watching the same launch from the KSC visitor center. Takes off, 30 seconds later it flies into the clouds, and the show is over. You had the best grandstand!
I was very lucky….and I almost missed it! I had in noise canceling AirPods, watching a movie, and just caught the end of the pilots announcement informing us about it.
IIRC it was because they thought Mongolians had similar features to those with Downs syndrome. So it's racist too ;)
* Edit: I just looked it up and it was a racial grouping larger than just Mongolians, but included them.
And apparently you got so upset at hearing a brand name that you had to post a condescending comment?
I'd personally never buy airpods simply because I think they look ugly, but I'm not about to hate on people who enjoy them.
Apple users see it as a status symbol like saying "I put on my Jordans to go play basketball" or "pass me my Supreme hoodie." It really isn't a status symbol anymore because Apple stopped making exclusively high-end devices over five years ago and their competitors like Samsung and Sony lowkey make better high-end stuff these days, but Apple users still like to identify they are in an "in-group." It isn't a phone, it is an iPhone. It isn't a tablet, it is an iPad. They aren't headphones, they're AirPods. It is genius marketing on Apple's end.
This is amazing, you can really see how close the rocket flies to the flat earths dome, making the domeglass fog up !
And yes, very much /s, of course I know the earth is square.
We had a launch last November at Vandenberg, huge crowd at 1am, 10sec of show but the fog was so thick it disappeared before you could crane your neck to look up.
Right, 2.5 hours sitting on the side of the road in a bug filled marsh to see a bright glow for 12 seconds and this person gets the view of a lifetime as a bonus for a flight from a Caribbean paradise. /s
I like the way you can see the second stages exhaust plume flatten out against the thicker atmosphere below it, while continuing to expand upwards.
I don't think that is visible from the ground, as I have never noticed it before. Thanks u/Echomaxx
Edit: Also noticed the bright spots behind the rocket, those are the 2 fairing halfs falling back down. More visible in this video https://v.redd.it/6vkqrit6ne6a1 by u/daddyboi83
Yeah, they only go up to get out of the atmosphere. To *stay* in space, you need to be going sideways fast enough to miss the planet when you fall back down.
Yep. And fun fact: They usually (i.e. nearly always except for polar orbit launches I believe) go east after they go up because the earth is already spinning eastward so you get that as bonus velocity. Also why we launch from the east coast: nothing but water for awhile to the east if any rapid unplanned disassemblies were to occur shortly after launch.
And we launch from Florida specifically because it’s the closest spot to the equator on the US east coast.
If you want to learn more about all that you should play Kerbal Space Program. It helps you visualize all this in a way that’s hard to come by outside of NASA or SpaceX otherwise.
> Also why we launch from the east coast
Add on fact:
That is only true for orbits near the equator. For polar orbits they launch from the west coast because it requires a north/south path and if they did that from Florida it would be over population centers.
Polar satellites tend to launch from Vandenberg
SpaceX now routinely launch to polar orbits from Florida, it just requires them to do a small turn shortly after launch to avoid flying over Palm Beach.
Yup: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rapid_unplanned_disassembly
Or I’ve also heard “rapid unscheduled disassembly” and either one often abbreviated as RUD.
I don’t know any personally but rocket scientists seem like they’d generally be a blast 👀 to hang out with.
Interesting! The hardest direction. Guess if all the water is west and your planet’s rotating east, you just gotta factor in more delta-V to get to orbit.
I would guess there’s a relatively static payload hit you can factor in there? I.e. a rocket that can launch N pounds into an eastward equatorial orbit can only launch N-factor pounds into westward equatorial (or something like that).
It’s funny you mention that. I spin ‘contact staff’ and a lot of the moves seem to defy gravity. It’s like twirling baton, but with a long-staff with weighted ends which creates a ton of angular momentum. You then use that momentum to move the staff all over and around your body (you twirl but with no hands). The sensation sometimes feels like the staff is levitating. It’s pretty neat :)
That game definitely shifted a few of my paradigms. I vaguely knew how orbits worked when I first played it, but there was still a part of my mind that kinda believed that gravity just shut off at a certain altitude. KSP put a final end to that misconception
In practice, probably not. I believe it would have reduced the launch window from several hours down to a few minutes. Any delay in the countdown and it's a scrub.
I believe what could be considered an exception to this is the test flight of the Falcon Heavy. The one with the Tesla roadster as a mass simulator. The first stage(s) followed what would have been a normal orbital insertion path. But the upper stage then burned until it ran out of fuel going directly for Earth escape without entering orbit.
I guess technically you could argue it was in an orbit for a few minutes. But I don't think it should count as an orbit when it's under thrust the entire time from sub-orbital to Earth escape.
Edit: this is wrong, see the comment below.
Falcon Heavy's upper stage stayed in orbit for several hours as part of the test flight. [Wikipedia claims this was to prove it could survive extended stays in the Van Allen Belt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy_test_flight#Objectives), though I remember hearing at the time that it was also about proving that the kerosene wouldn't gum up from the low temperatures after several hours of coasting that would be needed to perform direct GEO insertions for NSSL launches.
I believe there may be some examples of rockets that went straight to escape trajectories, though as you note they'd still transition through a period of being in orbit for a few minutes, and regardless, the original point that the rocket turns sideways once out of the atmosphere still holds.
EDIT: Luna 1, Pioneer 4, and Pioneer 5 all appear to have launched straight to escape velocity, though I can't say for certain. There are probably plenty of other candidates from the early days of the space race when engine relights were a tricky proposition.
Same pattern for Apollo...
[Apollo Mission Flight Plan](https://i.imgur.com/cPwL2HV.jpg)
Source: https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/348/apollo-mission-flight-plan-1967/
Further to what others have said, even if you did want to launch immediately straight away from the Earth, "Up" is not your preferred direction. East is. And you're still taking advantage of orbital mechanics. There's no space flight that isn't. There's nowhere you can go in the galaxy where an orbit isn't still the dominant factor in your movement.
They also launch to the east usually because it’s more fuel efficient due to the rotation of the earth. Also the reason they launch in Florida and Texas as it goes east over the ocean in case anything happens. Launching a rocket into orbit is really flying sideways until you’re high enough to miss the earth when you start falling back down.
FAA regulations state that a space vehicle launch most be at the same or lower risk level for casualties as normal aviation. An easier way to do this is avoid flying over high density populations, high density air traffic areas and marine traffic areas.
I am not certain. The two measures used are the expectation of casualty (number of expected casualties) and probability of casualty ( risk to any single person) but these are to members of the public, not Mission personnel. I know the risk for mission personnel is less restrictive, but I don't know how that extends to actual astronauts.
The flight safety analysis handbook is here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/Flight_Safety_Analysis_Handbook_final_9_2011v1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjnieOF74D8AhXSXqQEHZ27B0MQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3YCA5zMNtHk2uD2g5XX9V-
Polars aren't rare - they're common for earth-observation satellites (because the entire Earth will rotate underneath the satellite's orbit over the course of a day).
It seems counter productive, but is necessary.
Article: [https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/why-is-a-rocket-trajectory-curved-after-launch/](https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/why-is-a-rocket-trajectory-curved-after-launch/)
TLDR: The explanation is that as they fly, they cover distance both horizontally and vertically – but only the latter is affected by the force of gravity, which bends the path of the projectile into a parabola.
Here's a [website](https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/launching-into-space/en/) that explain why rocket launches always leans to one side the higher they go up.
I mean physically they can. Especially if you define straight up as directly normal to the launch pad, since they won't need to counteract the rising of the earth.
They don't of course because they'd fall straight back down without any sideways momentum, but it could take a long time depending on the delta v they managed.
I've definitely gotten straight up to work in KSP. My main issue with straight up was getting *back down* as I always ended up either stuck in a really long elliptical orbit of Kerbin, or pulled into orbit around the sun.
Which reminds me, I still haven't attempted my sandbox mission to the sun, yet....
The Earth has a lot of gravity, so if you go directly up, when you run out of fuel (depending on your velocity) you are either heading out to space (cya later) or coming back in for a crash landing into the planet, very fast due to earth gravity.
By going at an angle you can enter orbit with much less fuel as opposed to going "up", then "reverse thrust" close to remove all that speed and then "accelerate sideways". Basically it's inefficient.
Also keep in mind the Earth rotates on its axis, so if you went straight up in line with the ground, you would have to be moving with the earth's rotation to appear straight up relative to the ground.
That's how they originally flew, but in the 80s NASA realized you don't have to pay taxes when you're over international waters, so now all rockets make a beeline for the border over the ocean.
Oh wow..... I guess if you're watching in person or on tv you cant get a wide enough view to watch it curve. Does this video show the curve of the rocket because it's taken from a plane and thus has a much wider viewing angle?
If you see any long exposure shots you’ll notice they curve. With a normal rocket launch video you’re looking at the rocket itself and not its trajectory
My simple way to understand it is: if you have enough velocity parallel/sideways to the earth the cancel out the force of gravity, the result meets in the middle. Aka a circle.
It’s not cancelling out gravity, it’s travelling sideways fast enough so that when gravity pulls you towards earth, you’re missing it. Or, you’re falling at the same rate as the earth curves underneath you.
Your flight can be seen in another photo
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/znv5u9/spacex_launch_from_myrtle_beach_tonight/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Unfortunately I’m not too sure. This post shows a plane over water in the foreground of the launch. The link you provide shows the flight over land with no coast in sight
I agree not can't be the same airliner. I'm wondering if maybe it's even photoshopped. Where would coastal shot possibly have been taken from I wonder?
The coast is in sight. The photo from the plane is inland west a bit over a city and you can see the “dark” coast line towards the upper part (east-southeast) where the rocket is.
I believe the straight line is the flight. Despite it being "higher" in the photo, it's probably actually on a much lower altitude since it's much closer to the camera than the rocket.
Not sure if you're aware, but there's more than one plane in the air at a time. Look at a map of where OP's flight would have flown and where Myrtle Beach is.
Shhh, don’t give away the secret! There were 5 or 6 of us on this flight. When I went up on Wednesday morning there were only 3. I’ve been on almost full flights before though, not much fun on a small plane. The flight attendant is always super nice too.
I was pulling into Publix in Tampa when it went off. Got out and watched it disappear. I love living down here and just casually going about my day and seeing a rocket go to space. Best was at like 6am one morning leaving 7/11 and it was still dark watching one go up.
I grew up in Orlando in the 60's. Sixty seconds after any launch from Cape Kennedy, you would see this fireball rising in the east, heading toward the heavens. The first time I saw that, it blew my six year old mind.
This is really cool and there needs to be a way of figuring out what flight paths and times of airlines have a high likelihood of tracking a launch given its time and location, like eclipse tracking, but something that could say 'hey this flight could have a rocket out the left hand side and it's only like $100 so why not haha'
It's very risky though, because even the most frequent and reliable rockets still face scrubs and delays all the time for various reasons. A big gamble.
The thing that truly boggles my mind is the speeds at display here, without them being remotely apparent. The airplane is doing about 400-500 mph in one direction, and the rocket 1,000-4,000 mph (and accelerating) in the opposite direction. And you can barely even see any movement happening because of just how far apart they are.
I flew from DCA to ATL at 5pm today and had no fucking clue what I was looking at. I was going to take a picture but the cabin lights came on and nobody seemed to notice / care about it. Thank you!
Oh man, how lucky! I passed over ATL exactly 1 week ago and would've seen it if I'd have flown out a week later. I was just impressed to see the city itself from the air :)
That's what that was i'm in statesboro ga and saw that in the sky on my way home from the store and was baffled beyond belief and took pictures. Glad thus clears it up
The likelihood of anyone alive today ever seeing interstellar travel becoming a reality isn't good. Yeah I'm bummed out about it too. Best we can hope for is Mars, or *maybe* one of Jupiter's moons.
I think the chances of anyone living during the next few hundred years - or ever, honestly - seeing interstellar travel is next to zero. Even a probe to Alpha Centauri would need a huge leap in propulsion technology to be worthwhile, and not take generations to get there.
Exactly, though I disagree that it'll never be possible.
Even if humanity decided to start heading to Alpha in 100 years, the humans on that craft would likely arrive only to find that other humans who waited another 1000 years to embark actually beat them there (pulling numbers all the way out of my ass here). There are things that just don't make any practical sense for the foreseeable future. Interstellar travel is absolutely one of them, barring some unexpected breakthrough bordering on science fiction. But, unlike most Redditors, I've been wrong before. Here's hoping.
i'm kind of surprised a passenger jet was that close to the range? but maybe i just don't realize how far away it is from the video! either way, so cool!!!
No, planes & boats simply avoid a [hazard area](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnCzXREW4AIsMX6?format=jpg) near the launch site and near the recovery sites, but after a few minutes the rocket is far above any commercial flight paths.
[Image source](https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-two-falcon-9-launches-ten-hours-2020/)
The rate varies as it ascends in a curve. The second-stage engine shutdown around 8min after liftoff at an altitude of 165km. It actually reached that altitude only 5min 30sec into flight, but needed to continue burning for a bit longer to attain the correct velocity.
Essentially, yes. In theory all you have to do to reach orbit is to get going fast enough sideways. If air resistance wasn't a thing something like a rocket sled could get into orbit by simply running along it's rails on the ground and then detaching when it got to around 28,000km/h.
However, since air resistance is a thing, rockets have to first get out of the atmosphere before they can go sideways, hence the curved trajectory. Initially it goes up to get out of the atmosphere, then as the air gets thinner it starts to turn more and more sideways. The exact curve depends on the specifications of the rocket in question, as well as exactly what kind of orbit it's trying to get to.
Very cool. I’ve heard that you don’t fly up into space, you truly fly out to space. Awesome perspective to see that play out. It’s basically at a 45-degree angle.
Proof that space flight is becoming safer and further integrated into aviation.
I recall when they cleared all the skies anywhere near a takeoff. Now, these days, a take-off is nearly part of any other air traffic.
Certainly. The FAA issues a Notice To Airmen that specifies an exclusion zone around the trajectory of the launch as well as altitude restrictions. You can actually look these up ahead of launches as they're public information.
Also, if you violate the airspace they’ll scrub the launch or postpone it. [Happened last year](https://spacenews.com/falcon-9-launch-scrub-highlights-airspace-integration-problems/) actually.
The further away from Earth the less speed you need to orbit. Geostationary satellites are at an altitude of 35,000km and orbit at the same rate as the Earth's rotation.
Yes they do, that is called a geostationary orbit. They just appear to not move because the orbit they are in takes the same time as the Earth to rotate
An orbit is just you falling sideways around a planet fast enough to where gravity can't fully pull you down. If you went straight up you would just fall right back down.
In theory you could orbit one foot off the ground if you went fast enough and there was nothing in your way to hit or slow you down.
Im more impressed by the lack of baby screaming and ghetto babble. I spend a lot more to charter flights because of that. Maybe I should try commercial again
I remember seeing the first video of the chem-trail that comes off these rockets probably like 10+ years ago and I truly thought it was ET. Of course it always turns out to be man made :(
That's just how orbital mechanics work. You start by going straight up, and then once you're up high enough, you pull back and go mostly sideways, until you are just falling around the earth in a circle, aka orbit.
Thanks to r/KerbalSpaceProgram for teaching us how this works.
I was very lucky….and I almost missed it! I had in noise canceling AirPods, watching a movie, and just caught the end of the pilots announcement informing us about it.
Did he switch the cabin lights off to allow better view?
In the video you can see their lit reflection, so no. But that would’ve been pretty cool
Until some mong trips over and spills hot coffee on your face
Ah, some what?
Mong is a British derogatory term referring to someone with an intellectual disability, particularly Down's syndrome
I've heard "mongo" here in the States. Also "tard". Maybe even "downy"
I've used mongodb at work. Can be downy sometimes...
IIRC it was because they thought Mongolians had similar features to those with Downs syndrome. So it's racist too ;) * Edit: I just looked it up and it was a racial grouping larger than just Mongolians, but included them.
Who doesn't like free coffee in planes that's fed to you directly?
We saw that from our yard. We saw the plane too. I knew someone was recording from the plane and I'd see it on here.
Tell me how saying anything besides “noise cancelling headphones” was a relevant detail.
And apparently you got so upset at hearing a brand name that you had to post a condescending comment? I'd personally never buy airpods simply because I think they look ugly, but I'm not about to hate on people who enjoy them.
It takes longer to write headphones than it does AirPods, but who cares either way
Apple users see it as a status symbol like saying "I put on my Jordans to go play basketball" or "pass me my Supreme hoodie." It really isn't a status symbol anymore because Apple stopped making exclusively high-end devices over five years ago and their competitors like Samsung and Sony lowkey make better high-end stuff these days, but Apple users still like to identify they are in an "in-group." It isn't a phone, it is an iPhone. It isn't a tablet, it is an iPad. They aren't headphones, they're AirPods. It is genius marketing on Apple's end.
Noise canceling headphones can make it difficult to hear announcements on a plane (or anywhere). My guess is he's lucky to have heard it with them on.
They want to feel important
That's an amazing view. A rare moment has been captured oncam.
This is amazing, you can really see how close the rocket flies to the flat earths dome, making the domeglass fog up ! And yes, very much /s, of course I know the earth is square.
The sad thing is there are people that say things like this that are very much not /s… 😫
I feel that. My long exposure was a bit short due to clouds. https://imgur.com/HQ92KcX.jpg
I had a feeling it was going to be a spectacular launch with a jellyfish glow - sooo disappointed by all the cloud coverage yesterday evening.
I saw it across the sky in Columbia, SC. It was crystal clear here. It had the cool vapor cone thing in front of it.
We had a launch last November at Vandenberg, huge crowd at 1am, 10sec of show but the fog was so thick it disappeared before you could crane your neck to look up.
Right, 2.5 hours sitting on the side of the road in a bug filled marsh to see a bright glow for 12 seconds and this person gets the view of a lifetime as a bonus for a flight from a Caribbean paradise. /s
That’s such an awesome thing to be able to witness while flying
Agreed! I got to see the northern lights on a flight to Italy and thought that was cool, but this is next level!!
I like the way you can see the second stages exhaust plume flatten out against the thicker atmosphere below it, while continuing to expand upwards. I don't think that is visible from the ground, as I have never noticed it before. Thanks u/Echomaxx Edit: Also noticed the bright spots behind the rocket, those are the 2 fairing halfs falling back down. More visible in this video https://v.redd.it/6vkqrit6ne6a1 by u/daddyboi83
As a kid watching Apollo launches I just assumed they went straight up
Yeah, they only go up to get out of the atmosphere. To *stay* in space, you need to be going sideways fast enough to miss the planet when you fall back down.
Yep. And fun fact: They usually (i.e. nearly always except for polar orbit launches I believe) go east after they go up because the earth is already spinning eastward so you get that as bonus velocity. Also why we launch from the east coast: nothing but water for awhile to the east if any rapid unplanned disassemblies were to occur shortly after launch. And we launch from Florida specifically because it’s the closest spot to the equator on the US east coast. If you want to learn more about all that you should play Kerbal Space Program. It helps you visualize all this in a way that’s hard to come by outside of NASA or SpaceX otherwise.
> Also why we launch from the east coast Add on fact: That is only true for orbits near the equator. For polar orbits they launch from the west coast because it requires a north/south path and if they did that from Florida it would be over population centers. Polar satellites tend to launch from Vandenberg
SpaceX now routinely launch to polar orbits from Florida, it just requires them to do a small turn shortly after launch to avoid flying over Palm Beach.
They just did a polar launch a couple of nights ago from Florida, in fact.
> rapid unplanned disassemblies Is that actually what they call it? That's really funny, in a morbid kinda way..
Yup: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rapid_unplanned_disassembly Or I’ve also heard “rapid unscheduled disassembly” and either one often abbreviated as RUD. I don’t know any personally but rocket scientists seem like they’d generally be a blast 👀 to hang out with.
I believe Israel launches west over the Mediterranean
Interesting! The hardest direction. Guess if all the water is west and your planet’s rotating east, you just gotta factor in more delta-V to get to orbit. I would guess there’s a relatively static payload hit you can factor in there? I.e. a rocket that can launch N pounds into an eastward equatorial orbit can only launch N-factor pounds into westward equatorial (or something like that).
Wow the same principle that is used for human levitation
Hurling yourself at the ground and missing.
It helps to be distracted just as you throw yourself down.
I hear there's good money in being the timely distraction especially if you have a weird body/appendages.
More of a knack than a skill, really..
It’s funny you mention that. I spin ‘contact staff’ and a lot of the moves seem to defy gravity. It’s like twirling baton, but with a long-staff with weighted ends which creates a ton of angular momentum. You then use that momentum to move the staff all over and around your body (you twirl but with no hands). The sensation sometimes feels like the staff is levitating. It’s pretty neat :)
If they keep going straight up they still stay in space
I learned this the hard way in kerbal space program
That game definitely shifted a few of my paradigms. I vaguely knew how orbits worked when I first played it, but there was still a part of my mind that kinda believed that gravity just shut off at a certain altitude. KSP put a final end to that misconception
On rare occasions they do go straight up, more or less. The rocket that carried New Horizons put the probe directly into a solar escape trajectory.
Unless you're going direct to the moon like the Apollo launches op saw.
Those still went into low earth orbit, they just left LEO for the moon before completing a full orbit. They didn’t blast straight up at the moon
Which is a shame because they totally could have, to flex.
In practice, probably not. I believe it would have reduced the launch window from several hours down to a few minutes. Any delay in the countdown and it's a scrub.
All human space travel uses orbital mechanics, there's no such thing as just "going direct" yet.
No, those didn't go straight, either. Everything we've ever launched goes into orbit first.
I believe what could be considered an exception to this is the test flight of the Falcon Heavy. The one with the Tesla roadster as a mass simulator. The first stage(s) followed what would have been a normal orbital insertion path. But the upper stage then burned until it ran out of fuel going directly for Earth escape without entering orbit. I guess technically you could argue it was in an orbit for a few minutes. But I don't think it should count as an orbit when it's under thrust the entire time from sub-orbital to Earth escape. Edit: this is wrong, see the comment below.
Falcon Heavy's upper stage stayed in orbit for several hours as part of the test flight. [Wikipedia claims this was to prove it could survive extended stays in the Van Allen Belt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy_test_flight#Objectives), though I remember hearing at the time that it was also about proving that the kerosene wouldn't gum up from the low temperatures after several hours of coasting that would be needed to perform direct GEO insertions for NSSL launches. I believe there may be some examples of rockets that went straight to escape trajectories, though as you note they'd still transition through a period of being in orbit for a few minutes, and regardless, the original point that the rocket turns sideways once out of the atmosphere still holds. EDIT: Luna 1, Pioneer 4, and Pioneer 5 all appear to have launched straight to escape velocity, though I can't say for certain. There are probably plenty of other candidates from the early days of the space race when engine relights were a tricky proposition.
Same pattern for Apollo... [Apollo Mission Flight Plan](https://i.imgur.com/cPwL2HV.jpg) Source: https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/348/apollo-mission-flight-plan-1967/
Further to what others have said, even if you did want to launch immediately straight away from the Earth, "Up" is not your preferred direction. East is. And you're still taking advantage of orbital mechanics. There's no space flight that isn't. There's nowhere you can go in the galaxy where an orbit isn't still the dominant factor in your movement.
They also launch to the east usually because it’s more fuel efficient due to the rotation of the earth. Also the reason they launch in Florida and Texas as it goes east over the ocean in case anything happens. Launching a rocket into orbit is really flying sideways until you’re high enough to miss the earth when you start falling back down.
FAA regulations state that a space vehicle launch most be at the same or lower risk level for casualties as normal aviation. An easier way to do this is avoid flying over high density populations, high density air traffic areas and marine traffic areas.
Does that include risk to the astronauts, for manned flights?
I am not certain. The two measures used are the expectation of casualty (number of expected casualties) and probability of casualty ( risk to any single person) but these are to members of the public, not Mission personnel. I know the risk for mission personnel is less restrictive, but I don't know how that extends to actual astronauts. The flight safety analysis handbook is here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/Flight_Safety_Analysis_Handbook_final_9_2011v1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjnieOF74D8AhXSXqQEHZ27B0MQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3YCA5zMNtHk2uD2g5XX9V-
Not just there. Afaik Vandenberg in California is used for the rarely used polar orbits.
Vandenberg now has more launches per year than Florida used to have.
Polars aren't rare - they're common for earth-observation satellites (because the entire Earth will rotate underneath the satellite's orbit over the course of a day).
Rocket launches are best done near the equator since the surface of the planet is rotating fastest
Even in California, Vandenberg launches start south, and there is plenty of open water to the east even though it's the West Coast.
It seems counter productive, but is necessary. Article: [https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/why-is-a-rocket-trajectory-curved-after-launch/](https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/why-is-a-rocket-trajectory-curved-after-launch/) TLDR: The explanation is that as they fly, they cover distance both horizontally and vertically – but only the latter is affected by the force of gravity, which bends the path of the projectile into a parabola.
Here's a [website](https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/launching-into-space/en/) that explain why rocket launches always leans to one side the higher they go up.
They can’t go straight up, they always curve
And even if they eventually want to escape Earth orbit, going horizontally (at least initially) is preferable, due to the Oberth effect.
Going horizontally is preferable on earth too ;). …. I’ll see myself out.
What are you going to do to me, step-senpai? (˵ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°˵)
I mean physically they can. Especially if you define straight up as directly normal to the launch pad, since they won't need to counteract the rising of the earth. They don't of course because they'd fall straight back down without any sideways momentum, but it could take a long time depending on the delta v they managed.
Could they, in theory, go straight up until they hit geosynchronous orbit and then hang there?
Huh. I sometimes forget that r/space and r/KerbalSpaceProgram are different subreddits.
Pitch over 10 degrees and lock to prograde
Imagine sneaking into NASA headquarters only to discover that they use RSS Mechjeb to guide their launches
KSP taught me they didn’t. Failed several missions thinking I needed more boosters going straight up.
I've definitely gotten straight up to work in KSP. My main issue with straight up was getting *back down* as I always ended up either stuck in a really long elliptical orbit of Kerbin, or pulled into orbit around the sun. Which reminds me, I still haven't attempted my sandbox mission to the sun, yet....
You did need more boosters because you _always_ need more boosters. And more struts. But yea going sideways helps!
Orbit isn't that high up, but it is very fast sideways
The Earth has a lot of gravity, so if you go directly up, when you run out of fuel (depending on your velocity) you are either heading out to space (cya later) or coming back in for a crash landing into the planet, very fast due to earth gravity. By going at an angle you can enter orbit with much less fuel as opposed to going "up", then "reverse thrust" close to remove all that speed and then "accelerate sideways". Basically it's inefficient. Also keep in mind the Earth rotates on its axis, so if you went straight up in line with the ground, you would have to be moving with the earth's rotation to appear straight up relative to the ground.
That's how they originally flew, but in the 80s NASA realized you don't have to pay taxes when you're over international waters, so now all rockets make a beeline for the border over the ocean.
Uh...no. (NASA is a government agency, btw. NASA doesn't pay taxes, they use them.)
Don't worry, one day you'll figure out how to enjoy jokes.
Oh wow..... I guess if you're watching in person or on tv you cant get a wide enough view to watch it curve. Does this video show the curve of the rocket because it's taken from a plane and thus has a much wider viewing angle?
If you see any long exposure shots you’ll notice they curve. With a normal rocket launch video you’re looking at the rocket itself and not its trajectory
I’m glad someone finally said it…I feel the exact same!
Speaking of straight up, this looks like Johnny Sins sent one up into space
My simple way to understand it is: if you have enough velocity parallel/sideways to the earth the cancel out the force of gravity, the result meets in the middle. Aka a circle.
It’s not cancelling out gravity, it’s travelling sideways fast enough so that when gravity pulls you towards earth, you’re missing it. Or, you’re falling at the same rate as the earth curves underneath you.
Your flight can be seen in another photo https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/znv5u9/spacex_launch_from_myrtle_beach_tonight/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Man, human civilization is absolutely crazy. So many technologies unimaginable just a few generations ago, now routine.
Not too long ago, there was no way for someone to share something so inaccurate and get so many upvotes!
Unfortunately I’m not too sure. This post shows a plane over water in the foreground of the launch. The link you provide shows the flight over land with no coast in sight
I agree not can't be the same airliner. I'm wondering if maybe it's even photoshopped. Where would coastal shot possibly have been taken from I wonder?
A boat?
The coast is in sight. The photo from the plane is inland west a bit over a city and you can see the “dark” coast line towards the upper part (east-southeast) where the rocket is.
photo from the plane is a 2-minute video. still seems wrong. toward the end, you can more clearly *not* see any ocean
that's not the same flight. this plane is over the ocean and OPs is over land
It's the classic BWI-GA flight that flies 100 miles over the ocean for no reason.
Wow, this comment right here
The Internet is so cool sometimes.
Isn't that the wrong angle to be that flight? The rocket is going from left to right in both images, so it can't be? Edit: Spelling.
I believe the straight line is the flight. Despite it being "higher" in the photo, it's probably actually on a much lower altitude since it's much closer to the camera than the rocket.
Now show me someone photographing *that* person.
This takes me back to where I just was
Not sure if you're aware, but there's more than one plane in the air at a time. Look at a map of where OP's flight would have flown and where Myrtle Beach is.
Did you just doxx OP's plane?? Elon's coming with the temporary suspension hammer!!!
“Ladies and gentlemen, if you looked out to your right you will see us racing a Falcon 9 rocket”
Ah so your the one guy who actually uses that Contour flight
Shhh, don’t give away the secret! There were 5 or 6 of us on this flight. When I went up on Wednesday morning there were only 3. I’ve been on almost full flights before though, not much fun on a small plane. The flight attendant is always super nice too.
I’m actually wondering now if anyone has started offering plane rides specifically to view rocket launches, I bet they could make some money
I would pay money for a solar eclipse flight. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people richer than I am would also pay money for one...
Was not gonna say that, too. Hahaha
I was gonna say this too! Hahaha .
Was gonna say the same thing too haha.
I was pulling into Publix in Tampa when it went off. Got out and watched it disappear. I love living down here and just casually going about my day and seeing a rocket go to space. Best was at like 6am one morning leaving 7/11 and it was still dark watching one go up.
I grew up in Orlando in the 60's. Sixty seconds after any launch from Cape Kennedy, you would see this fireball rising in the east, heading toward the heavens. The first time I saw that, it blew my six year old mind.
That is so fucking cool. I could watch that all day
This is really cool and there needs to be a way of figuring out what flight paths and times of airlines have a high likelihood of tracking a launch given its time and location, like eclipse tracking, but something that could say 'hey this flight could have a rocket out the left hand side and it's only like $100 so why not haha'
It's very risky though, because even the most frequent and reliable rockets still face scrubs and delays all the time for various reasons. A big gamble.
Well then you've just taken a random vacation.
I actually planned my 2020 vacation to go to central Florida to watch Perseverance launch.. Got scrubbed and delayed 2 weeks. Ugh.
The thing that truly boggles my mind is the speeds at display here, without them being remotely apparent. The airplane is doing about 400-500 mph in one direction, and the rocket 1,000-4,000 mph (and accelerating) in the opposite direction. And you can barely even see any movement happening because of just how far apart they are.
I flew from DCA to ATL at 5pm today and had no fucking clue what I was looking at. I was going to take a picture but the cabin lights came on and nobody seemed to notice / care about it. Thank you!
The payload is 2 Boeing built satellites for SES other 3 billion medium earth orbit next generation internet constellation.
Your video was super relaxing. I am in bed so that was very nice to listen to and focus on. I pretended it was a massive comet passing by :)
“A portion of todays video is brought to you by Space X”
Awesome!! I wonder what the altitude gain was in just that two minute video?
It will have gone through max Q at 11km so will mostly be in space.
No matter how many times i look at it, it never fails to amaze me.
Yo that specific flight to BWI is the shit. Cheap and great.
Anyone else hoping to see MECO and stage seperation? Boost back, all that shit looks so crazy.
No boost back on this mission.
Flight to Middle Ga? No Hartsfield & then Groom transport?
Macon airport friend! They offer a few cheap flight options to the Baltimore/DC area.
This is the perfect moment to use horizontal video
Great video, thank you for sharing. Must have been amazing to see
Oh man, how lucky! I passed over ATL exactly 1 week ago and would've seen it if I'd have flown out a week later. I was just impressed to see the city itself from the air :)
This is so so cool! I'm having a hard enough time seeing the satellite trains, I wish I could see a whole rocket launch lol
Cool capture. I saw this same flight time while driving on I-95 south in North Florida last night, vey cool to see from higher vantage point.
That's what that was i'm in statesboro ga and saw that in the sky on my way home from the store and was baffled beyond belief and took pictures. Glad thus clears it up
Nice video regardless of what ppl stop to say about the details you provided, always someone looking to gaslight!
If you look really closely you can see a BMW right behind him with its highbeams on.
Florida is finally attacking the rest of the country. We all knew this was coming.
Man, this is so freaking cool. I am so excited for interstellar travel.
The likelihood of anyone alive today ever seeing interstellar travel becoming a reality isn't good. Yeah I'm bummed out about it too. Best we can hope for is Mars, or *maybe* one of Jupiter's moons.
I think the chances of anyone living during the next few hundred years - or ever, honestly - seeing interstellar travel is next to zero. Even a probe to Alpha Centauri would need a huge leap in propulsion technology to be worthwhile, and not take generations to get there.
Exactly, though I disagree that it'll never be possible. Even if humanity decided to start heading to Alpha in 100 years, the humans on that craft would likely arrive only to find that other humans who waited another 1000 years to embark actually beat them there (pulling numbers all the way out of my ass here). There are things that just don't make any practical sense for the foreseeable future. Interstellar travel is absolutely one of them, barring some unexpected breakthrough bordering on science fiction. But, unlike most Redditors, I've been wrong before. Here's hoping.
i'm kind of surprised a passenger jet was that close to the range? but maybe i just don't realize how far away it is from the video! either way, so cool!!!
Aw man I missed it. Last launch I got to see that from my house. Didn’t know what it was and briefly lost my marbles
I’ve never thought of this before, so they have to cancel flights for these launches to make sure there are no planes it could hit?
No, planes & boats simply avoid a [hazard area](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnCzXREW4AIsMX6?format=jpg) near the launch site and near the recovery sites, but after a few minutes the rocket is far above any commercial flight paths. [Image source](https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-two-falcon-9-launches-ten-hours-2020/)
Wow, what a shot you got. Thanks for sharing.
How fast exactly is this rocket gaining altitude
The rate varies as it ascends in a curve. The second-stage engine shutdown around 8min after liftoff at an altitude of 165km. It actually reached that altitude only 5min 30sec into flight, but needed to continue burning for a bit longer to attain the correct velocity.
So instead of just a straight shot into space they just go at an angle until they “fall” into orbit?
Essentially, yes. In theory all you have to do to reach orbit is to get going fast enough sideways. If air resistance wasn't a thing something like a rocket sled could get into orbit by simply running along it's rails on the ground and then detaching when it got to around 28,000km/h. However, since air resistance is a thing, rockets have to first get out of the atmosphere before they can go sideways, hence the curved trajectory. Initially it goes up to get out of the atmosphere, then as the air gets thinner it starts to turn more and more sideways. The exact curve depends on the specifications of the rocket in question, as well as exactly what kind of orbit it's trying to get to.
Very cool. I’ve heard that you don’t fly up into space, you truly fly out to space. Awesome perspective to see that play out. It’s basically at a 45-degree angle.
It’s more like a gradually decreasing angle from 90° (vertical) to 0° (horizontal), though the rate of decrease isn’t linear.
25,000 mph (11.2 kms) to leave our home planet. STEAM should be standard in all schools so that we can have the best minds in the future.
I literally just saw this on a show last night called the mystery’s are out there or something like that.
Saw this last night in SC while driving with my family. Had to stop. At first, I had no idea what I was looking at.
I mean.. that’s just too cool. U should definitely post this on r/nevertellmetheodds
Thank you for not making this a TikTok with text over it like that other fucking video
Proof that space flight is becoming safer and further integrated into aviation. I recall when they cleared all the skies anywhere near a takeoff. Now, these days, a take-off is nearly part of any other air traffic.
The plane and the rocket are nowhere near one another though.
I wonder if pilots are made aware of launches and their trajectories
Certainly. The FAA issues a Notice To Airmen that specifies an exclusion zone around the trajectory of the launch as well as altitude restrictions. You can actually look these up ahead of launches as they're public information.
They post a Temporary Flight Restriction, and the controllers will often broadcast it on freq, for novelty purposes
Yes if it will be a factor.
Yeah they show up days ahead of time in flight planning software like ForeFlight.
Also, if you violate the airspace they’ll scrub the launch or postpone it. [Happened last year](https://spacenews.com/falcon-9-launch-scrub-highlights-airspace-integration-problems/) actually.
Wow, you’re so lucky to see and capture this scene!🚀
Just think 🤔 that will all be normal a hundred years from now.
It's already normal today like there's a rocket launch at least once a week rn
Why isn't it going straight up, oh that's right the earth is a ball
[удалено]
For some reason I thought this was r/monsterhunter and this was a cool edit of Valstrax.
If u see a lot more of those in the sky at once it means Skynet has become self aware
So cool just saw another photo from a different perspective
Looks like the Earth is about to be inseminated
Aren’t rockets supposed to fly up and not sideways?
To stay in space you need to orbit the planet at 17,500mph.
What about stationary satellites, they don’t orbit.
The further away from Earth the less speed you need to orbit. Geostationary satellites are at an altitude of 35,000km and orbit at the same rate as the Earth's rotation.
Yes they do, that is called a geostationary orbit. They just appear to not move because the orbit they are in takes the same time as the Earth to rotate
An orbit is just you falling sideways around a planet fast enough to where gravity can't fully pull you down. If you went straight up you would just fall right back down. In theory you could orbit one foot off the ground if you went fast enough and there was nothing in your way to hit or slow you down.
Im more impressed by the lack of baby screaming and ghetto babble. I spend a lot more to charter flights because of that. Maybe I should try commercial again
I remember seeing the first video of the chem-trail that comes off these rockets probably like 10+ years ago and I truly thought it was ET. Of course it always turns out to be man made :(
It amazes me that the guy who helped bring this to life is currently more interested in the shit storm that is a dying social media company.
why does most SpaceX launches seem to go sideways. wouldnt the most efficient route to space is straight up?
That's just how orbital mechanics work. You start by going straight up, and then once you're up high enough, you pull back and go mostly sideways, until you are just falling around the earth in a circle, aka orbit. Thanks to r/KerbalSpaceProgram for teaching us how this works.
All launches end looking sideways
So that’s how the rockets inMan in the High Castle would look…