Recent comments in /f/space

Blue_Lotus_Agave OP t1_ja6soj1 wrote

Reply to *Live* ~ NASA & SpaceX Crew 6 - launch to the International Space Station. by Blue_Lotus_Agave

EDIT - Abort mission for today!

24hr scrub so no further option for launch tonight. Will post the new livestream coverage on here instead, tomorrow, so if interested, keep your eye out.

Nominal launch scrub at T-00:02:23, due to tracked ground issues with tea-teb (the ignition fluid required for stage 1 & 2 to ignite and propel into Space)

50 minute fuel offload initiated. 30 minutes left. Awaiting crew access arm swing back and launch escape system disarmament (after fuel offload/detanking complete) so Crew-6 can egress the Dragon capsule.

Will update with more information, including the next launch window/opportunity.

Update - Back up Launch opportunity available on Tuesday 28th of February at 1:22 a.m. Eastern Time, (6:22 UTC), subject to change.

And change has indeed happened,

FINAL EDIT ~ Thanks to u/haruku63 for sharing the latest update from SpaceX -

'SpaceX and NASA are targeting no earlier than Thursday, March 2 for Falcon 9’s launch of Dragon’s sixth operational human spaceflight mission (Crew-6) to the International Space Station from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The instantaneous launch window is at 12:34 a.m. ET (5:34 UTC), with a backup opportunity available on Friday, March 3 at 12:11 a.m. ET (5:11 UTC).'

4

Euhn t1_ja6p0r7 wrote

Reply to comment by --BenjaminDanklin-- in Why are Most Meteorites Found in Antarctica? by ChieftainMcLeland

Because most of the objects in our solar system are on the same plane of rotation around the sun. Planets are all very closely aligned, most of the objects that could impact Earth are on a similar trajectory. If an object hits near the equator, the faster and deeper it dives into the atmosphere, generating heat and ablating itself before it hits the ground. Objects etering near the poles have a longer time to slow down in less dense atmosphere. Less likely to burn up before reaching the ground.

12

ithappenedone234 t1_ja6oadc wrote

Reply to comment by BlueKnight17c in NASA's Artemis moon program receives salute from Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin (video) by kevindavis338

> What? The first comment I replied to, I was replying to this

I know, but you’re vasilating between two phraseologies, which are both different from mine. You’ve said “to show the safety is the same as air travel.” And now you’ve said “the risk of space travel and air travel are similar?” I said “nearing.”

“Nearing” ≠ “the same as.”

“The same as” ≠ “similar.”

Your first use was an absolute comparison that I never made. Your recent phrasing of “similar” is a more fair representation of what I said, but still not right:

Spacefaring is in its tween years and is only nearing commercial travel, as it is so vastly more expensive and technologically difficult. The developmental progress of one does however parallel the other, even if spacefaring is behind the curve for the reasons stated. It took ~a decade after the Wright Flyer for the first airlines to come around. But airlines didn’t get big until ~50 years later. The first “spaceline” is yet to be, 60+ years after the first manned space flight. But we can see how the two modes of travel do relate in terms of “ability to cost” ratio.

We are only now beginning to see mass space travel as a theoretical possibility on the horizon. As the systems improve and the volume of space passengers looks to skyrocket in the mid-term, we can see that spacefaring is on a trajectory to have numbers close to where commercial air was in its tween years. That’s the “nearing“ part.

It’s not there now, but 20 years without a fatality is a good place to be to match commercial airs’ safety rating and the space passenger capacity looks like it will dwarf the current number of those that have been to space.

0