Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
ISS Section / Re: Expedition 70 Thread
« Last post by John_Marshall on Today at 04:08 am »
Yes, I'm mystified, too. If the seat-swap is remaining active until at least early 2024, I'd be surprised not to see a U.S. crew member (Caldwell-Dyson?) on the Fall 2023 Soyuz.

Maybe a short-duration Belarus cosmonaut on the Fall 2023 Soyuz could indicate that Chub and O'Hara will do a one-year stay?

This is the best I can figure out for the next three Soyuz crews:
MS-23:
-CDR Oleg Kononenko up/down
-FE1 Nik Chub up/down
-FE2 Loral O'Hara up/Belarusian TBD down

MS-24:
-CDR Alex Ovchinin up/down
-FE1 Oleg Platonov up/Loral O'Hara down
-FE2 Belarusian TBD up/Tunisian TBD down

MS-25:
-CDR Sergei Ryzhikov up/down
-FE1 Sergei Mikaev up/down
-FE2 Tunisian TBD up/Oleg Platonov down

My MS-23 and MS-24 predictions presume that Konstantin Borisov flies on Crew-7 as planned. If Crew-7 is all USOS, Nik Chub would stay for a year instead of Loral O'Hara. I don't know where Tracy Caldwell-Dyson would end up. After MS-25, Soyuz crews would alternate between two Russians and one American and three Russians (in that order) until Roscosmos is comfortable putting cosmonauts on Starliner, at which point all Soyuz crews would be two Russian and one American.
2
NGA notice.  Note that the Primary Day is December 6 UTC, December 5 EST.

LHA map from the NGA notice. At least one coordinate appears to be missing from area A. ASDS position estimated from previous launches, 656km downrange.

Reviewing NGA notices that I was unable to identify, it looks like these two Space Debris notices that I received previously go along with the Rocket Launching notice that I received today.  These two notices are the same thing, for two different Navigational Areas.

The Space Debris notices do appear to be for a 53.2į inclination launch from Florida, but they appear to be incomplete so far.
3
Yeah, I'm surprised that in the age of the streaming wars, with Netflix and others competing so fiercely against each other, that nobody has tried to make another go at a Space:1999-style series. The iconic look of the show with its very recognizable elements, along with an established fan-base, should make it a shoo-in for audiences to gravitate toward, even if just for nostalgia's sake. And it also provides a nifty near-future space sci-fi story setting, as opposed to a far-future fantasy. The thing is they'd have to re-work the original premise of how the Moon escapes from orbit around Earth, without going into Moonfall levels of cheesiness.
4
Grabby aliens again. Donít like that theory.

Dunno what "grabby" aliens are, but let me dust off my "3 Civilizations Conjecture".  [3CC]

There are three civilizations in the universe; the ones who achieved sentience the day before mankind did, us, and the ones who achieved sentience the day after we did.  We all have about the same tech, and cannot see each other because we're so widely dispersed.

But are you taking into account the idea that there are those who achieve sentience and civilization after we do, but whose pace of advancement was fast enough to overtake us? Likewise, there could be those who achieved sentience and civilization before we did, and their pace of advancement was slow enough for us to overtake them.

Maybe there's some other Earth out there that didn't have an asteroid impact like the one that killed off our dinosaurs. So they got to evolve farther much sooner, without suffering as many setbacks. Or is it maybe because we suffered an asteroid extinction event, that we got to evolve to higher levels of intelligence sooner?
5
Statistical we wouldn't be first or last. There are  trillions of planets out there. Life on earth has existed for few 100million years and we've gone from ape to spacefaring in 100,000years.

My argument here is the same as it has been in the many other similar threads on this topic.

Evolution does not have a purpose or a goal, and it does not necessarily select for complexity or intelligence. Simple / Bacterial life forms ruled the Earth for ~4 billion years. There is no particular reason, that we know of anyway, that they could not have continued to be the dominant life form for tens of billions of years.

There may be trillions of planets out there with such simple life, but that does not guarantee they will eventually produce an intelligent species that creates a civilization. Even using Earth as an example, it is statistically very unlikely. We are the only one of many billions of the complex species on Earth that has developed the high level of intelligence we have.

Darwinism promotes dominance, because in the survival of the fittest, the dominant prevail. Clearly intelligence would be an eventual outcome of that, since intelligence helps dominance. We don't see bacteria actively seeking ways to become multiplanetary, like we humans are doing. It's just that it takes time for Darwinism to do its work, and evolve organisms up to our level.



 
Quote
And even if a species develops intelligence, it may not have the capability or resources to produce technology. A human-intelligent dolphin could never smelt metals and build a radio, for example. Or their planet may not have a crust rich in workable metals, or they don't have any animals suitable for domestication, or crop plants that can be grown en mass with storable seeds for food during lean seasons / years. Humanity really hit the jackpot with a large amount of exploitable resources on our planet.

Intelligence finds a way, because of what we like to call "the human condition", which may in fact just be "the intelligent condition". All human (read: intelligent) beings seek to have their cake and eat it too - that means trying to get more work done with less effort, and all that. Which means developing tools, instruments, and all the rest. Just like everything else in the universe, we living things seek conserve our energy.
 
Quote
It's also possible also that supernovae and gamma ray bursts extinguish life in large areas of the galaxy (one of the several possible Great Filters).

These are random uncorrelated random events which can indeed strike down the evolved through no fault of their own.
Although, just like humans striving to develop planetary defense against asteroids, one could imagine sufficiently advanced civilizations surveying for these even larger astrophysical phenomena to guard against them as well.

Quote
Anyway, when I plug in my personal estimates into the Drake equation, I get maybe 5 technological civilizations in our galaxy. I don't think we are alone, but I think it may be a very long time before we find another intelligent, technology-making civilization. It is entirely possible we are the first (at least in our galaxy or in our region of the galaxy) to be able to leave our home planet.

We are living in a very small timeslice of our overall evolutionary history, and if we succeed in becoming multiplanetary or even interstellar, then our evolutionary history could extend for a lot longer. If we continue on for long enough, we may eventually come upon signs of other technological civilizations, who could quickly pop up out of nowhere.

But is it more prudent for us to try to detect them before allowing them to detect us first?
6
Advanced Concepts / Re: How Can AI Be Used for Space Applications?
« Last post by sanman on Today at 03:12 am »
Whatever the disadvantages l... machines don't automatically need food, water, and oxygen.
But how can we bootstrap such applications here on Earth, in order to eventually extend them into space?

Pretty sure they "automatically" need electricity.

As to "bootstrapping", that implies sentience.

Sure they need electricity, and there's plenty to be had across much of our solar system (at least the inner parts; for outer parts you need nuclear)

And we sentient humans are the ones to do that bootstrapping of innovation in building machines to carry out activities here on Earth which can be extended to off-world environments.

Maybe we can have semi-autonomous earth-moving machines and construction robots to build things here on Earth, and their core logic can be used in machines that would operate off-world.
7

I never said it came from lack of dV, but subcooling is not the reason for instantaneous windows. It's the fact that the vehicle's guidance system is not capable of yaw steering on ascent. SpaceX has to pick a T-0 and calculate the trajectory parameters to match in order to hit their targets. Fortunately for them, as a matter of design and operational efficiency, this is not as much of a limitation in practice as it might appear, which is why SpaceX has never changed it. The use of subcooled prop could be avoided if SpaceX wanted to accept the performance penalty, but they just don't need to.

The dogleg trajectory round Miami and over Cuba requires steering in yaw.  Could you explain what you mean by "yaw steer" which is different from "steering in yaw"?

8
Commercial Space Flight General / Re: Skyrora
« Last post by Steven Pietrobon on Today at 02:26 am »
Did someone forget a hyphen in the software?

https://www.wired.com/2009/07/dayintech-0722/
9
The Tupolev Design Bureau may have been famous for its wide portfolio of civil and military aircraft designs, including strategic and tactical bombers, airliners, flying boats, experimental heavy fighters, and also reconnaissance drones and the biggest jet interceptor ever built. However, Tupolev also proposed a spaceplane designed to be launched into orbit by a large SLV, the '136' Zvezda (star). The '136' would have been the Soviet response to the Boeing X-20 Dynasoar, and like the X-20 it was not built. Detailed information about the Tupolev '136' Zvezda can be found at these pages:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/tu-136.htm
https://danielmarin.naukas.com/2015/04/09/tupolev-tu-136-el-avion-orbital-sovietico-olvidado/
https://www.kosmo.cz/data/Energiya_-_Buran_The_Soviet_Space_Shuttle.pdf (see pages 26 and 27 of this book for info about the Tupolev '136' Zvezda)
10
F9 requires an instantaneous window but we donít yet know if the same limitation will apply to Starship/SH. Some vehicles can do yaw steering on ascent to account for some degree of a launch window timing (at the cost of delta-V and/or total mass to orbit).
...
The requirement for F9 instantaneous window comes from propellant subcooling, not from the lack of dV. Early F9s didn't have it. Therefore it's likely SS/SH will require inst windows too as subcooling was mentioned.

I never said it came from lack of dV, but subcooling is not the reason for instantaneous windows. It's the fact that the vehicle's guidance system is not capable of yaw steering on ascent. SpaceX has to pick a T-0 and calculate the trajectory parameters to match in order to hit their targets. Fortunately for them, as a matter of design and operational efficiency, this is not as much of a limitation in practice as it might appear, which is why SpaceX has never changed it. The use of subcooled prop could be avoided if SpaceX wanted to accept the performance penalty, but they just don't need to.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0