Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CC|Commercial Crew program| | |Capsule Communicator (ground support)| |ESA|European Space Agency| |LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |periapsis|Lowest point in an elliptical orbit (when the orbiter is fastest)|

^(4 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 16 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8641 for this sub, first seen 3rd Mar 2023, 03:00]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

Yes, but for new papers ADS is just a catalogue - it doesn't store the full text. Often you can get the paper's preprint on arXiv, but this can differ from the published version (in particular, it reflects the paper as it was before peer review).

"Lost a good chunk of it"

He is the richest person in the world. I don't think that hurt him. But even buying twitter to allow it to be more of a free speech platform is better than it was.

Spacex has done more for the space industry than the last 40 years prior.

Tesla started the electric car revolution. Now every company is doing it.

Oh yeah lets not forget about global internet access with Starlink, only available because of SpaceX's ability to launch multiple times a month.

We can keep going but it's clear there is no use.

>Holy shit your blatant ignorance to the Manhatten Project is astounding.

Back at you. You really think they didn't prototype an energy reactor?

>It was never considered an "accidental bomb" its entire purpose was to produce plutonium.

Wrong it used very expensive natural uranium. About 5 tons with an additional 40+ tons of uranium oxide and several truckloads of graphite. I honestly can't remember those exact details but the reactor was created prior to the bomb because it was inevitable and to test the theory that a reaction wouldn't run away indefinitely. The reactor created by the Manhattan project ran for about a year before being moved and rebuilt and then ran for another decade.

I'm sure a super fan of government war craft can probably look up the specifics.

>Name a single physicist at that time that was talking about it as a inevitable fact that it would be an energy source.

Here's a nobody that applied for a patent in 1936, you clearly don't know him LEO SZILARD. I didn't have to look up his name, I didn't have to look up the timing of the patent and as I suspected it was a couple years before the Manhattan project started.

This reactor patent did come to him in a dream. It was theoretical for at least a decade with much input from the physical chemistry community as a whole.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=GB&NR=630726&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP

ADS has copies of old papers, and links to preprints of new ones on arXiv, but if you want the version of record from the journal site you generally still need a subscription.

How is he using his money to better the world? He lost a good chunk of it trying to pump and dump twitter.

SpaceX is paying him, not the other way around. He's an investor, nothing more.

Rocketlab tried air recovery but no success so far

SoaceX engineers say he is good, why you say otherwise? Is SpaceX forcing employees to speak positively?

I genuinely do not understand this weirdly innocent love of Elon Musk. I'm gonna give props to the engineers and scientists who made it happen tho

Yes, however sample size matters. The odds of having a run of 5 launches without failures is better then 10. So if both have a perfect record, but one has only flown half as much, the one with the higher number of flights is statistically more reliable

>Not a great way to fire a weapon if everyone can see what you are doing for 3 years.

I don't think they're trying to hide it. Did you skip past the part where I said putting them in lunar orbit? It would take a push of the button at precisely the right time to send one to earth. Once they've been reduced to the appropriate size for the deviation they want to cause.

Even worse is if I'm wrong and a government isn't behind it but a terrorist. I'm telling you any perceived good is outweighed by the inevitable bad.

[removed]

Yea shame on him for wanting to make money and use it to better the world!

Suppose I need an /s here.

What SpaceX has accomplished says nothing about Musk, except that he'll profit off of it. That's what he's there for.

Same. I was working at cape Canaveral then. Got a picture with the rocket and a tour of the drone ship they land the rocket on.

In what world was Fermi's research into weak interaction based upon it's use??

>In fact so many people were talking about it as a use for an energy source that it seemed like a universal inevitable conclusion to Fermi's findings and therefore it would likely be impossible to point at who said clean energy first.

Name a single physicist at that time that was talking about it as a inevitable fact that it would be an energy source. Again proving you don't even read the links you post as both Einstein and Bohr didn't even think it was possible to utilize the atom practically for quite a long time.

>Should I point out that your favorite weapon making project first produced an energy reactor? Probably not because you don't think clean energy was the focus of the discovery before the government tried to weaponize it. In fact many at the time were saying that an energy reactor could cause it to be an accidental bomb which is what peeked the war machine's interest into turning it into an on purpose bomb.

Holy shit your blatant ignorance to the Manhatten Project is astounding. The prospect of an atomic weapon was literally why the Manhattan Project was started. Have you ever even read the Einstein-Szilard letter?

And in regards to the nuclear reactor it was one of 5 options to make fissile material. It was never considered an "accidental bomb" its entire purpose was to produce plutonium. How do you confidently say so many blatantly false things?

Not only the reuse capability, but it also keeps the oceans a bit cleaner. Win-win!

That many?! Wow! it’s crazy how little you hear about something this awesome. I guess its not “exciting” enough for more coverage unless something goes wrong O.o

"U.K. government addresses publishing crisis by making publishing even more elitist" is so in-character that it sounds like a parody headline.

"U.S. government approves merger of all scientific journals under Rupert Murdoch," is definitely the next thing we'll be hearing.

You make some good points.

This is not what they did however. They didn't aim an asteroid anywhere. They caused it to change its orbit.

Yes you can move an asteroid to orbit a planet, but it will take years to do this. Making several minor adjustments over a long period of time. Not a great way to fire a weapon if everyone can see what you are doing for 3 years.

And the mill towns I've seen (I live in one that isn't one anymore) are always right next to the forest, if not in the middle. Moving huge trees is costly, you mill them as close to the source as possible and then transport the finished product to its destination.

And. If you did teach physics, I feel sorry for your students, anyone that doesn't want to see science funded shouldn't be teaching it.

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |BO|Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry)| |ESA|European Space Agency| |IAC|International Astronautical Congress, annual meeting of IAF members| | |In-Air Capture of space-flown hardware| |IAF|International Astronautical Federation| | |Indian Air Force| | |Israeli Air Force| |MECO|Main Engine Cut-Off| | |MainEngineCutOff podcast| |Roscosmos|State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia| |SSTO|Single Stage to Orbit| | |Supersynchronous Transfer Orbit| |ULA|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|

^(8 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 17 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8640 for this sub, first seen 3rd Mar 2023, 00:05]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

> You’re talking about New Shepherd, correct?

Yes. The capsule separates right after MECO. If you watch the streams you can see that the booster lands first followed by the capsule a few minutes later under parachute.

The difference in difficulty between BOs hops vs SpaceXs orbital flights is not even worth comparing. Reaching Orbit is exponentially more difficult than going up 80 miles and then falling right back down.

[removed]

>This will never be used as a weapon. It can't be.

You're saying basically it's impossible to do what they did. And you seem to also think that practice doesn't make perfect.

>I hope that you are either still in school and haven't taken basic 9th grade physics yet or have just forgotten what you have learned.

I've taught physics at a collegic level. This is barely a physics problem and more of an economic problem. We already know we can divert astroids, how much will it cost to put it where we want it?

You're probably unaware of proposals to aim astroids into a Mars orbit for mining. Mars orbit before lunar orbit just to prove we won't make accidents. Lunar orbits rather than earth orbits because we actually don't need much material back on earth. Only to replace the materials we sent to space. And of course it's an extra risk.

The idea of mining astroids in place is too dangerous and too costly as it's simply easier to bring things to the mill rather than moving mining operations so often. It's why we don't build a saw mill in every tree grove for lumber production, we move the logs to the mill.