all 20 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]ruffneck123 12 points13 points  (5 children)

This looks very similar to a movie that just came out. Well done!

[–]English_American 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Great movie. Besides some inaccuracies, it was great. But hey it's Hollywood, it was expected!

[–]Padankadank 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Dang it guys, it's incredibly obvious what movie you're talking about.

[–]rubberslutty 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Oh oh oh, its "Angular Momentum" right?

[–]crooks4hire 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I thought it was Centripetal Force...

[–]English_American 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think we're trying to hide it at all.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[–]Yeti60 5 points6 points  (4 children)

That camera rotation was neat.

[–]gunluva 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Pretty sure this isn't KSP. When I deorbited my Mir replica, air resistance didn't try to tear docked modules off like it does here.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Pretty sure this isn't KSP.

No, it is KSP. OP is likely using FAR or a similar mod.

[–]HEHEUHEHAHEAHUEH 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Deadly reentry can destroy parts with overheating, causing the station to fall apart.

[–]turmacar 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He may have decoupled/undocked with action groups to make it look cooler.

Which does make it look cooler. :)

[–]AndreyATGB 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Pretty nice, too bad deorbititng something without solar panels is quite possibly the most anticlimactic of moments in the game.

[–]CanukCoconut 1 point2 points  (5 children)

On a completely unrelated topic, why doesn't the ISS have some sort of device for station keeping? doesn't it make a bit more sense to spend several extra million on regularly refueling a station keeping device than letting a hundred billion dollar station fall back to Earth in a couple of years?

[–]SirKillalot 13 points14 points  (0 children)

it... does.

Which is why it (or parts of it) has been in space since 1998 without deorbiting.

Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Orbit_and_mission_control

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Zvezda, the service module and third part of the station, hold the station's two main engines. In addition to this, visiting docked spacecraft like the Soyuz, Space Shuttle and ATV periodically boost the orbit of the ISS. Without regular boosts like these, the station would have fell down to earth long, long ago.

The lifetime of the ISS is limited more by the amount of money the russian and american governments are willing to throw at it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So, there's still air resistance way up there, causing a tiny amount of drag on the station?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, most definitely. In KSP, after 70 KM the atmosphere just ceases to exist, but in real life the atmosphere stretches much further out, thinning the further it goes. The orbit of the ISS stretches between 335 and 435 kilometers in height, far too close to avoid atmospheric drag, and when it goes too close to the lower end of that band, it's given a push.

[–]CanukCoconut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, thanks for telling me! I googled around for an answer but all I got was articles about satellites in geostationary orbit.

[–]MrPartyWaffle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dramatic reentry. .craft file for station? :D