Space News thread

[Luigi]

Even with phenomenal technological advances fast forwarding a hundred or thousand years, assuming we last that long and considering Pluto is just 7 light hours away, and devoting the world's entire resources to the project, can't see how any of this addresses the thousands to millions of light years to the nearest habitable rock which we are yet to find.

That will come with the mastery of space-time manipulation.


That will likely come in the next few hundred years.


When a break-through is made, the development can be rapid.


Take for example flight.

The first human ever to fly, could have met the first human to walk on the moon. They were both alive at the same time.

After thousand's of years of human development, flight technology took off (now that's a bad pun. ) so quickly that after first flying, men were walking on the moon a few decades later.


The technological singularity (google it) that is coming in the coming decades will greatly speed up the arrival of new scientific and technical discoveries.

When a break through is made with regards to the manipulation of space-time, the developments thereafter may come thick and fast.

[jabir]

All good, and I like the sound of space time that future humans can control, assuming it exists in a format that's subject to so many variables starting with full understanding, then change, then manipulation before control. Sure it's great to be positive, and it does sound encouraging, but only as an idea based on an unsound principle since we don't even know what space time is and if it is constant; unlike your flight example which quickly got us to the moon.

I can't imagine the logistics of settling say 10k people on Mars, safely, efficiently and productively, as a stepping point to the nearest exoplanet (4.3 light years, 6,000 x Pluto distance) the experts 'think' may be habitable. Reckon that would take centuries even with tech progress at full throttle, devoting probably close to global output. And if it turns out to be uninhabitable, the next rock they 'think' is habitable lies another 8-9 light years away, and after that we move quickly into the hundreds of light years while remaining in our immediate galactic neighbourhood.

Sorry, can't get my head around the logistics. Closest I can get to 'conquering space' in the next say thousand years is at best a tiny settlement surviving on Mars after several before have suffered various mishaps. By then we may discover and send out a probe to some rock that we still don't know but more than think may be habitable, and even so, success at these distances, quite aside from trivia like obstacles, environment and conditions, would be measured as something like a 30th c Rover.


But as you say, tech advances all the time and is full of surprises.

[Takeovers]

I point out again that habitable planets won't be needed.

About these technological advances once singularity hits, I am not so sure. An intelligence of that power can build anything that is possible. Such super drives may well not be within the possibilities of physical reality. I won't rule it out but see it as unlikely and won't count on it. Besides the singularity may never happen. It is one possible future, not a certainty. Though a lot more likely IMO than faster than light travel.

[Neverna]

First step is settling Mars. That's the proving ground where we learn near perfect closed circuit life support and (relatively) compact self replicating technology.

Next step is moving out towards the asteroid belt, Kuiper Belt, Oort Cloud. Build nearly perfect closed circuit systems for tens of thousands of people.

Why Mars and not the Moon? The Moon is so much closer.

[Luigi]

but only as an idea based on an unsound principle since we don't even know what space time is and if it is constant; unlike your flight example

Flight isn't constant.

And the principle of the first flight would have been completely unsound for taking off, flying to the moon, landing, going out for a walk, and then returning home.

[Takeovers]

Why Mars and not the Moon? The Moon is so much closer.

Ah the age old discussion between Mars firsters and Moon firsters. I am clearly a Mars firster but will try to represent the arguments of both sides.


The moon is much closer and faster to reach. In case of an emergency you can be back in 3 days or have supplies. But landing is actually more energy consuming because the atmosphere at Mars can do most of the braking. On the moon it is propulsion and propellants all the way. But it has much harsher conditions. 2 weeks of sun where it is hard to keep the heat at bay. 2 weeks of darkness and it gets very cold. The temperature swings are extreme. Near the poles are a few locations which are nearly, but not completely, always in sun. Good for solar energy. The dust on the moon is extremely abrasive and damaging. On Mars it is very fine but not abrasive because it has been blown around by the wind for billions of years.

Mars has basically everything humans and industry would need. Especially volatiles like CO2 and N. Also huge amounts of subsurface water. Not only at the poles but about 30 degrees from the equator. Its day is almost the same as on earth. It has 24h37m. People can adjust and live by the local day.

Available resources on the moon are much more limited. Particularly nitrogen is nearly non existent. Water is known to exist only in some deep polar craters that are never reached by the sun. Very cold and very hard to mine. Especially as it seems to be only little water with a lot of dust.

A base mostly supplied from Earth would probably be easier on the moon. With 2 weeks of night probably nuclear power would be needed unless you go to the poles and even the peaks of eternal light are not really eternal. They have occasional dark times too.

A settlement that needs to produce most of its needs locally will be easier on Mars. Though settlements will need to preprare for weeks or even months of occasional dust storms.

[Luigi]

^ I read that Ceres is actually an easier/better option than the Moon or Mars, in terms of harshness to humans.

[Takeovers]

^ I read that Ceres is actually an easier/better option than the Moon or Mars, in terms of harshness to humans.

Ceres is quite far out and flights there will take much longer. It also has no atmosphere for braking. That means you will need to use a lot of propellant for braking or you need a slow Hohmann transfer trajectory that lets you reach Ceres with low speed. But that would take a very long time. Ceres has all the needed volatiles. But it may lack a lot of other minerals and metals. Or they are buried deep inside and be hard to get at. Also no gravity to speak of. So you would need spinning habitats to provide artificial gravity.

Ceres is at the outer region of the asteroid belt. Which means if you want to use solar arrays they need to be very large. Better have nuclear power for the habitat and for return propellant production. It does also mean Ceres has plenty of nitrogen which is rare in the inner solar system except on earth. Some, enough for our purposes in the atmosphere of Mars.

[jabir]

Flight isn't constant.

And the principle of the first flight would have been completely unsound for taking off, flying to the moon, landing, going out for a walk, and then returning home.

For starters I'm clueless, but nothing wrong with sharing a few thoughts.

The flight principle was very much sound before the first flight; people knew it was possible to fly because birds do it. But it was unproven for human flight, until the pioneers proved it with the first flights. Then others took over to learn more, experiment, die, learn more and gradually build bigger, faster and safer planes which led to rockets that can go to the moon and beyond. Stating the obvious, it was the first flight that proved human flight is possible, and the greatest minds of our age can only speculate what rockets might lead to, for the next generation to build on it and make something better happen.

In the case of space time we're dealing with a completely different animal, nothing you can experiment with or prove or disprove at the most basic level by jumping off a cliff wearing wings. We still do not know what it is, whether it is constant and if not then how and what causes it to vary and by how much, where and why, or understand enough about it to more than speculate on the mind boggling variables, like is it subject to manipulation, long before it can actually be controlled, and who knows what control might allow us to achieve, if anything positive, or even what the consequences might be at the very earliest stages of discovery if we do unwittingly alter its natural flow in any way.

[jabir]

Has NASA created a Warp Drive?

Has NASA Really Created A Warp Drive? | IFLScience

Only experimental for now but could happen; hope they know how to stop and steer at warp speed.

[Luigi]

The flight principle was very much sound before the first flight; people knew it was possible to fly because birds do it.

The alteration of the space time fabric is sound, because planets, and anything else with mass/gravity does it. People know that it's possible to alter (and thus manipulate) space-time, because we do it everyday on a minute level.

[jabir]

Much to learn about gravity.

[Luigi]

Attach an object of great mass to that plank and he'd be fine.

[Takeovers]

Bonus food containers for Astronauts and Cosmonauts at the ISS. The rations get boring over time. So each Astronaut gets one bonus container a month where he can select the content from favourite american and russian products.





Note that no Vodka bottles are shown.

[Takeovers]

Today SpaceX launched the second Falcon 9 block 5 rocket. The final version, no major upgrades any more, this is mostly the version that will fly Astronauts to the ISS.



Note that some parts are now black. That's a new improved thermal protection material that will allow up to 10 flights per booster with very little servicing between flights. They aim for demonstrating flying the same booster twice within 24 hours some time next year. Not really necessary to cycle that fast. Let's see if they can make it. More important is the 10 flights with little servicing.



It's a huge satellite, see the people in front of it for reference. It is the heaviest sat heading to geostationary orbit SpaceX has launched yet with 7075kg. I do expect they have launched it to a relatively low orbit and the sat will do more climbing to GEO than usual. We will know in a few days when orbit data become public.



The satellite is deployed into the intended orbit. There were a tense few minutes ahead of this when connection to the upper stage was lost during the final burn of the upper stage engine. Everybody including the host of the launch web cast was somewhat worried. But it was only a problem of one ground station that did not receive the data as planned.



The first stage successfully landed on the drone ship OCISLY. Poor picture quality but it hit the bulls eye. See how the landing legs are at the target circle.




You get some weird pictures when the rocket goes through some atmosheric layers. This was while the rocket experienced maximum dynamic pressure, being fast and still in the atmosphere.

[OhOh]

Thanks.

A brilliant launch / flight video is available here:

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/07/22/video-falcon-9-lifts-off-with-telstar-19-vantage/


and here's another video which at the 47min mark shows the satellite release:

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/07/2...com-satellite/

[Topper]

^ thanks for that!

[OhOh]

More to the launch company. The first video shows the onboard cameras view but along with the planned timeline of events, which makes the operation more understandable. To me anyway

Good clear images and a calm voice.

The only thing missing live, was the rocket 1st stage landing back on the ship. The video goes to seconds before live, is cut, and then back to the safely landed rocket.

[TuskegeeBen]

More to the launch company. The first video shows the onboard cameras view but along with the planned timeline of events, which makes the operation more understandable. To me anyway

Good clear images and a calm voice.

The only thing missing live, was the rocket 1st stage landing back on the ship. The video goes to seconds before live, is cut, and then back to the safely landed rocket.

[Takeovers]

You want landings? Due to vibrations and possibly ionisation by the rocket engines usually the feed breaks off just before landing. They do have coverage though and sometimes release it. Less now that it becomes routine.

Here a collection of landing videos, official video by SpaceX. Sometimes shown to staff as a motivational video before a launch.

That dancing rocket standing at a weird angle was from a Thaicomm launch and actually flew again later, as a Falcon Heavy sidebooser, no less.

[OhOh]

Yes, expertise requires constant steps. As an observer and non technician, astronauts exiting landing craft, reusable rockets being filmed landing, being serviced and used again in this case is paramount to confirming this companies USP.

As you suggest there have been successful landings. My point being if it is accepted that the company has cracked the technique, I would also assume the ability to record and show the successful landing live, by a better positioned camera, would be a simple task. Solidifying their PR and reduce the possible risk for anyone contemplating the rockets second, third ......... launch of an expensive satellite, cargo load or astronaut.

[Takeovers]

They still label landings as experimental. But they had a long streak of successful landings without failures with the one exception of the Falcon Heavy launch, where both side boosters landed successfully on land but the central booster had an issue and failed landing.

BTW in a few minutes there will be a SpaceX launch in Vandenberg and the booster will return to the landing site, the first in Vandenberg. Incoming missile on a large and important Airforce base. We may get to see this coming in live.

Sorry, wrong info. This boster is landing on the drone ship. Next one in Vandenberg is planned to do land landing. Landing successful despite bad weather at the landing site. Worst weather conditions for a successful landing yet.

Second stage continues flight.

Link to the webcast.

https://www.spacex.com/webcast


Sure they could fix the problem at sea. But there is an exclusion zone around the landing ship and they probably think it is not worth the effort. We do get live pictures from land landings. Most amazing the two side boosters of the Falcon Heavy coming back and land perfectly synchronized with a few intended seconds difference.

[Takeovers]

FH landing videos

Official live video of landing. Slightly embarassing mistake of showing the same live link from the landing booster twice instead of two streams from both boosters. But picture from the ground showing both.



Fan video

[OhOh]

Very impressive the two boosters simultaneously landing. Why does the main, first stage, land on the sea barge?

[Takeovers]

Why does the main, first stage, land on the sea barge?

It goes much faster than the side boosters, when the second stage separates. It would take a lot of propellant to fly back. They had planned to build 3 landing pads but for the moment that plan was scrubbed. They have only 2. Possibly, my own speculation, the Airforce is doing range safety operations. They may not be able to handle 3 returning stages simultaneously. They only about a year ago gained the ability to handle 2. It is a new capability they needed to develop only because SpaceX started landing boosters. Before they all dropped into the sea.

I was even surprised how soon the Airforce accepted land landing at all. This is a huge incoming missile and there are a lot of people and valuable assets in that area. They have a hand on a red button to blow the rocket up in the air but still it takes some confidence in SpaceX to allow this.

Initially all attempts were on drone ships and they all failed, but they hit the drone ship and frequently damaged it. SpaceX got permission for land landing without a single successful landing. Based on the abilty to hit the target, even if it got destroyed. First successful landing was on land in Florida at the Cape. After that their success rate quickly got very high.

Note that all of this was privately funded. Not a NASA or Airforce project.