Wow, it feels so strange thinking about how these people look out the window and see the planet so far away from their feet. I tried to play a space simulator on my Oculus quest 2 and it looked so real I got sick from my stomach.
Astronomy and space exploration
- Thread starter eloic
- Start date
Wow, it feels so strange thinking about how these people look out the window and see the planet so far away from their feet. I tried to play a space simulator on my Oculus quest 2 and it looked so real I got sick from my stomach.
Not sure which one you checked out...
I love using SpaceEngine on Steam (steampowered.com) on my Oculus Quest wirelessly via VRDesktop. I can play until my neck hurts and the batteries die just cruising around the universe looking at cool shit.
The one I played is "International Space Station Tour VR", it's on steam VR as well. Very cool game if you don't have motion sickness in VR. The part I was talking about is when you get to go outside the station or just when you get to a window and look at the immensity of our planet.
I suggest you check it out if you haven't. I'll also take a look at the game you referred
I suggest you check it out if you haven't. I'll also take a look at the game you referred
Yup, I have that one too. It's OK and still didn't really satiate my appetite for checking out cool space stuff. Oddly enough it too made me just a bit queasy and I'm not really sure why; most VR stuff I'm pretty fine with.
Last edited:
hoom
Veteran
Rocket Lab has done a presentation for their new bigger rocket
Some interesting stuff there, some pointed jabs at SpaceX but also some things that seem a bit questionable ie sound nice but might be hard to actually make work/significantly negatively impact performance.
They also did another launch 2 weeks back
Yay more spy satellites
They also did another launch 2 weeks back
cheapchips
Veteran
It was a fun presentation. They took jabs at everyone! (which as Scott Manley point out, is better than saying "we're doing it this way because its cheap")
Which bits did you think were questionable in terms of getting it to work?
hoom
Veteran
Most of the cool stuff is imposing weight/reduced usable delta V/ rocket cycle costs on the first stage and its not just a couple of things its a whole heap of things stacked:
A fantastic achievement if they can pull it all off & I hope they do but there is a bunch of good reasons why nobody achieved that previously.
- Landing gear which will be fully exposed to the max aerodynamic heating and to a lot of retro-firing of the engines. (they also do clearly deploy contra his script)
- Rugged engines not running on the bleeding edge = reduced thrust to weight compared to a bleeding edge engine.
- Using the engines as primary heat-shield, not sure about the actual aero-heating vs running engine temperature differences, might be a brilliant idea but might mean they need to be built more ruggedly again & surely means more wear/maintenance/less reuses. And what are they doing in between the engines?
- Compound curved structure, might be a weight positive depending on a bunch of stuff & will be easier to build with composites vs metal but still more expensive/effort vs cylindrical
- I don't necessarily buy that there is enough taper to actually keep it out of the thermal load, especially with those little canards near the nose being expected to be doing steering. Maybe its just enough to keep temp within capability of the materials?
- While the 2nd stage can be lighter when hung from the 1st, the 1st has to be that much bigger & stronger -> heavier and without pressurised tanks integrated into that part of the structure to help out with the rigidity.
- Extra weight from carrying the fairings with hinges, actuators, locking mechanisms & whatever mechanism for deploying the 2nd stage from deep inside the 1st.
- Extra weight & drag from the canards & actuators, also have to be a reversible section (I think supersonic aero does help that not be so big an issue vs sub-sonic)
- Normally fairing separation is done some time after 1st staging -> they either deploy lower with additional drag & structural costs on the fairings or the 1st stage will have to accelerate it all quite a bit higher/faster than a typical 2-stage.
- Return to launch pad means it not only has to carry all that extra stuff up to that higher/faster staging but it has to still have enough fuel to stop and fully reverse the horizontal velocity of that heavier stage, then do deceleration & landing burns as well.
A fantastic achievement if they can pull it all off & I hope they do but there is a bunch of good reasons why nobody achieved that previously.
cheapchips
Veteran
I'm sure some NSF boffin will work out what speed/altitude it stages at, as Rocket Lab haven't said. It'll probably be relatively high / fast but it's still going to be far from SSTO.
With the suborbital heating issues you mention, they're quite a way towards knowing what they're doing with that due to their Electron experience. I think we might see bits like the legs and canards using the metallic aerogel coating they're about to roll out though.
Last edited:
hoom
Veteran
Quick turnaround on next Rocket labs launch
They claim to be 3rd most frequent launcher now.
It just seems like quite a bit too much stuff stuck on the 1st stage to be healthy to me.
Yes certainly is based off their testing with Electron & presumably that means they know what they're talking about.
It just seems like quite a bit too much stuff stuck on the 1st stage to be healthy to me.
hoom
Veteran
As cool as it would be if true & as huge the number seems, the discrepancy of 100,000km over I'm not sure how many months/years seems pretty minor when you consider it peaked at over 300,000km/h velocity at perihelion.
Only takes a pretty small margin in error of measurements of location/orbit, small difference between estimated & actual mass or some form of mass loss for it to get that far off IMO.
His question 'is that what science has come to?' is odd because the answer is 'thats what it has always been': observe phenomena -> come up with theory to explain phenomena -> test theory.
Some form of mass-loss that we just didn't detect is a pretty obvious 'most likely' theory given the pretty limited observations we were able to take & really not that huge discrepancy.
Hydrogen seemed like a good possibility but turns out a no-go -> something else and the theory of Nitrogen is being tested now.
Yes, I thought of that as well.
I know what it is (you were all thinking it)
hoom
Veteran
Peter Beck did a good interview with Everyday Astronaut, addresses a lot of my questions & a bunch of other stuff
Still not entirely convinced but pretty confident & candid answers.
Estimate 25% mass compared to a 100% steel equivalent is more of a difference than I was thinking been about 20yrs since I knew much about relative strength/masses & that was marine stuff so carbon vs already pretty light glass/foam/ply type structures.
Very interesting point about the internal anti-buckle structure needed with a thin shell steel structure vs the massive stiffness/weight you get with a cored composite & thats certainly something I get from the marine point of view.
Edit: I've been watching some older interviews & ran into this, their first space shot
Estimate 25% mass compared to a 100% steel equivalent is more of a difference than I was thinking
been about 20yrs since I knew much about relative strength/masses & that was marine stuff so carbon vs already pretty light glass/foam/ply type structures.Very interesting point about the internal anti-buckle structure needed with a thin shell steel structure vs the massive stiffness/weight you get with a cored composite & thats certainly something I get from the marine point of view.
Edit: I've been watching some older interviews & ran into this, their first space shot
Last edited:
cheapchips
Veteran
He was NSFLive as well this week. I'm of a quandary as to which I should watch.