Astronomy & Space Exploration

I've been a major SpaceX fan a few years now, but this is morning was fecking crazy. Landing like that can no longer be considered a fluke. It's unbelieable how accurate they can get it, especially from a GTO mission.
For those who wanna know: GOT a very high-velocity, elliptical orbit used to deliver satellites to geosynchronous orbit. Launches of this type have lower fuel margins and higher incoming velocity for the first stage landings.
Lower orbit missions(LEO) don't need to go as fast so they have more fuel left over. A "boostback" return landing back to Cape Caneveral could be attempted(by turning the rocket 180), but it doesn't improve their accuracy.
https://i.imgur.com/D9BdO86.png

That 3 engine burn is amazing though. The Merlin engines are an octoweb(8 in a circle with one the middle). For GTO missions, they use 3 engines over 15 seconds, which is more difficult than their usual 1 engine for 30 seconds.
God I'm so excited about the Heavy. ...

Also half the reason I'm not here as often is that I'm over on the spacex subreddit.
Haha! Reading or lurking?

It's such an exciting time. I can't believe how quickly this has all happened. It seems like just yesterday that the dragon met the ISS for the first time. Back then I just thought SpaceX were going to be *another* Space provider (afterall, crafts dock with the ISS quite regularly even now). Then they lost the rocket least year and we had those months and months of nothing. I thought that would a big set back.

Instead, they some time have come out stronger than ever. Just amazing.

Elon Musk is such an incredible guy. Zip2 to Paypal. Paypal to Tesla, Solar City and SpaceX

The real question is, do you play KSP
 
Red Dragon should be amazing. Having an actual human-rated craft that's able to land propulsively on Mars is a big deal. Obviously, at the moment the astronauts would die on the way and wouldn't able to get back to Earth, but still, baby steps and that...
 
Red Dragon should be amazing. Having an actual human-rated craft that's able to land propulsively on Mars is a big deal. Obviously, at the moment the astronauts would die on the way and wouldn't able to get back to Earth, but still, baby steps and that...
It's so weird. They've been testing it in the upper atmosphere, where earths atmosphere is comparable to Mars. They've already shown they can propulsively land a rocket on earth (three times). How hard can it be to land a capsule on Mars?
 
It's so weird. They've been testing it in the upper atmosphere, where earths atmosphere is comparable to Mars. They've already shown they can propulsively land a rocket on earth (three times). How hard can it be to land a capsule on Mars?
I think doing it accurately is the big thing. Any manned mission is likely going to be made up of several launches delivering different bits of equipment which'll need to land within tens of metres of ones another, and the current most accurate landing systems (on Mars) still have an area of uncertainty kilometres wide.
 
It's so weird. They've been testing it in the upper atmosphere, where earths atmosphere is comparable to Mars. They've already shown they can propulsively land a rocket on earth (three times). How hard can it be to land a capsule on Mars?
I think the problem landing rocks in mars is the over 3 minutes for any command from earth to reach the red planet when is closest to ours, they will be reliable with the computers to do all the work.
 
Haha! Reading or lurking?

It's such an exciting time. I can't believe how quickly this has all happened. It seems like just yesterday that the dragon met the ISS for the first time. Back then I just thought SpaceX were going to be *another* Space provider (afterall, crafts dock with the ISS quite regularly even now). Then they lost the rocket least year and we had those months and months of nothing. I thought that would a big set back.

Instead, they some time have come out stronger than ever. Just amazing.

Elon Musk is such an incredible guy. Zip2 to Paypal. Paypal to Tesla, Solar City and SpaceX

The real question is, do you play KSP


Reading and posting a bit.
The rate of progress they have achieved is phenomenal!
And yes, I play KSP.
 
1,284 new planets: Kepler mission announces largest collection ever discovered

keplermissio.jpg


NASA's Kepler mission has verified 1,284 new planets – the single largest finding of planets to date.

"This announcement more than doubles the number of confirmed planets from Kepler," said Ellen Stofan, chief scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "This gives us hope that somewhere out there, around a star much like ours, we can eventually discover another Earth."

Analysis was performed on the Kepler space telescope's July 2015 planet candidate catalog, which identified 4,302 potential planets. For 1,284 of the candidates, the probability of being a planet is greater than 99 percent – the minimum required to earn the status of "planet." An additional 1,327 candidates are more likely than not to be actual planets, but they do not meet the 99 percent threshold and will require additional study. The remaining 707 are more likely to be some other astrophysical phenomena. This analysis also validated 984 candidates previously verified by other techniques.

"Before the Kepler space telescope launched, we did not know whether exoplanets were rare or common in the galaxy. Thanks to Kepler and the research community, we now know there could be more planets than stars," said Paul Hertz, Astrophysics Division director at NASA Headquarters. "This knowledge informs the future missions that are needed to take us ever-closer to finding out whether we are alone in the universe."

Kepler captures the discrete signals of distant planets – decreases in brightness that occur when planets pass in front of, or transit, their stars – much like the May 9 Mercury transit of our sun. Since the discovery of the first planets outside our solar system more than two decades ago, researchers have resorted to a laborious, one-by-one process of verifying suspected planets.

This latest announcement, however, is based on a statistical analysis method that can be applied to many planet candidates simultaneously. Timothy Morton, associate research scholar at Princeton University in New Jersey and lead author of the scientific paper published in The Astrophysical Journal, employed a technique to assign each Kepler candidate a planet-hood probability percentage – the first such automated computation on this scale, as previous statistical techniques focused only on sub-groups within the greater list of planet candidates identified by Kepler.

"Planet candidates can be thought of like bread crumbs," said Morton. "If you drop a few large crumbs on the floor, you can pick them up one by one. But, if you spill a whole bag of tiny crumbs, you're going to need a broom. This statistical analysis is our broom."

In the newly-validated batch of planets, nearly 550 could be rocky planets like Earth, based on their size. Nine of these orbit in their sun's habitable zone, which is the distance from a star where orbiting planets can have surface temperatures that allow liquid water to pool. With the addition of these nine, 21 exoplanets now are known to be members of this exclusive group.

"They say not to count our chickens before they're hatched, but that's exactly what these results allow us to do based on probabilities that each egg (candidate) will hatch into a chick (bona fide planet)," said Natalie Batalha, co-author of the paper and the Kepler mission scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California. "This work will help Kepler reach its full potential by yielding a deeper understanding of the number of stars that harbor potentially habitable, Earth-size planets—a number that's needed to design future missions to search for habitable environments and living worlds."

Of the nearly 5,000 total planet candidates found to date, more than 3,200 now have been verified, and 2,325 of these were discovered by Kepler. Launched in March 2009, Kepler is the first NASA mission to find potentially habitable Earth-size planets. For four years, Kepler monitored 150,000 stars in a single patch of sky, measuring the tiny, telltale dip in the brightness of a star that can be produced by a transiting planet. In 2018, NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite will use the same method to monitor 200,000 bright nearby stars and search for planets, focusing on Earth and Super-Earth-sized.
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-planets-kepler-mission-largest.html
 
Discovering planets is going to become old hat soon once we figure out there are more planets than stars.
 
Just watch a show on sci channel and they think each galaxy have a massive black hole and they are the reason galaxies are formed.
Yep, that concept is utterly fascinating. Sagittarius A* - the radio center of our Milky Way is supposed to have a supermassive black hole of the magnitude of ~4 million Solar masses. Unfortunately, Saturn and Jupiter's tidal magnetic fields distort most of those signals en route to Earth. :(



Though within the last year, a stellar cloud passed through that region without being warped or sucked in, so maybe it's just a concentrated belt of giant Stars, like say - the Pistol:
All largely speculative at this point.
 
Interesting now we need to go from 15.73 kilometers per second (new Horizons) to 299 792 kilometers per second (speed of light) to have any hope to reach the next solar system.

To a photon of light the distance between the Earth and the next solar system is 0 kilometers. If we can get close to, say, 98% of light speed the distance shrinks enormously so it becomes very doable.
 
Last edited:
To a photon of light the distance between the Earth and the next solar system is 0 kilometers. If we can get close to, say, 98% of light speed the distance shrinks enormously so it becomes very doable.
Still would take over 4 years to get there at speed of light but by then we need to figured out how to slowdown before reaching the solar system.
 
Those nanoprobes recently talked about by the likes of Hawking would reach .2C, would get to Alpha Centauri in about 20 years which in the grand scheme of things isn't much when we're talking interstellar exploration. Very much doubt they'll get built but they are physically (and engineering...ly) possible and relatively affordable. Get a bunch of those and send them out in all directions.
 
Those nanoprobes recently talked about by the likes of Hawking would reach .2C, would get to Alpha Centauri in about 20 years which in the grand scheme of things isn't much when we're talking interstellar exploration. Very much doubt they'll get built but they are physically (and engineering...ly) possible and relatively affordable. Get a bunch of those and send them out in all directions.
I'm not sure about them being affordable. They require an array of lasers across the area of a moderately sized country to transmit power hundreds of times that which a nuclear plant generators (for a very short period of time) and hit a tiny tiny object in the sky without breaking it...

All to send a tiny camera on a 20 year mission to try and take just one picture and transmit it back to us.

I agree though, that once you have infrastructure to build one, it should be very easy to send thousands out into space, which weirdly is something that I haven't heard them talk about.
 
Still would take over 4 years to get there at speed of light but by then we need to figured out how to slowdown before reaching the solar system.

It's a lot easier to talk about near light speed travel than to achieve it. The amount of energy required to accelerate a family car to 99% light speed would probably be greater than the total energy produced by human beings in the history of industrial civilization. (Not sure if this is entirely accurate, and I'm too lazy to do the calculation, but that's the scale you're talking about)

If you can get up there though, you can go anywhere you like. Travel halfway across the Universe in a month. Trouble is when you returned home your family, friends, civilization, humanity, the Earth and even the Sun itself would all be gone. You'd be like an Irish immigrant sailing for America in the 19th century - never to see the old sod again.
 
I'm not sure about them being affordable. They require an array of lasers across the area of a moderately sized country to transmit power hundreds of times that which a nuclear plant generators (for a very short period of time) and hit a tiny tiny object in the sky without breaking it...

All to send a tiny camera on a 20 year mission to try and take just one picture and transmit it back to us.

I agree though, that once you have infrastructure to build one, it should be very easy to send thousands out into space, which weirdly is something that I haven't heard them talk about.
I think it's supposed to be comparable to the big scientific experiments like LHC, James Webb Telescope. Not cheap, but "relatively affordable" compared to other interstellar probe ideas you'll read about. Array's supposed to be about a kilometre in area, isn't it? Is it really just one picture?
 
I think it's supposed to be comparable to the big scientific experiments like LHC, James Webb Telescope. Not cheap, but "relatively affordable" compared to other interstellar probe ideas you'll read about. Array's supposed to be about a kilometre in area, isn't it? Is it really just one picture?
At least from what I have read, it's supposed to be "one picture" due to the energy costs of transmitting the information back.

If as you say, the thing is traveling at 0.2c, then it's going to still take days for this probe to go from the distance of pluto to the distance of earth. That's plenty of time to take multiple pictures... but what will it be taking? It's very difficult to spot a planet with a camera from earth, so we should expect the vast majority of the pictures it takes to be of a starry sky and nothing more. You would hope that it would manage to take a picture of a planet, realise that it has taken one, and transmit that information back. At 0.2c it's not going to be taking multiple closeups of any one planet.

Obviously you can add solar panels to replenish it in those days when it is relatively near those stars, but then you've added more weight, so more laser cost and a longer mission.
 
At least from what I have read, it's supposed to be "one picture" due to the energy costs of transmitting the information back.

If as you say, the thing is traveling at 0.2c, then it's going to still take days for this probe to go from the distance of pluto to the distance of earth. That's plenty of time to take multiple pictures... but what will it be taking? It's very difficult to spot a planet with a camera from earth, so we should expect the vast majority of the pictures it takes to be of a starry sky and nothing more. You would hope that it would manage to take a picture of a planet, realise that it has taken one, and transmit that information back. At 0.2c it's not going to be taking multiple closeups of any one planet.

Obviously you can add solar panels to replenish it in those days when it is relatively near those stars, but then you've added more weight, so more laser cost and a longer mission.
Yeah not sure how the things would do course corrections or anything, wouldn't be any thrusters on board. We should be able to spot any planets within the target systems after the likes of JWST are up and running, and the SKA here on Earth, so they'd hopefully have the actual locations already known and planned for, whether they'd be able to get close enough to take decent pictures though I'm not sure. It's definitely an interesting concept of what can be done though, and a realistic, nearish term means of accelerating man-made craft to significant fractions of lightspeed.
 
It's a lot easier to talk about near light speed travel than to achieve it. The amount of energy required to accelerate a family car to 99% light speed would probably be greater than the total energy produced by human beings in the history of industrial civilization. (Not sure if this is entirely accurate, and I'm too lazy to do the calculation, but that's the scale you're talking about)

If you can get up there though, you can go anywhere you like. Travel halfway across the Universe in a month. Trouble is when you returned home your family, friends, civilization, humanity, the Earth and even the Sun itself would all be gone. You'd be like an Irish immigrant sailing for America in the 19th century - never to see the old sod again.
If we are able one day to reach the speed of light I'm sure they will have to measure not time but the distance, if a planet is 4 hours at speed of light then for the people traveling they would reach the planet in no time for them but 4 hours for us, then for longer distances they could hit a planet or a sun and better yet a black hole.
 
I was reading about the Asteroid Redirect Mission. If it is accomplished, it would be one of the greatest achievements in space exploration. NASA want to send an unmanned probe to an asteroid to harpoon it and bring it to a stable lunar orbit. Astronauts would then go to the moon to study the asteroid and bring back samples. Pretty interesting proposal.
 
I was reading about the Asteroid Redirect Mission. If it is accomplished, it would be one of the greatest achievements in space exploration. NASA want to send an unmanned probe to an asteroid to harpoon it and bring it to a stable lunar orbit. Astronauts would then go to the moon to study the asteroid and bring back samples. Pretty interesting proposal.
Kind of dangerous
 
I was reading about the Asteroid Redirect Mission. If it is accomplished, it would be one of the greatest achievements in space exploration. NASA want to send an unmanned probe to an asteroid to harpoon it and bring it to a stable lunar orbit. Astronauts would then go to the moon to study the asteroid and bring back samples. Pretty interesting proposal.
Yeah that would be incredible. I'm not sure I trust that it will ever happen though!
 
Kind of dangerous

Yeah that would be incredible. I'm not sure I trust that it will ever happen though!

Yes, it is dangerous. But since the last time there was a manned mission to the moon Apollo, technology has improved vastly. Neil Armstrong and team went to the moon on the CSM which was powered by computers that are less powerful than the processor in a smartphone today. They probably wouldn't go ahead with this if it was too dangerous.
 
To a photon of light the distance between the Earth and the next solar system is 0 kilometers. If we can get close to, say, 98% of light speed the distance shrinks enormously so it becomes very doable.

It's a lot easier to talk about near light speed travel than to achieve it. The amount of energy required to accelerate a family car to 99% light speed would probably be greater than the total energy produced by human beings in the history of industrial civilization. (Not sure if this is entirely accurate, and I'm too lazy to do the calculation, but that's the scale you're talking about)

If you can get up there though, you can go anywhere you like. Travel halfway across the Universe in a month. Trouble is when you returned home your family, friends, civilization, humanity, the Earth and even the Sun itself would all be gone. You'd be like an Irish immigrant sailing for America in the 19th century - never to see the old sod again.
I think you might need to read up on distance/time calculations!
 
How they know if iron kills a star in a few seconds?
Fe-56 and Fe-58 (via Zn/ Ni β decay) are the first isotopes with endothermic binding within the nuclei because the thermal photons decompose into 'soup', and they have the highest binding energies per nucleon (notice the peak on the graph):

binding_energy.jpg

So, more energy is being absorbed than produced through the combined stellar mass via combination of the nucleons or α-swaps - hence the star collapses on its core because gravity > energy being expelled to maintain the 'structure' of the star. However, with larger stars (Type II supernovae), it goes beyond Fe-56 and Fe-58 because of the sheer mass of those stars (50+ stellar masses) and abudance of thermal photons, which produce higher elements immediately before the 'bang' - beyond Fe-56 and Fe-58 (including all the heavier, or radioactive material on earth). You can actually verify it on logarithmic systems using classical chemistry.
 
I think you might need to read up on distance/time calculations!

You're overlooking relativistic effects on time/distance. If there's a photon out there that came into existence close to the beginning of the Universe, which dies as you read this post in an impact with your retina, as far as it's concerned, there will be no time or distance interval between birth and death. Even though to us it will have been in existence for 13.8 billion years and traveled 13.8 billion light years, to the photon, no time will have passed and it will have gone nowhere. A pretty uneventful life.

That's always ignored in Sci Fi depictions of light speed travel. A light speed journey should be experienced as a step discontinuity. Yet if the Star Trek Enterprise is traveling across the Galaxy at warp 1 (light speed) the crew go about their business as normal - time passes. As far as warp 2, 3, ... (greater than light speed) is concerned, the crew should get younger and reach their destination before they begin the journey!
 
You're overlooking relativistic effects on time/distance. If there's a photon out there that came into existence close to the beginning of the Universe, which dies as you read this post in an impact with your retina, as far as it's concerned, there will be no time or distance interval between birth and death. Even though to us it will have been in existence for 13.8 billion years and traveled 13.8 billion light years, to the photon, no time will have passed and it will have gone nowhere. A pretty uneventful life.

That's always ignored in Sci Fi depictions of light speed travel. A light speed journey should be experienced as a step discontinuity. Yet if the Star Trek Enterprise is traveling across the Galaxy at warp 1 (light speed) the crew go about their business as normal - time passes. As far as warp 2, 3, ... (greater than light speed) is concerned, the crew should get younger and reach their destination before they begin the journey!
Putting aside making assumptions over the physical nature of a warp bubble, relativity doesn't make statements about what happens if you go faster than the speed of light.

I don't think your statements of relativistic affects are correct. The relative time flow for something travelling at the speed of light is different for different observers. Let's say I travel from point A to point B which are 1 light year apart at the speed of light. In my frame of reference time flows 'normally' for me, so travelling from A to B takes 1 year.
 
Putting aside making assumptions over the physical nature of a warp bubble, relativity doesn't make statements about what happens if you go faster than the speed of light.

I don't think your statements of relativistic affects are correct. The relative time flow for something travelling at the speed of light is different for different observers. Let's say I travel from point A to point B which are 1 light year apart at the speed of light. In my frame of reference time flows 'normally' for me, so travelling from A to B takes 1 year.

You're taking my 'faster than light' projections a bit too seriously. Just having a little fun with Star Trek 'physics'.

The bolded bit, I'm sorry to say, is not true. You can certainly start at point A (in fact everywhere is point A), but there's nowhere in the physical Universe that is one light year distant.

If you travel from Earth to the nearest star, 4 light years distant, at 99% light speed, in your frame of reference, as you say, time will flow normally. You do your calculations. Distance to the nearest star/99% light speed = time taken for journey. It will be consistent. The effect of relativity is that, for you, the nearest star is not 4 light years away, it is far less. Length contraction is the corollary of time dilation. So your journey is very brief.