The Astronomy Thread

Ukerric

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
8,494
10,705
At the moment, it's mostly a math construct. Even if it makes some prediction about Kuyper dynamics that appear to be borne out by observations, you still need to be careful about having different models that give you those stable and weird orbits.

The paper also stresses that the parameters of the so-called 9th real planet are still relatively unfixed (meaning no one knows where to look for it at the moment), and they have no strong model for the formation of it. Extrasolar capture was not considered at all.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
29,215
48,944
Yea it should have sucked up all other planets long ago! To be fair most scientists I've read/watched seem to think the criteria are arbitrary bullshit even if they don't like Pluto being a planet.
 
Khalan

Khalan

Trakanon Raider
1,468
1,394
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
29,215
48,944
That sounds like the same thing a butthurt 2nd place Elon would say.

Oooohhhhhhhhhhhh
 
Khalan

Khalan

Trakanon Raider
1,468
1,394
If you actually read the facts you'll see it has nothing to do with Elon. One is a suborbital flight that lasts 4 minutes. One is a payload rocket that puts things into LE and Geo orbit. The thrust difference alone is 1,500,000 million vs 100,000 between the rockets. Elon pointed it out but the amazon rocket will be nothing more than a tourist attraction for rich millionaires.

Here are some other facts

Speed is Mach 3 vs Mach 7.5 for Space X
Height Reached is 124 Miles vs 62miles for Space X

The amazon rocket goes straight up and down, whereas the Space X rocket actually acheives orbit which means it has to turn completely horizontal in respect to the planet, making a return to earth much harder than letting gravity pull it straight back down.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
29,215
48,944
rrr_img_123816.jpg
rrr_img_123817.jpg
rrr_img_123818.jpg
 
Ukerric

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
8,494
10,705
Khalan_sl said:
The amazon rocket is not even comparable. It goes straight up and down basically and doesn't enter orbit or need to launch payloads into orbit. It has no long term viability besides sub orbital flights for 4 minutes then back down. It's basically a tourist rocket.
Click to expand...
But it launches, lands, and relaunches, which is going to drive down the costs of its business (space tourists). Which is the point. Reducing the cost of your space business is good.
 
Khalan

Khalan

Trakanon Raider
1,468
1,394
Ukerric_sl said:
But it launches, lands, and relaunches, which is going to drive down the costs of its business (space tourists). Which is the point. Reducing the cost of your space business is good.
Click to expand...
Sure. But no one really gives a fuck about going into sub orbital for 4 minutes and back down, we want to do useful things in space besides sending up rich people for 5 minutes.
 
Jozu

Jozu

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
6,986
6,295
The Blue Origin rocket is still awesome. Its not a payload rocket but its still capable of allowing people to see the curvature of the Earth. Its also a pretty compact operation, and once testing is over they should be able to repeat it with a fast turnaround.

It will be profitable.
 
Cybsled

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
17,409
13,923
For the short-term it will be profitable. Long term, though, any private company that can crack profitable orbital or beyond spacecraft will make the real money.
 
Szlia

Szlia

Member
6,660
1,394
I still don't understand why the don't put some system that "catches" the rocket on the barge instead of having it trying to stand with a mini tripod. If the answer is "because it needs to land on Mars" I would ask they could not land a catching platform on Mars that will stay there and use it to have rockets land and take off? Deploying a space port basically.
 
Kalaar kururuc

Kalaar kururuc

Grumpy old man
561
496
Szlia_sl said:
I still don't understand why the don't put some system that "catches" the rocket on the barge instead of having it trying to stand with a mini tripod. If the answer is "because it needs to land on Mars" I would ask they could not land a catching platform on Mars that will stay there and use it to have rockets land and take off? Deploying a space port basically.
Click to expand...
My uneducated answer to that would be that if they launch a"space port" to Mars and it fails somehow then a rocket tried to land on it then not only has the rocket blown up but so has your extremely expensive landing pad. If you land a rocket and it blows up you just land the next one somewhere away from the crash site.

My second guess would be that it's already bloody difficult to land a rocket on a barge sized object after only going into LEO and back. Imagine trying to land that same rocket on the same sized patch of ground on Mars, but then not only on that small barge sized patch but on a very small area within that barge so as to allow clamping mechanisms to grab hold.

And that's ignoring the actual cost of getting a decent sized landing pad there in the first place. Maybe that becomes possible once you have folks there and can churn out a concrete pad using in-situ materials.

edit: just noticed I typed their instead of there and it bothered me!
 
LachiusTZ

LachiusTZ

Rogue Deathwalker Box
<Silver Donator>
14,472
27,162
From that video, it looked like they landed that fucking thing on a DIME.

I wonder how far off of PERFECT that landing was . . . inches?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.