Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Video Shows What It's Like To Reenter the Earth's Atmosphere

Posted by Soulskill on from the hold-on-to-something dept.

astroengine writes: In a mesmerizing new video released by NASA, the Dec. 5 reentry of the Orion test space vehicle is chronicled — and it's a phenomenal 10-minute ride from fiery reentry to sudden splashdown into the Pacific Ocean. (YouTube Link.)

75 comments

  1. Makes me moist... by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 1

    ... especially the splashdown

    --
    Sent from my ENIAC
    1. Re:Makes me moist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...it's the final countdown.

    2. Re:Makes me moist... by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That time that it takes for the main chutes to fully open has got to be a real nailbiter.

    3. Re:Makes me moist... by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      That time that it takes for the main chutes to fully open has got to be a real nailbiter.

      I could be by design...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    4. Re:Makes me moist... by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Informative

      That time that it takes for the main chutes to fully open has got to be a real nailbiter.

      I could be by design... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      Nice! (From your link): A slider is a small rectangular piece of fabric with a grommet near each corner used to control the deployment of a "ram-air" parachute. A ram-air parachute has a tendency to open very rapidly. At high velocities, the opening shock from such a rapid deployment can cause damage to the canopy or injury to the jumper. The slider was developed as a way of mitigating this. During deployment, the slider slides down from the canopy to just above the risers. It is slowed by air resistance as it descends and reduces the rate at which the lines can spread and therefore the speed at which the canopy can open and inflate.[1] This invention solved the rapid deployment problem with ram-air designs. Sliders also reduce the chance of the lines twisting to cause a malfunction.

    5. Re: Makes me moist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep watching that video, Space Nutters. That's the closest you'll ever be to SPAAAAAAACE. Ever. And while you cry your eyes out over tattered space age (which is dead, over, finished with forever by the way) I'll be playing with myself to videos of overweight multiple-amputee transexuals having sex with animals.

  2. Makes me want to play some KSP by werepants · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can't really appreciate what NASA does until you build your own rocket, load it up with little green men, and crash it dozens of times while you try to learn how to orbit. Kerbal Space Program taught me how impressive this achievement really is.

    1. Re:Makes me want to play some KSP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Is it any more impressive than what Boeing or Airbus does? Or GM or BMW or ... ???

    2. Re:Makes me want to play some KSP by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2

      GM and BMW have one fewer degree of freedom to worry about.

      Staying within our atmosphere (or orbit!) is loads easier than leaving it. Of course, Boeing and Airbus do what they do with ridiculous safety, so I suppose it depends on your metric for impressiveness -- how you weight safety vs. mechanical/physical difficulty.

    3. Re:Makes me want to play some KSP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    4. Re:Makes me want to play some KSP by Black.Shuck · · Score: 2

      Is it any more impressive than what Boeing or Airbus does? Or GM or BMW or ... ???

      Not to diminish the work of those you mention, but yes. Yes it is.

    5. Re:Makes me want to play some KSP by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1

      My thought exactly. I kept wanting to hit the spacebar to deploy the chutes.

    6. Re:Makes me want to play some KSP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, no it really isn't. You just mistake the commonplace for the unimpressive. If we had 20000 rockets flying per day but for some reason only had 12 cars a year, you'd be rhapsodizing about cars.

      That's just the way people are.

    7. Re:Makes me want to play some KSP by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And just when you think you know how to do it you install the RO mod and wonder how the HELL they can pull it off at all.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re: Makes me want to play some KSP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes it is.thats where the saying referring to how hard something is to do,its not rocket science,comes from.source:my dad is a retired rocket scientist

    9. Re:Makes me want to play some KSP by werepants · · Score: 1

      Well, the velocities and accelerations involved are higher by an order of magnitude or two. The consequences for failure are more immediate and severe. And while the first cars and planes were essentially hacked together in garages, the first space capsules required the resources of entire nations to build, and even then failure was frequent.

      Again, go play some goddamn Kerbal Space Program and then tell me that spaceflight is no harder than anything else. There's a good chance that you won't be able to reach a stable orbit without tutorials, because most people don't understand shit about how and why spacecraft actually stay up there in the sky. First hint: it involves going at least 17000 mph - so fast that you fall towards the ground and miss.

    10. Re:Makes me want to play some KSP by werepants · · Score: 1

      Right, because all tasks are of equivalent difficulty. No achievement is harder than any other. The differences are just marketing.

    11. Re:Makes me want to play some KSP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you fall towards the ground and miss.

      Douglas Adams was full of good advice.

    12. Re:Makes me want to play some KSP by Rob+Bos · · Score: 1

      The delta-V budget to reach LEO is staggering, if you've played KSP a lot. You can pretty easily get 10-15% payloads to orbit around Kerbin, but Earth payloads are more like 3-5% at best.

  3. 3 Parachutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know why one of the main chutes has a different pattern on it?

  4. Some better music? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Baby's on fire... Better throw her in the water

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Some better music? by log0n · · Score: 1

      The music is from (fairly sure) the movie Sunshine.

    2. Re:Some better music? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vQpW9XRiyM.

  5. All 3 look different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just observe more closely.

    As to why they are all marked differently, good question. I guess it's a reasonable assumption that each parachute is structurally different to the other two and that they're individually identifiable because this is an opportunity for testing design variations.

    1. Re:All 3 look different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes. Same reason the tethers are different colors. Suppose a failure occurred and >1 chute was lost, it's scientifically valuable to determine which one went first and to observe the failure modes. Varied pigments and patterns make such reconstruction easier if needed.

  6. Perspective by radtea · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those like me, who just watched the video and didn't understand the point of view 'til quite late on, the camera is pointing back along the direction of flight.

    Also, for some reason the video has strange out-of-focus side-pieces that are distracting and annoying. The view itself is gorgeous and amazing.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    1. Re:Perspective by Darkelf · · Score: 1

      the "side panels" look to be some kind of kludge to appear to gracefully fill a HD screen, while keeping the main view (the center window) fairly distortion free...

      On the reentry: absolutely mesmerizing, the adverts had it spot on.

      While I don't always appreciate the *WAY* NASA spends its money (or is forced to by Congress), I do applaud an excellent mission. Ever since I watched (and re-watched) the video feed of the Curiosity landing sequence, I've gained a new appreciation for the effort that goes into these missions.

      Also really cool to see a full-up display of the Delta VI Heavy in action. Hydrogen/Oxygen first stages just look surreal compared to RP-1, or even the SME+SRB combo (the boosters still produced alot of soot/exhaust)...

      Questions about price, direction and ideology aside, well done NASA.

      --
      -Darkelf
    2. Re:Perspective by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For those like me, who just watched the video and didn't understand the point of view 'til quite late on, the camera is pointing back along the direction of flight.

      Also, for some reason the video has strange out-of-focus side-pieces that are distracting and annoying. The view itself is gorgeous and amazing.

      The sidebars are an effect of the smarphone's ascendence . Since asshats like to take vertical movies with their phones, they have to add shit along the sides to put them in a normal aspect ratio. Its usually blurred out repeats from the main video.. Since the camera video was square, they added the sidebars. I'd rather just see the original video than the presumably "keel" stuff.

      But not to take away from it, it is pretty great stuff

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Perspective by PPH · · Score: 3, Informative

      Next time, put the countdown timer plus some altitude, velocity and maybe heat shield temp data in the side bars. That'll look much cooler than the widescreen kludge.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re: Perspective by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe a running graph of speed and altitude, g-forces, marks for when the various chutes open or are released. That'd be much better than this.

    5. Re:Perspective by mveloso · · Score: 1

      Bad music. Wish they had a front facing camera. Why not get a go pro sponsorship?

    6. Re:Perspective by itzly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The also had a front facing camera, but didn't include the footage, because the heat shield was blocking the view the whole time.

    7. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today I learned that taking a video on a smartphone while holding it the way it is designed to be held makes the user an asshat.

      Each day is an opportunity to learn something new and profound.

    8. Re:Perspective by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Fuck money. You know when the US made its biggest leaps ahead? When money was pumped into NASA for the moon shot. The 60s where THE decade. World leader in anything technology, and not resting on its "we're #1, why try harder?" spot but gaining enough momentum that it lasted well into the 80s before anyone could come close in any field of technology. Jobs were plentiful and people had money, and they spent that money on more things, creating more jobs. And with the success in space came a really powerful "can do" spirit that drove the economy ahead again. The heroes were the astronauts, people who dared to brave the perils ahead of them in a quest to push the boundaries of humanity and to prove that anything is possible if you just put your mind to it and focus on the goal.

      We need that again. I mean, look around you. It's getting hard to remember when the US was #1 in anything, even the Chinese economy is about to take over, if it hasn't already. Jobs are hard to come by and usually they are barely enough to get by, no money to spend, no way to create a job for a hairdresser or a plumber because you can't afford them. And with that drag comes a "no can do" spirit that quenches the last bit of will to compete and succeed. The current american dream isn't to work and climb the ladder, the dream is to buy a ticket and win the lottery.

      Not to mention that the heroes of today are idiots in casting shows, people whose biggest dare is to face the verdict of Simon Cowell, with the focus of 5 minutes of fame.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Perspective by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Since asshats like to take vertical movies with their phones,

      Or maybe phone makers shouldn't make shitty products which create the sidebars in the first place. You never had this problem when shooting analog movies, it has only occurred when we "upgraded" to digital.

      The world doesn't exist only left to right. It also goes up.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    10. Re: Perspective by thegoldenear · · Score: 1

      No, you're thinking too much, you need to feel the beauty of this planet instead, and for that we need the video as uncluttered as possible. IMO.

    11. Re:Perspective by itzly · · Score: 1

      You never had this problem when shooting analog movies

      Because nobody was stupid enough to film in portrait mode.

    12. Re: Perspective by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      I would also be very pleased to have the raw video (compressed slightly for convenience) in the native aspect ratio.

    13. Re:Perspective by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Since asshats like to take vertical movies with their phones, Or maybe phone makers shouldn't make shitty products which create the sidebars in the first place. You never had this problem when shooting analog movies, it has only occurred when we "upgraded" to digital.

      You do have the choice of holding the camera horizontally. And certainly in photographs there are very valid aesthetic reasons to have the choice.

      And that is the reason I call the folks who make the vertical movies "asshats". Because they can make a very nice video if they simply turn their camera horizontally. It will fit on a Television screen, it will fit on a Youtube screen.

      The world doesn't exist only left to right. It also goes up.

      True. But making a video involves movement, and often between people and their environment. People tend to be beside each other when they interact. While we can find specific instances where a vertically formatted image might make sense, say, a rocket launch, we have to then decide how it will be shown. If you are going to show the vertically orientated image on a computer screen, or theater screen, or a television screen, you will not now have to fit the image within a specific aspect ratio. Which is almost always horizontal. So right away, you gain absolutely nothing having a video in vertical format, because you are restricted in aspect ratio. So since the image in the end will be roughly the same size, whether it be horizontal or vertically oriented, you shoot for the end product, not some thought of how inconvenient it is to rotate your phone 90 degrees.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:Perspective by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Because nobody was stupid enough to film in portrait mode.

      This. A complete lack of thought. There are a litany of reasons that video or film is shot in landscape mode from the get, which is it is more or less how we percieve the world, to the panning effect being more sensible in horizontal format. A vertically formatted horizontal pan would be more likely to induce vomit than an inspiring view.

      Now all this goes out the window for still imagery. A portrait of a person's face, which is inherently taller than wide, lends itself to a vertical image. As well, vertically formatted still images have aesthetic qualities which tend toward the optimistic or inspiring.

      But video/film, and still images are not at all the same thing, and you sum it up more concisely than I do. It is stupidity. Unencumbered by the thought process.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    15. Re: Perspective by PPH · · Score: 1

      native aspect ratio.

      Right. This is of most interest to geeks anyway. And we understand that, looking through a round porthole, there's only so much you can do with a widescreen format.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    16. Re:Perspective by rochrist · · Score: 2

      All that plus the Beatles, Dylan, Hendrix, Led Zepplin and the Who.

  7. Parachute Reefing by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sliders are not utilized on these parachutes. A reefing line, basically a circular cord holding the skirt of the parachute closed, is cut after a predetermined delay using small timed pyrotechnic cutting charges. These are designed to keep the parachute from overpressurizing and blowing out during high-velocity opening. FYI - I was a parachute & survival equipment specialist in the USAF.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Parachute Reefing by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And apparently, you survived!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Parachute Reefing by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 2

      Barely.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    3. Re:Parachute Reefing by karnal · · Score: 1

      Hopefully that's not what made you irate!

      --
      Karnal
  8. Re-entry is done wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    The problem with re-entry is the wrongness of the theory. The reentry should be smooth controlled flight just like regular flight, why are we just diving into the atmosphere createing major high temperatures and being out of control all the time, surely this is a joke. Why cannot re-entry be treated like all other flight and have controlled re-entry slowly not just diving in but gliding down gracefully and keeping a heading steadily downwards until the flight proceeds into the right area at the right speed. Keep the nose up until the speed decreased past a certain speed and then just down a little until you get down completely under controlled conditions. This re-enty is just downright dangerous rubbish by macho stupid idiots that dont care about human life and just want spectacle. Its downright stupid and idiotic. Just do it right.

    1. Re:Re-entry is done wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Becuase you will bounce off the atmosphere and fly into space wwith your theory.

    2. Re:Re-entry is done wrong by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The edge of space has too thin of an atmosphere for controlling anything. How can you stop going 32.000MPH slowly, without bouncing off like a pebble across water? This was the main concern about re-entry as I recall. Even if you could slow down slowly you would drop like a lead weight without a thicker atmosphere to slow the fall. So they quickly get into the controllable area ASAP.

    3. Re:Re-entry is done wrong by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Because you have a metric fuckton of kinetic and potential energy to dissipate? You're coming in at 20,000 mph at an altitude of 400,000 ft. 10 minutes later you are splashing down gently at 0 ft MSL and walking velocity. Go take a nice physics class and do the math.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    4. Re:Re-entry is done wrong by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      You don't really "bounce off the atmosphere" if you miss your angle. What happens is that you don't lose enough speed to deorbit. From low Earth orbit, you'll hit the atmosphere again after one more go around the big blue marble.

      The problem with Apollo was that the command module had nothing like the supplies of consumables that would be needed for another spin around the Earth, and it was moving substantially faster than LEO speeds - it wouldn't be reentering in another ninety minutes. And the Apollo CM had a slightly asymmetric distribution of mass, allowing it to generate lift and steer itself (Apollo 11 extended its reentry path to avoid storms, e.g.).

    5. Re:Re-entry is done wrong by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Space Shuttle attempted to do what you describe, coming as close to that ideal as reentry dynamics would allow. It still required a 40-degree angle of attack during the hot part of deceleration. The final approach may look airliner-like, but the sink rate was something like seven times that of a Boeing, a requirement of the delta-wing design, which in turn was imposed by the need to reenter without stripping off the wings.

      The Orion capsule may look like a throwback to the Sixties, but it's the most tolerant, safest design of all.

    6. Re:Re-entry is done wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everybody, please read OP's comment and understand that it provides us a valuable learning opportunity.

      Suppose you read a popular press article about a complex subject (like space flight) and all the experts in the field have concluded that it should or has to be done one way, or one of a few ways. Having read a summary and maybe spent 5 minutes on Wikpedia still hasn't revealed why it's done this way. The two most important things to do now are to admit that you don't know, and realize that that's perfectly okay because admitting you don't know is the first step on the path to knowledge. Ask a question with non-hostile phrasing; This will invite people to provide helpful, explanatory responses and you will, as the saying goes, come off smelling like roses.

      Or you can go OP's route, and we'll all laugh at your dumb ass for being stupid enough to think that spending 5 minutes reading Wikipedia makes you smarter than all the experts who've ever worked on rocketry. Then we'll put the Cone of Shame on you and make you sit in the corner while we chalk up yet another mark in the "true" column for the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis. At some point, we'll probably idly speculate whether your attitude is causative or symptomatic of your total inability to get laid and decide the answer is "yes."

    7. Re:Re-entry is done wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what I'm getting is: Perhaps OP isn't quite the expert on orbital dynamics and hypersonic aerodynamics that he seems to think he is?

    8. Re:Re-entry is done wrong by itzly · · Score: 1

      Actually, the best way to get answers on a forum is not to ask a polite question, but to state an error.

    9. Re:Re-entry is done wrong by stjobe · · Score: 2

      They are "doing it right", there's just no way to do it the way you seem to think it should be done because of the speeds involved and the physics of orbiting.

      Low Earth Orbit is only achievable with a speed of roughly 7.8 km/s (17,450 mph, 28,080 kph). Compare that to our regular "smooth controlled flight just like regular flight", with airliners topping roughly 600 mph (1,000 kph), and the fastest air-breathing manned aircraft ever made (the magnificent SR-71) only approaching 2,200 mph (3,500 kph).

      The mechanics of orbiting says that to keep a stable orbit you keep a stable speed; if you increase speed you go to a higher orbit, and if you decrease speed you go to a lower orbit. So to get out of orbit we need to slow down.

      So you're starting re-entry from a speed roughly ten times faster than a M-16 bullet - at these speeds any interaction with any kind of atmosphere is going to create "major high temperatures", but the physics say that you can't slow down without lowering your orbit and hence entering the atmosphere.

      So we're in a bit of a bind here; we're orbiting at 28,000 kph, and we need to slow down to about a tenth of that to even have a chance of "smooth controlled flight" - but as soon as we slow down, our orbit lowers and we hit atmosphere, creating "major high temperatures" because of our speeds.

      It should also be noted that it took the better part (70-90% or so) of our launchpad mass to get us up to this speed, and we simply do not have enough fuel to do much of any brake thrusting - the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is a harsh mistress indeed.

      So you see, it's not really that they're "doing it wrong", it's that you don't understand the problem. To be up there in the first place means you have to go really, really fast, and that means re-entry cannot be done "slowly, [...] gliding down gracefully", because as soon as you start to slow down your orbit decays and you start re-entry.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    10. Re:Re-entry is done wrong by Megane · · Score: 1

      aka xkcd 386

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  9. about time by k6mfw · · Score: 2

    unlike a few Shuttle cockpit shots. Or previously few seconds clip from a Gemini re-entry that's replayed zillion times like the Saturn interstage separation between first and second stages. My question has Elon released any such footage?

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  10. External view of re-entry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=retX8Wj7JdM&feature=player_detailpage#t=37

  11. Slashdot links to Discovery by Khyber · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    One of the WORST places for any sort of real information given their 'reality' shows, especially on this site, and fucking Slashdot links to it.

    ABANDON SHIP. Timothy, Samzenpus, and the others are fucking bought out wholesale and have ZERO credibility in ANYTHING any longer.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Slashdot links to Discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes/no/maybe. In any case direct links to the true content were provided in the summary and Discovery was avoided upon inspecting the URL. As opposed to needing to click through a fluf article to find the original source. Or worse, finding a content-free article.

  12. Kim Jung-Um Death Scene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tee hee hee.

    Insert the leaked Kim Jung-Um Death Scene with some choice sound affects.

    Haha

  13. Blue? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Why does the sky appear to so quickly transition from black to blue around the 6 minute mark?

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Blue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might notice that this occurs when the bright disc of the earth leaves the camera's field of view - it looks like camera's auto brightness adjust bringing the brightness up a few notches.

    2. Re:Blue? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a reasonable explanation. Thanks.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  14. This video is better. by nbritton · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  15. Relax. NASA has this down to a science. by mmell · · Score: 2

    This isn't anything new. It's a lot safer than the first part of the trip, the part where huge quantities of highly reactive stuff is going 'boom' constantly somewhere below you.

  16. Something fall off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like something fell off at 5:59 (4:19 in the video) - hatch cover for the parachutes ??

  17. The most mesmerizing is not the video itself by vikingpower · · Score: 1
    ...but the text under it:

    New video recorded during the return of NASA’s Orion through Earth’s atmosphere this month provides a taste of the intense conditions the spacecraft and the astronauts it carries will endure when they return from deep space destinations on the journey to Mars.

    NASA is quietly, but openly, talking about going to Mars. It means I will be over 60 years old when they finally do it. But I will be there to watch the launch, and will be cheering and crying when they land on Mars. My parents saw the first man walking on the moon, via TV, and barely understood what they say. We *will* understand what we'll see. We will.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:The most mesmerizing is not the video itself by itzly · · Score: 1

      NASA isn't going send people to Mars. That's just talk to get interest and funding.

    2. Re:The most mesmerizing is not the video itself by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Your glass is half empty. Mine is half full.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    3. Re:The most mesmerizing is not the video itself by itzly · · Score: 1

      Mine is half full too. I've no interest in seeing funding wasted on a pointless exercise. I'd rather see more science done.

  18. What's it like? by Megol · · Score: 1

    Hot.

  19. The music by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1

    Anyone know who did the music?

  20. Heat from friciton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NASA article describing this says, "Peak heating from the friction caused by the atmosphere rubbing against Orion's heat shield comes less than two minutes later...."

    Notice that it says that the heating is caused by the friction between the heat shield and the atmosphere. I thought that the heat was caused by the pressure increase as it compresses the air in the front of the capsule. A long time ago I believed that the heat was caused by friction, but then was told that was incorrect. I'm confused, since I can't believe that the NASA article is wrong.