The Space Thread

It was a bit cloudy, but you could still see the launch from my apartment: http://imgur.com/a/lu8DO

I couldn't see anything during the landing, unfortunately. Probably would have had better luck with that on a clear night.

edited 21st Dec '15 8:13:00 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Neil Degrase Tyson believes it is a delusion to believe that space x will lead the exploration of space. If they can't do it, than only the Chinese will be able to, due to having vast resources and a committed forward thinking government. The Russians and Europeans are to poor, and Nasa is to underfunded to make their success a possibility.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

Nasa could always get an increase, and China's is currently less funded than NASA so current funding is hardly a thing to go by. And Europe is not "too poor", The EU has a larger GDP than the United States

I'm baaaaaaack

But almost all the European nations are deep in debt and burdened with gigantic welfare states. Combine this with bureaucratic infighting, and their is no way ESA will get the money it needs. Nasa getting an increase lol. That would require Congress to think beyond the next election, which it is impossible for them to do. As for the Chinese, it's not so much their level of funding, but their civilization and government's tradition of foresight and gigantic engineering projects that make them the most likely to colonize space.

edited 22nd Dec '15 12:45:49 PM by JackOLantern1337

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

* I hereby summon Garcon *

Keep Rolling On

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

Except for the Moon Landing.

Secret Signature

An space in general, if you listen to some.

Obviously we're just in a giant glass sphere with phlogiston outside.

We don't need the ESA Jack, look at some of the domestic British stuff, we've got some sweet single vehicle runway to orbit tech in development.

Skylon should hopefull be doing test flights come 2019 and ISS trips by 2022. With a 45% caring capability improvement over the ESA's current stuff.

Multi-stage is old hat man, but if you have to at least do a multi-plane thing like Virgin Galactic (though their safety record ain't that great...).

edited 22nd Dec '15 8:10:38 PM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

If the Brits get to mars first can the Queen add Emperess of Space as a title? After all, she never got to be Empress of India.

When a rocket launch is a cultural even. If Space X can spark public interest, than maybe the US does have a chance in Space.

Edit: Also, it's spelled carrying, not caring, unless you guys want to snuggle the cargo you are brining to orbit.

Edit 2: Also Skylon's first flight has been pushed back to 2025.

edited 23rd Dec '15 3:09:01 PM by JackOLantern1337

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

You're not exactly a spelling-bee champ yourself. Somehow I doubt you're talking about soaking cargo in salt water. Maybe be a little more careful with your own spelling and grammar before snapping at others.

I don't think Jack was snapping, he was pointing out a mistake, I'm not going to notice unless people do, if anything his own spelling troubles are probably why jack is pointing it out, because he knows that it can be helpful.

And that sucks about the test flight push back on Skylon, still I can wait, it's gonna be awesome once we've got that kind of single stage tech going.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Regarding Space "X" : how good is a reusable rocket, really ? You need a landing gear, extra fuel for the landing, and a sturdier structure that can endure several launches. That means extra costs and extra mass... and then you need even more fuel for that extra mass. Is it really cheaper than a throwaway rocket that is just good enough to work once and carries just enough fuel to give the next stage the velocity it requires ?

edited 24th Dec '15 2:26:02 AM by Aetol

Worldbuilding is fun, writing is a chore

We had resusable parts as it was, I belive the NASA stuff would drop spent sections in the ocean where they would be retrieved and made ready for re-use.

So the extra stuff may well be covered by having the bits land themselves rather then having to be fished out of the water by a boat.

edited 24th Dec '15 3:20:51 AM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Something that's always bugged me: Why is it that seemingly nobody in the real-life scientific community ever refers to the Sun, Earth and the Moon as Sol, Terra and Luna respectively, to match the rest of the Solar System main celestial bodies' Greco-Roman mythological Theme Naming?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Because plain language. The "normal" terms are much more familiar. Also, in the case of the moon "Moon" refers to the Earthen one and "moon" to moons in general.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

If it's a science magazine that's aims its articles mainly at laymen, then OK (even though I'd expect some occassional uses of the term in passing). But why does it seem that they never use it even between themselves?

And on another note, how come it's always "the Moon" and not "Moon", when we can say "Earth" rather than "the Earth"?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Cause we call other moons moon,but ours is The Moon.

Not many Earths around.

Secret Signature

Because common language works its way even into scientific communities. In fact, scientific language tends to be based on the common language to start with. I don't see why that would bother anyone. It's not like we're a sci-fi novel right now and need to separate out our sun from some other sun that has habitable planets just yet. And frankly, just randomly renaming our planet "Terra" would be met with derision and resistance. We already know what "Earth" means. (Also, "the earth" is something that's actually said quite a bit. It's just not as common.)

Also "Moon" means our moon, and generally the other moons have all been named something else.

@Aetol: A reusable rocket would be useful because then we don't have to spend quite so much time as we do now building a new one. Those things are quite time consuming, and something that can be used more than once saves on material and money in the long run. We spend a whole lot of money having to make one for each individual mission. It's a worthy endeavor to pursue making one that's durable enough to send up more than once. Hopefully several times.

edited 24th Dec '15 7:42:04 PM by AceofSpades

Reusable rocket means that (ideally), for each launch you're just paying for fuel instead of a whole rocket.

It'd be comparable to buying a cheap car that only lasts a year, vs a more expensive one that last for a few decades. Initial cost is higher, but overall costs are much lower.

I'm baaaaaaack

Giant comets could pose danger to life on Earth: "The discovery of hundreds of giant comets in the outer planetary system over the last two decades means that these objects pose a much greater hazard to life than asteroids, a team of astronomers reports."

Eating a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite.

We should really get working on those satellites to push asteroids and comets away from the planet.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

Or better yet to one of the L points so we can mine them

Trump delenda est