What happens to astronauts during space station reboosts? Crew demonstrates
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ก.พ. 2024
- International Space Station crew members demonstrate their motion during a recent reboost of the orbital outpost. NASA astronaut Jasmin Moghbeli explains.
Credit: NASA / Jasmin Moghbeli - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
No other place would you come into a corridor and find 3 of your colleagues gently floating down the corridor in unison
Speak for yourself.
Think of a sinking ship
@@georgeayt8231 Uh ok, let me clarify: *alive* colleagues
you never visited a office full of software developers? xD
What about zero G flights?
One of my favorite things about the internet is that you can Literally SEE the physics at work. At large scale, not just theory and models in a class room.
Edit Please stop blowin up my notifications lol 😆
@@scifikid108wdym? The earth is pear shaped
@@alvhawk4461 wait whatt?! I thought the earth was torus shaped... mmmm Donught~
Hillbilly@@scifikid108
@@scifikid108 The earth is CGI on the walls of Plato's cave.
@@niccytabby2 Cake or bread ? Glazed or plain ? ...
Guy in the back be like "Hey, what's going on here then?" Everybody: "Nuthin. Just having a little reboost party". Guy in the back: "Fun, I'll join in!"
He's like: "What's hanging? Or should i say "whats floating?"
*Ba dum pss*
real life : slow and stable
KSP : looks like a squid moving sped up
To be honest, in ksp you usually accelerate at least 10 times faster than this lol
@@bragapedrowith 4x time speed on too
@@bragapedro when using ion thrusters
@@leafboye33then you fat finger the speed up and slam straight into kerbin
KSP is more like the Sprint missile.
I like the idea of boss comes around the corner and everyone's just balled up and floating around.
Like if I come around the corner at the office and Chris is just gently rotating in the wrong dimension I won't be very happy.
She's the mission commander so she might be the one whose boss. Not sure if being the mission commander makes her the station commander though.
@@sideboob6851 Andreas Mogensen (Andy) is the current ISS Commander
Jasmin Moghbeli is commander of Crew-7 and Micheal Lopez-Algeria is commander of Ax-3, a commercial half-tourist half nations get to send up extra astronauts short duration flight. So technically they are both bosses.
Dilbert In Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace.
I mis-read that as "reboot" and assumed they were restarting all the station's computers.
it's linux
@@janPeja Linux systems technically don't need to reboot. Are they using Arch?
Me too. I expected the whole station to black out and they had to hold their breath or something.
And I thought they misspelled reboot, until I figured out it was probably referring to an orbital maneuver of some sort.
@@taeliantalittia612 "ight everyone, take a deep breath, O2 system is gonna restart now"
Great. I always wondered how much the acceleration would be. It's much smaller than I expected.
I wouldn't expect them to pull 2G's on both the unsecured astronauts and the massive, somewhat fragile structure of the ISS
You don't need much thrust, it's all about the resulting work
Doesn't take much.
@@randomalt9617 Brilliant response. Rolling about laughing.
As long as the reboosts occur frequently enough, they can make them so small they are hardly noticeable without knowing they are happening. The orbital decay is slower than you expect, but still enough to require reboosts.
“I’m the fastest” made me smile. Like they were on a park playing games hehe. 😊
What can I say? Scientists are nerds. Who knew?
@@Mint_drakeBut she should know they all move a the same speed. She might have been joking though.
@@Republic3Dshe probably had a little momentum before the boost, so she started out faster
As others have said, she was already moving. The astronauts weren't changing their velocity at all when they were floating, for the ISS was accelerating around them. It's interesting that the scientists and engineers aboard still regard themselves as accelerating within the ship instead of the other way around.
Massive structure = very gentle acceleration. Cool.
SciFi Movies would be extremely boring if they made them 100% accurate.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Not necessarily, check out the Expanse
A loaded Starship is much more massive, but accelerates quite rapidly.
@@georgeayt8231Station is way bigger though and has to deal with torque on the module couplings.
@@georgeayt823133 massive engines!
It's very gentle. Remember in Star Trek, when the Enterprise lost power and Scotty yelled, "Our orbit is decaying!" Well, that's not how orbits work. Once established, the ship just goes 'round and 'round without additional thrust. When it slows a little due to drag from the few molecules in low Earth orbit, they do this. They only have to fire the engines about once a month.
The Trek-lore attempt to explain it is that starships maintain powered (statite) "orbits" above any specific point on the planet, IIRC at one-planetary-diameter distance from the surface, using constant thrust to stay in position. Once you lose power, you'd have a few hours (depending on the planet) before you hit the atmosphere. Just the right amount of time for Drama!
It actually works surprisingly well at explaining the "that's not how physics works" aspects of how the show treated how the ship behaved near planets. The external view/vfx, the assumption on the ground that the ship is above the away team, etc. Plus it sort-of kind-of maybe-almost makes sense in-universe, given the ships' capability and how messy natural orbits are.
[This doesn't explain how a life-support failure, during the same power-out, can be counted down in seconds, and restored instantly when the lights come back on. That's not how gas works!]
@@1FatLittleMonkey The problem with that is that in order to "hover" above a specific point on Earth autonomously, you have to be ~30K Km away. If you're in anything like actual low earth orbit, if you stop your engines keeping you "up" you'll drop like a sack of bricks, basically impacting the surface in MINUTES, much as the Falcon 9 booster which falls straight back from ~100 Km high in only a few minutes.
@@AttilaAsztalos If you have achieved low earth orbit, it will take more than a few minutes to drop back to the surface. A good illustration is how it took a few days for some spent Long March boosters to do an uncontrolled reentry from the orbit at which they deployed their payloads.
An object falling back from space in a few minutes hasn't achieved orbit in the first place (the shortest orbital period in LEO is something like a little over 2 hours).
For a geostationary orbit, decay leading to reentry would take a LOT longer... we're talking hundreds of thousands of years at least, barring serious outside interference. An object that had no velocity at all, starting from an altitude of ~36,000km over Earth, would take a lot less time to fall - but it would still take quite a few days, because it would start dropping from a height at which Earth's gravity would only accelerate it by 0,03m/s².
@@AttilaAsztalos _"If you're in anything like actual low earth orbit"_
One planetary diameter out. Ie, using Earth as an example, about half way to geosync. Atmospheric entry takes hours.
Obviously the Enterprise was not on a balanced orbit. They were orbiting the planet and using vertical thrusters to keep their orbiting path. An aircraft can orbit the earth but needs vertical lift to keep it from falling. A balanced orbit is when your acceleration toward the planet equals the centrifugal force generated by your velocity.
I was expecting some kind of high G maneuver, with the crew strapping into couches as they shout dramatically and items flying in the direction of thrust gravity.
This makes a lot more sense though.
After The Expanse I was hoping for that too. 'HERE COMES THE JUICE'
You're thinking of the version directed by Michael Bay
@@tcb268 So Armageddon?
I was expecting neither. I was expecting them to move maybe one or two times faster and to fall into the wall or floor like some sort of artificial gravity was activated.
Once we figure out fusion power, routine acceleration like that might become a reality
“Andy’s upside down”. I was waiting for, “no you are” 😏
Basically they were initially moving relative to the ship while floating in it, and at the same speed of it, but when the ship speeds up, they wont because they are not physically attached to it, anf the ship basically passes them off.
Like the bus / camper in Jurassic Park two they tied off and the vehicle fell around them.
So pleasant to see people in space having fun floating around, exactly what everyone else on earth would also do if they had the opportunity. Sad that Gezeravcı's mission comes to an end but on the other hand I'm glad once it's completed with success and he meets his family.
Not sure if the Flat-earthers in the comments are serious or trolls from #chan though 🤷🏻♂️
They are up there for a long time. They need to find fun and joy here or there between everything else, or they wouldn't be able to function!
@@eyemastervideo yeah that doesn't contradict my statement so I'm not sure why use used an exclamation mark but yes. But my point was that their definition of fun is very down to earth which is nice.
Just adding. No disagreement
Floating around = in freefall
SO much more gentle than I would have expected! Props to the engineers for making it safe for the astronauts!
The humor in the EXIT sign at the top
Not a joke. They need to be able to evac under conditions where their orientation is being messed with. AIUI, the "exits" are the path to the capsule(s).
No humor it's a real sign. They have escape capsules.... people get disoriented moving around their own house during an emergency. Imagine the space station on fire and there's no floor or roofs while your station is about to shoot you into the void while the oxygen is quickly being used up by the flames...yeah you need every bit of help you can get to get away.
What I love is that they are actually under almost the same gravitational influence that we are sitting here on Earth. But, they're in the proverbial elevator free falling toward the Earth. They just keep missing the ground!
Yep, just like the moon I guess
@@chrischarlton422 Yup. Someone once said "It takes a Newton to see that the moon is falling when everyone else know that it doesn't"
@@andreaswiklund7197 Ehh, he approached it from the other end though. It's much more obvious what an orbit is when you reach it by extrapolating what happens if you keep launching faster and faster cannonballs from a high point...
@@AttilaAsztalosGood for you, I think that’s Newtons original reasoning too 😊
This made me think that without air resistance, a bullet fired fast enough at just above sea level would orbit the earth indefinitely until it hit a rock or something.
How often do they have to reboost?
EDIT: "Reboosting currently takes place at an average rate of about once a month, but there are times when five or six months could go by between boosts. The ISS loses an average of two kilometers per year in altitude, so boosting is not urgent. Its average altitude is about 400 km.
Yep, it varies a bit. Reboosting is mostly done using the engines of visiting spacecraft, so it depends on their availability. It also depends on how well the launch of that visiting spacecraft went (i.e. how much fuel they have a available for the reboost), and it depends on the state of the atmosphere: solar events can change how much atmosphere there is at the ISS altitude, which changes the amount of drag.
Flying at around 400 km around our planet the International Space Station requires regular reboosts to overcome the effects of atmospheric drag which makes the outpost lose about 100 m in altitude a day.
100m/day is a lot more than I would have expected. Thanks for the stat!
@@darrennew8211they put ISS in much lower orbit to avoid intersecting with majority of the satellites. In case of Kepler's, it's possible the station would survive for weeks or even years, enough time to get the crew out and even possibly deorbit.
You know I really wonder why they didn't try to make it more aerodynamic, even if the atmospheric drag isn't crazy it seems like enough that some improved aerodynamics would make a noticeable difference in fuel savings.
ChatGPT, is that you?
@@StuffandThings_ I'm guessing the launch of something more areodynamic would take far more fuel than it would ever take to hold the thing up.
I would love to see flat eathers try to debunk this video, especially when she makes her way back to the front.
(Hint, they are probably gonna say that the audio cuts out and the video cuts to change scene)
Don't forget the wires that we can all clearly see but are studiously avoiding mentioning.
@@clickrickLol, yeah they do like to say stupid stuff like that 😂
And the exceptionally stiff gelled hair that still bounces around softly
Curious as to why the longest section of video between cuts is
That's not how Occam's razor works. All Occam's razor says is that the simplest answer is the most likely answer. The entire ISS and all space programs being an elaborate hoax is not the simplest answer, especially considering the over one hour long uncut ISS tour videos that are publicly available. No vomit comet can fake that. @@mikemcleroy8265
I love how these are some of the most serious scientists and engineers around and they're playing like children :)
“The highest form of research is essentially play”
Who wouldn't up there
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men."
-Some chocolate man, I guess.
You should go read Richard Feynman's memoirs if you want to see a "serious" scientist playing like a kid with a bunch of toys.
@@BrettWMcCoy I've read Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman. It was great!
I am so fascinated by all that awesome research being done up at the ISS. And also all those space shuttle missions back in the good old days with new modules and stuff for the space station and also the crew change missions
Its amazing the boost acceleration is so minute but so significant to keep the station in orbit. The whole thing is in such intricate balance. If boost is neglected, orbit can degrade and become irrecoverable.
i mean, if you look at how much thrust for example an ION thruster produced (85 mN at 1.35 kw) that makes sense why its so slow
I thought the title said "reboots" and I was like "WTF, why would they design a space station so that the whole thing has to be rebooted at the same time, and how would that even be a thing?"
I had wondered if this happened and how gentle it was, thanks...
Weird to think that they are just falling through the sky and they needed a little extra boost so the don't start falling to the ground 🤯
That was a very cool video. Loved it because it's science meets every day life (for an astronaut). Thanks for the insight.
Anticlimatic, but an extremely slow acceleration makes sense. They don't need to accelerate much, they can use smaller engines, and most importantly it is gentle on the stations structure.
Tell me I was not the only one that read that as 'reboot' and clicked to see the space station turn off and on :/
Best space hair ever😂
Nice to see some of the parts I helped design in use
Wow, thanks! That's an interesting answer to a good question that actually never came to my mind. Pretty cool. ❤
Can you believe there are idiots out there that still don't believe that this is real and that the earth is flat? 🤦
I wondered now often they reboost: looks like it's approximately once per month. (Sometimes a couple of months, only very occasionally more than once a month.)
I know it's something simple but the microphone hand switch thing, and the fact that it seemed to be 2nd nature and required no thought at all, just looked really cool. 1:17
This looks very fun.
I can't help but feel super nervous watching that corridor flex. I know it's probably stable but I've played enough Kerbal space program to know where that's going lmao.
The willow which bends to the tempest, often escapes better than the oak which resists it.
space hair is so cool. :D
at least watching it.. washing, detangling and keeping it in convenient places must be a challenge.
I wonder how weird it feels being back in 1g and your hair suddenly pulling down again and falling on shoulders...
Great video...👍
This is why you should always stay seated until you reach the gate.
I'm so happy to be the kind of person that can appreciate this....
Yes, we wouldn't like to be one of *THEM*
Love the weightless hair. Thanks for sharing this interesting and educational video.
Easy to replicate here on earth takes about three to four hours and a lot of perm solution hey presto space hair
@@enduser63 You can also replicate the appearance of a limb missing. Must mean there are no real amputees.
@@enduser63citation
you just answered a question i didnt even know i had
Awesome so amazing to see
Thinking about it they could use it for one of the demonstrations. Putting that blue screen in white stripes, and setting two cameras. One just floating and looking at it while the other is mounted to the wall.
Out of curiosity and because I heard her say "-is upside down!" Do astronauts often use things like the Exit sign as reference points for what would normally be rightside up? Or because it's relative it doesn't neccesarily matter? Interesting video!
Lighting and signs are placed to help orient them. As you point out there isn't really an up or down, but as humans evolved with lighting typically being "top down", having lighting all on one side helps trick the brain into thinking that must be "up".
There are signs in key places to identify Deck, Overhead, Port and Starboard.
As Mr.Volcanoes22 pointed out, they still orient to a normal "up and down" config for convenience and because that's how our brains are trained. Same reason they keep to a normal day/night cycle even though in space that's not really a thing, either. (They have multiple day/night cycles a day because of their orbit.) Humans expect up/down and day/night. It's how we evolved.
I know that the "Nadir" direction is towards earth, the "bottom" of the space station. So they have names for directions, with the space station itself as the coordinate system. "Aft" is probably towards the thruster end of it (Zvezda or Zarya or whatever that module is now).
The "OVHD" sign visible in the video identifies the "OVERHEAD" direction, which is notionally "up", aka "away from Earth". The station flies in this orientation, rotating once per orbit so the "down" side is always earth-pointing, which is useful for a lot of antennas and things.
This is so cool!
❤❤ danke jasemin
Idk why i thought it would be more abrupt than that
Hollywood movies would have them all strapped down, trying not to pass out from the g forces ....
They only drop about 100 meters a day. They dont need a strong hard boost for that. They are taking a steady slow 13 mins to push that far. Its going slow on purpose.
This is why I laugh at people who get their "knowledge" from Hollywood...
@compmanio36 True, and it's the place some flat earthers draw their knowledge from
I pay monthly for internet for years and with videos like thise make me feel like I'm getting my money's worth.
They are having so much fun. Yay! Reboost!
The enemy door is down...
Ensign, half impulse. Engage.
nice demo
so they essentially created artificial gravity for 13 minutes
exactly! i just realized that and its so cool
This is how they produce gravity on ships in The Expanse. Constant thrust.
Gravity and acceleration are pretty much the same thing. It's probably the most realistic application of "artificial gravity" for our future. We would have to find a way to be fuel efficient enough to boost at 1G acceleration halfway to our destination, then decelerate at 1G the rest of the way. That's the big problem now. Burning a rocket takes up too much fuel to do it that long, at that level of thrust.
@@compmanio36But if a destination is to far away and we accelerated constantly at 1G, would we hit c at some point?
@@professorx3060 Nope, because of relativity. Your mass would increase exponentially as you approached c, causing a situation where you would require ever more increasing amounts of energy to maintain your acceleration. At c, your energy requirements would be infinite. E=mc2 shows us this.
The only way to reach, or go past c is to "cheat". Something like the Alcubierre drive, which in and of itself, has massive energy requirement problems.
That doesn't try to accelerate to the speed of light, it compresses space in front of the ship so the ship "falls" into the compressed space, meaning it doesn't really accelerate at all. Instead space moves AROUND the craft. Of course, that's all theoretical, so nobody really knows what would happen if you tried to do this, but the math suggests it is possible, if ridiculously power intensive to attempt.
@@professorx3060 I believe it'll take about 1 year at 1g acceleration to reach c.
@@compmanio361G of thrust is the opposite of fuel efficient 😆 Fuel efficient would be if you can reach your target by momentum alone.
1G of thrust is insane though.
Imagine hanging in the middle of the space station, with no gravity, and you can't extend your hand enough to grab a wall... 💀
This is so fun!
I'm curious about her hair. Looks springy, does the hair try to straighten out since theres no gravity pulling it down? I never thought of this before lmao
Well if you have curly hair then it'll most likely stay like that (I'm not an expert, so don't quote me on that ;) )
Hello from Earth I’ll wave at you guys during our version of Nighttime :)
It's kind of trippy to think that if you're on the international space station, you're not just in a satellite, you *are* a satellite on your own orbit around the earth.
Would you have to do that twice? First for periaps & then apoaps?
How is this achieved, is it using RCS thrusters, or something else?
I think the ships that dock to it provide the thrust to it
@@rizizum Oh yes right I remember now!
@@Clyman974 The Cygnus can provide thrust, but so does the Russian segment; it has all the systems for propulsion, which includes RSC and engines to accelerate (or decelerate) the station
THe Cygnus resuply ship, that recently launched, can reboost the station.
If you ask the flerfers and NASA deniers, it's all bad CGI and wires!
so it isn't that much. this makes me wonder how long it takes for the iss to slow down and how long the boost is.
she says that this particular reboost is a 13 minute burn.
NASA says re-boosts occur "every few months" (says google, anyway. It also suggests reboot instead of reboost...)
Yeah I was expecting boost gravity from The Expanse or something with the whole thing whipping down in one direction. The crew strapping into G-force couches and dramatically yelling "Hold on!" as their skin pulls away like they're back in the centrifuge.
This makes a lot more sense though
Well, slowing down would be very bad, because speed=orbit. That's why they have to periodically add speed, because the minute drag from the atmosphere, even at this altitude, causes the station to slow slightly. Eventually, the ISS would fall out of orbit if not boosted every so often. Remember that orbit is basically just centrifugal force against the downward force of gravity, to where there's not so much the centrifugal force carries them away from Earth, but not so little that Earth can pull the station back down to the ground.
@@compmanio36I like to think of orbit as constantly missing the ground.
The way she just naturally let go of the mic while moving and grab it with the other hand around 11:17. She'll drop things on earth when she comes back, I'm sure of it.
Cool, thanks
Have you watched "The expanse" ?
What's wrong with you? This is real, don't compare it to some junk movie only ignoramuses thought any good.
@@bobjoatmon1993 I guess you didn't watch The Expanse then.
@@ThaBeatConductor I watched the first three episodes then was busy doing more important stuff, I don't even have a TV anymore and don't watch on PC screen nor phone. Just some TH-cam videos here and there
How much newton is the thrust?
I found a spec on the Zvezda module's two integrated thrusters at 3 kiloNewtons each. In 2022 there was a reboost done by a Cygnus cargo craft's BT-4 engine, which is only 500 Newtons, a very gentle push indeed!
@@Pants4096 Assuming both engines run at max and given the 420 000 kg weight of the ISS this results in 0.014 m/s^2 of acceleration or 1.5 permille of g
Jasmin Moghbeli is amazing
what is the acceleration and the Δv?
"i'm definitly moving"
Well... No, you are not moving, the station move around you.
But she moves relatively to the walls of the station too.
@@professorx3060 It's true. I almost edit my comment to add this... But she is also moving around the earth, around the sun, around the center of the galaxy, and she is moving toward the closest galaxy....
But she do not accelerate, it's the station stat accelerate around here, so in my opinion it's way more correct to say that the station move around her.
It's because she didn't move that she... Move 😆
@@pierrotANothing ever stops in space. Everything is in motion around something all the time.
Let's see flat earthers debunk that.
That is so much fun to watch 😀
To fall without a parachute and constantly miss earth
I was thinking of this yesterday….. How? 😮
Explain 😲
Because there is no such thing as coincidence 😎
So were they.
There's a vehicle on one of the docking ports, Cygnus or Progress, that has the capability to boost the ISS into a higher orbit. This is done regularly to prevent the station from falling out of orbit. The acceleration is very slow due to the low thrust of the engines and the extreme mass of the ISS. Hope that answers your questions.
8======D
oh, I read reboot instead of reboost
same! I thought they were embracing for a complete blackout followed by the infamous boot sound
Have you tried burning it off and on again?
@@henriksundt7148Don't they use Linux for the life support and boosters? The iPads use iOS, obviously, and most of the laptops seem to use Windows for some inexplicable reason, but the ship itself runs on reliable, verifiable software AFAIK.
That is so cool!! Thanks for sharing!!
Thank you for this demonstration. I thought astronauts secured themselves to walls or floors.
Now turn on the afterburners
yeah make those solar panels move back like foxtail in the wind
What afterburner, its not a jet engine. Its just a hydrazine thruster. And no you couldn't put alot of accelleration on it, the amodular structure wasn't designed to take it.
@@nikushim6665 Can't take a joke?
Besides, you can add a bigger secondary combustion chamber that gives you more thrust but reduces the expansion ratio.
@@nikushim6665 It was a joke.
@@nikushim6665Whoooooooossssshhhhh
I don't care what the flatearthers say, I can't see any wires... :)
In KSP this would be a hectic way overpowered burn trying to keep that ball on target whilst your noodle space station flails around
She should not be moving the fastest, right? They are 'actually' stationary in space and the ship is accelerating around them, and thus will treat all of them the same. This is, actually, a great demonstration of Galileo's observation that gravitation treats all objects the same and of the GR equivalence principle.
I guess that it's not that easy to position yourself completely stationary in space (stationary compared to the reference frame of the station). That way each one of them is already moving a bit in one direction or another
@@thomastschetchkovic5726: True. That is fair! They both seemed to start pretty stationary relative to the walls, with the man maybe moving more (note that he at least was rotating), but that seems fair.
Plus probably each of them is blown a little bit one way or the other by the ventilation.
So… a 0.01g force for a few min? I was expecting more but it makes sense
Someone else calculated between 0.001G and 0.0002G. As low as 2mm/sec2 * 13 minutes. Works out to adding 3mph. I just copied their notes!
I guess this is complicated by going into a higher orbit and slowing down
@@jack504that happens as a consequence of the velocity change. Increasing your tangential velocity makes you climb to a higher orbit and going higher decreases your velocity.
@@jack504in a simplified way, altitude is speed. They speed up slightly, the ISS pulls away from the earth slightly to reach the orbit where that new speed is stable. If they slow down, they drop back down to where that slower speed is stable.
They want to regain a higher altitude, so they're only speeding back up.
Could the description include please the detail that Cygnus|Progress have the ability to boost iss to a higher orbit, which happens slowly and gently, because tiny thrusts and huge mass? Something my eight year old could grasp?
Fun fact: The Chinese space station has much less thrust than the ISS, because they use a Hall thruster (gas/electric) instead of a chemical thruster like the Russians on the ISS. It's much safer and cheaper to operate however.
Physics! Works 100% of the time, all the time.
How to have fun while working. Even better when the boss joins in.
Flat Earthers: "YOU CAN SEE THE WIRES!!!"
sigh
There are some visible wires in the foreground.
@@davidwuhrer6704 timestamp and location?
@@Dielma Throughout the video, in the foreground, top left.
@@Dielma 1:42 A1
Oh please! Oh please! Can I join you guys???
Right? 😁
If you have a few million bucks, you could purchase an Axiom ticket
Sure you can! Go to uni, get a degree in something relevant, become an expert in your field, apply to NASA or other space agency, maybe wait 10-20 years, pass all the physicals with ease, be a little bit lucky to be in the right place at the right time...and you're there!! It's easy, anyone can do it!!
Or like another commenter said, work hard to save a few million and buy a ticket.
One thing is sure, you're not going to get there just by asking, you gotta work for it and earn it.
@@Mark_BridgesESA say they don't care what your degree is in as long as you are good at what you do (geology doesn't seem relevant to spaceflight, and they have that covered), but they would like more physicians.
As for passing the physical exams with ease, it is well documented that it is part of NASA culture to lie to the doctors. This also applies to the psychological exams. Apparently it stems from a test pilot tradition: Talking to a doctor can get you grounded. It appears to be no different with Roscosmos. Other space agencies don't stem from test pilot tradition, so they might be different, but I don't know.
As for space tourism: It is possible to get rich through lots of hard work done _by others._
@@davidwuhrer6704 I agree except for one thing you said. The only people who get rich on work done by others are those who inherit their money. The others employ people and make money from them, sure, but they work at starting and running whatever business it is. I suppose it might happen occasionally that someone gets rich with little effort, but it is rare and must involve luck otherwise we'd all be doing it. So my reply to OP stands: instead of asking for a gig on the ISS which will never work, go out and earn a place on the ISS team or work to make millions to buy a trip. There's no easy way.
I was expecting more force. Are you using Estes model rocket motors for the reboost?
I read a comment claiming that this reboost was done with a Cygnus spacecraft. If that's the case, the BT-4 engine has a thrust of just 450-500 N, which is less than each of the two main S5.79 thrusters on Zvezda, which again is less than the S5.80 on the Soyuz/Progress. It doesn't matter much, though. All it takes is time, and 500 N pushing on 400 tons does take time.
Awesome
She says "I'm moving!" but, isn't she actually NOT moving, its the station that is moving past her? I mean, yes, technically they are both moving, but once the boosters start, the station just starts moving faster than her, she isn't "moving backwards". And once she grabs ahold of the station, she is now moving at the same speed of it, so she won't start being passed by it again until she lets go again, if the station acceleration is continually rising.
movement is a relative thing
Albert Einstein gets on a train and asks, "Does Berlin stop at this train?"
technically yeah, the station is moving around her :D
orbital mechanics is just cool
Since she didn't specify an inertial reference frame it's perfectly valid for her to say she's moving, the reference used by the occupants of the station is the station itself so relative to their immediate environment they are moving.
Mostly correct. They are both moving, in reference to the Earth they are orbiting (which is also moving in it's orbit, but that's a whole other rabbit hole). But the station is accelerating past her. She is remaining "stationary" as far as the frame of reference of the space station she's in, until the station bumps into her and carries her along, or she grabs onto something and receives the station's acceleration that way.
You negated some reboost pushing back to your starting position.
only the same amount as if she held in place the whole time, she is part of the mass being accellerated after all
riveting.
Interesting!
Flatpesters are gonna hate this video.
That looks like fun. Don't let the flat-Earthers see all your harnesses and support cables! 🤣
Like the ones in the past they forgot to edit ? 😂
No, no. They are under water. That is how they can float. If you look closely, you can see air bubbles sometimes.
@@-.._.-_...-_.._-..__..._.-.-.- Despite no rebreathers or similar? Goodness, I wonder how they can breathe
Don't have them, so pretty easy not to show.
@@EndofDays-7777I wanna see that video plz
So lucky!
It's not much instantaneous acceleration, but when you consider how big the Station is, that's pretty impressive.
and how fragile some of its sections are. Any vibration can cause those massive solar wings to flap... and you DON'T want that.
Bonus entertainment: Watching the pretzel like twisted thinking process behind the flat earther explanation for why this is fake.
Would you settle for someone that believes Expanding earth it the correct model and that space is very real but that NASA lies like crazy in the interests of national security because showing off the insides of some of our best technology publicly would benefit , like North Korea or Iran. ?
@@russellperry9902 I can prove space is real and spaceflight is real just by looking up from my back yard. All of the “NASA lies” claims turn out to be based on no evidence.