Slashdot Mirror


Delta IV RocketCam Videos

dmaas writes "High-quality RocketCam videos from the inaugural launch of Boeing's Delta IV rocket have just been made available (in MPEG-1 and Quicktime formats). Of note are the spectacular strap-on solid rocket booster separation, the extension of the second-stage engine nozzle, and the red-hot glow of ablative material in the second-stage engine. (disclaimer: my company prepared these videos for Ecliptic Enterprises, maker of the RocketCam system)" We did RocketCam photos for model rockets a few weeks ago, if you want to compare.

85 comments

  1. Obligatory by Freston+Youseff · · Score: 4, Informative
    --

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail it. No FP for you. You wasted your chance by providing stupid information.

    2. Re:Obligatory by rpn+man · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Did you know that RPN is the preferred entry system of NASA engineers?

      --
      RPN... It's a way of life
  2. Large Quicktime link corrupted by foniksonik · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The large QT link seems corrupted somehow, last part is missing, try the small (file size) link, though you're not missing too much.

    In a related story: conspiracy theorists claim this footage is fake because you can't see any stars in the background..... ;-/

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    1. Re:Large Quicktime link corrupted by foniksonik · · Score: 2

      hmmmm tried it again and all is well... maybe a /. 'side-effect'.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  3. Temporary Slashdot effect? by YuppieScum · · Score: 5, Funny
    Looks like the Gates Bros. Rocketry from last months story is still down.
    503 Service Unavailable
    The requested URL Bandwidth is temporarily unavailable.
    Perhaps "temporarily" now means "not while Slashdot still has a link to it"?
    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
    1. Re:Temporary Slashdot effect? by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 2

      Wonderful, its another story with a site no one can visit, and some MPEGs no one can see. It makes me wonder, why not post a story "Martians Contact Humanity" with a link to a video of "Martian Leader Addressing the UN", etc, etc. Host it all on a server which just returns "server busy" errors, or doesn't respond at all. Who'll know the difference, and hey, maybe we could get a hoax onto Google News.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    2. Re:Temporary Slashdot effect? by LinuxHam · · Score: 2

      woz just gonna say.. I think this was a /.^2.. I know I don't remember the story from the original airing, so I went to see the pix. Same result for me. This is /. part 2 for them.

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    3. Re:Temporary Slashdot effect? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2
      They have some kind of bandwidth choke going on. At least when you do get the page, the downloads are fast.

      I would encourage you to bookmark the site, and keep trying. They are very, very, cool.

      ps. turn up your sound, lots.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  4. Wow... by trotski · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hey those rockets are VERY cool.... I am impressed. I wonder.

    It looks like right now they're using them for sattelite launches. I wonder, since space shuttles are gettin' kinda old and are and always have been rediculously expensive, will these Delta rockets eventually serve as the american's main launch vehicle for astronauts? That would be very cool.

    To remain a little bit more on topic, they videos look great, all of this is very exciting.

    --

    "Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
    1. Re:Wow... by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      I am not a rocket scientist, but I always thought the whole point of the shuttle was that it is resuable, thus saving money in the long run.

      Isn't NASA working on a next generation shuttle for human missions?

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    2. Re:Wow... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't carry enough payload. They will carry up a 500-1000 pound satellite, but 2 people plus all the life-support crap necessary to keep them alive would weigh about the same. Not too economical to just send 2 people up, with no cargo. Also, they're not re-useable, nor cheap enough to be more economical than a re-useable vehicle. We need to send more than just people into space; we've been there, done that. Cargo capacity is the most important consideration, but cost is also important - the Shuttle holds lots of cargo, but it's too expensive to use for everything we want to send up.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    3. Re:Wow... by Soft · · Score: 3, Informative
      I am not a rocket scientist, but I always thought the whole point of the shuttle was that it is resuable, thus saving money in the long run.

      That's the idea on paper. However, this only works if the vehicle flies again and again; the current shuttle flight rate is about four to six a year (all four vehicles combined), and it requires a standing army of several thousand people to rebuild each one between missions - it is not a matter of "fueling her up, checking the oil, cleaning the windshield", more like swapping out the engines, replacing thermal tiles, and so on. And the airframes are aging, fast.

      This puts the price tag for each flight in the $300 million range, or $10,000/kg (payload mass, not counting the hundred-ton shuttle deadweight). With that kind of performance, the expendable launchers are more economical. Or you could say that the current shuttles are not, in fact, reusable.

      Many space advocates believe that we now have the technology and know-how to cut those costs by a large factor, but that NASA and the big players have no interests in doing so. Check this previous /. story about "How the West wasn't won".

      Isn't NASA working on a next generation shuttle for human missions?

      They have just relaunched an orbital spaceplane program to alleviate the ISS' dependency on Russian Soyuzes; this would be a small (reusable?) vehicle housing up to ten people, launched either by a shuttle or a Delta 4 Heavy, to be used mainly as a lifeboat for the ISS so that more than three people can stay there for extended periods.

      Other than that, the SLI program is more or less aimed at replacing the shuttle in a two or three-decade timeframe, and will probably produce yet another expensive all-in-one monster vehicle, if anything.

    4. Re:Wow... by Soft · · Score: 2
      They don't carry enough payload. They will carry up a 500-1000 pound satellite, but 2 people plus all the life-support crap necessary to keep them alive would weigh about the same.

      The Delta 4 that was just launched has a payload capacity to low Earth orbit of over 11 metric tons (24,000 pounds). The heavy version will double this. Atlas 5 and Ariane 5 are at the same level or better.

      The latest Soyuz-TMA (3 people, 14 days life support, 6 months orbital storage - little cargo, agreed) is a little over 7 tons.

      Conclude.

    5. Re:Wow... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the correction; I realized as I hit enter my example was a bit low. Oh, and yes, the other reason we don't use these for people is that it seems about every 1 in 10 of them blows up. The safety factors and redundancies aren't up to "human" standards.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    6. Re:Wow... by Soft · · Score: 2
      the other reason we don't use these for people is that it seems about every 1 in 10 of them blows up. The safety factors and redundancies aren't up to "human" standards.

      It depends on the rocket, it can be as low as 1 in 30. Which doesn't prevent the Russians from sending people on expendable rockets, as they have a launch escape system (and it was actually used a couple of times), just like the Saturn 5 and its predecessors had, for Apollo. In fact, I think the shuttle is the only manned launcher ever in which people were killed on take-off...

      If we are to develop a space industry, then indeed these reliability rates are way too low.

    7. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Other than that, the SLI program is more or less aimed at replacing the shuttle in a two or three-decade timeframe, and will probably produce yet another expensive all-in-one monster vehicle, if anything.


      Whatever the form of the eventual reusable launcher developed via the SLI, I'm pretty confident that it will be less expensive to opperate than the Shuttle fleet. (Currently NASA thinks it will be a two-stage reusable vehicle, because efficient single-stage to orbit systems don't look attainable this iteration.)

      NASA learned a lot of lessons from the Shuttle. They learned that it requires a hell of a lot of inspection and maintenance between flights. They know a lot about launch vehicle ground operations!!! :) They are going to try to automate as many of the inspection requirements as is worthwhile, and minimize maintance needs.

      The shuttles are very expensice. But, they were the first mostly-reusable spacecraft ever flown, and they taught us quite a bit about how to build their decendants.
    8. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wonder, since space shuttles are gettin' kinda old and are and always have been rediculously expensive, will these Delta rockets eventually serve as the american's main launch vehicle for astronauts?


      Yes, NASA would like to do exactly that. They want to build a crew-transfer vehicle, called the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) which would ride an expendable rocket into space. (That's just one of many links about it. There are better ones, I'm sure.) It would either launch atop a Delta IV or an Atlas V (which is also a brand new rocket which performed its flawless maiden flight early in the Fall). The OSP will be reusable.

      The capabilities of the OSP are only estimates now. (It actually has to be designed still :), and the design will likely go through many iterations.) But, they've got some preliminary decent estimates. It will probably be able to carry 7-10 astronauts to Low Earth Orbit, along with a tiny bit of cargo. It will be designed to stay attached to the International Space Station for months or years at a time, to serve as a lifeboat. (The Shuttle can't stay up for more than three weeks or so w/o modifications.) It will eventually replace (or supplement, for huge crews!) the Soyuz as the Station's lifeboat.

      NASA wants a very fast turn around time. They want to be able to launch an OSP with only a few weeks notice at most, unlike the Shuttle's several month prep time. (NASA learned a lot of lessons from the Shuttle about maintaining and operating reusable vehicles. Those lessons will be folded in to this spacecraft.)

      Not only will it be designed to be mated to an expendable Atlas or Delta rocket, but they intend to design it to mate to the top of an eventual fully reusable replacement to the Shuttle. (You would stack this on top of the reusable the same way you would stack it to the top of the expendable.)

      Finally, they would like to use heavy-lift Delta and Atlas variants to send this to the Earth-Moon L1 point, or to other destinations. This should be a very flexible vehicle.

      I'll leave you with a final thought. If you wanted to do space-to-space transportation (L1 to a telescope at an Earth-Sun Lagrange point, for instance) this vehicle has most of the necessary systems. But, it also has a very heavy airframe, since it is meant to come back to Earth. People understand this full well, and are considering stuffing very similar systems in a space-only frame, with a propulsion system designed for space-to-space missions. (This thing would probably be a little cramped for seven people on a week long mission, too, but probably no worse than a teeny-tiny little Gemini capsule. :)

      Anyway, I like it, and I can't wait until some of the people reading this are flying in it. :)

      p.s. (It isn't meant to obsolete the shuttle. But, it will probably reduce its flight rate since it will be overkill for crew-transfer.)
    9. Re:Wow... by Soft · · Score: 1
      Whatever the form of the eventual reusable launcher developed via the SLI, I'm pretty confident that it will be less expensive to opperate than the Shuttle fleet.
      8<
      The shuttles are very expensice. But, they were the first mostly-reusable spacecraft ever flown, and they taught us quite a bit about how to build their decendants.

      Maybe. But this assumes that NASA is actually interested in reducing the costs, whereas a widely accepted theory is that they are more interested with playing with new technology, and keeping their current workforce and budget. Very commendable, but if the next vehicle requires further development instead of using off-the-shelf technology, and employs as many workers for its operations, how can it be cheaper?

      NASA is a technology agency. That's its mission. It is not structured to design economical mass-transportation to orbit systems, and should not be trying to - for people are then convinced that their way is the only one, high costs for few people.

    10. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But this assumes that NASA is actually interested in reducing the costs, whereas a widely accepted theory is that they are more interested with playing with new technology, and keeping their current workforce and budget.


      They definitely are worried about reducing costs. They do want to reduce the size of the space-launch workforces. (Of course, one way to maintain a large workforce is to have more launches with an easier-to-maintain rocket. NASA has an incentive to make individual launches cheaper either way.) Not only is NASA willing to reduce the size of the shuttle-related workforce, but many congressmen from impacted districts are, too. They understand that cheaper launches will improve NASA's health... even if shuttle processing jobs are lost, others will be gained.

      I am a scientist who is often critical of the NASA beauracracy. But, I don't think they have a conspiracy to keep all of their workers around. :) They perform layoffs as needed, just like everyone else.
  5. nope Re:Large Quicktime link corrupted by kbs · · Score: 1


    i had no problems viewing it... it's worth giving it a shot anyway. i'm wondering if there were any shots you could do to make it more interesting: most of it is blinding glare from the combustion.

    -k

    --
    yours,
    kbs
    1. Re:nope Re:Large Quicktime link corrupted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm wondering if there were any shots you could do to make it more interesting: most of it is blinding glare from the combustion.


      Sure there are. But, one of the reasons for having these cameras was to monitor the performance of the new second stage engine.
  6. Forward by denisonbigred · · Score: 5, Funny

    Approximately 37 minutes after liftoff, the rocket deployed the W5 spacecraft to a geosynchronous transfer orbit with a perigee of 539 kilometers above the Earth.

    Kind of makes your 37 minute commute to work seem slow, doesn't it?

    --

    "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals."
    1. Re:Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be driving a Geo or something.

    2. Re:Forward by IdahoEv · · Score: 2

      Commuting to work at seven G doesn't sound like a party to me...

      --
      I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  7. Videos by seeksoft · · Score: 0

    Damn! 4 posts and the videos are /. already? I would mirror the videos.. but I dont think I want to hear somebody complain about 500000 gigs being sent on Saturday morning :) The videos werent all that great anyways.

  8. Shuttle Cam by MrJones · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hey, the Shuttle Cam from STS-112 is also available in that page, great!

    --
    Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
    1. Re:Shuttle Cam by lommer · · Score: 2

      Also films of the XCOR glider-jet tests are on the site. Does anyone have any other info about that particular project? It looks really interesting.

  9. 37 minutes by isorox · · Score: 5, Funny

    Approximately 37 minutes after liftoff, the rocket deployed the W5 spacecraft to a geosynchronous transfer orbit with a perigee of 539 kilometers above the Earth.

    But will the web server last that long?

  10. Someone, get out there and wipe off the lens! by deathcloset · · Score: 2, Funny

    I like how well you can see the shadow of the shuttle's rockets on the ocean. It kind of gives a nice perspective on the scope of the launch. But it sure sucked that we missed full angle of the acent, I would like to have seen the few minutes of earth getting smaller footage. it also sucks we missed the nose jet footage and the final zero g seperation. I tell you, those booster rockets are trouble trouble trouble...NASA needs a camera wash like in Steel Battalion.

  11. In related news by Dougthebug · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    In other news today, France surrenders to Boeing.

  12. Another one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Amateur rocket link. [cnn.com]

    Here's more of the same!

  13. Wow, eye popping! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This video is much better than the first, because the angle of view nicely avoids that glare from the exhaust.

  14. Re:use RPN by rpn+man · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'd like to add that the latest calculators have an unlimited stack. This makes usage very easy. I strongly recommended you purchase a HP48gx or 49g. This will make you a much better person.

    --
    RPN... It's a way of life
  15. Re:Announcing a new breed of slashdot troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right on dude, RPN rocks!!!!! to keep the post on topic however, you could have pointed out that the engineers that designed the rocket or the camera probably used an RPN calculator :).

  16. Re:Announcing a new breed of slashdot troll by rpn+man · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You are undoubtly correct.

    All *real* engineers and scientists use RPN. Why don't you? Try RPN today!

    --
    RPN... It's a way of life
  17. Wow by Warin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how the politicians that feel the space program should be cut can watch something like this and not be moved... Sure the space program is expensive, but in spite of how trite it sounds, space really is the final frontier. We've explored pretty much all of surface of our planet, and short of being into submarines (which isnt anywhere as cool as the Space shuttle!) earth orbit and beyond are the last frontier for exploration. All of human history has been about going beyond the next hill... seeking out what we dont know. It seems awfully short sighted to expect that drive to just fade away... Sometimes a concept is worth more than money.

    1. Re:Wow by Dougthebug · · Score: 0

      The world would be a better place if we had politcians who read slashdot...

    2. Re:Wow by rpn+man · · Score: 0

      and used RPN of couse... Renounce algerbraic entry NOW!

      --
      RPN... It's a way of life
    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing happens without money.

      You want it? You pay for it.

  18. Re:Announcing a new breed of slashdot troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we all know why reverse polish notation isn't used.

  19. Re:Announcing a new breed of slashdot troll by rpn+man · · Score: 0

    because of morons like yourself?

    --
    RPN... It's a way of life
  20. Permanent slashdot effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They spent a lot of money on these videos, but maybe it is time they upgraded that 2400 baud modem stuck to their website.

  21. Re:Announcing a new breed of slashdot troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good one. try this.

  22. With RocketCams.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..will inevitably come RocketCamWhores.

  23. Wastefulness... by neksys · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All this video did (besides impress me to the point of breathlessness) is reinforce the need for a cheap, reuseable launch vehicle. Watching 80% of the rocket fall away in stages - all those millions of dollars in raw materials - just goes to show how wasteful our current launch systems are. Even the shuttle sheds a large part of itself soon after launch - not to mention the fact that the shuttles are aging, inefficient behemoths that deserve a proper rest. We need to develop a fully reusable, inexpensive, efficient launch vehicle. No, there isn't any oil in space, and yes, it is terribly expensive to retrieve raw materials from off our planet, but the value of such a craft cannot be measured in dollars or tons - its value instead is found in the history books of the future, proclaiming it the first step in bringing the stars to our doorstep.

    1. Re:Wastefulness... by swb · · Score: 2

      The question I have is, is there any recovery done on the parts that fall away? Do they just sink into the ocean, or are they even worth recovering -- damage from falling, child stage engine blast, etc?

      Any concern for people/ships/planes that might be flying underneath where the parts fall away or is some attempt made to ensure that the places where the stages drop is 'empty'?

    2. Re:Wastefulness... by Glock27 · · Score: 2
      All this video did (besides impress me to the point of breathlessness) is reinforce the need for a cheap, reuseable launch vehicle.

      Yah, like electromagnetic catapults. Heinlein was on the right track there.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    3. Re:Wastefulness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The question I have is, is there any recovery done on the parts that fall away? Do they just sink into the ocean, or are they even worth recovering -- damage from falling, child stage engine blast, etc?


      For an expendable like this, as far as I know no salvage is done. The engines are only designed to be fired once, so they are worthless. Also, the raw materials aren't worth enough to merit salvaging. (I could be wrong, maybe someone does salvage the raw materials, but I've never heard of it.)

      The shuttle external tank burns up while reentering the atmosphere over a deserted part of the Indian Ocean. The solid rocket boosters are recovered by ships and towed back for refurbishing.

      Any concern for people/ships/planes that might be flying underneath where the parts fall away or is some attempt made to ensure that the places where the stages drop is 'empty'?


      The airspace and seas around the launch zone are forbidden. Fighters routinely escort small planes from the vicinity of launches, when their pilots get to curious/dumb. The Coast Guard does the same for ships.

      (The Chinese launch over their mainland, though, and a few years ago they accidentally crashed a rocket into one of their own cities. Oops. We don't launch that way, though. :)
    4. Re:Wastefulness... by Fenris2001 · · Score: 2
      Watching 80% of the rocket fall away in stages - all those millions of dollars in raw materials - just goes to show how wasteful our current launch systems are

      You haven't priced metals recently, have you? The raw materials for a decent sized rocket cost at most a hundred thousand dollars - not even a million. What's expensive is the production of the parts from those raw materials. That problem is easily licked - make a few thousand rockets, and the production cost drops dramatically. I lost exact count, but the total number of launches of all types from Earth in the last 50 years is something less than five thousand. We are still in the very early stages of the Space Age.
      --
      ---------------
      Vpered na Mars!
    5. Re:Wastefulness... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd be amazed at how wrong this conventional "reusable" wisdom is; not that you haven't put some thought into it, but history and current events shows it to be wrong.

      Take, for example, the Saturn V moon rockets. This behemoth rocket, standing who-knows-how-many stories tall, and all you get back is this teensy little capsule with three astronauts in it. Wasteful, eh?

      Well, yes it is, but engineers plan that wastefullness into the system. For example, the massive Jupiter engines that were on the first stage of the Saturn V were designed to work once, and only once. As such, you immediately can dispense with one of the largest expenses of the shuttle fleet -- namely, the tear down and inspection process following every launch. There's nothing to inspect when your launch system is expendable. Ironically, the shuttle costs more per pound of payload than the Saturn V did, even taking inflation into account, and the inspection procedures are a large part of this.

      Take it a step further and you'll see that reliability comes into play. How many shuttle launches have been delayed or scrubbed due to equipment failure? Quite a few, and it's because the shuttle has sacrificed much to the altar of reusability. Weight, the evil bugaboo of the space program, has been ruthlessly trimmed to the point where things aren't as overengineered as the were in the Apollo days. Such cuts had to be made or the shuttle wouldn't be able to carry as much as a postcard into orbit. Apollo, by contrast, was rarely delayed because the equipment wasn't being pushed as hard as the Shuttle is. Again, Saturn V's were designed with finite lifetimes, and the engineers used that to build cheaper, more reliable, but somewhat less efficient systems.

      Lastly, reusability comes at a heavy cost in payload capacity. The shuttle can only reach low earth orbit, and only a few orbital trajectories at that. Why do you think so many companies still use Delta's for satellite launches? It's cheaper and it's more reliable, otherwise you'd bet that companies would be bashing down NASA's door trying to get space on a shuttle launch.

      I'll leave you with a good analogy from the motorsports world: drag racing. A Top Fuel dragster is designed to do one thing -- run the quarter mile as fast as possible. To that end, the engines are designed to be torn down and practically rebuilt in between runs, and are junked after a very few runs. Why is that? Well, parts designers realized that to design a longer, more reusable lifespan into these engines would either diminish their competitiveness (heavier components last longer but hurt performance) or cost an unholy amount of money in exotic materials and technologies. The analogy is not complete, of course, since drag engines still cost a fortune, but you get the picture as big, dumb boosters do not cost a fortune with respect to the shuttle.

      The shuttle is, and has been, a political jobs program. It should never have been made, and should not be continued. Manned spaceflight to LEO could be just as easily accomplished with cheaper, expendable boosters like the ones we were using forty years ago. In fact, with the technology advances of today, those yesteryear boosters could be much cheaper to operate today than they were then.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    6. Re:Wastefulness... by fname · · Score: 1

      Of course, there's a group of Oklahomans who want to set up a spaceport in Oklahoma. So, then we might have the chance to take a city out.

  24. no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not even close

  25. Wow by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't like to be a bug hitting *that* windscreen.

  26. Server Down - Straight DL from Boeing here by Knunov · · Score: 5, Informative

    Their server is down already.

    Download a movie directly from Boeing here.

    QT format. The site also has Real Audio format.

    Knunov

    --
    Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    1. Re:Server Down - Straight DL from Boeing here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this reminds me of when cowboi kneel strapped a camera to his penis before he had butt sex with cmdrtaco.

  27. I've been trying for weeks--anyone have a mirror? by dpbsmith · · Score: 2

    Subject line says all. I've been trying to see those Gates Brothers movies, but the site has always says "503 Service Unavailable
    The requested URL Bandwidth is temporarily unavailable." Did anyone mirror them?

  28. Re:Temporary Slashdot effect? - temp mirrors by c0nman · · Score: 2, Informative

    for those that seem to not be able to get the video from the main site
    New York mirror
    Italy mirror

  29. I've got a solution! by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just stop putting hyperlinks in stories! The time it will take everyone to manually type in the URL's will stagger the onslaught, and the lazier readers won't even bother. Maybe this will keep from killing the poor little servers! :)

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    1. Re:I've got a solution! by sbaker · · Score: 2

      Slashdot needs to cache the pages it references for the first day or two and
      then revert to a genuine hyper-link to the real site.

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
  30. Re:Wow -- IT'S FAKE !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Sorry -- but the last 20% of the video looks FAKE. Where was the camera for these shots (where the rocket is in space, visible from a distance) ??


    Not suggesting "the launch didn't happen". Just looks to me like
    they switched over to the proof-of-concept computer graphics simulation for the end of the video clip.


    (Referring to QT 5 version of video.)

  31. Karma - going down by lowkster · · Score: 1

    Hu Hu Hu, you said strap-on.

  32. Large QT Mirror by augustz · · Score: 2
    Mirror of the large QT file available here.

    http://66.111.35.100/d4_launch_2002-11-20.mov

  33. Re:Large QT Mirror + Mpeg by augustz · · Score: 2

    The rocketcam only stuff:

    http://66.111.35.100/delta-iv-mpeg-lo.mpg
    http: //66.111.35.100/delta-iv-mpeg-hi.mpg

  34. Dear God - Help Me! by IdahoEv · · Score: 2

    What timing... it turns out I have moderator access today.

    Should I mod this thread down to try to save my server?

    Evan Dorn,
    Ecliptic Enterprises Webmaster

    p.s. Thanks a bunch, Dan.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  35. Uhh .. huh huh by howlingmoki · · Score: 1
    Of note are the spectacular strap-on solid rocket booster separation

    ..they said strap-on. That was cool

    /butt head

  36. Designed and Built... by Reverend+Raven · · Score: 1

    For those interested, the Delta IV is build in my home town of Decatur, Alabama. At construction time it was the largest Boeing building under one roof (or so they told us contractor). Massive complex. And from what I understand, the Delta IV's are one of the components of the National Missle Defense system that the Government has been developing. Interesting stuff in Alabama, lots of rockets and other stuff. ;)

    --

    --Reverend Raven
    Desperate days demand dire deeds.
  37. More RocketCam videos of EZ-Rocket also available by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 2
    Ecliptic, the folks who brought you the Delta IV and shuttle cameras, also sponsored us with a camera which I installed on to our EZ-Rocket, currently the world's only privately owned, manned rocket powered airplane. The new videos can be seen here. They are from this year's AirVenture airshow in Oshkosh, WI. My favorite video is the re-light, there's great vertical action and lots of good views of the airshow. There is also an older rocketcam video from our home base in Mojave, CA. Enjoy.

    --Mike
    www.xcor.com

  38. Brings tears... by speedbump · · Score: 1
    Folks, this brings tears to my eyes.

    I was a computer tech and systems analyst in the aerospace biz for seven years, and here's some of my thoughts as I watch this footage:

    Rocket building is about overcoming physics in a brute-force fashion, because budget concerns weigh heavily into the issue of getting your payload to low-Earth or geosynchronous orbit.

    Those payloads have varying degrees of tolerance to G-forces, thus we can't just put everything in a Mother-of-All-Cannons and shoot them into space.

    Most payloads are lifted into orbit as if there were human occupants included, whether or not there are such in the payload.

    Most rocket technology, by and large, is at this point 40 years (or better!) old. I have actually been on projects where we have had to call engineers out of retirement after 30 years because their paper drawings, which hadn't yet been digitized, were starting to fade, and we need to know WHY they had designed certain structural and electronic features into their work.

    Yes, solid fuel boosters and the shuttle are inefficient ways to get to space. We knew this before we designed the shuttle. But there is a cost-vs-efficiency trade-off which must be made, as well as a 'will to get the job done' factor. We no longer have a 'do-or-die' ethic as regards space utilization. Perhaps another Sputnik is in order...

    1. Re:Brings tears... by dfries · · Score: 1

      What options are there other than brute-force? Other than the proposed space elevator, I doubt we will do much better. We could save some costs on a redesign, but it will still be a brute-force sit on explosives approach.

  39. Duct tape by Catskul · · Score: 2

    ... Did anyone else see the duct tape at the end of the first movie..
    Upper right hand corner.
    Around the pipe.

    --

    Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
    1. Re:Duct tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      duct tape used to repair a duct. imagine that.

  40. Re:Wow -- IT'S FAKE !!! by purplebaron · · Score: 1

    Dude, read the caption Part two: Late Ascent and Atlantis-ET Separation (video digitally enhanced to bring out detail)