6 ms·

I find it more impressive and awe inspiring that stuff in space is so predictable that we can actually program the fly by such a long time in advance and get su

by weavie 8y ago

I find it more impressive and awe inspiring that stuff in space is so predictable that we can actually program the fly by such a long time in advance and get such a high degree of accuracy.

dnautics 8y ago
have you ever done course corrections in KSP? A tiny nudge early on is enough to make a huge difference farther out!
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Yup. And if you've ever done maneuvers manually in KSP, you know that a tiny error in your nudge early on - e.g. hamfisting the throttle, or being a little too late in mid-maneuver staging - leads to a huge difference farther out, which you then have to correct, wasting precious ∆v :). I'm very much impressed by the control precision of real-life space probes.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    ah yes, you are commenting on the precision not on the magnitude of the displacement!
  - brianpgordon 8y ago
    Check out the crazy journey Rosetta took on the way to 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Animation_of_Rosetta_trajectory.gif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Animation_of_Rosetta...
    - theon144 8y ago
      Wow, I actually had no idea; how is this all pre-planned, does somebody at NASA just put "67-P/Churyumov" into a "Orbital Maneuver Planner" and let some computers crunch the possible paths out? Or does someone actually sit down and come up with the possible sequence of orbital assits (to later verify with a computer) with a pencil and paper?
      - ironcan 8y ago
        Just a correction, but it's a project of the European Space Agency, not NASA.
      - lokedhs 8y ago
        It's a combination of both. They have tools that help worth the trajectory calculations, but they have to manually decide on the basic layout of the path to take. There is a very interesting interview with Pablo Munoz from the Bepi Colombo team about flight dynamics on the Omega Tau podcast that explains this: http://omegataupodcast.net/295-bepicolombo/ http://omegataupodcast.net/295-bepicolombo/ The other interviews on the same episode are also worth listening to. In fact, the entire podcast is great.
      - michelpp 8y ago
        Common orbits are solutions to the two body problem, but Shane Ross has a few videos on youtube about chaotic solutions to the three body problem, allowing objects to move in very complex orbits with very little fuel. This has been used for a few missions as I understand it, the math is WAY above my head, but the video is still quite watchable with lots of cool orbit animations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwHDEB1VS_0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwHDEB1VS_0
    - nwallin 8y ago
      Also the path BepiColombo is taking to Mercury: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BepiColombo#/media/File:Animation_of_BepiColombo_trajectory.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BepiColombo#/media/File:Animat...
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    > a tiny error in your nudge early on - e.g. hamfisting the throttle And this is one of the many reasons why these machines are horrendously expensive - they are incredibly precise.
- joaomacp 8y ago
  I think everyone with an interest in spaceflight should play Kerbal Space Program. It gives you a sense of scale, both of space and time (luckily you can fast-forward to 100.000x), and also teaches you the basics of making orbital trajectories and correcting them, landing on planets/moons with different gravity... I'm really glad to have played it!
aurailious 8y ago
My understanding was that the exact position was known within a few hundred miles of precision using both Hubble and the NH's cameras.
kamaal 8y ago
Even more so given that how do you navigate these things in space, I mean its position. Given how large space is, and there is no map etc. It's just insane. I guess every press of button needs to be planned years in advance.
mpweiher 8y ago
I also find this somewhere between impressive and amazing. However... ...after watching the Dragon/ISS docking manoeuvre for quite a bit longer than I probably should have, I think I now understand this precision better. When we think of "flying" including flying in space, we automatically have an image of something that's a bit unstable, always being buffeted a little, because that's how all the flying we are familiar with is. Actually seeing that docking manoeuvre, you get a feel for just how stable things are in space. When the Dragon is parked in its relative position (10m?) it is just there, rock solid, as if attached with steel beams. No, better, as if both parts are part of a single piece of granite. No quivering, nothing. Of course this is intellectually clear/obvious, but seeing it in practice is something different. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysyK-J0tkEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysyK-J0tkEk

by weavie 8y ago

I find it more impressive and awe inspiring that stuff in space is so predictable that we can actually program the fly by such a long time in advance and get such a high degree of accuracy.

dnautics 8y ago

have you ever done course corrections in KSP? A tiny nudge early on is enough to make a huge difference farther out!

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Yup. And if you've ever done maneuvers manually in KSP, you know that a tiny error in your nudge early on - e.g. hamfisting the throttle, or being a little too late in mid-maneuver staging - leads to a huge difference farther out, which you then have to correct, wasting precious ∆v :). I'm very much impressed by the control precision of real-life space probes.
- dnautics 8y ago
  ah yes, you are commenting on the precision not on the magnitude of the displacement!
- brianpgordon 8y ago
  Check out the crazy journey Rosetta took on the way to 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Animation_of_Rosetta_trajectory.gif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Animation_of_Rosetta...
  - theon144 8y ago
    Wow, I actually had no idea; how is this all pre-planned, does somebody at NASA just put "67-P/Churyumov" into a "Orbital Maneuver Planner" and let some computers crunch the possible paths out? Or does someone actually sit down and come up with the possible sequence of orbital assits (to later verify with a computer) with a pencil and paper?
    - ironcan 8y ago
      Just a correction, but it's a project of the European Space Agency, not NASA.
    - lokedhs 8y ago
      It's a combination of both. They have tools that help worth the trajectory calculations, but they have to manually decide on the basic layout of the path to take. There is a very interesting interview with Pablo Munoz from the Bepi Colombo team about flight dynamics on the Omega Tau podcast that explains this: http://omegataupodcast.net/295-bepicolombo/ http://omegataupodcast.net/295-bepicolombo/ The other interviews on the same episode are also worth listening to. In fact, the entire podcast is great.
    - michelpp 8y ago
      Common orbits are solutions to the two body problem, but Shane Ross has a few videos on youtube about chaotic solutions to the three body problem, allowing objects to move in very complex orbits with very little fuel. This has been used for a few missions as I understand it, the math is WAY above my head, but the video is still quite watchable with lots of cool orbit animations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwHDEB1VS_0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwHDEB1VS_0
  - nwallin 8y ago
    Also the path BepiColombo is taking to Mercury: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BepiColombo#/media/File:Animation_of_BepiColombo_trajectory.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BepiColombo#/media/File:Animat...
- rbanffy 8y ago
  > a tiny error in your nudge early on - e.g. hamfisting the throttle And this is one of the many reasons why these machines are horrendously expensive - they are incredibly precise.
joaomacp 8y ago
I think everyone with an interest in spaceflight should play Kerbal Space Program. It gives you a sense of scale, both of space and time (luckily you can fast-forward to 100.000x), and also teaches you the basics of making orbital trajectories and correcting them, landing on planets/moons with different gravity... I'm really glad to have played it!

aurailious 8y ago

My understanding was that the exact position was known within a few hundred miles of precision using both Hubble and the NH's cameras.

kamaal 8y ago

Even more so given that how do you navigate these things in space, I mean its position. Given how large space is, and there is no map etc. It's just insane. I guess every press of button needs to be planned years in advance.

mpweiher 8y ago

I also find this somewhere between impressive and amazing. However... ...after watching the Dragon/ISS docking manoeuvre for quite a bit longer than I probably should have, I think I now understand this precision better. When we think of "flying" including flying in space, we automatically have an image of something that's a bit unstable, always being buffeted a little, because that's how all the flying we are familiar with is. Actually seeing that docking manoeuvre, you get a feel for just how stable things are in space. When the Dragon is parked in its relative position (10m?) it is just there, rock solid, as if attached with steel beams. No, better, as if both parts are part of a single piece of granite. No quivering, nothing. Of course this is intellectually clear/obvious, but seeing it in practice is something different. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysyK-J0tkEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysyK-J0tkEk