Hot answers tagged

35

Your premise is incorrect. Microphones have been carried on Mars missions, they just failed to work. Mars 2020 will carry microphones. NASA spacecraft that traveled to Mars in the past have carried microphones twice. Unfortunately, one of those missions, the Mars Polar Lander, failed. The Phoenix Lander had a microphone on the spacecraft’s descent camera,...


32

Curiosity does not have speakers. As the OP's linked article states: This was accomplished using Curiosity's Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument. It "sang" the song by vibrating at different frequencies. More information on how this was accomplished is available in this LA Times article: The Sample Analysis at Mars instrument, or SAM, isn't a ...


17

An article in the Washington post explains: the rover’s sample analysis unit vibrates at different frequencies to move soil samples. Normally, those vibrations sound remarkably like the noises robots make in Disney’s Wall-E, but when you string them all together, something similar to “Happy Birthday” results.


11

According to WIRED Magazine's article and video Watch Astronauts Answer Your Burning Questions about Space (also viewable on YouTube): Sounds exist in space, but humans can not hear them. As pointed out in the question, there is not gong to be any significant, perceptible sound transmitted through space at the altitude of the ISS (now roughly 400 km). ...


10

This is a fantastic question! There are some sounds recorded by a GoPro camera high in Earth's atmosphere in the video linked in the question How did the tangential thrusters for the 2014 LDSD test spin-up then spin-down so nicely? also shown below. The sound starts at 120,000 feet (36.4 km) and then is heard at about 180,000 feet (54.5 km). Using NASA's U....


9

They wouldn't work. In a pipe, wind blowing over the fipple, or past a reed causes vortices which give lots of different frequencies. Then at the open end of the pipe (or open finger holes) the change to a fixed pressure causes most of the vibration to be reflected back down the pipe, setting up standing waves at various harmonics, which produce the tone. ...


8

The amount of white vapor present at the beginning and end of the test suggests that there is indeed a water spray down within the flame trench. There is no need for above-grade spray because the rocket is tied down and cannot lift off. The structure of the test stand itself will provide substantial acoustic shielding for the rest of the vehicle.


8

A real stethoscope has some features that make it useful in normal use, but would be a hindrance in your scenario. The sound conductance medium is the air column in the tube, not the tube itself. Between ships or spacesuits, the air column would not be present. The flexible material of the tube is a poor sound conductor. The ear pieces help to direct the ...


8

There's a lot of variations in the astronauts' subjective impressions of the sound: "muffled roar", "gutteral roar", and allusions to infrasonic vibration, for which "rumble" might be a fair description. Collins, in Carrying The Fire: Trust your instruments, not your body, the modern pilot is always told, but this beast is best felt. Shake, rattle, and ...


7

I think you might have some misconceptions about what that spectrogram represents, and how it might have been processed. The purpose of recording audio "room tone" is not to remove background noise, but to add it back in during post processing, to make sound edits less jarring. It would be useless for removal of true, uncorrelated noise. The spectrogram ...


7

Expected noise levels can be found in the environmental assessment. For Falcon 9: 156.1 ± 4.9 dB (unweighted) at 125 ft. For Falcon Heavy: 160.9 ± 4.9 dB (unweighted) at 125 ft. So asdfex's comment is in line with what SpaceX expects/has calculated. Now this is a 2011 study, after the first v1.0 launch but predating the various upgrades to the F9. I ...


7

Yes, you can hear the noise of anything that hits the outside of the ISS, because from that point there is no vacuum - vibration is passed to the inside of the ISS where it is audible. This is all reasonably self-evident. This includes micrometeoroid impacts, as Hobbes mentioned, but also noises from crew members moving on EVA, their tools and anything else....


7

The amount of energy involved in a take off and landing will be roughly equal to the mass being moved, and approximately the same proportion of energy will be turned into sound given the same engines are involved. Going up a falcon heavy is around 1400 tonnes, coming down the stages have split apart and are almost empty. Have not found authoritative numbers ...


6

How many grains of sand does it take to form a heap? An orbiting spacecraft is flying many times faster than the speed of sound. It's starting in atmosphere too thin to sustain an audible shock wave. As it descends, it's going to be producing a shock cone continuously, but in the very thin atmosphere high up, the amplitude of the shock wave is too faint to ...


6

Short answer: These "sounds" consist of vibrations produced by the astronaut's movements and his suit systems and transferred through his space suit, camera enclosure and PCB the microphone is soldered to plus electrical and digital noise added by the sound processing pipeline. Long answer: Microphone is an electromechanical device, that converts ...


6

Of course there is no sound in the vacuum of space, as there isn't a sufficient medium to propagate sound waves. Your teacher was referring to a medieval concept known as the music of the spheres. Musica universalis (lit. universal music, or music of the spheres) or Harmony of the Spheres is an ancient philosophical concept that regards proportions in the ...


5

Odds are it was the spring slamming the valve closed. Green arrows are the flow path. Red arrow shows the spring. Diagram from Apollo Spacecraft News Reference page 122


5

However, once in space, the vacuum does not transmit sound, so any sound produced by the engines will be contained to the spacecraft. No. The sound produced by the engines is mostly in shockwaves in the exhaust plume, and those leave the spacecraft just fine in a vacuum. There might be a slight increase because vibrations transmitted through the thrust ...


5

It is a sound suppression system like the one developed by NASA for the Space Shuttle in the 1980s. It was required to keep the sound level below the required 145 dB. See: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/sound-suppression-system.html On launch pad 39A in Cape Canaveral, a water tower dumps 300,000 gallons of water in less than a minute ...


5

Yes and no. It's a yes in that gravity is often responsible for the density of the atmosphere, at least on a planet or gas cloud. Higher air density often means a higher speed of sound for the same composition of atmosphere, although there are other factors involved. It's a no in that gravity does not change the path of sound. Say you had 2 identical ...


5

Well, yes and no. The most important feature for modern space-bound CPUs (aside from 100% reliability) is radiation hardening. Radiation hardening is considered at every step of the design process from the materials used to the configuration of the transistors in each internal circuit. These chips are specifically designed to withstand any bombardment of ...


4

Your ear drums are connected to your ear canal, and vibrations are also passed to it by that means. So they would perceive your heart thumping in a terrified panic, and your lungs trying to haul in some air from the oxygen tank, though the seal on the mask better be good or most of it will escape into the vacuum. But your eardrums won't last long. They ...


4

According to this page, an SR-71 flying supersonic at 80,000 ft (24.3 km) generates an audible sonic boom, so that gives us a lower bound. This page explains why you hear two separate booms (video) when the Shuttle comes in for a landing. And this article states the sonic boom is audible for the last 10 minutes of a Shuttle flight. Coupling that with the ...


4

Real data will not be available for Falcon Heavy until the first launch, scheduled for February 2018. Noise levels for Falcon Heavy are estimated to be below the NASA Space Launch System (SLS) which produces more thrust. The SLS is expected to be 130 decibels at the launch site. The Space Shuttle was louder at 180 dB at launch, even with the aid of a Sound ...


4

Many years ago, as a young engineer, I worked for Hamilton Standard who developed the Space Suit, and which had the remit to develop a Power Tool for Astronauts for the purposes of repairing the Space Telescope while in orbit. We interviewed astronauts regarding their experiences working 'extravehicular' ...meaning in space, mainly at that point, in the ...


3

Finally, my favorite Youtube educator did a comprehensive video covering exactly this topic. There are some edited "sound" recordings of Insight's seismometer and it's air pressure sensor, but they are rather disappointing. Past missions were planned to bring microphones to the surface of Mars but in all cases something went ...


3

The latest mission to land on Mars actually had a number of instruments to listen to the Martian surface. You can hear an audio clip of Mars sent back by the rover here: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/783/nasa-insight-lander-hears-martian-winds/


3

TLDR A landing booster creates < 10% of the noise of a rocket launch. This is possibly reduced much further in near vacuum conditions (Moon/Mars). No sound suppression could be fine at these noise levels. To expand on the previous answer; A rocket's engines must create more force than the force of gravity on the rocket in order for it to accelerate ...


3

Another take on the question: you have to get your aiming perfectly right. Others have already pointed out, that landing does not cause as much noise as launching. However, if we consider using a sound suppression system, then this comes along with a lot of plumbing and other infrastructure. For launch, this is not a problem, since the location of the ...


3

As other answers have pointed out, the necessary noise is much lower for landing than take off, but this doesn't mean that the actual amount of noise will be so reduced. As control theory gets better, and landing on a larger fraction of the available thrust becomes an option, I think we will see it happen as it makes sense from a performance point of view. ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible