So I was just outside, western Sweden, incredibly clear skies and there’s essentially no light pollution here. Almost straight up is Ursa Major and I see a dot cross the tail of ursa at high speed. I whip out my star spotting app and it’s not showing any satellite passes until 30 minutes later.
Then I see another dot on the same trajectory. Then after getting back from a short dog walk I see a third on a slightly different trajectory but essentially the same (5-10 minutes had passed). Time wise my third spotting didn’t match the timing between the first and second and would’ve been a fourth or fifth dot given linear timings, tough to say.
I think these would have been moving south to north, ish.
So I was just outside, western Sweden, incredibly clear skies and there’s essentially no light pollution here. Almost straight up is Ursa Major and I see a dot cross the tail of ursa at high speed. I whip out my star spotting app and it’s not showing any satellite passes until 30 minutes later.
Then I see another dot on the same trajectory. Then after getting back from a short dog walk I see a third on a slightly different trajectory but essentially the same (5-10 minutes had passed). Time wise my third spotting didn’t match the timing between the first and second and would’ve been a fourth or fifth dot given linear timings, tough to say.
I think these would have been moving south to north, ish.
But seriously I’m pretty sure starlink sats are logged in whatever databases the apps are using; I’ve could have sworn my go to star charting app notes them
Lanz on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I use Sky Guide and it points out debris from the 80’s with AR trajectories so it’s weird that these did not show up in it.
I use Sky Guide and it points out debris from the 80’s with AR trajectories so it’s weird that these did not show up in it.
Sky guide’s my go to as well; just checked with the search function and it’s definitely logging where the various star links are, so we can probably discount them.
Military sat then is probably the go to then
Or mobile suits.
Lanz on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Starlink tracking coverage is spotty. That close together they're probably from the last batch, they're not normally in tight formation, but it takes a while to disperse a set.
Spy satellites are generally not visible at night because they're usually on highly eccentric sun synchronous orbits, they're at high altitude at night and low during the day, so they don't waste energy to drag when they can't do anything useful.
Many have some degree of stealth, too. KH-11 are very hard to detect visually and the Misty variant seems to be invisible to most civilian radar.
Hevach on
+1
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
I use Sky Guide and it points out debris from the 80’s with AR trajectories so it’s weird that these did not show up in it.
Sky guide’s my go to as well; just checked with the search function and it’s definitely logging where the various star links are, so we can probably discount them.
Military sat then is probably the go to then
Or mobile suits.
Or it could be those guys. You know, the weirdo and more mind wiped alien musicians. Keep an ear out for suspiciously popular one-hit-wonder bands outta nowhere in the next week or so.
I use Sky Guide and it points out debris from the 80’s with AR trajectories so it’s weird that these did not show up in it.
Sky guide’s my go to as well; just checked with the search function and it’s definitely logging where the various star links are, so we can probably discount them.
Military sat then is probably the go to then
Or mobile suits.
Or it could be those guys. You know, the weirdo and more mind wiped alien musicians. Keep an ear out for suspiciously popular one-hit-wonder bands outta nowhere in the next week or so.
I think I will, indeed, listen to their song.
Lanz on
+1
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
It does. The good news is that those kind of orbits are unusual, and the satellites in them are mostly considered extra high-value, since most of them are intelligence satellites. So while active they're very closely monitored and controlled and when at end of life they're not left sitting around - it's was already considered a breach when an astrophotographer figured out the Kennan and Misty satellites were nearly identical to the Hubble Telescope* and that was accomplished just by looking up.
*-They have a propulsion module and the newer ones only have one solar panel, but the chassis is the same, they're just designed to look at Earth instead of deep space. This is always one of my favorite answers to NASA being a waste of money - one of its crown jewels took over a decade to get in the sky and they've been limping it along for thirty years (and hope for another 10-20 yet). Meanwhile the military has launched at least 11 and possibly 14 nearly identical telescopes with superior capabilities (Hubble of course doesn't have propulsion. Even at its higher altitutde, the Hubble can't track the ground like the KH-11's can, so they clearly have superior reaction wheels. And declassified KH-11 images suggest that even the early blocks had finer resolution than Hubble).
KH11 image quality is probably better because they're not wearing a pair of glasses like Hubble is.
SpaceX is giving up on dry fairing recovery. Ms Tree and Ms Chief have had their nets removed and were released from their contracts. A new ship equipped with a salvage crane and ROVs will take over wet recovery.
They were pretty much always doing wet recovery anyway, and the biggest loss was the sound dampening panels. They've been reflying used fairings now for over a year with or without dry or wet recovery and the net ships have been damaged for more money than the handful of fairings they actually caught saved vs. wet recovery.
This has been a rough couple of years for Blue Origin, losing out on this and the NSSL phase 2 procurements that went to ULA and SpaceX. They seemed to be angling for a slow and steady development path of their New Glenn vehicle to get to the point where government contracts can subsidize its development ala ULA and its rockets. But it just hasn't been panning out in the last couple of years. Though they did secure quite a lot of funding for the development of their BE-4 engine that both they and ULA will be using.
The hilarious part is that the plan is literally to launch the Starship, then launch a crew on SLS and transfer them to the Starship, because Congress wouldn't fund a mission that sidesteps the SLS.
+7
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
The hilarious part is that the plan is literally to launch the Starship, then launch a crew on SLS and transfer them to the Starship, because Congress wouldn't fund a mission that sidesteps the SLS.
Are they going to be using a crew dragon on top of the SLS? That'd be a hoot.
No, the plan has always been to launch the crew and lander separately - the SLS can't carry a lander along with an Orion. Blue Origin's lander was designed to be launchable on an SLS, two New Glens, or two Vulcans.
The hilarious part is that the plan is literally to launch the Starship, then launch a crew on SLS and transfer them to the Starship, because Congress wouldn't fund a mission that sidesteps the SLS.
It does sidestep the unlikelihood of Starship being crew ratable in it's planned launch configuration - send Starship unmanned and rendezvous in NRHO (Orion can't actually get to LLO) or the gateway once it's up, the lander can then be kept there with tankers sent alongside crews to refuel it.
This puts some big question marks on the Artemis III timeline, though.
Edit: apparently the rover (planned as a separate launch) has also been switched to Falcon Heavy instead of ULA Vulcan, which isn't too surprising. Falcon Heavy was already tagged to deliver Firefly's equipment and supply packages to landing sites.
So looks like what happened is Congress approved about a third of what was requested (~1B vs ~3B) for this year. Spacex were the only proposal of the three that was willing/able to fit within that budget. (They'll still be payed the same amount in total as they bid but first year payment will be smaller.) Original intention was to pick two.
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
edited April 2021
Also the others had some additional issues with their proposals which, while not necessarily showstoppers, were not helpful either. Like the dynetics design being overweight and the national team (they totally ripped that from XKCD) budget demanding money up front instead of in arrears, according to Scott Manley’s analysis.
National Team wanting all that money up front might have been a deal breaker regardless, the whole point of this program was to avoid getting the lander into the same good money after bad place that the launcher and orbiter were stuck in.
SpaceX is unique among the three because they're developing the ship anyway on private finding. If NASA picked Dynetics SpaceX is still going for the SN15 launch this week and booster 1 launch this summer and so forth, whereas Blue Origin is likely clearing their mockup off the factory floor right now.
Which on the one hand makes them the reliable pick in an unpredictable political environment. On the other hand, the safe position might have been to go with Dynetics now and quietly tell SpaceX, "Look, we all know you're building this anyway, if you really do show up these other guys we'll just have to buy your lander at a premium, right?"
Feels kind of forced decisiveness. National Team seemingly trying to backdoor a cost-plus deal that won't fit into the year 1 budget makes them a hard no.
Dynetics also didn't fit in the budget and the weight issue is a big deal, pretty much every space vehicle that anyone's thrown money into that started out over weight never actually succeeded. Dynetics didn't need to shed over 100% like Venture Star or Delta Clipper, but it's over by enough to make it's viability questionable and the request called for block 2 and beyond upgrade options.
SpaceX fit well in the budget, had far and away the greatest capabilities, and has an endless array of Starship configurations for almost every conceivable use.
If Congress had actually given Bridenstein the money he asked for I feel like at least two of these get their money, I can even see SpaceX being the one that doesn't, because their lander is so far out of proportion for a 2-3 person landing and they're developing it anyway, NASA or not, so that capacity will be buyable down the road.
Edit: worth remembering this is only a short term decision - Artemis 3, probably 4 will use a Starship (likely the same one refueled for each mission), but the long term decision, which looks like it's still planned to have at least two different landers actually in service, has just been pushed back.
Hevach on
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
So I guess the mars helicopter is set to fly sometime today/tomorrow?
And apparently the cool bit of symbolism is that it had a swatch of the original Wright Flyer on it, somehow?
So I don't post here much, but I wanted to say that I got Starlink last week and dutifully set it up and....it was awesome! I was getting 200 mb/s and about 50 up, which is over twice what I was getting. But then, I realised it was dropping out every 3 - 5 minutes, which wasn't great at all. So, I ordered the volcano mount and installed it today (with a little help from my kindly neighbour who lent me his drill when the battery(ies) on mine went flat).
Happy to report that putting it up on the roof was the key - no drop outs, getting great speeds and I've retired my old internet provider. I'm going to give it another week just to see, but so far so good. A heap faster, less latency - so far, so good. Added bonus that it's going to get faster and faster and I'm one SpaceX fanboy, I can tell you.
So I don't post here much, but I wanted to say that I got Starlink last week and dutifully set it up and....it was awesome! I was getting 200 mb/s and about 50 up, which is over twice what I was getting. But then, I realised it was dropping out every 3 - 5 minutes, which wasn't great at all. So, I ordered the volcano mount and installed it today (with a little help from my kindly neighbour who lent me his drill when the battery(ies) on mine went flat).
Happy to report that putting it up on the roof was the key - no drop outs, getting great speeds and I've retired my old internet provider. I'm going to give it another week just to see, but so far so good. A heap faster, less latency - so far, so good. Added bonus that it's going to get faster and faster and I'm one SpaceX fanboy, I can tell you.
Yea I just got Starlink last month and it has been a godsend. I was on old Satellite internet and it was terrible. I still get micro drops a few times an hour, but once they roll out new updates to help acquire the sats better those should go away.
My big concerns are the long term ramifications of the satellite nets. Both with ground based astronomy and the general space junk problem. At least with Starlink (I can't speak to the competitors) the Satellites will de-orbit on their own after a few years once their power runs out.
Feels kind of forced decisiveness. National Team seemingly trying to backdoor a cost-plus deal that won't fit into the year 1 budget makes them a hard no.
Dynetics also didn't fit in the budget and the weight issue is a big deal, pretty much every space vehicle that anyone's thrown money into that started out over weight never actually succeeded. Dynetics didn't need to shed over 100% like Venture Star or Delta Clipper, but it's over by enough to make it's viability questionable and the request called for block 2 and beyond upgrade options.
SpaceX fit well in the budget, had far and away the greatest capabilities, and has an endless array of Starship configurations for almost every conceivable use.
If Congress had actually given Bridenstein the money he asked for I feel like at least two of these get their money, I can even see SpaceX being the one that doesn't, because their lander is so far out of proportion for a 2-3 person landing and they're developing it anyway, NASA or not, so that capacity will be buyable down the road.
Edit: worth remembering this is only a short term decision - Artemis 3, probably 4 will use a Starship (likely the same one refueled for each mission), but the long term decision, which looks like it's still planned to have at least two different landers actually in service, has just been pushed back.
Yeah, I watched that Scott Manley video too, and it seemed like SpaceX was the only one that could make the numbers work after the budget cut. Like the other two weren't even close. Plus the technical issues with Dynetics and the National Team being the usual suspects. Probably didn't hurt that SpaceX is actually building and flying Starship while everyone else just has pretty renders and mockups.
The size of Starship just makes the whole thing ludicrous though. Renders of it and the Luner Gateway are hilarious. HLS is supposed to take two astronauts to the moon, but NASA has gone with a vehicle capable of taking two people and their extended families there.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Feels kind of forced decisiveness. National Team seemingly trying to backdoor a cost-plus deal that won't fit into the year 1 budget makes them a hard no.
Dynetics also didn't fit in the budget and the weight issue is a big deal, pretty much every space vehicle that anyone's thrown money into that started out over weight never actually succeeded. Dynetics didn't need to shed over 100% like Venture Star or Delta Clipper, but it's over by enough to make it's viability questionable and the request called for block 2 and beyond upgrade options.
SpaceX fit well in the budget, had far and away the greatest capabilities, and has an endless array of Starship configurations for almost every conceivable use.
If Congress had actually given Bridenstein the money he asked for I feel like at least two of these get their money, I can even see SpaceX being the one that doesn't, because their lander is so far out of proportion for a 2-3 person landing and they're developing it anyway, NASA or not, so that capacity will be buyable down the road.
Edit: worth remembering this is only a short term decision - Artemis 3, probably 4 will use a Starship (likely the same one refueled for each mission), but the long term decision, which looks like it's still planned to have at least two different landers actually in service, has just been pushed back.
Yeah, I watched that Scott Manley video too, and it seemed like SpaceX was the only one that could make the numbers work after the budget cut. Like the other two weren't even close. Plus the technical issues with Dynetics and the National Team being the usual suspects. Probably didn't hurt that SpaceX is actually building and flying Starship while everyone else just has pretty renders and mockups.
The size of Starship just makes the whole thing ludicrous though. Renders of it and the Luner Gateway are hilarious. HLS is supposed to take two astronauts to the moon, but NASA has gone with a vehicle capable of taking two people and their extended families there.
I wonder if it'll prompt them to revisit the mission profile. Orion can take six people, but the profile is limited to 4 for Artemis. Starship as the lander could easily allow them to send 6 and land 4. As a bonus, it has an airlock, which the other options didn't. They could still only have two on EVA with two more inside the ship.
i mean, not if you fall back to the middle ages for a thousand or so years!
That's a bit of an overreaction. We wouldn't lose access to all our ground based technology. Things would just get harder and slower, but not 500 years old. People are still gonna be driving cars (map companies would be happy), getting good medical technology, have good housing and sanitation, good quality food, etc.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
i mean, not if you fall back to the middle ages for a thousand or so years!
That's a bit of an overreaction. We wouldn't lose access to all our ground based technology. Things would just get harder and slower, but not 500 years old. People are still gonna be driving cars (map companies would be happy), getting good medical technology, have good housing and sanitation, good quality food, etc.
I wonder if we'd see things like Blimp Sats and solar powered drones flying 24/7/365 to approximate satellite usage finally make it out of the prototype stages.
i mean, not if you fall back to the middle ages for a thousand or so years!
That's a bit of an overreaction. We wouldn't lose access to all our ground based technology. Things would just get harder and slower, but not 500 years old. People are still gonna be driving cars (map companies would be happy), getting good medical technology, have good housing and sanitation, good quality food, etc.
I wonder if we'd see things like Blimp Sats and solar powered drones flying 24/7/365 to approximate satellite usage finally make it out of the prototype stages.
I think if Kessler Syndrome really sets in we'll see two things increase: Starlink style low altitude constellations of cheap disposable satellites down in the rapid decay zones (debris won't last so these altitudes should stay usable) and a push for actual polar launch sites so that higher altitude or deep space launches can go through the dead zone over the poles - polar orbits aren't stable and even if stuff is high enough to last for centuries it tends to drift away from polar orientation much faster. Actual polar orbits will cross debris zones at lower latitude but this should provide a "keyhole" to launch through.
The former in particular should prove very viable due to SpaceX's demonstration of swarm launching for low altitude constellations.
Kessler syndrome talk always makes me think of some of the weird shit we've left in space. For example, there are several Soviet nuclear reactors (almost certainly melted down from disuse, they were active when the satellites died, and they had no safety considerations because if anything went wrong it was probably going to be somebody else's problem) in LEO.
But the weirdest bit of space junk has to be the Apollo 10 Turd.
When Apollo 10 was getting ready to leave the moon, they found a large human poo floating around the command module. All three astronauts vehemently deny producing it, and nobody wanted to bag it up. So it was herded into the LEM, Snoopy, and the hatch closed. Snoopy was then fired into interplanetary space instead of crashed like the later LEMs. That turd is still out there somewhere on an Earth-intercepting heliocentric orbit.
Posts
aliens probably
[thinks]
Mobile Suits
Sky guide’s my go to as well; just checked with the search function and it’s definitely logging where the various star links are, so we can probably discount them.
Military sat then is probably the go to then
Or mobile suits.
[MONOEYE BWOOM NOISE]
Spy satellites are generally not visible at night because they're usually on highly eccentric sun synchronous orbits, they're at high altitude at night and low during the day, so they don't waste energy to drag when they can't do anything useful.
Many have some degree of stealth, too. KH-11 are very hard to detect visually and the Misty variant seems to be invisible to most civilian radar.
Or it could be those guys. You know, the weirdo and more mind wiped alien musicians. Keep an ear out for suspiciously popular one-hit-wonder bands outta nowhere in the next week or so.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
I think I will, indeed, listen to their song.
KH11 image quality is probably better because they're not wearing a pair of glasses like Hubble is.
They were pretty much always doing wet recovery anyway, and the biggest loss was the sound dampening panels. They've been reflying used fairings now for over a year with or without dry or wet recovery and the net ships have been damaged for more money than the handful of fairings they actually caught saved vs. wet recovery.
This has been a rough couple of years for Blue Origin, losing out on this and the NSSL phase 2 procurements that went to ULA and SpaceX. They seemed to be angling for a slow and steady development path of their New Glenn vehicle to get to the point where government contracts can subsidize its development ala ULA and its rockets. But it just hasn't been panning out in the last couple of years. Though they did secure quite a lot of funding for the development of their BE-4 engine that both they and ULA will be using.
The hilarious part is that the plan is literally to launch the Starship, then launch a crew on SLS and transfer them to the Starship, because Congress wouldn't fund a mission that sidesteps the SLS.
Are they going to be using a crew dragon on top of the SLS? That'd be a hoot.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
It does sidestep the unlikelihood of Starship being crew ratable in it's planned launch configuration - send Starship unmanned and rendezvous in NRHO (Orion can't actually get to LLO) or the gateway once it's up, the lander can then be kept there with tankers sent alongside crews to refuel it.
This puts some big question marks on the Artemis III timeline, though.
Edit: apparently the rover (planned as a separate launch) has also been switched to Falcon Heavy instead of ULA Vulcan, which isn't too surprising. Falcon Heavy was already tagged to deliver Firefly's equipment and supply packages to landing sites.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
SpaceX is unique among the three because they're developing the ship anyway on private finding. If NASA picked Dynetics SpaceX is still going for the SN15 launch this week and booster 1 launch this summer and so forth, whereas Blue Origin is likely clearing their mockup off the factory floor right now.
Which on the one hand makes them the reliable pick in an unpredictable political environment. On the other hand, the safe position might have been to go with Dynetics now and quietly tell SpaceX, "Look, we all know you're building this anyway, if you really do show up these other guys we'll just have to buy your lander at a premium, right?"
It's a shame Dynetics failed, though, because competition is always good.
Dynetics also didn't fit in the budget and the weight issue is a big deal, pretty much every space vehicle that anyone's thrown money into that started out over weight never actually succeeded. Dynetics didn't need to shed over 100% like Venture Star or Delta Clipper, but it's over by enough to make it's viability questionable and the request called for block 2 and beyond upgrade options.
SpaceX fit well in the budget, had far and away the greatest capabilities, and has an endless array of Starship configurations for almost every conceivable use.
If Congress had actually given Bridenstein the money he asked for I feel like at least two of these get their money, I can even see SpaceX being the one that doesn't, because their lander is so far out of proportion for a 2-3 person landing and they're developing it anyway, NASA or not, so that capacity will be buyable down the road.
Edit: worth remembering this is only a short term decision - Artemis 3, probably 4 will use a Starship (likely the same one refueled for each mission), but the long term decision, which looks like it's still planned to have at least two different landers actually in service, has just been pushed back.
And apparently the cool bit of symbolism is that it had a swatch of the original Wright Flyer on it, somehow?
Happy to report that putting it up on the roof was the key - no drop outs, getting great speeds and I've retired my old internet provider. I'm going to give it another week just to see, but so far so good. A heap faster, less latency - so far, so good. Added bonus that it's going to get faster and faster and I'm one SpaceX fanboy, I can tell you.
Soon, 109 minutes from now
Also, yeah, a piece of fabric from the wright brother's first flyer is on mars currently
Yea I just got Starlink last month and it has been a godsend. I was on old Satellite internet and it was terrible. I still get micro drops a few times an hour, but once they roll out new updates to help acquire the sats better those should go away.
My big concerns are the long term ramifications of the satellite nets. Both with ground based astronomy and the general space junk problem. At least with Starlink (I can't speak to the competitors) the Satellites will de-orbit on their own after a few years once their power runs out.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
i mean, not if you fall back to the middle ages for a thousand or so years!
Yeah, I watched that Scott Manley video too, and it seemed like SpaceX was the only one that could make the numbers work after the budget cut. Like the other two weren't even close. Plus the technical issues with Dynetics and the National Team being the usual suspects. Probably didn't hurt that SpaceX is actually building and flying Starship while everyone else just has pretty renders and mockups.
The size of Starship just makes the whole thing ludicrous though. Renders of it and the Luner Gateway are hilarious. HLS is supposed to take two astronauts to the moon, but NASA has gone with a vehicle capable of taking two people and their extended families there.
the flyer, viewing its own shadow
and a short video I captured off the stream
I wonder if it'll prompt them to revisit the mission profile. Orion can take six people, but the profile is limited to 4 for Artemis. Starship as the lander could easily allow them to send 6 and land 4. As a bonus, it has an airlock, which the other options didn't. They could still only have two on EVA with two more inside the ship.
The guy speaking is my former classmate and colleague, Håvard Fjær Grip (the tweet doesn't say, but I recognize his voice).
That's a bit of an overreaction. We wouldn't lose access to all our ground based technology. Things would just get harder and slower, but not 500 years old. People are still gonna be driving cars (map companies would be happy), getting good medical technology, have good housing and sanitation, good quality food, etc.
I wonder if we'd see things like Blimp Sats and solar powered drones flying 24/7/365 to approximate satellite usage finally make it out of the prototype stages.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
I think if Kessler Syndrome really sets in we'll see two things increase: Starlink style low altitude constellations of cheap disposable satellites down in the rapid decay zones (debris won't last so these altitudes should stay usable) and a push for actual polar launch sites so that higher altitude or deep space launches can go through the dead zone over the poles - polar orbits aren't stable and even if stuff is high enough to last for centuries it tends to drift away from polar orientation much faster. Actual polar orbits will cross debris zones at lower latitude but this should provide a "keyhole" to launch through.
The former in particular should prove very viable due to SpaceX's demonstration of swarm launching for low altitude constellations.
But the weirdest bit of space junk has to be the Apollo 10 Turd.
When Apollo 10 was getting ready to leave the moon, they found a large human poo floating around the command module. All three astronauts vehemently deny producing it, and nobody wanted to bag it up. So it was herded into the LEM, Snoopy, and the hatch closed. Snoopy was then fired into interplanetary space instead of crashed like the later LEMs. That turd is still out there somewhere on an Earth-intercepting heliocentric orbit.