Randaconda posted:

https://i.imgur.com/YrXMr68.mp4

Randaconda posted:

https://i.imgur.com/YrXMr68.mp4

Samuringa posted:

Memento posted:

There's a section of Melbourne that's laid out like that. When the rest of the city was being drawn up to go north/south and east/west, the guy who was surveying this particular area wanted to be ~different~ (seriously, no other reason) and he drew up that area to be lined up with where the sun set on the Summer Solstice or some bullshit like that. Literally just to be different from the rest of the fledgling city.

https://i.imgur.com/uxTQMfF.mp4

ToxicSlurpee posted:

There are more astronauts from Ohio than basically anywhere else. Like seriously there's a lot of them. The common joke is that Ohio sucks so much that people are rushing to leave the Earth entirely to get the gently caress away from it.

Or at one point there were more or...some other relevant statistic. I forget all the details but Ohio does in fact suck that much.

Snowglobe of Doom posted:

That's some of the best 9/11 cosplay I've ever seen.

And I've seen a lot of 9/11 cosplay:


...

Ein cooler Typ posted:

Do they plan all the moon missions so the Earth is the same distance from the moon? Could another ship have gone less distance around the moon but still be farther from Ohio?

Macdeo Lurjtux posted:

I believe they do, or at least when their landing destination is closest to their launch site. Less travel time means less time for something to go wrong and all that.

Yoshi Wins posted:

This might be a stupid question but why does it take less fuel? Once you’re in space there’s very close to zero resistance, so why wouldn’t you use the same amount of fuel to leave the atmosphere at 17,000 miles per hour and then just coast slightly longer if the moon is farther away?

I don’t think there would be any advantage to doing it this way, but I don’t see why it would require more fuel.

Help me, space people. I don’t understand.

Enigma posted:

I suggest spending some time playing Kerbal Space Program. You'll learn this and much more.

In very rudimentary terms, an orbit is an ellipse. If the target is farther, you need a longer ellipse. It takes fuel to elongate the ellipse, with more fuel needed the longer the ellipse is.

poo poo, apparently this is the funny pictures thread. Have a gently caress rocket, I guess.

Neddy Seagoon posted:

iirc, The basic thing to understand is you are not just flying from A to B in a straight line between static locations; You are intercepting a moving object. The reason for the ellipse is because you're aiming to travel to where your destination will be, not where it is.

Neddy Seagoon posted:

iirc, The basic thing to understand is you are not just flying from A to B in a straight line between static locations; You are intercepting a moving object. The reason for the ellipse is because you're aiming to travel to where your destination will be, not where it is.

Subjunctive posted:

No, you could travel in a straight line to where it will be. You will often see that football receivers do just this, rather than running ellipses.

DandyLion posted:

Interesting. What kind of ellipse is it where the WR runs the diagonal then zag's left?

Subjunctive posted:

That’s a conic trapezoid.

Norse Code posted:

Snowy posted:

RickVoid posted:

That was a joke! A real joke!

So proud of her.

Snowy posted:

RickVoid posted:

That was a joke! A real joke!

So proud of her.

Enigma posted:

I suggest spending some time playing Kerbal Space Program. You'll learn this and much more.

In very rudimentary terms, an orbit is an ellipse. If the target is farther, you need a longer ellipse. It takes fuel to elongate the ellipse, with more fuel needed the longer the ellipse is.

poo poo, apparently this is the funny pictures thread. Have a gently caress rocket, I guess.

RareAcumen posted:

RickVoid posted:

That was a joke! A real joke!

So proud of her.

Knormal posted:

That's some excellent cosplay of that stuff that's under carpet.

Snowy posted:

Jerry Cotton posted:

A... a floor?

Jerry Cotton posted:

A... a floor?

Snowy posted:

Facebook Aunt posted:

Underlay. The spongy stuff under the carpet. Since it isn't seen it doesn't matter what it looks like, so it is often made from recycled scraps of foam and stuff. Sometimes ends up looking like clown vomit.

Caufman posted:

I haven't seen those things do anything practical. In my mind, they exist to fall apart and make a bigger mess.

space uncle posted:

It only takes a bit more fuel. Not enough to be the primary mission driver. Inclination and launch azimuth were bigger concerns.

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html

From calculations:

It takes about 7.7 km/s of Delta V to get to LEO (ignoring the 2 km/s from gravity loss and drag).

Moon semi major axis is 385,000 km, eccentricity is .0549. Apoapsis is 406,000 km and periapsis is is 363,000. Velocity at apoapsis would be .96 km/s and velocity at periapsis would be 1.07 km/s. .11 km/s of delta V difference.

Not negligible, but the inclination penalties are way worse for timing of the launch.

Edit: forgot I was in funny pictures and not spaceflight: content

Memento posted:

On the Apollo missions, they didn't have the whole space toilet thing figured out yet. So they pooped in bags which were then sealed. If you seal poop in a bag, continued fermentation will cause the bag to expand as gas builds up inside it. To counter that, the inside of the bag was coated with an anti-bacterial gel. In order to completely kill all the bacteria in the poop, after you had done your business and sealed the bag, you had to knead it for a while to mix it all together.

Jim Lovell didn't like doing that. So as commander of the missions he was on, he decided he would delegate it. So to answer the age-old question, what's worse than massaging a bag of poop for half an hour? The answer is, massaging a bag of someone else's poop for half an hour.

dumb. posted:

Half a goddamn hour!? How massive are these spaceman turds?

Takes me 5 minutes max.