Absolutely mindblowing video shot from the Space Shuttle during launch

[DnetMHZ]

Pretty cool at about 1:20 when it breaks the sound barrier.

 

[Tobolo]

What always gets me is that each of the main engines on the shuttle provided more thrust than both of the SRBs did.

I think that is one of the most under appreciated facts about the SS. That thing has POWER!

 

[Analog]

0-60 in 4.1 Seconds. Some Ferraris can beat that...:hmm)

 

[BUTCH1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFwqZ4qAUkE
This is a must watch video. Make sure you have 45 free minutes, because you'll think, "I'll just watch a couple minutes," and 45 minutes later...

LOL, I got sucked in, amazing how much fuel it burned at liftoff, " 1000gl of liquid propellant and 20,000lb of solid fuel are burned every second to generate seven and one half million lbs. of thrust", wow...

 

[kevinsbane]

What always gets me is that each of the main engines on the shuttle provided more thrust than both of the SRBs did.

Isn't it the other way around? Each Solid Rocket Booster provides more thrust than all three main engines of the SS combined?

 

[BUTCH1]

Isn't it the other way around? Each Solid Rocket Booster provides more thrust than all three main engines of the SS combined?

Your right, the SRB's provided 83% of the liftoff thrust, each SRB generated 2,800,000lbs of thrust compared to the main engines each generating 418,000lbs of thrust each..

 

[SunnyD]

Isn't it the other way around? Each Solid Rocket Booster provides more thrust than all three main engines of the SS combined?

Your right, the SRB's provided 83% of the liftoff thrust, each SRB generated 2,800,000lbs of thrust compared to the main engines each generating 418,000lbs of thrust each..

3.3m lbs actually, and I was wrong. I was thinking about the booster stages on older rockets (being weaker than the main engines of later stages).

 

[DrPizza]

Yeah, a sad reminder of when our country used to do great things. Watching documentaries about the Apollo program always sends me into a spiral of depression.

We do a TON of great things today in the space program. It's just that they're not useless glamorous things like manned space flight. For whatever reason, mainstream media seldom picks up the stories.

If I was a teacher I would show this to my students first thing today.

First thing i did today.

 

[BUTCH1]

3.3m lbs actually, and I was wrong. I was thinking about the booster stages on older rockets (being weaker than the main engines of later stages).

Like the Saturn V?, never got to see one of those, it's first stage produced 7,600,000 lbs thrust at takeoff, thing about this type of power is the amount of vibration that's transmitted to the ground, I was lucky enough to get on base for the second launch, we were about 4 miles away and the ground shaking was just incredible (well, the noise too, LOL)..

 

[BUTCH1]

We do a TON of great things today in the space program. It's just that they're not useless glamorous things like manned space flight. For whatever reason, mainstream media seldom picks up the stories.


First thing i did today.

I agree, the probe that successfully launched the projectile into the comet was cool as was the landing on an asteroid. I might be in the minority but I'll never be convinced that a manned mission to Mars is needed, robotics has evolved to a point that any sample collecting could be done without humans and not having to support a group of astronauts for 18+ months in space would be much, much cheaper..

 

[lokiju]

Pretty incredible video.

If I saw that in Imax 3D I think I'd vomit

 

[ichy]

What always gets me is that each of the main engines on the shuttle provided more thrust than both of the SRBs did.

Um, that's incorrect. The vast majority of the thrust at launch comes from the SRBs.

Edit: Others beat me to it.

If you want to imagine something really incredible look at some of the Saturn V derivatives that never went beyond the planning stage. I think there was one design that would have used four liquid fueled strap-on motors at launch, so you would've had nine F-1 engines firing when it lit off. It never had a chance of getting built but god it would have been cool.

 

[ichy]

We do a TON of great things today in the space program. It's just that they're not useless glamorous things like manned space flight. For whatever reason, mainstream media seldom picks up the stories.

True, and for getting the most science bang for your buck unmanned probes will always win. I still think there is something special about human exploration of the unknown though, even if it's not the most cost effective way of doing things.

Also, as amazing as today's unmanned probes are they aren't overcoming anything like the engineering hurdles that Apollo's designers did.

 

[manimal]

I would equate the current space program to the white sox when they last won the world series.

They played small ball and made all the singles count. I agree with our favorite pizza enthusiast that indeed the media does not give enough press to what we are doing in space.

Kids need to see this stuff more. I am reminded of the recent thread about dreams and the space program.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I still don't think there would be sound. Sound is produced when the air waves resonate. With no air, there would be no sound. Just because you bang on a piece of metal, it should make no noise with no air to vibrate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_conduction

Works in metal too.

 

[skyking]

Pretty cool at about 1:20 when it breaks the sound barrier.

Loved that!
sound barrier says "hey, I'm tough, go no faster"
Boosters say "how about NO!"

 

[clamum]

Wow that is fucking awesome.

 

[coloumb]

Great..now I'm going to have nightmares thanks to those hauntingly eerie sounds...

 

[drum]

marked

 

[SlowSpyder]

LOL, I got sucked in, amazing how much fuel it burned at liftoff, " 1000gl of liquid propellant and 20,000lb of solid fuel are burned every second to generate seven and one half million lbs. of thrust", wow...

Here is some cool information about the F1 engine used in the Saturn rockets.

A gas-generator was used to drive a turbine which in turn drove separate fuel and oxygen pumps, each feeding the thrust chamber assembly. The turbine was driven at 5,500 RPM by the gas generator, producing 55,000 brake horsepower (41 MW). The fuel pump produced 15,471 gallons (58,564 litres) of RP-1 per minute while the oxidizer pump delivered 24,811 gal (93,920 l) of liquid oxygen per minute. Environmentally, the turbopump was required to withstand temperatures ranging from input gas at 1,500 °F (816 °C), to liquid oxygen at −300 °F (−184 °C). Structurally, fuel was used to lubricate and cool the turbine bearings.


Test Firing of an F-1 Engine at Edwards Air Force Base.
Installation of F-1 engines to the Saturn V S-IC Stage. The nozzle extension is absent from the engine being fitted.Below the thrust chamber was the nozzle extension, roughly half the length of the engine. This extension increased the expansion ratio of the engine from 10:1 to 16:1. The exhaust from the turbopump was fed into the nozzle extension by a large, tapered manifold; this relatively cool gas formed a film which protected the nozzle extension from the hot (5,800 °F, 3,200 °C) exhaust gas.[4]

The F-1 burned 3,945 pounds (1,789 kg) of liquid oxygen and 1,738 pounds (788 kg) of RP-1 each second, generating 1,500,000 pounds-force (6.7 MN) of thrust. This equated to a flow rate of 413.5 US gallons (1,565 l) of LOX and 257.9 US gallons (976 l) RP-1 per second

If I'm reading that correctly, just the exhaust gas spinning the fuel pump produced 55,000 horsepower. All that was used to move a LOT of fuel and liquid oxygen. In other words, the spinning fuel pump made as much power as a lot of large ocean going ships. And then to think that there are five of these engines in the first stage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-1_(rocket_engine)