Hello u/Dave-C, your submission "We can't see on the other side of the Sun. Have we ever used satellites to see the other side?" has been removed from r/space because:

• Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.

Yes, thanks for reminding me of that distinction.

I was thinking of water at rest wrt to Earth. Or both at rest and Earth spinning up.

only in america.. I’m so thankful Morris Chang left this so-called leader country and founded TSMC. I’m so grateful we sold zip ties bought at Walmart for $5, to be sold for $800.. to go from 40% production to 10%.. just to listen to you speak cry baby..

[removed]

Oumuamua saw the other side and bounced.. 100k light year quarantine zone confirmed

towards center of gravity.

if perfectly smooth, then all "surface" directions. adjusted for momentum and spin.

edit: added "surface"

No, the Coriolis force is only a secondary effect from water moving towards the equator. That "slight" centrifugal force makes the equatorial radius of Earth 20 km larger than the polar radius, so if you use a perfect sphere and water equivalent to our oceans then all the water would be in a broad region around the equator and nothing would be at the poles.

If it's placed at rest relative to the ground then it would flow towards the equator.

If it's placed at rest relative to the center of Earth and we could magically avoid any friction (no surface can do that completely with water) then it would just spread out.

That was both incredibly informative and extremely interesting! Not to mention the professional grade writing! Thanks much for your input!

[removed]

It is also the plot of the 1969 UK film Doppelganger (called Journey to the far side of the sun in the US). The opposite earth in the film is also opposite in everything being a mirror image of our earth. The film is watchable, but it is certainly no 2001 and the plot is very pedestrian.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064519/

​

The idea is a weird one it would be extraordinarily coincidental for two planets to be locked in the exact same orbit path in different phases.

[removed]

>arth is spinning and the mass wants to move to the outer edge of the spin, which is the equator, which is why the earth bulges a little there. For the same reason, the water would want to move to the equator.

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1219zfb/comment/jdlf63q/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

> They are targeting their next generation rocket at SpaceXs last generation rocket.

I wouldn't say that exactly. Neutron is fully LOX/methane, and it includes several innovations not seen in the Falcon 9 which potentially will be advantageous. That said, it is not the quantum leap that Starship represents, and SpaceX is still far ahead of anyone else in several areas (Raptor engine development perhaps, for example). However, in that regard, it is very likely that Neutron will be launching commercial payloads before Starship does.

From a practical standpoint Neutron or something very like Neutron is still an absolutely solid choice for Rocket Lab as their next move beyond Electron. It's achievable enough to reach the market soon. It's capable enough to be cost competitive even with the best in class, and it has a capability profile which should enable it to be profitable even given a lot of potential variability in the launch market. It's main target may be in servicing LEO constellations, but it'll have the capability to launch a wide variety of more conventional satellites. Even with the SpaceX "steamroller" in full effect there is still unmet need in the launch business. It's very likely that if Neutron work they won't have any problem finding customers for it.

Am I completely wrong when I calculate 15000*$3.3 and get $49500? Is $3.3 meant to mean $3300?

we see "the back" of the sun about every month since that's about as long as it takes to make a full rotation.

Towards and away from the moon, like on the bumpy sphere.

Also if it was a perfectly smooth sphere where there is no friction to accelerate the water?

Wouldn’t the water then just sit as a sphere around the spinning earth?

Falcon 9 is a fantasy. Spacex didnt get to orbit with their first rocket.

There is no other side. Sun and earth aren't tidally locked. Sun rotates at its axis once every 27 days. It's actually 25 for centre and 30 for axis as sun is a big ball of gas. This is very well observed with solar cycles and sun spots. Earth and Moon are tidally locked.

The rotation will try to fling the water away from the Earth's axis, and the farthest place from the axis is the equator. No matter where you place the water, it will flow toward the equator since there's no terrain to stop it. In the real world, where ocean water is free to flow around, sea level at the equator is actually a little higher than near the poles for this reason.

I helped do some testing for a company using DMLS printing of advanced materials for small rocket engines a few years back. About 1/3 of the prints would be so flawed they wouldn't even bother testing, about 1/3 of the remainder would fail to hold pressure when capped, about 10% of those that passed would fail flow test (have some obstruction) and about 8% would fail under hot fire test once they got to temperature. So, sure, you can give it a fancy brand name, but getting the secret sauce just right, is not easy nor cheap. For reference, we were producing engines aimed at the small satellite market primarily but could be used as upper stage roll thrusters, so 50-100 lbf regeneratively cooled biprops using LOx on one side and a variety of fuel options on the other.

Any probe would be able to see it, it just needs to be not in the same orbit as earth, so even juno or, messenger, cassini and any of the probes on mars would be able to image it. Many of them have taken pics looking back.

oceans flow east to west
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_current#/media/File:Corrientes-oceanicas.png
On Earth this flow is interrupted by continents that form the great ocean gyres. There would be a flow induced by thermohaline pressure differences, that is in the poles water would cool and freeze out making it cold and salty, this would pull currents into the deep that would imitate the Great Conveyer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
But without the land masses messing it up.

The planet would also be circled by belts of winds, closer to the abstract 3 cell circulation models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation#/media/File:Earth_Global_Circulation_-_en.svg

These would affects surface current directions and thermohaline by evaporating some places and making water salty and raining other places and making its salt concentration drop.

So sort of how they work today without continents.

BUT the great huge steaming elephant in the room would be lack of CO2 sequestration from rock weathering. Spin up an Earth with a few exta kilometers of water to make it Water World and you wuold get huge build ups of CO2 over millions of years.

But here we go from a model running for a month to a model running for a couple of million years.

That is the well published intergalactic approach vector when observing primitive species such as Earthlings.