I feel like we already have the materials technology we need for conducting space mining, the issue is the basic startup cost of the infrastructure (and getting it all physically into space). Once we can establish at least building the heavy iron-based stuff in orbit, that is going to result massive cost-savings as payload mass can be given over to sophisticated components instead of trying to push iron and aluminum up into orbit.
One teeny little factory spitting out usable refined iron would be a total game-changer for humans in space, even if it was just a ton a month at first. It doesn't need to be fast, it just needs to be reliable and long-lasting. Once that happens, no more being reliant on lifting modules into space and no more having to keep modules small to fit on rockets.
Wouldn't this also potentially solve the problems we have with all our steel being radiated outside of limited old steel sources? Although I guess space made steel would have it's own radiation sources to deal with.
I feel like we already have the materials technology we need for conducting space mining, the issue is the basic startup cost of the infrastructure (and getting it all physically into space). Once we can establish at least building the heavy iron-based stuff in orbit, that is going to result massive cost-savings as payload mass can be given over to sophisticated components instead of trying to push iron and aluminum up into orbit.
One teeny little factory spitting out usable refined iron would be a total game-changer for humans in space, even if it was just a ton a month at first. It doesn't need to be fast, it just needs to be reliable and long-lasting. Once that happens, no more being reliant on lifting modules into space and no more having to keep modules small to fit on rockets.
Wouldn't this also potentially solve the problems we have with all our steel being radiated outside of limited old steel sources? Although I guess space made steel would have it's own radiation sources to deal with.
That, and steel being affected by 20th century radiation doesn't really seem to have much of an effect on iron (or steel or other alloys) beyond potentially telling us something about the age of when something was forged--and the effect of background radiation steel would have on precise radiation-measuring instruments. Except you don't need much steel at all for those sort of things, like the other 99% of the steel in a spacecraft.
Fundamentally, iron is cheap. Even if you found a solid gold asteroid, you'd be immediately constrained by the distances involved, the initial cost of investment (not to mention being a victim of your success--what any gold you did obtain would do to price of the existing supply of gold for precious metals, electronics, etc.). By contrast, you can find iron practically everywhere on Earth where you could dig a mine in the first place, and where you can't you can recycle scrap iron, and you're not really worried about the price of existing stores of iron except bringing it down further anyway. The benefit, aside from bragging rights (for those who care), is saving the costs of the trip to orbit in the first place, as already noted.
From a purely philosophical standpoint, I'm much more comfortable with stripmining asteroids, as impractical as it might be outside of the most fortunate intersections of cost and mineral wealth, than for example permanently altering another planet's ecosystem so that in 500 we might be able to live there if we haven't given up, had a change of attitude, and still have the capability of doing so (and I'd acknowledge that my philosophical objections and concern in obliterating extraterrestrial life even before we understand it exists aren't somehow paramount). I'd put it in the same category as deuterium mining on the Moon, which is not coincidentally subject to the same considerations of return of value and effort. But like asteroid mining, deuterium (or any sort of mining) on the Moon could end up being not worth the trouble...
Synthesis on
+1
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
I wonder how hard it would be to hit the moon with these asteroids, and how much material you would lose in the impact pushing stuff back out.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
I wonder how hard it would be to hit the moon with these asteroids, and how much material you would lose in the impact pushing stuff back out.
I'm not generally a future-tech guy as much as some other people in this thread are, but the best bet from my understanding is to put something into a fairly low orbit around the Moon - once you've redirected it toward the Moon, slowing it down enough that it enters a stable orbit isn't actually too costly in terms of delta-v. And then in theory you'd mine it from something either like the Deep Space Gateway or, more ambitiously, a lunar surface base as it is technically possible to refine rocket fuel from what is available on the lunar surface. You could just hop up, mine it, maybe have a processing facility of some description attached to the asteroid itself, and voila! Heavy and valuable resources, already "in space".
That would definitely be a sight to see.
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I was just think it would be easier to mine the asteroid from a permanent installation rather than sending the mining equipment to each asteroid.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Yeah, I was just think it would be easier to mine the asteroid from a permanent installation rather than sending the mining equipment to each asteroid.
Valid, and you may well be right!
And redirecting to impact the moon would be easier than putting it into orbit, or trying to have it do a "soft landing" on the surface. Like you said, the unknown there is the effect(s) of the impact. But it's a neat way to approach the problem!
So it's looking like SpaceX is up to something with its Hipposat Hispasat 30W-6 core. Reports are it has fins and landing legs despite the payloads large mass precluding a landing, so they may be doing a hard and fast entry profile with a soft water landing attempt.
So it's looking like SpaceX is up to something with its Hipposat Hispasat 30W-6 core. Reports are it has fins and landing legs despite the payloads large mass precluding a landing, so they may be doing a hard and fast entry profile with a soft water landing attempt.
Hipposat sounds much too heavy for a landing!
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+6
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
So it's looking like SpaceX is up to something with its Hipposat Hispasat 30W-6 core. Reports are it has fins and landing legs despite the payloads large mass precluding a landing, so they may be doing a hard and fast entry profile with a soft water landing attempt.
They really seem like they want to nail that hard and fast profile ( :winky: ) if they can - it will help with Falcon 9 being able to do direct geostationary inserts, which would be a major boon, and it would likely be important for recovering the center core for basically any Falcon Heavy launch.
Good sleuthing, in any event, and I suspect you're right about the mission plan!
+1
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
So it's looking like SpaceX is up to something with its Hipposat Hispasat 30W-6 core. Reports are it has fins and landing legs despite the payloads large mass precluding a landing, so they may be doing a hard and fast entry profile with a soft water landing attempt.
Whats the Hispasat? Is that there communications test sat? Is it expected to survive re-entry? Or are we talking about the upper stage?
NVM, reading comprehension fail. I really hope they manage to recover the core with a moderate reusability option, because holy shit, Falcon Heavy "disposable" capability with even a chance of recoverability.
Brody on
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Orbital Launch Imminent
Hey Space thread! We are now almost down to T-12 hours to launch, so I feel safe in making this post!
We have a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle launching southward out of Vandenberg AFB at 6:17am Pacific, 9:17am Eastern, 1417 UTC. The latest backup launch window is exactly 24 hours later, in the event of a scrub. That being said, weather looks good if a little chilly out at Vandenberg, so with any luck we have a smooth launch!
It was eventually revealed to us why there were a couple delays in this launch - Introducing Fairing 2.0. No apparent external upgrades, which has a lot of people anticipating that the upgrade has to do with more recovery hardware, especially with Mr Steven listed as one of the support ships for this mission.
Who is Mr Steven?
This is Mr Steven. He has a big net and doesn't afraid of anything. His job is to be in a spot in the ocean where a fairing can land in his net. Wish him luck on his journey!
The launch tomorrow will feature a previously-flown Block 3 booster, which means that, per usual for the Block 3 boosters, no landing attempt will be made, though we might expect SpaceX to try something experimental as the booster descends back to Earth. Hard to say whether or not they'll share any information in that regard. The booster DOES have grid fins on it, so that's certainly telling.
The launch is carrying Paz, a Spanish government satellite, to a sun-synchronous polar orbit, along with two small test Starlink satellites from SpaceX themselves, as part of their ongoing efforts to one day create a globe-encircling communications satellite constellation.
Also, here is the link to the livestream (that I will spam several times as we approach launch time, I should be available to cover the launch!) which should go live ~15 minutes prior to launch.
Any questions? Feel free to ask 'em, I'll try my best to answer them in a timely manner (if I possess the information at all - if I don't, I'll tell you that too!), and I know there are some other launch nuts around here that are also pretty dang knowledgeable. T-12h30m, and the excitement is building here at Narwhal Mission Control!
+4
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Twitter just ignores my formatting, huh?
That's fine, that doesn't upset me greatly or anything. :P
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Do we talk about how awful the NASA Human Spaceflight Program is and how it should be burned to the ground, aside from using the OSS as a destination for new space?
Do we talk about how awful the NASA Human Spaceflight Program is and how it should be burned to the ground, aside from using the OSS as a destination for new space?
Why that's silly, Dyna! Orion and the Space Launch System are a beautiful tandem pairing that will certainly actually fly ever and certainly are not a massive financial boondoggle relying largely on already-outdated technology! What a silly notion, NASA wasting billions of dollars on something that someone else can provide for significantly lower cost! The SLS certainly doesn't just exist to create jobs in key states and congressional districts, saying something like that would be treasonous!
Fortunately, I'm Canadian. :twisted:
+2
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
edited February 2018
And on that note we are LIVE up here at Narwhal Mission Control, where the Sun has ... failed to rise due to an ever-present layer of rain clouds, but my understanding is that the weather is considerably clearer down at Vandenberg Air Force Base, though the Sun has likely failed to rise there as well, given it is ~5am local time!
Today we have a Falcon 9 launching southward carrying Paz into a sun-synchronous polar orbit for the Spanish government, and the countdown appears to be progressing smoothly down at the Space Launch Complex 4E! I'm awaiting confirmation that fueling has begun, which should be any minute now, but as it stands we can anticipate a launch at 6:17am Pacific, 9:17am Eastern, 1417 UTC.
Additionally, yesterday SpaceX completed the static fire for their NEXT launch, carrying Hispasat to a geostationary transfer orbit out of Cape Canaveral. Target launch date at the moment is just 4 days from now, February 25th. SpaceX and its launch teams are keeping busy!
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
And we have confirmation that the GO/NO GO poll has been conducted, all systems continue to be green, and RP-1 kerosene fuel is now being loaded onto the Falcon 9!
+2
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Just a quick update that upper-level winds are currently over the launch limits, but final weather data at T-25 minutes (so, in ~15 minutes) will make the final determination.
Countdown progressing nominally at this time, awaiting the imminent call that LOX loading has begun.
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
LOX load has begun, and we will find out about final weather data in ~10 minutes as the countdown progresses to a liftoff 17 minutes past the hour!
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Okay, we are inside T-20 minutes of our launch today (6:17am Pacific, 9:17am Eastern, 1417 UTC), and with no update on weather just yet I am content to call it GO for launch still, so let's spam that livestream link one more time!:
Do we talk about how awful the NASA Human Spaceflight Program is and how it should be burned to the ground, aside from using the OSS as a destination for new space?
Why that's silly, Dyna! Orion and the Space Launch System are a beautiful tandem pairing that will certainly actually fly ever and certainly are not a massive financial boondoggle relying largely on already-outdated technology! What a silly notion, NASA wasting billions of dollars on something that someone else can provide for significantly lower cost! The SLS certainly doesn't just exist to create jobs in key states and congressional districts, saying something like that would be treasonous!
Fortunately, I'm Canadian. :twisted:
The great thing about the SLS is that it's a resurrection of the SLS of the Constellation program that was cancelled and consumed about 10 billion dollars. I don't know if they started utterly from scratch. At best they probably had a set of requirements and a preliminary design review, that they then spent a few hundred million on to review. Oh my god, I fucking hate NASA's human spaceflight program. I have a good impression of the unmanned programs run out of JPL but I don't know if that's only because I've never worked with them.
Do we talk about how awful the NASA Human Spaceflight Program is and how it should be burned to the ground, aside from using the OSS as a destination for new space?
Why that's silly, Dyna! Orion and the Space Launch System are a beautiful tandem pairing that will certainly actually fly ever and certainly are not a massive financial boondoggle relying largely on already-outdated technology! What a silly notion, NASA wasting billions of dollars on something that someone else can provide for significantly lower cost! The SLS certainly doesn't just exist to create jobs in key states and congressional districts, saying something like that would be treasonous!
Fortunately, I'm Canadian. :twisted:
what is the extent of the canadian space program? making robotic arms or is there more to it?
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Things a little bit on tenterhooks as even the livestream awaits the return of the final weather data - a reminder that today is an instantaneous launch window, so if things don't look promising for a liftoff at 6:17am local time out at Vandenberg AFB, they'll have to scrub and reset the launch countdown exactly 24 hours.
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
And there we have it, a 24 hours scrub due to upper level winds. Elon has described those upper-altitude winds hitting the launch vehicle "like a sledgehammer" in the past, so obviously not something you want to expose the vehicle to if it is beyond the limits you have set for your rocket's capabilities.
Next launch opportunity is tomorrow, Thursday February 22nd, at 6:17am Pacific, 9:17am Eastern, 1417 UTC.
See you all then!
+1
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Do we talk about how awful the NASA Human Spaceflight Program is and how it should be burned to the ground, aside from using the OSS as a destination for new space?
Why that's silly, Dyna! Orion and the Space Launch System are a beautiful tandem pairing that will certainly actually fly ever and certainly are not a massive financial boondoggle relying largely on already-outdated technology! What a silly notion, NASA wasting billions of dollars on something that someone else can provide for significantly lower cost! The SLS certainly doesn't just exist to create jobs in key states and congressional districts, saying something like that would be treasonous!
Fortunately, I'm Canadian. :twisted:
what is the extent of the canadian space program? making robotic arms or is there more to it?
Robotic arms are, of course, what the CSA is best known for (Canadarm 2 and Dextre onboard the ISS, primarily), but we also provide support to a variety of international missions, including the ISS, the Mars 2020 rover, and the James Webb Space Telescope (set to launch in 2019).
Aside from that, we do have the occasional slot reserved for one of our own astronauts onboard the ISS, the next of which should be coming around in the next couple years!
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Yeah, that was a little sad, double-checked the stream and it updated to say "live in 24 hours." Ah well.
Do we talk about how awful the NASA Human Spaceflight Program is and how it should be burned to the ground, aside from using the OSS as a destination for new space?
Why that's silly, Dyna! Orion and the Space Launch System are a beautiful tandem pairing that will certainly actually fly ever and certainly are not a massive financial boondoggle relying largely on already-outdated technology! What a silly notion, NASA wasting billions of dollars on something that someone else can provide for significantly lower cost! The SLS certainly doesn't just exist to create jobs in key states and congressional districts, saying something like that would be treasonous!
Fortunately, I'm Canadian. :twisted:
The great thing about the SLS is that it's a resurrection of the SLS of the Constellation program that was cancelled and consumed about 10 billion dollars. I don't know if they started utterly from scratch. At best they probably had a set of requirements and a preliminary design review, that they then spent a few hundred million on to review. Oh my god, I fucking hate NASA's human spaceflight program. I have a good impression of the unmanned programs run out of JPL but I don't know if that's only because I've never worked with them.
Or when we're launching from space. Can't see much wind interference up there.
(I'm sure like half a dozen people are about to point out potential factors orbital craft would have to face as well, or something about storms of metal shards to avoid)
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
I assume some of it also has to do with getting the satellites on target, as high winds could potentially push it off course, requiring more fuel. Which is probably why there is "extra" fuel in the rockets at all.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
From what I understand it's mostly concern wind shear will cause a structural failure of the rocket as it flies through different layers at many hundreds of mph.
From what I understand it's mostly concern wind shear will cause a structural failure of the rocket as it flies through different layers at many hundreds of mph.
Yeah, rockets are designed to be strong in the up-and-down direction, they are not designed to be strong in the left-to-right direction. E.g., they're great at compression stress, bad at shear stress.
You could make them better at shear stress, but 1) that would add a lot of weight, compromising payload, and 2) you can almost always just wait a couple of days and launch later when it won't be an issue, so why?
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Seal has the right of it - the Falcon 9 is particularly sensitive to conditions at Max-Q, which is a moment during the first minute or so of launch where the rocket's speed combined with the density of the atmosphere leads to the maximum external pressure on the launch vehicle. This is also where those "upper-level winds" come in to play. The reason the F9 is particularly sensitive has to do with its "fineness" ratio - its length combined with its comparatively narrow circumference.
The Atlas V has largely similar struggles launching in certain conditions, but I will point out that the Russian launch vehicles, and particularly the Soyuz, are renowned for their ability to launch in basically any weather conditions, largely thanks to its origin as an ICBM. Your weapons of war can't wait for a sunny day to launch, after all.
Regardless of the many upgrades and iterations that the Falcon 9 goes through, it will always be susceptible to delays due to unfriendly conditions at Max-Q. SpaceX is betting that this won't delay their launches by too much or too frequently and hope to maintain their strong launch cadence in spite of this weakness. It's not the most sensitive launch vehicle we've ever seen, but it does rank somewhere in the top 10, in any event. :P
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Do we talk about how awful the NASA Human Spaceflight Program is and how it should be burned to the ground, aside from using the OSS as a destination for new space?
Why that's silly, Dyna! Orion and the Space Launch System are a beautiful tandem pairing that will certainly actually fly ever and certainly are not a massive financial boondoggle relying largely on already-outdated technology! What a silly notion, NASA wasting billions of dollars on something that someone else can provide for significantly lower cost! The SLS certainly doesn't just exist to create jobs in key states and congressional districts, saying something like that would be treasonous!
Fortunately, I'm Canadian. :twisted:
what is the extent of the canadian space program? making robotic arms or is there more to it?
Will we ever get to a point where we won't need perfect weather for launches?
As noted by Narwhal, Energia-Buran launched in fairly poor conditions according to Soviet records (and I guess blurry-ass footage of the launch, there is better video out there if you look). This wasn't intentional--the 15 November launch came about because of a mechanical failure (a platform took too long to retract) for the October 1988 launch caused a delay.
It should be noted that the State Commission whom approved the launch were most worried about how weather would effect landing, not the launch itself. Since the Buran shuttle is fundamentally separate from the Energia super-heavy launch vehicle in a way the STS, as one system, isn't, this was two issues: could Energia launch in bad weather (ironically described as "winter storm", like the shuttle's name) and could Buran perform its automated landing in the same conditions. The weather did improve marginally, though there were problematic crosswinds, and after a visual inspection by the test pilot of the chase aircraft, a MiG-25 (it's not like Energia, or for that matter the contemporary space shuttle, would have an array of outside cameras mounted on it), the landing was made.
You wouldn't think it, but for a lot of the mission management, the real excitement came from a very elegant landing of an unmanned 80-tonne spaceplane, not from the actual spacecraft launch. They were even pleased with how few heat-resistant tiles were ajar upon inspection. A good English language source for the Buran's first and sole orbital flight can be found here.
That being said, the shuttle itself isn't really relevant (in a sense it was just the returning orbital payload), so much as the second of the two Energia launches. Unlike the N1 program that preceeded it (with zero successful launches), Energia had a 100% success rate, though that's probably easier with only two missions. Neither N1 nor Energia were based on ICBM designs like the R7, obviously, where modern Soyuz and Progress have their origins. The first mission, launching the failed payload Polyus, was done under more normal weather conditions in May and was very successful except for the payload failing to obtain orbit.
Synthesis on
+2
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Do we talk about how awful the NASA Human Spaceflight Program is and how it should be burned to the ground, aside from using the OSS as a destination for new space?
Why that's silly, Dyna! Orion and the Space Launch System are a beautiful tandem pairing that will certainly actually fly ever and certainly are not a massive financial boondoggle relying largely on already-outdated technology! What a silly notion, NASA wasting billions of dollars on something that someone else can provide for significantly lower cost! The SLS certainly doesn't just exist to create jobs in key states and congressional districts, saying something like that would be treasonous!
Fortunately, I'm Canadian. :twisted:
The great thing about the SLS is that it's a resurrection of the SLS of the Constellation program that was cancelled and consumed about 10 billion dollars. I don't know if they started utterly from scratch. At best they probably had a set of requirements and a preliminary design review, that they then spent a few hundred million on to review. Oh my god, I fucking hate NASA's human spaceflight program. I have a good impression of the unmanned programs run out of JPL but I don't know if that's only because I've never worked with them.
Do we talk about how awful the NASA Human Spaceflight Program is and how it should be burned to the ground, aside from using the OSS as a destination for new space?
Why that's silly, Dyna! Orion and the Space Launch System are a beautiful tandem pairing that will certainly actually fly ever and certainly are not a massive financial boondoggle relying largely on already-outdated technology! What a silly notion, NASA wasting billions of dollars on something that someone else can provide for significantly lower cost! The SLS certainly doesn't just exist to create jobs in key states and congressional districts, saying something like that would be treasonous!
Fortunately, I'm Canadian. :twisted:
The great thing about the SLS is that it's a resurrection of the SLS of the Constellation program that was cancelled and consumed about 10 billion dollars. I don't know if they started utterly from scratch. At best they probably had a set of requirements and a preliminary design review, that they then spent a few hundred million on to review. Oh my god, I fucking hate NASA's human spaceflight program. I have a good impression of the unmanned programs run out of JPL but I don't know if that's only because I've never worked with them.
Yeah, I think that's more on Congress than NASA.
haha, no.
Can you elaborate? Is there a way for NASA to ignore Congress and do it's own thing?
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Do we talk about how awful the NASA Human Spaceflight Program is and how it should be burned to the ground, aside from using the OSS as a destination for new space?
Why that's silly, Dyna! Orion and the Space Launch System are a beautiful tandem pairing that will certainly actually fly ever and certainly are not a massive financial boondoggle relying largely on already-outdated technology! What a silly notion, NASA wasting billions of dollars on something that someone else can provide for significantly lower cost! The SLS certainly doesn't just exist to create jobs in key states and congressional districts, saying something like that would be treasonous!
Fortunately, I'm Canadian. :twisted:
The great thing about the SLS is that it's a resurrection of the SLS of the Constellation program that was cancelled and consumed about 10 billion dollars. I don't know if they started utterly from scratch. At best they probably had a set of requirements and a preliminary design review, that they then spent a few hundred million on to review. Oh my god, I fucking hate NASA's human spaceflight program. I have a good impression of the unmanned programs run out of JPL but I don't know if that's only because I've never worked with them.
Yeah, I think that's more on Congress than NASA.
haha, no.
Can you elaborate? Is there a way for NASA to ignore Congress and do it's own thing?
It's not NASA's fault that is was born with the structure it has, primarily designed to gather as much congressional support as possible throughout the United States but that is what it is and a large part of their problems stem from that. Plus the comparative expertise of NASA civil servants versus their contractor analogs is vastly over rated. People were concerned about "private" companies taking over the launch vehicle business from NASA, as if safety would be a bigger issue...but private companies design pretty much everything for NASA anyway and NASA is the one that's made the calls that get people killed, at times ignoring the expertise of better informed contractors.
NASA would definitely be better off with more stable budgets that let it better predict its future requirements but I suspect that their programs would still have the same flaws. They'd aim for splashy moonshot stuff that would span over a decade in development instead of actually putting their backs into technology development and reducing cost to orbit, which should be the number one goal of the manned program in my opinion. If that cost goes down enough, then we can do whatever goofy shit we want to up there. People talk about all of the beneficial spin-offs from the moon program but directed research would be much more economical. Also, I believe NASA was running at 4% of the GDP during the Apollo program, which is freaking insane.
That's the great thing about SpaceX and their biggest contribution to spaceflight so far. They are slashing the cost to orbit. So far they've been fairly safe and reliable, aside from losing like 3 in a row.
When you see a NASA dude standing in front of a prototype space suit, talking about its features and how innovative it is, odds are his contribution was minimal at best. Aside from being a suited test subject. Uh, not speaking from direct personal experience or anything...
Posts
I shouldn't be laughing at this, but that just never gets old.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Wouldn't this also potentially solve the problems we have with all our steel being radiated outside of limited old steel sources? Although I guess space made steel would have it's own radiation sources to deal with.
That, and steel being affected by 20th century radiation doesn't really seem to have much of an effect on iron (or steel or other alloys) beyond potentially telling us something about the age of when something was forged--and the effect of background radiation steel would have on precise radiation-measuring instruments. Except you don't need much steel at all for those sort of things, like the other 99% of the steel in a spacecraft.
Fundamentally, iron is cheap. Even if you found a solid gold asteroid, you'd be immediately constrained by the distances involved, the initial cost of investment (not to mention being a victim of your success--what any gold you did obtain would do to price of the existing supply of gold for precious metals, electronics, etc.). By contrast, you can find iron practically everywhere on Earth where you could dig a mine in the first place, and where you can't you can recycle scrap iron, and you're not really worried about the price of existing stores of iron except bringing it down further anyway. The benefit, aside from bragging rights (for those who care), is saving the costs of the trip to orbit in the first place, as already noted.
From a purely philosophical standpoint, I'm much more comfortable with stripmining asteroids, as impractical as it might be outside of the most fortunate intersections of cost and mineral wealth, than for example permanently altering another planet's ecosystem so that in 500 we might be able to live there if we haven't given up, had a change of attitude, and still have the capability of doing so (and I'd acknowledge that my philosophical objections and concern in obliterating extraterrestrial life even before we understand it exists aren't somehow paramount). I'd put it in the same category as deuterium mining on the Moon, which is not coincidentally subject to the same considerations of return of value and effort. But like asteroid mining, deuterium (or any sort of mining) on the Moon could end up being not worth the trouble...
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
I'm not generally a future-tech guy as much as some other people in this thread are, but the best bet from my understanding is to put something into a fairly low orbit around the Moon - once you've redirected it toward the Moon, slowing it down enough that it enters a stable orbit isn't actually too costly in terms of delta-v. And then in theory you'd mine it from something either like the Deep Space Gateway or, more ambitiously, a lunar surface base as it is technically possible to refine rocket fuel from what is available on the lunar surface. You could just hop up, mine it, maybe have a processing facility of some description attached to the asteroid itself, and voila! Heavy and valuable resources, already "in space".
That would definitely be a sight to see.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Valid, and you may well be right!
And redirecting to impact the moon would be easier than putting it into orbit, or trying to have it do a "soft landing" on the surface. Like you said, the unknown there is the effect(s) of the impact. But it's a neat way to approach the problem!
Hipposat sounds much too heavy for a landing!
They really seem like they want to nail that hard and fast profile ( :winky: ) if they can - it will help with Falcon 9 being able to do direct geostationary inserts, which would be a major boon, and it would likely be important for recovering the center core for basically any Falcon Heavy launch.
Good sleuthing, in any event, and I suspect you're right about the mission plan!
Whats the Hispasat? Is that there communications test sat? Is it expected to survive re-entry? Or are we talking about the upper stage?
NVM, reading comprehension fail. I really hope they manage to recover the core with a moderate reusability option, because holy shit, Falcon Heavy "disposable" capability with even a chance of recoverability.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Hey Space thread! We are now almost down to T-12 hours to launch, so I feel safe in making this post!
We have a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle launching southward out of Vandenberg AFB at 6:17am Pacific, 9:17am Eastern, 1417 UTC. The latest backup launch window is exactly 24 hours later, in the event of a scrub. That being said, weather looks good if a little chilly out at Vandenberg, so with any luck we have a smooth launch!
It was eventually revealed to us why there were a couple delays in this launch - Introducing Fairing 2.0. No apparent external upgrades, which has a lot of people anticipating that the upgrade has to do with more recovery hardware, especially with Mr Steven listed as one of the support ships for this mission.
Who is Mr Steven?
This is Mr Steven. He has a big net and doesn't afraid of anything. His job is to be in a spot in the ocean where a fairing can land in his net. Wish him luck on his journey!
The launch tomorrow will feature a previously-flown Block 3 booster, which means that, per usual for the Block 3 boosters, no landing attempt will be made, though we might expect SpaceX to try something experimental as the booster descends back to Earth. Hard to say whether or not they'll share any information in that regard. The booster DOES have grid fins on it, so that's certainly telling.
The launch is carrying Paz, a Spanish government satellite, to a sun-synchronous polar orbit, along with two small test Starlink satellites from SpaceX themselves, as part of their ongoing efforts to one day create a globe-encircling communications satellite constellation.
Also, here is the link to the livestream (that I will spam several times as we approach launch time, I should be available to cover the launch!) which should go live ~15 minutes prior to launch.
Any questions? Feel free to ask 'em, I'll try my best to answer them in a timely manner (if I possess the information at all - if I don't, I'll tell you that too!), and I know there are some other launch nuts around here that are also pretty dang knowledgeable. T-12h30m, and the excitement is building here at Narwhal Mission Control!
That's fine, that doesn't upset me greatly or anything. :P
Why that's silly, Dyna! Orion and the Space Launch System are a beautiful tandem pairing that will certainly actually fly ever and certainly are not a massive financial boondoggle relying largely on already-outdated technology! What a silly notion, NASA wasting billions of dollars on something that someone else can provide for significantly lower cost! The SLS certainly doesn't just exist to create jobs in key states and congressional districts, saying something like that would be treasonous!
Fortunately, I'm Canadian. :twisted:
Today we have a Falcon 9 launching southward carrying Paz into a sun-synchronous polar orbit for the Spanish government, and the countdown appears to be progressing smoothly down at the Space Launch Complex 4E! I'm awaiting confirmation that fueling has begun, which should be any minute now, but as it stands we can anticipate a launch at 6:17am Pacific, 9:17am Eastern, 1417 UTC.
Additionally, yesterday SpaceX completed the static fire for their NEXT launch, carrying Hispasat to a geostationary transfer orbit out of Cape Canaveral. Target launch date at the moment is just 4 days from now, February 25th. SpaceX and its launch teams are keeping busy!
And of course, the link to today's launch stream!:
Countdown progressing nominally at this time, awaiting the imminent call that LOX loading has begun.
The great thing about the SLS is that it's a resurrection of the SLS of the Constellation program that was cancelled and consumed about 10 billion dollars. I don't know if they started utterly from scratch. At best they probably had a set of requirements and a preliminary design review, that they then spent a few hundred million on to review. Oh my god, I fucking hate NASA's human spaceflight program. I have a good impression of the unmanned programs run out of JPL but I don't know if that's only because I've never worked with them.
what is the extent of the canadian space program? making robotic arms or is there more to it?
And there we have it, a 24 hours scrub due to upper level winds. Elon has described those upper-altitude winds hitting the launch vehicle "like a sledgehammer" in the past, so obviously not something you want to expose the vehicle to if it is beyond the limits you have set for your rocket's capabilities.
Next launch opportunity is tomorrow, Thursday February 22nd, at 6:17am Pacific, 9:17am Eastern, 1417 UTC.
See you all then!
Robotic arms are, of course, what the CSA is best known for (Canadarm 2 and Dextre onboard the ISS, primarily), but we also provide support to a variety of international missions, including the ISS, the Mars 2020 rover, and the James Webb Space Telescope (set to launch in 2019).
Aside from that, we do have the occasional slot reserved for one of our own astronauts onboard the ISS, the next of which should be coming around in the next couple years!
Yeah, I think that's more on Congress than NASA.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Probably, when catching the pieces isn't as much of an uncertainty.
(I'm sure like half a dozen people are about to point out potential factors orbital craft would have to face as well, or something about storms of metal shards to avoid)
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Yeah, rockets are designed to be strong in the up-and-down direction, they are not designed to be strong in the left-to-right direction. E.g., they're great at compression stress, bad at shear stress.
You could make them better at shear stress, but 1) that would add a lot of weight, compromising payload, and 2) you can almost always just wait a couple of days and launch later when it won't be an issue, so why?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
The Atlas V has largely similar struggles launching in certain conditions, but I will point out that the Russian launch vehicles, and particularly the Soyuz, are renowned for their ability to launch in basically any weather conditions, largely thanks to its origin as an ICBM. Your weapons of war can't wait for a sunny day to launch, after all.
Regardless of the many upgrades and iterations that the Falcon 9 goes through, it will always be susceptible to delays due to unfriendly conditions at Max-Q. SpaceX is betting that this won't delay their launches by too much or too frequently and hope to maintain their strong launch cadence in spite of this weakness. It's not the most sensitive launch vehicle we've ever seen, but it does rank somewhere in the top 10, in any event. :P
Don't forget the production of 'Staches of Power.
As noted by Narwhal, Energia-Buran launched in fairly poor conditions according to Soviet records (and I guess blurry-ass footage of the launch, there is better video out there if you look). This wasn't intentional--the 15 November launch came about because of a mechanical failure (a platform took too long to retract) for the October 1988 launch caused a delay.
It should be noted that the State Commission whom approved the launch were most worried about how weather would effect landing, not the launch itself. Since the Buran shuttle is fundamentally separate from the Energia super-heavy launch vehicle in a way the STS, as one system, isn't, this was two issues: could Energia launch in bad weather (ironically described as "winter storm", like the shuttle's name) and could Buran perform its automated landing in the same conditions. The weather did improve marginally, though there were problematic crosswinds, and after a visual inspection by the test pilot of the chase aircraft, a MiG-25 (it's not like Energia, or for that matter the contemporary space shuttle, would have an array of outside cameras mounted on it), the landing was made.
You wouldn't think it, but for a lot of the mission management, the real excitement came from a very elegant landing of an unmanned 80-tonne spaceplane, not from the actual spacecraft launch. They were even pleased with how few heat-resistant tiles were ajar upon inspection. A good English language source for the Buran's first and sole orbital flight can be found here.
That being said, the shuttle itself isn't really relevant (in a sense it was just the returning orbital payload), so much as the second of the two Energia launches. Unlike the N1 program that preceeded it (with zero successful launches), Energia had a 100% success rate, though that's probably easier with only two missions. Neither N1 nor Energia were based on ICBM designs like the R7, obviously, where modern Soyuz and Progress have their origins. The first mission, launching the failed payload Polyus, was done under more normal weather conditions in May and was very successful except for the payload failing to obtain orbit.
haha, no.
Can you elaborate? Is there a way for NASA to ignore Congress and do it's own thing?
It's not NASA's fault that is was born with the structure it has, primarily designed to gather as much congressional support as possible throughout the United States but that is what it is and a large part of their problems stem from that. Plus the comparative expertise of NASA civil servants versus their contractor analogs is vastly over rated. People were concerned about "private" companies taking over the launch vehicle business from NASA, as if safety would be a bigger issue...but private companies design pretty much everything for NASA anyway and NASA is the one that's made the calls that get people killed, at times ignoring the expertise of better informed contractors.
NASA would definitely be better off with more stable budgets that let it better predict its future requirements but I suspect that their programs would still have the same flaws. They'd aim for splashy moonshot stuff that would span over a decade in development instead of actually putting their backs into technology development and reducing cost to orbit, which should be the number one goal of the manned program in my opinion. If that cost goes down enough, then we can do whatever goofy shit we want to up there. People talk about all of the beneficial spin-offs from the moon program but directed research would be much more economical. Also, I believe NASA was running at 4% of the GDP during the Apollo program, which is freaking insane.
That's the great thing about SpaceX and their biggest contribution to spaceflight so far. They are slashing the cost to orbit. So far they've been fairly safe and reliable, aside from losing like 3 in a row.
When you see a NASA dude standing in front of a prototype space suit, talking about its features and how innovative it is, odds are his contribution was minimal at best. Aside from being a suited test subject. Uh, not speaking from direct personal experience or anything...