Kerbin Dallas Multipass

IIRC the Juno spacecraft is constantly rotating at something like 3 revs/min. Seems they have worked out the issues you mentioned.

Why would water do such a thing? I think the idea is a torus shaped rotating ring station?

Canopus Nibb31 Very interesting, thanks!

@Nibb31 Whoa that russian one looks like the spitting image of the Dream Chaser. What year is this from?

West Germany never acted as a middle power like UK/France/Japan frequently did. Nationalism and projects aimed at prestige never had a good standing in Germany. Germany never aimed for direct control of nuclear weapons, so there was no incentive for a larger scale national rocketry program (nuclear powers usually have those). Instead, they used their space money for co-operations with European countries and NASA. This guaranteed diplomatic goodwill, was a proof of concept that something like the EU should be established and tightened the bond to the US. It's how german foreign politics work. The deal between GER and NASA was basically that Germany builds a component (it was the space shuttle's spacelab) for free and NASA gives some german astronauts a free ride and research time. Not such a bad deal. Why build a whole space program if you can use an existing infrastructure. I don't know enough about the history of the Ariane rocket, but i'm assuming it was the germans who pushed for it being a european project. It was done this way with Airbus.

@Ralathon I read this on Wikipedia, thats basically why I came up with the question:

What happens if radiation is dopplershifted so much that it falls out of the physical spectrum? Let's say an object approaching me at relativistic speeds is emitting gamma rays which get blueshifted so much that their wavelength is below a planck length Is the energy, photon, information "gone"? Or just undetectable?

I believed that something was countable was enough. No clue about maths, just ignore me:)

If I have 1 ocean and add 1 ocean to it I still have 1 ocean, right?

They all look like 90s no-name 10€ sports shoes. I like the Z1 color pattern. Simple, timeless.

What about dark energy? Does it counter gravity or just make space expand? Do we know?

Whoa! Rick Mastracchio photographed the launch from the ISS

Hang in there, Quack!

T minus 4 mins

Are you saying they regarded it as favourable for three cosomonauts to spend 2 whole days locked in 3x3m tin can because they were tired from putting on their suits and the 8 minute trip to space?

Yea thats relatively new. Before last year it took 2 days

Live coverage will begin in ~15 min Launch in ~1h 15 min Live Stream: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html#.UzHeHfldW58 Thread about Preparation: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/73483-Preparing-the-Soyuz-for-launch ____________ Info by NASA: At the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, Steve Swanson of NASA and Alexander Skvortsov and Oleg Artemyev of the Russian Federal Space Agency are preparing for their launch to the International Space Station. Their journey to the station will begin with a 5:17 p.m. EDT liftoff. NASA TV will broadcast launch coverage live at http://www.nasa.gov/nasatv beginning at 4:15 p.m. Below is the crew's launch timeline, from wakeup to docking. Tuesday, March 25 EDT Event 8:47 a.m. Crew wakeup at Cosmonaut Hotel 9:17 p.m. Final countdown begins; Soyuz systems checks (L-8 hrs) 11:17 a.m. Crew departs Cosmonaut Hotel 11:32 a.m. Batteries installed in booster 12:02 p.m. Crew arrives at Site 254 12:17 p.m. Tanking begins 12:47 p.m. Crew suit up 1:12 p.m. Booster loaded with liquid Oxygen 1:47 p.m. Crew meets family members on other side of the glass 2:12 p.m. First and second stage Oxygen fueling complete 2:17 p.m. Crew walkout and readiness report to the State Commission 2:22 p.m. Crew departs for launch pad (Site 1) 2:42 p.m. Crew arrives at launch pad 2:52 p.m. Crew boards Soyuz; strapped in to the Descent module 3:42 p.m. Descent module hardware tested 3:57 p.m. Hatch closed; leak checks begin 4:15 p.m. NASA TV: LAUNCH COVERAGE BEGINS 4:17 p.m. Launch vehicle control system prep; gyro activation 4:32 p.m. Pad service structure components lowered 4:33 p.m. Clamshell gantry service towers retracted 4:40 p.m. Suit leak checks begin; descent module testing complete 4:43 p.m. Emergency escape system armed 5:02 p.m. Suit leak checks complete; escape system to auto 5:07 p.m. Gyros in flight readiness and recorders activated 5:10 p.m. Pre-launch operations complete 5:11 p.m. Launch countdown operations to auto; vehicle ready 5:12 p.m. Commander’s controls activated 5:13 p.m. Combustion chamber nitrogen purge 5:14:23 p.m. Propellant drainback 5:14:38 p.m. Booster propellant tank pressurization 5:15 p.m. Ground propellant feed terminated 5:16:23 p.m. Vehicle to internal power; 5:16:48 p.m. First umbilical tower separates Auto sequence start 5:16:53 p.m. Ground umbilical to third stage disconnected 5:17:08 p.m. Second umbilical tower separates 5:17:11 p.m. Launch command issued Engine Start Sequence Begins 5:17:13 p.m. Engine turbopumps at flight speed 5:17:18 p.m. Engines at maximum thrust 5:17:23 p.m. LAUNCH OF SOYUZ TMA-12M TO THE ISS 5:26 p.m. Third Stage Shutdown / Orbital Insertion 8:54 p.m. Automated Rendezvous start 8:55 p.m. Space Station maneuvers to docking attitude 9:26 p.m. Soyuz Kurs-A activation 9:28 p.m. SM Kurs-P activation 10:30 p.m. NASA TV: DOCKING COVERAGE BEGINS 10:39 p.m. Flyaround mode start 10:49 p.m. Stationkeeping start 10:53 p.m. Final Approach start 11:05 p.m. DOCKING OF SOYUZ TMA-12M TO THE ISS 11:17 p.m. Soyuz & station hooks closed Wednesday, March 26 EDT Event 12:15 a.m. NASA TV: HATCH OPENING COVERAGE BEGINS 12:45 a.m. Hatches between Soyuz and station open To learn more about Expedition 39, visit: http://go.nasa.gov/OF6aUI. To follow Twitter updates from NASA's Expedition 39 astronauts, visit: http://twitter.com/AstroRM http://twitter.com/Astro_Wakata Swanson will be chronicling his time aboard the space station using Instagram. To follow and see images of him and his crewmates living and working in space, vist: http://instagram.com/iss To join the online conversation about the International Space Station and Expedition 39 on Twitter, follow the hashtags #ISS, #Exp39 and #Soyuz. To learn more about all the ways to connect and collaborate with NASA, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/connect.

Exactly that. This is one of the reasons why I believe we will see more hybrid engines in the future http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_rocket

I understand the pot of petunias does not make the sun wobble. My question is relatively strict: what can we tell about an orbital path and how do we define masses based on those orbits

They are not, but they are "falling" at the same speed as the whale (jupiter)

I watched some documentaries and lectures about astronomy. I understand how they find out the orbits of binary stars and exoplanets. So cool. Question: If I know the orbital path of 2 bodies, how do I find out their mass? My common sense tells me that a pot of petunias on the orbital path of.. lets say jupiter... could orbit the sun at the exact same speed and distance in a stable orbit as jupiter. How do we define the mass of the pot of petunias if it acts like jupiter? Am I mixing up fundamental things here? I'd just like to understand

I believe it is solid hot iron and heavier elements, quite exactly what earth is made of, in similar amounts even. Outside of that there's metallic hydrogen core I would guess.

Where do you account for the collision that follows and why is a collision preferable to a braking maneuver? A collision is nothing different to braking, just that it happens within a shorter space and much higher g forces and all the other negative side effects of an actual crash. Typical reaction time for an unexpected event in traffic is about 1s. Reaction time for an expected event is obviously shorter, this goes down to 0.1s in martial arts. Consider that you do not only have to react mentally but also perform an action with a relatively clumsy and heavy limb aka your right leg. I will not argue about numbers you made up. Youre right. It's 3 car lengths. Its a gap that one car could squeeze in (we do not want the cars to touch). Yes I do drive differently. Here you go 125mph in the left lane and you have to change lanes because you have to clear lane for someone who is coming up in the rearview going 30mph faster. Fines for driving up too close to another vehicle are draconic in my country. It's easy to lose your license if they catch you a few times. I admire your driving skills, but it's not safe and it's not a reason to categorically outrule improved braking mechanisms. (This thread being about a hypothetical, unrealistic one) The principle of emergency braking is the same for 18 wheelers and cars. I repeat we are talking about an unavoidable crash situation here and the mechanism we are debating would only use the remaining short distance to decelerate. If I follow your logic you are also opposed to things like ABS and ESP because these concepts actively avoid swerving and are known to lengthen braking distance in optimal conditions.

Walk up to a stranger and ask that person what he/she thinks about an explosive charge stored in their steering wheel which will explode directly in their face in case of an accident. It's safe because there is a 0.08 mm membrane separating you from the explosion. And.. yes, if it blows up spontaneously it can kill you or will break your arms. It will definitely break your thumbs. Most of us do have cars with airbags.

Let's make one thing clear: A computer would have to detect imminent impact and this detection mechanism would have to be foolproof and 99.9% reliable. Sentences quoted in quotes are quoted from K^2 "Which means that it is plain impossible for a driver behind you to stop unless they are driving half a football field behind you." Half a (american) football field is 50 yards, is that correct? That's 45m "Finally, there is the question of velocity difference. Say I'm driving without ABS with someone who is driving with one. I drive only 2s behind at highway speeds. Say, 70mph." 2s at 70mph is 62 meters. Assuming 1 shock second until your foot is on the brake pedal you have less than half a football field to come to a stop or you crash. Fact of life, sorry. I do not see the problem keeping a 45m distance to the car in front of me. Half a football field is not that much in a car. "I ride the guy's bumper just .5s behind." Are we still at 70mph? Thats a distance of 15m. One would describe it as one car length. At this speed this is roadrage. "Finally, it is almost impossible to say what actually is an inevitable collision. If a car 1s in front of me slams into a concrete block and stops instantly, I can still swerve around it." The point where you can still swerve around things can be defined by physics. We are debating a hypothetical rocket decelerator which, unlike automatic wheel braking, does not rely on wheel to ground friction but has a predictable deceleration force in any condition.