Recent comments in /f/space
ioncloud9 t1_jc819fr wrote
Reply to comment by JayR_97 in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
It would have to be moved really far up. Like around 1000km up to last decades without needing a reboost. And it would be out of control. It needs constant fuel to desaturate the reaction wheels and maintain orientation. Without that it would be spinning out of control until it broke apart. Then its a massive liability.
[deleted] t1_jc80uxm wrote
Reply to comment by ErikTheAngry in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
[removed]
DeNoodle t1_jc80ovm wrote
Sounds like relying on Russia is not a strategy to rely on.
r_not_me t1_jc7ytx1 wrote
Reply to comment by cardboardunderwear in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Dang Hollywood and their “magic”
cardboardunderwear t1_jc7ypup wrote
Reply to comment by r_not_me in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Movie magic.
The real botanist, as depicted in the documentary book, didn't do that.
monstrinhotron t1_jc7xkc0 wrote
Reply to comment by Omgninjas in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
"Why is this damp creep flirting with his weird looking sister? In space?"
[deleted] t1_jc7xeae wrote
Reply to comment by goatasaurusrex in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jc7w4x1 wrote
Reply to comment by drc84 in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
[removed]
dragonlax t1_jc7w155 wrote
Reply to comment by aRandomFox-II in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
That would require the invention of new heat shield tech, getting it up to space (it will be very heavy and horribly expensive to lift), then install it, add parachutes, flotation devices, etc. You’re talking tens of manned flights costing $100m+ each just to recycle 20+ year old tech, no use for it at all.
Omgninjas t1_jc7vyp2 wrote
Reply to comment by Winjin in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Hmmmm. Interesting.... I'll be honest I enjoyed Passengers a lot more than Valerian, but swapping the casts around would have been neat.
ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc7vjvv wrote
Waste of money, the station can be deorbited without an expensive "tug".
[deleted] t1_jc7v3zl wrote
Reply to comment by drc84 in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
[removed]
Winjin t1_jc7uu6r wrote
Reply to comment by Omgninjas in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
I saw a great argument that Passengers were released the same year and suffered from miscast too.
Hilariously, if you swapped Chris Pratt with DeHaan both movies would be elevated. The scripts and directing would still be a major pain, but DeHaan as a sad creepy passenger and Pratt the Superhero Chad would work way better.
Also the recut Passengers would've been way better. And Rihanna scenes weren't needed.
Well, overall, both movies could be better, but the miscast idea still stands.
[deleted] t1_jc7u9lu wrote
Reply to comment by MrGhris in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jc7tm9s wrote
[removed]
r_not_me t1_jc7thqc wrote
Reply to comment by MrGhris in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Wasn’t there a botanist stuck on Mars that used a hole in his glove to “Ironman” his way to the rescue ship?
Seems like we have this whole thrust thing figured out to me /s
[deleted] t1_jc7tg8k wrote
Reply to comment by urmomaisjabbathehutt in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
[removed]
Decronym t1_jc7tcye wrote
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CoM|Center of Mass| |EDL|Entry/Descent/Landing| |KSP|Kerbal Space Program, the rocketry simulator| |LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |LOX|Liquid Oxygen| |MECO|Main Engine Cut-Off| | |MainEngineCutOff podcast| |MRO|Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter| | |Maintenance, Repair and/or Overhaul| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |cislunar|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit| |perigee|Lowest point in an elliptical orbit around the Earth (when the orbiter is fastest)|
^(11 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 14 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8688 for this sub, first seen 14th Mar 2023, 17:48])
^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])
LeagueOfRobots t1_jc7tbdq wrote
Reply to comment by cowboycoco in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
You can still intercept off-plane, there are just fewer windows.
rocketmonkee t1_jc7spqi wrote
Reply to comment by Alan_Smithee_ in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
> Why can’t they just use a Cygnus to do it?
Basically, that is what the Request for Information (RFI) is asking. NASA is proposing the idea to use natural orbital decay or propulsion from the Russian Segment, then use the "space tug" to take over for the final de-orbit burn, plus any attitude and Delta-V adjustments during the final de-orbit events.
This announcement is NASA's mechanism to ask the aerospace industry what it thinks, and for the aerospace industry to give ideas.
wranglingmonkies t1_jc7snge wrote
Reply to comment by goatasaurusrex in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
That movie was beautiful, and the character design was fantastic. I like that movie because of that. The 2 characters were not great.
xylopyrography t1_jc7sjk5 wrote
Reply to comment by Ratstail91 in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
This would be so expensive.
If it's kept in space it becomes a major risk to contribute to space junk.
BassWingerC-137 t1_jc7sjg3 wrote
Reply to comment by Omgninjas in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Pinocchio would like a word
Pharisaeus t1_jc7sg48 wrote
Reply to comment by Alan_Smithee_ in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
> Why can’t they just use a Cygnus to do it?
To small. You'd need something like fully loaded ESA ATV to deliver enough delta-v. Single biggest push ISS ever got was from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler_ATV and with 4.5t of fuel (total theoretical payload capacity was 7.5t, but part of that was fuel for ISS, water and dry cargo allocation) it delivered less than 30m/s delta-v, raising orbit form 350 to 400km. Here you need about 50% more. So theoretically fully loaded with fuel it could make it. But that was the biggest resupply craft flying to the ISS.
sometimes-wondering t1_jc82avp wrote
Reply to comment by mrscott197xv1k in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Dont bring your boosters to orbit and leave your interplanetary stage in a solar orbit