Slashdot Mirror


Exploding Water Balloons In Zero G

ArchAngel21x writes "Experimenters burst water balloons in the low-gravity environment produced aboard a NASA DC 9 aircraft. There are 3 videos available in QuickTime or MPEG." From the site: "The tests were conducted in part to develop the ability to rapidly deploy large liquid drops by rupturing an enclosing membrane. As can be seen from the experiment footage, the initial rupture process is nearly ideal, but the finite size of the balloon material eventually ejects a spray from the drop surface. Then, when the balloon material leaves the drop entirely, it causes a large deformation of the drop (blob) which oscillates throughout the remainder of the test. Calculations suggest that such oscillations will continue for hours before the drop eventually becomes spherical."

32 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. This is quite old by OverlordQ · · Score: 3, Funny

    and i'm 98.7% sure it's been posted here on /. somewhere before

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  2. Don't miss these high-speed videos by putko · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/balloon/HS.HTM

    Has anyone done porn in zero-G? I'm thinking bukkake could be big in zero G or super-high speed format.

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    1. Re:Don't miss these high-speed videos by putko · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wow.

      Here it is:
      http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/uranus_ experiment_000516.html

      "Whether it wins the Nebula on Saturday or not, the series will retain a unique place in cinematic history thanks to the first installment, which boasts the first explicit sex scene shot in zero gravity conditions.

      The scene was filmed by flying an airplane to an altitude of 11,000 feet. The plane, containing performers Sylvia Saint and Nick Lang, then went into a steep dive, creating the momentary illusion of weightlessness.

      Insiders described the filming process as particularly messy from a technical and logistical standpoint.

      Budgeting constraints allowed Saint and Lang, who portray astronauts, only one shot at a perfect zero-G take, leaving the actors with only a narrow 20-second window of time in which to launch themselves toward one another and complete the scene. "

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    2. Re:Don't miss these high-speed videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anyone got a torrent?

  3. Damn it. by mikeophile · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want a bong and a budget too.

  4. You may laugh now but by The+13th+Duke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Soon our daily lives will be improved by new, exciting products based on Zero G Water Balloon Bursting technology.

    1. Re:You may laugh now but by goneutt · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can envision it now.... some smart aleck is gonna slap "NASA TECHNOLOGY" on a $.99 store pack of water balloons and charge $5.99, and sell a few hundred thousand...... hold that thought.

      --
      Bacardi + slashdot = negative karma.
  5. Important Discovery by mrRay720 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The tests were conducted in part to develop the ability to rapidly deploy large liquid drops by rupturing an enclosing membrane.

    All I can say is THANK GOD someone has finally researched this. I've lost count of the number of times I've wanted to rapidly deploy large liquid drops is a low/no-G environment.

    Now can they please start with th research of the effects of pepper spray on penguins. That's the real science goldmine.

    1. Re:Important Discovery by saikatguha266 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Consider the value of quickly deploying a glycerine shield in space to slow down stray space debris from hitting the space station or shuttle.

      Your glycerine (or even more viscous liquid) baloon is all filled and easily moved into place ... without spilling the liquid. And then boom! Instant shield.

    2. Re:Important Discovery by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now can they please start with th research of the effects of pepper spray on penguins. That's the real science goldmine.

      Pepper spray? I've been using pepper sauce. No wonder they still taste fishy.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:Important Discovery by MadCow42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The question is begging to be asked... in your scenario, what's the benefit of pre-breaking the baloon? You're better off keeping the baloon intact and letting the space debris break it. So, there's no "deployment" of large liquid drops involved (it's a side effect, not the aim of the shield).

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
  6. Re:Zero G[ravity]? by arose · · Score: 2, Funny

    Or maybe I just should get some coffee before posting, mod parent down before somone can see it please.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  7. This is not THAT stupid by gr8dude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In fact, it is not stupid at all.
    I am sure that the gathered knowledge can be used in many situations. One of them could be "Dealing with leaking liquids in space missions".

    Of course, the old problem is still there - the time when this knowledge will be implemented into something useful might be very far away from now.

  8. Commercial zero-gravity flights by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This reminds me of the ZERO-G company, which offers commercial weightless flights on a specially-modified Boeing 727. Folks like Buzz Aldrin and Burt Rutan have flown on it, as well as everyone's favorite slashdotter John Carmack. Carmack posted a description of the flight, along with photos and a video.

    I'd love to go myself, but I think it's still a little too rich for my poor grad-student blood.

  9. the abyss by pintomp3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    was i the only one reminded of the movie "the abysss" while watching the clips?

  10. Old News!! by Agret · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the bottom of the page:

    This page was last updated on
    Monday, 12 August, 2002 12:22 PM

    --
    Have you metaroderated recently?
    1. Re:Old News!! by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Funny

      News for Nerds, stuff that mattered 3 years ago.

  11. Re:Zero G[ravity]? by paulthomas · · Score: 4, Informative

    I just wanted to clarify the parent's comment for those who don't necessarily know what the correct term is.

    As someone who has done combustion experiments in the Glenn Research drop towers, I can authoritatively say that the term (that the parent likely means) is microgravity, not zero gravity. Zero gravity would imply that one is defying the rules of physics. Microgravity suggests merely that the effects of gravity are significantly diminished due to free fall: orbit, the vomit comet, or simply dropping a vessel in an evacuated tower.

    Things having to do with such experiments are frequently labeled with neat mu-g stickers in NASAs facilities.

    -Paul

  12. just in case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  13. I still wanna see... by speights_pride! · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..what happens when potato chips are released in Zero G. Then I'll be able to make up my mind as to whether the Simpsons is real or pure fiction.

  14. Re:DC9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Regardless of all the sturm und drang you see in Congress over the NASA budget, it's not that big, and has shrunk continuously over the years (in absolute dollars it's about the same size now as 15 years ago when I first worked with them, never mind inflation). They get research planes when everyone else is finished with them. They have a beat to hell F/A-18 that they use for the HARV program, they have the only remaining operational SR-71, and lots of other aircraft that nobody else has use for, but NASA can use for a testbed for something cool.

    (I believe that it was just recently expanded, but haven't followed the details)

  15. Re:DC9? by ocelotbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sometimes, it's the best course to use proven technology, rather than something new. The DC-9 is a proven airframe for this sort of work, and does its job quite well. Moving to a different sort of craft would require a lot of money and effort for frankly fairly little gains.

    --

    Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  16. Re:Our tax dollars at work... by gilroy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Blockquoth the poster:

    I hope you enjoyed the movie that second per second was probably more expensive to create than to just pay ILM to do it on a computer.

    I really had resolved to sit this one out, to not get involved with all the NASA-bashing that such a page is guaranteed to inspire. And then I saw this.

    It might be hard for someone in media-drenched America to understand, but the point of this was not to entertain you. I know, I know: It's virtually indecent to propose that anything be done for any reason other than your amusement. The point of these experiments was to learn something about fluid flow.

    Maybe ILM could have made the samne movie -- and maybe not, because fluid flow is hard. Certainly they could have made a movie that you would have thought was a simulation of fluid flow in microgravity, because they're clever and because you (and no one else, really) has a firm idea of what that would be. But as a visual simulation it could teach us nothing new and concrete. And as a summer blockbuster it would likely have fallen flat.

    These guys, on the other hand, are doing science. They're running experiments to explore the operation of the physical universe. Along the way, they came upon video footage that, they thought, looked "fun" and so they shared it. I can't see anything to be critical of here.

    I'm sure I'll arouse the ire of the wrath from atop the thing by bringing up the old chestnut of spin-offs, but we have no idea of what practical applications willcome from this knowledge, and the knowledge that comes along with it that they didn't put on that page. It's fairly easy to see how understanding this could help with fuel injection systems, but I'm sure there are many other potential payoffs.

    And yes, we do need to spend government money on that, because the payoff is uncertain. Private industry will not invest in basic research, whose beneficiaries are unknowable at the outset. Indeed often the people who make the money are not the ones who do the research. As for it being "uber" dollars: The entire NASA budget is about $16B. The federal budget is about $2,200B. So all of NASA is about about 1% of federal outlays. Not only is this smaller than the series of "emergency" outlays to cover the war in Iraq; it's smaller than the generic pork the Congress (and administration) roll into the budget.
  17. not "low gravity" by Blitzenn · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is not a low gravity experiment. Technically the best you could call it is a virtual low gravity. The water is actually within the same gravity well as the plane is and is falling to the earth at the same speed. The difference is that it is enclosed in an atmosphere that is also falling at the same speed, or being forced to fall at the same speed. This does not necessarily remove all of the effects of gravity upon the fluid. The results might be similar in a real low gravity environment, but not the same. All this experiment shows is what happens if you fall to the earth at the same speed as the water and air is not whipping around the the water blob to cause deformation. It is important to remember the difference here.

    If you are falling into a Black hole and all of the material around you is falling in at the same speed, does that mean you have negated the effects of the Black hole?

    1. Re:not "low gravity" by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Informative

      What would you call the space shuttle or space station, then, if not a "low gravity" environment, where everything is falling towards the earth at the same speed?

      The only difference is that they are moving so fast sideways that then always "miss", so they keep falling. It's call "orbit".

    2. Re:not "low gravity" by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 2

      Umm... this is exactly like orbital zero gravity. The only difference is the orbit always misses the planet, whereas if the airplane left its engines off the period of weightlessness would be substantially limited. In fact, there is no place in the universe with true zero gravity - even if you could find a point where all gravitational forces are balanced, only one particle could be there at a time.

      As for a black hole, no, it won't be negated, as the gravitational field will differ so much between two nearby points a measurable net pulling force would be detected. With the Earth's comparatively miniscule field this phenomenon is too small to be measured.

  18. fish-dream by antiaktiv · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've been thinking a lot about this stuff in my brief life.
    I once had a dream where i was a fish in a "blob" of water floating around in microgravity. I kept seeing how close i could get to the edge, until i finally got too close and was sent out of the bubble and lost control completely. At that point i woke up.

    Anyway, I would love to see that done in the same manner as these experiments.

  19. An Experiment I Would Like to See by Ed+Almos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wrote NASA about this but no reply was received.

    As we all know, cats always land on their feet when dropped. This task is achieved by rotating the tail in freefall and making use of Newton's third law, as the tail rotates in one direction the cat rotates in the other until its feet are pointing downwards.

    How would a cat behave in a zero-g environment?

    I suspect that the cat would spin its tail continuously in an effort to reach the right way up, but without access to either the space shuttle or an aircraft that can create zero-g I cannot prove this.

    Any takers?

    Ed Almos
    Budapest, Hungary

    --
    The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
    1. Re:An Experiment I Would Like to See by abborren · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      ><////>
  20. Re:Zero G[ravity]? by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Informative

    You would expect correct, not popular, terms used on Slashdot...

    *ahem*

    English is descriptive, not perscriptive.

    English is descriptive, not perscriptive.

    English is descriptive, not perscriptive.

    Our spoken language evolves over time, and words mean no more and no less than how they are used by the greatest number of people.

    While the technical or local jargon of certain elements of our culture may include more specific terminology to reflect a desired distinction, this does not in any way invalidate the correctness of the more common term.

    "Zero Gravity" as meaning any time when there is no relative gravity is quite enough for most folk. The distinction between no effective gravity due to distance from an overriding mass ("zero G") and there being no effective gravity due to unhindered movement ("free-fall", or "Mu-G") is irrelevant in the common usage.

  21. Re:Our tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    These folks gave us Tang, and velcro just to name two things off the top of my head.
    I get the feeling that the parent post is flamebait, but I still feel compelled to tell anyone who reads it that in fact neither Tang nor velcro came from Nasa. They both existed before the space program even began.
  22. Patent it! by fbg111 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... the ability to rapidly deploy large liquid drops by rupturing an enclosing membrane.

    Quick, somebody patent that! They were even nice enough to work out the lawlerly language for us!

    --
    Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams