Off camera, Astronaut Taylor bounces around in a tallow tree before reorienting his trajectory towards the pond....should have been holding the camera...Those are 2 Estes D engines on his back

I don't see anything clearly flying away from Earth's gravity here. Not enough information to deduce the distances by eye alone - these things might be flying in the atmosphere or simply passing between Earth and the Camera. The latter seems much more likely, considering the perceived size of the objects and the distances involved. I'm guessing this is what satellites or space debris on orbital trajectories would look like.

The flaring is interesting though, I wonder what causes that.

We're faced with the same issue up here in Alaska. Instead of blowing it into trucks though we shoot it on a parabolic trajectory that lands it somewhere in Canada.

>> ^kymbos:

An empire in decline, on an accelerating trajectory.


All the empire in decline talk seems a bit short sighted to me. How long have women had the right to vote? How long have blacks had equal rights? The last 100 years has seen an enormous upward trajectory to go with the downward stuff that's happening in recent memory. Things are still 'up' from the days of McCarthy and a commie behind every Bush.

An empire in decline, on an accelerating trajectory.

>> ^PHJF:

Lunar!?!?
Who the shit gives a shit about the moon anymore (unless it's Phobos)?!?! What is this, 1960?


If you want to go to mars, having a base on the moon is a good first step. And while a direct trip to the mars is still physically a possibility, a useful staging ground could be the moon. Water is heavy, and the discovery of polar water on the moon means you could drastically reduce takeoff weight by supplying water from the moon. Also, this is a very advanced rocket that could see use elsewhere. Most rockets don't burn in a controllable way; once you start them, they go until they run out of fuel. More over, most don't allow for thrust throttling, wide open throttle until the fuel depletes. And on top of all that, it is able to vector its thrust that is being dynamically altered to keep a relatively clean trajectory.

Another way to look at it is the moon is a good place to practice ferrying people. Might as well use your own back yard (the moon: 384,400 km away) than a distance planet (Mars: 56 million km away at the closet point) for a technology test bed.

Yeah. All those world class skeet shooters are really retarded, too. Cause this is sooooo easy to do.


In reply to this comment by westy:
Tis video / show is retarded.

the clay pigoin is shot at the same trajectory each time so the guy just has to launch the ball at a certain time interval after launch into the same position.

obviously that's still hard but you would hope that sumone that throws balls all day for a living could do this.



the program makes out that he is working out where to throw the ball and aiming at the target when in reality he could be blind folded and told to throw the ball at a spot a certain amount of time after a noise and you would get the same result.

Tis video / show is retarded.

the clay pigoin is shot at the same trajectory each time so the guy just has to launch the ball at a certain time interval after launch into the same position.

obviously that's still hard but you would hope that sumone that throws balls all day for a living could do this.



the program makes out that he is working out where to throw the ball and aiming at the target when in reality he could be blind folded and told to throw the ball at a spot a certain amount of time after a noise and you would get the same result.

He's on a strong upward trajectory

It's all about trajectory. You launch at an angle and force that compensates for drift and earth movement, etc. I bet they expected it to land anywhere within a few miles as it's a chute recovery system. Rockets don't fire on high-wind days because it throws trajectory off.

Yep, expert over here. This guy.>> ^Fletch:

>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Sagemind:
Actually, considering how high it went up, It's quite amazing how close to it's original launch site it landed.

I thought the same thing, if that would of hit someone...ouch.

Was it just luck or does it guide itself at all on the way down? It just seems SO improbable that it would come back down so damned close!
Do you actually think Carmack can design an engine nowadays that isn't on rails? Just because you can see all that landscape doesn't mean the rocket can actually go there. The only way back is through the same boring airspace it had already cleared.

Well, they did say they're not really sure what's going to happen. The animation is just one possible trajectory of events. But I don't think it's an unlikely one. You just noted that the cloud is moving at 1.2% of light speed - and it's still accelerating. The cloud isn't a single body, but I'd guess that for any bit of mass, the only relevant gravitational forces are the black hole and the rest of the cloud. Depending on just how close it passes and how fast it's moving (.03c? 0.05c?), there won't be enough tangential acceleration due to the black hole's gravity to deflect large amounts of matter from the nearest part of the cloud during the first pass.

It would be more spectacular if it was shredded just enough to form a bright spiraling ring around the hole....
>> ^Payback:

I have a problem with the animation. It treats the cloud as an entity of X mass. It isn't. It's a cloud. The main part of the cloud wouldn't fly by, it would suck down the drain like a toilet.

@longde

Cool. Societies need more immigrants that raise the average, and less immigrants that lower the average.


I don't see a link to those stats, but the following stats seem more accurate:

The US Bureau of the Census, 2009, finds that East Asian immigrants score the highest in bachelor's degree attainment: 66%. The numbers skew even more in the 2nd generation (the first generation born here): 72%. Additionally, the numbers likely skew even more for advanced degrees, rather than just bachelor's degrees.


Regarding general populations, we can make confident predictions about the future trajectory of nations based on the high average educational performance of poor areas in East Asia relative to the lower average educational performance of wealthier areas in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Europe. Anyway, it's good to see the stories of the young scholars in that video.

*nochannel

*british
*happy
*science
*gravity
*trajectory
*luck
*water
*hello

This was my guess at first. But their way relies on math, so that's alright.
>> ^rychan:

There's no freely movable parts inside the camera. The website makes it pretty clear:
"Our camera contains an accelerometer which we use to measure launch acceleration. Integration lets us predict rise time to the highest point, where we trigger the exposure."
So while your original post implies that it somehow detects the top of the trajectory as it happens, in fact the camera measures launch acceleration to predict the length of time until the top of the trajectory.
>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^rychan:
>> ^luxury_pie:
^ I think it will take a photo everytime it stands still after being accelerated upwards. Using the fact that there will be no vertical forces applied to the "ballcamera" the moment it reaches maximum height after a throw.
engineering

Actually, no. The acceleration on the ball is roughly constant through the entire trajectory. So it's somewhat tricky to estimate when you're at the top of the parabola.

They seem to use an accelerometer to predict the time of max height as seen on
their website.
I wasn't referring to the acceleration rather to the forces, being applied while thrown, to a possible freely movable object inside of the camera, using the same principle as the seatbelt mechanism.
My train of thought leaves in a couple of minutes.

I wasn't aware of the explanation on the website while posting my first comment. The first part of my second comment covers that. The second part was to explain what I meant with "vertical forces applied to the ballcamera".
Sorry for the confusion.
Neat concept though, I'd like a bunch of these to create "panorama maps".

In reply to this comment by rychan:
There's no freely movable parts inside the camera. The website makes it pretty clear:
"Our camera contains an accelerometer which we use to measure launch acceleration. Integration lets us predict rise time to the highest point, where we trigger the exposure."

So while your original post implies that it somehow detects the top of the trajectory as it happens, in fact the camera measures launch acceleration to predict the length of time until the top of the trajectory.

>> ^luxury_pie:

>> ^rychan:
>> ^luxury_pie:
^ I think it will take a photo everytime it stands still after being accelerated upwards. Using the fact that there will be no vertical forces applied to the "ballcamera" the moment it reaches maximum height after a throw.
engineering

Actually, no. The acceleration on the ball is roughly constant through the entire trajectory. So it's somewhat tricky to estimate when you're at the top of the parabola.

They seem to use an accelerometer to predict the time of max height as seen on
their website.
I wasn't referring to the acceleration rather to the forces, being applied while thrown, to a possible freely movable object inside of the camera, using the same principle as the seatbelt mechanism.
My train of thought leaves in a couple of minutes.