Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: BenRG on 11 Dec 2014, 04:47
Title: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 11 Dec 2014, 04:47
So, it's clear that we have one or two engineering/space-head types here on the forum. This is good for me as an interest in these sort of things is one of my hobbies!
I thought that I'd get things going by discussing the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning-II. Depending on whom you ask, it's either the last word in crewed air superiority fighter aircraft or, alternately, a horrible clunker that will get people killed and whose only function is to divert public funding to LM.
My view? From the start, I've had reservations about the JSF. A combination of too many chiefs, too many different roles and certain limits imposed by low-observable architectures seem to have conspired against it having good performance in any single role or reasonable combination of roles. I have no doubt that it will go into service; there is too much political capital invested in it now. However, I suspect that, somewhat like its technological predecessor, the Hawker Harrier, it will suffer somewhat for its unique capabilities and, also like the Harrier, it will suffer for costing just a little bit too much to optimise to certain roles and no-one will be willing to pay for it.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: RedWolf4 on 11 Dec 2014, 05:17
To be fair, I have heard from a few sources here and there that the American Harriers found themselves quite the niche in CAS and ground strike roles, though I suppose that was the result of design optimization.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 11 Dec 2014, 05:20
To be fair, I have heard from a few sources here and there that the American Harriers found themselves quite the niche in CAS and ground strike roles, though I suppose that was the result of design optimization.
Yeah, I was very much writing from a British perspective. Lots of good work was done in the US by McDonnell-Douglas to optimise the Harrier for the battlefield support role. Similar and even more advanced plans existed here in the UK but were never funded. However, if I get into a rant about that, I'll go way off-topic.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 11 Dec 2014, 06:01
my understanding of the f-35 is that it's supposed to be a cheaper replacement for the f-22, but that its budget has inflated over the course of the project to a point that may compromise that.
i may be misinformed though.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: ev4n on 11 Dec 2014, 07:46
The aerospace industry being what it is, the f35 was always going to be overpriced and overspec'd.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Masterpiece on 11 Dec 2014, 12:25
Waste of good money.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: ev4n on 11 Dec 2014, 12:53
Defense, civil aerospace, and space exploration always cost a lot more than people expect them to. Most of that expense is not inherently wasteful; rather, it's a large focus on safety, redundancy and environmental strain that most commercial products don't have to go through.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Dalillama on 11 Dec 2014, 13:10
The F-35 specifically is a waste of good money no matter how well designed it is or isn't, since we have no actual need for a next-generation air-superiority fighter at this time, or any time in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 11 Dec 2014, 14:09
That very much depends on how fast the Sukhoi T-50 and Shenyang J-31 start appearing on the export market.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 11 Dec 2014, 14:16
When I look at the F-35 and the cost overruns, delayed deployment etc I'm reminded of that great line from Mr. Scott "The more ye overtech the plumbing, the easier it is to block up the drain."
I think Her Majesty's Armed Forces need to cut their losses and work on a Navalised version of the Typhoon or look at Rafelle, which I believe the French are already using aboard their latest Carriers.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 11 Dec 2014, 14:23
That very much depends on how fast the Sukhoi T-50 and Shenyang J-31 start appearing on the export market.
I cannot speak for the Sukhoi, but my reading of English and Chinese language sources suggests that the J-31 can best be described as a learning exercise. Senior PLA officers have been publicly critical of the aircraft's performance.
I think Her Majesty's Armed Forces need to cut their losses and work on a Navalised version of the Typhoon or look at Rafelle, which I believe the French are already using aboard their latest Carriers.
Would that not require the UK to switch back to full-blown catapult-equipped aircraft-carriers?
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 11 Dec 2014, 14:26
I don't think so.
But even if it did, I think they're more likely to get the Queen Elizabeths OPERATIONAL quicker than waiting round for the F-35 the way THAT program is going.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 11 Dec 2014, 15:13
the f-22 is cooler anyway, vtol be damned.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 11 Dec 2014, 15:21
I'd have gone for the F-23 Black Widow, personally. Give it 2D vectored thrust engines and I'm sure it would outperform the Raptor in every significant way. I suspect that the USAF assumed that, as Lockheed Martin had developed the F-117, it made them more likely (at least in the mind of the top brass) to produce a useful finished product that Northrop.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 11 Dec 2014, 16:35
i have no idea of whether it's actually true or not, but i've heard stories that during training exercises the f-22 would sometimes fail to show up on other planes' instruments, even when the other pilots could literally see it with the naked eye.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 11 Dec 2014, 19:55
I think Her Majesty's Armed Forces need to cut their losses and work on a Navalised version of the Typhoon or look at Rafelle, which I believe the French are already using aboard their latest Carriers.
Would that not require the UK to switch back to full-blown catapult-equipped aircraft-carriers?
Yes it would. The French, like actual modern naval powers, use a proper CATOBAR system as opposed to the patently ridiculous and tactically stupid STOBAR system the Russians seem to like so much. If I was the PLN I'd be considering bringing suit against whoever in the Russian government sold us that backwards technology. Or just convincing the Politburo and PLA to take Siberia in retribution.
Some points: The French have a solitary aircraft carrier the Charles de Gaulle. As of 2013, the second French carrier, which was to be based on the original Queen Elizabeth class before the MOD got workshy and decided they weren't ready to expand into real Naval Aviation yet, has been completely canceled with no present plans for revival. The De Gaulle operates Dassault Super Étendards in the Strike Fighter role and the Rafale M model as an air superiority fighter and interdiction. It's worth nothing the Rafale M is a 95% parts commonality type with it's land based compatriots, the B and C models, but this leaves it at a bit of an odd spot in it's carrier role, as like it's land based predecessors the Rafale M is unable to fold it's wings for storage below deck, reducing total aircraft capacity significantly.
Meanwhile the United States is leaving steam powered catapults behind in favor of the new EMALS system. Which means we're shooting planes off our carriers basically via rail gun. Which is awesome. (http://www.ga.com/Websites/ga/images/products/defense/emals/emals-graphic.jpg)
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: SubaruStephen on 11 Dec 2014, 20:31
(http://www.tanyaharrisonofmars.com/philae.gif)
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 11 Dec 2014, 23:02
i'm not sorry
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: ev4n on 12 Dec 2014, 05:50
I do kind of chuckle at the people who think that cancelling a commitment to the F-35 and doing something new wouldn't somehow have huge overruns or problems. The last 30-50 years of defense aircraft procurement says otherwise.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 12 Dec 2014, 05:54
I also find a lot of the "reported" specs don't match up to what pilots, the first and loudest to complain about fucking anything, are saying. Marine Corps Harrier pilots are in love with the B model, probably because it's faster, more maneuverable and longer range with more payload capacity their current ride by a significant amount so that's a fairly easy lot to please, but from what I heard about initial sea trials for the C model Marine and Navy Hornet drivers are pretty damn pleased too, and the F-18 is a performance aircraft and a half.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 12 Dec 2014, 12:01
The thing is, the RN had the option very early on of going down the route of CATOBAR and developing it's own combat aircraft - either a development of the Typhoon or taking the plunge and going with the Navalised version of the Rafelle, but some bright spark in the DoD decided to go with the F-35.
Then you got all the chop and change that went on with the Queen Elizabeth Class during development and construction, the DoD and the Govt hemming and hawing over which projects to fund/defund, what to change etc, etc, etc, and now their lumbered with two very large ornaments in Portsmouth, which probably won't even go to sea for another year or two at best.
Can anyone remember TR-2?
Anything strike you as similar?
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 25 Dec 2014, 05:43
Okay, new topic!
SpaceX Plans to Recover First Stage of Falcon-9 Rocket! (http://spaceref.biz/company/x-marks-the-spot-falcon-9-attempts-ocean-platform-landing.html)
On the various space forums I frequent, SpaceX's plans have been a hot topic for about two years now. In essence, the first stage of the Falcon-9 launch vehicle has landing legs, variable-drag aerodynamic steering surfaces and, at least in theory, the ability to soft-land (in this case on a ocean-going barge).
Now, NASA used to recover the casings of the solid rocket motors for the Shuttle all the time. However, Elon Musk (never a guy to do things by half-measures) is proposing to land, service and re-use a first-stage rocket, a bit like how the shuttle orbiters were reused. There is one big difference, though: Musk's ultimate plan is for the turn-around service to be ultimately in airline time-scales - hours rather than the months it took for the shuttle - and also for it to be simple - just a quick once-over by the mechanics, refuel and ready to go again.
This is all very exciting because, at least in theory, it could massively bring down the cost of space flight if you could recover and reuse parts of the rocket multiple times rather than having to continually build new ones.
So, is he crazy... (no, wait, this is Elon Musk; of course he's crazy). Is this idea realistic or will it fail? What do you all think?
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 25 Dec 2014, 09:18
I think that high-speed tube thingy will come to fruition before that will.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 25 Dec 2014, 12:29
Or the Space Elevator
Which, on the whole, is a lot better idea.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: hedgie on 25 Dec 2014, 13:09
The only real down-side I can see to that idea is the Muzak on such a long ride. Well, and potentially nasty effects in case of catastrophic failure (see Heinlein's "Friday"), so it'd best placed away from population centers.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 06 Jan 2015, 03:44
Regarding SpaceX's decision to abort the launch of one of it's Falcon 9 rockets this morning.
"There's about 500,000 moving parts on this sucker. So even with a 99.9% success rate, there's still 500 failures that you have to contend with."
Times ten, for SpaceX. Nine first stage M1-D engines on the first stage and one on the second stage.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 06 Jan 2015, 04:05
The only real down-side I can see to that idea is the Muzak on such a long ride.
The downside I see with a space-elevator is that our materials technology is, I think, well short of what is required.
As for reusable rockets, it is a great idea, if in fact it can be made to work both technically and economically. If Mr. Musk's rapid-turnaround leads to a higher proportion of rockets that blow up on the launch-pad than "fresh from the factory" rockets, the overall cost, including the destruction of their payloads, insurance, cost of capital etc. will not necessarily be as low as he suggests. Bearing in mind all the hot air about private space flight, Mr. Musk's launch system will have to satisfy clients who might not be impressed by having their very expensive hardware blown to bits.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 06 Jan 2015, 09:44
That of course is why you test the idea extensively first.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 06 Jan 2015, 13:55
And why the current trend is towards Private Organisations such as Space X, Virgin Galactic etc. Been that way since the Federal Govt cut NASA's balls off.
Though I do hear there are still some good ideas floating around in JPL
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 06 Jan 2015, 15:56
Privatization was the only way space exploration was truly going to get massive.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 06 Jan 2015, 17:53
Speaking of seagoing space facilities, wasn't there some Russian organisation doing that?
Went looking for it, and here it is. Sea Launch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch)
Seems they're currently out of business though thanks to the events in the Ukraine.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 06 Jan 2015, 20:22
Privatization was the only way space exploration was truly going to get massive.
I'm dubious about that. You don't generally see the private sector funding big basic-science projects like the Large Hadron Collider for the same reason I suspect we won't see it funding space exploration: there's no foreseeable profit in it. That is not to say that the private sector can't do space stuff where there is a profit in it, like launching commercial satellites. Nor is it to deny that it might well be able efficiently to do stuff like shipping supplies to the ISS profitably, but that is sucking on the state's funding-tit just like any other government contractor who is ultimately gets paid by the taxpayer. And there is nothing new in that; the Lunar Excursion Module was built by private sector firms led by Grumman Aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#History).
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 06 Jan 2015, 21:30
Actually, there's already multiple asteroid mining firms that are developing the tech needed to push to the asteroid belt for resource extraction. http://www.planetaryresources.com/
The Private sector doesn't fund basic science projects, that's true... but the development of space flight has reached the point where where private firms can not only access space on their own, either by developing their own launch platforms or using multiple private sector launch services.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: LTK on 16 Jan 2015, 10:27
SpaceX releases video of Falcon 9’s explosive landing (http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/spacex-releases-video-of-falcon-9s-explosive-landing/)
Can we embed vines yet? :P
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 16 Jan 2015, 10:50
They found the Beagle Mars probe!
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 16 Jan 2015, 12:57
Oh?
Where was it?
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 16 Jan 2015, 13:33
On Mars.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 16 Jan 2015, 13:44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_2
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 16 Jan 2015, 15:38
Actually, there's already multiple asteroid mining firms that are developing the tech needed to push to the asteroid belt for resource extraction. http://www.planetaryresources.com/
The Private sector doesn't fund basic science projects, that's true... but the development of space flight has reached the point where where private firms can not only access space on their own, either by developing their own launch platforms or using multiple private sector launch services.
Mining asteroids isn't really space exploration; it's space exploitation.
The Age of Exploration was full of government contracted explorers {Columbus, Magellan, de Soto, Cortés} whom made the maps and subdued the locals. After the explorers came the private sector {Dutch West India Company, Hudson Bay Company, Virginia Company} to exploit the new world.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 16 Jan 2015, 23:16
They're currently looking at pushing further and harder then our governmental agencies, if they make a buck on the way I can't say I care.
In fact, you could draw comparison to all the initial flight testing, solar exploration and mapping, etc as a comparison to the age of exploration, so the time is ripe for the private sector in initial exploitation and expansion into space.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 16 Jan 2015, 23:23
Went looking for it, and here it is. Sea Launch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch)
Seems they're currently out of business though thanks to the events in the Ukraine.
Sea Launch also had a series of high-profile launch failures including a spectacular somersault off the pad. Customers ran for the hills and bankruptcy followed. Right now, the only reason it hasn't been wound up is because its investors, US and Russian alike, are searching for a way to get at least some of their money back. This was all about a year before the Ukraine thing but it makes a useful excuse for having zero activity.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 06 Mar 2015, 08:24
Dawn has reached Ceres orbit! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31754586)
I've been watching this mission with increasing interest for some time. Ceres has always piqued my interest - much larger than all the other asteroids and in an orbit that suggests that it belongs in the middle solar system (between Jupiter and Neptune) rather than the asteroid belt proper.
I, for one, can't wait but find out what those bright spots in that crater might be!
Dawn itself is a fascinating spacecraft, using solar-electric propulsion (SEP) or, more coequally 'ion drive'.
Although generating very little thrust, these engines can run continually for weeks at a time, slowly increasing or decreasing the spacecraft's velocity. Ion engines are so efficient that some theorists have suggested they could be used to propel probes to other star systems, whilst NASA and Boeing are looking seriously at powering their crewed Mars ships with clusters of thirty or more of them. Without the high efficiency of ion drive, Dawn would never have achieved its' most interesting first - the first spacecraft to orbit two different major planetary objects other than Earth.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 01 May 2015, 05:17
Has NASA Designed a Real-Life Impulse Drive? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3063082/Has-Nasa-built-WARP-DRIVE-Engineers-claim-tested-impossible-engine-travel-faster-speed-light.html)
I'm still trying to get my brain around the figures that the development team are casually throwing around about this thing. Apparently, their 'mark 2' flyable prototype can generate 3 tonnes of thrust per kilowatt of electrical power supplied. The ISS's solar arrays (which are the largest solar power array ever flown) should generate 330 tonnes of thrust or comparable to SpaceX's Falcon-9 medium-lift rocket.
Now, consider what you could do with that with no fuel limits; this thing runs so long as there is electrical power available. Attach that to a small space-going nuclear reactor and you can basically run the engine continually for decades!
It's still early days but the old Trekkie/Space Geek in me can't help but be excited!
For now, at least, NASA refuses to confirm or deny that this project exists. However, Chris Bergin, the editor of the website that broke the story, NASASpaceflight.com (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com) isn't given to accepting stories like this without a lot of confidence in the contributor. In any case, if such an engine does exist, it would be such a game-changer in terms of space flight that the development project would be blacker than night.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 01 May 2015, 13:23
Now where did I put that Omega Class Destroyer Design :-D
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: LeeC on 10 Aug 2015, 05:28
A couple of Martian photos are making waves on the internet lately.
Martian Woman (http://rack.3.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE1LzA4LzA2LzNjL21hcnNyb3ZlcmxhLjNmZDVkLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTk1MHg1MzQjCmUJanBn/150f8278/4ea/mars-rover-lady.jpg) It looks more like a ghost than an alien which sensationalists are calling it. to be honest I am sure its probably just some sand/dust being blown upward by the winds. Dust devils are common on Mars.
Martian Crab-Spider (https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/p526x296/11813399_407258876149673_5730642828996795480_n.jpg?oh=5af2007cc582bc6bef0cb5c6ec3efd96&oe=56498973) Honestly don't know what to make of this one.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: LTK on 10 Aug 2015, 06:00
So where are the original photos?
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 10 Aug 2015, 06:21
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the second picture was a fossil of the root system of something tree-like.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: LeeC on 10 Aug 2015, 06:29
They're from nasa's jet propulsion lab's mars website. Due to the large size of the pictures I am just posting a link. http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01001/mcam/1001ML0044610000305331D01_DXXX.jpg (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01001/mcam/1001ML0044610000305331D01_DXXX.jpg)
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Neko_Ali on 10 Aug 2015, 07:27
I dunno, 'The Ghosts of Mars' sounds like a pretty awesome story to me.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: LeeC on 10 Aug 2015, 07:50
It does sound fun to write a story of, but John Carpenter kind of added a bad stigma to the name for me since his movie. (http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0000/338/MI0000338030.jpg?partner=allrovi.com)
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 03 Sep 2015, 23:41
I've just learnt that the name of China's standard carrier-borne fighter, the J-15, translates into English as 'Flying Shark'. For some reason, I can't stop grinning at that. Was it because 'Sharknado' was already trademarked?
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: LeeC on 28 Sep 2015, 08:42
Water on Mars? http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/mars-nasa-science-finding-1.3246527 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/mars-nasa-science-finding-1.3246527)
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 28 Sep 2015, 18:29
Cue the "More water on Mars than in California" jokes.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 29 Sep 2015, 14:59
Just don't let Nestle get the franchise.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Jimor on 22 Dec 2015, 00:06
So this happened today. :-D
A friend was at the launch and streamed it via periscope. The crowd were cheering like mad for the landing. Wish I could have been there.
Full webcast
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 22 Dec 2015, 01:22
There were enough people who said that this literally could not be done. I'm glad to see them proved wrong.
Now comes the hard part: Doing it again and again and again until it becomes routine and about as exciting as watching an airliner land after another scheduled flight.
Looking forward to the two next launch attempts, both slated for next month: SES-9, a European communications satellite to Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) from the Cape and then Jason-3 a NASA oceanic observation satellite from Vandenberg in California.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: SubaruStephen on 24 Dec 2015, 09:31
Just listen to the crowd! :-D :-D :-D
Louder and more enthusiastic than any sports fans at a stadium. (IMO)
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 24 Dec 2015, 17:10
There were enough people who said that this literally could not be done. I'm glad to see them proved wrong.
Now that is how spaceships ought to land; on pillars of fire! <--- Space Cadet Akima.
That's a major technical achievement, and congratulations are due to the team. The rub will be the economics. Let us not forget that the Space Shuttle was supposed to usher in an era of lower-cost access to space, and ended up more expensive in terms of kilogrammes to LEO than the Saturn V. Every gramme of mass devoted to systems needed to land that first stage is a gramme of payload sacrificed. I'm sure the Falcon team has done its financial modelling, and I hope it works out in practice.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 24 Dec 2015, 17:26
They would have done Akima if the Airborne Launch Development had had the funding it required to develop
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 24 Dec 2015, 17:55
Coulda, woulda, shoulda... Everything works perfectly on paper.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: mustang6172 on 12 Apr 2016, 17:56
Stephen Hawking is backing a project to send a microprobe to Alpha Centauri.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: SubaruStephen on 12 Apr 2016, 21:11
Quote
Milner, meanwhile, is also funding the Breakthrough Message project, which will award up to $1 million in prizes to people who craft the best messages to send out to any intelligent life that may be listening.
My message is "We taste horrible and are likely poisonous."
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 28 Sep 2016, 01:36
Interplanetary Transport System
Is it crazy? Yes. Is he crazy? Yes. However, I would argue that this might, just might, be the right sort of crazy.
[edit] Basic technical power-point slides including a description of the mission profile and the projected performance of the engines (https://imgur.com/a/20nku).
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 28 Sep 2016, 02:02
I shudder to think of the complications and risk of attempting to land a rocket on its tail like that. Also, the return and landing would likely take more fuel than was required simply to get into orbit, and this fuel has to be carried there and back again (requiring extra fuel), hugely increasing the overall fuel required, and the size of the booster. Then how many one-way Mars trips would be required to carry enough materials out there for even a single trip back?
Maybe it'll happen. Maybe. But I won't be around to see it - and I don't see it becoming useful without a huge leap in technology (and even the basic physics underlying it).
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 28 Sep 2016, 02:07
I shudder to think of the complications and risk of attempting to land a rocket on its tail like that. Also, the return and landing would likely take more fuel than was required simply to get into orbit, and this fuel has to be carried there and back again (requiring extra fuel), hugely increasing the overall fuel required, and the size of the booster. Then how many one-way Mars trips would be required to carry enough materials out there for even a single trip back?
Sorry, I should have posted this before: There are some technical Powerpoint slides archived here (https://imgur.com/a/20nku). Bottom line, the ship is refuelled in Earth orbit for the flight out and on Mars's surface for the flight back (the latter being based on Dr Robert Zubrin's famous 'The Case for Mars' proposal).
You're right about landing on the launch pad, though; that's a huge risk. I expect to see that get quietly edited out in future revisions of the plan in favour of having more boosters ready to go for every mission. The returing ones can land on a separate landing pad and get rolled back over when needed.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 28 Sep 2016, 14:55
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 29 Sep 2016, 16:56
Nice 3D modelling, but that's about it.
I love the way they describe how the Alcubierre Drive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive) "works" in the present tense, when it is no more than a mathematical speculation presenting many theoretical difficulties (that I freely admit I am not competent to assess). Regardless of the physical possibility of such a method of faster-than-light travel, I am sceptical about a nuclear-powered (presumably) spacecraft that is apparently equipped with no heat radiators, and is decorated with flags fluttering in space!
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: LeeC on 22 Feb 2017, 11:24
NASA Telescope Reveals Largest Batch of Earth-Size, Habitable-Zone Planets Around Single Star (http://i.imgur.com/LvY05Te.png)
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 22 Feb 2017, 14:01
There are a string of 'but...' qualifiers to this story. The most important of which is that TRAPPIST-1 only just barely qualifies as a star so the 'habitable' planets are in orbits far tighter than Mercury's around the sun: Years measured in a few dozen solar days and which lend themselves to tidally-locked diurnal periods with baked dry deserts on one hemisphere, deep-frozen ice fields on the other and a strip of potentially-habitable surface running around the terminator (the point where the sun is just touching the horizon).
Add on top of that, the planets are going to be so close to the primary that anything alive not under several meters of rock or several dozen meters of water are going to be cooked by the star's UV- and X-frequency radiation. It isn't as bad as Proxima Centauri (Alpha Centauri C), of course. That hellstar has high enough an X-ray flux and powerful enough flare events that it literally would have boiled away the atmosphere of its one confirmed planet!
Overall, any system whose primary is of spectral class M can be crossed off the 'ET lives here' list; the combination of low output and small size make for planets that really orbit a bit too close for comfort. They could be made at least habitable if you wanted to invest in domed or underground cities but I doubt that they'd have complex native life-forms and even simple would would need to be either subterranean or deep-swimming.
No, overall, please offer me a planet in the habitable zone of a star of spectral classes K, G or the smaller variants of class A. That requires an orbit wide enough in thermal terms that the inverse square effect turns the high-frequency radiation into something less than instant death for complex biology.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Grognard on 22 Feb 2017, 19:53
after reading all the blather posted by "highly esteemed scientists", the sci-fi geek in me says: "yay. future targets for strip mining water and other valuables."
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 23 Feb 2017, 00:26
the sci-fi geek in me says: "yay. future targets for strip mining water and other valuables."
Well, first you have to deal with all those light-years...
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 23 Feb 2017, 14:51
And the Natives
If there are any and just how advanced they might be.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 28 Feb 2017, 03:26
SpaceX plans to send two space tourists around the Moon some time in 2018 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39111030).
Once again, he's crazy but it might be the right sort of crazy. With the Trump administration leaning towards scrapping the open-ended and expensive Mars objective in favour of returning to the Moon, proving that one's commercial product could handle cargo and crew delivery to cis-Lunar space is a bit of commercial good sense.
It is quite possible that Musk is planning to get his ship to the Moon in December 2018, the hemicenteniary of Apollo 8 (the first time humans had ever left the Earth's sphere of influence). It's a mostly meaningless milestone in practical terms but would have powerful symbolic value. FWIW, I consider the time-line Musk proposes is probably unachievably aggressive but I believe that this is doable by 2020.
Regarding NASA's interest in this matter, this may all feed into the possibility of a 'MoonLab' station at EML-2 for various bits of crewed exo-magnetosphere research. This is something that NASA has been toying with as it became clearer that the asteroid redirect and rendezvous mission proposal for the first crewed SLS flight wasn't generating political support. If Falcon Heavy/Dragon can prove this mission profile, then NASA have a CRS provider lined up and ready to go to support any such program. So, it is at least in their best interests to cooperate and encourage.
If SpaceX can rig up an Main Propulsion System (MPS) for the Dragon (maybe a knock-off of the pressure-fed Kestrel engine used on the small Falcon-1), it might even be useful as a crew transfer vehicle for cis-Lunar space, enabling NASA to concentrate SLS on throwing large cargoes (including Boeing's proposed ultra-simple lander) to the Moon or cis-Lunar space. As crewed Falcon Heavy will launch from LC-39A (and any NASA supporting mission will probably have NASA decals on the spacecraft), NASA will be able to claim with a straight face that it is a 'NASA vehicle and mission'.
It would be kind of ironic if the oft-derided CLV/CaLV launch profile happens after all, just with Falcon-9/-Heavy as Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and SLS as Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) instead of Ares-I and -V (Yes, I'm suggesting that Falcon-9 could launch a Lunar Dragon to LEO to meet up with the lunar lander and EUS).
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: DuneCanid on 14 Mar 2017, 22:02
I was eight years old when Armstrong took his "one small step". First time i got to stay up past 8pm.
This country does not lack the technology, or the people, or the money to go back to the moon. Even the orbital junkpile that is a Kessler event waiting to happen is not an impediment. What this country (and maybe even the planet) lack is the WILL.
This isn't worrying about falling off the edge of the world, like a fair share of Columbus's crews worried about.
The Admiral wrote about Lunar travel limited by the tech of his day. I have to think that he passed away utterly astonished that we hadn't been back. (He died in 1988.) The tech of this day and age is way more than enough to do what exploration in the past only did in limited amounts: advance parties.
It is possible to gun stuff at the moon in either fast or slow orbits and make controlled landings. And with those landings, probes could be deployed. WORKING probes, able to deploy equipment for later live crews, conduct surveys... even BUILD from lunar regolith.
These things are absolutely possible at a mere 400,000 kilometer range. Proof of that is on the surface of Mars, in the shape of the active Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity and the sadly nonfunctioning Spirit. These devices were only supposed to work for ninety days. Spirit worked for over 2000 days before failure... and Opportunity has done more than TWICE that, and is still working. This all being done with solar power, on a planet subject to dust storms, wind speeds, abrasive fines, and orbital mechanics that makes for long periods of radio down time. For the same money and launchers, I'd bet a DOZEN larger, more robust rovers could have been on the moon. And more than just science packages. Construction... and even repair of each other... or get REALLY ambitious and go to the cold war era probe sites and see how they stood the test of time.
Frustrated musings, perhaps.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Mar 2017, 00:21
Ohh, that would make me happy. I'd add another project along with the heavy construction work. If there's ice in polar craters, another good job for the robots would be to split it into hydrogen and oxygen and fill cylinders. It would be handy to having breathing materials and fuel cells ready to go when the humans arrive.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: DuneCanid on 15 Mar 2017, 07:14
Ohh, that would make me happy. I'd add another project along with the heavy construction work. If there's ice in polar craters, another good job for the robots would be to split it into hydrogen and oxygen and fill cylinders. It would be handy to having breathing materials and fuel cells ready to go when the humans arrive.
The Byrd Crater Hypothesis. Better to confirm the resource is there before building something to use it.
First thing on the moon for building should be mirrors and solar arrays. If what I saw of the Apollo data on the regolith is what I think I saw, boil out the oxygen using mirrors for heating and shade for cooling. The industrial chemical groups woefully under represented on the moon are chlorides, nitrates and hydrates
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 15 Mar 2017, 07:42
It's amazing what you can do if you decide to use human biological waste products in the area of increasing the chemical diversity of an extraterrestrial planetary body.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Case on 28 Mar 2017, 11:59
Some nostalgia for people who still remember the cold-war hype about the Soviet "Energia" and the "Buran" space-shuttle. IIRC, they even featured in some 80's SF-lit, e.g. John Shirley's Eclipse Trilogy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Trilogy) - the best Cyberpunk you never heard of ...
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 28 Mar 2017, 14:19
Poor Snowstorm! She deserved better; I'd have hoped that one of the billionaire space nerds would have bought her so she could be restored and put in a museum for future generations to admire!
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 28 Mar 2017, 18:25
Especially since she only ever got to fly once - and that was in a Remote Controlled Unmanned Test Flight I believe.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 29 Mar 2017, 23:50
I never knew that Buran meant Snowstorm... :-(
I thought the spacecraft was destroyed when her hangar fell down in a storm.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Jimor on 31 Mar 2017, 00:45
The Buran Programme wiki page has a rundown of the various craft built (many were test articles for one specific parameter) and their current state/fate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 31 Mar 2017, 01:48
In other news, SpaceX yesterday successfully flew and recovered Falcon-9 serial no. 1021 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39451401), marking the first time that the company has re-used in a full flight cycle one of its recovered Falcon-9 first stages. The mission was to launch the SES-10 communications satellite which, in a footnote, successfully reached Geostationary Transfer Orbit about 20 minutes after the historic second landing of booster 1021 on the drone ship Of Course I Still Love You.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 01 Apr 2017, 09:11
Someone at SpaceX obviously reads Iain M. Banks.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 16 Jun 2017, 15:27
On 16th June 1963 Valentina Tereshkova launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome to become the first woman in space, and one of the first two astronauts in history (I should say cosmonauts really since the other participant, Valery Bykovsky, was also Soviet) to perform an orbital rendezvous, and communicate between two vessels in space.
So I was rather surprised to read this headline: "The First Woman In Space Turns 80, And You Probably Never Heard Of Her (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/06/the-first-woman-in-space-turns-80-and-you-probably-never-heard-of-her/#507aa233ae5e)." Really? Seriously?
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 16 Jun 2017, 17:11
Gotta love American Exceptionalism
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 16 Jun 2017, 23:56
Poor Valentina has always been fated to be a name without a face and then rarely even that.
I love the way she's the namesake of the smarter of the two pilot Kerbals in Kerbal Space Program. Most fans agree that she's Jeb's Thinking Brain Copilot.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: JoeCovenant on 19 Jun 2017, 04:38
Those who matter remember her...
(IE - Us geeks! :) (And those of us born 4 days before she actually did it!) :)
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Thomas-Covenant on 10 Jul 2017, 12:47
Has anyone here any further FACTS (not political screeds, not competition talkingdown points, nor hyperoptimistic featherheaded mouthings) about the proposed SpaceX "Lunar Dragon" flight or flights?
I'd like to get out of the bottom of this Well... but I'm too bloody old. Seeing Humanity get Up High and Out Far is about as much as I can ask for and hopefully see happen.
If some of the folks here might remember a TV show back in the late 70's called SALVAGE 1... I'd love to see someone getting up in the LEOs and start catching the junk up there for salvage or just plain getting it out of the lanes. The movie GRAVITY, while not particularly my dose of diaminodiphenyl sulfone, has shown the atrocious result of cluttering up orbits and at orbital speeds. Kingman event, I think they call it. A cross between spheriical table no-gee billiards and running a minefield. Start shooting up spacecraft with large blocks of aerogel strapped to their front to start snagging the small stuff, and get VULTURE class craft up there to grab and tow the bigs, or even rework them in-situ. Sort of what SLS, did but a bit more vigorously.
Musk was talking about developing parts of Falcon Heavy to be self landing or at least retrievable. I wonder if he is gonna go sun-never-sets on SpaceX... Eastern tip of Brazil, Woomera, Heck, maybe even Galapagos. heck, it'd be stunning if he could manage coast to coast launches at the same time.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 11 Jul 2017, 00:01
Fully reusability is critical for Musk's plans for Mars colonisation. The proposed Interplanetary Transport System would require perhaps six Saturn V-class launches just to ship propellent into orbit over less than a day for every primary launch to Mars. That is impossible with any conventional rocket design. The only option is to have rockets that go up, come back down again and can be turned around airliner-style in a matter of hours.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 11 Jul 2017, 00:56
I'd have thought that Woomera (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woomera,_South_Australia) was too far south for a good launch site to LEO, assuming you wanted to launch or land in Australia. Admittedly China's Jiuquan (酒泉 pron: jio-chuen) launch facility, and Baikonur Cosmodrome are both further from the equator, but a commercial operator, unconstrained by political/nationalist considerations might want to consider one of the islands off the Cape York Peninsula, or somewhere on the north coast of Western Australia.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Torlek on 20 Jul 2017, 21:07
Woomera has been used as an orbital launch site before. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta_(rocket)) Actually, if you're shooting for polar or sun-synchronous orbits (some of both of these tend to be retrograde), a higher latitude can be helpful. Any where in South or West Australia would be horrible for any low inclination, prograde orbits though. You'd absolutely want somewhere near Cape York for that (overflight of the Solomons and New Guinea would be a problem though, best bet would probably be somewhere around Cairns or Townsville and try to shoot the gap between the Solomons and Vanuatu). You can actually be a little lax with your latitude if your target is a Hohmann transfer trajectory (you can make up some inclination error in your Earth escape burn), but launching eastward near the equator is always the best option because of the free velocity boost. As for SpaceX setting up launch sites in other countries, that's probably going to be very difficult due to ITAR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations). I'm not sure if the rocket engines are subject to the technology transfer rules since they were developed in house (though a vengeful regulator may try to put them under MTCR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Technology_Control_Regime) rules) but I know that the heat shield material on Dragon capsules is absolutely covered and I think even the fairings may be covered (yes, ITAR is kinda stupid).
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 15 Dec 2017, 07:56
The SpaceX CRS--SpX-13 mission has arrived in low Earth orbit. This is a particularly significant flight as it is the first time that NASA has allowed both a reused Falcon-9 booster and a reused Dragon Mk1 spacecraft to be used on the same mission (and the first reused Falcon-9 booster on a NASA mission) (http://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-dragon-on-reused-falcon-9/).
[EDIT] Added link to on-line trade site with more details.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 06 Feb 2018, 12:37
Falcon Heavy test flight stream, launch in about 5 minutes as of posting
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 06 Feb 2018, 15:20
Expensive way to scrap a car.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 06 Feb 2018, 15:24
The interest in the Tesla Roadster this will create may cover the estimated $90M cost of the flight!
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 06 Feb 2018, 19:27
The interest in the Tesla Roadster this will create may cover the estimated $90M cost of the flight!
I think Elon always mentioned that Tesla was a means to an end so he could put men on Mars...
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: LeeC on 07 Feb 2018, 06:30
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Jimor on 14 Feb 2018, 06:12
Some friends of mine were on site to stream and film the Falcon Heavy.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 11 Oct 2018, 05:57
Astronauts Safe After Launch Abort (http://Astronauts Safe After Launch Abort)
The crew of the Soyuz MS-10 mission (one Russian and one American bound for the International Space Station) are safe but somewhat bumped and scraped around the edges after their spacecraft's Soyuz-FG rocket exploded about two minutes into its flight into orbit. The crew were saved by the launch escape system on the Soyuz spacecraft, which separated the crew capsule from the malfunctioning booster as it broke up at about the moment of the separation of the first-stage wrap-around booster rockets from the Soyuz-FG.
Investigations by NASA and Roskosmos, the Russian Space Agency are underway and most information is embargoed. However, unconfirmed information says that one of the latches on the wrap-around booster failed, causing the booster to partially separate and crash into the central second stage of the rocket.
This comes after the confirmation by the Russian government that a hole in the upper crew compartment on the Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft was caused by 'sabotage' by person or persons unknown at the factory, who drilled the hole and filled it with epoxy that eventually 'popped out' due to the pressure in the capsule verses the vacuum outside. Russia has had a string of very high-profile space technology failures in the past few years that were traced back to production mistakes, shoddy workmanship and cost-cutting.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: LeeC on 06 Nov 2018, 07:52
"Cigar-shaped interstellar object may have been an alien probe, Harvard paper claims" I found this article on CNN this morning and I honestly do not remember this being sited in January 2018 but with a new job and a pregnant wife at the time, I wasn't looking for such stories. Looks interesting so I figured I would share.
" The theory is based on the object's "excess acceleration," or its unexpected boost in speed as it traveled through and ultimately out of our solar system in January 2018. "
I'm guessing the Vulcans didn't detect the use of warp drive from us yet and just jetted off to fuck with the Andorians again. Jeffrey Combs will not be happy.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 14 Nov 2018, 02:05
Sounds more like Rama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendezvous_with_Rama) to me.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 08 Mar 2019, 07:44
SpaceX Dragon-2 DM-1 mission splashes down in Atlantic Ocean. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47477617)
After a basically flawless flight, including a four-day stop-over at the ISS, the prototype of the Crewed Dragon spacecraft returned to Earth today in what looked like a flawless splash-down.
The next mission in the line will be the aerial abort test to confirm whether the capsule's ejection system can get the spacecraft clear of an exploding launch-vehicle. Then will come the DM-2 mission, which will be the first US-launched astronauts since the retirement of the Space Shuttle. SpX-DM2 is tentatively scheduled for July although NASA sources say it could be delayed as late as November depending on back-room work required.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: LeeC on 22 Jun 2019, 22:05
The Solar System (https://i.imgur.com/57eqR91.jpg)
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: BenRG on 30 May 2020, 14:11
Well, there were times when I never thought that we'd see the day, but it has finally happened.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 30 May 2020, 15:58
You will go to space today.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Jimor on 31 May 2020, 16:43
If you want to know why the video is unavailable, National Geographic has claimed the public domain *by U.S. Constitution* NASA live stream as its own and has had it taken down.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 01 Jun 2020, 03:05
Copyright is a strange thing; but there is copyright in a recording of a non-copyright event. Was the source of the video on YouTube a National Geographic recording of the NASA feed?
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Jimor on 01 Jun 2020, 04:24
Right, normally just creating something also embues a copyright whether the owner wants it or not, but the U.S. Constitution specifically puts all government created "documents" into the public domain for all to use, thus an official NASA broadcast (as opposed to the SpaceX life feed, which would be under copyright) is free and clear for anybody to use.
However, what probably happened is that National Geographic probably used some of that footage in some kind of news report on the matter, and then when they fed their own broadcast into YouTube's copyright fingerprinting system, it of course also fingerprinted the NASA footage within it, and then when the original NASA footage matches as a "copy" of NG's stuff, YT's system pulled it as a violation.
This is a VERY common fault in YouTube's system, and has caught several independent rocket launch streams who create their own original content with bits of NASA audio/visual feed when NBC/Universal did the same thing, flagging the NASA elements as violating *their* copyright of the NASA elements during the aborted first try of the launch a few days before.
The problem with YouTube in this respect is that 1) independent creators do not have access to this system for their own works, unless they go through some kind of content management company that has an agreement with YouTube to represent creators and seize ad revenue on their behalf, and 2) anybody who does NOT wish their work to be used to claim ad revenue of other uploaders also do not have access to this system to keep their works from being claimed by others.
Not only do you get massive numbers of accidental false positives like the NG/NASA one, but it gives a loophole for bad actors to find unclaimed material, use a shady content management company to upload it on their behalf and then illegitimately claim ad revenue knowing most people aren't going to bother to dispute. And if they DO dispute, guess who gets to arbitrate that dispute? The thieves who stole the material in the first place! And if they deny your claim, the NEXT step to get YouTube to act is to actually file a lawsuit in court, spending the filing and attorney's fees to then attempt to regain the funds.
When they do get caught, they just change their name and move on to other targets, never having to pay any price, and the content management company just says "oops, we didn't know they were thieves using our service!"
YouTube's system is massively broken, and as long as there's no consequences for false claims *at all*, it just gets worse and worse over time. (Why does that seem to be a recurring theme in today's world?)
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 01 Jun 2020, 10:45
Even cooler, we do have experience with multi-decade deep space missions. So make an ultralight nanoprobe, accelerate it with a huge laser, I mean *really* accelerate it to 0.2c, and in twenty years it's an Alpha Centauri flyby. https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/initiative/3
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 16 Mar 2022, 22:22
The conventional wisdom is that the test ban treaty put an end to Orion. Lawyers are wondering if it could be legal after all.
So there was a discussion a while back of how big a structure would need to be in order to maintain human comfort while spinning to simulate gravity. One estimate is about a kilometer for 1 g.
A space habitat one kilometre in diameter if circular, or long if it were some sort of "barbell" arrangement, would have to rotate at 1.34 RPM to generate a 1g centripetal acceleration. That's well within the estimated human comfort zone. Up to 2RPM is reckoned to be acceptable, however, and halving the diameter to 500m would give you 1g at 1.89 RPM, but with a less massive structure.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: sitnspin on 22 Mar 2022, 11:51
Mind you, that's still really big.
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 22 Mar 2022, 14:38
Sitnspin is a remarkably apposite handle for this discussion. ;)
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: hedgie on 22 Mar 2022, 17:24
Aye. I know that it has been posted here before, but here goes: "You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.”
Title: Re: Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 26 Mar 2022, 12:14
It stands for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, if it's the abbreviation you were asking about.
We have of course no real data on this, but it's conceivable that humans can stay healthy at less than a full 1 g. I hope so, otherwise the Moon and Mars colonies would face a serious problem.