Recent comments in /f/space

Gh0sth4nd t1_j9a5dbg wrote

Reply to The Tadpole galaxy by Hubble, Its eye-catching tail is about 280,000 light-years long. Also known as UGC 10214 and Arp 188, it is a disrupted barred spiral galaxy located 420 million light-years from Earth in the northern constellation Draco. Credit Image: NASA/ESA/HST/STScI. by Davicho77

420 million lightyears an unimaginable distance

i wonder if someone from a far away galaxy is looking at the milky way and wonders if the alien life they are looking for is there to find

2

wowsosquare t1_j99y89i wrote

Reply to comment by Kossimer in The Tadpole galaxy by Hubble, Its eye-catching tail is about 280,000 light-years long. Also known as UGC 10214 and Arp 188, it is a disrupted barred spiral galaxy located 420 million light-years from Earth in the northern constellation Draco. Credit Image: NASA/ESA/HST/STScI. by Davicho77

What about all the dust and hydrogen that's in the interstellar medium and maybe More dense in solar aysi... could the relative speeds of colliding galaxies give you all those dangerous effects of traveling at high speeds?

1

HappyMaskSalesPerson t1_j99xtff wrote

Reply to comment by DeanXeL in The Tadpole galaxy by Hubble, Its eye-catching tail is about 280,000 light-years long. Also known as UGC 10214 and Arp 188, it is a disrupted barred spiral galaxy located 420 million light-years from Earth in the northern constellation Draco. Credit Image: NASA/ESA/HST/STScI. by Davicho77

They started coming out shortly before my birthday and it was the best birthday present to myself to treat myself to the pics. I had been looking forward to it for quite some time

5

Kossimer t1_j99xp0w wrote

Reply to comment by wowsosquare in The Tadpole galaxy by Hubble, Its eye-catching tail is about 280,000 light-years long. Also known as UGC 10214 and Arp 188, it is a disrupted barred spiral galaxy located 420 million light-years from Earth in the northern constellation Draco. Credit Image: NASA/ESA/HST/STScI. by Davicho77

Right, almost no matter at all collides. The biggest change any star system may find is being ejected from its galaxy, but everything inside the star system keeps orbiting as normal, the planets around the star don't mind. Star formation may be invigorated by colliding and collapsing dust clouds. If life exists on a planet in a colliding galaxy, the other galaxy looming large in the sky would make observation and science virtually impossible for any part of space behind it.

3

holyrooster_ t1_j99ucyo wrote

Reply to comment by urmomaisjabbathehutt in After a decade in development, Japan’s H3 rocket is ready for its debut by DoremusJessup

> we could take the same view with other technologies like

Yes. We should look at fundamental physics when making investments.

Fusion is mostly dumb for almost all application. Most nuclear rocket engine designs are pointless and not really worth it as well.

> imho those people had been testing their technology for years but the company size and available cash is nowhere to be able to proceed with the desirable development speed

If you are proposing a design with limited upside but at least 100 the cost of a conventional design then of course you can't do that.

The reality is the Skylon project was barley more then 1950 sci-fi, to go 'full speed on development' would have cost most of the European space budget. And all for a concept that serious technical issues, a team with insufficient knowledge and experience and limited upside.

1

holyrooster_ t1_j99tm6h wrote

Reply to comment by urmomaisjabbathehutt in After a decade in development, Japan’s H3 rocket is ready for its debut by DoremusJessup

> how do we know till start developing it?

Because even the most optimistic assumptions about it, are already beaten by Falcon 9.

So if you can't even make it work on paper, how are you gone make it in real live?

> are we condemned to live with refining 1950 designs forever?

I mean you are stretching the definition of 'refining'. Starship is a just as much an upgrade over 1950 rockets then Skylon.

In fact, Skylon is actually how many people in the 1950 imagine the future, while Starship is the reality checked version of what will actually work.

> is that the best we can do?

If you want to really go invest in the future design, how about an air breathing nuclear turbofan. But I think that might cause some opposition.

You also need to consider that money is limited. Every $ going into air breathing engine isn't going into something that has potentially much greater effect. The investment done into Sabre engine would have yield far better results if it has been invested in reusable FFSC. Or something like a closed cycle expander areospike. Or many other things that that have far greater potential then Sabre.

The reality is that Sabre and Skylon are a product of a British team, a team of people that basically spend 20 years designing a bunch of paper rocket, having little experience what so with actual rocket flight operation and they came out with a concept they was so over-the-top that they thought they could get some serious research money finally.

1

Weazy-N420 t1_j99r57j wrote

Reply to comment by purchankruly in The Tadpole galaxy by Hubble, Its eye-catching tail is about 280,000 light-years long. Also known as UGC 10214 and Arp 188, it is a disrupted barred spiral galaxy located 420 million light-years from Earth in the northern constellation Draco. Credit Image: NASA/ESA/HST/STScI. by Davicho77

Or one of those close Galactic neighbors. Could you imagine seeing the whole “Great Spermatozoa” dance across your sky every night or at least seasonally?

6