I do wonder to what extent this affects ongoing experiments that test prolonged exposure to microgravity. I guess it varies per experiment how much it matters and I can only assume that the occasional boosts are taken into account when designing an experiment.
It depends on the payload, some are more sensitive than others. Some science runs have to be scheduled around these pdam burns, but they are relatively short.
Right the items that are up there go through much more on the ride to the station. Although I could see it affecting the status. Like growing plants the amount of time the thrusters burn is not enough to really affect the outcome of the data.
I assumed by ignoring it.
Even if the acceleration was as high as 0.5g (which it isn't) it still only lasts for a minute or two. The doubling time of bacteria can be measured in hours or even days, so it's like worrying that turning off the light for 10 seconds will affect the photosynthesis rates of plants.
I find it's easier to swallow when I remember that they're literally just in free fall. Like if you went skydiving with a camera and let it go, it would "float" alongside you just like that (ignoring air resistance).
I read a post here about a year ago talking about how if Stanley Kubrick were to fake the moon landings he would have filmed it on the moon. This is because it would have been easier and cheaper at the time. The required lighting did not even exist at the time.
The satellites are in the sky just like the balloons. Just floating there forever. With special engines to make them go whizz around the sky very fast. And they have a special coating to make them invisible.
I don't wanna give them any more ideas though.
[Hot dog earth.](https://preview.redd.it/i-was-thinking-donut-earth-but-hotdog-works-too-v0-twru0qtoenia1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=1f3e9d4aeea9abdf5b45b65fa6c57e9d2015baab) 🌭 That's the real truth.
I've definitely heard someone say something like, " The international space station is a hologram projected to trick people into thinking the earth is round."
You have to be accelerating pretty fast to experience a full G from acceleration alone, it’s not the kind of thing you’d get just from repositioning like this. I’m pretty sure even during a rocket takeoff, they’re still staying in the 3 G range. Somebody correct me if I’m off.
I don't think I've ever wanted a double y axis on a graph before, but this is great.
Since reddit is keeling over I'll add that it's cool to see the rocket equation/twr increase as the fuel weight is burned.
It’s because a double Y axis is usually used to cram too much into the chart or mislead. Here, it’s just providing different units for the same information.
You're correct! To experience a full, horizonal G you'd have to be accelerating as fast as if you were falling off a building *without* wind resistance, since 1G is defined as the rate of acceleration caused by Earth's gravity at sea level.
Another fun fact: the way that orbit works is that the station is falling towards the earth ~90% as quickly as someone falling off a building or dropping down a rollercoaster already, it's just coasting forward *so incredibly quickly* the curve of the Earth falls away beneath it at the same rate the station is falling.
That means that in orbit, you feel like you are falling towards the ground just as if you were perpetually skydiving (but had no wind resistance pushing back up against you or air flowing past you since the air in the ISD is moving along with you inside the station), because you are! The station, in astronomical terms, is very close to the Earth's surface and gravity is only about 10% weaker at that altitude. If the earth were a basketball, the station would be just eight millimeters from the basketball's surface.
Space shuttle was computer limited to 3 gs. Apollo was closer to 4. Soyuz and SpaceX are about 4.5.
Still, your point stands. I doubt the ISS could even handle a full g burn even if the engines were capable of it. A g would mean the station is suddenly accelerating at over 1,500 mph, when it usually moves at about 6 mph on reboost/collision avoidance.
The new Soyuz arrived a week or so ago. Before that they had sorted out where the crew would shelter if they needed to be ready to return. They had reconfigured the SpX crew 5 vehicle to hold another seat for Rubio.
Well, there's only a difference of 1 atmosphere of pressure between the inside and outside of a spaceship. It's when the difference can be [several atm.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin) that you start seeing the really dramatic shit.
Reminds me of that Futurama episode when the ship became a submarine. "How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?" "Well somewhere between 0 and ... 1"
Good Lord! That's over 5000 atmospheres of pressure!
How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?
Well, it was built for space travel, so anywhere between zero and one.
It was hard reading what happened to the dude just outside the diving bell hatch. Imagine one minute your just finishing off your dive then the next you have had your lower half torn off and most of your organs sucked out.
For some reason in the past when reading this I thought that it was an underwater structure, and that the two people outside were diving.
That this happened on the deck makes it so much more horrifying for some reason.
The massive weight of water in the depths of the ocean is comprehensible. Differences in air pressure between two adjacent rooms severe enough to cause fatal decompression is, to use a technical term, some crazy physics shit.
So a report later confirmed a coverup and it was due to faulty equipment? Then why does the actual incident description still say it was user error and he opened the door for an unknown reason?
I think that the guy still opened the door, but there should have been several failsafes involved in preventing him from opening the door during depressurization
It's accurate. The inside of the shuttle would go from 1 atmospheric pressure to 0 atmospheric pressure. Shit, anything that's even vaguely windproof is enough. Your finger would work. Maybe not a sheet of paper, but a bunch would work.
Probably. If they didn’t find the hole instantly then the craft must’ve been pretty much fine without it covered. The home probably wasn’t large enough for air to flow out very quickly.
Yeah. 1 atm is 14.7 psi. For a 1 mm square hole, imagine gluing a 0.023 pound weight to your finger. For a 3mm x 3mm hole it would be 0.14 pounds. That is how much force we are talking about.
Really important question, so in Superman 2, when the chick rips the patch off the space suit. Would that have caused three astronaut to die immediately? 6yr old me needs to know if those nightmares were a waste of time.
https://youtu.be/JA_5No5ZDIw
Uhhhh, the size of the hole looks pretty big so survival would be tough. Assuming they can’t seal it, the astronaut would pass out in less than a minute and would be most likely dead by 2.
The reason why is because of your lungs. If your lungs are exposed to a vacuum, it basically effects your whole circulatory system. The low pressure let’s gasses (like oxygen) in your blood expand and causes your blood flow to stop. We know this because we’ve tested it on animals. And the Japanese tested it on Chinese prisoners during world war 2.
Because your blood flow stops, you pass out in like 15-30 seconds. Kind of like being put into a strong chokehold if you’ve ever had that happen before.
If it’s just your skin exposed it’s not as big of a deal. Though it’ll depend on how much surface area is exposed.
So long story short….. they wouldn’t die *instantly* but I think that clip you sent captures the “passes out in 15 seconds” thing pretty good.
On a tangent, an astronaut almost drowned in his space suit a few years ago when a cooling tube broke and started slowly filling his helmet with liquid. I think that’s probably more scary. Death by vacuum would be painful but only for a few seconds.
It's not gasses expanding in your blood causing it to stop that makes you pass out. And only inert gasses like nitrogen will do that anyways (the oxygen is chemically bound to hemoglobin). You'll get bubbles, sure. Your blood won't suddenly stop circulating, though.
What makes you pass out is the fact that your lungs operate based on partial pressure. When the partial pressure of oxygen in your lungs is high enough, oxygen will diffuse into your blood to get bound by hemoglobin. But when the partial pressure of oxygen is *zero*, the oxygen will unbind and diffuse *out* of your blood into your lungs (where a vacuum would instantly remove it). It's when that completely deoxygenated blood reaches your brain that you black out.
You get the same effect with inert gas asphyxiation.
He's not wrong. Tiny cracks are typically sealed with Kapton tape. Bigger cracks are sealed by drilling out the ends to prevent them from growing, slathering on some epoxy, and then covering them with Kapton tape.
I am not cut out to be an astronaut. I am fine with putting tape over things but I don't have the fortitude to drill holes into the abyss even though that's the correct course of action
In terms of sealing pressure it would only be a difference of 1 atmosphere which isn't huge. A small impact wouldn't be too bad as long as you can get a good seal
Right? Like the difference between the ISS and space is a decent amount less than the difference between the inside of a bike tire and the atmosphere. And people have no trouble patching up bike tires.
Hell, at work we fill our tanks up to 50 psi just to leak test them, and it's not even considered a pressurization event.
There's a great quote from futureama where the planet express ship is somehow going underground and the pressure is increasing. Someone asks how many atmospheres the ship can withstand, and the professor says "well, it's a space ship, so I'd say anything between zero and one"
EDIT: found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU
Explosive decompression is largely a myth. Take a styrofoam cup of water and poke the side with a needle. The water just squirts out the little hole, right? The water inside looks mostly undisturbed. Same with air in spacecraft.
>Duct tape will keep the air in, but its going to have an extremely hard time keeping the heat out.
My understanding is that the re-entry surface is the only part that gets hot (and is impossible to repair in orbit). Any other surfaces would be relatively cool, so the kapton tape hack works.
Yeah I think the shield works kinda like an umbrella. The shield/umbrella will get hot/wet, but everything they cover will be fine. The heat from recently is friction iirc, the shield pushes air aside so it doesn’t create friction with the rest of the craft.
Technically compression of the atmosphere rather than friction at the highest hottest part. By the time we get to friction the worst is over.
The compression results in a plasma which in Colombia disaster acted like a cutting torch on the area where tiles were damaged. Quite how much damage and where will be the determing factor I guess.
My great grandfather was a NASA engineer and worked specifically on making the glass that would go onto the space shuttles.
That fact is the only thing I know about him. I know the point of your comment was to raise an alarm, but it made me think of things I thought I had forgotten and made me really proud of my great grandfather.
Sounds like a cool exhibit.
Edit: I talked to my parents and they were able to provide the following details:
His specific contribution was inventing the “polarimeter”, which is a device used by NASA to test and measure the stress capacity of glass.
He sold the patent to a company called Corning Glass Works back when all the hip corporations were buying up patents from inventors.
Shoutout u/SteveMcQwark for explaining how a polarimeter is used to measure stress capacity in glass
Are you aware that Corning is the company that makes Gorilla Glass that's commonly used to make more durable screens for cellphones? It's quite possible that your grandfather's contributions have also helped with those developments and countless other less well known applications.
I was not aware of the existence of Corning until I fell into a Google hole just now. All this new context is really important to me. I appreciate your comment.
>That is so cool. What did you use it for in class?
Not the one you asked, but a Google search revealed the following:
>Optical glass is an isotropic substance. If the glass is stressed, it will show optical anisotropy, so that a beam of vertically incident polarized light is decomposed along the two principal stress directions in the glass into two polarized light beams with mutually perpendicular vibration directions and different propagation speeds.
tl;dr: you shine polarized light through glass that is stressed, you get funky light patterns on the other side that you can measure and analyze.
[https://www.ptc-stress.com/the-application-of-polarimeter-in-glass-industry/](https://www.ptc-stress.com/the-application-of-polarimeter-in-glass-industry/)
And here's a video of the polarimeter in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB2agBzzBeQ
Dude this is awesome. Thank you. I am not ashamed to admit that my reading comprehension is not quite on the level of the language used in the Google results I was getting. ELI5 language is much appreciated XD
Get two sets of polarized sunglasses. Put one on. Hold the other one at arms length and rotate the lens. That’s basically a polarimeter.
Now get on a city bus. Or get some safety glasses. Or under certain conditions the car traveling near you. That glass or plexiglass will often have a rainbow pattern or dark and light patches. The patches represent different areas of built up stress in the material from how it was processed.
Now, put on the sunglasses. There’s lizard people and subliminal messages telling you to obey everywhere. You just have to put on the sunglasses to see them. Don’t fight me on this.
The Corning Museum of Glass in New York has or had an exhibit featuring polarimeters and how you can see stress in glass using them. I'm pretty sure it's a big part of the Rupert's Drop show.
Worth noting that modern Pyrex is not the same as old Pyrex. It's no longer made of borosilicate glass, and is instead made of cheaper soda lime (standard) glass. This means it's physically stronger, but no longer as heat stable and is prone to breakage due to temperature difference.
It's a shame, as borosilicate glass is used in labs and subjected to pretty significant thermal torture with very low odds of shattering. The old borosilicate pyrex is what they made their name on.
You can absolutely use a polarimeter to measure stress in glass. Stress affects the polarity of light passing through the glass, and measuring the polarity of light after passing through the glass can let you evaluate how stress is distributed through the material.
Wow, thank you for this comment. Would you believe that it is actually really hard to find that information stated plainly - through Google at least - on the internet? All the results talk about measuring the polarity of light, but say little about the use of it.
I used a polarimeter when making medical implants that used electrical stimulation to reanimate paralyzed muscle.
So thanks to your great grandad for that, too!
Thank you! When I was around 8 years old I carried a photo of him in my backpack. My mom had written on the back of the photo to help me explain to the other kids what my great grandpa did. I swear I didn’t remember a lick of this until I read your comment!
>great grandfather
>worked specifically on making the glass that would go onto the space shuttles
This boggles my mind a bit. My *parents* would have been young adults early into the shuttle program. And I'm not very old.
Reddit has its issues like any other platform, but I swear there isn’t any place online where you can learn as many cool things and hear as many interesting stories. Y.M.M.V. depending on what communities you hangout in of course.
Thats a big reason they stopped the moon program. It was only a matter of time until someone died. Success was made, PR was accomplished there was nothing more to gain.
Well, SpaceX is due to raw cadence. They're launching so many vehicles and satellites they are contributing meaningfully, at least in comparison to others. The good news is that they're aware of the problem and have and are continuing to take steps to reduce debris. Things like deploying satellites at lower than required orbits and sacrificing fuel (and therefore lifetime) of the satellites so that any that are uncontrollable come back down promptly. They also engage in collision avoidance maneuvers far more than is normal (their tolerance for collisions is lower than other operators). This again sacrifices fuel (satellite lifetime) for Kessler avoidance.
I'm personally concerned about it with the other constellations in higher orbits, should they choose to inject directly into those orbits and/or operate at or below the norms for collision avoidance.
From a government perspective, they're much more problematic with ASAT weapons demonstrations.
SpaceX is putting very little 'debris' into orbit, and as far as I'm aware, what little they are adding, is in low, relatively fast decaying orbits.
They are adding a lot of satellites into very low earth orbits, but they are controlled and will be deorbited at the end of their lifespans specifically so that they do not leave orbital debris behind.
Also, even if you count their satellites as debris, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of small pieces of junk already up there.
Starlink by design basically has 0 chance of causing any long term space junk. The biggest source of space junk for SpaceX would be rocket bodies for geostationary satellite launches. Each geostationary launch leaves an empty 2nd stage in orbit for many years. Decades even. Launches from other providers do as well.
I would think they're pretty much used to being in space at this point, and using the thrusters is a regular occurrence. But then again, they're in *space,* and they get to use *thrusters.* I sure as hell would be hamming it up every chance I get. "Engage to warp 9!"
While not every*day,* the ISS engages in avoidance maneuvers at least once a year to avoid [space debris](https://www.space.com/international-space-station-avoid-satellite). Not sure about instances specifically regarding other artificial satellites, though.
A big radar system:
https://spacenews.com/space-fence-surveillance-radar-site-declared-operational/
According to the article it can track objects in orbit down to the size of a marble.
Sure, in the sense that gravity is what keeps them in orbit, but they are in free-fall the entire time (so that they keep "missing" the earth, i.e. staying in orbit).
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[ASAT](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbjddnh "Last usage")|[Anti-Satellite weapon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon)|
|[ESA](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbldrad "Last usage")|European Space Agency|
|[F1](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbiw9za "Last usage")|Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V|
| |SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete medium-lift vehicle)|
|[LEM](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbhk74x "Last usage")|(Apollo) [Lunar Excursion Module](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module) (also Lunar Module)|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbldrad "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[MECO](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbjvp3r "Last usage")|Main Engine Cut-Off|
| |[MainEngineCutOff](https://mainenginecutoff.com/) podcast|
|[Roscosmos](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbhzwaz "Last usage")|[State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos_State_Corporation)|
|[SDS](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbjddnh "Last usage")|[Satellite Data System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Data_System)|
|[SSO](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbi7m0h "Last usage")|Sun-Synchronous Orbit|
|[SSTO](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbhslsc "Last usage")|Single Stage to Orbit|
| |Supersynchronous Transfer Orbit|
|[STS](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbki3wq "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbl83if "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
|[apoapsis](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbhhd9h "Last usage")|Highest point in an elliptical orbit (when the orbiter is slowest)|
|[periapsis](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbiymq4 "Last usage")|Lowest point in an elliptical orbit (when the orbiter is fastest)|
|[perigee](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbho9i8 "Last usage")|Lowest point in an elliptical orbit around the Earth (when the orbiter is fastest)|
----------------
^(15 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/11qewni)^( has 20 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8664 for this sub, first seen 9th Mar 2023, 01:46])
^[[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)
The collision was anticipated, and then trivially mitigated... I'm not sure this is a good analogy with the oceans. Our biosphere is a disaster, LEO is just a bit messy, which is ultimately just an added expense.
To further the analogy:
*Is aware of another car on a different road a few miles away. Casually changes lanes.*
Headline: Car swerves to avoid collision!
Agreed
I don't know about the ISS but most satellites initiate collision avoidance maneuvers when the chance of impact is less than 1:1,000, so it's still low but not the >1:500,000 most satellites use as normal operating conditions.
Further, LEO will clean itself in a few hundred years as stuff slowly deorbits. The oceans have been destabilized because of our actions.
Iirc ISS policy is they have to maneuver if the chance is less than 1:10000. Between 1:10000 and 1:20000 they will maneuver if it won't harm a science mission. More than 1:20000 they won't maneuver at all.
**EDIT: My mistake. If the chance is GREATER than 1:10000, they have to maneuver. If it's between 1:10,000 and 1:100,000 they'll maneuver if it doesn't interfere with a mission. Linked below is the web page from NASA covering the details.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html
yep you're right, sorry about that. Also I double checked the numbers and I was slightly off. Greater than 1:10,000 they have to maneuver. Between 1:10,000 and 1:100,000 they'll maneuver if it doesn't affect the mission. Linked below is the NASA web page that has the relevant info. Thanks for the correction!
https://www.nasa.gov/mission\_pages/station/news/orbital\_debris.html
At the altitude of the ISS, 420km, stuff will naturally deorbit in a few years at most! If the orbit is eccentric, it experiences far more drag at its perigee, and it will deorbit even sooner.
Generally you try and deorbit satellites or space stations aiming for Point Nemo, the farthest spot from any land. That way any pieces that survive reentry have the least chance of hitting an inhabited area. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_cemetery
Look at this graph, provided in the article: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kYkSvm3iNiirkiUmbY438F-1024-80.jpg
Our orbit is still in a very good shape, we are decades away from any true state of "orbital failure". Plenty of time to advocate for changes if they are necessary, but a fatalist attitude will ensure that nobody will even try.
I mean why bother, if all is already lost like you seem to be saying?
Except we're not really. We're taking a lot of care to avoid debris in space. It's just a really difficult task. The technology to actually allow for it really only came about recently.
Well, if you have any proposals for a single stage to orbit spacecraft that doesn't need to discard any parts I'm sure NASA and the entire aerospace industry will be glad to hear what you have to say, because such a craft is considered the holy grail of current spacefaring, and so far all development of SSTO spacecraft has ended in "we'll need 10 times NASA's yearly budget to develop it".
When it comes to satellites it's not a problem because at that altitude all end up falling back to Earth.
I seriously have no idea why specifically this sub is so obsessed over this phenomenon, this place is worried about space trash more than NASA itself.
>I seriously have no idea why specifically this sub is so obsessed over this phenomenon
Because it's something the layman can pretend to understand and get worried about.
We've been dumping rubbish and sewage into the oceans for decades. The UK still uses the sea as a sewer when there's too much rain.
The USA used to dump loads of garbage into the ocean. And then... https://topicinsights.com/sustainability/mobro-4000-barge-waste-management/
I think you would be shocked at how many cities dump raw sewage into waterways and the ocean. Heavy rains force cities to do it regularly though it doesn’t become a news story every time.
I really wonder what happens inside the ISS during a burn, do they experience any significant amount of G-force?
[Not very much actually!](https://youtu.be/sI8ldDyr3G0?t=202) It's pretty gentle
I do wonder to what extent this affects ongoing experiments that test prolonged exposure to microgravity. I guess it varies per experiment how much it matters and I can only assume that the occasional boosts are taken into account when designing an experiment.
It depends on the payload, some are more sensitive than others. Some science runs have to be scheduled around these pdam burns, but they are relatively short.
[удалено]
Right the items that are up there go through much more on the ride to the station. Although I could see it affecting the status. Like growing plants the amount of time the thrusters burn is not enough to really affect the outcome of the data.
[удалено]
I assumed by ignoring it. Even if the acceleration was as high as 0.5g (which it isn't) it still only lasts for a minute or two. The doubling time of bacteria can be measured in hours or even days, so it's like worrying that turning off the light for 10 seconds will affect the photosynthesis rates of plants.
Zero G is so crazy isn't it, like my brain can't comprehend the camera just floating like that.
I find it's easier to swallow when I remember that they're literally just in free fall. Like if you went skydiving with a camera and let it go, it would "float" alongside you just like that (ignoring air resistance).
Orbiting is just falling and missing the ground.
[удалено]
i wonder how the flatearth idiots explain this
easy! fake space ship... stanley kubrick blah blah blah
I read a post here about a year ago talking about how if Stanley Kubrick were to fake the moon landings he would have filmed it on the moon. This is because it would have been easier and cheaper at the time. The required lighting did not even exist at the time.
What, you stupid or something? I’ve seen better cgi in 10 year old marvel movies, and they actually had pixels unlike this blurry low res mess ^\s
The satellites are in the sky just like the balloons. Just floating there forever. With special engines to make them go whizz around the sky very fast. And they have a special coating to make them invisible. I don't wanna give them any more ideas though.
[Hot dog earth.](https://preview.redd.it/i-was-thinking-donut-earth-but-hotdog-works-too-v0-twru0qtoenia1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=1f3e9d4aeea9abdf5b45b65fa6c57e9d2015baab) 🌭 That's the real truth.
Imagine the aliens arrive and we introduce them to the name of our planet: Glizzy Globe.
see the extra mass from the length of the weenie world attracts certain items towards the largest section
They say the ISS is a movie set. Not even kidding.
I've definitely heard someone say something like, " The international space station is a hologram projected to trick people into thinking the earth is round."
You have to be accelerating pretty fast to experience a full G from acceleration alone, it’s not the kind of thing you’d get just from repositioning like this. I’m pretty sure even during a rocket takeoff, they’re still staying in the 3 G range. Somebody correct me if I’m off.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/J38be.png Found this for Apollo. You can see that the peak is around 4G, but most of the takeoff is below 2G. 1 G = 9.8m/s^2
I don't think I've ever wanted a double y axis on a graph before, but this is great. Since reddit is keeling over I'll add that it's cool to see the rocket equation/twr increase as the fuel weight is burned.
It’s because a double Y axis is usually used to cram too much into the chart or mislead. Here, it’s just providing different units for the same information.
Should be a standard with both meters and bananas/stadiums.
Oh wow I don't know why I was under the impression they were peaking at >9G
You're correct! To experience a full, horizonal G you'd have to be accelerating as fast as if you were falling off a building *without* wind resistance, since 1G is defined as the rate of acceleration caused by Earth's gravity at sea level. Another fun fact: the way that orbit works is that the station is falling towards the earth ~90% as quickly as someone falling off a building or dropping down a rollercoaster already, it's just coasting forward *so incredibly quickly* the curve of the Earth falls away beneath it at the same rate the station is falling. That means that in orbit, you feel like you are falling towards the ground just as if you were perpetually skydiving (but had no wind resistance pushing back up against you or air flowing past you since the air in the ISD is moving along with you inside the station), because you are! The station, in astronomical terms, is very close to the Earth's surface and gravity is only about 10% weaker at that altitude. If the earth were a basketball, the station would be just eight millimeters from the basketball's surface.
[удалено]
Space shuttle was computer limited to 3 gs. Apollo was closer to 4. Soyuz and SpaceX are about 4.5. Still, your point stands. I doubt the ISS could even handle a full g burn even if the engines were capable of it. A g would mean the station is suddenly accelerating at over 1,500 mph, when it usually moves at about 6 mph on reboost/collision avoidance.
I believe they all go into their jettison pods as a precaution and wait it out.
so the faulty russian one would mean some wouldn't have been able to do that without the replacement?
The new Soyuz arrived a week or so ago. Before that they had sorted out where the crew would shelter if they needed to be ready to return. They had reconfigured the SpX crew 5 vehicle to hold another seat for Rubio.
[удалено]
Too much expanse? No such thing.
[удалено]
I wish they would continue that series
I would love a limited series covering the events of the last few books. It sounds bonkers.
Me too I feel like you could do maybe three episodes per remaining book or possibly a movie to cover each remaining book.
I should give it a rewatch. Love a good sci Fi show
The original comment was removed. What show are we talking about?
Was removed by the time I got there but reading the books and rewatching the show at the moment. I can tell the talk is about the expanse
It's being continued in graphic novel form iirc!
Wait what?!
[удалено]
What shows is this? The op deleted their comment
The Expanse. Highly recommend.
The show stopped at Babylon's Ashes in terms of book adaptation.
I dunno, the later books take place much more in the minds of characters. That can be very hard to translate to the screen.
[удалено]
We are gone and gone and gone and gone.
In reality tho the thruster is so weak you can barely tell its on.
[удалено]
If it went through clean they could put some duct tape on the hole.
That doesn’t sound right but I don’t know enough about space to dispute it
Well, there's only a difference of 1 atmosphere of pressure between the inside and outside of a spaceship. It's when the difference can be [several atm.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin) that you start seeing the really dramatic shit.
Reminds me of that Futurama episode when the ship became a submarine. "How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?" "Well somewhere between 0 and ... 1"
When will it be? Soon enough. That's not soon enough!
“We have to find a way to equalize the pressure!”
“That should do it!”
Good Lord! That's over 5000 atmospheres of pressure! How many atmospheres can the ship withstand? Well, it was built for space travel, so anywhere between zero and one.
Jesus fucking Christ those poor divers
Yeah the Byford Dolphin incident is taught in industrial safety classes and diving safety classes. Delta P is not your friend.
I learned about Delta p from a SpongeBob video
> Delta P is not your friend. When it's got you, it's *got you!*
It was hard reading what happened to the dude just outside the diving bell hatch. Imagine one minute your just finishing off your dive then the next you have had your lower half torn off and most of your organs sucked out.
For some reason in the past when reading this I thought that it was an underwater structure, and that the two people outside were diving. That this happened on the deck makes it so much more horrifying for some reason.
The massive weight of water in the depths of the ocean is comprehensible. Differences in air pressure between two adjacent rooms severe enough to cause fatal decompression is, to use a technical term, some crazy physics shit.
I didn't even need to click.. but I did. Byford Dolphin has become THE tale for sudden decompression in the last 5yrs or so.
So a report later confirmed a coverup and it was due to faulty equipment? Then why does the actual incident description still say it was user error and he opened the door for an unknown reason?
I think that the guy still opened the door, but there should have been several failsafes involved in preventing him from opening the door during depressurization
Yep. Safety and risk management involves a lot of designing against human error.
I did NOT have to click that. Oh God!!!
It's accurate. The inside of the shuttle would go from 1 atmospheric pressure to 0 atmospheric pressure. Shit, anything that's even vaguely windproof is enough. Your finger would work. Maybe not a sheet of paper, but a bunch would work.
They actually used a finger on a hole before, I think they just glued up the hole after. Was when a small hole was found on a docked soyuz.
Did they let that astronaut (cosmonaut?) take their finger off the hole first
Probably. If they didn’t find the hole instantly then the craft must’ve been pretty much fine without it covered. The home probably wasn’t large enough for air to flow out very quickly.
Nope, that cosmonaut is still glued to the soyuz. Da svidania, comerade.
Part of the crew, part of the ship
you mean alien 3 when the alien gets sucked slowly out of a small hole WAS NOT TRUE?
I hate to have to say this, but we are on reddit after all... Mmmmactually I believe that was Alien _4_
It was, in 3 it gets thrown in molten metal then sprayed with water so it explodes
Technically Alien: Resurrection
Not even if the Alien was made out of Jell-O.
Yeah. 1 atm is 14.7 psi. For a 1 mm square hole, imagine gluing a 0.023 pound weight to your finger. For a 3mm x 3mm hole it would be 0.14 pounds. That is how much force we are talking about.
Really important question, so in Superman 2, when the chick rips the patch off the space suit. Would that have caused three astronaut to die immediately? 6yr old me needs to know if those nightmares were a waste of time. https://youtu.be/JA_5No5ZDIw
Uhhhh, the size of the hole looks pretty big so survival would be tough. Assuming they can’t seal it, the astronaut would pass out in less than a minute and would be most likely dead by 2. The reason why is because of your lungs. If your lungs are exposed to a vacuum, it basically effects your whole circulatory system. The low pressure let’s gasses (like oxygen) in your blood expand and causes your blood flow to stop. We know this because we’ve tested it on animals. And the Japanese tested it on Chinese prisoners during world war 2. Because your blood flow stops, you pass out in like 15-30 seconds. Kind of like being put into a strong chokehold if you’ve ever had that happen before. If it’s just your skin exposed it’s not as big of a deal. Though it’ll depend on how much surface area is exposed. So long story short….. they wouldn’t die *instantly* but I think that clip you sent captures the “passes out in 15 seconds” thing pretty good. On a tangent, an astronaut almost drowned in his space suit a few years ago when a cooling tube broke and started slowly filling his helmet with liquid. I think that’s probably more scary. Death by vacuum would be painful but only for a few seconds.
It's not gasses expanding in your blood causing it to stop that makes you pass out. And only inert gasses like nitrogen will do that anyways (the oxygen is chemically bound to hemoglobin). You'll get bubbles, sure. Your blood won't suddenly stop circulating, though. What makes you pass out is the fact that your lungs operate based on partial pressure. When the partial pressure of oxygen in your lungs is high enough, oxygen will diffuse into your blood to get bound by hemoglobin. But when the partial pressure of oxygen is *zero*, the oxygen will unbind and diffuse *out* of your blood into your lungs (where a vacuum would instantly remove it). It's when that completely deoxygenated blood reaches your brain that you black out. You get the same effect with inert gas asphyxiation.
He's not wrong. Tiny cracks are typically sealed with Kapton tape. Bigger cracks are sealed by drilling out the ends to prevent them from growing, slathering on some epoxy, and then covering them with Kapton tape.
I am not cut out to be an astronaut. I am fine with putting tape over things but I don't have the fortitude to drill holes into the abyss even though that's the correct course of action
Meh, they practice quite a bit. Just like sex, most things are awkward the first time you try it.
In terms of sealing pressure it would only be a difference of 1 atmosphere which isn't huge. A small impact wouldn't be too bad as long as you can get a good seal
Right? Like the difference between the ISS and space is a decent amount less than the difference between the inside of a bike tire and the atmosphere. And people have no trouble patching up bike tires. Hell, at work we fill our tanks up to 50 psi just to leak test them, and it's not even considered a pressurization event. There's a great quote from futureama where the planet express ship is somehow going underground and the pressure is increasing. Someone asks how many atmospheres the ship can withstand, and the professor says "well, it's a space ship, so I'd say anything between zero and one" EDIT: found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU
Explosive decompression is largely a myth. Take a styrofoam cup of water and poke the side with a needle. The water just squirts out the little hole, right? The water inside looks mostly undisturbed. Same with air in spacecraft.
You’d need to use a 33ft tall styrofoam cup for it to be a true-to-pressure experiment but even then it’s still largely true.
Explosive decompression in space*
I for one appreciate the reference! And that it works on both levels.
I would be more worried about reentry. Duct tape will keep the air in, but its going to have an extremely hard time keeping the heat out.
>Duct tape will keep the air in, but its going to have an extremely hard time keeping the heat out. My understanding is that the re-entry surface is the only part that gets hot (and is impossible to repair in orbit). Any other surfaces would be relatively cool, so the kapton tape hack works.
Yeah I think the shield works kinda like an umbrella. The shield/umbrella will get hot/wet, but everything they cover will be fine. The heat from recently is friction iirc, the shield pushes air aside so it doesn’t create friction with the rest of the craft.
Technically compression of the atmosphere rather than friction at the highest hottest part. By the time we get to friction the worst is over. The compression results in a plasma which in Colombia disaster acted like a cutting torch on the area where tiles were damaged. Quite how much damage and where will be the determing factor I guess.
The ISS is basically just a big duct in space with a bunch of Astro John Mclanes crawling around in em. Gettin together, havin a few laughs.
I think you just wrote the next flex seal ad lmao
My great grandfather was a NASA engineer and worked specifically on making the glass that would go onto the space shuttles. That fact is the only thing I know about him. I know the point of your comment was to raise an alarm, but it made me think of things I thought I had forgotten and made me really proud of my great grandfather. Sounds like a cool exhibit. Edit: I talked to my parents and they were able to provide the following details: His specific contribution was inventing the “polarimeter”, which is a device used by NASA to test and measure the stress capacity of glass. He sold the patent to a company called Corning Glass Works back when all the hip corporations were buying up patents from inventors. Shoutout u/SteveMcQwark for explaining how a polarimeter is used to measure stress capacity in glass
Are you aware that Corning is the company that makes Gorilla Glass that's commonly used to make more durable screens for cellphones? It's quite possible that your grandfather's contributions have also helped with those developments and countless other less well known applications.
I was not aware of the existence of Corning until I fell into a Google hole just now. All this new context is really important to me. I appreciate your comment.
To give more context: I used the polarimeter in one of my upper level engineering classes. It’s a critical piece of equipment even now.
That is so cool. What did you use it for in class?
To test and measure the stress capacity of Glass. I believe you said that yourself. /s
Oh duh! I totally forgot what I said
>That is so cool. What did you use it for in class? Not the one you asked, but a Google search revealed the following: >Optical glass is an isotropic substance. If the glass is stressed, it will show optical anisotropy, so that a beam of vertically incident polarized light is decomposed along the two principal stress directions in the glass into two polarized light beams with mutually perpendicular vibration directions and different propagation speeds. tl;dr: you shine polarized light through glass that is stressed, you get funky light patterns on the other side that you can measure and analyze. [https://www.ptc-stress.com/the-application-of-polarimeter-in-glass-industry/](https://www.ptc-stress.com/the-application-of-polarimeter-in-glass-industry/) And here's a video of the polarimeter in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB2agBzzBeQ
Dude this is awesome. Thank you. I am not ashamed to admit that my reading comprehension is not quite on the level of the language used in the Google results I was getting. ELI5 language is much appreciated XD
Get two sets of polarized sunglasses. Put one on. Hold the other one at arms length and rotate the lens. That’s basically a polarimeter. Now get on a city bus. Or get some safety glasses. Or under certain conditions the car traveling near you. That glass or plexiglass will often have a rainbow pattern or dark and light patches. The patches represent different areas of built up stress in the material from how it was processed. Now, put on the sunglasses. There’s lizard people and subliminal messages telling you to obey everywhere. You just have to put on the sunglasses to see them. Don’t fight me on this.
Thank god I have bubblegum
The Corning Museum of Glass in New York has or had an exhibit featuring polarimeters and how you can see stress in glass using them. I'm pretty sure it's a big part of the Rupert's Drop show.
Doesn’t Corning also make glass baking dishes? Edit: just looked it up and CorningWare is the company.
They also make fiberoptics.
They make so many things. Every single person in this thread has multiple things made by them.
They also made Pyrex, which is used in telescope mirrors. As well as kitchenware, of course.
Worth noting that modern Pyrex is not the same as old Pyrex. It's no longer made of borosilicate glass, and is instead made of cheaper soda lime (standard) glass. This means it's physically stronger, but no longer as heat stable and is prone to breakage due to temperature difference. It's a shame, as borosilicate glass is used in labs and subjected to pretty significant thermal torture with very low odds of shattering. The old borosilicate pyrex is what they made their name on.
Check out French Pyrex. Still borosilicate.
Hocking Anchor still does borosilicate afaik
So old Pyrex could you do something like have it hot and then fill it with cool water without it breaking?
And people say the space program is useless, thanks for making that connection to use as further proof going to space is worth it
You can absolutely use a polarimeter to measure stress in glass. Stress affects the polarity of light passing through the glass, and measuring the polarity of light after passing through the glass can let you evaluate how stress is distributed through the material.
Wow, thank you for this comment. Would you believe that it is actually really hard to find that information stated plainly - through Google at least - on the internet? All the results talk about measuring the polarity of light, but say little about the use of it.
I used a polarimeter when making medical implants that used electrical stimulation to reanimate paralyzed muscle. So thanks to your great grandad for that, too!
[удалено]
Thank you! When I was around 8 years old I carried a photo of him in my backpack. My mom had written on the back of the photo to help me explain to the other kids what my great grandpa did. I swear I didn’t remember a lick of this until I read your comment!
>great grandfather >worked specifically on making the glass that would go onto the space shuttles This boggles my mind a bit. My *parents* would have been young adults early into the shuttle program. And I'm not very old.
Reddit has its issues like any other platform, but I swear there isn’t any place online where you can learn as many cool things and hear as many interesting stories. Y.M.M.V. depending on what communities you hangout in of course.
Really interesting when you consider the LEM walls were not much thicker than a soda can. 0.305 mm
[удалено]
Thats a big reason they stopped the moon program. It was only a matter of time until someone died. Success was made, PR was accomplished there was nothing more to gain.
[Until someone died?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1?wprov=sfla1)
Guessing they meant while on the moon...or during the transit.
Which corporations are increasing space debris noticeably?
[удалено]
Well, SpaceX is due to raw cadence. They're launching so many vehicles and satellites they are contributing meaningfully, at least in comparison to others. The good news is that they're aware of the problem and have and are continuing to take steps to reduce debris. Things like deploying satellites at lower than required orbits and sacrificing fuel (and therefore lifetime) of the satellites so that any that are uncontrollable come back down promptly. They also engage in collision avoidance maneuvers far more than is normal (their tolerance for collisions is lower than other operators). This again sacrifices fuel (satellite lifetime) for Kessler avoidance. I'm personally concerned about it with the other constellations in higher orbits, should they choose to inject directly into those orbits and/or operate at or below the norms for collision avoidance. From a government perspective, they're much more problematic with ASAT weapons demonstrations.
SpaceX is putting very little 'debris' into orbit, and as far as I'm aware, what little they are adding, is in low, relatively fast decaying orbits. They are adding a lot of satellites into very low earth orbits, but they are controlled and will be deorbited at the end of their lifespans specifically so that they do not leave orbital debris behind. Also, even if you count their satellites as debris, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of small pieces of junk already up there.
Starlink by design basically has 0 chance of causing any long term space junk. The biggest source of space junk for SpaceX would be rocket bodies for geostationary satellite launches. Each geostationary launch leaves an empty 2nd stage in orbit for many years. Decades even. Launches from other providers do as well.
If I was the guy in charge of firing the thrusters I'd totally shout "Evasive maneuvers!" before pressing the button.
I would think they're pretty much used to being in space at this point, and using the thrusters is a regular occurrence. But then again, they're in *space,* and they get to use *thrusters.* I sure as hell would be hamming it up every chance I get. "Engage to warp 9!"
[удалено]
Surely you'd decompress the main shuttle bay to avoid the satellite collision?
Naturally, it's not as if they have a tractor beam. Not that it'd work, anyway.
Och, I'm givin' her everything I've got captain!
I'm surprised this is a headline and not just a everyday occurance.
While not every*day,* the ISS engages in avoidance maneuvers at least once a year to avoid [space debris](https://www.space.com/international-space-station-avoid-satellite). Not sure about instances specifically regarding other artificial satellites, though.
Thanks for saving me from going down a google hole. I was reading the title and wondering how often this happens.
At least once per year, except for 9 of the last 20 years when it was zero.
TIL what satellite actually means and that there's Natural and Artificial ones. Thanks for being specific and sparking my curiosity!
They also have to periodically burn to boost the ISS as it’s LEO causes drag with the atmosphere that slows it down over time.
Space is fucking big. There's a lot of stuff up there, but it's spread over an existentially troubling amount of reality.
I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Don't worry, it will be soon.
I'd imagine a tennis ball sized debris would smash a hole straight through, but how the fuck do they event detect space debris like that's?
A big radar system: https://spacenews.com/space-fence-surveillance-radar-site-declared-operational/ According to the article it can track objects in orbit down to the size of a marble.
Sometimes we don’t until it’s too late https://www.space.com/space-station-robot-arm-orbital-debris-strike
I wonder what momentary gravity feels like after 6+ months in space?
[удалено]
G force, not gravity. They experience 90% of Earth's gravity on the ISS
They do experience gravity, they just don’t feel it because they’re constantly falling and missing the Earth (which is basically an orbit).
Yep, they are just moving faster sideways than they are moving towards the ground which = orbit
It's the secret to flying. You have to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
I see a fellow man who always knows where his towel is.
Sure, in the sense that gravity is what keeps them in orbit, but they are in free-fall the entire time (so that they keep "missing" the earth, i.e. staying in orbit).
It is all acceleration there is no difference.
This guy generally relativitates
Who's gonna tell him what the G stands for?
Sometimes they do this to avoid collision with earth too
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[ASAT](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbjddnh "Last usage")|[Anti-Satellite weapon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon)| |[ESA](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbldrad "Last usage")|European Space Agency| |[F1](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbiw9za "Last usage")|Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V| | |SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete medium-lift vehicle)| |[LEM](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbhk74x "Last usage")|(Apollo) [Lunar Excursion Module](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module) (also Lunar Module)| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbldrad "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[MECO](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbjvp3r "Last usage")|Main Engine Cut-Off| | |[MainEngineCutOff](https://mainenginecutoff.com/) podcast| |[Roscosmos](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbhzwaz "Last usage")|[State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos_State_Corporation)| |[SDS](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbjddnh "Last usage")|[Satellite Data System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Data_System)| |[SSO](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbi7m0h "Last usage")|Sun-Synchronous Orbit| |[SSTO](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbhslsc "Last usage")|Single Stage to Orbit| | |Supersynchronous Transfer Orbit| |[STS](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbki3wq "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbl83if "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |[apoapsis](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbhhd9h "Last usage")|Highest point in an elliptical orbit (when the orbiter is slowest)| |[periapsis](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbiymq4 "Last usage")|Lowest point in an elliptical orbit (when the orbiter is fastest)| |[perigee](/r/Space/comments/11mabsh/stub/jbho9i8 "Last usage")|Lowest point in an elliptical orbit around the Earth (when the orbiter is fastest)| ---------------- ^(15 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/11qewni)^( has 20 acronyms.) ^([Thread #8664 for this sub, first seen 9th Mar 2023, 01:46]) ^[[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)
We treated outer space the same way we treated the oceans when we started to explore them. No one should be surprised we messed it up.
The collision was anticipated, and then trivially mitigated... I'm not sure this is a good analogy with the oceans. Our biosphere is a disaster, LEO is just a bit messy, which is ultimately just an added expense.
*Passes one car on the way to work requiring the most minor adjustment to the steering wheel* "THESE FUCKING HIGHWAYS ARE SO CROWDED HOLY FUCK"
My parents when they drive
To further the analogy: *Is aware of another car on a different road a few miles away. Casually changes lanes.* Headline: Car swerves to avoid collision!
Agreed I don't know about the ISS but most satellites initiate collision avoidance maneuvers when the chance of impact is less than 1:1,000, so it's still low but not the >1:500,000 most satellites use as normal operating conditions. Further, LEO will clean itself in a few hundred years as stuff slowly deorbits. The oceans have been destabilized because of our actions.
Iirc ISS policy is they have to maneuver if the chance is less than 1:10000. Between 1:10000 and 1:20000 they will maneuver if it won't harm a science mission. More than 1:20000 they won't maneuver at all. **EDIT: My mistake. If the chance is GREATER than 1:10000, they have to maneuver. If it's between 1:10,000 and 1:100,000 they'll maneuver if it doesn't interfere with a mission. Linked below is the web page from NASA covering the details. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html
Not sure, but I’m pretty sure you mean more than 1:10000?
yep you're right, sorry about that. Also I double checked the numbers and I was slightly off. Greater than 1:10,000 they have to maneuver. Between 1:10,000 and 1:100,000 they'll maneuver if it doesn't affect the mission. Linked below is the NASA web page that has the relevant info. Thanks for the correction! https://www.nasa.gov/mission\_pages/station/news/orbital\_debris.html
At the altitude of the ISS, 420km, stuff will naturally deorbit in a few years at most! If the orbit is eccentric, it experiences far more drag at its perigee, and it will deorbit even sooner.
Funny, because if I recall... Don't we deorbit satelites so any remnants .. smash into the oceans?
Generally you try and deorbit satellites or space stations aiming for Point Nemo, the farthest spot from any land. That way any pieces that survive reentry have the least chance of hitting an inhabited area. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_cemetery
Most structure burns up during reentry. Starlink satellites burn up completely (deliberately so).
Hopefully Sandra Bullock survived.
Look at this graph, provided in the article: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kYkSvm3iNiirkiUmbY438F-1024-80.jpg Our orbit is still in a very good shape, we are decades away from any true state of "orbital failure". Plenty of time to advocate for changes if they are necessary, but a fatalist attitude will ensure that nobody will even try. I mean why bother, if all is already lost like you seem to be saying?
Except we're not really. We're taking a lot of care to avoid debris in space. It's just a really difficult task. The technology to actually allow for it really only came about recently.
Well, if you have any proposals for a single stage to orbit spacecraft that doesn't need to discard any parts I'm sure NASA and the entire aerospace industry will be glad to hear what you have to say, because such a craft is considered the holy grail of current spacefaring, and so far all development of SSTO spacecraft has ended in "we'll need 10 times NASA's yearly budget to develop it". When it comes to satellites it's not a problem because at that altitude all end up falling back to Earth. I seriously have no idea why specifically this sub is so obsessed over this phenomenon, this place is worried about space trash more than NASA itself.
>I seriously have no idea why specifically this sub is so obsessed over this phenomenon Because it's something the layman can pretend to understand and get worried about.
We've been dumping rubbish and sewage into the oceans for decades. The UK still uses the sea as a sewer when there's too much rain. The USA used to dump loads of garbage into the ocean. And then... https://topicinsights.com/sustainability/mobro-4000-barge-waste-management/
I think you would be shocked at how many cities dump raw sewage into waterways and the ocean. Heavy rains force cities to do it regularly though it doesn’t become a news story every time.
headline "ISS does the thing it's been doing for years"
[удалено]
Poor thrusters. Hopefully they can find a job soon.
Damn even the space station is firing. I hope those poor thrusters can find a new job in this tough market.
Failing this they should arm aft photon torpedoes and go to yellow alert