Mudcrush Durtfeet
Hungry Ogre
- 2,428
- -758
The Astronomy Thread
- Thread starter Araxen
- Start date
"Landed". Legs didn't deploy properly and it bent the body, currently on fire.
Thankfully, my cousin's part worked! (flight aerodynamics)
Thankfully, my cousin's part worked! (flight aerodynamics)
- 1
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 44,605
- 93,138
Mudcrush Durtfeet
Hungry Ogre
- 2,428
- -758
Ukerric
Bearded Ape
- 7,911
- 9,549
Don't they plan to catch it with the upper flaps instead of letting it land on legs?
Void
Experiencer
- 9,413
- 11,079
Whomever was doing those graphics was pretty fucking funny. Across the bottom it said something along the lines of "lands successfully, then burns off excess fuel rapidly".
The "Or Not" killed me.
The flight and landing was truly amazing to watch too, and the guys on that channel announcing it sounded just like little kids, they were so excited, which is probably exactly how I sounded while it was happening. I think the thing that made this one extra amazing was that it was short, dramatic, and (mostly) fucking perfect.
- 2
As we were admiring the aftermath of the explosion, my 9 year old asked me, "Why don't they just make the rocket stronger?" It's a pretty interesting set of fundamental tradeoffs against gravity, fuel exhaust velocity, and the fraction of the rocket available for useful payloads. If chemistry were slightly different or Earth more massive, it might be actually impossible to get to orbit as we have.
NASA - The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation
If we want to expand into the solar system, this tyranny must somehow be deposed.
www.nasa.gov
- 1
meStevo
I think your wife's a bigfoot gus.
- 6,371
- 4,648
- 1
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
The point isn't directly applicable to the SN10 test, just a general thought about rocketry and acknowledging another way in which the universe is convenient for us. It's never as simple as "just make it stronger" like my kid suggested, because adding structural mass can easily displace payload to the point where you can't actually get anything to orbit except the rocket itself. And if the Earth were some fraction more massive or for whatever reason we couldn't get or use the high-thrust fuels, it might actually be impossible to get to orbit. For example, if Earth's gravity were 5% stronger solid fuel rockets just wouldn't work.
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
Ukerric
Bearded Ape
- 7,911
- 9,549
In other news, NASA decided to "increase its prices" by ending all subsidies. Like from $3000 to $20,000 for 1kg of cargo. Hope that crew who has 4 seats to visit the ISS got the old prices...
spacenews.com
(to be fair, 3k per kilogram did not reflect the cost of the launch at all, even at Falcon9 price)
NASA hikes prices for commercial ISS users
NASA has sharply increased the prices it charges commercial users of the ISS for cargo and other resources, a move that has left some firms frustrated.
spacenews.com
(to be fair, 3k per kilogram did not reflect the cost of the launch at all, even at Falcon9 price)
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 44,605
- 93,138
Earth's size is about perfect. Big enough to grab onto and retain a significant atmosphere but not too big that gravity requires too much work to overcome or becomes deadly very fast.
Scott Manley had a good video on this. Iirc at 2g you basically need a Saturn V sized rocket to put even a small payload into orbit.
- 2
jooka
marco esquandolas
- 14,409
- 6,123
I'd seen this awhile back but it popped up in my youtube feed again and now with starlink and assuming others to follow this has to be becoming a more pressing issue. Wonder if there any sort of plans to deal with it without something drastic happening
- 1
- 1
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
I think starlink is so low its not an issue.
Those things degrade at like 3 years? 5 years?
Real issue is countries blowing shit up to test space weaposn, since its creates a giant spray of shit.