Looks like it'll take up to 6+ months for that paper to be published.
Astronomy and space exploration
- Thread starter eloic
- Start date
Looks like it'll take up to 6+ months for that paper to be published.
They got their inspiration from stories of planes flying through thunderstorms and being mysteriously teleported up to 300 miles
hence you can use an electromagnetic field to warp space
Sorry but no plane has ever been teleported anywhere ever
what's more likely the plane got teleported or a navigation error
got a strong feeling nothing will ever become of this
(see video on the EM drive on the first page)
hence you can use an electromagnetic field to warp space
Sorry but no plane has ever been teleported anywhere ever
what's more likely the plane got teleported or a navigation error
got a strong feeling nothing will ever become of this
(see video on the EM drive on the first page)
cheapchips
Veteran
As far as I'm concerned, extraordinary propulsion systems are in the same science / invention club as perpetual motion machines until they actually have something zipping around the solar system.
That's not too harsh is it?
That's not too harsh is it?
Well... I guess it isn't. :-S
42 minutes, wow, I won't have time this week, I'm afraid. :-S But thank you, I will see it once I can.
One of the reasons of my not having much spare time is that I'm doing the astronomy course I talked about in my first post.
It's supersuperinteresting, well done and I'm learning a lot, since with the occasion I'm being presented with basic stuff from other subjects such as biology, chemistry, physics, meteorology, etc., things that interest me but that I haven't studied (I'm just a Law graduate, hehe).Scalding hot gas giant breaks heat records
KELT 9b’s temps soar higher than many stars
By
Maria Temming
11:00am, June 5, 2017
SPACE SIZZLE KELT 9b, the hottest known gas giant, is “pretty much something out of a science fiction novel,” says codiscoverer Scott Gaudi of Ohio State University.
The planet KELT 9b is so hot — hotter than many stars — that it shatters gas giant temperature records, researchers report online June 5 in Nature.
This Jupiter-like exoplanet revolves around a star just 650 light-years away, locked in an orbit that keeps one side always facing its star. With blistering temps hovering at about 4,300o Celsius, the atmosphere on KELT 9b’s dayside is over 700 degrees hotter than the previous record-holder — and hot enough that atoms cannot bind together to form molecules.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scalding-hot-gas-giant-breaks-heat-records
Quite interesting, specially the bit (in the full article) about having an orbit around the poles of the star.
Neil deGrasse Tyson may be releasing a game SPACE ODYSSEY
With its foundation based in scientifically accurate game-play, you'll be immersed in biology, chemistry, geo-science, and engineering as you build and explore planetary systems.
Develop planets, colonize worlds, nurture species, mine elements, build robots, and discover unique life-forms as you coordinate with others in an intense game of real-time strategy.
https://www.kickstarter.com/project...on-presents-space-odyssey-the-vid/description
With its foundation based in scientifically accurate game-play, you'll be immersed in biology, chemistry, geo-science, and engineering as you build and explore planetary systems.
Develop planets, colonize worlds, nurture species, mine elements, build robots, and discover unique life-forms as you coordinate with others in an intense game of real-time strategy.
https://www.kickstarter.com/project...on-presents-space-odyssey-the-vid/description
Nice initiative!
One thing I would like to see them do, would be to build a long ramp ~100km long, on some high up plain (less air resistance)
and either with mag lev or some 'near frictionless' track, have a rocket powered platform as a catapult. attach your rocket to the front of it, get the platform up to a third of low earth orbit speed, fire the rockets motors to continue the rest of the journey.
The advantage of a 'catapult' vs having a 1st launch stage is its 100% reusable
(note- only used for cargo as g-force will prolly squish a human)
and either with mag lev or some 'near frictionless' track, have a rocket powered platform as a catapult. attach your rocket to the front of it, get the platform up to a third of low earth orbit speed, fire the rockets motors to continue the rest of the journey.
The advantage of a 'catapult' vs having a 1st launch stage is its 100% reusable
(note- only used for cargo as g-force will prolly squish a human)
cheapchips
Veteran
That'd be very expensive. Costs include the land, building the thing, R & D on a maglev system that has to go significantly faster than any in existence.
I'm also not sure that even a high up plain would boast a significant enough reduction in air pressure?
One thing I did ponder with the cost reduction in tunnels that The Boring Company hope achieve, is if you could create a hyperloop type low pressure tunnel launch system. The infrastructure cost would still be huge vs 2nd gen reusable rockets.
Cargo per launch would also be limited compared to ITS/New Armstrong. You could have a very high launch cadence though.
I think a launch system might be more likely to happen once there's a proper space economy, with significant number of people living in LEO. Reusable rockets could continue to improve and probably continue to cost it out of viability though.
(Assuming a LEO economy ever really takes off)
I'm also not sure that even a high up plain would boast a significant enough reduction in air pressure?
One thing I did ponder with the cost reduction in tunnels that The Boring Company hope achieve, is if you could create a hyperloop type low pressure tunnel launch system. The infrastructure cost would still be huge vs 2nd gen reusable rockets.
Cargo per launch would also be limited compared to ITS/New Armstrong. You could have a very high launch cadence though.
I think a launch system might be more likely to happen once there's a proper space economy, with significant number of people living in LEO. Reusable rockets could continue to improve and probably continue to cost it out of viability though.
(Assuming a LEO economy ever really takes off)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Plateau
though there you have the political situation, though certainly the chinese are prolly the most capable in the world to build something quickly
alternately the north of australia (close to equator) plenty of unused land, downside its not that high, though australia does a lot of mining so are prolly experts at moving ground, If ppl could build the pyramids 4000 years ago, they should be able to do a *LOT* better today (unless 'it was aliens'
)Sure it will cost Billions, but if a company can spend hundreds of Millions boring through a mountain etc to save 3 milliseconds off stock trading, we've obviously got money to burn
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/...dale-daniel-spivey-wall-street-speed-war.html
why not do something that will remain useful for decades
5000m = ~50%
also higher = more centrifugal speed though tiny (but hey, every little bit helps)
It does look like others have researched it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram
also we have built a rocketpower sled that can move quite quick http://www.impactlab.net/2006/01/15/the-fastest-rocket-sled-on-earth/
didnt cost much money either, now something like this but with a rocket attached to the front, so the sled acts like stage 1 of a rocket, giving the initial boost, where most of the fuel is used
cheapchips
Veteran
I was going to link Startram, but I was typing on my mobile so couldn't be arsed with the faff.
I'd much rather humanity was spending $67b on a project like this than other things. It's not going to happen without an established market though. What existing organisation would take a punt on an investment that large with no guarantee of returning a profit?
A small version wouldn't be competitive with Falcon 9 reusable or New Glenn.
There's another sea based tube type system that I can't for the life of me remember the name of. That was interesting. They gave up when it was clear that Falcon 9 would push into their cost per kg to orbit.
I'd much rather humanity was spending $67b on a project like this than other things. It's not going to happen without an established market though. What existing organisation would take a punt on an investment that large with no guarantee of returning a profit?
A small version wouldn't be competitive with Falcon 9 reusable or New Glenn.
There's another sea based tube type system that I can't for the life of me remember the name of. That was interesting. They gave up when it was clear that Falcon 9 would push into their cost per kg to orbit.
67billion aint that much in the grand scheme of things for something thats gonna last forever.
any reduction of launch weight benefits 2 fold, less fuel = less weight which also means the rockets have to work less hard so the remaining fuel will go further,
The opposite is like next month I fly on the worlds longest flight 17:40 hours, the thing is to extend the distance you can travel you have to carry more fuel, which increases the weight to the plane which means the engines are burning more fuel to carry all the extra weight, IIRC ~30% of the fuel is wasted at these long flights.
Or say you have an electric car, batteries weigh 500kg, say you can double the battery range, without increasing the weight. But instead you decide to use half the batterys = 250kg, you won't be travelling the same distance, you will in fact be travelling more since the car weighs less (not to mention acceleration etc will be better)
north australia would be an ideal place (except for the lack of land height)
perfect weather, no ppl, little air traffic, seismically stable etc means you could be operating a space port nearly 365 days a year
any reduction of launch weight benefits 2 fold, less fuel = less weight which also means the rockets have to work less hard so the remaining fuel will go further,
The opposite is like next month I fly on the worlds longest flight 17:40 hours, the thing is to extend the distance you can travel you have to carry more fuel, which increases the weight to the plane which means the engines are burning more fuel to carry all the extra weight, IIRC ~30% of the fuel is wasted at these long flights.
Or say you have an electric car, batteries weigh 500kg, say you can double the battery range, without increasing the weight. But instead you decide to use half the batterys = 250kg, you won't be travelling the same distance, you will in fact be travelling more since the car weighs less (not to mention acceleration etc will be better)
north australia would be an ideal place (except for the lack of land height)
perfect weather, no ppl, little air traffic, seismically stable etc means you could be operating a space port nearly 365 days a year
cheapchips
Veteran
The window where Startram made sense is pretty much closing with large reusable rockets. ITS will cost $3.4m per launch and you should be able to fit 250 people on board. That takes you below the $13,000 per person to LEO that Startram would cost, with a much smaller up front investment (under 10bn).
With any luck it'll be flying within 5 years, with New Armstrong following soon enough after.
It'll be pretty amazing in the next decade, when we have two launch systems than can fling something the mass of the ISS in to orbit in a single launch.
(Assuming nothing blows up too badly)
With any luck it'll be flying within 5 years, with New Armstrong following soon enough after.
It'll be pretty amazing in the next decade, when we have two launch systems than can fling something the mass of the ISS in to orbit in a single launch.
(Assuming nothing blows up too badly)
Life might have a shot on planets orbiting dim red stars
If exoplanets around M dwarfs host life, it’s probably very different from that on Earth
By
Christopher Crockett
10:00am, June 14, 2017
UNLIKELY WORLDS TRAPPIST-1 (illustrated) is on a growing list of dim red suns with planets that could support life. Three of its seven planets are in the habitable zone.
Our corner of the galaxy teems with alien worlds. In the 25 years since the discovery of the first planets beyond our solar system, astronomers have found more than 3,600 worlds orbiting other stars. A select few have become tantalizing targets in the search for life despite orbiting stars that are much smaller, cooler — and in many ways harsher — than the sun.
Just before this article was publish, I was precisely thinking about how interesting is the subject of habitable zone in M dwarf systems. Hopefully, we will discover and learn more things in a near future, thanks to the new tech/telescopes.
@nutball: launch PLATO now!!
Any data to back that up, that sounds way to good to be true, like orders of magnitude of error with your figures
cheapchips
Veteran
Costs are from the space X Mars presentation.
http://www.spacex.com/mars
I did make a small mistake as it'd be 4.26m for passengers and 3.4m for cargo, so around $17000 for a 250 person launch.
Costs on page 41 for Mars transit, which is 6 launches. Spaceship costs per Mars launch are higher than the tanker launch because it's stuck on Mars for two years, limiting it's reuse. It would have 100 launches like the tanker if used to LEO.
Booster per launch
11 / 6 = 1.8m
Spaceship per launch (scaled tanker cost, as other than seats and the bar they're the same vehicle)
(8 / 6) * (200/130) = 2.46m
Passenger cost
1.8 + 2.46 = 4.26m
4.26m / 250 folks = $17,046
Think that's all in order! Phone screen and calculator isn't ideal.
Next presentation is in a couple of months. Tweet from Elon suggest they've now sorted out their funding beyond stealing underpants.
I did mean to say that it would still stand that something like StarTram is probably less noisy and could achieve a high launch cadance than big reusables. You'd need 16000 rocket launches over a decade to put 4m people in orbit.
That's why I think rockets can establish the market. Investment in something like StarTram can then make more sense as a 'railroad' investment serving that market. Assuming gen2 big boosters don't cost it out.
As another aside, if SpaceX fail for some reason, Bezos is investing $1bn a year in Blue Origin by selling Amazon shares. Big reusables will happen on way or another.
http://www.spacex.com/mars
I did make a small mistake as it'd be 4.26m for passengers and 3.4m for cargo, so around $17000 for a 250 person launch.
Costs on page 41 for Mars transit, which is 6 launches. Spaceship costs per Mars launch are higher than the tanker launch because it's stuck on Mars for two years, limiting it's reuse. It would have 100 launches like the tanker if used to LEO.
Booster per launch
11 / 6 = 1.8m
Spaceship per launch (scaled tanker cost, as other than seats and the bar they're the same vehicle)
(8 / 6) * (200/130) = 2.46m
Passenger cost
1.8 + 2.46 = 4.26m
4.26m / 250 folks = $17,046
Think that's all in order! Phone screen and calculator isn't ideal.
Next presentation is in a couple of months. Tweet from Elon suggest they've now sorted out their funding beyond stealing underpants.
I did mean to say that it would still stand that something like StarTram is probably less noisy and could achieve a high launch cadance than big reusables. You'd need 16000 rocket launches over a decade to put 4m people in orbit.
That's why I think rockets can establish the market. Investment in something like StarTram can then make more sense as a 'railroad' investment serving that market. Assuming gen2 big boosters don't cost it out.
As another aside, if SpaceX fail for some reason, Bezos is investing $1bn a year in Blue Origin by selling Amazon shares. Big reusables will happen on way or another.