Recent comments in /f/space
ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8l1cf wrote
Reply to comment by rocketsocks in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
They want my money for a ground based solution not a station based solution. What they purpose is wasteful
bookers555 t1_jc8ko8l wrote
Reply to comment by Ratstail91 in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Its travelling at almost 30.000 km/h and at a height of 400km.
If you reduce its speed, it just falls to the ground, if you just reduce height, it burns up.
So unless you have some sci fi anti-gravity tech, its just impossible to bring it back.
And if its kept in space there's the risk of it crashing with something and becoming a huge swarm of junk.
Its sad to see it go, but deorbiting it is the safest thing.
No matter, the next one will be bigger and better.
rocketsocks t1_jc8kjdz wrote
Reply to comment by ClioBitcoinBank in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Glad to see you're onboard with basically what the plan will turn out to be, not sure why you were so resistant to the idea.
ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8kddg wrote
Reply to comment by rocketsocks in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Use a cargo mission with a modified upper stage, grab it with Canada arm, and attach to station, the crew lander can carry extra fuel going up and refill before evac. Not exactly this but something similar and simpler.
bookers555 t1_jc8jz04 wrote
Reply to comment by SFLADC2 in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Nah, thats just going to be used in conjuction with Lunar missions.
Besides, it would be a huge waste of money to put our "main" space station orbiting the Moon since the requirements to get people there would go from a medium sized rocket like the Falcon 9 to a super heavy lift one like the SLS.
Each crew transfer would cost 2-3 billion dollars, which is absurd.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jc8jx9e wrote
Reply to comment by dern_the_hermit in In defence of dark energy | Nobel Laureate and dark matter pioneer James Peebles answers critics of dark energy. by IAI_Admin
That doesn't mean any scientific model is correct. I can make a model with gravitons to explain gravity, it doesn't mean they exist. Same with dark matter.
rocketsocks t1_jc8jpnb wrote
Reply to comment by ClioBitcoinBank in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
So you're proposing they just build a propulsion system on the station as a DIY project?
The whole purpose of this is to build a system that works reliably. And one can be developed, but not for zero dollars. Very likely this will end up being a variant of a cargo spacecraft (Cygnus or Dragon) optimized for propulsion. None of those vehicles have enough thrust to do the job in one go right now, the station weighs 400 tonnes after all.
[deleted] t1_jc8jdj3 wrote
Reply to comment by ConantheToad in Why do movies set in space always show the people moving so slow? by SireBlew
[removed]
the_JerrBear t1_jc8jd8d wrote
Reply to comment by dern_the_hermit in In defence of dark energy | Nobel Laureate and dark matter pioneer James Peebles answers critics of dark energy. by IAI_Admin
yes, and so far no explanatory models for dark matter have been successful. Including dark matter as a parameter to match observed data is not the same thing.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jc8j6oh wrote
Reply to comment by dern_the_hermit in In defence of dark energy | Nobel Laureate and dark matter pioneer James Peebles answers critics of dark energy. by IAI_Admin
I don't know why you put so much stress on it, I was not in any way arguing or diminishing inconsistencies, I realize how they are very important.
I was arguing dark matter and dark energy are confusing and ultimately manipulative terms. Claiming inconsistency exists is one thing, claiming dark matter* exists is another. It would be like naming it "dark overlords" and claiming dark overlords now exist, without repeating all the time that there are no actual overlords, it's just a label.
ClioBitcoinBank t1_jc8j0zn wrote
Reply to comment by rocketsocks in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
If only there was a crew to fit the station with such a system and constantly docking resupply missions to draw fuel from, if only.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jc8iqji wrote
Reply to comment by Ape_Togetha_Strong in In defence of dark energy | Nobel Laureate and dark matter pioneer James Peebles answers critics of dark energy. by IAI_Admin
Of course it is manipulative. Just like Tesla's "Full Self Driving" which is not fully self driving is manipulative. Words have meanings and contexts of their own, which was defined way before me, or the guy who coined Dark Matter, which is neither dark nor matter. Inventing context where black means white and claiming it's not confusing (and ultimately manipulative) is ridiculous.
Brusion t1_jc8im5q wrote
Reply to comment by afraid_of_zombies in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
By 2030, I think Starship is going to change the game anyways. Two starships docked together as a station is doable for sure.
[deleted] t1_jc8i771 wrote
It just developed over time as a way for the film maker to portray weightlessness.
dern_the_hermit t1_jc8ho05 wrote
Reply to comment by the_JerrBear in In defence of dark energy | Nobel Laureate and dark matter pioneer James Peebles answers critics of dark energy. by IAI_Admin
Literally all scientific models are made up to match observations. That's how the scientific method works.
saggywitchtits t1_jc8hk1c wrote
Reply to comment by ImpulseAfterthought in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
I’m really good at getting into orbit in KSP, getting the Kerbals back alive however…
rocketsocks t1_jc8h3a1 wrote
Reply to comment by ClioBitcoinBank in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
Yes, that will for sure happen, but in order for it to happen safely we need something with a lot of propulsive capability. The original plan was to use 3 Progress vehicles, but that puts Russia in the critical path.
the_JerrBear t1_jc8h0zt wrote
Reply to comment by dern_the_hermit in In defence of dark energy | Nobel Laureate and dark matter pioneer James Peebles answers critics of dark energy. by IAI_Admin
sir bud dude, dark matter is a numerical correction to GR to match observed gravitation in galaxies, so he says "apart from" because it would be absurd to suggest that gravitational observations are direct evidence of dark matter
rocketsocks t1_jc8gy7r wrote
Reply to comment by doctor_strangecode in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
First off, SVB wasn't "bailed out". SVB has always had plenty of assets to cover deposits, they just fucked up their liquidity and management and caused a bank run. The FDIC stepped in and is going to make sure it's run properly, but realistically there won't end up being a single dollar of tax payer funds that goes into SVB for a "bail out".
Regardless, that is mostly besides the point. Yes, there should be a larger commitment to ongoing space station operations. Unfortunately, the way these things work is with specific projects and there hasn't yet been an "ISS 2" project that has been able to congeal political support. There is both half-assed commitment to next generation fully commercial stations and also to the Lunar Gateway, but these are not the same things. For Congress something like Lunar Gateway seems like a perfect replacement, it's a sink for federal aerospace dollars and it allows for international cooperation, but operationally it's apples and oranges.
bryguy432 t1_jc8gklf wrote
Reply to comment by WakkaBomb in Why do movies set in space always show the people moving so slow? by SireBlew
I didn't even think about this but it makes so much sense now! Thanks for the explanation
whoamvv t1_jc8gkf4 wrote
By the way, do not ever ask your partner for a "deorbit tug" in bed.
[deleted] t1_jc8fozh wrote
Reply to comment by IrishRage42 in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jc8fe8b wrote
Reply to comment by drc84 in NASA wants new 'deorbit tug' to bring space station down in 2030 by DevilsRefugee
[removed]
dern_the_hermit t1_jc8fda9 wrote
Reply to comment by the_JerrBear in In defence of dark energy | Nobel Laureate and dark matter pioneer James Peebles answers critics of dark energy. by IAI_Admin
"apart from its gravitational effects" is a pretty huge thing to just ignore like that, bud.
Ape_Togetha_Strong t1_jc8l2fm wrote
Reply to comment by YawnTractor_1756 in In defence of dark energy | Nobel Laureate and dark matter pioneer James Peebles answers critics of dark energy. by IAI_Admin
Yeah, sorry, that's just not how it works. It's not misleading to call something that doesn't interact with electromagnetism, and thus light, "dark", and it's not misleading to call something that is acting like matter "matter". Whatever hangups you have about these words are really on you. It's not even close to misleading, and even when the short terms given to complex ideas are "misleading", it still doesn't make them manipulative. Things catch on, and once that happens, it isn't getting undone. That's not a conspiracy to manipulate you.