The Official Space and Astronomy Thread v. Well, this is weird.

[Chino]

Wow. That was an awesomely depressing article.

[BlobVanDam]

It kind of bums me out that in the 60's we decided to go to the moon and did it more or less from scratch in less than ten years. We have made so much progress since then and a manned Mars mission is still twenty years away. I understand fully that Mars is no easy feat, but if we put the resources into Mars that we did to the moon, we could easily do it in ten years.

Think about it, anyone under the age of 40 or so has never even seen man land on the moon in their lifetime. I think it could be as big an event now for NASA as it was back then, especially with the technology of today, live streaming the whole thing over the internet. And getting to Mars is going to be absolutely huge.
Don't get me wrong, landing a rover on Mars is still a damn impressive feat, but it doesn't quite capture the imagination like seeing a living breathing person land on a different rock.

I sadly don't think it would be that big of a deal to a lot of people. Just browsing the Fox News comments, and sites like Free Republic, it's clear that a good 1/3 of this country thinks it's a complete waste of time and money.

Yeah, you're probably right. I think it would still be a big deal compared to other space projects in recent memory. But maybe I just watch too much scifi (actually there's no doubt I watch too much scifi).
I have doubts we'll even see a manned Mars trip in my lifetime.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

What about the Mars One mission that no one believes in? They're planning a reality show that follows the astrounats one way trip. If that were to actually happen that would be one helluva reality show to watch and i'm pretty sure alot of people would follow it including myself.

[BlobVanDam]

What about the Mars One mission that no one believes in? I don't believe in it.
I really hope to be proven wrong on that, but until there are some proven results, I don't have a lot of faith in private space companies to achieve something so monumental.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Yea it's a monumental achievement but (forgive my ignorance) I just have a feeling that it's "easier" for a private company to get fundings and support for something like this compared to NASA, private companies can attract billonaire investors without government and peoples approval unlike NASA and also "the one way trip" that Mars One is talking about I feel is to unethical for NASA to ever consider.

[BlobVanDam]

I don't think funding is the biggest issue. The technology, experience and infrastructure are also important. I think their timeline is unrealistic in that regard.
And on the matter of ethics, I would think it would be even harder for a privately run company to be allowed to do it? Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I think that is a factor to a mission like this for anyone. They were much more "reckless" back in the 60s space race, the Russians probably much more so than the Americans.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

I don't think funding is the biggest issue. The technology, experience and infrastructure are also important. I think their timeline is unrealistic in that regard.
And on the matter of ethics, I would think it would be even harder for a privately run company to be allowed to do it? Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I think that is a factor to a mission like this for anyone. They were much more "reckless" back in the 60s space race, the Russians probably much more so than the Americans.

Yea I agree on this. Lots of things to question.
The ethical part I think is interesting, would be cool to hear some comments about that if NASA have a bigger responsibility than private companies to follow an ethical line? You could argue that lots of things is unethical about a space mission and NASA have done that for ages but if were only sticking with the "one way trip" idea in this case. Could NASA do something like that? Send "regular" people on a one way ticket to Mars, people that are willing to leave their loved ones behind for something they believe is greater and worth it.

[Chino]

What about the Mars One mission that no one believes in? I don't believe in it.
I really hope to be proven wrong on that, but until there are some proven results, I don't have a lot of faith in private space companies to achieve something so monumental.

I'm convinced SpaceX is capable of doing anything NASA does (probably better) for a fraction of the cost. In less than fifteen years, they've already successfully manuevered rockets and landed them back on a launch pad. The dragon capsule is a work of art and a technological marvel. Fuck. You could land that thing anywhere on the gblobe you wanted. Elon could have it land on his front lawn if he wanted to. NASA is still content with landing in the ocean.

[BlobVanDam]

What about the Mars One mission that no one believes in? I don't believe in it.
I really hope to be proven wrong on that, but until there are some proven results, I don't have a lot of faith in private space companies to achieve something so monumental.

I'm convinced SpaceX is capable of doing anything NASA does (probably better) for a fraction of the cost. In less than fifteen years, they've already successfully manuevered rockets and landed them back on a launch pad. The dragon capsule is a work of art and a technological marvel. Fuck. You could land that thing anywhere on the gblobe you wanted. Elon could have it land on his front lawn if he wanted to. NASA is still content with landing in the ocean.

I don't care where they land it when they get back, I care about where it goes beforehand.
If NASA has to go with an ocean landing for the sake of the mission platform being viable, it ultimately makes no difference. NASA has achieved a lot more in its history than SpaceX has yet, as great progress as they've made so far.

I'm all for private space companies, because they create some necessary competition to push the boundaries, and they've also played a part in aiding NASA's own missions, but getting a man to Mars on their own is a whole different ball game. I really hope that one of them can do it some time in the near future, but I don't think any of them are close to that level yet. And I honestly want to be proven wrong on that.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/its-alive-nasas-new-horizons-pluto-probe-wakes-work-n262996

From 2.9 billion miles away, NASA's New Horizons spacecraft let its handlers know on Saturday that it has awakened from hibernation and is ready for the climax of its nine-year trip to Pluto.

The first signals were received at the mission's control center at Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory in Maryland via a giant radio antenna in Australia just before 9:30 p.m. ET, nearly four and a half hours after it was sent by the piano-sized probe. It takes that long for signals to travel between there and here at the speed of light.

Later readings confirmed that New Horizons was fully awake.

The spacecraft is currently about 162 million miles away from Pluto, but as that distance shrinks, the observations will get better and better. By next May, New Horizons' images of Pluto should be sharper than the best pictures taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. And in July, the probe may catch sight of the clouds and ice volcanoes that scientists suspect may exist on the dwarf planet.

New Horizons will capture pictures of Pluto and its five known moons, but there may be surprises as well — still more moons, perhaps, or icy rings around Pluto. So many readings are expected to pile up that New Horizons will have to store the data in its memory and transmit it for more than a year after the encounter.

After Pluto, New Horizons' team is planning to send the probe past another icy object in the Kuiper Belt, the ring of cosmic material that lies beyond Neptune's orbit, in late 2018 or 2019.

"New Horizons is on a journey to a new class of planets we've never seen, in a place we've never been before," NASA quoted New Horizons' project scientist, Hal Weaver of the Applied Physics Laboratory, as saying. "For decades we thought Pluto was this odd little body on the planetary outskirts; now we know it's really a gateway to an entire region of new worlds in the Kuiper Belt, and New Horizons is going to provide the first close-up look at them."

Really cool stuff.

[Chino]

I can't wait 


These are currently the best images we have of Pluto.

[TioJorge]

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

I can't wait 


These are currently the best images we have of Pluto.

Hmm I actually thought they had better pictures than that. I also thought Voyager 2 passed by but apparently neither Vog 1 or 2 did that, infact they never had a mission to Pluto before New Horizon. Goddamn I need to read up! 

[Azyiu]

Hmm I actually thought they had better pictures than that. I also thought Voyager 2 passed by but apparently neither Vog 1 or 2 did that, infact they never had a mission to Pluto before New Horizon. Goddamn I need to read up! 

The blurry picture quality maybe due to Pluto is just a bit too "close" for the Hubble? Lol! As in the Hubble is usually used to shoot stars thousands of light years away. 

[Chino]

Yeah. Hubble is designed for deep space. Here's a really good write up on it.

https://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2013/02141014-hubble-galaxy-pluto.html

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Galaxies are far away, it's true, but many of them are bigger than they are far, at least by comparison to the worlds within our solar system! Think about that for a moment -- how something that is millions of light-years away can still appear a thousand times bigger than something that's inside our own solar system.

I think my brain took timeout....

That's an interesting read. Thx for the link!

[Chino]

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Don't think that gif have never been more appropriate, atleast for me. 

[Fiery Winds]

Curiosity livestream with latest discoveries!

[Chino]

Curiosity livestream with latest discoveries!

I really wish they didn't do this in the middle of the day when I'm working.

[Big Hath]

back to Pluto for a sec.  When we get closer/better pics, it would be really awesome if one of them reveals a sign that says "Not a planet anymore??  WTF!?!?"

[Chino]

I hope we see lights on the land masses and satellites (not natural) orbiting it. 

[Chino]

Dear SpaceX,

Please succeed.


https://www.space.com/27955-spacex-rocket-ocean-landing-platform.html

SpaceX will apparently attempt something truly epic during next week's cargo launch to the International Space Station.

During the Dec. 16 launch from Florida's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, which will send SpaceX's robotic Dragon capsule toward the orbiting lab, the California-based company will try to bring the first stage of its Falcon 9 rocket back to Earth for a controlled landing on a floating platform in the Atlantic Ocean.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Will definitly follow that! 

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

On Pluto's Doorstep - Live Hangout with New Horizons Team

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

https://www.iflscience.com/space/how-nasa-emailed-wrench-space

NASA Just Emailed A Wrench To The International Space Station

For the first time ever, hardware designed on the ground has been emailed to space to meet the needs of an astronaut. From a computer in California, Mike Chen of Made In Space and colleagues just 3D-printed a ratcheting socket wrench on the International Space Station. “We had overheard ISS Commander Barry Wilmore (who goes by “Butch”) mention over the radio that he needed one,” Chen writes in Medium this week. So they designed one and sent it up.

Pretty cool!

[Orbert]

That's amazing.  We're like half a step away from replicators like in Star Trek.  You need a wrench?  Well, if there's one on file, you can "print" one out.  If not, have someone send you a file.

Sidebar:  Calling them "3-D printers" has always seemed pretty stupid to me.  It's always struck me as using a term people are familiar with because they're either too lazy to come up with a new one, or afraid people will get all confused.  I remember when the technology was still being developed, they called them prototypers or even replicators.  Why "3-D printers"?

[Chino]

It's a printer that makes 3D objects.

[jasc15]

"Additive manufacturing" is a term I've heard recently in my industry.  It distinguishes from "subtractive manufacturing" (a term that was made up for contrast) which describes the conventional practice of removing/machining material from a piece of stock.

[Orbert]

It's a printer that makes 3D objects.

But it's not "printing" anything.  I understand that the process is, in a very basic sense, similar to what a printer does; it reproduces something from a data file.

And that's where the similarity ends.  "Printing" also involves putting ink on paper.  In modern times, this definition has been expanded to include laserjet toner as well as ink, but that's not what's happening here at all.  It's reproducing an object in three dimensions.  It's prototyping.  There was already a word for the process.  Why confuse the issue?  When I first heard about 3-D printers, I imagined something that printed out these:



I thought "Cool, they came up with something that does this, but better" or something.

If you told me that they needed a wrench, so they printed one out, I would picture someone printing out a picture of a wrench on a piece of paper, and wonder what the hell good that's going to do them.  I realize that they didn't exactly "email" a wrench to the guys on the ISS, but the headline was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.  They emailed the data file to them, and the guys on the ISS "printed" it out (since apparently that's what you call it).  I just think it's stupid to hijack a word that already means something, to replace another word that was perfectly fine and already existed.

[Sacul]

3D printers do actually print things. Instead of using ink on paper, they use a certain kind of plastic that is melted and "printed" (a needle leaves a very small drop) according to what you want. So technically it's still a printing.

[BlobVanDam]

The print nozzle of an extrusion 3D printer is not all that different to an ink jet printer, it just deposits melted plastic instead of ink, and moves the print nozzle along the Z-axis as well. The print head moves in 3 dimensions, so I think that makes "3D printer" a perfectly apt description of what it does.

It's still a hell of a long way from a Trek replicator, but it's a big step forward for them to be able to create basic objects locally.

[Orbert]

Okay, I'm convinced.  Objection withdrawn.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

[rumborak]

BTW, people always make it out to be the next revolution ... I must say I'm pretty skeptical about it. The problem, as I see it, is that of materials. Most objects we have are highly specialized for their specific purposes. They are crazy-ass tempered alloys of 5 different compounds etc.
A 3-D printer will never have those materials at its disposal. At best it might have 5 substances it can mix, but in the end they will vastly underperform the "made for this purpose" equivalents.