really an issue yet due to the low earth orbit but we do have the occasional shower, about a dozen a year, a lot of which are predictable and if an issue arises, the station can lower or raise position. Drills are held for such an event with spare oxygen tanks, and a getaway vehicle if needed. The ISS is the size of a football field with solar panels of approximately one acre. This would be more likely, by area, than the station itself, which has a small cross section. But...stuff happens....

 

While talking about flying large rocks...we have asteroids of many sizes and some traveling at amazing speeds...some are deemed near earth objects that need attention....NASA has an updated list so you can see what disaster is in the making.......(joking...I think...you decide)

 

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/

 

Asteroid naming conventions....There are strict rules on naming. Once one is found, it is given a place holder number and the red tape begins...they generally require standard for the naming but you can put in suggestions...general rules....

 

 

 

When an asteroid is first discovered, it is given a provisional designation like "1999 RQ36."  The first four digits tell you what year it was discovered.  The last four characters tell you when in that year it was discovered. 1999 RQ36 was the 916th object observed in the first half of September, 1999.

Once the asteroid's orbit is precisely known, it is issued an official sequential number.  1999 RQ36 was the 101,955th asteroid to receive a number, so it is now formally known as 101955. Only about 5% of numbered asteroids have been given names.

When asteroids are discovered, they are initially named with numbers and letters encoding when they were first spotted.  The Minor Planet Center at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory gives them these alphanumeric codes.

The asteroid's discoverer can propose to the International Astronomical Union to give the asteroid a formal name.  The International Astronomical Union has established rules to guide the selection of names for objects located in different parts of the solar system.  Here are the guidelines for naming (101955) 1999 RQ36:

Proposed names must be:

no more than 16 characters long (including any spaces or punctuation);
preferably one word;
pronounceable (in some language);
written using Latin characters (transliterations of names from languages not written using Latin characters are acceptable);
non-offensive;
not identical with or even too similar to an existing name of a minor planet or natural planetary satellite.
In addition, because (101955) 1999 RQ36 is a near-Earth object, its name should be from mythology, but the name should not be one associated with creation or underworld themes because those themes are used for other types of bodies in the solar system. The mythological name can come from any culture from any part of the world. In very rare cases, this definition has been stretched to include fictional mythological characters. There are some exceptions to these rules, and entries of names that are not mythological will not be disqualified. However, the International Astronomical Union is likelier to approve a name that is from mythology than one that is not.

http://www.planetary.org/get-involved/contests/osirisrex/guidelines.html

 

The reason I chose this topic was because of a very special naming.....

 

post-546174-0-48361900-1434333782.jpg

 

 

The legacy of Leonard Nimoy has reached the Final Frontier: on June 2, a 6-mile-wide (9.6 km) asteroid was named 4864 Nimoy in his honor. The asteroid travels within the main asteroid belt

  • Like 1

DocM...you are right...check out the pictures I posted...one was a bad flare...the other was a very large dust cloud...if it wasn't for the form fitting seats, someone may have had a back injury.....Cheers..

 

Found it...

attachicon.gifTMA15M.jpg

 

Wow. Hard landing indeed ... glad they're all okay. Spinning and a hard landing indicates they came in a little hot .. not something you want on a ground-based capsule landing that isn't using much in the way of impact absorption.

 

I've been a big fan of Soyuz over the years, but I'm starting to rethink my position. Yikes. Too many problems lately.

  • Like 1

Which is why the Commercial Crew Program is so important. So much has come out of it for relatively low cost as compared to other programs. This is why it is so easy to pick out the "corruptables in the House and Senate". Common sense will dictate and we know what will happen when a "death" occurs due to short sightedness.....Cheers...... :)

  • Like 1

I think even if the CCP gets blown out, SpaceX will continue on. It's not like they need the permission of the U.S. Government, or (really) the money anymore. Not with the success they've already had. Dragon 2 is almost ready for flight, and the hard parts in its' Dev Cycle are finished. They'll have plenty of customers, including the U.S. Government if everything goes to plan.

  • Like 1

I think even if the CCP gets blown out, SpaceX will continue on. It's not like they need the permission of the U.S. Government, or (really) the money anymore. Not with the success they've already had. Dragon 2 is almost ready for flight, and the hard parts in its' Dev Cycle are finished. They'll have plenty of customers, including the U.S. Government if everything goes to plan.

In fact, they have so much commercial work out there to pay the bills, it almost seems like they are the ones helping others right now. As Elon has said in the past, before the onslaught of work...That SpaceX would continue at a slower pace if necessary, but would continue.....Which is why I really hope they put it up on their own shortly and 'buzz" the station with a photo op.....basically tells Boeing .....The new kids are in town, and there not going away!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
    • Just to understand: your solution to getting rid of an online password manager is...another online password manager?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!