Recent comments in /f/space
Fuufih t1_j9zqj9z wrote
Venus is getting a face lift. Always looking young.
[deleted] t1_j9zqfwz wrote
Reply to NASA's Artemis moon program receives salute from Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin (video) by kevindavis338
I hope he witnisses the ladning of the people. So he couod feel the joy our forefathers felt when he landed on the moon and we saw it on the TV
KeaboUltra t1_j9zprdh wrote
Reply to comment by simcoder in what's the future of space travel within the next 27 years in 2050 to 2100 by LatterCardiologist47
I cant agree with this considering the internet was a pretty big change and happened within our lifetime. Automation, combined with robotics will allow us to refine the manual world we're still transitioning from. This would be near the same level of shift as electricity had on the world. instead of people using electricity to power things and create a lot of QoL improvements (also the destruction of certain industries) so will AI automation as it becomes more refined. Despite that, I do understand your POV. I just think what constitutes as "trash" really depends on the focus of society.
People collaborate in large constitutions today all thanks to the interconnected world we now live in for the last 25-30 years. People collaborated in the past, but it's not like they could submit findings and results, etc in a digital archive and discuss them remotely and have world wide information in the palm of their hands
[deleted] t1_j9zp6qx wrote
[removed]
Xaxxon t1_j9zp0hm wrote
Reply to comment by GhettoFinger in Space Force is taking a ‘mutual fund approach’ to buying rocket launches by cnbc_official
Spacex doesn’t need nasa to fly astronauts to space.
Nasa needs spacex (or Russia) to fly astronauts to space. (More than once every couple years at least and for less than a billion dollars per person)
Spacex NEEDED nasa for sure at one point but that point has come and gone. Nasa is a great partner but is no longer required.
how_tall_is_imhotep t1_j9zoxz0 wrote
Reply to comment by Merky600 in Which space launch are you most excited for in 2023? by DealCommercial348
"Talk on the street"? That's cute, but it's just something someone made up.
GhettoFinger t1_j9zoki4 wrote
Reply to comment by Xaxxon in Space Force is taking a ‘mutual fund approach’ to buying rocket launches by cnbc_official
Yes there is, the business reason to create startship is to win even more lucrative NASA contracts. SpaceX is not a business, it’s a quasi government agency. SpaceX literally can not exist without NASA, they don’t release financials because it’s not public, but I’d be shocked if they didn’t get over 90% of their profits through NASA contracts.
SpaceX needs NASA far more than NASA needs them. The problem is that NASA is constrained through bureaucracy which makes going to space very expensive for them, so for them to do what SpaceX does would eat most of their budget. So they delegate that to SpaceX so they can allocate that budget to something more productive.
The best thing for NASA and the Space Force is to use SpaceX for the missions that need to be done that only they can do for now, while funding their competitors to help them grow, so they can also have the capabilities to do the same missions in the future. This will put massive downward pressure on SpaceX’s ability to use their position for leverage in the future and keep these corporate parasites in check.
KeaboUltra t1_j9zohef wrote
Reply to comment by carso150 in what's the future of space travel within the next 27 years in 2050 to 2100 by LatterCardiologist47
20-30 years ago people couldn't listen to music wirelessly unless they had a portable cassette player, tape, and headphones. Today, you can have access to seemingly limitless music from around the world and wirelessly beam the audio to a pair of wireless earbuds that are about the size of a dime. 5 years ago, people couldn't ask an AI to code something for them and fix the errors, now it do all that, at the level of a flawed intermediate level programmer, nor has it reached its potential yet, minimalizing a job that normally takes time to do.
Although technology focuses more on refining, people mistake that and think the evolution of tech is minimal when it literally means technology quickly evolves.
PandaEven3982 t1_j9zobzu wrote
Reply to comment by KeaboUltra in what's the future of space travel within the next 27 years in 2050 to 2100 by LatterCardiologist47
I'm s firm believer in Murphy, since engineering was my thing. We now control enough energy to affect climate the slow way. We also control enough energy to really" affect the environment a lot more significantly and faster. We are an armed, aggressive, warlike species. Shrugs. I've been thinking about EMP and fobs and l5 since the early 70s. I'll lay any money someone has tungsten rods in orbit right now.
No humanity won't decide. Not educated enough, kept artificially divided, kept artificially poor. Nope. Not without significant and probably violent change. So as to the very original question....
Edit: Not gonna be a lot of space travel except military, science and industrial concerns.
andygates2323 t1_j9znqs6 wrote
Reply to comment by Fufrasking in Which space launch are you most excited for in 2023? by DealCommercial348
> Kamen invented booster landing
Balancing ain't even half the problem.
andygates2323 t1_j9zn61t wrote
Reply to comment by rhhkeely in Which space launch are you most excited for in 2023? by DealCommercial348
Sun-impact trajectories take a lot of propellant. Burn 'em up on re-entry instead!
KeaboUltra t1_j9zmto2 wrote
Reply to comment by PandaEven3982 in what's the future of space travel within the next 27 years in 2050 to 2100 by LatterCardiologist47
Again, to repeat what I said simply. Humanity will not decide to be ready for space colonization. Nothing I'm saying to you is in opposition except to say that we will never collectively decide to change society, society will change around what we do, don't do, or achieve, therefore there's equal potential of everything. instead of trying to label me things you could just accept it as an opinion, there's no need to get agitated. I'm not arguing with you over whether or not we will overcome anything we're dealing with, optimism has nothing to do with it. I'm saying we wont be in that mindset unless the wheels of general progress hit the ground rolling, which they're already doing.
Also, you're looking at the world in black and white if you think the question boils down to who bakes or drowns first. Climate change isn't about that, It's about a changing climate that threatens how we've become accustomed to the water and environments around us that we base our society on, and the animals/humans that will suffer for it. humanity can manage the changing climate and heat, but the strife this will bring is the danger. nevertheless, that doesn't stifle human progress until a nuke, asteroid, or EMP is dropped on our heads, until that happens, an impeding moon base or a breakthrough in technology is all that's keeping us from utilizing extraterrestrial space and what with this seemingly renewed space race and activity, we could be in the beginnings of that change. Humanity doesn't need to collectively change and do better no more than the early settlers and colonizers didn't need to work together to travel the sea or explore otherwise uncharted territory.
LaplaceMonster t1_j9zlug2 wrote
Reply to Anyone out for today’s great view? by rhuwiwhx
Just walked home under it. Wow it’s beautiful with that moon too
bluetundra123 t1_j9zk0p3 wrote
Reply to Anyone out for today’s great view? by rhuwiwhx
I was lucky enough to see them on my walk to the gym yesterday!
TestCampaign t1_j9zjanh wrote
Reply to comment by DealCommercial348 in Which space launch are you most excited for in 2023? by DealCommercial348
How is it looking out each day and seeing the build and launch site?
kevindavis338 OP t1_j9ziyug wrote
Reply to comment by H-K_47 in NASA's Artemis moon program receives salute from Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin (video) by kevindavis338
That is my hope as well.
Brickleberried t1_j9zisc7 wrote
Reply to comment by ciarenni in Massive 'forbidden planet' orbits a strangely tiny star only 4 times its size. by Rifletree
Radius of a main sequence star is proportional to the mass of the star. If you know the radius, you can pretty accurately get the mass. (It depends some on age and metallicity too, but not that much, as long as it hasn't evolved to a red giant yet.)
Planets, on the other hand, don't follow the rule nearly as well, especially for gas giants. Jupiter and a brown dwarf 80x the mass of Jupiter both have the same radius.
Doc_Shaftoe t1_j9zinvr wrote
Reply to comment by 247world in NASA's Artemis moon program receives salute from Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin (video) by kevindavis338
It was a combination of the expense, a percieved victory over the Soviets, and Nixon wanting to end Kenney's legacy.
Brickleberried t1_j9zig89 wrote
Reply to comment by ThisOnePlaysTooMuch in Massive 'forbidden planet' orbits a strangely tiny star only 4 times its size. by Rifletree
The discovery is very cool. I just dislike using "size" because it's unclear and dislike using "forbidden" because it sacrifices accuracy for sounding even cooler. An accurate headline that still sounds cool(ish) would be "Massive planet orbiting small red dwarf, an extreme mass ratio that challenges planet formation". I'm sure a professional could clean that up a bit without using the word "forbidden".
But it's still a very cool discovery.
Brickleberried t1_j9zhq73 wrote
Reply to comment by GoofAckYoorsElf in Massive 'forbidden planet' orbits a strangely tiny star only 4 times its size. by Rifletree
By r^3 , sure, but if a star is 4x the radius, it's 64x the volume, so whether you meant "4x the size" meaning radius or "4x the size" meaning volume, the two are very different.
pauloh1998 t1_j9zhp03 wrote
Reply to comment by VadersSprinkledTits in Study Finds Venus’ ‘Squishy’ Outer Shell May Be Resurfacing the Planet by burtzev
And the visual of the protomolecule leaving Venus is also hauntingly beautiful. God I love that show
Dead_Or_Alive t1_j9zhoc6 wrote
Reply to comment by youknowithadtobedone in Space Force is taking a ‘mutual fund approach’ to buying rocket launches by cnbc_official
And Astra… (looks at my stocks in ASTR and RKLB) please buy some launches from Rocket Lab and Astra.
GodLovePisces t1_j9zgvaz wrote
Reply to comment by IdeasOfOne in Massive 'forbidden planet' orbits a strangely tiny star only 4 times its size. by Rifletree
So true 👍 There is so much out there, that is a mystery.
Koloristik t1_j9zge3u wrote
Reply to Anyone out for today’s great view? by rhuwiwhx
Was lucky to see them on 22 and 23 February. The only two cloudless days this month. No more clear weather expected soon. Now i just sadly look on the app at what the skies would look like if i could see them lol.
GhettoFinger t1_j9zquj7 wrote
Reply to comment by Xaxxon in Space Force is taking a ‘mutual fund approach’ to buying rocket launches by cnbc_official
NASA needed the Russians and now SpaceX to keep costs down, but they don’t need them because they’re incapable of doing it themselves. They just wouldn’t have the bandwidth to do anything else which is not sustainable or ideal for scientific research.
However, SpaceX needs NASA to exist, which is a much more desperate need. SpaceX has no other cash flows besides NASA contracts that can sustain them, except maybe starlink, but that is still operating at a loss from analysis that I’ve seen. How would SpaceX survive without NASA? I would love to see you explain this.