Discovery on the last trip into space tonight

[candychris]

u can see livestream here
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/ar...artid=10022413
its boring but i want to see it take off

[CX650]

It might be boring to young whippersnappers born into the 'space age' but it's still fascinating to middle aged fat men.

[ravenmorpheus2k]

Originally Posted by CX650

It might be boring to young whippersnappers born into the 'space age' but it's still fascinating to middle aged fat men.

I'd be more interested if it actually went into space.

Technically it only goes up as far as one of the uppermost parts of our atmosphere - the thermosphere. It still has the exosphere to go through before it's actually in space.

So Space Shuttle is a bit of a misnomer...

Even the tin cans they sent Buzz Aldrin and co. up in went further (although that is debatable).

[murphy0207]

They are taking parts to the International Space Station, the Definition of Space Seems to Differ depending on the Source , 62 miles?, 50 miles?.......

The Exosphere is 500km above Earth, Athough Nasa Will Give You a Badge For Anything Above 50 Miles......

Best of Luck Guys........

[CX650]

Originally Posted by ravenmorpheus2k

I'd be more interested if it actually went into space.

Technically it only goes up as far as one of the uppermost parts of our atmosphere - the thermosphere. It still has the exosphere to go through before it's actually in space.

So Space Shuttle is a bit of a misnomer...

Even the tin cans they sent Buzz Aldrin and co. up in went further (although that is debatable).

If it's too high for me to survive without 'environment armour' it's space to me. Inner space or outer space is a different debate.

[brabham67]

Originally Posted by ravenmorpheus2k

So Space Shuttle is a bit of a misnomer...

Hairs, your splitting them!

I gotta go with CX on this.

[AndreiRS]

1 min to go!!

[ravenmorpheus2k]

Originally Posted by CX650

If it's too high for me to survive without 'environment armour' it's space to me. Inner space or outer space is a different debate.

You'd be hard pressed to survive at the altitude passenger jets fly at as well.

Originally Posted by brabham67

Hairs, your splitting them!

I gotta go with CX on this.

Splitting hairs I may be, but technically speaking the "Space" shuttle is incorrectly named.

If you want to go with the non-technical definition of space then that's fair enough.

[brabham67]

Originally Posted by ravenmorpheus2k

Splitting hairs I may be, but technically speaking the "Space" shuttle is incorrectly named.

If you want to go with the non-technical definition of space then that's fair enough.

Yeah but you have to admit that "Thermosphere Shuttle" just doesn't have the same impact as "Space Shuttle." Life wouldn't be as fun if we used technically correct names for everything.

I like Hamburgers, but there isn't any ham in them. I'd call them beef burgers, but in some of the dives I've eaten, I'm not even sure it was beef! Might as well been Gorilla. But I'd still call it a Hamburger.

[Pizzaman]

Originally Posted by CX650

If it's too high for me to survive without 'environment armour' it's space to me. Inner space or outer space is a different debate.

I could provide that for the cost of a can of beans.

[Viper]

Originally Posted by CX650

It might be boring to young whippersnappers born into the 'space age' but it's still fascinating to middle aged fat men.

Are you kidding? There are few things I find as interesting as this.
My interest in space travel exceeds that in racing and is only second to errr... reproductive cave exploration

[MickeyMouse]

I always like watching the Space Shuttle. I start watching during crew ingress, it's interesting watching all of the steps required to strap them in and you get some nice inside shots. I'm quite surprised they managed to launch with the RSO constraint being lifted with only 2 seconds to spare.

Originally Posted by ravenmorpheus2k

If you want to go with the non-technical definition of space then that's fair enough.

The 'technical' definition of space is considered to be 100km.
If you really want to split hairs, even Apollo may not have actually left the atmosphere since there are a few detectable gas molecules here and there throughout the solar system. If you include stray electrons and protons, then you would have to go well outside of the galaxy to be in an absolute vacuum, then you have quantum foam....

[ravenmorpheus2k]

Originally Posted by MickeyMouse

The 'technical' definition of space is considered to be 100km.
If you really want to split hairs, even Apollo may not have actually left the atmosphere since there are a few detectable gas molecules here and there throughout the solar system. If you include stray electrons and protons, then you would have to go well outside of the galaxy to be in an absolute vacuum, then you have quantum foam....

Ah yes but as that article states -

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an end to Earth's atmosphere: An atmosphere does not technically end at any given height, but becomes progressively thinner with altitude. Also, depending on how the various layers that make up the space around the Earth are defined (and depending on whether these layers are considered as part of the actual atmosphere), the definition of the edge of space could vary considerably: If one were to consider the thermosphere and exosphere part of the atmosphere and not of space, one might have to place the boundary to space as high as about 10,000 km (6,215 miles) above sea level.

A better definition of where space starts for me would be the Van Allen radiation belt, which Appollo would have gone through on it's way to the moon.

Just because some international federation has set an arbitrary definition of where "Space" starts doesn't make them right, it's just a convenient way of quantifying it so they have a standard they can all use and a simple "it's up at x distance" line they can give to the general public.

The "Space" Shuttle is a LEO/Sub Orbital vehicle, to quote Wiki again -

LEO is an orbit around Earth between the atmosphere and below the inner Van Allen radiation belt

Full article.

Soon enough space travel between planets will become common, probably not in our lifetimes, but in the next 100-200 years at least.

And then they'll move the Kármán line because people's perceptions of where space is will have changed.

[MickeyMouse]

Originally Posted by ravenmorpheus2k

A better definition of where space starts for me would be the Van Allen radiation belt, which Appollo would have gone through on it's way to the moon.

Any point you choose will be arbitrary really. As the article correctly points out, "Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an end to Earth's atmosphere". I think if you had a strong nitrogen sensor you could certainly detect free traveling molecules from here to the heliopause at least. But, it's convenient to draw a line somewhere, and Kármán's definition of 100km as being the point where conventional aerodynamics are useless seems as good as any.

[ravenmorpheus2k]

Originally Posted by MickeyMouse

But, it's convenient to draw a line somewhere, and Kármán's definition of 100km as being the point where conventional aerodynamics are useless seems as good as any.

Which is why I find it such a bad definition. Conventional aerodynamics, or at least the technology that uses it will change, thus making where the line is currently drawn at redundant.

As the article you pointed to states, if you consider the Thermosphere a part of Earths atmosphere, then the line where "Space" starts is in the wrong place, and Wikipedia does seem to think that Earth's atmosphere includes the Thermosphere - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_atmosphere

So somewhere there is a major contradiction as 10km is far lower than 100km, either that or there is a typo on the original article you linked to...

[MickeyMouse]

Originally Posted by ravenmorpheus2k

Just because some international federation has set an arbitrary definition of where "Space" starts doesn't make them right, it's just a convenient way of quantifying it so they have a standard they can all use and a simple "it's up at x distance" line they can give to the general public.

The problem really goes back to when the word 'space' was created to refer to stuff outside the atmosphere, which was coined long before they knew the nature of the atmosphere or the universe. Given the opportunity the rewrite the dictionary, I don't think there should even be a distinction between what's up there and what's down here. Gas pressures simply vary throughout the universe because of various physical phenomena. Even the regions of Earth's atmosphere shouldn't be labeled since they are constantly variable. I guess they figured it was too much effort to change hundreds of years of nomenclature and decided to just pick an arbitrary number and be done with it.

[ravenmorpheus2k]

Originally Posted by MickeyMouse

The problem really goes back to when the word 'space' was created to refer to stuff outside the atmosphere, which was coined long before they knew the nature of the atmosphere or the universe. Given the opportunity the rewrite the dictionary, I don't think there should even be a distinction between what's up there and what's down here. Gas pressures simply vary throughout the universe because of various physical phenomena. Even the regions of Earth's atmosphere shouldn't be labeled since they are constantly variable. I guess they figured it was too much effort to change hundreds of years of nomenclature and decided to just pick an arbitrary number and be done with it.

Hmm I'd like to dispute that commment, as we don't know the nature of the atmosphere or the universe, we simply think we do.

A lot of the science, especially astrophysics and the like, is based on hypothetical (possibly the wrong word there, think I'm looking for the word hypothesis) ideas and the little we know of the rock we live on and the data gathered by the few probes we have sent out. We apply the little we know to other planets and the rest of the universe and assume we are correct. Because what works here must work elsewhere in the universe.

Even dark matter is just a theory.

And with a hypothesis you should be able to test it, to prove or disprove it's claims. You can do neither with the majority of astrophysics.

It's the same with the Dinosaurs, scientists claim they had x colour skin, mostly based on that of reptiles of today, but really they don't have a clue. How could they, we have not yet found any fossilised skin (to my knowledge) which could tell us what colour they were!

But yeah it is time for a re-write of the dictionary.

[ChrisDanger]

Originally Posted by ravenmorpheus2k

Conventional aerodynamics, or at least the technology that uses it will change, thus making where the line is currently drawn at redundant.

What technology could affect "conventional" aerodynamics? You have thrust, lift, weight, and drag. You could increase thrust and decrease weight through technology, but only to a very small degree could you affect the lift and drag. Air is still air. It provides lift. If it thins out to almost not being there then you can no longer apply the principles of atmospheric flight.

The universe is continuous, in that it is "blurry" and there are really no convenient borders. We need to categorise things though. Often the terms we use are pretty arbitrary.

[ravenmorpheus2k]

Originally Posted by ChrisDanger

What technology could affect "conventional" aerodynamics?

Technology like the "space" planes that are being developed? In the future there is a possibility that technology will evolve so that everyday vehicles are not only capable of flight, but also capable of low earth orbits.

And I didn't say technology could affect conventional aerodynamics, I said technology would change.

[zud the spud]

Found this video, worth sharing:

[CX650]

Thanks Zud.

[gtrNL]

Great video, thanks Zud.

[ChrisDanger]

Originally Posted by ravenmorpheus2k

Technology like the "space" planes that are being developed? In the future there is a possibility that technology will evolve so that everyday vehicles are not only capable of flight, but also capable of low earth orbits.

Wikipedia spake thus (Spaceplanes):

To date, only pure rocket spaceplanes have succeeded in reaching space, although several have been carried up to an altitude of several tens of thousands of feet by conventional aircraft before release.

The problem with making multipurpose vehicles is they cannot be truly efficient in anything they do. They have to have compromises. For example, a supersonic plane is not as efficient in the subsonic regime as a purely subsonic plane. It has to fly through the subsonic region though, so it's not completely optimised for supersonic flight either. For a plane to be efficient at extremely high altitude it will be less efficient at low altitudes than a plane built for low altitudes only. If/when we have "everyday" flight vehicles, they will surely be built for low level flight as there's nothing much of interest more than immediately above the surface of the earth. Maybe slight interest, but at great cost (in development and running costs).

Whether or not there will ever be the widespread use of airborne personal transportation vehices is another matter, and I personally doubt it, unless it's all automated. We have enough trouble navigating and controlling vehicles in two (practical) dimensions. Give us three and there will be absolute carnage.

[ravenmorpheus2k]

Originally Posted by ChrisDanger

Wikipedia spake thus (Spaceplanes):

The problem with making multipurpose vehicles is they cannot be truly efficient in anything they do. They have to have compromises. For example, a supersonic plane is not as efficient in the subsonic regime as a purely subsonic plane. It has to fly through the subsonic region though, so it's not completely optimised for supersonic flight either. For a plane to be efficient at extremely high altitude it will be less efficient at low altitudes than a plane built for low altitudes only. If/when we have "everyday" flight vehicles, they will surely be built for low level flight as there's nothing much of interest more than immediately above the surface of the earth. Maybe slight interest, but at great cost (in development and running costs).

Whether or not there will ever be the widespread use of airborne personal transportation vehices is another matter, and I personally doubt it, unless it's all automated. We have enough trouble navigating and controlling vehicles in two (practical) dimensions. Give us three and there will be absolute carnage.

People said you'd die if you went over a certain mph when the motor car first came about.

The possibility is still there that technology will change to accommodate flight and LEO.

We don't know what might be in 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 or 200 years from now. Go back 100 or 200 years from now and you will see that the technology we have today would never have been considered back then.

It might currently be science fiction but often there are parallels in what we get in real life with what is depicted in science fiction.


My only doubt about whether it will happen is the money aspect. That will be the biggest stumbling block.

[MickeyMouse]

Originally Posted by ravenmorpheus2k

My only doubt about whether it will happen is the money aspect. That will be the biggest stumbling block.

Which is a pretty big aspect. So far commercial human space flight isn't profitable. Large projects like the Space Shuttle and the ISS and interplanetary probes aren't remotely profitable, and so have to be funded by governments. I'm not sure if tourist space travel will ever be affordable enough for middle-class people simply because of the massive amount of energy required to get someone in orbit. I could see high speed sub-orbital travel like Scramjets eventually becoming realistic if a lot of breakthroughs are made.

[markspeed]

Originally Posted by ravenmorpheus2k

People said you'd die if you went over a certain mph when the motor car first came about.

The possibility is still there that technology will change to accommodate flight and LEO.

We don't know what might be in 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 or 200 years from now. Go back 100 or 200 years from now and you will see that the technology we have today would never have been considered back then.

It might currently be science fiction but often there are parallels in what we get in real life with what is depicted in science fiction.

People would be shocked at how tiny NASA's annual budget is compared to other parts of America's economy. More than half of the other parts of the budget are factors of 10 bigger. There's plenty of money that could be funneled into NASA's budget allowing it to do much more, but the political will isn't there, and so things that have a greater priority to either politicians, or the people themselves get the money.

My only doubt about whether it will happen is the money aspect. That will be the biggest stumbling block.

Actually money is much less of a stumbling block than political will is. We had the money to continue the space trips to the moon and beyond. We didn't suddenly lose the money to continue the Apollo program, we lost the political will to do it. The motivation in most peoples minds was not the exploration of space, or the science conducted, or the potential future colony on the Moon or Mars. It was merely to beat the Soviets. When that was done, the motivation dropped out.

So while money is still a major factor in space travel, and devlopment, it's not the only, and often not the biggest.

[MickeyMouse]

Originally Posted by markspeed

Actually money is much less of a stumbling block than political will is. We had the money to continue the space trips to the moon and beyond. We didn't suddenly lose the money to continue the Apollo program, we lost the political will to do it. The motivation in most peoples minds was not the exploration of space, or the science conducted, or the potential future colony on the Moon or Mars. It was merely to beat the Soviets. When that was done, the motivation dropped out.

So while money is still a major factor in space travel, and devlopment, it's not the only, and often not the biggest.

Well, money was definitely an issue then as well. In 1966 NASA's budget was 4.5% of the federal budget (~0.5% now). The Apollo program's cost, adjusted for inflation, was around $180 billion, which would run NASA for 10 years at its current spending level.

It's actually quite amazing how expensive the Apollo program was, the entire Shuttle program, including research, development, construction, and 132 launches, adjusted for inflation, has cost less than the Apollo program. That's the main reason we beat the Russians, they simply didn't have enough money.

[missyd]

Originally Posted by CX650

It might be boring to young whippersnappers born into the 'space age' but it's still fascinating to middle aged fat men.

Whether or not it goes "technically into space" or not ( I mean what does NASA know about "space"), it is absolutely ASTOUNDING to me. Watching that beautiful technological wonder glide back to earth always stirs me, and this last return was triumphant. It is an amazing age we live in. Actually, I'm so old that just being able to communicate with all of you like this is still astounding to !

[AndreiRS]

I'm 21 and I think this still astounding too. lol

[Viper]

I can't wait to see what vehicle will be it's successor.

And since it has landed in the meantime: Goodnight Discovery, you will be remembered.