Space Station Reboost

[@Killbayne]

I love how since theres no weight on the station, they can carry around those extremely heavy lenses with ease

[@posjamusic4631]

What hapens to your body when your in space

[@sankang9425]

@@posjamusic4631 You lose your bone and muscle mass extremely quickly. Also you get exposed to a crap ton of radiation and your blood goes to your head and you completely lose your sense of 'up'. This mostly happens because there is no gravity in ISS.

[@VoidHalo]

No weight. But still mass. So momentum still applies. That's why you can't just hypothetically grab an asteroid the size of a building and throw it. The asteroid as intertia so it's going to take a lot of energy to overcome that inertia to move it. It's just going to bowl you over or rip your arm off because it has so much momentum you couldn't hope to have any appreciable affect on it. It isn't a terribly intuitive concept so I hope you're at least a little familiar with it.

[@cannack]

@@posjamusic4631 alot happens musculoskeletal issues in particular develop over time (reduced muscle mass, strength, bone density etc.) all of which can be countered with resistive exercise and nutrition.

[@frezatto]

I am really really really happy to see this before my death, thanks for posting videos from space.

[@Shrek2Enthusiast]

You still there?

[@vipsnap2707]

@@Shrek2Enthusiast rip my dude

[@welldonetothe7126]

@@Shrek2Enthusiast f

[@Shrek2Enthusiast]

@@welldonetothe7126 F 😞

[@user-lp8ur5qn3o]

Damn, F.

[@jfhm1991]

Close your eyes while he's talking and behold as he turns into Norm Macdonald

[@davidcool140]

its uncanny

[@Face_RC]

"Oh my God that camera has a massive..." "JOHNSON! Prepare for burn."

[@johnroby6524]

Sir the burn is complete, but outside the ISS there appears to be a giant... WOODY!

[@elpato20001]

Thank you, Jeff, very cool.

[@lucidcafe]

That was great Jeff. The more of these details you show the better. Thanks!

[@gk10002000]

To the idiots that have no understanding of this. Before the burn, everything on the station was moving at the same velocity. During the burn, the station is accelerating, and everything physically attached to the station is changing speed. The camera, which was not attached seems to be accelerating but really it is just keeping its original velocity and the station is moving away. Now, once the burn is over, the station is NOT changing velocity any longer. So once he steadies the camera it now moves with him. Note if the station doors were open and you were some how standing outside observing, you would see the station and camera moving apart. And if you had a gps unit on the camera and on the station, you would see that during the burn, the camera velocity did NOT change. The Station velocity did change, and kept increasing slightly during the burn.

[@elpato20001]

Wait, if anything not attached to the station is keeping it's original velocity, wouldn't touching the station after the burn is done take away some energy from it to be transfered into your body and make it move at the same speed?

[@gopherguts2183]

El Pato Reviews well in theory yes but the mass of the human body is negligible

[@Anonymoose]

Totally fascinating! The first ever real time demonstration of this phenomenon. A reminder, too, of the precise and delicate balance required to keep that space station where it is. PS - I WANT that lens... :-)

[@OriginalJetForMe]

That's one of the best videos I've seen yet. Wow, how I envy you guys up there! Thank you!

[@no22sill]

I pity the guys up there

[@vipsnap2707]

@@saadahmed7988 you seem to

[@ze2004]

@@saadahmed7988 idiot

[@innsj6369]

I like that you can hear the valves opening and closing on those service module engines. Those weak engines don't produce too much noise inside the spacecraft, since all that high energy gas carrying most of the sound waves is being shot away into space.

[@GabrielTeykal]

Absolutely AWESOME!! This is AMAZING!!!

[@1RadicalOne]

Space is indeed amazing, but your planet is even more awe-inspiring.

[@crystalinabacteria3430]

Wow Thankyou for showing this . You are amazing people 👍❤️

[@ryanbirch]

Super cool video!! Thanks for that Mr. Williams and NASA (and whoever else may have been involved)!

[@thebearisoverhere]

Great, thanks for all the insight, Mr. Williams!

[@apopheniacMCMLXXXIX]

Nomination for the most criminally under-viewed video on KZbin. WHY DOES NO ONE CARE ABOUT SPACE EXPLORATION ANYMORE?!

[@ghollis-zx8cu]

the station is accelerating, (slowly) leaving the 800mm lens behind.

[@huyked]

That was really cool. What a way to illustrate something.

[@Hanzi89]

That is the single most fantastic demonstration of how it is to be living in zero G! Wow!

[@pyrofiliac]

Holy shit, where do i get a lens like that?

[@mattstorm360]

They got one on the ISS.

[@554466551]

Loved the demonstration. Thanks!

[@ApolloWasReal]

Here's another way to calculate it. He said the acceleration was 0.0185 m/s^2, so if the station mass is 450 000 kg as you say, that's a thrust of 8 325N or about 1 870 lbf. The burn continued for 2.7/0.0185 = 146 sec, so if the Isp is 300 sec it would consume 910 lb of propellant, which is the same as 413 kg.

[@F-Man]

Really cool stuff. I always wondered if something like this would happen when any acceleration was applied to a spacecraft.

[@Thesterness]

The burn was much quieter than I expected. On the shuttle I've heard that it's really really loud whenever they fire the RCS or OMS.

[@flynnmail]

Nice camera. And they're IN SPACE. Pretty cool.

[@jmendeck]

That was awesome, Jeff. This FDO loved it.

[@mprovost58]

Thanks Jeff! That was a great demonstration!

[@florianrudowable]

I like how this room has a clear "down" direction. I feel kind of confused, when i see videos from ISS where every person has another "down" direction. I'm glad to see that the astronauts prefer some orientation too.

[@aripocki]

Enemy's gate is down!

[@dnet4006]

​@@aripocki OK Ender

[@bassemb]

4:50 wait, what?... oh, that wasn't him. I was confused for a sec! Also, great demonstration of speed vs acceleration!

[@intrepidxprodigy91]

I'm pretty sure he meant that the acceleration "didn't" apply to him towards the end. The station is accelerating, but if he lets go of that which attaches him to the station, which he did, then the acceleration no longer acts on him.

[@chrismofer]

Brandon Smith since the motions are relative, if we are accelerating toward him then he is also accelerating toward us.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

Chrismofer That's not how relative motion works. It only applies to inertial reference frames. Velocity is relative. Acceleration is absolute. You cannot say that he was accelerating and the station was not and have it be equally valid for this reason. That would be a big no-no. If that were the case, then you could just as validly say that there was a force acting on him and no forces acting on the space station - - - and that would be ENTIRELY wrong. Forces are not relative. Therefore, the results of forces (accelerations) are not relative. Inertial motion is relative (this is motion when there is no force or acceleration).

[@chrismofer]

acceleration is change in velocity over change in time- if you graph his motion using the station as a reference point, he is accelerating. If you graph the stations motion using him as a reference point, it is accelerating. The definition of acceleration says nothing about force.

[@SargeRho]

acceleration is *force* divided by mass. Acceleration is absolute, since it's the result of an unequal force being applied.

[@Engineer9736]

He just explains it that way to keep it easy.. But you are right of course.

[@helisoma]

Love this video in 2020! Awesome demonstration of the very gentle acceleration. By the way, at 2:23 that is actually an old Nikon 600mm f4 AI-F lens (coupled with a Nikon D2x), rather than an 800mm. The total weight of the package of lens with camera would be 7302 g or around 16 lbs. Of course there is no "weight" in zero g, but still a cool demo. Interestingly, hanging on the wall to the right is a Sigma 800mm f5.6 lens (autofocusing). So, back then, Nikon didn't have an 800mm auto-focusing lens, so it looks like NASA was using the Sigma 800mm.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

If the lens has a mass of 7.3 kg on Earth, it has a mass of 7.3 kg on the space station. Many people think that everything can be moved or carried with ease like moving this lens from one end of the station to the other would be no different than carrying a pencil from one end to another, and it's not the case. It still has the same mass, ergo *_accelerating_* that mass requires the exact same force as it did on Earth. The only difference is that there is no downward force on objects you have to counter to keep it from falling downward. The force required to push it sideways or up or down or whatever direction is exactly the same. You would certainly feel the heft of a big 7.3 kg lens when you try and push or pull it. You would certainly feel that mass.

[@DavidMoviez]

Gosh, the Space Shuttle... Now I feel old.

[@jol6633]

That was aweseome!

[@ApolloWasReal]

BTW, to give a sense of scale, the 8,325 N thrust of the ISS reboost engine(s) is about half that of the ascent engine in the Apollo lunar module (16,000 N).

[@michaelmas10]

Very cool and illuminating.

[@Risk0s]

okay, so the station is burning pro-velocity to change its orbit, while the camera remains in the old orbit? yeah, i think i got it, thanks!

[@lmlmd2714]

This is facinating, always wondered what the burn would feel like onboard - much more gentle than I imagined. I imagined it being quite jarring and rough! - Does the ISS have any station keeping engines of it's own, or does it rely on the engines of a docked Soyuz?

[@ApolloWasReal]

The fuel required to maneuver the ISS velocity doesn't depend on the current velocity, only on its mass and the required delta-V. A delta-V of 2.7 m/s to the ISS would require an extra 2.7 m/s for any rocket to rendezvous with it. Small, but every little bit of saved fuel means more cargo.

[@ApolloWasReal]

Okay, the Progress M1 is 7150 kg (not sure if that's empty or full). We'd need to launch it at 170 m/s to give 2.7 m/s to the 450000kg ISS. That's 103.2 MJ over the 72.8m length of the ISS. Force would be 1.4 MN. Progress accel would be about 20g, ISS accel 1/3g. Boost time 857 ms. Peak boost power (as Progress reaches end of launch rail) 241 MW. A challenging engineering problem, but not utterly infeasible.

[@iapples38]

I wonder if astronauts who come back to earth just drop things constantly cause they're so used to things floating lol

[@johnwaldeck2748]

This is pretty dang cool!

[@beakman1966]

@TimTrimT According to Wikipedia, several times a year. Whenever they're receivent Space Shuttle, Soyuz or Progress (as Jeff himself said). Try to see the Wikipedia, ISS Altitude Control.

[@vaasnaad]

It's the little things that are so cool! What OS were those laptops running, I wonder.

[@guardianobserver6593]

Nice camera. I want it.

[@Engineer9736]

Guardian Observer buy one

[@hongry-life]

They have even 2 in there, one on the wall as well at 3:00 min. Hope they will make an unedited real photo of earth one day.

[@thecinephilefish9465]

@@hongry-life The ISS isn't far enough from the surface of the Earth to capture the entire planet with a single photograph. That's why most images of the Earth are composites. However, complete unedited photos of the Earth have been taken from the Moon and other probes such as Voyager that have been far enough to capture the entire Earth in a single image. Here is a link: www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1249.html

[@myyth146]

@@thecinephilefish9465 crazy how you replied 20 minutes before i watched this video and the video is 10 years old

[@thecinephilefish9465]

@@myyth146 LOL, quarantine has me rewatching all these ISS videos

[@ApolloWasReal]

Here's a more relevant calculation. The *impulse* for the burn was 450 000 kg * 2.7 m/s = 1.215 MN-s. Assuming hypergolic thrusters with an Isp of 300 sec (*g = 2942 m/s), that would be 413 kg of propellants!

[@jayfromla]

The camera would continue to drift slowly because the space station is now moving at a slightly higher velocity than the camera. If the space station were long enough, the shear forces between the air molecules and the camera would eventually transfer enough momentum to the camera that it would accelerate to the same speed as the space station. But since the space station isn't long enough, the camera would just hit the wall before that could happen.

[@ThePeterDislikeShow]

Also don't you need to burn two times like a hohlman transfer?

[@a_dreamer8612]

Not really, if they burn at apoapsis (highest point in orbit) they dont need to since it just balances the orbital height

[@Dalemoooooon]

Yes, there is slight drag in space due to it not being a perfect vacuum so the station very slowly decelerates and thus loses altitude due to the earths gravity pulling it in

[@datamill]

Brilliant Video... Bit of an advert for IBM/Thinkpads! Are they especially hardened for the ISS? Does the boost not have an impact on the structural intgrity of the station?

[@marsCubed]

The numbers are mentioned in the video, 2.7 meter per second increase in velocity was being sought by the burn, to be achieved by an acceleration of 0.0185 m/s^2 If you know the length of time of the burn you could work out the mass of the station. or if you know the mass of the station you could work out the required length of time required for the burn. I have just woken up so I will let you do the math :p

[@kam-ic9pq]

awesome camera setups they have up there!

[@AtheistKharm]

@ThisIsAGreatName good point. I was unaware they were still making the thinkpads with the same body design they have been doing for 10 years.

[@granddad2002]

I had this humorous picture in my head. Like in 'Spaceballs' when they go to 'Ludicrous speed'. Everything lurching forward and then back.

[@hyhhy]

Nice demonstration!

[@JoeLloyd3102]

Love these vids

[@DerHerrIstMeineStärke]

If you waited long enough it would. If it gets lower, the drag even increases, so it looses even more speed when it is lower.

[@DerHerrIstMeineStärke]

If i'm not mistaken, this is my calculation: Mass of space-station: 450000kg dE=m/2*(dV)^2 = 1640250 Joules Wolfram alpha tells me this is a 1/81 of the energy released by combustion of one gallon of gasoline.

[@skeeterou]

That's a badass lens. Any links to some images taken with that bad boy?

[@maksphoto78]

That's cool, I didn't know they experienced it to such extent.

[@ApolloWasReal]

Your kinetic energy calculation is correct...for the energy that was put into the ISS. What about the energy that was put into the rocket exhaust? Rockets are very inefficient in providing small velocity increments. Unfortunately, in space there's not much choice.

[@ApolloWasReal]

Candidate technologies for quick-release energy storage would be flywheels and super/ultra capacitors. The angular momentum of a flywheel would not be a problem if you used two of them in a counter-rotating fashion.

[@bashkillszombies]

Anyone know if there's any footage of them shooting DURING a boost? There is a LOT of footage they shoot for schools and shit these days but very little of them doing their thing. I want to see their day to day stuff! :(

[@VIKINGOCATIRE]

This is so so cool

[@Enatbyte]

It would have been cool if he had let the video camera float during the burn so that we could see the ISS accelerating away from it.

[@connorwalsh1492]

We are in the future. Can't wait til we all can go up there without even thinking about it.

[@Risk0s]

hmm... the camera isnt actually accalerating, is it? its the station, or have i understood something wrong?

[@JorgeSaenz1913]

Risi That is correct, the ISS is accelerating around the camera. The camera is staying at the same orbit it was right when he lets go of it, and the ISS is accelerating around it. The camera has virtually no acceleration, its all a matter of perspective.

[@ApolloWasReal]

Why was this burn done before a shuttle or Progress arrived? That increased the delta-V required of them. I'd expect boosts to be done after a shuttle or Progress departs. Was this some sort of phasing burn done just to change the time or location of rendezous?

[@srstacy]

@TimTrimT, go to heavens-above . com, there is a chart that shows the height of the ISS, how the height decays over time and how much height is regained at each reboost.

[@LilHACKERR]

This is so cool, OMG. It just makes me think if I were this guy....., but you have better changes winning the lottery then to go in space.

[@mrebyers]

Well done, sir.

[@ThePeterDislikeShow]

Is there an altitude where you'd have to constantly burn at 9.8m/s^2 and allow you to give yourself artificial gravity? Maybe just somewhat below the karman line?

[@IainMcClatchie]

You could reboost 450 tonne ISS by swinging 7 tonne Progress on a tether. You could spin up over 1 day to reduce power requirements. If ISS acceleration is kept to 0.0185 m/s^2, the tether must be 24.7 km to get 170 m/s Progress velocity. Kevlar 49 tether would be 4 mm diameter (safety factor 4) and would weigh 447 kg. Doubling the ISS acceleration allows halving the length of the tether but tether mass remains the same.

[@sarcasm2k]

Cool demonstration :)

[@alonsodocYT]

Not so clever i am. But that means that the boost is in the opposite direction of that of things like the camera? How can one figure out in what direction is the boost (by only seeing this video)?

[@karhukivi]

Amazing!!

[@AchingOvaries]

This video was absolutely awesome. Weightlessness must be nice when using 800mm camera lenses. ;)

[@orion1836]

The lens on that camera!

[@ApolloWasReal]

I didn't say it would be easy! You'd need some way to store the necessary energy and release it very quickly to accelerate the trash to the necessary velocity over the length of the station. Let's see, what's the mass of a jettisoned Progress, and how fast would it have to be ejected to impart 2.7 m/s to the ISS?

[@DerHerrIstMeineStärke]

The orbital speed of the space station is about 7.700 m/s, an increase of 2,7 m/s is not that much of a problem considering fuel consumption i think, only about 0,03%.

[@laurens678]

Indeed, actually they are still in the atmosphere, so still experience air resistance. Only high altitude satelites don't have drag.

[@maksphoto78]

Is it accelerating. The boost provides acceleration to the ISS, so the camera is accelerating in the opposite direction.

[@don312000]

That's just freakin awesome!!!

[@TheTurbinator]

I wonder what would have happened if you let the camera float, and then the engines cut off. Would you visibly see the camera slow down?

[@MadhavVij]

If you haven't found the answer in the last 10 years, then here's it for you. The camera will not slow down, but will not accelerate. After the engines are cut off, the camera will continue to move in that direction at the speed it was moving right before the engines were off.

[@YDDES]

isokessu If the spacestation was black it would be overheated in the sunlight. Also, the astronaut and the camera is NOT moving FASTER than the station, they are lacking behind, due to the stations acceleration.

[@TASmith10]

What kind of engines are they? What do they burn?

[@beakman1966]

This is how internet should be used. Some people know how to make a video and teach a lesson.

[@looneyburgmusic]

Must be nice to casually toss around a $10,000 camera as an example of acceleration in a zero-g enviorment

[@looneyburgmusic]

@ummm yeah Well guessing the camera has been modified, to deal with being in space, (don't think NASA would just go out and buy a stock Nikon and pack it on a rocket), so... $20000 then...?

[@keepthemusicirie]

@ummm yeah $16,299.95 lens*

[@ze2004]

@@keepthemusicirie ........

[@ze2004]

@@keepthemusicirie that's 3 month astronaut salary

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

@@looneyburgmusic The camera isn't in space; it's in the International Space Station. The only difference between being on Earth and being inside the ISS is the zero gravity environment. The camera would not need to be modified to handle that. Simply throwing the camera in the air and allowing it to free fall would more or less simulate the same state it is in on the ISS. You wouldn't need to modify the camera to keep it from breaking.

[@montese3003]

Is the camera moving back or is the spaceship moving forward and the camera is kn the same spot?

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

It's the ship accelerating while the camera is free-floating. If you're in a car and you have a ball on your seat, and you slam on the brakes. The ball - from YOUR vantage point will appear to accelerate forward in the car - when in reality, the car was the one accelerating. The ball was remaining in the same place, but from your vantage point (who is also accelerating), the ball appears to be the one accelerating toward the front of the car.

[@Blingchachink]

he sort of sounds like Norm McDonald. and this is an awesome video 5/5

[@Aengus42]

Great demonstration. Thank you. I'm off to search for images of the motors. What fuel do they use?

[@hongry-life]

I want to know too.

[@stupidfunvids3748]

They use bullshit, because it's a hoax

[@hydrochloricacid2146]

That depends on the exact means of propulsion, be it the station's Zvezda module or a separate cargo spacecraft (Progress, ATV, Cygnus, Dragon...). Typically, reboosts are either handled by the Progress Cargo vehicle or the Zvezda module itself, both of which have engines running off a UDMH/N2O4 mixture.

[@Aengus42]

@Benjamin McCann They don't know what they don't know. To them that's relaxing & requires no further thought. To us, that thought I'd exciting. Knowing that what we don't know what we don't know is exciting. It's the edge of knowledge. We've no idea what beyond that tenuous edge. But we know that bright, inquisitive humans will push out that edge & there'll be new stuff to learn. That kinda leaves them behind. That's ok. We'd like folks to stay behind & look after our planet for us. We may like to come home every now & then. So, you guys look after... erm... for me it'll be rain forests & whales. Thank you! Oh! And sloths! Can't forget those guys. Do any other travellers in science have anything you'd like the flat earthers to look after for you so you can come back to earth & visit? Before our sun goes red giant of course... And corvids! Edit: Hahahaha! I hadn't thought of that! Haha! But yes... Personal hygiene is ALWAYS important! Snigger!

[@Aengus42]

@@hydrochloricacid2146 Thank you, that helps me a lot. I when I posted that I thought that we've never seen the boost engines & I was imagining the centre of mass/thrust calculations must be a nightmare!!

[@ApolloWasReal]

I dunno; the ISS is quite large. Look at how long the engines had to fire just to produce that 2.7 m/s. I'm sure planning these reboosts requires a lot of trading off between fuel consumption, energy loss due to drag, and the delta-V required for resupply ships to reach the station.

[@mfxmfx27]

so good looking!

[@DerHerrIstMeineStärke]

This would take way too much energy on a way too small length, which means massive power, which cannot be transferred to the ISS or the Progress in such a small time.

[@TheRchelicopter]

I wonder does the shutter shoot faster in space when taking photos or is it slower.

[@apopheniacMCMLXXXIX]

Gravity on Earth is about nine meters per second per second. So if they showed one meter per second per second, during the burn, the ISS would have about a ninth of a G. Am I right, or is my math off?

[@Qloke]

next time they should have another camera recording floating free to demonstrate how it's the station that's accelerating around the camera

[@AlexandreHimself]

why ppl move slower in space ? its because they have to be careful about everything or it's because any rapide movement destabilize you ?

[@ayebraine]

They're careful around important technology and careful about their own wellbeing. Suppose you're sitting on a couch right now, reading this. If you're in microgravity and you stand up quickly (i.e. push against the floor), you have a very good chance of ramming the ceiling or a wall with your head like a rocket. Think about it: you can jump a little or climb stairs (i.e. defeat gravity for a moment) very easily. The very same jump on ISS will basically make you "fall" into the ceiling like it's a floor (not exactly, 'cause you don't KEEP accelerating - but in the first few feet it doesn't matter too much).

[@MarcusHelius]

That is COOL!

[@valken666]

So an object that is directly outside of the space station is accelerating when the ISS is accelerating? It does not undergo any of the relativistic effects, it is not accelerating in relation to the universe. Therefore it is only moving at its current speed.

[@naeemuddin6588]

I am unable to understand white papers on the clipboard hanged on the wall????

[@mscott722]

Air is being circulated inside the station to keep CO2 pockets from forming. CO2 pockets could kill the astronauts. The papers are blowing because of the air circulation and has nothing to do with the reboost.