Space In General

Grounded why? Oh, they blew up somebody's payload.
I'd say the company that made the failed part blew up someone's payload, not exactly SpaceX's fault.

2 for 2???? Really? Since returning to flight, yes, but they've tried FOUR landings, and have only kept ONE booster intact. This is EXACTLY why they should fly some test missions, to work out the issues they're having.
Umm, you must have missed the part where I specificially said "since returning from being grounded". Test missions are a waste of money and resources. Attaching the landing tests to an actual mission is far more efficient. And they are doing just that. The whole point of landing boosters is to save money, additional test flights negates that.

What happened after the landing on that last one is not "a different story." Suppose the Apollo 11 lander had folded a leg on reaching the moon, perhaps destroying the lander, but at least trapping the two astronauts with no hope of leaving the surface..... "Well, yeah, but they landed, so it worked!"
Horrible example.

It isn't "way more impressive" until it works. So far, it hasn't worked.
Oh?



I'm not saying Blue Origin is a better package than SpaceX. I'm saying their process is better, and so far, more successful.
Totally disagree and my previous posts explain why. Going straight up and straight back down is kiddie play compared to the process of landing a booster from down range.
 
Horrible example.
Why? Would it have been successful if it landed and folded a leg? You just said the last Falcon 9 landing was successful.... They can't re-use the booster, though, can they? Therefore, not successful.


One out of four is not, "Hey, look! This works!!!!" Especially when the one after that one done blowed up. (Even if it did land first.... it still failed.)

Totally disagree and my previous posts explain why. Going straight up and straight back down is kiddie play compared to the process of landing a booster from down range.

Absolutely agreed. Please count how many times I've said that it's not a useful profile. But it's exactly why it's a better engineering approach! Get the recovery process down pat, then expand on it. "Cooler" does not make better engineering.
 
You just said the last Falcon 9 landing was successful....
Exactly, the landing was successful. That's all I am saying.

"Cooler" does not make better engineering.
Go big or go home, just like I said before. I'm pretty sure SpaceX follows that philosophy, and I applaud them for that. In this day and age, if you're not doing something truly spectacular, it doesn't make headlines. If you want people to know what you are doing, you do everything in your power to make it noticeable. One of these companies is not doing that.
 
I cannot allow it to be called a planet.
Perhaps it is instead a brown dwarf?

The article linked hints that the evidence for Planet X from Brown and Batygin may be statistically weak.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...eptune-sized-planet-lurks-unseen-solar-system

Orbits_1280_PlanetX2.jpg


(DATA) JPL; BATYGIN AND BROWN/CALTECH; (DIAGRAM) A. CUADRA/SCIENCE
 
A gas giant weighing in at about 12-15 Jupiter masses has been found orbiting a star at a distance of one trillion km! :eek:
 
DK
A gas giant weighing in at about 12-15 Jupiter masses has been found orbiting a star at a distance of one trillion km! :eek:
If you were on a moon of this planet with just hobbyist equipment (telescope, cameras), would you ever know that it isn't a rogue planet?
 
Need linkies for reference.... Your distance is a tenth of a light year, 1/40th the distance to Alpha Centauri.

Re-reading, do you mean a trillion kilometers from its star? I read it as orbiting a star that's a trillion km from us. :)

That's what, 6.5 to 7 thousand AU? That would make it way out there, for sure! Almost maybe the gas giant shoulda been a star, to make a binary.
 
Need linkies for reference.... Your distance is a tenth of a light year, 1/40th the distance to Alpha Centauri.

Re-reading, do you mean a trillion kilometers from its star? I read it as orbiting a star that's a trillion km from us. :)

That's what, 6.5 to 7 thousand AU? That would make it way out there, for sure! Almost maybe the gas giant shoulda been a star, to make a binary.

Linkie for the reference!


And yes, the mass of the planet classifies it as a brown dwarf, making it a binary system.
 
Last edited:
The following from the January 28, 2016 edition of Spaceweather.com:


INTENSIFYING COSMIC RAYS:
For the past year, neutron monitors around the Arctic Circle have sensed an increasing intensity of cosmic rays. Polar latitudes are a good place to make such measurements, because Earth's magnetic field funnels and concentrates cosmic radiation there. Turns out, Earth's poles aren't the only place cosmic rays are intensifying. Spaceweather.com and the students of Earth to Sky Calculus have been launching helium balloons to the stratosphere to measure radiation, and they find the same trend over California:



In the plot, neutron monitor measurements from the University of Oulu Cosmic Ray Station are traced in red; gamma-ray/X-ray measurements over California are denoted in gray. The agreement between the two curves is remarkable. It means that the intensification of cosmic rays is making itself felt not only over the poles, but also over lower latitudes where Earth's magnetic field provides a greater degree of protection against deep space radiation.

Cosmic rays, which are accelerated toward Earth by distant supernova explosions and other violent events, are an important form of space weather. They can seed clouds, trigger lightning, and penetrate commercial airplanes. Indeed, our measurements show that someone flying back and forth across the continental USA, just once, can absorb as much ionizing cosmic radiation as 2 to 5 dental X-rays. Likewise, cosmic rays can affect mountain climbers, high-altitude drones, and astronauts onboard the International Space Station.

This type of radiation is modulated by solar activity. Solar storms and CMEs tend to sweep aside cosmic rays, making it more difficult for cosmic rays to reach Earth. On the other hand, low solar activity allows an extra dose of cosmic rays to reach our planet. Indeed, the ongoing increase in cosmic ray intensity is probably due to a decline in the solar cycle.
 
30 years ago today the space shuttle Challenger exploded. I still remember when I found out, I was in the second grade. One of the kids that was in my class, he lived right next to the school. His mom came over and told the Nun teaching our class what happened, and she told us. It's hard to believe it's been that long ago.



In 73 seconds, everything changed for Challenger

http://usat.ly/1VjeEx8
 
POLAR STRATOSPHERIC CLOUDS OVER THE UK: An outbreak of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) is underway--but not around the poles. Sky watchers are reporting the beautifully-colored clouds over the UK. David Porter photographed this specimen on Jan. 29th from his home in Turriff, Aberdeenshire:



"I saw it just before sunrise," says Porter. "The cloud was colorful and highly reflective." Rob Powell of Stonehaven, Scotland, saw them, too. "It was a lovely sunrise," he says.

Also known as "nacreous" or "mother of pearl" clouds, icy PSCs form in the lower stratosphere when temperatures drop to around minus 85ºC. High-altitude sunlight shining through tiny ice particles ~10µm wide produce bright iridescent colors by diffraction and interference. Once thought to be mere curiosities, some PSCs are now known to be associated with the destruction of ozone.

"Nacreous clouds far outshine and have much more vivid colours than ordinary iridescent clouds, which are very much poor relations and seen frequently all over the world," writes atmospheric optics expert Les Cowley. "Once seen they are never forgotten."
 
No... the small blue circle in the centre is the Solar System out to the Kuiper Belt - the larger blue circle above is a blow-up of the small blue circle so you can see it in more detail. The overlap of the presumed orbit of this supposed Planet X with the blow-up is a bit misleading, but it would be a mighty funny orbit if it could do that.
 
Dammit. I really hope that we are able to that in our lifetime.

You left out a key word, but I can kindof infer it. In the only way that's really meaningful, we did visit Ceres in our lifetime. We (humanity) has now been there. This is what we knew of Ceres as of 2015:

lQnbTTq.jpg


...and today

ceres-jpg.jpg


This is the great thing about the work going on at NASA JPL by the super awesome hardworking genius all around great people who work there... who are just awesome people that everyone should want to be like... it's exploration. Humanity has now explored Ceres, something humanity had very limited knowledge of in 2015.

I have to tell you, it was a special moment when the super awesome hardworking, attractive, rockstaresque heroes who work at JPL first captured detailed images of Iapetus in 2007

Two-Global-Images-of-Iapetus.jpg


There was a real sense of "what the hell is that?". That's what exploration is all about.
 
Impossibru. Fake.

#Flatearth. #Darksideofthemoon. # they'reallmorons!

Front lighting gives horrible photos. NASA should have ignored the scientific requirements when placing the satellite and considered the artistic aspects instead :lol:

At the very least they should have launched a huge screen and placed it next to the Earth, to get some light from the side.
 
A deeply pessimistic assessment of the future of manned missions beyond low Earth orbit:
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=47821

A rather realistic view. Folks watching science fiction TV and movies see large ships with unfathomable power and energy resources, with the ability to shoot between planets seemingly in a matter of hours. Maybe a couple of days if they want to be "realistic." Well, such ships would certainly have no micro-gravity problem, as I've read conjecture that with constant 1g acceleration, then the turn-around and 1g deceleration, the trip to Mars would be maybe 4 days.

With our technology, we have no way of sending anything anywhere at a constant 1g. We might could manage a constant micro-g with an ion engine. But at the speeds reached during that constant 1g flight, encountering a particle weighing not even a gram would obliterate the spaceship.

All we can do is boost and coast, like we've done for all the robot mission so far, say 6 months for the trip. The return trip couldn't be made for nearly two years, though, because the Earth races past Mars and goes around the other side of the sun. So they have to stay there during that time before they can even think about coming back.

We've never made anything that's supposed to stay airtight for that amount of time, with no access to resources from the nice people on the ground.

The jump in capability from a manned moon mission to a manned Mars mission might be as big as the jump from Columbus to Apollo. Maybe bigger.

Front lighting gives horrible photos. NASA should have ignored the scientific requirements when placing the satellite and considered the artistic aspects instead :lol:

At the very least they should have launched a huge screen and placed it next to the Earth, to get some light from the side.

There is a GIF of the passage of the moon across the Earth, of which that one picture is one of the frames. Let's see the flat-Earth folks refute THAT!!! :D
 
Back