Space and Science BS Thread

The Ugly:

https://twitter.com/apod/status/1399584009592750087?s=21

Edit:

The fact they’re Starlink is in dispute. Still Ugly nonetheless.

https://twitter.com/marco_langbroek/status/1399624364073627650?s=21

Edit 2:
APOD edited:
https://twitter.com/apod/status/1399723194534277142?s=21

 

Because every country has space cadets.

 

That is the way advancement works. It quite often takes away from the beauty of nature. Railroad tracks, power lines, freeways, cities, etc. ON the flip side of that advancement has made our lives so easy that we have the time and ability to admire the beauty of her. Cities for example produce so much smog and light pollution that millions, if not billions of people go through life not even knowing that the night sky has colors in it. They're a blight on the planet, but the commerce and institutions they create funds things like observatories. So I prefer to look at the positive. Yes the current observatories may have issues, but he is creating a ship that will launch larger satellites than ever at a cost below what anyone thought possible. Nasa can launch more and larger telescopes into orbit, and take better pictures, and if they weren't government, they could do it for cheaper than the cost of the observatories that are being affected. And they'll never have to worry about things like atmospheric interference or light pollution.

 

Aren't we working on putting a telescope outside geosync just to get beyond this issue?

 

Are you talking about the James Webb telescope?

 

Sure. Yes. Maybe. I honestly don't remember. That brain cell is often overwritten by new information.

 

@CaptAmerica The James Webb will sit at ~9.25 million miles--the L2 Lagrange Point (essentially a stable orbit that is maintained by the gravitational forces of two larger bodies--Earth & Sun in this case).

*disclosure: I remembered it was going to be "way out there" but did a quick google to find out how far and then read a bit more on Lagrange Points.

 

One thing that strikes me about the James Webb project is that it is going to be completely impossible to service. The Hubble Telescope had several service missions without which the telescope would have been orbital scrap really from the time it was launched. The mirror was famously cut in error and required a correction package to bring it in focus. Other missions were required over the years. All involved the space shuttle which is retired. All were done at a huge cost...and the Hubble is only 545 KM above the earth. Let's see 340 miles compared to 930,000 miles to the Webb orbiting at L2? That's a haul. The moon is only 238,900 miles away for instance.

 

Enter Starship for the rescue mission

When it was designed, it wasn’t expected to be serviced..

ESA just wrapped up a presser on the Webb. I didn’t see it but it should be out there if anyone wants to see it.

Other sources are saying the launch date is still NET 10/31/21 but most likely will slip to Nov/Dec 2021.

Also, as an FYI, the Webb operates much more in the infrared spectrum, not so much the visible.

 

https://twitter.com/launchphoto/status/1399674309954707457?s=21

https://twitter.com/launchphoto/status/1399750082245890051?s=21

 

Most satellites are unserviceable. It's hard enough to get to space, let alone work in space, and the cost to repair or upgrade a satellite is often more than the cost of replacing it with a newer better version. I think we'll see some awesome telescopes get launched once institutions can build and launch them for prices they can afford. A lot of the reason that previous satellites cost 1 Billion is because it is the government making it. I can't wait to see some school build one for less than a million that outperforms them.

Space debris will be an interesting problem in the coming decades. Starlink is addressing that issue by making their satellites burn up in the atmosphere. While Starship could recover old satellites and second stages from others, and could fit several in a single ship, it is doubtful they would risk landing with them. I think they'll either dissassemble and recycle them in orbit, or scuttle them off into the sun.

 

Why not bag them up in a giant flame retardant bag, and let them fall until the parachutes can deploy. I mean, you’re gonna end up with a bag of satellite parts but much of the material would be recyclable or salvageable.

 

I remember at one point the actual plan for space waste collection was to literally blow up a giant can of expanding foam in orbit. The foam would stick or catch pretty much anything in certain known trash orbits and, because it has a large surface area with minimal inertia, it would fall back to earth fairly quickly without a deorbit burn carrying garbage down with it.

 

And literally popping into my feed just now…

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/spa...rnational-space-stations-robotic-arm-rcna1067

 

I think in the end it comes down to whether or not it is worth recycling them at all. By the time they gain the ability to capture satellites, most of the satellites they will be capturing will be using very outdated tech. I think they'll be gathering them up just to get them out of the way. In which case pushing them off into the sun is the best choice.

 

There are billions in precious metals floating around up there. If meth-addled asshats can steal catalyst converters off of Prii, then they can figure out how to get at all that orbital cheddar.

 

I made a comment in another thread just the other day talking about how if you're not paying for a product, YOU are the product. It's why I like talking about weird things at people's houses. They start getting all sorts of weird advertisements.

 

Don't tell the meth-addled asshats that, they might try to get it themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrAdayUh6-4

 

Hey Kyle, there’s loose copper on the moon!

 

Was that his parachute that floated down right after launch?

Flat Earthers- $10 to anyone who finds a genius among them…