Space and Science BS Thread

https://twitter.com/nasasolarsystem/status/1584927037613305857?s=46&t=YjTataZ_rgoZhdh7VetGiQ

https://twitter.com/theplanetaryguy/status/1584950800669118470?s=46&t=YjTataZ_rgoZhdh7VetGiQ

 

https://twitter.com/engineers_feed/status/1584967805694521344?s=46&t=YjTataZ_rgoZhdh7VetGiQ

 

I got -3...

 

That's the most complicated way of saying 6/2=3 that I've ever read...

 

If you make that an algebraic equation the x’s cancel out and you’re left with 3. What x is doesn’t matter.
(2x + 6)/2 - x always equals 3. Pick different positive integers for the 2’s and the 6 to get any result you want.
(Nx + P)/N - x always equals P/N. It’s not a magical equation, just 1st year algebra.

 

I thought this was interesting considering the space mining talk recently. https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-metals-mined-in-2021/

So if we find a big iron asteroid it will require 2.6 million starship landings to meet Earth's current yearly requirements.

 

I thought we already found a big iron asteroid?

 

That also makes me consider something else. Super Heavy is designed to get 100 tons to orbit. But, what about getting 100 tons down from orbit. Do we have anything designed for that?

 

I think the point is that once the infrastructure is there we won’t have to drag everything up out of the steepest gravity well and one of the densest atmospheres we are likely to deal with. Spinlaunch would work great on moons or large asteroids and smaller ones could be redirected. Ships built in space don’t need the insane amounts of fuel to get there that those built on earth do so they can also be MUCH larger and lighter per unit volume. It’s also likely only hard to find ores will be shipped here and then only after refining.

Dunno. Pretty sure we’ve never tried bigger than the shuttle.

 

Ask Marcos Inaros…

 

And we’re going there soon!!

https://psyche.asu.edu/

 

Most of the value ores would have in space is due to them already being up there. Until the extreme difficulty posed by the atmosphere and gravity well are surmounted (if ever) it will likely be only small, extremely high value cargoes such as people and samples that are brought back. Consider this though, if a cargo doesn’t ever get going fast to begin with it doesn’t need to slow down as much either. If transit times aren’t critical then lunar cargos need not be going so fast as to require exceptional braking maneuvers. It’s only because orbital velocity is so high and getting up there any slower would burn more fuel that we go so fast. There’s really no minimum speed as long as your going the right direction for the speed you have.
We could also use gravity assist for braking as well as sling shot maneuvers. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/6183/gravity-assist-braking#:~:text=@Wutnaut "Gravity assist" is somewhat of a misnomer.,So, yes, it can be used for braking.
Both the earth and moon are in motion around the sun so trajectories can be chosen to allow the earth to catch up to the cargo with a variety of different closing velocities.

 

FYI, apparently they’re being recycled and that by A3 the Orion pressure vessel for that mission will be refurbished for use on A6. With only annual launches that gives them ~ 3 years to complete the process if they have 3 capsules to work with.

 

That doesn’t make sense. The reports said a skillion $$ for 3 additional capsules for Artemis 6-8.

I did some follow up, apparently Orion is partially reusable but didn’t get further than that. Either the ADD kicked in or I got sick of reading how these ancient corporations continue to fleece the taxpayer with the consent of Congress….

 

Idk, how about really big parachutes? I’m guessing that it would be possible to send ore, or whatever, from asteroids in a trajectory that could be far less than orbital velocity, so re-entry could be considerably less violent. Then again, I’m just a printer, not a rocket surgeon.

 

Go to about 4:07 mark and it goes into it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7rZnpz0Nwz8

 

The ares booster was supposed to use REALLY BIG CHUTES but was cancelled and they don’t work at high altitude where there’s little atmosphere and terminal velocity is hypersonic. Any mass cargo will need retros even if atmospheric insertion is initially subsonic.

 

Lockheed gives a volume discount and NASA only orders in batches of three. Funny how it’s the Lockheed spokesperson being quoted as calling it a substantial discount.

I guess the contract says NASA can order up to 6 more Orions. That would bring us to Artemises 10-15.

$10 says the program will be d.e.a.d. dead by that time.

 

I implied controlled descent.

Careful...

 

Busy few weeks coming up and not from what you guys probably expect.