Their first orbital rocket, New Glenn, had its inaugural flight earlier this year. IIRC, it performed rather well in the "launch to orbit" aspect, but they lost the booster as it was coming back to land on a drone ship. It'll take them time to iron out the kinks, but as long as they don't scrap the project, I don't see why it couldn't become a contender in heavy lift.
Bimfred
joined 1 year ago
Whenever the Roci's railgun is fired, it's accompanied by a momentary burn of her main drive to cancel out that impulse.
The basics (getting the OS installed, some initial settings to your liking etc) is quick. Managed to go from "completely untouched build" to "we gaming on Linux now boys" in a couple hours and most of that was waiting for BG3 to download on my 100Mbit connection. Pretty much everything I needed worked right on the first boot. Then again, I didn't have much data to transfer over.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this, but wasn't the original thruster problem, on the second uncrewed flight, that the thrusters were too insulated and couldn't dump enough heat, so they overheated? So for the crewed demo, they removed some of the insulation and the thrusters were dumping heat into adjacent thrusters, once again overheating? Seems like the doghouse is a poor design, at least in Starliner's case.
I found a reddit post from a year or so ago, reportedly Bazzite has drivers for the dongle out of the box. I'm a little more concerned about the keyboard+touchpad combo, since I'd imagine that's not quite a standard device. Fortunately, I give negative fucks about any RGB, so I really don't care if any RGB the components happen to have don't even light up.
It’s happened before, look at how many academics fled Europe in WW2 to end up in projects like NASA or the Manhatten Project.
They fled. They were escaping to save their lives, not because someone made them a job offer. If not the States, they would've gone somewhere else.
Right, like how the USSR won the space race by not privatizing the engineers and money to a few hands, it was a state funded project that helped the USSR do in 60 years what it took Europe/USA 300 years.
What are you even talking about? From which orifice did you pull the 300 years from?
Who, like Musk?
Anyone who's willing to look beyond next quarter earnings and elections, and commit to a project that could easily be decades in the making. Leadership that won't bail on a project when the ruling party changes. Case in point, the US. One president makes a commitment to resuming manned lunar missions. The next president throws that plan in the dump and says "We're doing Mars instead!" After 8 years, tops, they're out and the new president says "Screw Mars, we're going back to the Moon!" How are you supposed to make any worthwhile progress on such large, complicated programs if it's probably only got 8 years before the next guy cancels it for their own glory project? Developing new space technologies isn't fast or cheap, so you need someone who won't pull the plug on your program because they have something else they want you to stroke their ego with.
Sounds like a pretty big problem in regards to private ownership of public money and resources. There are other ways to do it though, more efficient ways.
Spaceflight technology is pretty much the bleeding edge of our capability. Every gram matters, the failure margins are extremely slim. You're not gonna make notable advancements if you're not willing to push the envelope and accept that your test articles will fail, there will be setbacks and things will turn out more expensive than you anticipated. If a private enterprise wants to foot the bill for that, have at it! If a public institutions wants to foot the bill, bloody have at it! I don't care who's paying, as long as the funding doesn't get chopped when progress is slower or more wrought than some naive "we will encounter no difficulties" bullshit that was used to sell the project in the first place.
Committing to mass produce something that isn’t even finished? Sounds like capitalism to me, at least Musk and Co. get billions in handouts for the government, funded by public tax payer money.
They know they're gonna need to mass produce the Starship, so they're already putting effort into figuring out how to do that. If your goal is to catch up to SpaceX, then you're gonna have to mass produce your own launch vehicles, otherwise you're not even within sight of their launch cadence. Mature, tried and tested launchers can't match the pace of SpaceX's prototype, let alone their workhorse. And if you're trying to compete with them on launch cadence and mass to orbit (which you'll need if you are to provide a viable alternative to Starlink, for example), you're gonna have to mass produce your stuff. Better to figure it out early than to end up playing catch-up in yet another field.
Ah yes, SpaceX somehow has a magic “skip manufacturing” button.
It takes them a handful months to build a whole-ass Starship and Superheavy, outfit them with 33 engines, and launch. On the other hand, we have the SLS, which takes a year to build and the engines already exist!
This is a good thing, this is how good engineering is supposed to be done.
Agreed, but it also means that you're gonna test slower, because manufacturing the prototypes and test articles is gonna be slower. Simulations only get you so far before you hit diminishing returns, sooner or later you'll get to a point where you learn more and faster from physical testing. But if your manufacturing can't keep up with the rate of your physical testing, you're gonna get bogged down again. Sim data isn't real-world data and the real-world data is what's going to tell you how your rocket and its components actually operate and what forces they actually experience.
So you’re saying one country and one company building a thing is more efficient than a coalition of several companies building a thing? Your political views are starting to show.
Let's focus on rockets here, since that's actually relevant to the discussion. Rockets are generally assembled in one location, a couple at the most. The more geographically spread out your manufacturing is, the more time and money will need to be spent to get the individual elements to where they're actually assembled. That's all time and money that's not directly contributing to the manufacturing or assembly. If you can bring the manufacturing and the assembly closer together, you're reducing the time and money it'll take to transport from one location to the other. This, in turn, contributes to reducing the costs and timelines of building your rocket. Does that sound logical to you, or do you need to be reminded that not even the Soviets figured out teleportation?
This makes sense if you’re a capitalist who only sees things as returns on investment in a monetary sense. The problem with capitalism is that it’s easy for your private benefactors to pull the rug from you anytime you displease them. A project that is taken seriously will be pushed no matter the setbacks (nuclear power and fusion energy) and failures would be seen as learning experiences to better know where to allocate funds, resources, and effort. Only a capitalist could see “appeasement of rich benefactors” as something to be taken more seriously than say, I don’t know, progress and development. It’s why profit-motivation is doomed to fail every time, you didn’t see the people who invented the sail, metallurgy, leavened bread, beer, and pottery hide it behind an IP to pick and choose who gets to use them.
IP law didn't exist at the time of the sail, metallurgy or beer, so that argument is moot. Let me break my stance down for you. I want all of the things you mentioned to be funded! I'm wholeheartedly in favor of publicly funded fusion research. Please, spend public money to make renewables even better. Use my taxpayer money to build wind, solar and storage installations, as well as nuclear plants. There's nothing I'd love more than NASA, ESA, JAXA, ISRO and many, many other public institutions getting triple, quintuple their budget and free reign to use it as they see fit. But that is not the reality that we live in and I don't trust career politicians to not cancel unpopular programs if their election spot is on the line. Now go find me a less popular program than a new nuclear power plant. My country can't even get new offshore wind plants built because the politicians are kowtowing to the NIMBY "BUt i cAn SeE iT fRoM tHE ShORe" crowd. "Appeasement of rich benefactors" couldn't be further from my list of priorities, because the one priority I have in this subject is that I want to see humanity get off this one fucking rock and become actually spacefaring, not just poking our noses out the window (once) and saying we've been out in the world. I don't give a shit who's first, as long as there's a second, a third, and a twentieth. Would I like it to be publicly funded all along the way, so more could benefit from it? Absolutely! But NASA's liable to get reprioritised with every new administration and their fancy new 4-billion-a-pop rocket is destroying 40 year old reusable engines with every launch. ESA made their new rocket less capable than the one it's replacing, while burying their heads in the sand and hoping that this whole reusability craze blows over. In light of that, I can't trust either of those institutions to be the leader in advancing spaceflight technologies. So if you'd be so kind as to cut it out with your politically motivated attacks on my character, I'd really appreciate that.
Asking hundreds or thousands of people to uproot their entire lives and move across an ocean is a rather tall order. Some would take the deal, certainly, but not enough. And it takes more than engineers and money to do things the way SpaceX has been doing them. It requires a leadership that isn't averse to failures along the way. The ESA, much like NASA, is publicly funded. Meaning programs need to progress with a minimum of (outright or as perceived by the uninformed public) failures, otherwise the bureaucrats who don't know shit about dick come and pull the funding. You can't make rapid progress like that and rapid progress is exactly what's needed for anyone to even dream of catching up to SpaceX.
EDIT: Another point: SpaceX are mass-producing Raptors and full stack Starships, while both of them are still deep in development. The EU won't be willing to pay for a mass production line for anything without a finalized design. That slows you down even more, because you'll be stuck waiting on manufacturing. And said manufacturing is likely to be spread across multiple EU nations, so that more would benefit from the funding. This, once again, slows you down. And makes the entire operation more expensive, in turn making it more likely that your funding gets pulled when enough people get pissy that your test article failed while being tested to failure.
NATO not expanding eastward was never put to paper. No one ever officially signed off on it, nor was it ever an official decree. It was never anything more than words of appeasement. Russia "agreed to democracy on its doorstep" because they were going through a regime collapse and were a tad preoccupied with preventing the collapse from going further. Even if they had kicked up a storm about it, what were they gonna do? The breakaway nations weren't going to just unpack their bags and stay with the abusive ex cause the ex said they can't leave. Russia would've had to suppress them militarily once again, and they didn't have the resources to do that.
NATO expanding eastward was because the former Soviet bloc countries wanted it. Because if you've regained your independence (for some of them it wasn't even the first time) from an aggressive neighboring nation, would you not wish to protect it with the means available to you? If Poland and the Baltics believed that, for the first time in centuries, Russia would stop doing Russia things, would they have sought to join? Because the only reason they've been spared Ukraine's fate is that Russia was in no position to execute militarily when those countries were accepted into NATO. And look at us now, thirty some years later, Russia is doing Russia things.
But how are you going to space if the pointy end is down and the flamey end is up? It should be the other way around!
Deeper IR, microwave and radio. Within a galaxy, redshift can be ignored. In another galaxy, the issue is moot, you don't need to worry about them and they don't need to worry about you.
Our current scopes can pick up brown dwarfs with a surface temperature below freezing. An object the diameter of a planetary orbit, with the gravitational effect of a main sequence star and giving off just black body radiation is gonna stick out like a neon "Interesting stuff here!" sign the moment someone does a long wavelength survey of your general region.
Even if you build a swarm instead of a solid shell, you're still going to shift the star's apparent spectrum towards IR, from the swarm radiating waste heat. A star whose mass, diameter and emission spectrum don't match up with the math is inviting investigation, regardless of how you try to mask what you've been doing.
view more: next ›
Suppose we'll see. Not unusual to have a long gap between the early launches, lots of data to analyze for the first time. Was 8 months between the first and second launch of Ariane 6, for example.