The thread for space cadets!

[Winner]

Hmm I hadn't heard of the Evolved Lift Capability before this. So now we are going to have an Aries V lite to get the Orion up and an Aries V heavy to lift the rest. Yeah, this is totally gonna happen.

For a HLV vehicle to be cost effective, there must be something heavy to be lifted up reasonably often. I pretty much doubt that will be the case.

The music and the story line made it a tearjerker for me, that's why I liked it. I like tearjerkers. Happy now?

Read. What. I. Frakking. Write. Please.

This is a thread about stuff which is *somehow* related to space/space exploration. I asked what you liked about Armageddon from the *science*-fiction point of view.

Well, obviously nothing. So why on earth are you still talking about it?

W/e. Opinions are opinions, snobs are snobs.

Stop whining. Armageddon makes no sense to anyone who knows at least something about space. That Tyson shot it down is natural, him being a scientist and all. It's as if somebody made a film about Komodo dragons in which he claimed they lived in Australia, came there from Greenland, and have evolved directly from Tyrannosaurus Rex and a biologist dared to tell the guy that's a pile of bullcrap. Then another guy would start crying and call the scientist a snob and a douche for, well, being correct.

Get a grip on reality.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

The music and the story line made it a tearjerker for me, that's why I liked it. I like tearjerkers. Happy now?


W/e. Opinions are opinions, snobs are snobs.

I've learned long ago that defending myself or any of the things I like is just not

worth it, as it is human nature for people to never, ever change their mind about anything, so people will be douches regardless of whether I defend myself or my interests or not.

Read. What. I. Frakking. Write. Please.

This is a thread about stuff which is *somehow* related to space/space exploration. I asked what you liked about Armageddon from the *science*-fiction point of view.

Well, obviously nothing. So why on earth are you still talking about it?



Stop whining. Armageddon makes no sense to anyone who knows at least something about space. That Tyson shot it down is natural, him being a scientist and all. It's as if somebody made a film about Komodo dragons in which he claimed they lived in Australia, came there from Greenland, and have evolved directly from Tyrannosaurus Rex and a biologist dared to tell the guy that's a pile of bullcrap. Then another guy would start crying and call the scientist a snob and a douche for, well, being correct.

Get a grip on reality.

You deliberately ignored my last paragraph just because you wanted to continue attacking me and thus give yourself the higher ground. It is very telling of your character.

And as I implied in my previous post, but didn't say it explicitly, I'm done fighting.

 

[Crezth]

You know for a Moravian polisci student, Winner sure likes his scientific posturing.

 

[Winner]

You deliberately ignored my last paragraph just because you wanted to continue attacking me and thus give yourself the higher ground. It is very telling of your character.

I am not attacking you as a person, I am attacking the stupid things you're saying. I am sorry but if you say Tyson is a moron because he dislikes a stupid film, what do you expect me to do? Pat you on the back?

Seriously.

You know for a Moravian polisci student, Winner sure likes his scientific posturing.

And that's supposed to mean what?

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Read. What. I. Frakking. Write. Please.

This is a thread about stuff which is *somehow* related to space/space exploration. I asked what you liked about Armageddon from the *science*-fiction point of view.

Well, obviously nothing. So why on earth are you still talking about it?

I am well aware that the "science" in the movie is not science at all. Hasn't stopped me from liking it.

Stop whining. Armageddon makes no sense to anyone who knows at least something about space. That Tyson shot it down is natural, him being a scientist and all. It's as if somebody made a film about Komodo dragons in which he claimed they lived in Australia, came there from Greenland, and have evolved directly from Tyrannosaurus Rex and a biologist dared to tell the guy that's a pile of bullcrap. Then another guy would start crying and call the scientist a snob and a douche for, well, being correct.

Being correct does not give him the right to prevent people from simply enjoying the movie or giving them crap for enjoying the movie.

Get a grip on reality.

Reality is a piece of crap. I hate it. If we can't have FTL, or teleportation, or Earthlikes with two suns (SW's Tatooine does not count, damned thing is a desert), or blue space babes, or even the mere existence of an Earthlike other than ours (which from the all the exoplanet data, is turning out to prove Rare Lonely Earth true), then reality is not worth wasting my time with.

And from all the damned downer space discoveries hopeless science fantasy romantics like me have had to endure all these decades, I'd rather die on December 21'st, regardless of what happens to the rest of this POS planet.

At this point, I don't give a

if you don't like what I'm saying. Yes, I'll be pissed by your response, but ultimately, it doesn't matter, cuz reality *always* has the final say, right?

Good day, sir.

 

[Winner]

Being correct does not give him the right to prevent people from simply enjoying the movie or giving them crap for enjoying the movie.

It does give him the right to explain why the film sucks, so that other people who might otherwise be tricked into believing there is some actual science in it are spared the agony.

Reality is a piece of crap. I hate it.

Well, fine, we all do sometimes. Still doesn't give *you* a right to insult a guy just because he's doing his best to educate the masses.

If we can't have FTL, or teleportation, or Earthlikes with two suns (SW's Tatooine does not count, damned thing is a desert), or blue space babes, or even the mere existence of an Earthlike other than ours (which from the all the exoplanet data, is turning out to prove Rare Lonely Earth true), then reality is not worth wasting my time with.

Since our exoplanet hunting techniques can only detect an Earth-sized planet under very special circumstances (either it closely orbits a smaller, dimmer star that's VEEEEEEEERY close, or it transits in front of the star from our perspective), it's still far too early to make any conclusions concerning the prevalence of terrestrial planets in habitable zones. It's going to be rare, but we guessed that even before we found the first exoplanet.

My guess is that almost every star with reasonable metallicity value is going to have terrestrial planets. Some, say 1 out of 10, or 1 out of 20 is going to orbit in the habitable zone. Then it depends on many other factors whether such a planet actually turns out to be habitable, or better, habitable to humans. Not that we're going there any time soon, but potentially.

At this point, I don't give a

if you don't like what I'm saying. Yes, I'll be pissed by your response, but ultimately, it doesn't matter, cuz reality *always* has the final say, right?

Maybe you should spend less time being pissed by everything.

 

[Winner]

Indeed, this reminded me of the simulation done a few years ago, which attempted to model planetary formation around Alpha Centauri B:

Looks like they need to adjust their model, since nothing like the planet that's actually there appears in any of the simulation runs. Anyway, according to this model, the chances of a planet ending up in the habitable zone are pretty decent. Detecting them will take better instruments, time, and money though.

Another question is whether these planets will actually have water on them. We are not exactly sure how the water we have on Earth got there (a-was always here; b-was brought here by comets; b2-when? why?), therefore its hard to tell whether the same processes took place in a binary star system like Alpha Centauri.

I hope they did. Because

I...

Want...

Chiron...

...there!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And from all the damned downer space discoveries hopeless science fantasy romantics like me have had to endure all these decades, I'd rather die on December 21'st, regardless of what happens to the rest of this POS planet.

Downer discoveries? Like the fact that there are planets outside of our solar system? What are you talking about?

Yes, the ones found are not habitable or particularly nice, but we can't see the nice ones just yet.

 

[Crezth]

And that's supposed to mean what?

I mean you're presuming an awful lot about those who "know something" about space and being really condescending to boot. I think that's funny because I, for one, think Armageddon is good, fun cheese. And it has Bruce Willis so, well that's fun.

e: Plus you know PlutonianEmpire. Most of his objections to the most mundane crap are utterly spurious or idiosyncratic. But you have to figure if more people had half the interest he has in space, maybe the public wouldn't be so apathetic about your beloved Chiron. It is ironically the exact kind of attitude Neil deGrasse Tyson rails against: the ivory tower, "we scientists know better than you public, chewing on your mindless gristle movies like so many cows that you are." Look up him talking to Richard Dawkins sometime. The job of an educator is not to shame, but to enlighten.

And it's all the funnier because, circumstantially, this isn't even your field of expertise. Yet that doesn't stop you from pretending you're superior to PlutonianEmpire.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yet that doesn't stop you from pretending you're superior to PlutonianEmpire.

Or me at several points.

But hey, he's not as bad as random guys in the CiV forum who doubt my credentials because they don't think bombers should be stationed on carriers.

 

[Crezth]

Or me at several points.

You're just an aerospace engineering student, come on.

 

[Winner]

I mean you're presuming an awful lot about those who "know something" about space and being really condescending to boot.

Ah, so that's what mentioning my nationality had to do with all this. Wait... what?

I think that's funny because I, for one, think Armageddon is good, fun cheese. And it has Bruce Willis so, well that's fun.

I am assuming that ANYBODY who knows ANYTHING about orbital mechanics, astronomy, rocketry, and other related fields UNDERSTANDS that the film is utter nonsense. Which is what I said, that was the only criterion I mentioned.

If you think that what Armageddon showed is in any way realistic (beyond the very basic idea that Earth might get hit by an asteroid), just say it...

e: Plus you know PlutonianEmpire. Most of his objections to the most mundane crap are utterly spurious or idiosyncratic. But you have to figure if more people had half the interest he has in space, maybe the public wouldn't be so apathetic about your beloved Chiron. It is ironically the exact kind of attitude Neil deGrasse Tyson rails against: the ivory tower, "we scientists know better than you public, chewing on your mindless gristle movies like so many cows that you are." Look up him talking to Richard Dawkins sometime. The job of an educator is not to shame, but to enlighten.

And it's all the funnier because, circumstantially, this isn't even your field of expertise. Yet that doesn't stop you from pretending you're superior to PlutonianEmpire.

And you want to talk to me about condescension? I believe I have a fairly good grasp of the things I am talking about here. If I didn't, I'd be silent. If you think something I said is factually incorrect, call it. Otherwise stop bugging me for no reason.

Or me at several points.

But hey, he's not as bad as random guys in the CiV forum who doubt my credentials because they don't think bombers should be stationed on carriers.

Wait, so correcting someone when he's wrong is not allowed in this thread? I didn't know you take things so personally.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You're just an aerospace engineering student, come on.

I know I effing hate myself and I'm full of jealousy directed at you you commie bastad.

I am assuming that ANYBODY who knows ANYTHING about orbital mechanics, astronomy, rocketry, and other related fields UNDERSTANDS that the film is utter nonsense. Which is what I said, that was the only criterion I mentioned.

WHO CARES? People can still enjoy it. Yes, PE can stop whinning about it, but you can also stop bashing him over the head by way of implying you know things he doesn't about SCIENCE. He knows that it isn't real, he just likes it. Case closed now?

Wait, so correcting someone when he's wrong is not allowed in this thread? I didn't know you take things so personally.

I'm open to cricism and correction all day any day. It's the healthy does of condescension that gets annoying. I don't know if you do it intentionally or not, but it's there on full display whenever you think you're right and anyone else is wrong.

Here's a gem:

I am sorry, but what reaction do you expect from someone who actually has some knowledge about the world's space programmes?

And while your second sentence was a bit more contrite, it was still jerkish overall.

And honestly, I've only brought up the fact that you come across this way not because I'm highly sensitive, but because the thread derailing and constant attacks over a frakkin movie are bringing out the worst in you right now.

Can we talk about Tinydong or something else now pretty please?

 

[Winner]

I'm open to cricism and correction all day any day. It's the healthy does of condescension that gets annoying. I don't know if you do it intentionally or not, but it's there on full display whenever you think you're right and anyone else is wrong.

What? I am arguing for my opinions. Again, if I am wrong, somebody will demonstrate it sooner or later, that happens a lot on this forum. (Whether I admit it then or later is of course not that clear cut ).

I am definitely not approaching this with any "I know everything" complex, I specifically said on numerous occasions that my area of "expertise" ( ) lies somewhere else. My qualification is based on reading a lot about space/spaceflight and having done my homework concerning the basics of the science that underpins all this. I am proud of the effort I've made. I admit I sometimes get annoyed when people argue for a point that has been debunked five million times before, but that's a result of my talking about space with other people in real life and on the internet for a long time. I apologize if I've given you this treatment.

Now the case is closed as far as I am concerned.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Now the case is closed as far as I am concerned.

So...Notlong anyone?

Or how about the future of the Russian Space Agency?
Has Russia given enough money to adequately fund the development of their new Angara rocket series?

I'm not really sure what benefit they see in developing a new series when they are having so many problems with the old ones. And the old ones themselves aren't bad, but rather the Russians have terrible quality control, which will doom any completely new, untested and untried rockets.

Honestly, it seems the Russian program is running on the last fumes of their old legacy designs and don't seem to be capable of doing much better at the moment.

 

[Winner]

So...Notlong anyone?

Nope, not enough info.

Or how about the future of the Russian Space Agency?
Has Russia given enough money to adequately fund the development of their new Angara rocket series?

I'm not really sure what benefit they see in developing a new series when they are having so many problems with the old ones.

Isn't it the main reason people usually move to a new system? I mean, most of their hardware dates back to the early 1960s. Angara rocket family should replace most of it with something more modern - IF they ever finish development. The idea is sound, now implementation... you know Russia.

Honestly, it seems the Russian program is running on the last fumes of their old legacy designs and don't seem to be capable of doing much better at the moment.

It depends on whether Russia can really start looking into the future or not. And not just in space, I mean it generally. Letting Putin back to the presidential office isn't a good sign in this respect.

We talked recently about Russian cosmonauts blowing the whistle on what's really happening in the Russian space programme. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Crezth]

Ah, so that's what mentioning my nationality had to do with all this. Wait... what?

Hey, you do it all the time. What with calling us Anglo-Saxons or whatever.

I am assuming that ANYBODY who knows ANYTHING about orbital mechanics, astronomy, rocketry, and other related fields UNDERSTANDS that the film is utter nonsense. Which is what I said, that was the only criterion I mentioned.

If you think that what Armageddon showed is in any way realistic (beyond the very basic idea that Earth might get hit by an asteroid), just say it...

Uh. No. It's not realistic. Neither is Avatar (for one thing I am particularly amused that Earth-vetted aircraft can function just fine in the Pandoran atmosphere, despite all the effing anomalies that cause floating goddam mountains and a host of other factors that have to be different and considered out of necessity).

That doesn't mean that it doesn't create an interest on behalf of the common man in science. When you criticize someone about their taste in scifi movies, you should be aware of their sensitivity.

And you want to talk to me about condescension? I believe I have a fairly good grasp of the things I am talking about here. If I didn't, I'd be silent. If you think something I said is factually incorrect, call it. Otherwise stop bugging me for no reason.

Oh, I have no doubt that you believe that you have a good grasp of things (and, just so I am not dodging it, I am aware that I am the most arrogant, condescending nerd roundabouts these parts). I think you're very well-versed in the literature and I'll leave it at that. But, it serves to be humble. For instance:

Again, if I am wrong, somebody will demonstrate it sooner or later, that happens a lot on this forum. (Whether I admit it then or later is of course not that clear cut ). <snip>

Well, I didn't know that. But thanks for clearing this up.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Isn't it the main reason people usually move to a new system? I mean, most of their hardware dates back to the early 1960s. Angara rocket family should replace most of it with something more modern - IF they ever finish development. The idea is sound, now implementation... you know Russia.

A lot can be done to modernize a rocket (guidance systems, electronics, controllers, etc) without ditching it entirely. I mean the current systems are tried and true and get the job done. I'm not sure if these new rockets will offer significantly upgraded capabilities.

The main thing that worries me is that if they can't even properly build the old rockets, what chance do they have building new ones? For example, AFAIK, the Phobos-Grunt payload was totally new...and it failed miserably even though the launcher was succesful.

I for one, saw absolutely no benefit of ditching the Saturn V in favor of the Shuttle. Even though hindsight is 20/20, by the time they finished designing the Shuttle they should have known they had traded a Ferrari for a Focus. And in this case the Focus cost more than the Ferrrari.

It depends on whether Russia can really start looking into the future or not. And not just in space, I mean it generally. Letting Putin back to the presidential office isn't a good sign in this respect.

Interesting point. However, the old authoritarian USSR did a decent job of building an awesome space program despite the USSR's flaws that led to failures like the N1.

We talked recently about Russian cosmonauts blowing the whistle on what's really happening in the Russian space programme. We'll see how it goes.

I suspect if cosmonauts weren't treated like national treasures, he'd be persecuted. I'm not sure much will come out of his statements and pledges to reorganize the program. But as you say, we'll see how it goes.

I am aware that I am the most arrogant, condescending nerd robot roundabouts these parts).

ftfy

 

[Winner]

A lot can be done to modernize a rocket (guidance systems, electronics, controllers, etc) without ditching it entirely. I mean the current systems are tried and true and get the job done. I'm not sure if these new rockets will offer significantly upgraded capabilities.

Modernized Soyuz is already flying - from French Guyana, operated by ESA. I think at least a part of the reason to develop a new system is to keep the Russian aerospace conglomerates busy. They need something to do to keep their expertise; if they just keep building essentially the same old thing, they'll lose competitiveness.

Also, there usually comes the point where modernizing an old system is just not worth the cost any more. Say, Proton - the rocket should have been ditched decades ago. Soyuz is good reliability-wise, but obsolete if Russia wants to replace the Soyuz spacecraft (not enough lift capacity).

Angara, if I understand it correctly, should be a versatile system, offering everything from small lift to medium and heavy lift with maximum commonality between components. That's a very sane approach and I wish Western countries thought along the same lines - one system to fill many roles, not many separate systems, each fine tuned to its specific role.

The main thing that worries me is that if they can't even properly build the old rockets, what chance do they have building new ones? For example, AFAIK, the Phobos-Grunt payload was totally new...and it failed miserably even though the launcher was succesful.

Well, we shall see. I have no insider info on how they plan to deal with the notoriously bad quality control. Perhaps with a new system, they'll make it easier to check out properly before it's shipped to the launch pad.

I for one, saw absolutely no benefit of ditching the Saturn V in favor of the Shuttle. Even though hindsight is 20/20, by the time they finished designing the Shuttle they should have known they had traded a Ferrari for a Focus. And in this case the Focus cost more than the Ferrrari.

Yep, ditching S-V was a clusterfrak that has costed the US dearly.

Interesting point. However, the old authoritarian USSR did a decent job of building an awesome space program despite the USSR's flaws that led to failures like the N1.

Mainly because you could shoot people or send them to Gulag if they screwed up, and they had no other choice You can't do things the Soviet way without Soviet-like methods. Plus, the Soviet programme never was particularly effective.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Plus, the Soviet programme never was particularly effective.

Really? I thought they had a pretty good run of racking up many space firsts.