Everything ISS – 2.09

In this epISSode of Spacevidcast we talk about the emergency evacuation of the International Space Station, the new live webcam feed from the ISS as well as shooting down debris that could hit the station via a watergun.

ISS 911

ISS webcam

Super Soaker 50,000,000

Posted in


  1. KaiYves on March 14, 2009 at 1:08 am

    I have the exact same shirt Cariann is wearing!

    Do you guys know about the rap called “ISS Baby”?

    Would using a water gun (The hand-held sort) inside of a spaceship push you backwards?

    I couldn’t bring myself to make some of the calls for Mission Madness. I guess I’ll just wait for real voting so other people can help me with the elimination.

    Sometimes I wince when I read old books with the old predictions of when the ISS would be done, but, hey, they didn’t know the shuttle was going to have an accident.

    • Rick Boozer on March 14, 2009 at 6:38 pm

      Since this will require no extensive explanation on my part, I will answer the question. As an astrophysicist I can definitely assure you, shooting a water gun would push you backward because of Newton’s third law of motion which states “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Action: water expelled at high speed in one direction. Reaction: you going in the opposite direction. You would essentially have a rocket with a water stream as the exhaust. The more powerful the stream the harder you would be pushed. Though you would be weightless, your body’s mass would still have considerable inertia, so you may not move as fast as you would think. Still, I would imagine one of the more powerful Super Soakers could really get you moving!

  2. Robert Horning on March 14, 2009 at 2:53 am

    Of all of the crazy NASA projects (in reference to the Mission Madness) that ever were dreamed up and considered…. the one that I love the most is the _**ORIGINAL**_ Orion mission. You just gotta love somebody thinking completely out of the box and suggesting the use of a nuclear bomb as a source of propulsion…. and of sending up into space using current technology a ship with a crew of over 500 capable of interplanetary travel.

    Even more sobering of a thought is that actual hardware was built and flown. The pressure plate was tested at a couple of the nuclear bomb tests that happened in the Pacific Ocean during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, and a working model of the spacecraft was built using TNT as the propulsion fuel… where some actual flight tests were conducted.

    As to why NASA choose to use this name for the Apollo Mark-2 vehicle is anybody’s guess (I would like to know that answer if anybody does know), but it certainly is a name with an interesting heritage in spaceflight history.

    See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    BTW, on a side note, why didn’t you cover in the space news segment what happened with SpaceX and their Merlin engine passing a full mission profile with a vacuum test: http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20090310

    There is some cool video stuff on the SpaceX website, including a tour of the facility where the Merlin engine is being tested. The vacuum chamber where the engine is being tested (think about that…. trying to create a vacuum chamber for a major rocket engine?!?) is an interesting piece of hardware in its own right. What they simulated was a full second stage burn to send a Falcon 9 up to Geosynchronous orbit with a payload. They are certainly passing some major milestones prior to the anticipated launch of the Falcon 9 later on this summer.

    • cariann on March 14, 2009 at 3:13 pm

      Robert… The short answer to your question regarding why we didn’t cover SpaceX is: I wasn’t prepared. See, when there is a mission in the air (ie: 119) we don’t do our weekly live shows. (You know, just in case someone looses a tool bag) Which means that all Ben and I were doing was getting ready for the 119 launch coverage that we thought was going to happen on Wednesday. When there was the hold put on the mission, we knew a couple of things: 1. We would need to do a podcast for that day, as again we were not planning on it because of the launch. 2. We would need to prepare a show for the week, as again we had not as of yet. Then the next thing you know, all hell breaks loose with the debris headed for the ISS, which we tried to cover, and really wanted to know what happened ourselves! So, all in all, by the time that everything had calmed down and I really got to work on the show, I think I had about 6 hours to work on it. Normally I take a day or two… believe it or not. If you notice, there are no changing graphics behind us in this show, we only cut away for one picture and the normal break… even the regular CRCC ad was missing this week. While the show is somewhat formatted, it has to be recreated every week. Needless to say, 6 hours is not a lot of time. I appreciate you adding a link in your comment so that others who may not have known about it can see what’s going on!

      • Robert Horning on March 16, 2009 at 7:58 pm

        I do appreciate the work that you and Ben put into this program every week. You guys are amazing, and this certainly is something very unique for spaceflight enthusiasts.

        I’m just pointing out that there is some non-NASA news that did happen over the past week. I’ll try to be less critical and simply more informative about some of the highlights that I come across.

        A suggestion for an upcoming episode: Speculation about the next NASA Administrator. Potential candidates keep getting shot down during the vetting process, no small part due to the efforts of Senator Nelson of Florida. For myself, I’m making an educated guess that the post won’t be filled until after June.

    • Benjamin Higginbotham on March 14, 2009 at 6:31 pm

      SpaceX is not really timely news that requires we cover it right now whereas the evac of the ISS was breaking news and owned the show. Fret not, we’re huge Space2.0/NewSpace fans and that will certainly be covered in a future show (not too distant, probably right after STS-119 lands). After Discovery touches down I’ll need to cleanse my palate with some private space shows 🙂

      I had never heard of the original Orion project. *click* research time!

      • Rick Boozer on March 14, 2009 at 6:56 pm

        In the Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven novel Footfall the original Orion project was resurrected to defeat an alien race. An interesting read if you’re into science fiction.

      • Rick Boozer on March 14, 2009 at 7:12 pm

        One other thing. There was a very successful nuclear rocket program called NERVA that produced rockets many times more powerful than conventional chemical rockets. It was feared that it posed radiation hazards to the environment, so it too was given up. But it had the potential of launching enormous payloads into orbit and beyond and also could have cut trips to Mars down to weeks instead of months. I must admit that maybe they made the right final decision. A launcher with a megawatt fission reactor with its large amount of radioactive materials gives me the heebee jeebees.

        • Benjamin Higginbotham on March 14, 2009 at 7:26 pm

          Me too… Always scares me a bit, but I really need to read up on this and see if we have a way to do this safely. I simply don’t have enough data yet and it is a very interesting idea. New to me, old to the space industry.

    • KaiYves on March 14, 2009 at 6:40 pm

      I think they choose Orion because it’s the “Hunter” constellation and we’re “hunting” for knowledge with these new moon missions. That’s just my personal guess, though.

Leave a Comment