Astronomy and space exploration
- Thread starter eloic
- Start date
Only if wherever we go has earth-like gravity and atmosphere, I'd assume.
A program you may not be aware of :
The free space simulation that lets you explore our universe in three dimensions. Celestia runs on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.
Unlike most planetarium software, Celestia doesn't confine you to the surface of the Earth. You can travel throughout the solar system, to any of over 100,000 stars, or even beyond the galaxy.
https://celestiaproject.net/index.html
Addons :
http://celestiamotherlode.net
The free space simulation that lets you explore our universe in three dimensions. Celestia runs on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.
Unlike most planetarium software, Celestia doesn't confine you to the surface of the Earth. You can travel throughout the solar system, to any of over 100,000 stars, or even beyond the galaxy.
https://celestiaproject.net/index.html
Addons :
http://celestiamotherlode.net
Of course he did, and of course he hasn't, respectively. Turp picked a food safety guy with no experience in food safety IIRC, a national science administrator with no education whatsoever in the sciences and an environmental protections administrator with a background in the coal industry and who hates his own department and wants to abolish it.
Expecting the opposite of what one would expect is standard O.P. with Turp. "Draining the swamp", I believe he's calling it...
Hi, guys.
Your thoughts on Elon Musk's BFR?
https://futurism.com/elon-musk-spacexs-bfr-rocket-will-do-more-than-take-us-to-mars/
https://futurism.com/elon-musk-spacexs-bfr-rocket-will-do-more-than-take-us-to-mars/
Your thoughts on Elon Musk's BFR?
https://futurism.com/elon-musk-spacexs-bfr-rocket-will-do-more-than-take-us-to-mars/
https://futurism.com/elon-musk-spacexs-bfr-rocket-will-do-more-than-take-us-to-mars/
Last edited:
It's a more realistic, down-to-earth (*ahem*) rocket. While smaller, if it helps us getting there in a realistic timeframe I'm all for it. Humans need to get out there, or we'll suffocate on our own shit here on earth.
People on mars in 2024 is probably a bit optimistic, but setting aggressive goals is the only way we're going to get anywhere. Otherwise it'll just be the same old same old "in five to ten years maybe we'll have half a prototype ready..." like it's been if not since the end of the space race, so at least since the mothballing of the U.S. shuttle program.
If there's a will there's a way, which the original U.S. space program proved. It's the will part that's the problem; going into space isn't going to benefit politicians much in the near term, so these craven creatures aren't going to push very hard for it. Not even new, recent chinese ambitions have lit much of a torch under their crass asses, so luckily there's private industry stepping up to the plate instead.
People on mars in 2024 is probably a bit optimistic, but setting aggressive goals is the only way we're going to get anywhere. Otherwise it'll just be the same old same old "in five to ten years maybe we'll have half a prototype ready..." like it's been if not since the end of the space race, so at least since the mothballing of the U.S. shuttle program.
If there's a will there's a way, which the original U.S. space program proved. It's the will part that's the problem; going into space isn't going to benefit politicians much in the near term, so these craven creatures aren't going to push very hard for it. Not even new, recent chinese ambitions have lit much of a torch under their crass asses, so luckily there's private industry stepping up to the plate instead.
cheapchips
Veteran
The road between the first BFR flight and intercontinental ballistic passenger flinging is a long one to say least!
Still, the vehicle looks like it's achievable from a funding and technical perspective, rather than just technically doable like last year's.
Creating a vehicle that services all their current customers, their Mars ambitions and drastically reduces $/kg to orbit opening up new markets will be an amazing achievement if they pull it off.
Please don't explode.
Still, the vehicle looks like it's achievable from a funding and technical perspective, rather than just technically doable like last year's.
Creating a vehicle that services all their current customers, their Mars ambitions and drastically reduces $/kg to orbit opening up new markets will be an amazing achievement if they pull it off.
Please don't explode.
Yeah, I dunno if THAT will ever happen, but interestingly, you could make methane biofuel for the rocket by anerobic decomposition of organic waste, such as sewage for example (which we have plenty of.) They do that here in my city, to run city buses and garbage trucks and whatnot.
cheapchips
Veteran
Building and flying the BFR is funded from existing customers. I'm sure it's not cost neutral next to continuing as a Falcon 9 company, but the additional costs they will incur can't be that significant next to the 6000 staff they pay each year.
The big question mark on funding is for Mars missions.
Their proposed internet constellation could be a massive earner. With BFR it's also billions of dollars cheaper to launch.
The big question mark on funding is for Mars missions.
Their proposed internet constellation could be a massive earner. With BFR it's also billions of dollars cheaper to launch.
cheapchips
Veteran
Like Thunderf00t's hyperloop video, his BFR one's full of factual and physics errors.
Not that safety and reliability are illegitimate concerns. Looking at it long term,the BFR will either prove these things out or not with hundreds of commercial satellite flights. You then have to ask why not do point to point?
I'm not going to go through every duff bit of the video but the ticket price and g-force arguments were particularly ignorant.
The think that irks me most is that prior point to point designs, what went wrong with the shuttle program and why did rocket technology stagnate are genuinely interesting topics.
Not that safety and reliability are illegitimate concerns. Looking at it long term,the BFR will either prove these things out or not with hundreds of commercial satellite flights. You then have to ask why not do point to point?
I'm not going to go through every duff bit of the video but the ticket price and g-force arguments were particularly ignorant.
The think that irks me most is that prior point to point designs, what went wrong with the shuttle program and why did rocket technology stagnate are genuinely interesting topics.
cheapchips
Veteran
The cost per flight of anything is (vehicle cost / lifetime flights) + maintainence + fuel. Divided by the number of passengers.
This why full, rapid reuse changes everything. Previously you'd be saddled with $100m per fight for chucking your rocket away. If full reuse is achievable, and there are no fundamental reasons why not, then that vehicle cost is equivelent to Airplane cost per flight.
It obviously not a new idea. It didn't work out for the shuttle for various reasons. One view to start with would be it was a pretty good prototype for a vehicle that should have come later, but didn't due to the crappy way NASA funding and government contracts work.
The Whiteknight / Spaceship two combo only has a handful of passengers per flight. It's equivelent to hiring a relatively large plane each time.
This why full, rapid reuse changes everything. Previously you'd be saddled with $100m per fight for chucking your rocket away. If full reuse is achievable, and there are no fundamental reasons why not, then that vehicle cost is equivelent to Airplane cost per flight.
It obviously not a new idea. It didn't work out for the shuttle for various reasons. One view to start with would be it was a pretty good prototype for a vehicle that should have come later, but didn't due to the crappy way NASA funding and government contracts work.
The Whiteknight / Spaceship two combo only has a handful of passengers per flight. It's equivelent to hiring a relatively large plane each time.
There was a flash webpage made by a pair of twins (err, two guys - not four! ) that showed the scale of the universe from smallest theoretical to largest known, like galactic clusters, and even the universe itself IIRC. The page might well be around, I don't know, I haven't looked for it for a few years now, and flash is kind of dead too these days, so I've no idea if it is still up or if it works in today's browsers. Anyway, it was good, and very fascinating. It shows everything in logarithmic scale, so each step is ten times smaller/larger than the previous, very illustrative.
You quickly lose concept of how large and small things are though; going downwards in size from a hooman - because we're obviously of average size compared to everything else there is everywhere... - you get small animals first, and then various organisms, bugs, amoeba, bacteria, virus and so on. Molecules, atoms - and by now we're all already lost in scale - neutrons, protons, electrons, quarks. Then there's a bunch of empty steps where everything gets ten times smaller without there actually being anything that small. You scroll step by step by step by step, ten times smaller, ten times smaller than that, ten times smaller than THAT (already 1000x smaller than just 3 steps ago), ten times smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller...and there. Quantum strings. Lol. They're VEEEERRRY VERY VERY SMALL ITTY BITTY!
Good page.
Star sizes also quickly go out of control. Once the sun is reduced to about a pixel if not less, you really have no concept of how big those monster stars are.
In the book Pandora's Star by Peter F. Hamilton, the characters of the story investigate a star enveloped by a barrier that's some 60+ AU in diameter IIRC (1AU = average earth-sun distance). That's basically unfathomably large, even though it's insignificant in size compared to even just our galaxy. The author describes the scene when viewed from a million kilometers as a seemingly infinite plane stretching out in all directions without any visible curvature. That's truly mindboggling.
Good book too, by the way.
) that showed the scale of the universe from smallest theoretical to largest known, like galactic clusters, and even the universe itself IIRC. The page might well be around, I don't know, I haven't looked for it for a few years now, and flash is kind of dead too these days, so I've no idea if it is still up or if it works in today's browsers. Anyway, it was good, and very fascinating. It shows everything in logarithmic scale, so each step is ten times smaller/larger than the previous, very illustrative.You quickly lose concept of how large and small things are though; going downwards in size from a hooman - because we're obviously of average size compared to everything else there is everywhere...
- you get small animals first, and then various organisms, bugs, amoeba, bacteria, virus and so on. Molecules, atoms - and by now we're all already lost in scale - neutrons, protons, electrons, quarks. Then there's a bunch of empty steps where everything gets ten times smaller without there actually being anything that small. You scroll step by step by step by step, ten times smaller, ten times smaller than that, ten times smaller than THAT (already 1000x smaller than just 3 steps ago), ten times smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller...and there. Quantum strings. Lol. They're VEEEERRRY VERY VERY SMALL ITTY BITTY! Good page.
Star sizes also quickly go out of control. Once the sun is reduced to about a pixel if not less, you really have no concept of how big those monster stars are.
In the book Pandora's Star by Peter F. Hamilton, the characters of the story investigate a star enveloped by a barrier that's some 60+ AU in diameter IIRC (1AU = average earth-sun distance). That's basically unfathomably large, even though it's insignificant in size compared to even just our galaxy. The author describes the scene when viewed from a million kilometers as a seemingly infinite plane stretching out in all directions without any visible curvature. That's truly mindboggling.
Good book too, by the way.