The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: MaNaeSWolf on August 24, 2022, 08:37:04 PM
-
The Artemis 1 missions launches in 4 days
This is NASA's biggest rocket to date.
This is demo launch where they test all the systems before they put people in on it.
This bad boy has 2 side solid boosters and a central hydrogen + oxygen core.
Lets hope it does not blow up, it is pretty expensive.
-
Thanks for the update, I had no idea it was about to happen. I kinda lost track of it after all the testing delays. Here's a cool graphic showing he mission:
(https://i.imgur.com/4384DRY.jpg)
-
Thanks for the update, I had no idea it was about to happen. I kinda lost track of it after all the testing delays. Here's a cool graphic showing he mission:
Yeah, it has really not attracted a lot of media attention. Its also not all that exciting, its just a demo launch.
People are now used to seeing rockets land, dumping them in the ocean is barely as exciting.
-
It is a big deal. But it's not quite a big deal yet. It looks like it's going to be at least 2025 until we've done the same thing that we've done in 1969 and there's no date scheduled for when we go even further.
I don't want to shit on it too much. It is very cool but sending people to the moon or even Mars is sort of a stunt. It's not going to do much to increase our understanding of the universe.
If it were up to me I'd lean heavily on programs like the JWST and planetary rovers. Science wise I think we get more bang for our buck for those.
-
We should concentrate on deep space mining ships to augment our dwindling resources, call the first one The Nostromo.
-
It is a big deal. But it's not quite a big deal yet. It looks like it's going to be at least 2025 until we've done the same thing that we've done in 1969 and there's no date scheduled for when we go even further.
I don't want to shit on it too much. It is very cool but sending people to the moon or even Mars is sort of a stunt. It's not going to do much to increase our understanding of the universe.
If it were up to me I'd lean heavily on programs like the JWST and planetary rovers. Science wise I think we get more bang for our buck for those.
I pretty much agree. But I think one of the ultimate goals is to establish launch capability from the Moon. Which may make it easier to get the real cosmological exploratory stuff (weapons), probes, telescopes, rovers, deadly jewish space lasers, etc., way out there more readily & easily.
But we've all seen how well that worked out on "For All Mankind".
-
The Artemis 1 missions launches in 4 days
Maybe. Last minute scrubs and other delays are quite common with these first launches for NASA.
-
It is a big deal. But it's not quite a big deal yet. It looks like it's going to be at least 2025 until we've done the same thing that we've done in 1969 and there's no date scheduled for when we go even further.
I don't want to shit on it too much. It is very cool but sending people to the moon or even Mars is sort of a stunt. It's not going to do much to increase our understanding of the universe.
If it were up to me I'd lean heavily on programs like the JWST and planetary rovers. Science wise I think we get more bang for our buck for those.
Every time you push engineers to the limit, you end up with more useful knowledge than you started.
To solve for Mars for instance, you need to work out how to efficiently turn a poisonous environment into a healthy environment with little resources of energy. Can you think of any other application for these technologies?
-
I feel like all these 'tests' is such a wasteful use of resources. Just put some mofos on it that no one will miss if things go awry but at the same time, offer a path to redemption if they can help do something up there.
Even if we just send them out to the infinite expanse to die. Maybe in a few thousand years some alien race can discover their corpses. That'll be neat.
-
I feel like all these 'tests' is such a wasteful use of resources. Just put some mofos on it that no one will miss if things go awry but at the same time, offer a path to redemption if they can help do something up there.
Even if we just send them out to the infinite expanse to die. Maybe in a few thousand years some alien race can discover their corpses. That'll be neat.
Convicts in space?
-
I feel like all these 'tests' is such a wasteful use of resources. Just put some mofos on it that no one will miss if things go awry but at the same time, offer a path to redemption if they can help do something up there.
Even if we just send them out to the infinite expanse to die. Maybe in a few thousand years some alien race can discover their corpses. That'll be neat.
Convicts in space?
They trusted them to build up and settle America and Australia..... Otherwise, why not volunteers? Plenty of idiots were super enthused about a one way trip to Mars.....
Just sign a waiver before they go. All good
Just seems so wasteful launching empty rockets
-
No we've tried that. It didn't work out so well.
(https://c.tenor.com/kRnXFLBvj_YAAAAd/superman2-superman-ii.gif)
-
Yeah, Zod busted out of the Phantom Zone mirror right quick. Probably not the best plan of attack.
One of the main reasons for Artemis One being unmanned is the reentry heat shield. Largest ever. The capsule will come in hotter and faster than anything else we've tossed up there before. So if that puppy burns up and tears apart, we'd be looking at another Apollo One debacle/tragedy/set-back.
-
It is a big deal. But it's not quite a big deal yet. It looks like it's going to be at least 2025 until we've done the same thing that we've done in 1969 and there's no date scheduled for when we go even further.
I don't want to shit on it too much. It is very cool but sending people to the moon or even Mars is sort of a stunt. It's not going to do much to increase our understanding of the universe.
If it were up to me I'd lean heavily on programs like the JWST and planetary rovers. Science wise I think we get more bang for our buck for those.
Every time you push engineers to the limit, you end up with more useful knowledge than you started.
To solve for Mars for instance, you need to work out how to efficiently turn a poisonous environment into a healthy environment with little resources of energy. Can you think of any other application for these technologies?
I think managing the environment on Earth would fall under that category. Carbon capture on a massive scale, filtering heavy metals out of the food supply, maybe even building a massive sunshade at L1 to module the amount of sunlight we get. The SLS program would probably be in line with that last one though.
Out of curiosity what's your opinion on SpaceX's Starship? It seems like it's similar to SLS.
-
I feel like all these 'tests' is such a wasteful use of resources. Just put some mofos on it that no one will miss if things go awry but at the same time, offer a path to redemption if they can help do something up there.
Even if we just send them out to the infinite expanse to die. Maybe in a few thousand years some alien race can discover their corpses. That'll be neat.
Can we put flat earthers on these one way test rockets? One way or another, there will be fewer flat earthers.
-
I think managing the environment on Earth would fall under that category. Carbon capture on a massive scale, filtering heavy metals out of the food supply, maybe even building a massive sunshade at L1 to module the amount of sunlight we get. The SLS program would probably be in line with that last one though.
The issue with only trying to solve the obvious problems is that the solutions are often in not obvious places. The process of creativity is really just mixing of old ideas together. Its nearly, if not completely impossible to come up with something that you dont have a references to. The concept is called "the adjacent possible". Solving problems that have similar overlap. E.g. Engineering a habitat on Mars could provide solutions to cleaning up pollution on earth we could never have thought of otherwise. Simply because we HAVE to think differently there to solve a somewhat similar problem.
The other issue with saying we need to solve climate instead of going to space is that the engineers want to solve space stuff. The excitement and challenge of space exploration drives a lot of people to become engineers in the first place. Its a motivator for people to solve bigger problems, that otherwise would have not gone to solve these problems. The world has more engineers working on solving carbon capture BECAUSE of space exploration. And I know quite a few people like this.
Out of curiosity what's your opinion on SpaceX's Starship? It seems like it's similar to SLS.
I mean, all rockets look kinda the same, in a similar way that aircraft do. The physics drives the form.
But its a totally different type of rocket in its aspirations in being fully reusable.
IF Starship works as advertised, it will completely change the world in ways people dont really understand. And not just for space nerds, but for everyone.
2 Really big things that we can expect if it works out as planned.
The European Space Agency recently released a series of studies they have been working on in developing Space Based Solar. Basically they put up MASSIVE solar panels in a very high orbit, and those panels beam energy back to earth for 24/7 zero carbon energy. But this is only possible if Starship works out, as its cost to delivering payloads into space is the real magic.
The other is a very recent announcement that SpaceX will start delivering cell phone signals down to earth. Previously you would need special equipment to recieve data from sats. As in, you can make phone calls and text, from literally any spot on the surface of the planet. But these sats are much bigger and there are a lot of them. This may not be a big deal if your in a city, but Im in Africa, I can go to areas where there are 100's of Km without signal.
There are some bigger things that will follow, but they are not announced so I cant speak of them.
-
Gentlemen, the day has come.
Prepare to tighten your sphincters to the max for the next 24 hours.
-
Info:
You can watch the Artemis 1 liftoff on Space.com, courtesy of NASA TV, starting at 6:30 a.m. EDT (1030 GMT):
-
Today's Launch Attempt Has Been Scrubbed. The CC was saying something about Engine Temperature issue.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/aug/29/artemis-scrubbed-nasa-cancels-moon-launch-engine
The next possible launch date is Friday but so far it isn't looking good since they haven't figured out the problem yet.
-
The issue with only trying to solve the obvious problems is that the solutions are often in not obvious places. The process of creativity is really just mixing of old ideas together. Its nearly, if not completely impossible to come up with something that you dont have a references to. The concept is called "the adjacent possible". Solving problems that have similar overlap. E.g. Engineering a habitat on Mars could provide solutions to cleaning up pollution on earth we could never have thought of otherwise. Simply because we HAVE to think differently there to solve a somewhat similar problem.
The other issue with saying we need to solve climate instead of going to space is that the engineers want to solve space stuff. The excitement and challenge of space exploration drives a lot of people to become engineers in the first place. Its a motivator for people to solve bigger problems, that otherwise would have not gone to solve these problems. The world has more engineers working on solving carbon capture BECAUSE of space exploration. And I know quite a few people like this.
I agree with most of this, although personally I think development of technology for space should about genuine scientific research, exploration and things that benefit society as a whole. Frivolous space tourism for the ultra rich can absolutely do one.
Out of curiosity what's your opinion on SpaceX's Starship? It seems like it's similar to SLS.
I mean, all rockets look kinda the same, in a similar way that aircraft do. The physics drives the form.
But its a totally different type of rocket in its aspirations in being fully reusable.
The space shuttle was mostly reusable. It was sadly massively expensive, but that’s largely because it was both crewed and had a massive cargo bay. Useful for some things like putting the ISS together, but simply overkill for many other things.
IF Starship works as advertised, it will completely change the world in ways people dont really understand. And not just for space nerds, but for everyone.
2 Really big things that we can expect if it works out as planned.
The European Space Agency recently released a series of studies they have been working on in developing Space Based Solar. Basically they put up MASSIVE solar panels in a very high orbit, and those panels beam energy back to earth for 24/7 zero carbon energy. But this is only possible if Starship works out, as its cost to delivering payloads into space is the real magic.
Launch costs are very far from the only technical hurdle. Notably, they need a way to safely and efficiently transmit the power to the surface. Even for a small scale test satellite.
Who knows where we’ll be by the time they are ready to deploy it on a large scale, if it’s ever feasible? There might be other low cost options. To say it all hinges on Starship seems a bit of a stretch.
The other is a very recent announcement that SpaceX will start delivering cell phone signals down to earth. Previously you would need special equipment to recieve data from sats. As in, you can make phone calls and text, from literally any spot on the surface of the planet. But these sats are much bigger and there are a lot of them. This may not be a big deal if your in a city, but Im in Africa, I can go to areas where there are 100's of Km without signal.
There are some bigger things that will follow, but they are not announced so I cant speak of them.
Frankly, I’m a little concerned about Starlink and other plans for “constellations” of tens or even hundreds of thousands of small satellites. There’s a real danger they could clog up LEO. Apparently the Tiangong space station has already had to perform an emergency maneuver to avoid a potential collision.
Also lots of astronomers are worried about them ruining the night sky.
I’m not saying they are inherently bad, but as private companies get more involved in the space industry, we need to ensure their activities are very well regulated and the likes of Musk don’t get to just do whatever they feel like.
Frankly, the massive amount of PR and hype around SpaceX in particular makes me suspicious.
-
I agree with most of this, although personally I think development of technology for space should about genuine scientific research, exploration and things that benefit society as a whole. Frivolous space tourism for the ultra rich can absolutely do one.
The first cell phones cost $25000. But super rich people bought them for the slight convienience they gave. This allowed the cell phone producers to get enough money and market feedback to invest in better cell phones. This is a formal way of distributing technology. Lots of new tech is very expensive, so you start by getting the people who can afford it interested. Space tourism helps develop technology so that more people can eventually benifit.
The space shuttle was mostly reusable. It was sadly massively expensive, but that’s largely because it was both crewed and had a massive cargo bay. Useful for some things like putting the ISS together, but simply overkill for many other things.
The space shuttle had many failures. But it was also the very first attempt at a reusable launch vehicle. The first of everything sucked. Cars, airplanes, cell phones, ext. Its only after multiple iterations that things get good. Starship will be the third reusable system after the falcon 9. It wont be the last either as there are loads of other reusable rockets being developed right now.
Launch costs are very far from the only technical hurdle. Notably, they need a way to safely and efficiently transmit the power to the surface. Even for a small scale test satellite.
Who knows where we’ll be by the time they are ready to deploy it on a large scale, if it’s ever feasible? There might be other low cost options. To say it all hinges on Starship seems a bit of a stretch.
If you cant get launch cost down, solving the other developmental issues wont matter. Everything else has been solved in principle, just not together and at scale. As mentioned earlier, starship wont be the only reusable launch vehicle, but it will be the first. No other country even has plans for anything as big yet. So at best, the next big fully reusable rocket will happen 10 years after Starship flies. But if Starship does not work out, it becomes far less likely that someone else will invest in an idea that has not proven to work.
Frankly, I’m a little concerned about Starlink and other plans for “constellations” of tens or even hundreds of thousands of small satellites. There’s a real danger they could clog up LEO. Apparently the Tiangong space station has already had to perform an emergency maneuver to avoid a potential collision.
Also lots of astronomers are worried about them ruining the night sky.
I’m not saying they are inherently bad, but as private companies get more involved in the space industry, we need to ensure their activities are very well regulated and the likes of Musk don’t get to just do whatever they feel like.
Frankly, the massive amount of PR and hype around SpaceX in particular makes me suspicious.
The US government once launched about 1 million needles into orbit to test out a communications system that they never really used. Russia, the US and China have both blown up satellites in orbit generating millions of pieces of deadly debris. All governments have been happy to dump unused rocket parts all over earths orbit. Starlink and other constellations make up not even 1% of the stuff we have put in orbit, most of it is uncontrolled trash put up by governments. Private companies are also the ones really looking into creating systems that dont leave stuff in orbit, because if LEO is unusable, then their business's fail.
Before you say that private companies need to be regulated, should we not first ask that the governments clean up their act? Who regulates governments? Because compared to the US, Russian and Chinese governments, private space companies have been angels.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/08/30/nasa-sls-launch-plans/
Okay, we're trying again this Saturday.
-
The US government once launched about 1 million needles into orbit to test out a communications system that they never really used. Russia, the US and China have both blown up satellites in orbit generating millions of pieces of deadly debris. All governments have been happy to dump unused rocket parts all over earths orbit. Starlink and other constellations make up not even 1% of the stuff we have put in orbit, most of it is uncontrolled trash put up by governments. Private companies are also the ones really looking into creating systems that dont leave stuff in orbit, because if LEO is unusable, then their business's fail.
Before you say that private companies need to be regulated, should we not first ask that the governments clean up their act? Who regulates governments? Because compared to the US, Russian and Chinese governments, private space companies have been angels.
Those needles were hair-thin lengths of copper and only lasted a short time before they deorbited and burned up.
I'm not sure why you think private companies care. These are the same private companies that have been polluting the planet in the name of short term profits since the beginning of the industrial age.
It's governments (spurred by angry people) that pass laws to stop them from dumping toxic waste in your back yard.
If Elon Musk thought creating massive amounts of space trash would make him a buck, he would do it. You think Exxon would care?
Businesses don't care if they fail or not, the CEOs just care if they get rich from stock sales before hopping to the next company to wreck.
Aw crap I'm ranting again. See you all next week. :)
-
Those needles were hair-thin lengths of copper and only lasted a short time before they deorbited and burned up.
From Wiki
- The needles were placed in medium Earth orbit at an altitude of between 3,500 and 3,800 kilometres (2,200–2,400 mi) at inclinations of 96 and 87 degrees. -
- The International Academy of Astronautics regards the experiment as the worst deliberate release of space debris -
That orbit will leave the needles in space for about a million years if not more.
I'm not sure why you think private companies care. These are the same private companies that have been polluting the planet in the name of short term profits since the beginning of the industrial age.
If you ever purchased a product from an oil company, such as petrol or plastic, then your responsible for promoting these companies that pump oil. Without you, and the governments that subsidized them, there would not have been any pollution. Governments the world round have been giving oil companies tax write offs, so im not sure why you think Governments are a better alternative.
If Elon Musk thought creating massive amounts of space trash would make him a buck, he would do it. You think Exxon would care?
The next gen starlink sats change their solar panel orientation during orbit to reduce light pollution on the ground. Because of this these sats will lose about 25% of their life time. Meaning Starlink sats cost 25% more for Elon Musk to avoid light pollution. There are no regulations forcing them to do this, its just what they are doing. How does this fit in your world view?
Businesses don't care if they fail or not, the CEOs just care if they get rich from stock sales before hopping to the next company to wreck.
Governments don't care if they work or not, the Politicians just care if they get rich from corruption and bribes before hopping to the next tax haven to wreck.
This discussion is way nuanced, and making blanket statements is a very bad way to move conversations forward.
I hope you enjoyed your rant, see you next week
-
I agree with most of this, although personally I think development of technology for space should about genuine scientific research, exploration and things that benefit society as a whole. Frivolous space tourism for the ultra rich can absolutely do one.
The first cell phones cost $25000. But super rich people bought them for the slight convienience they gave. This allowed the cell phone producers to get enough money and market feedback to invest in better cell phones. This is a formal way of distributing technology. Lots of new tech is very expensive, so you start by getting the people who can afford it interested. Space tourism helps develop technology so that more people can eventually benifit.
Are you suggesting the space tourism could be available for regular people? Or even just quite rich people? The carbon footprint would be horrendous.
Space tourism is the most wasteful use of resources I can think of. Until we’ve completely decarbonised energy supply with buckets of spare capacity, it shouldn’t be allowed.
The space shuttle was mostly reusable. It was sadly massively expensive, but that’s largely because it was both crewed and had a massive cargo bay. Useful for some things like putting the ISS together, but simply overkill for many other things.
The space shuttle had many failures. But it was also the very first attempt at a reusable launch vehicle. The first of everything sucked. Cars, airplanes, cell phones, ext. Its only after multiple iterations that things get good. Starship will be the third reusable system after the falcon 9. It wont be the last either as there are loads of other reusable rockets being developed right now.
I wouldn’t say sucked, was just really big. For some missions, like assembling the ISS, having a crewed vehicle with an enormous cargo bay was useful, but it was kind of overkill for a lot of things.
The basic principles of its reusability seemed to make more sense than boosters and vehicles landing like Thunderbird rockets though. I don’t know why no one took the concept further.
Launch costs are very far from the only technical hurdle. Notably, they need a way to safely and efficiently transmit the power to the surface. Even for a small scale test satellite.
Who knows where we’ll be by the time they are ready to deploy it on a large scale, if it’s ever feasible? There might be other low cost options. To say it all hinges on Starship seems a bit of a stretch.
If you cant get launch cost down, solving the other developmental issues wont matter. Everything else has been solved in principle, just not together and at scale. As mentioned earlier, starship wont be the only reusable launch vehicle, but it will be the first. No other country even has plans for anything as big yet. So at best, the next big fully reusable rocket will happen 10 years after Starship flies. But if Starship does not work out, it becomes far less likely that someone else will invest in an idea that has not proven to work.
Likewise, if they don’t solve the other technical issues, it won’t matter how low the launch costs are. Being “solved in principle” isn’t really good enough, and I’m not sure that’s exactly true either.
Frankly, I’m a little concerned about Starlink and other plans for “constellations” of tens or even hundreds of thousands of small satellites. There’s a real danger they could clog up LEO. Apparently the Tiangong space station has already had to perform an emergency maneuver to avoid a potential collision.
Also lots of astronomers are worried about them ruining the night sky.
I’m not saying they are inherently bad, but as private companies get more involved in the space industry, we need to ensure their activities are very well regulated and the likes of Musk don’t get to just do whatever they feel like.
Frankly, the massive amount of PR and hype around SpaceX in particular makes me suspicious.
The US government once launched about 1 million needles into orbit to test out a communications system that they never really used.
And that was one of the main drivers for the first treaty on responsible use of space.
Russia, the US and China have both blown up satellites in orbit generating millions of pieces of deadly debris.
Which should be stopped.
All governments have been happy to dump unused rocket parts all over earths orbit. Starlink and other constellations make up not even 1% of the stuff we have put in orbit, most of it is uncontrolled trash put up by governments. Private companies are also the ones really looking into creating systems that dont leave stuff in orbit, because if LEO is unusable, then their business's fail.
There are currently about 2000 Starlink satellites in orbit, but plans are to increase it to 40000. And there’s at least 6 other companies wanting to do the same. That compares to about 5000 total operational satellites in orbit now. The US Space Surveillance Network is tracking about 22000 objects in orbit, including the operational satellites. Although there are many more objects too small to track.
Anyway, I’m not just pulling my concerns out of my arse, there are several experts who cite Starlink as the current biggest collision risk, and they’re just getting started:
In August 2021, Hugh Lewis, the head of the Astronautics Research Group at the University of Southampton, U.K. and Europe's leading space debris expert, told Space.com that Starlink satellites represent the single main sources of collision risk in low Earth orbit.
According to computer models, at that time, Starlink satellites were involved every week in about 1,600 encounters between two spacecraft closer than 0.6 miles (1 kilometer). That's about 50% of all such incidents. This number rises with every new batch of satellites launched into space. By the time Starlink deploys all 12,000 satellites of its first-generation constellation it could reach 90%, Lewis said.
Lewis also expressed concerns that Starlink's operator SpaceX, a newcomer into the satellite business, is now the single most dominant player in the field whose decisions can affect safety of all operations in low Earth orbit.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
Before you say that private companies need to be regulated, should we not first ask that the governments clean up their act? Who regulates governments? Because compared to the US, Russian and Chinese governments, private space companies have been angels.
They should ALL be better regulated, through international treaties.
PS. Good to hear about the new possible launch.
-
Are you suggesting the space tourism could be available for regular people? Or even just quite rich people? The carbon footprint would be horrendous.
Space tourism is the most wasteful use of resources I can think of. Until we’ve completely decarbonised energy supply with buckets of spare capacity, it shouldn’t be allowed.
You need a better imagination. One F9 flight uses the same amount of fuel as a single international flight. Lots of celebrities and rich people fly themselves all over the world. There are a lot of much more wasteful things than rocket flights. Some rockets, such as Blue Origins current tourist ride rocket use hydrogen and oxygen only. The Starship only has CO2 and water as an emission, which is far better than airline emissions.
Every rocket launch invests in future capability that will drop costs further down the road. We are practically seeing this happen right now.
I wouldn’t say sucked, was just really big. For some missions, like assembling the ISS, having a crewed vehicle with an enormous cargo bay was useful, but it was kind of overkill for a lot of things.
The basic principles of its reusability seemed to make more sense than boosters and vehicles landing like Thunderbird rockets though. I don’t know why no one took the concept further.
The issue with the Shuttles mode of reusability is that it needed a lot of additional mass to land. Those wings where heavy and are useless in space. Starship uses lighter flaps just for control on the way down. The Space Shuttle Orbiter was very very heavy all by itself.
Its a bit like a flying car. You can make a good car, or you can make a good plane. But if you combine them you end up with a bad car that flies badly. That was the space shuttle. It was a great first attempt, but there are better ways to do it.
Likewise, if they don’t solve the other technical issues, it won’t matter how low the launch costs are. Being “solved in principle” isn’t really good enough, and I’m not sure that’s exactly true either.
There have been extensive studies done on space based solar. China is launching their first test bed later this year / next year. USA military has done massive studies on this. And now ESA is on it. All 3 of these institutes have enough confidence in the technological readiness that they are pushing forward on it. Europe specifically wants zero carbon 24/7 energy. There are a lot of technical issues to solve, but most of them are along the lines of, "how do you assemble a 4km wide solar collector in space". You solve this by launching people in space. None of them are fundamental show stoppers.
And that was one of the main drivers for the first treaty on responsible use of space.
Russia, the US and China have both blown up satellites in orbit generating millions of pieces of deadly debris.
Which should be stopped.
But it did not, because no one regulates governments. If you put all your power in governments, then you have no regulations at all. If you put your power in corporations, then at least you still have regulations from government. Your options are no regulations vs regulations.
There are currently about 2000 Starlink satellites in orbit, but plans are to increase it to 40000. And there’s at least 6 other companies wanting to do the same. That compares to about 5000 total operational satellites in orbit now. The US Space Surveillance Network is tracking about 22000 objects in orbit, including the operational satellites. Although there are many more objects too small to track.
Anyway, I’m not just pulling my concerns out of my arse, there are several experts who cite Starlink as the current biggest collision risk, and they’re just getting started:
In August 2021, Hugh Lewis, the head of the Astronautics Research Group at the University of Southampton, U.K. and Europe's leading space debris expert, told Space.com that Starlink satellites represent the single main sources of collision risk in low Earth orbit.
According to computer models, at that time, Starlink satellites were involved every week in about 1,600 encounters between two spacecraft closer than 0.6 miles (1 kilometer). That's about 50% of all such incidents. This number rises with every new batch of satellites launched into space. By the time Starlink deploys all 12,000 satellites of its first-generation constellation it could reach 90%, Lewis said.
Lewis also expressed concerns that Starlink's operator SpaceX, a newcomer into the satellite business, is now the single most dominant player in the field whose decisions can affect safety of all operations in low Earth orbit.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
Starlink sats are very low. They fly far below the ISS or Hubble. If there is a collision, they will deorbit in weeks. Everyone is scared of satellite collisions, and rightfully so. Its not cool when things break up there. But this is a problem humanity needs to figure out. Because China and Russia are also planning there multi-thousand sat constellations, and they wont care about US astronomers or collisions concern half as much as SpaceX does.
They should ALL be better regulated, through international treaties.
The US tends to avoid signing international treaties when it does not suit them. And China wont be signing anything that they dont want to either. No way to force them other than war. And I dont suspect Russia will be signing anything with the US or Europe any time soon.
So we are still back to completely unregulatable governments, or regulated private industry.
I will rather go for private industry that can be held accountable for their actions.
PS. Good to hear about the new possible launch.
Be prepared for a lot of scrubs. This is not criticism, its just rockets.
The SLS is based off the space shuttle that had about 1 scrub for every launch attempt. They got every second attempt right, so lets hope Sat goes well.
-
Are you suggesting the space tourism could be available for regular people? Or even just quite rich people? The carbon footprint would be horrendous.
Space tourism is the most wasteful use of resources I can think of. Until we’ve completely decarbonised energy supply with buckets of spare capacity, it shouldn’t be allowed.
You need a better imagination. One F9 flight uses the same amount of fuel as a single international flight. Lots of celebrities and rich people fly themselves all over the world. There are a lot of much more wasteful things than rocket flights. Some rockets, such as Blue Origins current tourist ride rocket use hydrogen and oxygen only. The Starship only has CO2 and water as an emission, which is far better than airline emissions.
A long haul international flight carrying hundreds of people, maybe. You know some people think that we should we cut down on international travel as much as possible?
But space tourism isn’t going replace travel, it’s a whole new wasteful industry that gives a few people a quick joy ride in space.
As for the fuel, starship burns kerosene, similar to aviation fuel. Hydrogen isn’t free energy, you either produce it from fossil fuels, releasing CO2 or have to put energy into electrolysis for green hydrogen.
Every rocket launch invests in future capability that will drop costs further down the road. We are practically seeing this happen right now.
Costs are going down, but there’s a limit to how much you can reduce fuel usage, governed by rocketry equation. It’s never going to not use a shit load of fuel.
I wouldn’t say sucked, was just really big. For some missions, like assembling the ISS, having a crewed vehicle with an enormous cargo bay was useful, but it was kind of overkill for a lot of things.
The basic principles of its reusability seemed to make more sense than boosters and vehicles landing like Thunderbird rockets though. I don’t know why no one took the concept further.
The issue with the Shuttles mode of reusability is that it needed a lot of additional mass to land. Those wings where heavy and are useless in space. Starship uses lighter flaps just for control on the way down. The Space Shuttle Orbiter was very very heavy all by itself.
Its a bit like a flying car. You can make a good car, or you can make a good plane. But if you combine them you end up with a bad car that flies badly. That was the space shuttle. It was a great first attempt, but there are better ways to do it.
Much simpler solution for the boosters though. But not as fancy to watch.
Likewise, if they don’t solve the other technical issues, it won’t matter how low the launch costs are. Being “solved in principle” isn’t really good enough, and I’m not sure that’s exactly true either.
There have been extensive studies done on space based solar. China is launching their first test bed later this year / next year. USA military has done massive studies on this. And now ESA is on it. All 3 of these institutes have enough confidence in the technological readiness that they are pushing forward on it. Europe specifically wants zero carbon 24/7 energy. There are a lot of technical issues to solve, but most of them are along the lines of, "how do you assemble a 4km wide solar collector in space". You solve this by launching people in space. None of them are fundamental show stoppers.
I think you might be underestimating the challenges. They might not be show stoppers, but need to be solved as much as launch costs, which takes considerable time and resources. Also, I believe automated assembly is one of the things they are working on to make it feasible large scale.
And that was one of the main drivers for the first treaty on responsible use of space.
Russia, the US and China have both blown up satellites in orbit generating millions of pieces of deadly debris.
Which should be stopped.
But it did not, because no one regulates governments. If you put all your power in governments, then you have no regulations at all. If you put your power in corporations, then at least you still have regulations from government. Your options are no regulations vs regulations.
NASA, the ESA, JSA etc don’t blow up satellites in orbit. That would be the military and the US hasn’t done it since the Cold War.
Are you suggesting we give the power of anti satellite weapons to private companies and then regulate them not to use them?
This argument makes no sense, and has nothing to do with my point, which is whether systems like Starlink present a significant risk.
There are currently about 2000 Starlink satellites in orbit, but plans are to increase it to 40000. And there’s at least 6 other companies wanting to do the same. That compares to about 5000 total operational satellites in orbit now. The US Space Surveillance Network is tracking about 22000 objects in orbit, including the operational satellites. Although there are many more objects too small to track.
Anyway, I’m not just pulling my concerns out of my arse, there are several experts who cite Starlink as the current biggest collision risk, and they’re just getting started:
In August 2021, Hugh Lewis, the head of the Astronautics Research Group at the University of Southampton, U.K. and Europe's leading space debris expert, told Space.com that Starlink satellites represent the single main sources of collision risk in low Earth orbit.
According to computer models, at that time, Starlink satellites were involved every week in about 1,600 encounters between two spacecraft closer than 0.6 miles (1 kilometer). That's about 50% of all such incidents. This number rises with every new batch of satellites launched into space. By the time Starlink deploys all 12,000 satellites of its first-generation constellation it could reach 90%, Lewis said.
Lewis also expressed concerns that Starlink's operator SpaceX, a newcomer into the satellite business, is now the single most dominant player in the field whose decisions can affect safety of all operations in low Earth orbit.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
Starlink sats are very low. They fly far below the ISS or Hubble. If there is a collision, they will deorbit in weeks. Everyone is scared of satellite collisions, and rightfully so. Its not cool when things break up there. But this is a problem humanity needs to figure out. Because China and Russia are also planning there multi-thousand sat constellations, and they wont care about US astronomers or collisions concern half as much as SpaceX does.
Incorrect, they are in orbit below most other satellites, but above the ISS and Chinese stations. You may be confusing their initial orbit with their operational orbit.
I’ve already said, I’m just as concerned about other companies doing the same thing. And I’d be equally concerned about similar plans from national agencies.
You seem to be a big fan of SpaceX and are defending it to the hilt, but I’m just talking about the general idea of putting tens or hundreds of thousands more satellites in LEO. Because a lot of experts say it’s risky. SpaceX are just ahead at the moment.
I notice you don’t say anything about the link I gave, btw.
They should ALL be better regulated, through international treaties.
The US tends to avoid signing international treaties when it does not suit them. And China wont be signing anything that they dont want to either. No way to force them other than war. And I dont suspect Russia will be signing anything with the US or Europe any time soon.
So we are still back to completely unregulatable governments, or regulated private industry.
I will rather go for private industry that can be held accountable for their actions.
The US reluctance to sign treaties it doesn’t like applies just as much to US businesses as it does to national agencies.
You seem determined to make this into a private sector vs public sector argument, as opposed to talking about the risks of this kind of system. Interesting.
PS. Good to hear about the new possible launch.
Be prepared for a lot of scrubs. This is not criticism, its just rockets.
The SLS is based off the space shuttle that had about 1 scrub for every launch attempt. They got every second attempt right, so lets hope Sat goes well.
Of course, it’s not easy.
-
Every rocket launch invests in future capability that will drop costs further down the road.
Unless you have a NASA style cost plus contract, of course.
-
Not looking too good. Hazardous hydrogen leaks apparently.
Use more PTFE tape maybe?
-
Not looking too good. Hazardous hydrogen leaks apparently.
Use more PTFE tape maybe?
It's only hazardous, because it can make things go boom when a flame/spark is present. Rockets going boom at take-off, while totally cool looking, are very bad unless they were fired by Russia into Ukraine, then it's just awesome and Karma.
-
Apparently the leak is so bad that they're having trouble pressurizing the rocket. They haven't officially called it off yet though.
-
And we're scrubbed...
We'll pick it up in October I guess.
:(
-
Probably for the best.
-
I hope you enjoyed your rant, see you next week
I did enjoy it, that's the scary part.
-
A long haul international flight carrying hundreds of people, maybe. You know some people think that we should we cut down on international travel as much as possible?
But space tourism isn’t going replace travel, it’s a whole new wasteful industry that gives a few people a quick joy ride in space.
As for the fuel, starship burns kerosene, similar to aviation fuel. Hydrogen isn’t free energy, you either produce it from fossil fuels, releasing CO2 or have to put energy into electrolysis for green hydrogen.
Space tourism is a new industry, yes. And we dont yet know what the pro's and con's of it are. A con is obviously environmental impact. The pro's could very much outweigh this in the long term.
Also, starship uses Methane, that produces CO2 and Water as an exhaust. Falcon9 uses Kerosene. Most new rockets in development are going towards methane. The SLS uses hydrogen, but the side boosters are loaded full of various toxic chemicals as it burns, so not good.
Costs are going down, but there’s a limit to how much you can reduce fuel usage, governed by rocketry equation. It’s never going to not use a shit load of fuel.
This is true until we use propellant-less methods of reaching Orbit. But this is a very long way away.
Much simpler solution for the boosters though. But not as fancy to watch.
Its not. It adds more mass at the booster stage. If you have a booster that is big enough to launch very large payloads you end up with a vehicle about the size of a A380 if not larger. The Starship Booster is about as long, but wider than the A380 Fuselage. Those wings also slow you down during launch due to friction. So less wings is better.
I think you might be underestimating the challenges. They might not be show stoppers, but need to be solved as much as launch costs, which takes considerable time and resources. Also, I believe automated assembly is one of the things they are working on to make it feasible large scale.
Automated assembly is one of the big things they need to solve yes. Including a bunch of orbital stuff. Its mostly the "how do you actually build and operate this giant thing" which is the biggest hurdle. This you can only solve, but building it. You cant build it, if you cant get it into orbit.
NASA, the ESA, JSA etc don’t blow up satellites in orbit. That would be the military and the US hasn’t done it since the Cold War.
Are you suggesting we give the power of anti satellite weapons to private companies and then regulate them not to use them?
This argument makes no sense, and has nothing to do with my point, which is whether systems like Starlink present a significant risk.
NASA, ESA et al do what the governments say they must do. Nothing more, nothing less. The only reason why NASA did not blow up the satellite, is because there was already a neat organisation that would do it for them, the Airforce.
No one should ever be blowing up sats. Its just stupid politiking.
Incorrect, they are in orbit below most other satellites, but above the ISS and Chinese stations. You may be confusing their initial orbit with their operational orbit.
I’ve already said, I’m just as concerned about other companies doing the same thing. And I’d be equally concerned about similar plans from national agencies.
You seem to be a big fan of SpaceX and are defending it to the hilt, but I’m just talking about the general idea of putting tens or hundreds of thousands more satellites in LEO. Because a lot of experts say it’s risky. SpaceX are just ahead at the moment.
I notice you don’t say anything about the link I gave, btw.
I did mention that collisions are a real risk. But you dont know how to deal with issues until you start to deal with them. We are not going to move into the future if we sh*t ourselves every time 2 sats get within 10km of each other. This is like closing down an entire highway for a single car at a time. We need to improve the accuracy of how we track and direct objects in space going forward. Like it or not, there are going to be more sats in space. SpaceX is only one of at least 5 known constellations being planned. 2 of them are government and Oneweb is backed by Europe. So the options are, figure it out, or have everyone one do it except the USA. Im fine with either actually, SpaceX just seems to have a massive head start.
And the linked article is all over the place. It covers a lot of things from 2019 to 2022, some of them already out of date. Not sure what you want me to comment on. Point to a specific thing and we can chat about that.
The US reluctance to sign treaties it doesn’t like applies just as much to US businesses as it does to national agencies.
You seem determined to make this into a private sector vs public sector argument, as opposed to talking about the risks of this kind of system. Interesting.
US business's need to comply to US regulations. And if they want international business, then they need to comply to international laws.
The reason why I am more pro private sector, especially in space is because the Private sector has been far better than the government sector in making milestones since the 80's and 90's, while doing so more economically and safer. If you want to talk risk mitigation, then you need to discuss how to regulate the various aspects of the industries. Governments dont have regulations, they wont care about the things you care about if its their own programs. It will be completely Okay to pollute all astronomy if its government owned sats. History tells us this much.
Heck, China literally drops toxic core stages on villages while their own private industry is working on reusability. What do you think would happen if CCP drops a rocket core on a village school? Oops, sorry, next launch on Tuesday. They will hang the CEO of a private company in a flash though.
-
Sorry, I should have replied after you made the effort, but I don’t really have anything else to say.
Basically I don’t believe developing space tourism for the uber wealthy is in humanity’s interests at the moment, and I have some concerns about plans to massively increase the number of satellites in orbit. That’s it really, we’ll just have to disagree.
-
We have a new date. September 27.
-
So they have a date, but its not certain if they will launch then. The flight termination system relies on a bunch of batteries which cant be replaced or charged on the pad for some really stupid reason. If the range safety officer thinks the FTS needs a battery replacement, then they may have to roll back to the hanger just for this.
This rocket is a pain.
-
So they have a date, but its not certain if they will launch then. The flight termination system relies on a bunch of batteries which cant be replaced or charged on the pad for some really stupid reason. If the range safety officer thinks the FTS needs a battery replacement, then they may have to roll back to the hanger just for this.
This rocket is a pain.
I think the complete NASA and its SLS is a pain.
-
So they have a date, but its not certain if they will launch then. The flight termination system relies on a bunch of batteries which cant be replaced or charged on the pad for some really stupid reason. If the range safety officer thinks the FTS needs a battery replacement, then they may have to roll back to the hanger just for this.
This rocket is a pain.
I think this is the latest:
The fueling test, which NASA will attempt on Wednesday (Sept. 21), will test repairs of two hydrogen leaks on the rocket, called the Space Launch System, as well as a new, slower way to fuel up the 32-story booster at Pad 389A of the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. If all goes well, NASA make its third attempt to launch the Artemis 1 SLS rocket to the moon on Sept. 27 after two false starts in recent weeks.
-
Dragon Crew launches a few days after and it takes priority. So if SLS does not launch on the 27th, its unlikely they will be able to launch again without rolling back.
And FTS is still not authorized for launch. I think NASA is just trying to get ready hoping it gets authorisation. Unfortunately, they dont pay the range safety officers.
So lots of things need to go right, lets see if it works this time round.
I do wonder if people start losing interest with all the scrubs. Will be interesting to compare the viewer count on NASA's live feeds for the different attempts.
-
Maybe it's my imagination but I'm under the impression that a lot of missions get bumped for a variety of reasons.
-
Maybe it's my imagination but I'm under the impression that a lot of missions get bumped for a variety of reasons.
Missions do get bumped all the time.
But a crewed launch usually has first priority no matter what else is happening. So in this case, SLS will get bumped to a new date if it starts getting to close to the crewed launch.
Boeings Starliner has been bumped many times, usually because there is crewed activity. But also because the keep finding new issues with starliner.
-
Maybe it's my imagination but I'm under the impression that a lot of missions get bumped for a variety of reasons.
Missions do get bumped all the time.
But a crewed launch usually has first priority no matter what else is happening. So in this case, SLS will get bumped to a new date if it starts getting to close to the crewed launch.
Boeings Starliner has been bumped many times, usually because there is crewed activity. But also because the keep finding new issues with starliner.
Why is it necessary to put crew in the SLS at all? What shall the crew do aboard?
-
Why is it necessary to put crew in the SLS at all? What shall the crew do aboard?
No crew in this one buddy. You can relax.
So they are running a fuel testing today, seems this rocket is super leaky as its leaking again, just "within tolerances". So will see how it turns out.
Turns out dealing with liquid hydrogen is hard, you'd think they would have learnt this with the Space Shuttle.
-
Why is it necessary to put crew in the SLS at all? What shall the crew do aboard?
No crew in this one buddy. You can relax.
So they are running a fuel testing today, seems this rocket is super leaky as its leaking again, just "within tolerances". So will see how it turns out.
Turns out dealing with liquid hydrogen is hard, you'd think they would have learnt this with the Space Shuttle.
I know it is unmanned. It is a one-way trip. And I was just an expert on leaking oil tankers at sea in the past and became rich due to it. Are you rich? You sound poor!
-
Why is it necessary to put crew in the SLS at all? What shall the crew do aboard?
No crew in this one buddy. You can relax.
So they are running a fuel testing today, seems this rocket is super leaky as its leaking again, just "within tolerances". So will see how it turns out.
Turns out dealing with liquid hydrogen is hard, you'd think they would have learnt this with the Space Shuttle.
I know it is unmanned. It is a one-way trip. And I was just an expert on leaking oil tankers at sea in the past and became rich due to it. Are you rich? You sound poor!
Actually, it's a round trip, at least for the unmanned crew module.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/artemis_i_3_28_22.jpg)
-
And I was just an expert on leaking oil tankers at sea in the past and became rich due to it.
What do leaking oil tankers have to do with leaking liquid hydrogen tanks?
Are you rich? You sound poor!
Are you stupid? You sound stupid!
-
I know it is unmanned. It is a one-way trip. And I was just an expert on leaking oil tankers at sea in the past and became rich due to it. Are you rich? You sound poor!
The fact that you think there is any comparison to oil and liquid hydrogen says enough about your knowledge on the matter.
And I'm not poor, I'm doing pretty well actually. But I don't place my identity on how well off I am.
Thats something you tend to do. After all these years on earth, a person would have thought you would have resolved all those daddy issues by now.
-
So looks likely that they will have to roll the SLS back to avoid the storm. If they do, launch date will then move to sometime October to November.
This rocket likes to take its time
-
Why is it necessary to put crew in the SLS at all? What shall the crew do aboard?
No crew in this one buddy. You can relax.
So they are running a fuel testing today, seems this rocket is super leaky as its leaking again, just "within tolerances". So will see how it turns out.
Turns out dealing with liquid hydrogen is hard, you'd think they would have learnt this with the Space Shuttle.
I know it is unmanned. It is a one-way trip. And I was just an expert on leaking oil tankers at sea in the past and became rich due to it. Are you rich? You sound poor!
Actually, it's a round trip, at least for the unmanned crew module.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/artemis_i_3_28_22.jpg)
looks like http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm
-
A friggin hurricane? I can't get too upset at this scrub.
-
I stumbled across this video where the guy talks a lot about the engines (I think the same ones used for the SLS) showing the "Engineering" cameras close-up footage (60mm film, which is close to IMAX's 70mm) of a shuttle launch and goes through the T-Minus 10 sequence step by step, especially all the "valve sequences" - An absolute engineering marvel!
-
I stumbled across this video where the guy talks a lot about the engines (I think the same ones used for the SLS) showing the "Engineering" cameras close-up footage (60mm film, which is close to IMAX's 70mm) of a shuttle launch and goes through the T-Minus 10 sequence step by step, especially all the "valve sequences" - An absolute engineering marvel!
You found the Famous Scott Manley!
SLS engines where a marvel, but they are stupidly expensive.
$174m per engine. Its a real shame they are going to dump these in the ocean.
-
I stumbled across this video where the guy talks a lot about the engines (I think the same ones used for the SLS) showing the "Engineering" cameras close-up footage (60mm film, which is close to IMAX's 70mm) of a shuttle launch and goes through the T-Minus 10 sequence step by step, especially all the "valve sequences" - An absolute engineering marvel!
You found the Famous Scott Manley!
SLS engines where a marvel, but they are stupidly expensive.
$174m per engine. Its a real shame they are going to dump these in the ocean.
Yeah, I've been subbed to him for a while. He has great stuff.
And yeah, I wish there was a re-useable way of keeping those things. They're gonna end up looking like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/UcUYJiU.png)
-
NASA really likes waste.
-
NASA really likes waste.
Governments.
Its never their money, its yours.
-
Pretty much. NASA especially. This perverse constraint they have to simultaneously act as a jobs program while also acting as a space exploration enterprise has got to make it way more expensive than it should be.
-
This actually has nothing to do with SLS, but its about space and still cool.
As of me posting this, there are 14 people in space. The most there has ever been at one time
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeUWSYrWAAYVq2j?format=jpg&name=large)
7 crew aboard the ISS
4 crew aboard the Crew Dragon
3 crew aboard the Tiangong Space Station
-
As of me posting this, there are 14 people in space. The most there has ever been at one time
Incorrect.
The most people in space at the same time is 19, achieved for a few minutes shortly after 15:00 UTC on 11 Dec 2021. During this brief period, the six-person crew of Blue Origin NS-19 crossed the Karman Line to join the three-person crew on the Chinese space station Tiangong and the 10 crew on the International Space Station in space.
Perhaps you meant most people in orbit at one time.
-
But the SLS is unmanned and only designed for four asstronuts to visit the Moon. One woman and three men.
-
Incorrect.
The most people in space at the same time is 19, achieved for a few minutes shortly after 15:00 UTC on 11 Dec 2021. During this brief period, the six-person crew of Blue Origin NS-19 crossed the Karman Line to join the three-person crew on the Chinese space station Tiangong and the 10 crew on the International Space Station in space.
Perhaps you meant most people in orbit at one time.
That is what I meant yes.
I dont really consider BO sub-orbital hops space, even though I can technically agree they are.
-
But the SLS is unmanned and only designed for four asstronuts to visit the Moon. One woman and three men.
The FIRST flight of the SLS is unmanned yes. Well done on paying attention.
A2 and 3 will be manned.
-
But the SLS is unmanned and only designed for four asstronuts to visit the Moon. One woman and three men.
The FIRST flight of the SLS is unmanned yes. Well done on paying attention.
A2 and 3 will be manned.
Yes, isn't fantastic to be crew on an SLS. But what's the purpose of crew when all is automatic? What shall the crew do aboard an SLS? Plant strawberries on the Moon?
-
But the SLS is unmanned and only designed for four asstronuts to visit the Moon. One woman and three men.
The FIRST flight of the SLS is unmanned yes. Well done on paying attention.
A2 and 3 will be manned.
Yes, isn't fantastic to be crew on an SLS. But what's the purpose of crew when all is automatic? What shall the crew do aboard an SLS? Plant strawberries on the Moon?
What do you have against lunar strawberries?
-
Yes, isn't fantastic to be crew on an SLS. But what's the purpose of crew when all is automatic? What shall the crew do aboard an SLS? Plant strawberries on the Moon?
Orion is to be lobbed around the moon, while attached to the gateway station. Gateway is filled to the brim with science experiments. A lot of them are automatic, but you can only do so much with automation. So they need people to run those experiments.
This is also why there are people on the ISS.
The other reason is to test medical science, which you cant do with out warm human bodies in space.
-
Yes, isn't fantastic to be crew on an SLS. But what's the purpose of crew when all is automatic? What shall the crew do aboard an SLS? Plant strawberries on the Moon?
Orion is to be lobbed around the moon, while attached to the gateway station. Gateway is filled to the brim with science experiments. A lot of them are automatic, but you can only do so much with automation. So they need people to run those experiments.
This is also why there are people on the ISS.
The other reason is to test medical science, which you cant do with out warm human bodies in space.
NASA lobs some expensive scrap around the Moon and calls it automatic science experiments. ROTFL. And look at that first warm human body on the Moon 1969 - Buzz Aldrin - today. An alcholic bum.
-
And look at that first warm human body on the Moon 1969 - Buzz Aldrin - today. An alcholic bum.
He was the second warm human body on the Moon.
And look at the Heiwa bot, it's a lone conspiracy theorist crank peddling falsehoods without evidence.
-
And look at that first warm human body on the Moon 1969 - Buzz Aldrin - today. An alcholic bum.
He was the second warm human body on the Moon.
And look at the Heiwa bot, it's a lone conspiracy theorist crank peddling falsehoods without evidence.
Well, Buzz says he was with Neal on the Moon 1969 and if you offer him a drink he will lie about it. I explain all at my popular website.
-
Still hawking your website even after multiple bans, eh?
-
Still hawking your website even after multiple bans, eh?
Not at all. Anybody can visit my web site any time free of charge. Anybody curious about my findings just have to study my web site. But take care! Spreading my info about nukes and Estonia may put you in jail at USA, Japan and Sweden, as it is military secret there for national security reasons. Don't blame me for it. It is just a crazy world.
-
Still hawking your website even after multiple bans, eh?
Not at all. Anybody can Only bots visit my web site any time free of charge. Anybody Dumbarses curious about my findings just have to study promote my shitty web spam site. But take care eat shit! Spreading my info shitty theories about nukes and Estonia may put you in jail at USA, Japan and Sweden, dementia as it is military secret there for national security reasons my ways of spreading cancer. Don't Blame me for it. It iq just a crazy shitty world.
CRAZY! How hard is it to spell "is", Heiwa?
-
Still hawking your website even after multiple bans, eh?
Not at all. Anybody can Only bots visit my web site any time free of charge. Anybody Dumbarses curious about my findings just have to study promote my shitty web spam site. But take care eat shit! Spreading my info shitty theories about nukes and Estonia may put you in jail at USA, Japan and Sweden, dementia as it is military secret there for national security reasons my ways of spreading cancer. Don't Blame me for it. It iq just a crazy shitty world.
CRAZY! How hard is it to spell "is", Heiwa?
It was just a typing error with q and s tabs close on the keyboard. Happens!
-
SLS launches in 1 day.
Well, they are attempting to launch in one day. It will probably launch closer to my 80th birthday.
-
SLS launches in 1 day.
Well, they are attempting to launch in one day. It will probably launch closer to my 80th birthday.
80...good for you man. Keep it up and keep breathing.
Though just be careful who you let see you keeping it up!
-
Ooooohhhh...
Less than 5 hours now.
-
And it's away!
Hasn't exploded yet!
-
Holy crap. It actually launched and did not blow up!
That was the second most powerful rocket to ever launch and the most powerful rocket to reach orbit.
This record will hold about a month before Starship launches, its WAY more powerful.
-
SLS launches in 1 day.
Well, they are attempting to launch in one day. It will probably launch closer to my 80th birthday.
80...good for you man. Keep it up and keep breathing.
Though just be careful who you let see you keeping it up!
Thank you, Im looking good for 80.
-
Holy crap. It actually launched and did not blow up!
That was the second most powerful rocket to ever launch and the most powerful rocket to reach orbit.
This record will hold about a month before Starship launches, its WAY more powerful.
I thought it was a bit underwhelming compared to the old Saturn V launches. I'm guessing that's because most of its power comes from the solid rocket boosters, whereas the 5 F-1 engines on the Saturn were what really impressed.
The commentary too was lacking, it didn't convey the same drama that Jack King used to conjure up.
-
Well after years of getting rocket blocked it's hard to keep up the enthusiasm.
-
Holy crap. It actually launched and did not blow up!
That was the second most powerful rocket to ever launch and the most powerful rocket to reach orbit.
This record will hold about a month before Starship launches, its WAY more powerful.
I thought it was a bit underwhelming compared to the old Saturn V launches. I'm guessing that's because most of its power comes from the solid rocket boosters, whereas the 5 F-1 engines on the Saturn were what really impressed.
The commentary too was lacking, it didn't convey the same drama that Jack King used to conjure up.
Yeah, the commentary blew. Little to no onscreen telemetry. Nothing to really get an overwhelming exuberance in terms of scale, etc. NASA should take a presentation note from SpaceX.
I saw somewhere that they have 20 some odd cameras all over the thing. Hopefully someone will cut together a whole bunch of footage together. Something like this:
-
If you want some non NASA shots, this video has a bunch.
Spectacular.
I wonder how much they paid the thousands of people who watched it to lie about it happening. >:D
-
That is awesome. That booster separation shot is amazing. Thanks for digging this up and sharing. My exuberance is now back.
(https://i.imgur.com/JWYWoz8.png)
-
We get a bigger launch in the next few weeks or months. So still time for a more enthusiastic launch with all the cool camera angles
-
We get a bigger launch in the next few weeks or months. So still time for a more enthusiastic launch with all the cool camera angles
Such a great opportunity for some flat earthers to go bring their own cameras to verify that all the footage we are seeing is real.
But for some reason they never do anything like that. Almost as if deep down they know it's going to look just like all the other real footage.