Everything nowadays comes packaged with excessive emote track.
People in the internet don't enjoy rocket launch with roaring sounds unless there is laugh track over it that validates that the launch is awesome and simulates social connection.
Those are the real emotions of the people at Blue Origin watching the launch. They've been working toward this moment for 24 years. Should they censor themselves because their "excessive" emotions offend you? Or maybe they should hire newscasters to do an disinterested presentation up to your standards, instead of employees who actually worked on it?
That's not a video of live broadcast TV coverage. It's a recording of the operational communcations (which you could hear in the BO livestream and it didn't have crying or shouting). Actual TV broadcasts at the time did show some actual emotions including laughter and possibly even tears, despite being from professional newscasters rather than employees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMF58ZP681A
Didnt they get caught when a launch went badly but their narrator keep reading from the script, reporting events that clearly were not happening? I would watch a technical stream, but i can read a canned script myself.
The launch broadcast narration continued for several seconds following the vehicle explosion reporting either telemetry or programmed flight path information before breaking script with the infamous announcement "There's obviously been a major malfunction". Various reports I've seen are that the previous commentary was based on telemetry rather than watching video.
There was an F9 loss early in the program where the presenter was overcome by emotion. I would love to find an archive of all the launches including that one.
Unintentional remedy: with Starlink now giving them HD video coverage for the whole flight, I doubt they would be able to do this convincingly anymore. (Assuming they ever did. I do not know about any such launch)
All of them can't shut up and just let us watch the launch without listening to their bs like "...aand lift off for Orion space mission off Cape Canaveral which is a huge leap for humanity"
Its a feed of the Blue Origin staff, who have been working towards this for years and years - makes sense that they would be pretty excited considering the level of success this was.
You dont have to consider everything you dont like to be a negative on the world
Just a guess, but aerospace generally works with feet for altitude and knots/mph for airspeed, internationally. I’m doing a PPL in Europe and we, like everybody, use feet and knots/mph. I believe this is because the US have been on the forefront of aerospace regulation (a set of rules called the chicago convention is the basis of all air law) and aircraft manufacturing.
Sorry, not a native speaker, I was under the impression that aerospace means air and space. I guess i meant aviation.
I didn’t imply knots are mph, I used the slash to signify “or”. They are completely different units, but both are used. Sometimes the airspeed indicator even has two scales, one for kt and one for mph.
Can confirm, all aviation worldwide deals in feet and knots. It's also because it's much easier to do calculations on the fly (literally) - in your head. Metric is precise and logical but harder to use in stressful situations.
Can you please give some real-world example of why it's easier to do calculations? Not disputing what you say, just hard for me to imagine why it would be so.
1 knot is about 100 ft/min which is very convenient for descent at a specific glide slope (i.e. for 100 knots ground speed at 5% slope you want 500 ft/min descent rate). Standard is 3° which is about 5%.
Knots are also handy for navigation as 1 nautical mile equals 1 minute of latitude. And of course a knot is 1 nautical mile per hour. So if you're doing 300 knots, that's 5 degrees of latitude per hour.
The calculation in the metric system would not necessarily be more complicated, but it would be different because the reference points in the metric system are not directly aligned with the geography of the Earth.
"1 knot is about 100 ft/min which is very convenient for descent at a specific glide slope (i.e. for 100 knots ground speed at 5% slope you want 500 ft/min descent rate). Standard is 3° which is about 5%."
You are right. It's an easy calculation. But I would say its easy because its historically based on imperial units. Its easy to think about easy calculations like this in metric units like:
A 5% slope means descending 1 meter vertically for every 20 meters horizontally.
The gradient thing would work if ground speed and vertical speed were both in m/s, but km/h is more common in metric for a ground speed. You don't usually think in terms of hours during a climb/descent!
Glide slope of 3.6% would fit nicely though. Then, 100 km/h ground speed goes with vertical speed 1 m/s.
Metric navigation would use the fact 90 degrees of latitude is 10,000 km.
I suspect that the math is even easier using meters, meters, and meters per second than nautical miles, feet, and knots. I'll eat my hat if you can tell me the conversion from feet or inches to nautical miles without looking it up
This sums it up. Metric is nice and clean tenths, but the real world is seldomly easily expressed in clean tenths.
Another example: The feet is cleanly divisible in thirds, quarters, and twelfths, which is greatly appreciated in industry and particularly construction.
Also to be bluntly mundane, almost everyone can just look down and have a rough measure of a foot which is good enough for daily use.
Also, the "sterility" of metric doesn't do it any sentimental favours. Japan loves measuring size/volume in Tokyo Domes, for example.
If you're an amputee I truly am sorry for you and hope the handicap hasn't disrupted your life too much.
Jokes(...?) aside though, your absolute deference to precision is an example of why metric flies over people's heads. Feets, Tokyo Domes, arguably even nautical miles and so on are relatable at a human level unlike metric which is too nice and clean.
This sort of argument is odd to someone in a country which uses both, where a yard is intuitively "a bit smaller than a metre", a pint corresponds to a pint glass or "about half a litre" rather than anything meaningful and I'm aware that a rod and a furlong are things but have absolutely no idea what they correspond to. A foot is comfortably bigger than the average foot size, and an inch really isn't an easier unit to approximate than a centimeter
The SI was specially aimed to reduce such meaningless discussions, yet we steel have big endians and little endians comparisons, long after the dust settled.
One meter is about one long step for an adult. To approximate the length of a field, you just walk along it with big steps and count. It will not be correct, but pretty close. A cm is a little bit smaller than the width of your index finger. It's all bout what you are used to. Metric doesn't "fly over people's head" where metric is the standard way to measure things, but inches, feet, gallons, pounds, miles fly over our head because we are not used to it so don't have any frame of reference.
No, it doesn't. I'm European, never used imperial before I became a pilot, and it's easier. Check it out, the formulas are much simpler to do in your head. Intuition doesn't matter, all that matters is that I can do the calculations quickly so I know I'm within parameter limits.
I'm curious which ones you find easier? There or a few thermodynamics equations that are much more practical in SAE.
This is because the many units are often developed out of within discipline experiment, whereas metric tries to use fundamental units across disciplines.
Who cares what units they use? Anyone who is interested in space will have some knowledge of both kinds of units, and can do conversions if they need to.
Do they also report the speed of light as Walmart parking lots per standard commercial tv break duration?
Edit: as an Amazon product it would probably use Amazon(tm) cardboard box unit as the length metric and standardized warehouse drone toilet break as duration.
Think about it. The fruit of their hard work over all those years while enduring people pointing fingers and memes at them... and now their powerful rocket roars, rumbles and lifts... Ofcourse it is emotional. And looks like me personally enjoy it. Perhaps that is taken from spacex stream where you see people cheering on achieving significant milestones... just gives you some of it.
Perhaps that audio could have been only when showing people cheering or what, but anyways, I'm surprised BO even set up that much of a show for external viewers.
SpaceX obviously has spoiled us. Just think of what we could see before SX. Some visualization on how rocket fly?
Personally I like the contrast between the laugh of joy and relief and background cheers from the team that have spent the past few years building it, and the calm technical announcements coming from somebody who probably feels the same way...
> Just think of what we could see before SX. Some visualization on how rocket fly?
What do you mean? Rocket launches have been filmed for ages, and without the laugh track, see that random launch of Ariane 4 in 1988 for example, that includes an on-board view (the replay does include some clapping from spectators though):
You could already see them on live TV at the time. The Space X launches today certainly have better quality but it's not like launches were impossible to watch in the past.
True. When I was in 9th grade, shortly before I was due to get braces, my teeth were quite crooked, and someone pointed out (in front of a lot of my friends) that they thought it looked grotesque when I laughed or smiled. It had a lasting negative effect on me, even after the braces came off and I had a great smile.
As a non-USian looking in, it seemed fairly average and non-horrible to me? I find it interesting to find several comments like this one here so prominently compared to the discussion thread about SpaceX launches.
Yeah, I have seen some pretty annoying ones (on the spaceX streams) where they really make the cheering too loud, and from these comments I expected similar, but that... Really wasn't that bad at all. Just someone being excited. C'mon guys
This is such a bizarre comment for me. If you strip that "momentous occasion for humanity" from its human component, then how is it a worthwhile historical document?
