Space topic

bearfan said:
They were cool, I remember watching the first launch and it was neat. But I think this is the new model and really step one toward actual travel (obviously expensive as hell), further exploration which might be fueled by things like mining and development of things that can only happen in zero G.

And seeing the Space X rocket land itself to be re-usable was really neat as an added bonus.
Click to expand...
Yeah, absolutely. That was a dream until SpaceX made it reality. I watched the Falcon Heavy test a few years ago and the booster landing was incredible:

 
bearfan said:
They were cool, I remember watching the first launch and it was neat. But I think this is the new model and really step one toward actual travel (obviously expensive as hell), further exploration which might be fueled by things like mining and development of things that can only happen in zero G.

And seeing the Space X rocket land itself to be re-usable was really neat as an added bonus.
Click to expand...
So you wanna be a rock hoppa? Ya crazy Earther :p
 
A part of me still questions the wisdom of having the boosters lug around all that additional fuel for landing, but it's undeniably fantastic to see Cape Canaveral launching astronauts again
 
futurism.com

Amazon’s constellation of 3,236 satellites has astronomers very, very freaked out

Is corporate greed killing the night sky?
futurism.com futurism.com

Amazon was approved by the Federal Communications Commission to launch 3,326 satellites as part of its planned Kuiper constellation. That’s roughly 600 more satellites than the total number currently in orbit, as The New York Times reports. But who’s counting?

Astronomers are. And they’re worried. The news comes just a week after SpaceX launched its latest batch of 57 Starlink satellites, bringing the total number up to just shy of 600 already in orbit.

The reflective micro satellites have been photobombing astronomical observations of the night sky ever since they started being launched by SpaceX, appearing as bright streaks of light.
Click to expand...

Satellite launches have been rare enough, like flight before 1920s, it could be done freely, mostly without a chance of bad consequence for anyone but the people involved in flight.

Imagine in 2020s some billionaire throwing everything he owns into a heavy spaceship project, assembled in low earth orbit via hundreds of individual launches. The thing is at 50% completion when first orbit transfer test fails, the failsafe fails, and the hundred ton object is now on reentry path. Molten pieces of metal fall on unsuspecting peasants in an unrelated country.

One could simply say, who gives these companies legitimacy to fly above our heads? Who can say, the objects they launch are too heavy or just too numerous, and the sovereignty of all territories "below" the orbit needs to be considered?
 
I don't know what are you trying to say with that, shitpost flat earthers, start a discussion? Both don't belong here...
 
It's sort of funny. But when that model artist came it's clear that there are people that earn $ over this b.s. Not only social networks but everyone involved in "flat earth logistics". Therefore we have people that don't have better things to do in life than fueling their own impostor syndrome on social media and events, that are making profit out of them, and polluting the public discourse space meanwhile.
 
Very broadly, but very broadly speaking yes, a solar system is composed of gravity-bound bodies, while atom is composed of bodies held together by multiple types of forces. Unfortunately for intuition here's where the similarities end as do the physics models describing them. Atoms do not look like the usual ball and orbit depiction. Hydrogen for instance

18ontxblfw77lpng.png


Instrument-created snapshot of electron wave function in hydrogen. All possible states interleaved over time.
As far as quantum mechanics goes, you cannot dumb down this to states of points in 3D space of time. For the sake of imagination, if you'd do that atom would probably look like some sort of cosmic disaster, lumps together in the center with small junk on varied 'orbits'. But again, this is not the way things work, atom is fundamentally something different than a minimized cosmological system.
 
Yeah, but whatever models present day science uses for micro-/macrocosm, they’ll be not quite accurate pretty soon, or worse. Einstein still “believed” in a static universe, for example.
It’s about the (also philosophical) idea, and it has fascinated me since a chemistry teacher of mine made a remark.

Think about it: our solar system as the atom of a molecule of an organism, which is the universe as a living being. The thought intrigues me.
 
Didn't mean anything bad...Hell was supposed to be a pun at your nickname.
I am asking what do you mean by "they’ll be not quite accurate pretty soon, or worse".

The physics we utilize are accurate enough for the utility and for the application. That includes astrophysics and quantum mechanics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top