search results matching tag: Space Shuttle

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (174)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (13)     Comments (204)   

LIVE: NASA rollout their newest and most powerful rocket SLS

BSR says...

Don't expect much action but you can check on the progress of moving this giant rocket with a giant crawler. Much like how the Space Shuttle was transported to the launch site.

C-note (Member Profile)

If Rockets were Transparent

blacklotus90 says...

From the YT description:
Launch to orbit in real time Fuel Burn and Staging of the
1) Saturn V
2) Space Shuttle
3) Falcon Heavy
4) Space Launch System (SLS)
Launching from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39

Red = Kerosene RP-1
Orange = Liquid Hydrogen LH2
Blue = Liquid Oxygen LOX

The Real Sound of Falcon Heavy STP-2 Launch+Booster Landing

BSR says...

Living in Cape Canaveral during the space shuttle era I was able to see all but 5 shuttle launches. Night launches were the best.

This video is about 10 miles from the launch pad. When you get to the 5 mile area to watch, the sound is much sharper and near impossible to experience without ear protection.

Why SpaceX Built A Stainless Steel Starship

Payback says...

You built a space shuttle?




...out of a DeLorean?

Mordhaus said:

Thanks to the stainless steel construction, flux dispersal is generated at an optimum level from the Flux Capacitor, providing the entire vehicle and its passengers a smooth passage through the space-time continuum during temporal displacement.

Hypersonic Missile Nonproliferation

Mordhaus says...

A big part of the Zero's reputation came from racking up kills in China against a lot of second-rate planes with poorly-trained pilots. After all, there was a reason that the Republic of China hired the American Volunteer Group to help out during the Second Sino-Japanese War – Chinese pilots had a hard time cutting it.

The Wildcat was deficient in many ways versus the Zero, but it still had superior firepower via ammo loadout. The Zero carried very few 20mm rounds, most of it's ammo was 7.7mm. There are records of Japanese pilots unloading all their 7.7mm ammo on a Wildcat and it was still flyable. On the flip side, the Wildcat had an ample supply of .50 cal.

Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa was able to score seven kills against Japanese planes in one day with a Wildcat.

Yes, the discovery of the Akutan Zero helped the United States beat this plane. But MilitaryFactory.com notes that the Hellcat's first flight was on June 26, 1942 – three weeks after the raid on Dutch Harbor that lead to the fateful crash-landing of the Mitsubishi A6M flown by Tadayoshi Koga.

Marine Captain Kenneth Walsh described how he knew to roll to the right at high speed to lose a Zero on his tail. Walsh would end World War II with 17 kills. The Zero also had trouble in dives, thanks to a bad carburetor.

We were behind in technology for many reasons, but once the Hellcat started replacing the Wildcat, the Japanese Air Superiority was over. Even if they had maintained a lead in technology, as Russia showed in WW2, quantity has a quality all of it's own. We were always going to be able to field more pilots and planes than Japan would be able to.

As far as Soviet rockets, once we were stunned by the launch of Sputnik, we kicked into high gear. You can say what you will of reliability, consistency, and dependability, but exactly how many manned Soviet missions landed on the moon and returned? Other than Buran, which was almost a copy of our Space Shuttle, how many shuttles did the USSR field?

The Soviets did build some things that were very sophisticated and were, for a while, better than what we could field. The Mig-31 is a great example. We briefly lagged behind but have a much superior air capability now. The only advantages the Mig and Sukhoi have is speed, they can fire all their missiles and flee. If they are engaged however, they will lose if pilots are equally skilled.

As @newtboy has said, I am sure that Russia and China are working on military advancements, but the technology simply doesn't exist to make a Hypersonic missile possible at this point.

China is fielding a man portable rifle that can inflict pain, not kill, and there is no hard evidence that it works.

There is no proof that the Chinese have figured out the technology for an operational rail gun on land, let alone the sea. We also have created successful railguns, the problem is POWERING them repeatedly, especially onboard a ship. If they figured out a power source that will pull it off, then it is possible, but there is no concrete proof other than a photo of a weapon attached to a ship. Our experts are guessing they might have it functional by 2025, might...

China has shown that long range QEEC is possible. It has been around but they created the first one capable of doing it from space. The problem is, they had to jury rig it. Photons, or light, can only go through about 100 kilometers of optic fiber before getting too dim to reliably carry data. As a result, the signal needs to be relayed by a node, which decrypts and re-encrypts the data before passing it on. This process makes the nodes susceptible to hacking. There are 32 of these nodes for the Beijing-Shanghai quantum link alone.

The main issue with warfare today is that it really doesn't matter unless the battle is between one of the big 3. Which means that ANY action could provoke Nuclear conflict. Is Russia going to hypersonic missile one of our carriers without Nukes become an option on the table as a retaliation? Is China going to railgun a ship and risk nuclear war?

Hell no, no more than we would expect to blow up some major Russian or Chinese piece of military hardware without severe escalation! Which means we can create all the technological terrors we like, because we WON'T use them unless they somehow provide us a defense against nuclear annihilation.

So just like China and Russia steal stuff from us to build military hardware to counter ours, if they create something that is significantly better, we will began trying to duplicate it. The only thing which would screw this system to hell is if one of us actually did begin developing a successful counter measure to nukes. If that happens, both of the other nations are quite likely to threaten IMMEDIATE thermonuclear war to prevent that country from developing enough of the counter measures to break the tie.

scheherazade said:

When you have neither speed nor maneuverability, it's your own durability that is in question, not the opponents durability.

It took the capture of the Akutan zero, its repair, and U.S. flight testing, to work out countermeasures to the zero.

The countermeasures were basically :
- One surprise diving attack and run away with momentum, or just don't fight them.
- Else bait your pursuer into a head-on pass with an ally (Thatch weave) (which, is still a bad position, only it's bad for everyone.)

Zero had 20mm cannons. The F4F had .50's. The F4F did not out gun the zero. 20mms only need a couple rounds to down a plane.

Durability became a factor later in the war, after the U.S. brought in better planes, like the F4U, F6F, Mustang, etc... while the zero stagnated in near-original form, and Japan could not make planes like the N1K in meaningful quanitties, or even provide quality fuel for planes like the Ki84 to use full power.

History is history. We screwed up at the start of WW2. Hubris/pride/confidence made us dismiss technologies that came around to bite us in the ass hard, and cost a lot of lives.




Best rockets since the 1960's? Because it had the biggest rocket?
What about reliability, consistency, dependability.
If I had to put my own life on the line and go to space, and I had a choice, I would pick a Russian rocket.

-scheherazade

Liberal Redneck - Space Forcing Families Apart

How a 1929 Silent Film Created the Countdown to Launch

BSR says...

Before the space shuttle would launch, the main engine would ignite first. After six seconds the two solid rocket boosters would ignite and the shuttle would launch.

The six second delay was necessary because the main engine ignition would rock the "stack" or the entire assembly of the shuttle, fuel tank and boosters forward. It took 6 seconds for the stack to return to the upright position.

This 6 second period of sway was referred to as "twang."

Figured I'd pass that little bit of info on to you in case you're ever asked about twang on a radio quiz show.

eric3579 said:

Today i learned the water used during a launch is used to dampen sound waves.

The LA Speed Check

Best of the best Shuttle launches

siftbot says...

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Best of the best Shuttle launches

Best of the best Shuttle launches

Is this a negligent or accidental discharge of a gun?

harlequinn says...

That's not true either. Following their directions doesn't mean you won't be negligent. Not following their direction doesn't mean you are negligent. You're conflating things. Each situation needs to be judged on it's own merits.

Removing safety features is not negligence unless you make the firearm unsafe. None of my firearms have a firing pin block from the factory. They're all safe firearms. My triggers have been lightened - they're still safe firearms. I've seen triggers lightened so much that they are unsafe. As before, each instance is judged on it's own merits.

I'll soon finish my mechanical engineering degree (and don't you know it, I'm looking for a job in firearm designing), so I do know a little about this stuff. Whilst with the proper equipment you can detect crack propagation or premature wear, this is not done on consumer products like firearms. That's why I wrote "this sort of item". Unless you're going to spend more money than the firearm is worth trying to detect cracks, you won't know it has cracked until you visually identify it.

Sure proper cleaning and gun inspection is part of having a safe, well functioning firearm. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's an aeroplane or space shuttle in inspections. Go ask your local gunsmith - the best one you can find - how many times he's done x-ray diffraction on a firearm for preventative maintenance. Chances are he's going to say zero.

Spend 5 seconds on google and I know you will find multiple videos of factory condition firearms discharging unintentionally. You'll also find recall information affecting millions of firearms - firearms at risk of unintentional discharge.

I should have qualified "much". More or less than 2500 rounds a year?

newtboy said:

You're only obliged to follow directions if you don't want to be negligent.
No injury does not mean no negligence. Not following safety instructions is negligent, as is removing safety features, why you do it or the fact that others are also negligent does not erase the negligence.
You can certainly identify wear patterns and or cracks before this type of discharge occurs in 99.9999999% of cases. Proper cleaning and inspections are part of gun safety.
Not lately, but in the past, yes. I've never seen an unmodified gun fire unintentionally, but I have seen poorly modified guns 'misfire' on many occasions.

Seventeen Seconds of Fuel Remained

BSR says...

I was 14 when they landed on the moon. I remember watching it live on TV. I was fascinated by the space program and I still am. I eventually moved from NJ to Cape Canaveral in 1980. Got see all but 5 space shuttle launches in person, plus many rocket launches. It was a great time.

RFlagg (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon