Space and Science BS Thread

So good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8Ay3QmF6s&feature=youtu.be

 

If it works as some people suspect, it'll be a game changer for lots of customers. We use cell modems a lot, but they're still pretty limited even if you can get a good signal.

The latency is the most interesting part to me at the moment. The orbit is so much lower than a standard internet satellite that there isn't nearly the latency, and then between satellites its supposed to be a laser through a vacuum - which is considerably faster than laser though a glass fiber. Its gonna be interesting.

 

No such thing as a hard line to web access in rural areas. Not unless you count 56k as a hard line lol.

 

I’m rural and have hopes fiber going to come my way.

 

You might be interested:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/fcc-has-serious-doubts-that-spacex-can-deliver-latencies-under-100ms/

 

Yep. I'm not really all that rural and have only had cable for about 5 years. I was on DSL before that for a while, but since I'm so far away from the switch it wasn't really all that fast. I still keep it as a backup because the cable goes wonky every time it rains.

We have a little podunk POTS provider and I was hoping for fiber too; the feds rejiggered some ancient funds to point them at rural fiber deployment, and I thought our little outfit might go after it. But apparently not. My guess would be the feds didn't sweeten the pot enough. Now my podunk POTS provider is going bankrupt.

 

https://www.starlink.com/

They just updated the Starlink website for news and service availability email signup.

 

I'd love to see the FCCs math on that, as well as SpaceX's. The article is pretty light on the details.

 

We have Spectrum cable and it’s absolutely horrible. Signal sucks, pixilation, frozen screens, re-boots a not so uncommon occurrence. We will never go w cable internet as my wife works from home and can’t have her connection dropping out on a regular basis.

We have Consolidated Communications for phone and DSL. Used to be Verizon when we first moved up here but they sold to CC who quickly declared bankruptcy. There’s always talk about fiber, maybe it’ll happen, prolly won’t.

BUT, if schools go remote....Accessibility lawsuits ensue...who knows?

No one cares about the needs of rural communities except the people that live in them. Usually takes a major shift (legislation, Supreme Court decision) to make things happen.

 

We get internet over RF signal from a super tall hill about 5 straightline miles away. Out neighbors 2/10ths of a mile down the road from us can get Spectrum, but Spectrum won't run any more cable out this way. The RF works ok, even with the crappy up/down and ping. But if we have a storm or high winds, buh-bye internet.

 

I'm torn on this. I like seeing the stars without tons of satellites. I also like internet. For six months out of the year I'm on a ship out in the middle of the Pacific. The internet sucks out there and a hard line just isn't going to happen. Selfish me wants better internet while I'm at work, the other selfish me wants to be able to look at the stars. The stars in the middle of the Pacific with a new moon are incredible.

 

Kinda sounds like you might have some bad local issues. I've had spectrum in a couple different places and it was fine. Its really tough to get them to troubleshoot tho. I have the cheapest xfinity internet-only package and its been rock solid, which is good because I'm working from home and I use the internet 24/7 for that.

Seems like the big ISPs are just too comfortable. My parents house in a small town in rural Iowa has fiber, run by a local ISP.

 

The way it should be. No excuse for the levels of light pollution we still have...

https://www.darksky.org/

 

Guess I’m starting to have a dilemma ...


Signed up for the Starlink updates. The confirmation email stated in part:

If you provided us with your zip code, you will be notified via email if beta testing opportunities become available in your area.

I’ll keep you posted if I get picked.

Yes, I understand the hypocrisy...

 

What's the zip code for the Pacific Ocean?

 

Just read the ARS article on Saturday morning’s F9 launch. I agree this paragraph is notable:

It is notable that SpaceX did not conduct a static fire of the first stage before this attempt. This probably is part of an effort to demonstrate that a static fire test of a previously flown booster is not necessary, thus saving time and cost in reusing first stages.

Anyone within the industry who can chime in about the prudence in doing a static fire or not? Especially on safety reasons w manned flights.

 

As far as I know, SpaceX is the only one to do static fires.
I think almost everyone else uses solid rocket boosters, which are one and done.

 

youtube.com/watch?v=7MLHc0k3Saw

SN7 pressure test with the 304LL stainless, held to 7.6 bar before rupture disk fail.

 

Yeah, as above they're the only ones who do statics anyway on reuse.. but they're also the only ones who reuse. They also do tests on new engines prior to integration, and fire them again when integrated.

Since they're the only ones who reuse without a full teardown (unlike shuttle where they'd pull the engines every time and then mix and match) .. they're also the only ones with the performance data to know whether it's a good procedure or not. The test is just there to test 'is this put together correctly', whether it's of an individual engine or the whole assembly.

 

Thanks @.劉煒