The thread for space cadets!

[r16]

so , it has been pointed to me that am slow on silliness these days , you know an amazing thing in itself but ı also noticed some blog ... ln a powerful one , two , three , we learn USN will now officially investigate Cold Fusion , as the leading agency . With Salvatore Pais changing posts , USAF was surely to be the lead , but their "failure" in launching their hypersonic thing , after calling the other services as fools unfit to play in smart business must have hurt their standing or something . Then New Turkey Police gets its attack helicopters . Typical that it has a female crewmember , untypically without an headcover , which is typical as proper congregation types are not even allowed to leave the house . Mentions a fully electric engined variant , because America will not let engines . Attack helicopters are dangerous for Kurdish Freedom Fighters and stuff . The echo chamber ı follow for the news has a thread that mentions the Unity Engine has been discovered in a car repair shop , the news article is from 2017 and am pretty sure it was started before the blog article , guess why ? And the last and the least America sends two more destroyers into the Blacksea ...

-----

-----

the image is a random find from Artstation , most probably in the competition of drawing Japanese stuff . The artist never imagined it would used as an explanation that it is never hopeless as it looks , because she has the backing of a Balrog , available to decloak . Laughing at pyramids and cannon balls pictured investigating American warships in 2019 . Weren't CGl people told to make it a triangle with lights on the corners in both cases ? Looking forward to ever victorious USN victoriously tweeting USS Porter crossed the Straits again .

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Biden has requested a decent budget increase for NASA, which to the average Space News commenter is taken as evidence of the final move in the evil Biden-Soros planned takeover and destruction of NASA and SpaceX.

NASA is soon to publish a solicitation for commercial space stations - in the pre-solicitation brief they talk over and over how they want to mimic the success of the programs that lead to commercial cargo and then commercial crew trips to the ISS.

More gnashing of the teeth in Europe over Ariane 6 as well as a new tussle between ESA and the EU over who is responsible for what. It does seem the entrepreneurial community within Europe is stirring but they lack government support the way startups in the US and China are supported.

 

[red_elk]

60 years.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They are preparing to fly the helicopter on Mars. It has deployed off of the rover and is on the ground and they'd done spin tests on the rotors. They did encounter a software glitch during a test yesterday but it should be resolved soon.

 

[GenMarshall]

Hubble is acting up - they uploaded a software update which was supposed to help it deal with old creaky gyros but instead it caused the system to basically shut down. It was a pretty hard shut down too - apparently the door over the telescope mirror which was supposed to close to protect it from the sun in the event of system failures did not close.

Given the age of the satellite, why not replace it with Hubble II? I know there’s going to be a certain point where you can only upgrade (both hardware and software) and repair your machine so far past it’s operating life. Though I really don’t want to see such a machine get taken out of orbit to be burnt up in Earth’s atmosphere where it’s better placed in a museum like the Smithsonian’s Air and Space Museum, if we had a way to recover it (since, lack of an space shuttle program)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Given the age of the satellite, why not replace it with Hubble II?

$$$$

where it’s better placed in a museum like the Smithsonian’s Air and Space Museum, if we had a way to recover it (since, lack of an space shuttle program)

It's too big to bring down by anything on the drawing board or in the past, including the Shuttle. At end of life, it will be allowed to decay in orbit and eventually re-enter and burn up.

 

[GenMarshall]

$$$$

Plz insert “We’ve got to have, MONNNNEEEEEYYYY” meme

It's too big to bring down by anything on the drawing board or in the past, including the Shuttle. At end of life, it will be allowed to decay in orbit and eventually re-enter and burn up.

I guess we may have to make due with a replica of it’s hull and it’s components that people will see on the outside. Though it wouldn’t have that personal feel that one would get seeing a vintage WWII fighter plane up close (even if it’s restored to flying and/or museum display conditions).

 

[The_J]

Given the age of the satellite, why not replace it with Hubble II?

That's planned, but basically delayed for ages already. Will supposedly launch this year, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope .

 

[Kaitzilla]

That's planned, but basically delayed for ages already. Will supposedly launch this year, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope .

This might be a silly question, but now that they have all the bugs worked out, why not build 2 or 3 of the James Webb telescopes?

 

[GenMarshall]

This might be a silly question, but now that they have all the bugs worked out, why not build 2 or 3 of the James Webb telescopes?

Why not a James Webb Telescope swarm?

 

[The_J]

This might be a silly question, but now that they have all the bugs worked out, why not build 2 or 3 of the James Webb telescopes?

Opportunity costs, I'd say. You can use the same money to build something better and/or different. If there even is the money.

 

[uppi]

This might be a silly question, but now that they have all the bugs worked out, why not build 2 or 3 of the James Webb telescopes?

Building the exact ame instrument multiple times has diminishing returns, because the second one cannot discover anything the first one could not discover. The telescope will be prioritized to target whatever is considered most exciting, so the second one would give you the capability to cover those topics which are considered not as exciting, so it is hard to get people excited enough to give you money for the second one.

Usually in science, you need to have a very good reason to replicate something which already exists. It is hard to push for any instrument which does not give you capabilities you would not have otherwise.

Although in the case of the JWST I do wonder what the cost of a second one would be and maybe there are enough exciting things it could discover which might justify that cost. Maybe, after a few years of operation it would be better to launch a slightly upgraded design instead of spending decades on a completely new design. But, as these things are not really designed to be replicated, it actually might be hard to even build a second one.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That's planned, but basically delayed for ages already. Will supposedly launch this year, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope .

To follow on with @uppi's later point, JWST does not have much overlap with Hubble in terms of wavelengths. JWST sees mostly in infrared, Hubble mostly in visible. It's too bad we may not have much overlap in their operation as they are good compliments to each other.

There is another Hubble-class telescope called Nancy Roman Space Telescope (previously known as WFIRST) that was built when an intelligence agency donated a telescope mirror to NASA. This mirror is really good at spotting things on the ground but it does not have as sharp of a focus for deep space observation as Hubble. Instead it will take mainly wide-field of view images, which are still worthy on their own.

This might be a silly question, but now that they have all the bugs worked out, why not build 2 or 3 of the James Webb telescopes?

$$$$/opportunity costs, which everyone else have already said. I'm mainly replying to point out that while NASA got exactly 1 Hubble, the intelligence communities get so many telescopes of Hubble's size that they have surplus mirrors on hand to donate to NASA (see Nancy Roman above). It's a shame really.

Building the exact ame instrument multiple times has diminishing returns, because the second one cannot discover anything the first one could not discover. The telescope will be prioritized to target whatever is considered most exciting, so the second one would give you the capability to cover those topics which are considered not as exciting, so it is hard to get people excited enough to give you money for the second one.

Usually in science, you need to have a very good reason to replicate something which already exists. It is hard to push for any instrument which does not give you capabilities you would not have otherwise.

Although in the case of the JWST I do wonder what the cost of a second one would be and maybe there are enough exciting things it could discover which might justify that cost. Maybe, after a few years of operation it would be better to launch a slightly upgraded design instead of spending decades on a completely new design. But, as these things are not really designed to be replicated, it actually might be hard to even build a second one.

One other reason why you don't want to build multiple JWST's right now is that they really don't know if it's going to work and if it has a flaw like Hubble did, it will be extremely difficult to service it as it is going to a Lagrange point in deep space rather than low Earth orbit. JWST has had a ton of development issues and it's become something of an embarrassment for NASA, as Hubble once was when they launched it with a messed up main mirror. The mechanisms needed to fold up such a large telescope to fit in a rocket are very complex and delicate and they may not work correctly.

If SpaceX's Starship becomes a thing, or if SLS is given more launches, then the need to fold up telescopes in such an extreme manner goes out the window - they could potentially build bigger telescopes much more cheaply and simply than JWST with big booster rockets on hand. The Chinese and Blue Origin are also working on super heavy rockets and I expect that Europe will pivot pretty soon to go in the same direction.

 

[Cutlass]

Building the exact ame instrument multiple times has diminishing returns, because the second one cannot discover anything the first one could not discover. The telescope will be prioritized to target whatever is considered most exciting, so the second one would give you the capability to cover those topics which are considered not as exciting, so it is hard to get people excited enough to give you money for the second one.

Usually in science, you need to have a very good reason to replicate something which already exists. It is hard to push for any instrument which does not give you capabilities you would not have otherwise.

Although in the case of the JWST I do wonder what the cost of a second one would be and maybe there are enough exciting things it could discover which might justify that cost. Maybe, after a few years of operation it would be better to launch a slightly upgraded design instead of spending decades on a completely new design. But, as these things are not really designed to be replicated, it actually might be hard to even build a second one.

But, can it look at everything that deserves a look within it's lifetime?

 

[Kaitzilla]

But, can it look at everything that deserves a look within it's lifetime?

If Hubble is still making new discoveries every year, then 2 of them should double the pace I'd say.

$$$$/opportunity costs, which everyone else have already said. I'm mainly replying to point out that while NASA got exactly 1 Hubble, the intelligence communities get so many telescopes of Hubble's size that they have surplus mirrors on hand to donate to NASA (see Nancy Roman above). It's a shame really.

Ya, Nasa gets one and the intelligence community gets dozens.

Figured it would be mainly a money thing.

Why not a James Webb Telescope swarm?

I wonder how many probes we can fit out there.

L2[edit]
L2 is the Lagrange point located approximately 1.5 million kilometers from Earth in the direction opposite the Sun.

Past probes[edit]

Animation of Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe's trajectory from 1 July 2001 to 7 April 2009
WMAP · Earth

• NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observed the cosmic microwave background from 2001 until 2010. It was moved to a heliocentric orbit to avoid posing a hazard to future missions.
• NASA's WIND from November 2003 to April 2004. The spacecraft then went to Earth orbit, before heading to L1.
• The ESA Herschel Space Observatory exhausted its supply of liquid helium and was moved from the Lagrangian point in June 2013.
• At the end of its mission ESA's Planck spacecraft was put into a heliocentric orbit and passivated to prevent it from endangering any future missions.
• CNSA's Chang'e 2[1] from August 2011 to April 2012. Chang'e 2 was then placed onto a heliocentric orbit that took it past the near-Earth asteroid 4179 Toutatis.

Present probes[edit]

• The ESA Gaia probe
• The joint Russian-German high-energy astrophysics observatory Spektr-RG

Planned probes[edit]

• The joint NASA, ESA and CSA James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)
• The ESA Euclid mission, to better understand dark energy and dark matter by accurately measuring the acceleration of the universe.
• The NASA Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (WFIRST)
• The ESA PLATO mission, which will find and characterize rocky exoplanets.
• The JAXA LiteBIRD mission.
• The ESA ARIEL mission, which will observe the atmospheres of exoplanets.
• The joint ESA-JAXA Comet Interceptor
• The ESA Advanced Telescope for High ENergy Astrophysics (ATHENA)
• The NASA Advanced Technology Large-Aperture Space Telescope, which would replace the Hubble Space Telescope and possibly the JWST.

Cancelled probes[edit]

• The ESA Eddington mission
• The NASA Terrestrial Planet Finder mission (may be placed in an Earth-trailing orbit instead)

Ah, nevermind L2 is unstable.
The slightest nudge and off it goes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point

Should be plenty of room and asteroid free then.

 

[Samson]

They have released an out take from the moon landings:

Spoiler :

Do I need to put this here?

Actually from the Sony World Photography Award

 

[r16]

fake , everybody knows there are no winds on the moon , so there would be need to cut some panels from the flag to make it resist strong winds . (Just check the lowest White stripe , which is missing half of its length)

 

[uppi]

The real question is: How well can you do a barbecue on the moon?

 

[red_elk]

Is it barbeque? I thought he was checking riteg innards...

 

[r16]

-----View attachment 593302-----

picture is the one in the post on top of the page , but the link will lead to American bloggers angry at weaklings in Washington .