Astronomy & Space Exploration

Wowi said:
I think the answer for it, in regards to NASA, is pretty easy - there was no political motive or ambition for it. The guy behind waitbutwhy.com did a series on Musk (him as a person, Tesla and SpaceX), which is a quite interesting read although very long if you want the whole deal. He wrote a long piece about cutting down the prices (the aptly named "ULA is a Dick Blue Box" is great (ULA = United Launch alliance, Boeing and Lockheed Martin joint venture)), which has been one of NASA's big problems really. The TL;DR-version is that NASA has been forced to use American companies (SpaceX can only hire American workers or workers with green cards for this same reason, I believe). There hasn't really been many US companies doing this until now, so NASA and the US military relied on Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and their joint-venture, to get the job done. They were only in it for the money though, and with no competition they had no reason to find ways to cut down the cost. According to the article SpaceX does launches for NASA for a third of the price ULA does ($133m rather than $380m), and even goes down to $60m for other companies that don't have as many requirements as NASA. With more optimisation and what-not SpaceX will probably be able to do it for close to a tenth of the price ULA has been charging NASA - that is just insane.

Basically, it's a clusterfeck of political shit. Musk doesn't give a shit about that and just wants to go to Mars, so he's finding a way. I think in a lot of ways NASA's hands have basically been tied. They're relying on government funding and they've been forced to use expensive contractors, which limited what else they could do.
Click to expand...
Yup, the will and the industry are definitely the biggest drivers, it's just amazing that since the Shuttle retirement was announced in 2004, they're just now at the stage of targeting putting 4 people into lunar orbit in 2022 on more or less an entirely expendable system. Even if this took SpaceX till 2035 it would be far beyond the vision of what NASA have recently put forward. They had some great ideas in the 90s like the X-33 and the DC-X (incidentally the SpaceX crew transport reminds me a lot of that), but they can never follow it through. Advantage of being controlled entirely by one hyper-rich bloke who has fantasies of dying on Mars, I suppose...
rcoobc said:
So, the thing I want to know the most: We know they are thinking there will be thousands of these things going between earth and Mars. We know they can dock with each other. I wonder if they are thinking that these will be the ascend/descend ships to an even larger interplanetary ship that just remains in space. That would be seriously forward thinking. Maybe even the cycler...

The earth to earth trips will be really useful in cinema over the next few years. I can see jack boeur needing too get to the other side of the earth in 20 minutes to prevent a nuclear explosion, so he gives Musk a call...

So much to sort out. Martian soil is full of salt, so that's great. No magnetic field, no atmosphere. We can do it though.

I bet we finally terraform Mars and Venus, only for the whole system to get wiped out by a passing GRB
Click to expand...
The cycler was mentioned in the Q&A, Musk said he doesn't think it's as efficient a system as they want faster transfers to enable greater re-use, but said they may look again in future if the economics/realities change. On an interplanetary ship - this could be where NASA can gain a niche again, prioritising some kind of advanced propulsion (nuclear electric) based ship that could potentially get to Jupiter or Saturn, and SpaceX provides the launch and landing systems. If their rocket can stick 500 tons into orbit (and is entirely reusable) it changes everything. I still refuse to believe it can get working that quickly, it's just too perfect.
 
I shouldn't think NASA will let a giant (really really giant) tank of explorable fuel anywhere near the ISS. But I wonder if it can dock with it.

Then again, the ISS might be dead by then and we'll be left with the MIR 2 or maybe the MIR Tiangong 2
 
Last edited:
rcoobc said:
I shouldn't think NASA will let a giant (really really giant) tank of explorable fuel anywhere near the ISS. But I wonder if it can dock with it.

Then again, the ISS might be dead by then and we'll be left with the MIR 2 or maybe the MIR Tiangong 2
Click to expand...
Well there presumably has to be a way to dock within the pressurised volume, as Musk mentioned that if the refuelling took any longer than a few weeks they'd send the passengers up on another ship to ferry them in. Would be zero point in it going there though.

Plus, if this thing ever works it'll allow the building of something that dwarfs that ISS in mass and volume, probably for much cheaper and definitely in a quicker time frame. It's hard not to get carried away really, just keep reminding myself there's a very solid chance this all fails.
 
I'm trying to recall whether I've had any recent outbursts against the private sector now. Probably.
 
Ubik said:
Well there presumably has to be a way to dock within the pressurised volume, as Musk mentioned that if the refuelling took any longer than a few weeks they'd send the passengers up on another ship to ferry them in. Would be zero point in it going there though.

Plus, if this thing ever works it'll allow the building of something that dwarfs that ISS in mass and volume, probably for much cheaper and definitely in a quicker time frame. It's hard not to get carried away really, just keep reminding myself there's a very solid chance this all fails.
Click to expand...
So exciting. I'm almost hoping SpaceX give up on the falcon 9 in the next 4 years and concentrate on the ITS. Although what they'd do with all the Falcon 9 first stages in thrir hanger I dont know.

Thats the thing though. Are they spreading themselves too thin? Falcon 9 first stage, second stage, dragon capsule, red dragon, falcon heavy, ITS lower stage, ITS upper stage (fuel), ITS upper stage (transport). Reusable versions of all the above (apart from the Falcon 9 second stage)...

Other rockets like Atlas and Soyuz have different versions amd launch with different boosters, but I think there is a lot more concentration on projects
 
rcoobc said:
So exciting. I'm almost hoping SpaceX give up on the falcon 9 in the next 4 years and concentrate on the ITS. Although what they'd do with all the Falcon 9 first stages in thrir hanger I dont know.

Thats the thing though. Are they spreading themselves too thin? Falcon 9 first stage, second stage, dragon capsule, red dragon, falcon heavy, ITS lower stage, ITS upper stage (fuel), ITS upper stage (transport). Reusable versions of all the above (apart from the Falcon 9 second stage)...

Other rockets like Atlas and Soyuz have different versions amd launch with different boosters, but I think there is a lot more concentration on projects
Click to expand...
He mentioned that after they've finished Falcon Heavy and Dragon2, most of the focus in engineering and general spending will move to ITS. Think they still need the Falcon family launching quite regularly to keep the income flowing (and they'll be launching astronauts which is important for their reputation). Presumably Red Dragon will also be a useful testbed for their ISRU technology. Kind of wish Bezos would go in with him now as between them their wealth would make it all that bit more feasible, but there's probably way too much ego for that to work.

PedroMendez said:
Let's not forget that musk is prone to oversell his projects.
Click to expand...
Also has a history of delivering though, which is why it's hard to know how this'll go.
 
Last edited:
The ITS really could be a game changer. Obviously. But the more I think about it, the more I like it.

It's equally capable of refuelling in high earth orbit, saving 3 km/s delta v. It's equally capable of refuelling on a Saturn fly-by saving 7+ km/s delta v. It's equally capable of refuelling in Mars orbit, which as we need to be able to do mars refueling anyway, could make Mars the gateway for the rest of the Solar System (although many would argue that the Moon would actually be better for that).

It really is the tipping point between science and science fiction.

Right now, ships don't refuel in Space. They just don't. The ISS can refuel, the MIR maybe did, and that's about it. They refuel, because they don't go anywhere. Right now, when we launch something to Space, we launch it from Earth in one big rocket. We never launch it into space, refuel it in space, send it on it's way and then refuel it again. That's ludicrous, ridiculous. And may soon be the common practice. The ISS is a huge space laboratory. The ITS is a spaceship. If it can land on a planet, refuel, and take off again, that's insane.

I'm wondering if the ITS would have the Delta V to - from Mars Orbit with full tanks - Land on Mars, and return to orbit. I think it would... but landing on Mars with full tanks might be more difficult than I am suggesting.
 
Last edited:
Just the abillity to not have to break earth atmosphere when launching for other planets will be massive.

Babylon-5 space station incoooming yoo!
 
rcoobc said:
The ITS really could be a game changer. Obviously. But the more I think about it, the more I like it.

It's equally capable of refuelling in high earth orbit, saving 3 km/s delta v. It's equally capable of refuelling on a Saturn fly-by saving 7+ km/s delta v. It's equally capable of refuelling in Mars orbit, which as we need to be able to do mars refueling anyway, could make Mars the gateway for the rest of the Solar System (although many would argue that the Moon would actually be better for that).

It really is the tipping point between science and science fiction.

Right now, ships don't refuel in Space. They just don't. The ISS can refuel, the MIR maybe did, and that's about it. They refuel, because they don't go anywhere. Right now, when we launch something to Space, we launch it from Earth in one big rocket. We never launch it into space, refuel it in space, send it on it's way and then refuel it again. That's ludicrous, ridiculous. And may soon be the common practice. The ISS is a huge space laboratory. The ITS is a spaceship. If it can land on a planet, refuel, and take off again, that's insane.

I'm wondering if the ITS would have the Delta V to - from full on Mars Orbit - Land on Mars, and return to orbit. I think it would... but landing on Mars with full tanks might be more difficult than I am suggesting.
Click to expand...
It's amazing comparing it with the NASA plan of about 10 years back:



Many tens of billions in outlay, seven expendable Ares V launches and all you'd get back to Earth would be the Orion command module.
 
rcoobc said:
It won't be anywhere near that I don't think, they've not even brought humans into space yet.

The big thing they've got down which NASA haven't is propulsive landing/reusability. NASA are still using parachutes to land on earth and Mars. Without that, landing on Mars is hard and returning from Mars is harder.

Also, NASA deal with nitty gritty of living in space and living on the moon and Mars. SpaceX build a big rocket

But you're right. It's crazy how useless they have been in the last 20 years
Click to expand...
Our ass holes politicians keep cutting down NASA's budget and I think they still do a great job like the space telescope plus another trips to other planets by unmanned craft.
 
rcoobc said:
So, the thing I want to know the most: We know they are thinking there will be thousands of these things going between earth and Mars. We know they can dock with each other. I wonder if they are thinking that these will be the ascend/descend ships to an even larger interplanetary ship that just remains in space. That would be seriously forward thinking. Maybe even the cycler...

The earth to earth trips will be really useful in cinema over the next few years. I can see jack boeur needing too get to the other side of the earth in 20 minutes to prevent a nuclear explosion, so he gives Musk a call...

So much to sort out. Martian soil is full of salt, so that's great. No magnetic field, no atmosphere. We can do it though.

I bet we finally terraform Mars and Venus, only for the whole system to get wiped out by a passing GRB
Click to expand...
Mars have a very thin atmosphere and a very weak magnetic field plus they think they have water, ideal place for a base to explore that part of our solar system, we can use Mars caves as a base which will protect us from space and solar radiation (Mars magnetic field repels some radiation) reason why Mars would be so important.
 
The problem with NASA isn't so much the budget cuts (it's actually projected to get a slight increase over the next few years), it's the way pork-barrel politics still holds sway over manned spaceflight in particular. ATK will always get a big contract because they're based in Utah and Senator Hatch always makes sure they do. Congressmen in Florida and Texas will want to make sure they don't face job losses in their states as a result of their decisions. Then you have other limitations, like primary contracts in any new major program pretty much always going to Lockheed Martin or Boeing. Which in many ways is understandable as they have massive experience at those kind of projects and can be relied upon, but they're also not under any strain to make things cheaper or change things radically. And then there's even sillier stuff, like deciding about ten years back that they couldn't plan to send US astronauts up to space on the already existing and highly reliable Atlas V, because it used Russian engines.

Commercial cargo and crew programs (Obama was a champion of them) have been a good step forward and allowed companies like SpaceX to get a foothold. It would be really amazing if NASA got on board with ITS and help it happen, but I fear there'll be too many (in Congress primarily) that see it as a threat.
 
Ubik said:
The problem with NASA isn't so much the budget cuts (it's actually projected to get a slight increase over the next few years), it's the way pork-barrel politics still holds sway over manned spaceflight in particular. ATK will always get a big contract because they're based in Utah and Senator Hatch always makes sure they do. Congressmen in Florida and Texas will want to make sure they don't face job losses in their states as a result of their decisions. Then you have other limitations, like primary contracts in any new major program pretty much always going to Lockheed Martin or Boeing. Which in many ways is understandable as they have massive experience at those kind of projects and can be relied upon, but they're also not under any strain to make things cheaper or change things radically. And then there's even sillier stuff, like deciding about ten years back that they couldn't plan to send US astronauts up to space on the already existing and highly reliable Atlas V, because it used Russian engines.

Commercial cargo and crew programs (Obama was a champion of them) have been a good step forward and allowed companies like SpaceX to get a foothold. It would be really amazing if NASA got on board with ITS and help it happen, but I fear there'll be too many (in Congress primarily) that see it as a threat.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere Boeing are using Russian engines from the 60's, but at least NASA gave a 1.6 billion contract to spaceX to supply the ISS.
 
barros said:
Mars have a very thin atmosphere and a very weak magnetic field plus they think they have water, ideal place for a base to explore that part of our solar system, we can use Mars caves as a base which will protect us from space and solar radiation (Mars magnetic field repels some radiation) reason why Mars would be so important.
Click to expand...

They think there are water on Mars? I thought that the lack of a molten magnetic core and therefore the lack of proper atmosphere made all the water evaporate.

If they can find water on Mars we'll be golden.
 
barros said:
I read somewhere Boeing are using Russian engines from the 60's, but at least NASA gave a 1.6 billion contract to spaceX to supply the ISS.
Click to expand...
What you're thinking of may be Orbital's Antares rocket, which did use a job lot of Soviet-era engines that they'd got hold of. Not just designed in the 60s either, they'd literally been made then and unused since. That rocket exploded on the fifth launch so they've got some more modern ones now (still Russian designed).

SwansonsTache said:
They think there are water on Mars? I thought that the lack of a molten magnetic core and therefore the lack of proper atmosphere made all the water evaporate.

If they can find water on Mars we'll be golden.
Click to expand...

Tons of water (ice) on Mars, just need to dig a bit.
 
If anyone feels like a really (really really) long read on the motivations of Musk with SpaceX and a run through of the plan he just announced, there's a guy that managed to interview him several times over the past few years and his written up some good stuff:

From last year, general overview of SpaceX's objectives and history - http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html
From a few days ago, overview of ITS - http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/09/spacexs-big-fking-rocket-the-full-story.html

It's aimed at the general person that's interested in such absurdities as Mars colonisation so not technical.
 
Ubik said:
If anyone feels like a really (really really) long read on the motivations of Musk with SpaceX and a run through of the plan he just announced, there's a guy that managed to interview him several times over the past few years and his written up some good stuff:

From last year, general overview of SpaceX's objectives and history - http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html
From a few days ago, overview of ITS - http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/09/spacexs-big-fking-rocket-the-full-story.html

It's aimed at the general person that's interested in such absurdities as Mars colonisation so not technical.
Click to expand...
I read that and was the reason I knew Boeing was buying Russian boosters with Americans tax money (now I know why trump is not paying taxes :lol: )
 
Mad to think that only 59 years ago, we hadn't even sent anything up to space...

Now people are literally living in space for months at a time, and we're on the frontiers of interplanetary travel for humans...

The speed of scientific advancement is pretty amazing...
 
Ubik said:
If anyone feels like a really (really really) long read on the motivations of Musk with SpaceX and a run through of the plan he just announced, there's a guy that managed to interview him several times over the past few years and his written up some good stuff:

From last year, general overview of SpaceX's objectives and history - http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html
From a few days ago, overview of ITS - http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/09/spacexs-big-fking-rocket-the-full-story.html

It's aimed at the general person that's interested in such absurdities as Mars colonisation so not technical.
Click to expand...
Read the first section. My god that's a long read . Almost a book
 
Big Andy said:
Mad to think that only 59 years ago, we hadn't even sent anything up to space...

Now people are literally living in space for months at a time, and we're on the frontiers of interplanetary travel for humans...

The speed of scientific advancement is pretty amazing...
Click to expand...

I agree, but I think it's also mad how we've barely even got anywhere. Makes me think that we're still quite primitive really.

I'm liking the space race stuff at the moment though, which is surely speeding things up again?
 
It takes so long to get anywhere though. Surely a manned trip beyond our own orbit would be a one way trip currently.
 
Blue Origin did an abort test of their tourist capsule earlier, were expecting to lose the booster but it managed to land fine

 
Ubik said:
Blue Origin did an abort test of their tourist capsule earlier, were expecting to lose the booster but it managed to land fine

Click to expand...

Damn from over 2000 miles started reducing the speed but I didnt see any burning to reduce the speed, is amazing but would be a hell of a ride and I wonder how many G's when reducing the speed like that.
 
Universe has two trillion more galaxies than previously thought

Hubble telescope images from deep space were collected over 20 years to solve the puzzle of how many galaxies the cosmos harbors

The surprising find is based on 3D modeling of images collected by the Hubble Space Telescope.

There are a dizzying two trillion galaxies in the universe, up to 20 times more than previously thought, astronomers reported on Thursday. The surprising finding, based on 3D modeling of images collected over 20 years by the Hubble Space Telescope, was published in the Astronomical Journal.

Scientists have puzzled over how many galaxies the cosmos harbors at least since US astronomer Edwin Hubble showed in 1924 that Andromeda, a neighboring galaxy, was not part of our own Milky Way. But even in the era of modern astronomy, getting an accurate tally has proven difficult.

To begin with, there is only part of the cosmos where light given off by distant objects has had time to reach Earth. The rest is effectively beyond our reach. And even within this “observable universe”, current technology only allows us to glimpse 10% of what is out there, according to the new findings.

“It boggles the mind that over 90% of the galaxies in the universe have yet to be studied,” commented Christopher Conselice of the University of Nottingham, who led the study. “Who knows what interesting properties we will find when we observe these galaxies with the next generation of telescopes?” he said in a statement.

Using deep space images from Hubble, Conselice and his team painstakingly converted them into 3D to measure the number of galaxies at different times in the history of the universe. The analysis reached back more than 13bn years – very near the time of the “Big Bang” thought to have given birth to the universe.

A galaxy is a system of millions or billions or stars, held together by gravity, with planetary systems within them. Using new mathematical models, the astronomers were able to infer the number of “invisible” galaxies beyond the reach of telescopes, leading to the surprising realization that the vast majority are too faint and far away to be seen.

When the universe was only a few billion years old, there were 10 times as many galaxies in a given volume of space as there are today, the findings suggest. This in turn suggests that “significant evolution must have occurred to reduce their number through extensive merging of systems”.
Click to expand...

:eek: wow!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.