Space and Science BS Thread

Astronauts have done EVAs from Dragon IIRC, or it's in the works. Even that could be solved through a quick fix of some sort.

The arm may or may not be necessary. The Russians used a tether when they first worked at attaching ISS modules. I'm guessing they could do the same with Dragon if working on Hubble.

I'm thinking of it as in Hubble doesn't reboot but NASA is fairly sure replacing the main payload computer would fix it, or something similar. Kind of like NASA looks for options and SpaceX throws together a service mission price at bargain basement to "save Hubble," like it's a publicity stunt.

 

It could TECHNICALLY reach it. Now imagine being in a dingy, tethered to a speed boat that needs to be repaired while traveling at 17,000 MPH. Sounds like fun, but not likely to happen.

Why, just because it's rocking a 40 year old CPU with a mind blistering speed of 25 Mhz?

Because we don't have one yet.

Rockets burn a ton of fuel. The raptors for example burn 1 ton of fuel per second. The ISS does not have fuel tanks capable of holding enough fuel for an orbit only vessel.

How often do we send people in submarines to fix things underwater? I'm thinking we'll see drones before we see another shuttle-esque vehicle. Probably something the size of dragon, with arms, solar panels, and ion thrusters. Grab a satellite, and gently push it to a repair facility over the next few days/weeks/months.

To my knowledge EVAs have not been done from the dragon capsule. They've only launched people twice, and both those times they went directly to the ISS without incident. Dragon capsules don't have air locks, and the astronauts do not have access to real spacesuits. Maybe they did something with it around the ISS, but that wouldn't count in my book.

Apparently the Hubble has 3 CPU's and a ton of other backup hardware for just this type of occasion. From my research they could easily switch to the backups, but for some reason that requires a TON of approvals.



The change we need is a colony on the Moon and/or Mars. At that point we will have vehicles frequently traveling through all of Earth's orbits, and if they're returning to one empty, they could THEORETICALLY pick up a satellite on the way.

 

Don’t forget Bob and Doug

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/14/faa-warns-spacex-it-has-not-approved-new-texas-launch-site-tower.html

This ought to be interesting..

 

It's a fluff piece. They're not going to make him take it down. They know if they push him too hard, he has the power, money, and motivation to find other places that will allow him to do what he wants. I honestly wonder if he has already gotten offers from other countries. I'm sure China is willing and able to give him everything he wants. "Oh you wanna launch a rocket tomorrow? Why are you calling us, just do what ever you want." No FAA or other government organization slowing him down. It is how we attracted a lot of USSR scientists after the collapse.

 

No doubt. Another case of “too big to fail” and the privileges of wealth and being at the cutting edge of innovation.

But, like I said, it ought to be interesting to see this play out.

Unrelated- more info about the lunar lander contract fiasco:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/17/nasa-boeing-lunar-lander-probe/

 

Most of the fuel use is just getting to orbit. Once you get to orbit, you're halfway to anywhere. Once we have the capabilities to refuel in orbit, satellite repair will become just as commonplace as F9 launches.

 

Honestly refueling in orbit is not the magic bullet everyone thinks it is. It's the most efficient way to get anything larger than a dinghy out of orbit. For in orbit maneuvers however, it's not that great. Ignoring the fact that you'd have to build a facility to hold and maintain thousands of tons of cryogenic fuel, the other problem is that that fuel is explosive. The explosion of an orbiting fuel depot could damage hundreds of satellites, and leave a debris field that could leave certain orbits unusable for years and certain orbits would be decades.

The reality is that satellites are disposable. Quite often they get decades of use, and after just the first decade it is usually more than outdated. Gathering them up and recycling really isn't worth it either. It would do more damage to the environment than help. Realistically the best thing to do would be to design satellites that will burn up cleanly in the atmosphere at the end of their life cycle.

 

Why wouldn't you create a way to get fuel tanks into orbit for each mission? Instead of a gas station, have tanker drones? Then they could be collected and brought back to earth by returning Starships.

 

Trying to figure how many levels of wrong this is…

https://www.blueorigin.com/news-archive/first-customer-on-new-shepard

 

Non combustible bladders maintained in a geostationary orbit within the Earth’s shadow would stay pretty cold…

 

Uhh, "geostationary orbit" and "staying in earth's shadow" are mutually exclusive.

 

You mean, something reusable that launches like a rocket, lands like a plane, is infinitely customizable based on mission needs, and has the flexibility to do whatever is needed?

They'll never go for anything like that.

 

China would be a no-go for Elon. Mostly based on what they're already doing to his Teslas. He would also have to contend with China's abysmal record on copyright theft. You know for a fact they would kick him out the moment they found his coding and take over his company in that area. Its what they do.... Would it piss of the world? Of course, but they don't care anymore.

 

How so? It's a pay-to-play space flight and Oliver paid for a ticket through one way or another.

 

Damn, got to stop thinking I can multitask.

 

Lots of glib answers to yesterday’s problems. Look to the future. The ISS isn’t it, it’s just a test bed for learning, no more nor less than a stepping stone. Soon there will be something larger or configured for expansion at the very least, then another as other countries compete for access. Maybe not in time for the first manned trip to Mars but certainly the second. The tank farm is coming. The greatest fuel consumption occurs from ground to the Karman line, that’s why first stages are always the biggest, they have to lift both payload and the fuel used subsequently. Passengers account for a disproportionate amount since we have excess baggage, space, and our own food/air requirements. It would be simpler to use drones to lift repair parts/supplies/fuel to orbit and have people already in place do the repairs. Not today nor tomorrow but launching crewed rockets for every Tom, Dick, and Hubble task, rescue, or repair mission is not the end game.

 

Not even as capable as that, lose the launch/reentry necessity and strip it down to a flatbed Space Taco.

 

Minus the turbulence, effects of the wind in your hair, and any sensation of relative speed this would be a good analogy but if you feel any breeze other than your own breath you’re totally fucked. As far as you would know you’d be stationary and everything around would be moving but it’s not as if any sense other than sight could perceive that.

That’s why no one ever does mid air refueling. It’s not a magic bullet but going to Mars will require it in some form or another, either before exiting orbit or along the way.

 

I would hazard a guess that China has plenty of well trained nationals within SpaceX. China is the USSR on steroids and, unlike the USSR, they have deep pockets. If they want anything out of SpaceX they wouldn't ask Elon. They'll just take it covertly.