Astronomy & Space Exploration

Europe seems to have bad luck landing there.
 
A pity that we can't fire up one of Earth's other rovers and give Europe's lander a kick.

In other news today...

 
Will have to wait for the autopsy to be done but I still don't think that having your lander purposefully crash is a great idea, even if you do have lots of fancy crumple shiz. Go skycrane or go home!
 
Crazy that something like that can happen after all that work. Mars is hard. Let us never forget that.

Mars 2 - USSR :- Failure during descent; crashed on surface
Mars 3 - USSR :- Soft Landing, sent back one failed image, DOA.
Mars 6 - USSR :- Insufficient thrust during landing; crashed on surface
Viking 1 - USA :- Operated 2245 sols. Last contact Nov 11, 1982
Viking 2 - USA :- Operated 1281 sols. Last contact Apr 11, 1980
Pathfinder & Sojourner - USA :- Operated 83 sols. Last contact Sep 27, 1997 - Reclaimed by Matt Damon in 2036
Mars Climate Orbiter - USA :- Destroyed by atmospheric stresses & friction.
Mars Polar Lander & Deep Space 2 :- USA - Unknown failure during descent; crashed on surface
Beagle 2 - UK :- Landed safely; solar panels failed to deploy
Spirit - USA :- Operated 2210 sols. Last contact Mar 22, 2010
Opportunity - USA :- Still in operation, 4527 sols - Gains sentience sometime in 2020 before taking over half of Terraformed Mars in 2400s
Mars Science Laboratory - USA :- Still in operation, 1494 sols

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_Mars

I make that, Mars 7, Earth 6

 
Last edited:
I wonder when we'll enter our true space-age like we've done with technology and industry. We are still fumbling around like fecks out there.

The nearest exoplanet about 24 LY away should be possible sometimes in the near future I hope. I've read about a project which focuses on the use of sunsails to get there.
 
rcoobc said:
Crazy that something like that can happen after all that work. Mars is hard. Let us never forget that.

Mars 2 - USSR :- Failure during descent; crashed on surface
Mars 3 - USSR :- Soft Landing, sent back one failed image, DOA.
Mars 6 - USSR :- Insufficient thrust during landing; crashed on surface
Viking 1 - USA :- Operated 2245 sols. Last contact Nov 11, 1982
Viking 2 - USA :- Operated 1281 sols. Last contact Apr 11, 1980
Pathfinder & Sojourner - USA :- Operated 83 sols. Last contact Sep 27, 1997 - Reclaimed by Matt Damon in 2036
Mars Climate Orbiter - USA :- Destroyed by atmospheric stresses & friction.
Mars Polar Lander & Deep Space 2 :- USA - Unknown failure during descent; crashed on surface
Beagle 2 - UK :- Landed safely; solar panels failed to deploy
Spirit - USA :- Operated 2210 sols. Last contact Mar 22, 2010
Opportunity - USA :- Still in operation, 4527 sols - Gains sentience sometime in 2020 before taking over half of Terraformed Mars in 2400s
Mars Science Laboratory - USA :- Still in operation, 1494 sols

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_Mars

I make that, Mars 7, Earth 6
Click to expand...
In fairness, Mars Climate Orbiter wasn't a lander so we can say it's tied at 6-6. Red Dragon for the tiebreaker?
 
SwansonsTache said:
I wonder when we'll enter our true space-age like we've done with technology and industry. We are still fumbling around like fecks out there.

The nearest exoplanet about 24 LY away should be possible sometimes in the near future I hope. I've read about a project which focuses on the use of sunsails to get there.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, if we lived on Mars instead of Earth, we'd only need 3.8 km/s instead of 9.4 km/s to get into space (Low Orbit). Even Europa would need 1.48 km/s... But every time cut the Delta V requirements in 2, I think you cut the Mass at least in 4.

If there are aliens, you'd think some of them would have had a much easier time of getting in Space than we've had. Imagine being able to use something the weight of a school bus (or of the Apollo Lander) to get into space, rather than something the size and weight of multiple houses.
 
SwansonsTache said:
I wonder when we'll enter our true space-age like we've done with technology and industry. We are still fumbling around like fecks out there.
Click to expand...
Yup it's gonna be interesting to see what happens when we can pull off landings etc. in our sleep. The fact that everything has to be planned before launch is apparently rather difficult. Who would've thought.
 
I don't think that the exploration of our solar system will ever really get underway - the current fits and start aside - until we discover the secrets of anti-gravity.

Until then we're reliant on crude rocket power - hugely inefficient, resource hungry and risky - for both lift-off and landings.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I don't think that the exploration of our solar system will ever really get underway - the current fits and start aside - until we discover the secrets of anti-gravity.

Until then we're reliant on crude rocket power - hugely inefficient, resource hungry and risky - for both lift-off and landings.
Click to expand...
I was going to say something similar. Or at least, it's very hard. Chemical engines are our only option out of the planet right now, and that makes things difficult.
SwansonsTache said:
Probably a dumb question, but why don't they base spaceships on fusion and fission power? There are submarines that can be at sea for like 20 years fueled by that stuff.

I appreciate that you'll need a rocket to take off from earth, but if we ever managed to establish a base on Mars, or a gigantic launch base in space, could we use nuclear spaceships then?
Click to expand...
That's basically the problem. You need chemical engines to get into space. The Soviets used quite a few small fission reactors on their satellites, but with Solar it's not really necessary anymore for most operations.

If we ever get a decent ION engine (like the Hermes in the Martian) or Nuclear engine then it might be worth looking at again
 
SwansonsTache said:
Probably a dumb question, but why don't they base spaceships on fusion and fission power? There are submarines that can be at sea for like 20 years fueled by that stuff.

I appreciate that you'll need a rocket to take off from earth, but if we ever managed to establish a base on Mars, or a gigantic launch base in space, could we use nuclear spaceships then?
Click to expand...
We haven't yet made a fusion reactor that puts out more power than it consumes (ITER may change that but it's fecking huge and expensive). There are lots of proposals that use fission reactors to thrust, and a fun old one in the 60s called Orion that used nuclear bombs, but they never really get anywhere (a big problem is that you'd have to launch all that nuclear material on a rocket that can explode - not ideal).

The biggest game changer at the moment would be what SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing and making launch vehicles reusable, and get refuelling possible in space. When that happens, you can go much further and much faster.
 
Ubik said:
We haven't yet made a fusion reactor that puts out more power than it consumes (ITER may change that but it's fecking huge and expensive). There are lots of proposals that use fission reactors to thrust, and a fun old one in the 60s called Orion that used nuclear bombs, but they never really get anywhere (a big problem is that you'd have to launch all that nuclear material on a rocket that can explode - not ideal).

The biggest game changer at the moment would be what SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing and making launch vehicles reusable, and get refuelling possible in space. When that happens, you can go much further and much faster.
Click to expand...

In relation to the last few posts, some news on the emDrive in the past days

http://www.zmescience.com/science/n...just-around-corner-patent-made-public-friday/

See more
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

There was also a BBC horizon program on anti gravity propulsion titled project green glow

If anyone hasn't seen it, I'd recommend the watch
 
Grib said:
In relation to the last few posts, some news on the emDrive in the past days

http://www.zmescience.com/science/n...just-around-corner-patent-made-public-friday/

See more
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

There was also a BBC horizon program on anti gravity propulsion titled project green glow

If anyone hasn't seen it, I'd recommend the watch
Click to expand...
“The patent process is a very significant process, it’s not like an academic peer review where everyone hides behind an anonymous review, it’s all out in the open,” Shawyer told the International Business Times.
Click to expand...

Wait, what?
 
Grib said:
Yeah it works and it's happening apparently, crazy
Click to expand...

I meant about him saying that an academic peer review being hidden, whereas a patent application is out in the open. The patent application is nowhere near as vigorous.

I read recently that, even if it does work, there would likely be some serious problems scaling it up to anything useful.
 
Grib said:
In relation to the last few posts, some news on the emDrive in the past days

http://www.zmescience.com/science/n...just-around-corner-patent-made-public-friday/

See more
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

There was also a BBC horizon program on anti gravity propulsion titled project green glow

If anyone hasn't seen it, I'd recommend the watch
Click to expand...

Since this essentially uses no fuel it could be used for a generation ship of sorts.

Proxima-B here we come. Only 4,2 LY away so it is basically right around the block.
 
rcoobc said:
I meant about him saying that an academic peer review being hidden, whereas a patent application is out in the open. The patent application is nowhere near as vigorous.

I read recently that, even if it does work, there would likely be some serious problems scaling it up to anything useful.
Click to expand...

Yeah the scaling will be the issue, if I recall the documentary they had various devices creating small forces, I can't remember the details as it was a good while ago, and it's a bit above my full comprehension to be honest.

But it'd be interesting to see what they have it producing that the article quotes 'a lot' ><
 
Hasn't NASA basically given the EM drive the thumbs up? But also say that they simply can't explain why it works?

I reckon they know more than random guy off reddit, physicist or not.
 
Grib said:
Damn, think of what he could accomplish if he put that much focus into something haha

He has one hell of an opnion of himself and obviously has the authority to speak for all physicists too not to be trifeld with!
Click to expand...
Yeah. What's annoying is that, although he kills off a lot of people talking about the EM drive by pointing out their flawed logic/physics, he doesn't really say where the physics has been good, and if it has any credibility.
Those factors could call into question whether the experiments were well run, but all of the information we have seems to say that at least some of those experiments were.
Click to expand...

Actually all the information we have says that none of the experiments were well run.

Ultimately, even if we assume the em-drive doesn't work, figuring out how multiple experiments measured thrust would be an interesting finding.
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't because none of these groups have done what all undergraduate physics majors are taught in their first year lab courses: error analyses. So if they are barely more competent than undergraduate lab students, why is anything they say interesting?
Click to expand...
Yes, I wrote about that paper a while ago. A quick summary is that they don't talk about systematic errors at all, which is a basic requirement. And their experimental setup is of question about quality (and that's being generous). Also the quantum vacuum virtual plasma is not a a thing. The fact White writes about it shows a profound lack of understanding of the subject - quantum field theory.
Click to expand...
Cold fusion is the idea that nuclear fusion can take place at room temperature, as opposed to the high temperatures and pressures that are usually needed, e.g. in the Sun. You can guess why this would be beneficial: virtually unlimited cheap and clean energy, without a lot of technical hassle.

In the late 1980s when two scientists, Fleischmann and Pons, claimed they achieved such a cold fusion reaction. A lot of interested was generated in the broader physics and chemistry communities with many groups attempting to replicate their results. All failed. Their results are now consider to be a fluke or fraud, by reputable scientists. Most people in cold fusion research these days are widely regarded to be cranks/disreputable and the research is considered to be a career/reputation killer. These days it's generally not considered physically or technically possible by physicists.
Click to expand...
I think at this point it has been established that it moves. It may be experimental error that causes the movement, but it moves. If you want to help out figure what that error is, read the paper and contribute. That is science. Otherwise this is just trolling.
Click to expand...

You may be correct in the strictest, most technical sense, however it's considered a huge waste of time to try and figure out what's going on since it's so clear that whatever "thrust" is observed is so obviously due to poor experimentation. Scientists have to kind of prioritize what they want to look at. For example, the recent 750 GeV "bump"systematic which the experimenters were too lazy to analyze, and you can see which one takes priority. One is clearly a simple mistake and one was not so clearly a possible path to new and interesting physics at a highly complicated experiment (which turned out to be nothing in the end). Guess which one physicists thought could be more revolutionary and decided to devote time and money to.
Click to expand...
What I'd take away from this is to take anything EM Drive related with a huge spoonful of salt.
 
Most people in cold fusion research these days are widely regarded to be cranks/disreputable and the research is considered to be a career/reputation killer. These days it's generally not considered physically or technically possible by physicists.
Click to expand...

I've noticed this in other things I've watched and read, not just on this subject, it seems like a real bad trait in their community

So there are fields and subjects that people dare not touch as it can ruin their life effectively or even if you have a seemingly outlandish theory, do you dare bring it up

I remember reading about someone who'd done such a thing but one of his experiments didn't work out and he may aswell have been hung for it...years later it turned out he had the right of it

I know he loves pointing out they don't have funds anymore and have to concentrate on areas (this appears to be his real beef) but it still seems like a very detrimental attitude, where would we be if this was the attitude from the beginning of day
 
SwansonsTache said:
Hasn't NASA basically given the EM drive the thumbs up? But also say that they simply can't explain why it works?

I reckon they know more than random guy off reddit, physicist or not.
Click to expand...
So it says, but like roco concluded from the crazy reddit guys posts, pinch of salt

I'd imagine it works but is still nowhere near what it needs to be to power space travel etc

It mentions "several times more" that the older incarnations, I think remember these being pretty small

But if it's true, progress is progress and if a theorist has something and it works, it's up to the physicists to understand why, not the other way around
 
rcoobc said:
Yeah. What's annoying is that, although he kills off a lot of people talking about the EM drive by pointing out their flawed logic/physics, he doesn't really say where the physics has been good, and if it has any credibility.


What I'd take away from this is to take anything EM Drive related with a huge spoonful of salt.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have any credibility. Everything indicates that EMdrives are nonsense. There is no credible theory and no credible tests.
 
Perhaps we'll figure out anti-gravity when we figure out so-called "dark energy", which apparently counteracts gravity. So maybe one day we'll have dark energy drives to use when lifting off from the planet - and just gently float enormous masses straight up into orbit.
 
Will Absolute said:
Well, they quote an article in Nature which is pretty reputable. After all the speculation and all the TV programs about 'dark energy', it wouldn't do the prestige of Physics much good if it turned out to be a delusion!
Click to expand...
It would be absolutely f***g amazing wouldn't it.

Here is more info from [Oxford](http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/universe-expanding-accelerating-rate-–-or-it) and the [Daily Mail](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ew-study-claims-dark-energy-theory-shaky.html)

Making use of a vastly increased data set – a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size – the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.
Click to expand...
However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae – over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based – and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call "3 sigma". This is far short of the 5 sigma standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance
Click to expand...
There is other data available that appears to support the idea of an accelerating universe, such as information on the cosmic microwave background – the faint afterglow of the Big Bang – from the Planck satellite. However, Professor Sarkar said: 'All of these tests are indirect, carried out in the framework of an assumed model, and the cosmic microwave background is not directly affected by dark energy. Actually, there is indeed a subtle effect, the late-integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, but this has not been convincingly detected.
Click to expand...
Just goes to show that repeating experiments is very important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.