Support NeoGAF

[JimmyV]

what is this?

 

[fallout]

what is this?

Here's the associated APOD article:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090317.html

In short, when a star gets old, it may—depending on its mass and other physical properties—explode. When it explodes, it releases large amounts of energy and matter at an incredible speed. What you see there is a supernova remnant. The blue outline is the shockwave, which is formed up by heated plasma. The points of light are all background stars slightly masked by the remains of the explosion and sweeping shockwave.

That particular supernova was witnessed by a bunch of people back in 1572 and now we have what you see in the image. The light that you are seeing in the supernova remnant is taken in the X-Ray part of the spectrum.

 

[Scrow]

Venus clouds 'might harbour life'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3746583.stm

i was just talking about this possibility with a friend today. i also speculated on the idea of engineering micro-organisms and dispersing them into the venus atmosphere to begin terraforming of the planet.

 

[Rindain]

Vote for your favorite name for the next Mars rover (Mars Science Laboratory):

http://marsrovername.jpl.nasa.gov/

The names:

PURSUIT
PERCEPTION
ADVENTURE
JOURNEY
CURIOSITY
AMELIA
WONDER
VISION
SUNRISE

 

[jett]

Vote for your favorite name for the next Mars rover (Mars Science Laboratory):

http://marsrovername.jpl.nasa.gov/

The names:

PURSUIT
PERCEPTION
ADVENTURE
JOURNEY
CURIOSITY
AMELIA
WONDER
VISION
SUNRISE

I vote... UNCHARTED! :kittonwy

 

[Fenderputty]

I can't believe I've missed this thread. I saw it early this morning when I got to work and have spent all day in it being unproductive. :lol

Wonderful thread. Makes me want to go home and watch more of "The Universe"

 

[yoopoo]

Repost:

Electromagnetic waves turned into audio from the Voyager.

Jupiter http://www.disclose.tv/viewvideo/1252/Strange_Jupiter_Sounds___NASA_Voyager_Recordings/
Neptune http://www.inner-net.com/bmr/wsounds/neptune.wav
Uranus http://www.inner-net.com/bmr/wsounds/uranus.wav
Earth http://www.inner-net.com/bmr/wsounds/voiceof.wav

 

[JimmyV]

This has got to be the single most usefull/informative/best thread on NeoGAF

 

[Windu]

Round trip with Endeavour

NASA's space shuttle Endeavour recently returned to the Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, after its successful mission to the International Space Station. The shuttle, being a reusable spacecraft, has a cycle of preparation, execution and recovery - Endeavour has been through this cycle 22 times now, since 1992. Here is a look at one full cycle for one space shuttle, starting with the landing of Endeavour from its previous mission (STS-123) on March 26th, and ending with its return to Florida 9 months (and 6.6 million miles) later, after mission STS-126. (31 photos total)

In the 16th night landing at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, space shuttle Endeavour approaches Runway 15 to end the STS-123 mission on March 26th, 2008 - a 16-day flight to the International Space Station. The mission completed nearly 6.6 million miles. The STS-123 mission had delivered the first segment of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency's Kibo laboratory and the Canadian Space Agency's two-armed robotic system, known as Dextre. Endeavour will soon be transported to the Orbiter Processing Facility to ready it for its next mission, STS-126. (NASA/Tom Joseph)

In the Orbiter Processing Facility bay 2, technicians on the Hyster forklift maneuver main engine 1 for installation on space shuttle Endeavour on June 30th, 2008. (NASA/Jim Grossmann) #

Inside Orbiter Processing Facility 2 at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, a United Space Alliance technician installs Boeing Replacement Insulation 18, or BRI-18, tile on space shuttle Endeavour during processing activities on July 19th, 2008. BRI-18 is the strongest material used for thermal insulation on the orbiters and, when coated to produce toughened unipiece fibrous insulation, provides a tile with extremely high-impact resistance. It is replacing other tiles on areas of the vehicle where impact risk is high, such as the landing gear doors, the wing leading edge and the external tank doors. (NASA/Jack Pfaller) #

In Orbiter Processing Facility 2 at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, STS-126 Commander Chris Ferguson is seen in the mid-deck of space shuttle Endeavour during inspection of hardware on August 1st, 2008. Members of space shuttle Endeavour's STS-126 crew are at Kennedy to participate in a crew equipment interface test, or CEIT. The CEIT provides experience handling tools, equipment and hardware they will use on the mission. Endeavour will deliver a multi-purpose logistics module to the International Space Station on the STS-126 mission. Launch is targeted for Nov. 10.(NASA/Kim Shiflett) #

Workers accompany space shuttle Endeavour as it rolls toward the Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA's Kennedy Space Center on September 11th, 2008. In the VAB, Endeavour will be attached to its external fuel tank and twin solid rocket boosters. After additional preparations are made, the shuttle will be rolled out to Launch Pad 39B. Endeavour was to serve as the backup shuttle, if needed for rescue, for space shuttle Atlantis' STS-125 mission to NASA's Hubble Space Telescope targeted for October (mission later postponed until 2009). (NASA/Troy Cryder) #

Space shuttle Endeavour is raised off the orbiter transporter by an overhead crane in the transfer aisle of the Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA's Kennedy Space Center on September 11th, 2008. The shuttle will be lifted into high bay 1 for mating with its external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters. After additional preparations are made, the shuttle will be rolled out to Launch Pad 39B. (NASA/Kim Shiflett) #

Seen in this view, looking up at space shuttle Endeavour is slowly lowered into high bay 1 of the Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, for mating with its external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters. Photo taken September 11th, 2008. (NASA/Kim Shiflett) #

At NASA's Kennedy Space Center, a technician (lower left) monitors the progress of space shuttle Endeavour as it is lowered into high bay 1 of the Vehicle Assembly Building on September 11th, 2008, for mating with its external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters, waiting below. (NASA/Kim Shiflett) #

Space shuttle Atlantis (foreground) sits on Launch Pad A and Endeavour on Launch Pad B at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida on September 20th, 2008. At the left of each shuttle are the open rotating service structures with the payload changeout rooms revealed. The rotating service structures provide protection for weather and access to the shuttle. For the first time since July 2001, two shuttles are on the launch pads at the same time at the center. Endeavour will stand by at pad B in the unlikely event that a rescue mission is necessary during space shuttle Atlantis' upcoming mission to repair NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, targeted to launch Oct. Read more... #

At NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, space shuttle Endeavour rolls up the ramp toward Launch Pad 39A on October 23rd, 2008. The shuttle was moved to 39A from Launch Pad 39B, where it had been stationed for a possible rescue mission for the now-postponed Atlantis mission, STS-125. Endeavour was rolled over to Launch Pad 39A , and was targeted to launch Nov. 14 on the STS-126 mission, the 27th mission to the International Space Station, (NASA/Kim Shiflett) #

On Launch Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the orbiter access arm and White Room are extended toward space shuttle Endeavour after rollback of the rotating service structure on November 14th, 2008. The rotating structure provides protected access to the shuttle for changeout and servicing of payloads at the pad. It is supported by a rotating bridge that pivots on a vertical axis on the west side of the pad's flame trench. (NASA/Kim Shiflett) #

In the White Room on Launch Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, STS-126 Mission Specialist Shane Kimbrough is helped by suit technicians to get into his harness on November 14th, 2008. In the background is another crew member waiting to enter space shuttle Endeavour. STS-126 is the 124th space shuttle flight and the 27th flight to the International Space Station. (NASA/Sandra Joseph-Kevin O'Connell) #

Light-filled clouds of smoke and steam roll across Launch Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center as space shuttle Endeavour hurtles into the night sky on the STS-126 mission on November 14th, 2008. Liftoff was on time at 7:55 p.m. EST.(NASA/Sandra Joseph-Kevin O'Connell) #

In this handout from NASA, the Space Shuttle Endeavour's approaches the International Space Station before docking with the International Space Station while in orbit November 16, 2008. The shuttle's 15-day mission to the space station will include delivering needed supplies and four spacewalks. (NASA via Getty Images) #

Back on Earth, NASA's Solid Rocket Booster Retrieval Ship Freedom Star tows along its side one of the spent booster rockets from the space shuttle Endeavour launch Nov. 14 on the STS-126 mission. The ship is returning the spent rocket to Hangar AF at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The space shuttle's solid rocket booster casings and associated flight hardware are recovered at sea. The boosters impact the Atlantic Ocean approximately seven minutes after liftoff. The splashdown area is a square of about six by nine nautical miles located about 140 nautical miles downrange from the launch pad. (NASA/Kim Shiflett) #

Parachutes recovered from sea after the launch of space shuttle Endeavour on the STS-126 mission are seen suspended from a hanging monorail system at the Parachute Refurbishment Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The parachutes are used to slow the descent of the solid rocket boosters that were jettisoned during liftoff. The monorail will transport each parachute into a 30,000-gallon washer and a huge dryer heated with 140-degree air at 13,000 cubic feet per minute. One pilot, one drogue and three main canopies per booster slow the booster’s fall from about 360 mph to 50 mph. After the chutes are cleaned and repaired, they must be carefully re-packed into their bags so they will deploy correctly the next time they are used. (NASA/Jim Grossmann) #

Backdropped by a blue and white Earth and the blackness of space, the Leonardo Multi-Purpose Logistics Module visible in Space Shuttle Endeavour's payload bay, vertical stabilizer and orbital maneuvering system (OMS) pods are featured in this image photographed by a STS-126 crewmember on November 16th, 2008. (NASA) #

Space shuttle Endeavour Mission Specialist Steve Bowen (center) is seen on November 18, 2008 as he works at the starboard truss of the International Space Station during the first of four planned spacewalks for the STS-126 mission. (NASA/AFP/Getty Images) #

A thirty second camera exposure reveals the path of the International Space Station and the docked space shuttle Endeavor as the spacecraft make their way over Watertown, Wisconsin on Friday, November 21st, 2008. The two brightest planets pictured in the lower center of the frame are Jupiter, above, and Venus, below. (AP Photo/Watertown Daily Times, John Hart) #

In this handout from NASA, the Space Shuttle Endeavour's payload bay doors are seen open before docking with the International Space Station while in orbit November 16, 2008. (NASA via Getty Images) #

The Space Shuttle Endeavour lands in the Mojave Desert at Edwards Air Force Base near Rosamond, California - instead of the Kennedy Space Center in Florida because of deteriorating weather conditions on November 30, 2008. The landing concludes mission STS-126 to the International Space Station November 14 to prepare the space station for long-duration missions. (David McNew/Getty Images) #

A parachute deploys as the space shuttle Endeavour touches down at Edwards Air Force Base, Sunday, Nov. 30, 2008 in California. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill) #

At Edwards Air Force Base in California, photographers and journalists circle STS-126 crew members before their departure for NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston on December 1st, 2008. The crew took time to talk to the media before they left. (NASA/Tony Landis, VAFB) #

Bathed under floodlights as the sun sets, Mike Mangione of United Space Alliance, puts star tracker covers in the nose of the space shuttle Endeavour, inside the Mate-Demate Device, as it is readied to be mounted aboard a NASA 747 for its return trip to Florida, at Edwards Air Force Base, California, Friday, Dec. 5, 2008. (AP Photo/Reed Saxon) #

The space shuttle Endeavour, fresh from the STS-126 mission and mounted atop its modified Boeing 747 carrier aircraft, flies over California's Mojave Desert on a three-day trip back to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Wednesday Dec. 10, 2008. NASA officials said Wednesday Dec. 17, 2008 that it is looking for ideas on where and how best to display its space shuttles once they stop flying in a few years. Beware: NASA estimates it will cost about $42 million to get each shuttle ready and get it where it needs to go, and the final tab could end up much more. The estimate includes $6 million to ferry the spaceship atop a modified jumbo jet to the closest major airport. (AP Photo/NASA) #

People watch as the space shuttle Endeavour, on top of a modified 747 jet that carried it cross-country from California, prepares to touch down on the runway after returning to Kennedy Space Center December 12, 2008 in Cape Canaveral, Florida. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images) #

The space shuttle Endeavour returns atop a NASA 747 aircraft to the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida December 12, 2008. (REUTERS/NASA/Handout) #

The shuttle carrier aircraft, or SCA, and its piggyback passenger space shuttle Endeavour are poised to enter the mate/demate device at the Shuttle Landing Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The device will lift the shuttle and put it back on the ground. (NASA/Kim Shiflett) #

After dark, at the Shuttle Landing Facility, or SLF, at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, space shuttle Endeavour has been attached to the sling that will lift the shuttle away from the shuttle carrier aircraft, or SCA, underneath. After Endeavour is on the ground, it will be towed via the two-mile tow-way from the SLF by a diesel-powered tractor to the Orbiter Processing Facility where it will begin preparations for its next mission, STS-127, targeted for May 2009. (NASA/Jim Grossmann) #

Before dawn, at the Shuttle Landing Facility, or SLF, at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, space shuttle Endeavour is suspended by a sling under the mate/demate device. The shuttle carrier aircraft, or SCA, seen below, has just rolled away. (NASA/Jim Grossmann) #

Space shuttle Endeavour is towed by a diesel-powered tractor into the Orbiter Processing Facility, or OPF, at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida on December 13th, 2008. In the OPF, Endeavour will begin preparations for its next mission, STS-127, targeted for May 2009. (NASA/Jack Pfaller) #

 

[DarkJediKnight]

"OH CRAP...."

 

[cluto]

Is this old?

Every episode of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series is on Hulu. Great stuff.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

That bat must have shat his bat-pants. What an epic way to die.

 

[abstract alien]

Got a question...why exactly do you implode when in space? Why is it that metals dont do a similar thing? What other things can survive the vacuum of space? Viruses and waterbears only?

 

[Tom_Cody]

Great stuff Windu. Thanks.

 

[linkboy]

I would rate the 5 shuttles (Atlantis, Challenger, Columbia, Discovery & Endeavour) as one of the greatest inventions in the history of the human race.

If they do get retired next year (like planned), they're going to go down as one of our crowning achievements.

 

[Forsete]

Awesome thread, thanks.

I really wish we had a global "NASA", instead of each country having to re-invent the wheel for themselves, lets put that money to better use and work together all nations on earth, ESA, NASA, Russia, China, India!

 

[Scrow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpD2AUmN2d8&feature=related#t=8m36s

and then watch the following video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pttmrLyUFzQ&feature=related

edit: actually, you might want to just watch the whole thing from the start. it's very interesting.

 

[Lost Fragment]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpD2AUmN2d8&feature=related#t=8m36s

and then watch the following video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pttmrLyUFzQ&feature=related

edit: actually, you might want to just watch the whole thing from the start. it's very interesting.

Cool stuff. Thanks.

 

[Windu]

Martian Dunes and the Shadow of Opportunity

Click For Bigger Image:

Human made robots continue to roll across the surface of Mars. Both Opportunity and its sister rover Spirit are in their sixth year on Mars, exploring the red planet for years longer than original expectations. Pictured above is a composite of recent images taken by the navigation camera on top of the Opportunity rover in Meridiani Planum. Visible are parallel rover tracks, rippling sand dunes, light-colored bedrock protrusions, metallic rover parts, and the dark shadow of the sometimes-artistic robotic photographer. Currently, Opportunity is on its way toward huge Endeavor crater, while Spirit is trying to climb an unusual rock structure known as Home Plate. If it can survive the harsh martian environment, Opportunity should arrive at Endeavor crater in about two years, at which time it may revolutionize human knowledge of this ancient martian landform.

 

[Buggy Loop]

You know, 2 years ago i went to a cottage for summer vacation way up north in quebec, after some heavy rain when the sky cleared up i could almost see that, it was darker obviously since this is a result of long exposure but i could clearly see the milky way's spiral arm like that photo with so many stars i never even knew there were that many visible with the naked eye. Then i went back to montreal where you can barely spot a dozen stars in the sky with all the city lights, sigh. Peoples have no idea just how awesome the night sky could be if we built city light systems intelligently (projecting down rather than all around, etc).

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Got a question...why exactly do you implode when in space? Why is it that metals dont do a similar thing? What other things can survive the vacuum of space? Viruses and waterbears only?

Space whales.

 

[Crazymoogle]

Got a question...why exactly do you implode when in space? Why is it that metals dont do a similar thing? What other things can survive the vacuum of space? Viruses and waterbears only?

As I understand it, it's because there's nothing there, basically. On earth, all that air applies pressure to your body, but in space, there's nothing predictable to do so. Things like the magnetosphere, gravity, atmosphere, air pressure...it's all actually protecting us, and none of it is there past a certain point.

You don't really implode; it's just you are left wide open to death from the big six conditions:
1. Blood and tissue start massively losing oxygen/co2, ticket to passing out
2. lungs collapse (or rupture, if you hold your breath), ticket to passing out
3. Bubbles in all of your bodily fluids, really bad news for a variety of reasons
4. Extreme temp variation can freeze and/or cook you in very short order
5. High energy particles.

 

[Schrade]

Space whales.

 

[abstract alien]

As I understand it, it's because there's nothing there, basically. On earth, all that air applies pressure to your body, but in space, there's nothing predictable to do so. Things like the magnetosphere, gravity, atmosphere, air pressure...it's all actually protecting us, and none of it is there past a certain point.

You don't really implode; it's just you are left wide open to death from the big six conditions:
1. Blood and tissue start massively losing oxygen/co2, ticket to passing out
2. lungs collapse (or rupture, if you hold your breath), ticket to passing out
3. Bubbles in all of your bodily fluids, really bad news for a variety of reasons
4. Extreme temp variation can freeze and/or cook you in very short order
5. High energy particles.

So what exactly happens when I open the hatch without a space suit on? Not to be idiotic, but I dont really understand what will go on physically. If everything is holding me together, then I should "explode" right? It sounds like it would be the opposite effect of going deep into the ocean, where i would literally be crushed by huge amounts of pressure. Will my dead body just float in space mostly unaltered, or will i have gaping wounds/missing parts from a massive explosion?

 

[Crazymoogle]

So what exactly happens when I open the hatch without a space suit on? Not to be idiotic, but I dont really understand what will go on physically. If everything is holding me together, then I should "explode" right? It sounds like it would be the opposite effect of going deep into the ocean, where i would literally be crushed by huge amounts of pressure. Will my dead body just float in space mostly unaltered, or will i have gaping wounds/missing parts from a massive explosion?

Pressure isn't solely responsible for keeping you from exploding into tiny bits - matter binds to things just fine (hence planetary objects!). You can't explode, because your tissue (namely skin and circulatory system) are inherently designed to bind various parts together with strength. Without pressure, your body isn't really able to handle most of the things it needs to do (ie: properly grasp nearby space station hatch for daring escape) but death comes from the bad things that happen with prolonged exposure to an unprotected environment (space) without some of the basic atmosphere exchange bits your body is built on.

So yeah, basically your body will float around in space. Not completely unaltered, though - your saliva will start boiling pretty quickly, and then a lot of your body will freeze. The skin will get sunburn. I imagine your eyes would get messed up pretty quickly. But providing you don't clip another object, you'd be be intact for as long as you stay up there.

NASA believes we can survive for around 30 seconds in a vacuum - provided you don't hold your breath! - because in that time all you will really do is lose consciousness and suffer - hopefully - non-permanent injury (although recovery would get steadily harder with every second.) The problem is it really hasn't been tested beyond half that (with humans), since after 15 seconds your brain pretty much runs out of oxygenated blood to stay conscious. 1-2 minutes is around when everything gets pretty irreversable.

 

[Windu]

Human Exposure to the Vacuum of Space

Since space is a vacuum with no atmosphere, what would happen to an astronaut suddenly exposed to space without a protective suit? I've had arguments with friends about the scene in the movie 2001 when the astronaut is blown from one spacecraft to another without wearing a suit. Would the person die instantly or survive, and for how long? What kinds of injuries would the body sustain or would it simply explode? If an astronaut took a deep breath, opened and shut his helmet as fast as he could, would he live?
- question from Wes, Robert Clarkson, Hass Abbas & Goldenbeard

Most of the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey focuses on the crew of a fictional manned mission to the planet Jupiter. The journey takes place aboard a spacecraft named Discovery One that is controlled by a computer called HAL 9000. During one sequence of the film, the mission commander Dave Bowman takes a trip outside Discovery aboard a small pod when the malfunctioning HAL locks Bowman out of the ship and refuses to let him back in. Bowman, who had forgotten the helmet and gloves for his spacesuit, is forced to re-enter Discovery by briefly exposing himself to the vacuum of space while entering an airlock.

The likelihood of this scenario has been debated for years, but most experts agree that it is a pretty good representation of reality. The movie's director Stanley Kubrick and author Arthur C. Clarke strove for accuracy in the depiction of spaceflight and based Bowman's airlock scene on NASA and US Air Force experiments exploring the limits of survivability in low pressure atmospheres. This research, conducted during the 1950s and 1960s, concluded that a human exposed to a vacuum will remain conscious for ten to fifteen seconds and can survive for up to 90 seconds with relatively minor and reversible side effects. The exact limits are unknown, but death is believed to be unavoidable after two to four minutes of exposure. Contrary to depictions in many other popular movies, a person exposed to the vacuum of space does not instantly pass out or freeze to death, the body does not explode, and blood does not boil.

Members of PETA may want to stop reading now, because most of the experimentation to determine these findings was conducted on animals. Chimpanzees and dogs were particularly common subjects used during decompression and recompression tests. Several of these studies determined that a subject experiencing a rapid decompression to a vacuum will retain some level of consciousness for between nine and twelve seconds. Unconsciousness only occurs once the supply of oxygen in the blood is depleted. Furthermore, a human will have no more than five to ten seconds to take any action in response to the decompression. Shortly after losing consciousness, the body will experience paralysis followed by convulsions and finally paralysis again. Water vapor also begins forming in soft tissue causing the body to swell, perhaps to as much as twice its normal volume if not constrained by a suit. Over the next 30 to 60 seconds, heart rate slows, blood pressure drops, and blood circulation stops. Gases and water vapor rapidly escape through the mouth and nose causing these parts of the body to drop to near freezing temperatures. The rest of the body cools more slowly.

Although some animal subjects perished due to fibrillation of the heart within the first minute of exposure, these cases proved the exception and an air-breathing creature will almost always recover if recompression occurs within 90 seconds. Breathing usually begins spontaneously without any need for outside resuscitation. However, resuscitation becomes impossible after heart activity has stopped regardless of recompression time.

The same studies also addressed the damage a body endures when exposed to a rapid decompression. Initial injuries are relatively minor including decompression sickness (also known as "the bends") and some swelling of skin and underlying tissue. These effects begin about ten seconds after exposure but quickly reverse after recompression. Once the body loses consciousness from lack of oxygen, the effects become more severe and begin to accumulate. Temporary neurological damage and blindness were found to be common in animal subjects after longer periods of vacuum exposure, but the effects usually disappear rapidly upon recompression. Researchers concluded that although a subject's condition may appear grave after vacuum exposure, recompression to even as little as 0.25 atmospheres within 60 to 90 seconds will usually allow survival and a complete recovery within a short period of time.

One of the worst things a person can do, however, is to try holding his breath. The difference in pressure this creates will cause the lungs to rupture. This type of injury is almost always fatal. It is also a common concern in scuba diving and divers must learn not to hold their breath while ascending or risk similar lung injury. Eardrum damage is also possible if a person's sinuses are congested. This blockage traps air inside sinus passages and prevents pressures inside and outside the head from equalizing, much like air travelers sometimes suffer. Another possible injury that an astronaut without a spacesuit may experience is severe sunburn of the skin. This injury is not directly related to the fact that space is a vacuum but happens when the astronaut is exposed to the ultraviolet radiation of sunlight without any protective barrier.

Having addressed the injuries a person will likely suffer, it is also worthwhile to explain those a person will not experience. A body or head does not explode, as sometimes shown in movies and television programs, because skin and bones have enough strength to contain the higher pressure fluids within the body and prevent them from escaping outward. Blood does not boil for a similar reason. Human blood pressure is already at a relatively high pressure compared to normal atmospheric conditions. Even if the external pressure drops to a vacuum, blood vessels maintain a high enough pressure that the body's temperature remains below the boiling point of water and prevents blood from boiling. The body will not instantly freeze either because even though space is generally very cold, the fact that it is a vacuum means there is no medium to conduct heat away from the body and it cools rather slowly.

The only parts of the body where these trends do not necessarily hold true are the nose and mouth. As mentioned earlier, the rapid escape of air through these humid regions causes an evaporative cooling effect. Moisture in the mouth absorbs body heat causing the mouth to quickly cool to near freezing temperatures. As saliva absorbs heat, it boils into water vapor and is carried away with the escaping air.

Although the experimentation that generated these findings was conducted primarily on animals because of the inherent danger, there have been a few instances when the limits of human endurance have been tested by exposure to very low atmospheric pressures. In 1965, a person was testing a pressure suit in a vacuum chamber at NASA Johnson Space Center in Texas. The suit began to leak and was accidentally depressurized to a near vacuum. The person lost consciousness in 14 seconds but repressurization of the chamber began within 15 seconds. Consciousness was regained in about 30 seconds with no reported ill effects, and the person later said that his last memory was of the saliva on his tongue starting to boil.

Another brush with low pressure occurred in 1960 when Joe Kittinger made his record-breaking skydive from an altitude of over 100,000 ft (30,480 m). The right hand of Kittinger's suit sprung a leak while he was ascending in a balloon resulting in a painful swelling in his hand. Kittinger later said that his hand had swollen to twice its normal size and was completely useless. Despite the stiffness and loss of circulation, however, Kittinger continued his flight and his hand had returned to normal about three hours after landing back on the ground.

A similar occurrence happened to an astronaut on Space Shuttle flight STS-37 in 1991. A small puncture was torn in the astronaut's glove and also made a small cut between his thumb and forefinger. The astronaut didn't even realize the accident had occurred during his spacewalk, but later noticed a painful swollen spot on his hand. The astronaut's skin and coagulated blood from the cut sealed the hole, and the minor injury quickly healed.

Not all such incidents have been as harmless as these, however. Another vacuum chamber accident at NASA resulted in somewhat longer exposure than the 1965 case described above. After the chamber was decompressed, the victim coughed, lost consciousness, and remained unresponsive over the two to three minutes it took to repressurize the chamber. The person was seen to make a few short gasps once full pressure was regained but did not begin breathing on his own. Physicians began CPR immediately but the victim had suffered heart failure and could not be revived.

A disaster also occurred on the Soviet space mission Soyuz 11 in 1971. The three crewmen departed the first Soviet space station for their return to Earth when a valve in their capsule accidentally opened and began venting its atmosphere into space. The gases leaked out over 30 seconds as one of the crewmen attempted to close the valve manually. Unfortunately, he had only succeeded in closing the valve halfway before succumbing to unconsciousness. The capsule automatically re-entered the atmosphere and landed in Russia. Recovery personnel soon came upon the crew who looked like they were simply asleep and showed no swollen skin or other signs of vacuum exposure. Believing they had only been unconscious for a brief period, personnel attempted CPR but were unable to revive the crew. It is believed they had already been deceased for 15 to 20 minutes by the time the rescue party arrived making any resuscitation impossible. In the wake of the tragedy, the Soyuz capsule was redesigned and its crew have worn pressurized spacesuits ever since.

Although exposure to space is not as gruesome as is often depicted in movies, it is obviously still something to be avoided. Engineers and scientists at NASA and in Russia work very hard to insure that decompression accidents do not occur to protect the safety of those who travel into space. Decompression is also a serious concern for aircraft, and regulatory agencies require that commercial airliners have cabin pressurization systems with multiple redundancies.
- answer by Justine Whitman, 28 January 2007

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0291.shtml

 

[abstract alien]

Pressure isn't solely responsible for keeping you from exploding into tiny bits - matter binds to things just fine (hence planetary objects!). You can't explode, because your tissue (namely skin and circulatory system) are inherently designed to bind various parts together with strength. Without pressure, your body isn't really able to handle most of the things it needs to do (ie: properly grasp nearby space station hatch for daring escape) but death comes from the bad things that happen with prolonged exposure to an unprotected environment (space) without some of the basic atmosphere exchange bits your body is built on.

So yeah, basically your body will float around in space. Not completely unaltered, though - your saliva will start boiling pretty quickly, and then a lot of your body will freeze. The skin will get sunburn. I imagine your eyes would get messed up pretty quickly. But providing you don't clip another object, you'd be be intact for as long as you stay up there.

NASA believes we can survive for around 30 seconds in a vacuum - provided you don't hold your breath! - because in that time all you will really do is lose consciousness and suffer - hopefully - non-permanent injury (although recovery would get steadily harder with every second.) The problem is it really hasn't been tested beyond half that (with humans), since after 15 seconds your brain pretty much runs out of oxygenated blood to stay conscious. 1-2 minutes is around when everything gets pretty irreversable.

Good lord, that is almost as bad as the ocean and its many death traps.

Not all such incidents have been as harmless as these, however. Another vacuum chamber accident at NASA resulted in somewhat longer exposure than the 1965 case described above. After the chamber was decompressed, the victim coughed, lost consciousness, and remained unresponsive over the two to three minutes it took to repressurize the chamber. The person was seen to make a few short gasps once full pressure was regained but did not begin breathing on his own. Physicians began CPR immediately but the victim had suffered heart failure and could not be revived.

A disaster also occurred on the Soviet space mission Soyuz 11 in 1971. The three crewmen departed the first Soviet space station for their return to Earth when a valve in their capsule accidentally opened and began venting its atmosphere into space. The gases leaked out over 30 seconds as one of the crewmen attempted to close the valve manually. Unfortunately, he had only succeeded in closing the valve halfway before succumbing to unconsciousness. The capsule automatically re-entered the atmosphere and landed in Russia. Recovery personnel soon came upon the crew who looked like they were simply asleep and showed no swollen skin or other signs of vacuum exposure. Believing they had only been unconscious for a brief period, personnel attempted CPR but were unable to revive the crew. It is believed they had already been deceased for 15 to 20 minutes by the time the rescue party arrived making any resuscitation impossible. In the wake of the tragedy, the Soyuz capsule was redesigned and its crew have worn pressurized spacesuits ever since.

:^(

 

[Windu]

Is it true that Russia built a copy of the space shuttle? Was it actually turned into a piece of playground equipment?!
- question from Joyce Kelly

I know that Russia built its own Space Shuttle. Why doesn't NASA use it to replace the Columbia?
- question from Charles Monroe

The Soviet Union did indeed build its own version of the American Space Shuttle that was known as Buran ("snowstorm" in Russian). The US had made the decision to develop its reusable spacecraft in 1972. Since the US Defense Department had plans to use the Shuttle for military missions, Moscow felt the need to respond with a comparable craft to maintain parity with the West. The Reusable Space System (MKS) was subsequently approved in June 1974 with NPO Energia given responsibility for the project the following October. Though only the first spaceworthy vehicle built was actually named Buran, the entire project came to be known by this designation.

Energia-Buran Reusable Space System sitting on the launch pad

The design requirements specified for the MKS called for a vehicle to accomplish the following goals:

• Denial of the use of space for military purposes by the enemy.
• Research into questions of interest to the military, science, and the national economy.
• Applied military research and experiments using large space complexes.
• Delivery to orbit and return to Earth of spacecraft, cosmonauts, and supplies.
• Delivery of a 30 ton payload to orbit, followed by seven days of orbital operations and return of a 20 ton payload to Earth.
• Exploit the technology developed for the American Space Shuttle in order to enhance Soviet space technology capability.

The last goal is of particular interest. The Soviets had attempted to build their own equivalent to the Saturn V that carried American astronauts to the Moon during the Apollo program. The Soviet rocket, known as the N1, had been a failure causing national leaders to fear that the country lagged behind the US in heavy-lift rocket technology. The Soviet solution was to attempt to copy as much of the American Shuttle design as possible in order to insure the success of Buran. However, they modified the American approach, where necessary, to take advantage of Soviet strengths and eliminate technologies that were beyond their capabilities. For example, the Soviets had no experience building large solid rocket motors like those being developed as reusable boosters for the American Shuttle. They did, however, have a large liquid oxygen and kerosene engine under development that could be substituted as an equivalent booster rocket. The Soviets also had little experience with cryogenic propellants, like those to be used in the main engines on the American orbiter, and lacked the ability to make such engines reusable.

These considerations led to a number of key decisions in the MKS design. For example, the lack of reusable rocket engines meant there was no need to carry the main engines aboard the Buran orbiter itself. The booster system was instead composed of a large central core called the Energia rocket that took the place occupied by the external fuel tank on the US Shuttle. This central core was surrounded by four liquid rocket strap-on boosters similar to the two solid rocket boosters used in the American design. Unlike the US Shuttle, this basic core and strap-on system could also be used as an independent rocket in its own right. The Energia core was a modular design that could be equipped with one to four rocket engines and anywhere from two to eight strap-on boosters. The Energia could also be fitted with different payload capsules permitting great flexibility in the launch configuration. The Buran orbiter, in fact, was just one of several payload options that could be attached to the Energia core.

Launch configuration comparison between the US Space Shuttle and Buran

The orbiter itself was an external copy of the American Shuttle but with a number of differences in design details. Although Soviet engineers considered a number of exotic and innovative lifting body configurations for the reusable spacecraft, none appeared to be superior to the shape chosen by the Americans for their orbiter. The Soviets did add a few changes of their own, however. Most notably, removing the propulsion system from the orbiter allowed the vehicle to carry a larger payload of 30 tons into orbit compared to the 25-ton maximum of the US Shuttle. The landing weight was similarly increased to 20 tons from the 15-ton limit for the American orbiter. The Soviets also made provisions to add a pair of jet engines to the aft end of their orbiter so that the final stage of landing could be performed under power. By contrast, the US orbiter is unpowered and must glide to its landing. The engines would have given the Buran an additional safety factor to overcome adverse winds or waveoff and make a new approach to the runway. However, the idea was never implemented on Buran since it was ultimately deemed unnecessarily complicated.

Otherwise, the general layout of the Buran was similar to that of the US orbiter and consisted of a long, cylindrically shaped fuselage attached to a low-mounted double delta wing. A two-deck crew cabin at the forward end of the fuselage contained the flight controls on the upper deck and living space below. Compared to the American orbiter, maximum crew size was increased from seven to ten with room for four cosmonauts provided on the main deck and the remaining six crew on the lower deck. Aft of the cabin was a large payload bay capable of carrying docking modules, a manipulator arm, and payload containers similar to those of the American Shuttle. Also like the US orbiter, the external surface of the Buran was covered with tens of thousands of thermal protection tiles and carbon-carbon material to survive the heat of re-entry. However, the Soviets believed that the orientation selected for the tiles was a more optimum configuration that that used by the US.

Buran covered with tiles to protect against heating during re-entry

As the overall configuration of the Buran was finalized, the Soviets constructed a number of test articles to validate different aspects of the design. Among these validations were thrust stand measurements of the Energia rocket engines and wind tunnel plus gas dynamic tests of the Buran orbiter from subsonic landing speeds to hypersonic re-entry speeds. The test vehicles included a series of sub-scale models of the Buran launched on sub-orbital flights to collect data on flight handling characteristics and control effectiveness at speeds up to Mach 17.5.

Buran sub-scale aerodynamic model

The program also included five full-scale mock-ups and three structural component test articles used to investigate a variety of manufacturing, assembly, and flying quality characteristics as well as handling procedures. Each of these test articles is described in greater detail below.

Click to view:​

​

Perhaps the most interesting of these assets was the OK-GLI aerodynamic flight test vehicle, also known as the "Analog Buran" or "Buran analogue." Though the vehicle could fly, it was limited to low-speed flight within the atmosphere and was not a spaceworthy craft. The Analog Buran was instead equipped with four jet engines allowing it to takeoff from conventional runways. After climbing to altitude, the engines were shut down so the vehicle could glide back to make an unpowered landing. These repetitive landing and taxi tests collected data needed for the development of an autopilot and automated landing system for the actual Buran orbiters. A total of 25 flights were conducted before the Analog Buran was retired.

Analog Buran showing its four jet engines during a flight test

The Analog Buran was later sold to an Australian company that placed the vehicle on display at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. Though the owner planned to take the vehicle on a tour of several Australian and Asian cities, poor ticket sales in Sydney doomed the venture and the company went bankrupt. An attempt to auction the Analog Buran for $6 million was unsuccessful, and the craft remained stored outdoors for at least a year before a new company purchased the vehicle. OK-GLI was moved to Bahrain where it was displayed during the 2002 Summer Festival. This owner also went bankrupt and was forced to abandon the Analog Buran in a Bahraini junkyard pending the outcome of legal battles with NPO Molniya, the Russian company that had built the craft. There the vehicle remains to this day, though the Auto & Technik Museum is attempting to purchase it for an exhibit in Sinsheim, Germany.

The various other mock-ups served a variety of purposes including static loads and vibration testing, environmental heating and vacuum testing, part fitment tests, developing methods for interfacing the orbiter with the Energia, and maintenance and transport procedures. One of these full-scale test articles later ended up in Moscow's Gorkiy Park where some have described it as "playground equipment." This mock-up was formerly the OK-TVA static and dynamic test article that developers had planned to convert into a space-themed restaurant serving the same kinds of food that cosmonauts eat in space. After this idea fell through, OK-TVA instead became an amusement park "space ride" attraction where visitors are treated to a simulated trip into space. The payload bay provides 30 seats moved by motors to simulate the g-loads during launch and landing as well as weightlessness in orbit. During the ride, movies from Buran's flight are projected on screens in front of and along the sides of the compartment. Customers can also tour the flight deck in the nose that has been equipped with a cockpit mock-up similar to that on a manned orbiter. The attraction's popularity has apparently been declining, however, and a sharp drop in ticket sales forced management to cut the ride's duration in half to 20 minutes by 2000.

OK-TVA static test article in Gorkiy Park

The information gained using these test articles culminated in the first successful flights of the Energia and Buran in the late 1980s. The Energia flew its first operational mission on 11 May 1987, and the launch vehicle performed flawlessly. This success spurred the Soviet's to attempt the first flight of the complete Buran-Energia system the following year. The launch occurred at 0600 on the morning of 15 November 1988 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in what is now Kazakhstan. Unlike American Shuttle missions, this flight was conducted without a single human aboard the vehicle. The first mission was launched unmanned since the life support system was still not certified or fully installed and software for cockpit displays was incomplete. Moreover, the primary goal of the flight was to test the automated launch, orbital maneuvering, and landing systems developed for the orbiter. It was considered unnecessary to risk a human crew on a shakedown flight.

Views of the Buran on its first and only flight

Though the first flight occurred more than four years behind schedule, the mission was a complete success. The automated launch sequence performed flawlessly, and the Energia booster lifted the vehicle into a temporary orbit before the Buran separated as designed. After boosting itself to a higher orbit and completing two circuits around the Earth, the Buran automatically fired its retrorockets to begin the descent back into the atmosphere. Exactly 206 minutes into the mission, the Buran orbiter successfully landed at Baikonur, having lost only five of its 38,000 thermal tiles over the course of the flight. The unmanned flight marked the first time in history that a spacecraft of such size and complexity had been launched, completed maneuvers in orbit, re-entered the atmosphere, and made a precision landing under completely automatic control. As an encore to its successful flight, Buran made a triumphant appearance at the 1989 Paris Air Show while mounted atop its An-225 Mriya transport.

In addition to the Buran, the Soviet program had originally planned to build four additional spaceworthy orbiters. Work had begun on all four but none were completed before the fall of the Soviet Union. Additional information on these orbiters is provided below.

Click to view:​

​

The first two vehicles were due to complete another three unmanned flights from 1991 to 1993 of increasing length and complexity. These flights would have thoroughly tested the payload bay doors, manipulator arm, ability to dock with the Mir space station, and the ability to remain in orbit for up to three weeks. Although only the first orbiter was named Buran, the second never received an official name of its own. Some sources indicate that this vehicle was known by the unofficial nickname Ptichka for "little bird" while others say this nickname applied to all the orbiters. The next three vehicles represented a second-generation shuttle rated for manned flight through the addition of an improved flight deck, life support systems, and ejection seats. These three were never named though unconfirmed rumors suggest the third might have been called Baikal for "typhoon."

Unfortunately, the ambitious plans to further develop the Buran and her sisters for a variety of military and scientific applications were not to be. Funding for the program was slashed almost immediately after the first flight and further work had essentially stopped even before the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Buran never flew again, and though never officially cancelled, President Boris Yeltsin finally cut off the last trickle of funding in 1993. Shortly thereafter, head of NPO Energia Yuri Semenov confirmed the stoppage when he publicly admitted that the project was dead. The ultimate failure of the Buran program was due to its massive cost estimated between 14.5 and 20 billion Rubles. This burden was so enormous and put such a strain on the national economy that it was likely a contributing factor to the demise of the Soviet Union itself. The Buran, Ptichka, and test vehicles at Baikonur are now the sole property of Kazakhstan having been bartered to the independent republic in exchange for Russia's continued use of Baikonur's launch facilities.

Buran in storage at Baikonur in April 2002

Nevertheless, the question remains as to whether the project could be resurrected to supplement the US Shuttle fleet, especially given the loss of the Columbia in February 2003. The Russians themselves had implied that the program might be renewed as recently as 2001. Many of its components had been placed in storage, including the Buran orbiter that was mounted atop a nearly completed Energia booster and placed in a building called Site 112 at Baikonur.

Unfortunately, the prospects for reviving the shuttle project now appear more unlikely than ever. On 12 May 2002, most of the roof of the enormous Site 112 where the Buran orbiter and all remaining Energia boosters were being stored collapsed. Funding had been cut so low that routine maintenance had not been performed on the building in over a decade. The roof was known to leak and sag excessively under the weight of snow. This lack of maintenance coupled with strong winds finally led to a structural collapse that killed eight workers and destroyed the Buran.

Shattered remains of an Energia booster, inset shows the extent of the damage to Site 112

In addition to the Buran, the second orbiter Ptichka was nearly completed when the program was stopped in 1993. The craft was also placed into storage at Baikonur and is believed to remain in relatively good condition. The third orbiter was only about 40% complete when work stopped and remained stored at the factory until it was sold to become a museum exhibit. Assembly of the fourth orbiter had progressed to about 20% completion before the incomplete hulk was moved out of the factory. Thermal tiles and other parts stripped from the craft have even been offered for sale on the internet. Work had also started on the fifth orbiter, but it was dismantled at the production site in 1995. The former orbiter manufacturing plant was reportedly converted to produce buses, syringes, and diapers.

The loss of the only flight-worthy vehicle and the poor state of the infrastructure originally put in place to manufacture, launch, maintain, and support the Russian shuttle has almost surely sounded the death-knell of the Buran project once and for all.

If you'd like to learn more about the history of the Soviet space program and the role Buran played, you might enjoy Russia in Space: The Failed Frontier? by Brian Harvey and Kosmos featuring the photography of Adam Bartos.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 7 December 2003

Update!

New photos of the wreckage at Site 112 have become available showing the extent of the damage to the Buran orbiter. While the remains of the launcher are obvious in this first photo, Buran is difficult to make out. The most identifiable pieces are the forward fuselage containing the crew cabin that can be seen in the center of the photo and one of the aft thruster pods visible on the right.

Crushed wreckage of Buran seen from overhead

The damage is perhaps even more apparent in the following closeup of the crew cabin. The flight deck windows have been knocked out by the collapsed roof and the remainder of the orbiter is extensively battered. The heat tiles are also clearly visible confirming that this vehicle is one of the spaceworthy orbiters and not a mockup or test article.

Closeup of the destroyed Buran orbiter

The Site 112 photos suggest that Buran and the Energia booster were essentially broken in half after the building's roof fell on the middle of the shuttle stack. The damage is extensive and the Buran is a total loss. The Buran wreckage apparently still remains in Site 112 as no attempt has been made to clear the debris from the roof collapse.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 5 February 2007

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0153.shtml

(and yes, I could have just posted the link, but what would be the fun in that?)

 

[Schrade]

(and yes, I could have just posted the link, but what would be the fun in that?)

That was awesome. Thank you for all the effort. Just posting a link isn't as good as seeing it in a post on GAF.

Good job! I never knew that the roof collapsed on its storage facility.

 

[fallout]

Great stuff, Windu. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Quazar]

Awesome thread, thanks.

I really wish we had a global "NASA", instead of each country having to re-invent the wheel for themselves, lets put that money to better use and work together all nations on earth, ESA, NASA, Russia, China, India!

Well, we do work together. Hitch rides and all that. Will become more and more commonplace.

 

[Desperado]

Wow, thanks, Windu. I had no idea.

The ending to the story is pretty depressing.

 

[Bananakin]

Wow, that was really interesting Windu. Thanks for posting it. I find it hilarious that they just out-and-out copied the American design for the shuttle. It makes sense and all, but it's still pretty funny.

 

[Big-E]

The Soviet boosters looked way better than the American ones. NASA needs to go with that artistic design.

 

[half a moon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpD2AUmN2d8&feature=related#t=8m36s

and then watch the following video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pttmrLyUFzQ&feature=related

edit: actually, you might want to just watch the whole thing from the start. it's very interesting.

Watching all parts.

 

[Windu]

Why did the Russian attempt to launch a man to the Moon crash? I heard the N1 rocket carrying it crashed on the lunar surface minutes before Apollo 11 landed.
- question from av8tr2b

I believe you may be confusing a couple of different Soviet lunar projects going on during the same time period as America's Apollo program. Although it was never publicly acknowledged during the existence of the Soviet Union, the Soviets did plan a program to land cosmonauts on the Moon comparable to the Apollo landings. Such missions were seen as a logical continuation of the Space Race that had begun when Sputnik was launched in 1957. However, the Soviets were forced to abandon their lunar program following a string of failures from the mid-1960s to early 1970s. The Soviets then attempted to conceal their lack of success by claiming that no such program had ever existed in the first place.

The Soviet lunar effort was officially begun in 1964 when Premier Nikita Khrushchev gave the full go-ahead to proceed. A manned lunar mission required the development of both technology and procedures to safely travel to, land on, and explore the Moon. The Soviets had successfully mastered many of these criteria, including spacewalks as well as rendezvousing and docking with other craft in space. By the end of 1966, 18 cosmonauts were in training for lunar missions, including Yuri Gagarin who had been the first man to orbit the Earth. Furthermore, the Soviets had developed and built their own lunar lander, known as the LK, that was tested in Earth orbit during the Kosmos 379, 398, and 434 missions of 1970 and 1971.

Soviet LK manned lunar lander

The Soviets had also developed their own equivalent of the Apollo Command Module called the LOK. Known as the lunar orbiter, the LOK was a derivative of the Soyuz capsule modified to carry a crew of two to and from the Moon. Though a complete LOK never flew in space, many of its features were tested on Zond missions that will be discussed in a future article.

The one major hurdle left before a cosmonaut could land on the Moon was to develop a rocket powerful enough to make the journey possible. That rocket was the N1, also known as the SL-15 or G-class booster in the West. Weighing in at 2,800 tons and standing 345 ft (105 m) tall, the N1 was equivalent to and roughly the same size as the American Saturn V.

Comparison of the N1 and Saturn V rockets

The N1 was a rather complex system made up of a number of different stages and components. The first stage, known as Block A, stood 100 ft (30 m) tall and was designed to provide over 11 million pounds (50 million newtons) of thrust during the first two minutes of flight. Generating this thrust was a combination of 30 separate liquid rocket engines burning a mixture of liquid oxygen and kerosene. The second stage, Block B, was nearly 68 ft (20.5 m) in length and contained another 8 rocket engines generating over 3 million pounds (14 million newtons) of thrust for another two minutes. A third stage, Block V, used four more engines to provide the final push into orbit.

The remainder of the vehicle was collectively known as the L3 and contained all the components needed to travel from Earth orbit to a landing on the Moon. At its base were two more sets of rocket stages called Block G and Block D. Riding atop these stages were Block E, containing the LK lunar lander, and Block I, containing the LOK lunar orbiter. Additional information on these components of the N1 including cut-away drawings of their internal structures are available at Russian Space Web.

N1 showing the 30 rocket engines of its first stage

Despite its size, the payload carried by the N1 was only about 70% as large as that launched to the Moon by the Saturn V. While the Apollo missions carried a crew of three, two of whom would land on the lunar surface, the Soviets designed their craft for only two crewmen. The reduction in crew allowed the sizes of the LK lander and LOK orbiter to be significantly reduced, and one cosmonaut would remain aboard the orbiter while the second landed on the Moon. The L3 layout also had no tunnel directly connecting the two manned modules, so the second cosmonaut would have had to make a spacewalk to transfer in and out of the LK lander before and after his trip to the surface.

N1 rocket on the launch pad

Though seemingly more complex, the Soviets believed this approach could be developed more quickly than Apollo and would allow them to beat the Americans by making the first lunar landing as early as September 1968. However, this plan turned out to be woefully optimistic. While some blame rests on the LK and LOK vehicles whose designs fell behind schedule, the ultimate failure of the Soviet manned lunar program rests squarely on the N1. At least nine examples of this enormous rocket were completed and four were launched on unmanned test flights. Unfortunately, all four failed in spectacular fashion.

The first vehicle launched was designated launch vehicle 3L. The rocket successfully lifted off the launch pad on 21 February 1968, but trouble struck almost immediately when a fire broke out in the Block A first stage. A safety system within the N1 reacted to the fire by mistakenly shutting down all 30 engines prematurely 68.7 seconds into the flight. The remainder of the doomed N1 then fell back to Earth in a catastrophic explosion. Just weeks later, the Apollo 9 mission succeeded in fully testing the American Lunar Module in Earth orbit, and the Soviets knew they had no hope of beating the Americans to the Moon.

Liftoff of the second N1 flight, and its subsequent explosion

The next N1 test flight came on 3 July 1969, only weeks before Apollo 11 made its successful lunar landing. Known as launch vehicle 5L, this N1 was also destroyed shortly after liftoff due to a failure in the first stage. Just 0.25 seconds into the flight, the pump of engine number 8 ingested debris and exploded setting off a large fire in Block A. The N1 managed to climb just above the top of the launch tower when the remaining engines were shut down prematurely. The rocket plummeted back onto the pad in a spectacular explosion that destroyed the launch facility known as 110 East. Not only did it take 18 months to repair the pad, but the failure ended any last remaining hope of impressing the world prior to the American lunar landing.

No further attempts to launch the N1 were made for nearly two years as engineers struggled to understand the rocket's flaws. Further complicating matters were constant political battles within the Soviet space program between those who wanted to kill the N1 project and abandon a lunar landing program and those who hoped to keep the effort alive. The project probably would have been cancelled had it not been for the near disaster that occurred on Apollo 13. Following an explosion aboard the Apollo service module en route to the Moon that nearly cost the lives of the three astronauts, the Soviets were convinced that NASA might cancel further Apollo missions. Such a decision might give the Soviets an opportunity to resurrect their own lunar landing program and regain the lead in the space race.

Given this reprieve, Soviet rocket engineers were allowed to test the much improved 6L vehicle on 26 June 1971. Upgrades to the design included fuel filters to prevent what had happened on the second launch as well as other reliability enhancements. Despite these improvements, the N1 faired little better than it had before. During ascent, the N1 developed a roll that its control system was unable to compensate for. As the rocket began to veer off course, the payload section started to disintegrate while passing through max q. Control of the N1 was completely lost 50.2 seconds after liftoff, and ground controllers were forced to activate the self-destruct system. Even though it was considered a failure, this flight did demonstrate significant improvements in the reliability of the first stage since all 30 engines functioned properly.

Images of the third N1 flight

Nevertheless, June 1971 proved to be a disastrous month for the Soviet space program. Just four days after the N1 launch failure, cosmonauts Georgi Dobrovolsky, Viktor Patsayev, and Vladislav Volkov were killed while returning to Earth at the conclusion of their Soyuz 11 mission.

The subsequent investigations following these two tragedies resulted in a significant reorganization of the Soviet space program, and further N1 testing was delayed for over a year. Despite attempts to cancel the N1 program, one more unmanned test flight was approved. Vehicle 7L was closest to the final configuration needed for a lunar landing and also included control system modifications to avoid the roll problem observed on the previous flight. Liftoff occurred on 23 November 1972, and the rocket functioned as planned until 106.3 seconds into flight. Only seven seconds shy of first stage burnout, propellant lines in Block A ruptured causing engine number 4 to explode, and the vehicle began to disintegrate. The remains of the N1 tumbled out of control and crashed downrange from the launch pad.

N1 test flights

This failure was the last nail in the coffin for both the N1 program and the entire Soviet lunar landing effort. After spending 17 years and 6 billion Rubles designing and developing the nation's first heavy-lift rocket, the N1 was officially cancelled in 1974 along with all lunar landing plans. All remaining N1 rockets were ordered destroyed, but some components still exist today at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

Getting back to your question, you ask whether the N1 crashed on the Moon shortly before the Apollo 11 landing. As we have seen, that is impossible since the N1 was never able to reach Earth orbit, let alone the Moon. I suspect you may be confusing the crash of the second N1 that occurred 17 days before the Apollo 11 landing with an unmanned Soviet probe that crashed on the lunar surface during the Apollo 11 mission. This probe was part of the Luna series of orbiters and landers launched by the Soviet Union to explore the Moon between 1959 and 1976.

Luna 15 lunar lander

Luna 15 began its journey on 13 July 1969 as a last-minute attempt to regain national pride in the face of the pending Apollo landing. Luna 15 was a fairly sophisticated craft designed to land on the surface of the Moon and collect soil samples to be launched back to Earth. It was hoped that the soil could be returned prior to Apollo 11's splashdown making the Soviets the first to bring lunar material back to Earth. Though the probe was successfully launched and made its way into lunar orbit, bad luck again struck the Soviet lunar program. Luna 15 had completed 52 orbits of the Moon when it attempted to make a soft landing on the surface. Unfortunately, the final retrorocket burn failed and the probe crashed in the Sea of Crises on 21 July 1969, just one day after Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin made their historic walk on the Moon.

More information on the N1 rocket and the Soviet's efforts to land on the Moon can be found in an excellent book by Asif Siddiqi called The Soviet Space Race with Apollo. One of the key reasons often cited for the failure of the N1 is the untimely death of chief designer Sergei Korolev. You can read more about this man and his many contributions to the Soviet space program in James Harford's Korolev: How One Man Masterminded the Soviet Drive to Beat America to the Moon. Another fascinating book about the period is Two Sides of the Moon: Our Story of the Cold War Space Race. Written by US astronaut David Scott and Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, the book weaves together their recollections about the two space programs and how this competition shaped the Cold War.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 3 October 2004

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0196.shtml

 

[SonnyBoy]

Astronomy is so awesome. I actually support the Hubble facility here in baltimore, I was recently talking to one of the engineers about the James Webb telescope (Hubbles replacement). I have a camera phone pic of the model thats in the lobby.

What's really awesome is that they have actually Hubble pictures in their native size/resolution and backlit on the walls.

 

[Scrow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-dsr44z1II&feature=player_embedded

interesting 5 part doco on the issues concerned with sex, conceiving a child, and birthing them in space.

also picked this out from digg.com/space

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16858-firm-vows-to-grow-first-flowers-on-the-moon.html

imagine if they actually get that photograph. it will be historical.

 

[kkaabboomm]

Discovery had a sucessful landing at 3:13pm today. w00t.

 

[iidesuyo]

One Buran was just bought and saved by the museum of Speyer (Germany). It was shipped around half of the planet and is now on display.

 

[Windu]

From High Above the Clouds

Click For Bigger Image:

Observers returning from Mexico witnessed space shuttle Discovery as it lifted off on its way to the International Space on Sunday, March 15, 2009. Discovery is delivering the final set of solar arrays to the orbital outpost.

Parting View

Click For Bigger Image:

Suspended in space and backdropped by the blackness of space and the jewel-like blue of Earth sits the International Space Station. This image of the station was taken as STS-119 performed a fly around after undocking.

 

[Windu]

Signals of a Strange Universe

Click For Bigger Image:

Eleven years ago results were first presented indicating that most of the energy in our universe is not in stars or galaxies but is tied to space itself. In the language of cosmologists, a large cosmological constant is directly implied by new distant supernovae observations. Suggestions of a cosmological constant (lambda) were not new -- they have existed since the advent of modern relativistic cosmology. Such claims were not usually popular with astronomers, though, because lambda is so unlike known universe components, because lambda's value appeared limited by other observations, and because less- strange cosmologies without lambda had previously done well in explaining the data. What is noteworthy here is the seemingly direct and reliable method of the observations and the good reputations of the scientists conducting the investigations. Over the past eleven years, independent teams of astronomers have continued to accumulate data that appears to confirm the existence of dark energy and the unsettling result of a presently accelerating universe. The above picture of a supernova that occurred in 1994 on the outskirts of a spiral galaxy was taken by one of these collaborations.

Possible Mud Volcanoes on Mars

Click For Bigger Image:

Is this a mud volcano on Mars? If so, could it be dredging up martian microbes? This strange possibility has been suggested recently and seems to fit several recent observations of Mars. First of all, hills like this seem to better resemble mud volcanoes on Earth than lava volcanoes and impact craters on Mars. Next, the pictured dome has an unusually textured surface consistent with fractured ice. Infrared images from space indicate that hills like this cool more quickly than surrounding rock, consistent with a dried mud composition. The hills also reflect colors consistent with a composition that formed in the presence of water. Finally, unusual plumes of gas containing methane have been found on Mars with unknown origin. These gas plumes could conceivably have been liberated by mud volcanoes, were the initially warm mud to contain methane-producing microbes drifting in a previously unobservable underground lake. A candidate mud volcano over 100 meters across is pictured above in the northern plains of Mars.

 

[Macam]

Note to self: Get around to reading the last page of this thread. Fantastic additions.

 

[Scrow]

Note to self: Get around to reading the last page of this thread. Fantastic additions.

it better not be the last page

 

[Tom_Cody]

Click for the source (with higher resolution available)

Backdropped by the blackness of space and the thin line of Earth's atmosphere, the International Space Station is seen from Space Shuttle Discovery as the two spacecraft begin their relative separation. Earlier the STS-119 and Expedition 18 crews concluded 9 days, 20 hours and 10 minutes of cooperative work onboard the shuttle and station. Undocking of the two spacecraft occurred at 2:53 p.m. (CDT) on March 25, 2009.

BTW, keep up the good work Windu.

 

[AndersTheSwede]

^
|
|

WHHHHHOOOOOOOOAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!

 

[skybaby]

Are all the panels FINALLY done?

 

[AndersTheSwede]

Are all the panels FINALLY done?

Yes.

 

[Windu]

That is all kinds of awesome.

 

[Windu]

http://www.expedia.com/daily/mars/flights-to-mars/?mcicid=Mars_home_us

That's right! Expedia has dropped all booking fees—including fees on flights to Mars. Right now you can
save over $3 trillion on a Mars vacation—and in this economy, you can't afford NOT to go!