Recent comments in /f/space

digifa t1_j9x2ep0 wrote

Reply to comment by Triabolical_ in After Vulcan comes online, ULA plans to dramatically increase launch cadence by OutlandishnessOk2452

Not much difference, but enough to make a difference. The Atlas has wider flexibility and more options for its fairing load than the Falcon, and both the Atlas and Delta both have very specific high-energy orbits that the Falcon cannot offer—even when it is used fully expendable. And the Delta has a slightly higher payload mass maximum. Other than that, they have their proven track record of decades of reliability.

But I have to admit after reading up on it a bit more extensively, the differences between both companies isn’t as significant as I had previously thought. ULA needs to step up or they’ll be dead in the water very soon.

3

Chimpgainz t1_j9x0b51 wrote

Reply to comment by studiocrash in What are in your opinion the scariest objects / occurrences in our universe? by SpaceCinema_

I understand how black holes are taught. I’m simply speculating without limits. I don’t know anything, and so I just think, wonder, and laugh as I explore freely the quantum potential of possibilities without limitations.

As far as I’m aware nobody describes black holes how I just speculated, especially the hollow inside. I basically was saying that black holes might actually be some piece of technology from some transcended species that figured out everything humans are not even aware to yet in physics.

I was basically saying the galaxy is a simulation and the black hole is the device that machines/ simulates the simulation known as reality. I was not calling the black hole a planet or a star.

I was comparing it to one. Basically implying no white holes exist, so no wormhole into another universe. Basically explaining that when you’re inside of it you can see everything in the galaxy all happening at once.

Meaning that on the outside it’s the size of the black hole humans can see, but on the inside it could function like something that is so massive that it seems infinite.

No different than how humans experience the universe already. Imagine holding a tennis ball. Now look at everything around you. And imagine you and everything around you, but inside that tennis ball.

Basically implying fractal geometry. I mean what we experience as the universe might be the size of a marble to whatever is containing it, and we would have no idea. Again. Pure speculation and wonder. Nothing factually accurate. Didn’t intend for it to be. I though it was obvious.

1

CromulentDucky t1_j9wv50w wrote

Reply to comment by SolomonBlack in Massive 'forbidden planet' orbits a strangely tiny star only 4 times its size. by Rifletree

There was a meteorite this week that was 'the size of a Corgi and three times the weight of an elephant.' I still don't know what that means.

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/117zuci/corgisized_meteor_as_heavy_as_4_baby_elephants/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

6

NikStalwart t1_j9wucf1 wrote

Reply to Which space launch are you most excited for in 2023? by DealCommercial348

> Which space launch are you most excited for in 2023?

Whichever one delivers the first interesting payload. At the moment, that might be Psyche on Falcon Heavy, but things might change.

Don't get me wrong, the first launch of Starship will be inherently epic. However, I have a very pragmatic/utilitarian approach to space: I am less excited by the mere fact of a thing than I am by what that thing can accomplish. The first launch of Starship will provide data. The second launch of Starship might deploy Starlink satellites. But launch data is not immediately impactful for, available to or actionable by the average human. It will take from months to years for the data from the first Starship launch to touch the lives of John Doe or Ivan Petrovich. Deploying Starlink on Starship, while impactful, isn't inherently novel. More than half of SpaceX' 60 launches last year were Starlink payloads. SpaceX has also started deploying "Starlink v1.5" satellites due to the Starship delays. The mere fact of a Starlink v2 deployment from Starship is a good proof of conquest but not inherently revolutionary.

What would get me excited is a truly novel payload that capitalizes on the Starship promise. That promise, as I understand it, is to reduce $/kg to orbit. The direct implications of reducing launch costs are that:

  • You can launch more missions;
  • With greater frequency;
  • With more capabilities; or
  • With less complexity^1.

^1 in that, being less constrained for mass and volume, you can save money by not needing to miniaturise as much.

The first launch of Starship, or, for that matter, Vulcan and New Glenn, is a promise of things to come. But, to use JavaScript terminology, a promise that hasn't yet resolved. To be sure, it is historic, but you are still awaiting the result before you can use it.

I will be most excited for the first non-demonstrator, non-Starlink launch of Starship. Even if that launch is something like a $500k rover developed by some hitherto-unknown undergrad students from an engineering college in Nowhere County. I will be excited by that launch because the promise of Starship would have resolved.

4