The Astronomy Thread

Ukerric · Mar 2, 2017

Cybsled said:
To be sure, although that is only an intermediary goal. Eventually the ISS will be retired and I think the appetite will be for something lunar as opposed to LEO.

A LEO platform still makes sense. In addition to the basic research objectives, it has the advantages of providing a technical base for maintenance and space assembly.

Basically, a developping space infrastructure would follow the original Von Braun model. You have one (or more later) base in LEO with a permanent staff; deep space missions don't launch from Earth, they get shuttled from Earth to LEO, where their ship has been assembled and fueled with various smaller scale missions, and then they take off.

A Lunar base system would use a 3-tier system: Launch from Earth to "Earthport" in LEO, transfer to the Lunar Cycler (a ship that stays permanently in space and ferries everything) to go the "Moonport" in lunar orbit, shuttle down to "Moonbase Alpha" (of course, it's called Moonbase Alpha. No nuclear waste depot nearby, please).

Palum · Mar 2, 2017

If we follow modern social justice theory we can't do any of that because Von Braun and all those others were Nazis. Sorry man.

Tuco · Mar 2, 2017

Olebass said:
Does SpaceX have any documentation on cost savings for landing and reusing booster?
I know that uses more fuel, resources and I assume total rebuild of engine/parts of booster.
I agree it is better than letting them sit in the ocean though.

Growing up I was most fascinated by rockets by the very fact it has all that precision, technology and is only used once and basically planned to sink into the bottom of the ocean after 1 use.
I also used to question why the space shuttle was designed to jettison its boosters instead of carrying them into space and after dumping its cargo have the booster split in half and go back into the bay for reentry.

They've announced some idea of the the savings, I remember it cutting the cost of launching stuff in half if everything works right.

SpaceX’s reusable rockets will make space cheaper — but how much?

I think the big question is how much refurbishing they need to do each flight. If they have to replace the engines every few launches, the costs increase dramatically.

Tuco · Mar 2, 2017

Cybsled said:
To be sure, although that is only an intermediary goal. Eventually the ISS will be retired and I think the appetite will be for something lunar as opposed to LEO.

To me the ISS (or any other low-G station) and a lunar base serve two very different purposes, so I don't know why the lunar base would replace the ISS.

It takes a lot of energy to move cargo to and from a lunar base, so unless that lunar base is operating as a producer of goods (Ex: Helium 3) in some way, it'll be purely a research station used only for lunar activities.

Cad · Mar 2, 2017

Tuco said:
To me the ISS (or any other low-G station) and a lunar base serve two very different purposes, so I don't know why the lunar base would replace the ISS.

It takes a lot of energy to move cargo to and from a lunar base, so unless that lunar base is operating as a producer of goods (Ex: Helium 3) in some way, it'll be purely a research station used only for lunar activities.

I'd prefer they triple NASA's budget, but only increase their conventional budget by 50%, and use the other 150% for propulsion research. Savings on launching stuff into LEO is great but ultimately meaningless since we can't fucking go anywhere, and nowhere else in the solar system is capable of sustaining life. We cannot go anywhere.

meStevo · Mar 2, 2017

Random, but kinda want to see SpaceX land a Falcon 9 on the moon, just because.

Zaara · Mar 2, 2017

1987 said:
Isn't that literally impossible? Or do they just mean see the event horizon?

They've already been able to resolve the gas and matter accretions around Sag A*. Article makes it pretty clear that they're expecting only to resolve the point where matter is accelerating to the event horizon, and probably not the 'hole' itself.

Lenas · Mar 2, 2017

Maybe they mean see it like Interstellar style.

Cybsled · Mar 2, 2017

New moon race isn't between nations...it is between companies

Amazon boss Jeff Bezos wants to start shipping packages to the Moon

Mudcrush Durtfeet · Mar 3, 2017

Blue Origin seems pretty far from doing anything of that nature. They've yet to put anything in earth orbit, never mind going to the moon (they lack any kind of serious launcher if I recall).

Oldbased · Mar 3, 2017

Mudcrush Durtfeet said:
Blue Origin seems pretty far from doing anything of that nature. They've yet to put anything in earth orbit, never mind going to the moon (they lack any kind of serious launcher if I recall).

Not to mention suffers from length anxiety. Has girth though.
SpaceX might be thin and long but it is gettin 'er done.

meStevo · Mar 3, 2017

They've got some ambitious plans though. New Glenn rockets due in 2020.

Khalan · Mar 4, 2017

Fuck the Saturns were big.

Kiroy · Mar 4, 2017

meStevo said:
They've got some ambitious plans though. New Glenn rockets due in 2020.

View attachment 124337

plans are like assholes. the Kiroy rocket is a mile high and has a billion tons of solid rocket fuel. I propose it could lift the earth out of earth's orbit.

Palum · Mar 4, 2017

Khalan said:
Fuck the Saturns were big.

And 50 years ago began operational use.

Lambourne · Mar 4, 2017

Khalan said:
Fuck the Saturns were big.

The size of the thing is all the more apparent if you stick one in the middle of a city.

Part of exposition about space travel in Utrecht where they stuck a full-scale mockup to the side of one of the city's landmarks. I went to see this as a kid, was supremely cool to my 10 year old self. There was an elevator ride to the top too.

Cybsled · Mar 4, 2017

Von Braun had always gone on record that the Saturn seemed like overkill for the moon because he was thinking ahead to a Mars mission.

Scoresby · Mar 4, 2017

One of my favorite landmarks from the time I lived in Huntsville, AL.

Khalan · Mar 4, 2017

Palum said:
And 50 years ago began operational use.

The fact we barely had computers back then and were able to produce them is mindblowing, rocket technology is fairly simple from a physics point of view (limited options) but it's a shame 50 years later we are basically using the same shit.

Cybsled · Mar 4, 2017

Which is why private industry getting into pushing the envelope is exciting. If they can monetize it well enough, then the rotating whims of shitheads in Congress/The White House won't matter as much (because they will be on the dole like they are to other major industries lol)

The Astronomy Thread

Bearded Ape

what Suineg set it to

I got Tuco'd!

I got Tuco'd!

scientia potentia est

I think your wife's a bigfoot gus.

I'm With HER ♀

Trump's Staff

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Hungry Ogre

> Than U

I think your wife's a bigfoot gus.

Trakanon Raider

Marine Biologist

what Suineg set it to

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Trakanon Raider

Trakanon Raider

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider