Your video, Space Shuttle Discovery's Final Launch As Seen from Airplane, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 3 Badge!

And of course, she's looking at the camera. Such a narcissist.

Remember about five or ten years ago when she was on the cover of every goddamn magazine even remotely related to entertainment? I'm sure if Popular Mechanics had asked her to be on the cover she would have done it, provided they picked her up in a limo, supplied Evian water, brought her trainer, catered truffles, pâté de fois gras, and snake urine soup, let her bring tamarin monkeys, wove a carpet made from baby hair for her to walk on, commissioned Philip Glass to write a symphony in her honor, bought her the Yankees, made her pope, killed Ben Affleck, and gave her a ride home on the space shuttle.

Your video, Feynman shows why the Challenger space shuttle exploded, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

So you know, the video this page was linked to has been removed from the host site because it was an unauthorized ripping and reposting of my video. I'm the original creator and owner of the video "Space Shuttle Night Reentry" on YouTube. I understand that you personally were only linking to the copy and had no way of knowing the uploader had done it without authorization, but I just wanted to mention this matter to you. I make it a habit to screen the web for such rip-offs and have them taken down.

Anyway, feel free to embed a link to my video on YouTube (under the same username as here, TheJediCharles) which maintains my rightful control and ownership. I never discouraged that, which makes the act of ripping my video for reposting on another video site particularly uncalled for, but that's not your fault.

Thank you and sorry for the bother,
TheJediCharles

The big difference is that the space shuttle has to travel really really fast (more than 17000 mph) "sideways" to stay in orbit while a balloon goes almost straight up. When coming back down a balloon-doodad can just fall straight down with a little parachute because it never reaches any significant speed.
A space shuttle has to slow down a lot and they do that by diving into the atmosphere belly-first, compressing the air in front of it. This heats up the air and slows down the shuttle.

>> ^BoneRemake:

So my major thought just now was the atmosphere..
although I will go and learn for myself, right now I wonder why they did not need head shields or anything like that.
Just where oh where does the atmosphere begin exactly/end exactly, Why does a space craft from NASA need some ceramic plating while this lil doodad needed naught but shaved expanding foam.

The footage has definitely been sped up. *Timeshift. >> ^Payback:

It is speeded up if it's not fake. They don't orbit that fast. Also, it's not long enough to make a decent inspection.

[redacted]

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

The speeds and impacts needed for the successful recovery of a hardened rocket booster with no organic lifeforms
is vastly different than the parachute system needed for a passenger vehicle. The "wight" issue isn't relative to the strength factor needed for the parachute, but the size needed to slow said weight. Once you get to a certain weight, you get the snowball effect. The weight from the size of the parachute adds a significant weight value as to need a even larger parachute. Then you need more fuel to carry that parachute and still accomplish the same flight time, which in turn needs a slightly larger chute. Once you reach a certain weight of plane and want to carry a parachute, the plane becomes more of a parachute deployment vessel and less whatever it was originally designed for.
It is why they don't have such a system on the space shuttle for the "just in case", because in reality for most weights such a system it has to be the primary case consideration and not added on as a periphery.
Also, large air liners aren't designed to hang from the tail of the air craft. The tail maybe the strongest part of the plain, but I very well doubt the frame could handle the stress without major redesign. And then the nose of the aircraft would also take the full impact at ground level, which would most likely split the air craft at the wings or result in other catastrophic failure of the air craft. Also, many air line crashes result from catastrophic loss of control or destruction of major control surfaces making placement and successful deployment of such a system without causing a complete air break up an engineering nightmare. Parachutes for small planes and gliders has been around for a long time. Commercial jet liners, as they stand, are extremely safe compared to their terrestrial brothers. The feat of adding on a parachute for these giants of size of science isn't as easy as adding on a piece of cloth, I'm afraid. As a person who has a fear of flying, nothing would make me feel more at ease than such a system, but gravity is a harsh mistress.

>> ^EMPIRE:
Well, you can't forget that the space shuttle rocket boosters and tank are all recovered because they parachute down after use. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard producing a parachute strong enough to support an airliner. (and it doesn't even have to be a single one. It could be sets of 3 for example on several key structural points). The problem with speed is if the plane is going at least at cruise speed, and suddenly deploys the parachutes, it's an extremely fast stop, and people inside would break their necks. Of course multiple stage 'chutes like Larsarus mentioned would do the trick.


Yeah, was thinking about that too. I think you'd need to anchor the majority of the chutes to where the wings connect with the fuselage. Thats where the weight of the aircraft is carried in flight, and I guess thats the best place to balance the weight between front and back. You'd then need sort of guide shoots at the tail and nose to correct its pitch. Even then, if you lose a wing like this plane did, and your not going in nose first then I think the next problem is rolling...

basically, rocket boosters aren'y too concerned about which way they fall, as long as its slowly.

The speeds and impacts needed for the successful recovery of a hardened rocket booster with no organic lifeforms
is vastly different than the parachute system needed for a passenger vehicle. The "wight" issue isn't relative to the strength factor needed for the parachute, but the size needed to slow said weight. Once you get to a certain weight, you get the snowball effect. The weight from the size of the parachute adds a significant weight value as to need a even larger parachute (also note that empty rocket boosters are much lighter than full rocket boosters). Then you need more fuel to carry that parachute and still accomplish the same flight time, which in turn needs a slightly larger chute. Once you reach a certain weight of plane and want to carry a parachute, the plane becomes more of a parachute deployment vessel and less whatever it was originally designed for.

It is why they don't have such a system on the space shuttle for the "just in case", because in reality for most weights such a system has to be the primary methodology and not added on as a periphery.

Also, large air liners aren't designed to hang from the tail of the air craft. The tail maybe the strongest part of the plane, but I very well doubt the frame could handle the stress without major redesign. And then the nose of the aircraft would also take the full impact at ground level, which would most likely split the air craft at the wings or result in other catastrophic failure of the air craft. Also, many air line crashes result from catastrophic loss of control or destruction of major control surfaces making placement and successful deployment of such a system without causing a complete air break up an engineering nightmare. Parachutes for small planes and gliders has been around for a long time. Commercial jet liners, as they stand, are extremely safe compared to their terrestrial brothers. The feat of adding on a parachute for these giants of size of science isn't as easy as adding on a piece of cloth, I'm afraid. As a person who has a fear of flying, nothing would make me feel more at ease than such a system, but gravity is a harsh mistress.

I would wager even if such a system could be made to work, cases that it could be made for would be less than 1% of crashes that occur. Getting smashes by weather, misdirected my flight control or TCAS or some other human error, or the dozens of other common flight disasters would be helped little by a functional parachute system.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Well, you can't forget that the space shuttle rocket boosters and tank are all recovered because they parachute down after use. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard producing a parachute strong enough to support an airliner. (and it doesn't even have to be a single one. It could be sets of 3 for example on several key structural points). The problem with speed is if the plane is going at least at cruise speed, and suddenly deploys the parachutes, it's an extremely fast stop, and people inside would break their necks. Of course multiple stage 'chutes like Larsarus mentioned would do the trick.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^EMPIRE:
I have no idea why not... But it should be fucking mandatory.
There's no good excuse not to have this on all smaller planes and gliders. I doubt the extra couple of thousands dollars I'm guessing this system could cost, isn't too expensive if it can save your life.
I also always wondered as well why commercial passanger planes couldn't have a similar system installed (yes I know they travel much faster, but still there has to be a way).


Rans S-9 Chaos gross weight: 700 lbs.
747 gross weight: Around 650,000 lbs.

It's not the speed difference that prevents parachute systems from being used on commercial airliners, it's the massive weights.


Well, you can't forget that the space shuttle rocket boosters and tank are all recovered because they parachute down after use. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard producing a parachute strong enough to support an airliner. (and it doesn't even have to be a single one. It could be sets of 3 for example on several key structural points). The problem with speed is if the plane is going at least at cruise speed, and suddenly deploys the parachutes, it's an extremely fast stop, and people inside would break their necks. Of course multiple stage 'chutes like Larsarus mentioned would do the trick.

>> ^Hybrid:

Yep, it's from the I.S.S. or whatever the shuttle is to dock with.>> ^Tymbrwulf:
How the hell do they film this?



dont be silly they throw a camara out on a peace of string , then once its in place , they let go of the string and do the rotatoin , then one of the guys on the shuttel sticks hand out grabs tring and reels camara back in.

its obvouse when u think about it

Yep, it's from the I.S.S. or whatever the shuttle is to dock with.>> ^Tymbrwulf:

How the hell do they film this?

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

How the hell do they film this?


I wonder the same thing. Maybe from the space station?

Air on the G String by J.S. Bach
>> ^Xax:

Forgot to use the parking brake.
Can anyone give me some information about that song?

Your video, Space Shuttle Backflip, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.