The Astronomy Thread

Mudcrush Durtfeet

Hungry Ogre
1,934
-911
Blue Origin has been good at saying all the cool stuff they intend to do, but their actual experience putting stuff into orbit is non-existent and their projects that are actually completed and being used for customers seem to be lacking.

I'd hope that such things would be considered and compared to the companies putting in competing bids; in light of this it isn't really surprising that SpaceX beat them if only one company was going to be selected.

Over the years, one of the main purposes of Blue Origin seems to be an attempt to interfere with SpaceX's progress. My sympathy for BO is not there until such time as they actually compete in performance against SpaceX, which doesn't seem like it will happen any time soon. Amazon recently announced that they were going to use ULA's Atlas rockets to launch their satellite constellation, which doesn't seem to indicate that BO (also owned by Bezos) is going to be launching satellites to orbit soon.
 
  • 1Picard
Reactions: Falxy-US

meStevo

I think your wife's a bigfoot gus.
<Silver Donator>
5,129
3,243
48d 23h 22m
Sounds like that's basically what Elon has just now said.


With Bezos stepping away from Amazon, that could be precisely what happens, though he's intending to get more involved running a number of his other initiatives as well.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Del

Cybsled

Golden Baronet of the Realm
12,204
7,081
The NASA response also spells out a lot of the disadvantages to BO's lander project: Too specialized, too expensive, fuel will be a problem (cryo).

Starship as a lander (and a platform) probably gives NASA a major hardon. If SpaceX can get this working, it will be a massive game changer

1) Large enough to act as a stopgap base/habitat
2) Can carry a fuckload of cargo and crew
3) Reusable
4) Fuel isn't subject to extreme cryo temp requirements (like hydrogen) and can be manufactured on the Moon and Mars in theory or refueled in orbit
5) Potentially can act as a whole solution for direct missions at lower cost (A single SLS launch /w non-reusable vehicle is something like 1B - that isn't sustainable)
6) Platform can be easily adapted to other mission profiles, like Mars

If the platform can be relatively cheap and act as both a cost effective people and cargo solution, that lets NASA focus more of their budget on other things vs. dumping it all of it into an unsustainable launch platform. It also lets them pivot towards a Mars mission more easily, which NASA has wanted to do badly for decades and now finally have a private company that is motivated to make that a reality.
 

Cybsled

Golden Baronet of the Realm
12,204
7,081
Since the helicopter drone has been successful, they have decided to use it as a scout for the rover for the time being to get experience in for future missions. It will basically fly ahead and try to look for interesting stuff, then fly back near to the rover's current position

 
  • 2Like
Reactions: MusicForFish and jooka

Rajaah

Paperhands McGee
<Gold Donor>
2,434
4,942
27d 10h 14m

Great video here as usual from this channel. I gotta wonder if the "primordial black hole" idea is the reason why some of our planets have oval orbits instead of circular, because something heavy is pulling them a bit in one direction as they go around the sun.

Just a random theory/thought
 

Cybsled

Golden Baronet of the Realm
12,204
7,081
A large gas giant that was ejected outwards during the formation of our solar system far is probably more likely than a mini black hole. Uranus is theorized to have been impacted by planets at some point in the past as a way to explain its fucked up axis of rotation. Stuff forming in the closer reaches of the solar system, then being ejected outwards, is a plausible hypothesis. We've observed large gas giant exoplanets in orbits that suggest that they may have formed in a different spot and then got pushed farther away.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
1,996
1,760
63d 22h 56m
I know the sun is just kinda "dragging" everything through space

No. The mass of our solar system was all under the same forces before the Sun or any of the planets formed. The orbits are due to spin of the accretion disc as the dust and gas collapsed. We're moving together in the same reference frame, not dragged by the Sun. If you're thinking of that "helical solar system" idea that went viral, it's fundamentally wrong.

 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: Mudcrush Durtfeet