Recent comments in /f/space
[deleted] t1_j29swzg wrote
Reply to comment by SelectAd1942 in SpaceX launches EROS-C3 observation satellite from Vandenberg by sasko12
[removed]
blackenswans t1_j29sq0e wrote
Reply to South Korea's test flight of solid-propellant space launch vehicle successful - ministry by Soupjoe5
Solid fuel? Military? Isn’t this just a ballistic missile pointed to the sky?
[deleted] t1_j29spm4 wrote
WittyUnwittingly OP t1_j29s599 wrote
Reply to comment by superVanV1 in What is our current "best guess" about how to observers that entered a black hole on opposite sides would look to each other once they crossed the event horizon? by WittyUnwittingly
Well, even if you took an Alcubierre drive into a singularity, once you get there, there would be no path you could choose to get back out, regardless of what speed you can go. Even if you could somehow distort space enough to "get back," when would you arrive? At the end of the universe?
Seems like your best bet for something that can go into and come out of blackhole, is something that does not obey the normal laws of causality, and can come out of a black hole before it goes in.
WittyUnwittingly t1_j29rhr0 wrote
Reply to comment by senormonje in Black hole question by Impossible_Pop620
As far as I know, everything, once it crosses the event horizon, is causally disconnected from the exterior. (I. E. There is nothing you can do from the outside, that will affect the inside)
I don't think any special physics are required to explain this other than general relativity. Any changes you make to a black hole cannot fully manifest until the end of the universe. So I guess you COULD gravitationally distort an event horizon, but from the perspective of someone inside, the distortion happens at the same time as everything else (which is all happening at once) at the end of the universe.
PandaEven3982 t1_j29r42t wrote
Reply to What is our current "best guess" about how to observers that entered a black hole on opposite sides would look to each other once they crossed the event horizon? by WittyUnwittingly
I think I'd lose consciousness right around 5G of acceleration. If I wake up, I'll send email. :-)
Kwiatkowski t1_j29qeek wrote
Reply to comment by crazydave33 in South Korea's unannounced rocket launch causes UFO scare by scot816
I guess people completely in the dark about all space stuff in general
Kwiatkowski t1_j29qbs8 wrote
Reply to comment by Naelok in South Korea's unannounced rocket launch causes UFO scare by scot816
lolwat. Can’t tell if you’re joking or not
WittyUnwittingly OP t1_j29q7yi wrote
Reply to comment by SaulsAll in What is our current "best guess" about how to observers that entered a black hole on opposite sides would look to each other once they crossed the event horizon? by WittyUnwittingly
Oh yeah, you would need some otherworldly spectroscopy to actually get any usable information from it, but that doesn't mean the information isn't there.
allthesamepieman t1_j29pqzj wrote
Reply to comment by Chiknlitesnchrome in Just back from witnessing a test firing of a rocket motor that my neighbor built by goatharper
Just because an element is part of a molecule doesn't make it a part of something else. Air is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen. You can't breathe pure water vapor, it's not air. Internal combustion engines cannot burn water vapor. If you can figure out how to burn water you'll be a billionaire and save the planet.
Ok_Damage7184 t1_j29ph8p wrote
Reply to Documentaries on Columbia shuttle? by Worthy_Planet375
Also read “Bringing Columbia Home” by Launch Director Mike Leinbach and Author Johnathan Ward. It’s the story of the days and weeks after with stories of the people behind the search in East Texas.
spymaster1020 t1_j29part wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in What is our current "best guess" about how to observers that entered a black hole on opposite sides would look to each other once they crossed the event horizon? by WittyUnwittingly
I've heard of this theory before,something about the information being spread out on the event horizon. But what about when black holes decay through hawking radiation? Does that carry away the information?
rebrait t1_j29p6b2 wrote
Reply to comment by Capricore58 in Russia may need to send a rescue mission to the International Space Station for 3 astronauts after a leak in their Soyuz capsule by A_Lazko
here we go again fit a square into a circle
Chiknlitesnchrome t1_j29oxij wrote
Reply to comment by allthesamepieman in Just back from witnessing a test firing of a rocket motor that my neighbor built by goatharper
What is water made of
H2O
O-oxygen
Steam engines need air
Oceansoul3 t1_j29ok4v wrote
Reply to Just back from witnessing a test firing of a rocket motor that my neighbor built by goatharper
If you wanna sound like you know what you are talking about, use the word "thrust" instead of impulse.
Triabolical_ t1_j29nmxo wrote
Reply to Documentaries on Columbia shuttle? by Worthy_Planet375
If you liked the documentaries, I recommend reading the full report of the investigation.
danwilan t1_j29nduu wrote
Where are ufo rights activists.. this is traumatizing
Yippeethemagician t1_j29md3i wrote
Reply to comment by dittybopper_05H in Just back from witnessing a test firing of a rocket motor that my neighbor built by goatharper
And the amazing thing is since we're just boiling water to create steam, there are so many better options besides nuclear.
allthesamepieman t1_j29m4ji wrote
Reply to comment by dittybopper_05H in Just back from witnessing a test firing of a rocket motor that my neighbor built by goatharper
That's because the nuclear part only generates the heat, it doesn't provide the motive force. A steam turbine is the motor but we don't call a steam turbine an engine either even though we could. Nuclear power is used to generate electricity which in turn powers electric motors. That's why we don't call them nuclear motors or engines. We do have some nuclear detonation propulsion engines though but they have a whole host of other problems.
dittybopper_05H t1_j29l3z9 wrote
Reply to comment by allthesamepieman in Just back from witnessing a test firing of a rocket motor that my neighbor built by goatharper
>You could build a steam engine that doesn't require air but it would still be an engine because it uses the heat expansion of water to create a motive force.
We have them today. It's called a "nuclear power plant". No one I know calls it a "nuclear engine", or a "nuclear motor", for that matter. Even when they are used for propulsive power (like for submarines and aircraft carriers).
Specialist-Look-7929 t1_j29kry9 wrote
Reply to Is anybody else concerned about the people leading us into the future of space exploration? by [deleted]
I am not concerned with it. I am just waiting to see humans land on anything outside LEO in my lifetime. I, personally, don't think we are currently capable of it and never were. I know you will all downvote me, and think I'm am idiot, but somehow we managed to land on the moon in the 60s and broadcast to the entire world from space, through radiation belts, but I can't get a cell signal 20 miles outside of a big city. Let alone same TV channel 80 miles out! Seems sus to me. Why haven't we been back to the moon since the 60s? My guess is that we never did go because we can't traverse the Van Allen Belt.
[deleted] t1_j29k1tx wrote
[deleted] t1_j29hnv4 wrote
[removed]
Reddit-runner t1_j29t2oc wrote
Reply to SpaceX launches EROS-C3 observation satellite from Vandenberg by sasko12
Pretty interesting retrograde orbit.
It's not often that you see a rocket launching due west.