1072

NASA (mander.xyz)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] [email protected] 58 points 5 months ago

Who does this

[-] [email protected] 54 points 5 months ago

Musk-ovites that want to take NASA's budget and out it in Elon Musk's pocket.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

This used to be the case, but now the tables have turned. There was a time when SpaceX launches were streamed in 4k and NASA launches were only 720p. Now NASA streams launches in 4k and SpaceX streams moved to Xitter.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

Which only allows 1080p streams. That means the highest pixel quality streams of SpaceX launches are from third parties like everyday astronaut.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Should all of NASA's budget go to SpaceX? Obviously not. But should they outsource their rocket development and launches to SpaceX, at least until the next competitive bid? Without question.

The Falcon 9 has already revolutionized earth observation and science projects with how cheap it has become to get science satellites into orbit, and Starship is an even crazier reduction in cost and expansion of capabilities. It will be able to lift 100 to 150 tons for $30M per launch, and will be able to launch 30+ times a year. SLS, NASA's traditionally designed and built rocket, will be able to lift 95 tons to orbit for $2200M per launch, and can only ever launch twice per year.

Do you know how crazy of a difference that is for NASA's science programs? For their exact same budget, they can either launch 100 tons of experiments once per year, or they can launch 100 tons of experiments every 5 days.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

This is the correct answer.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 5 months ago

Starship is coming in a lot cheaper than SLS and SlS had a lot of legacy projects already paid for.

The fact of the matter is the real brainwashed people here are the ones that think Elon Musks Spacex isn't a revolutionary company. People are talking about rocketry like they are experts but don't know anything about it.

Giving up on Shuttle and switching to Falcon 9 instead of developing something new was the best use of money Nasa could have done.

Just yea keep circle jerking how Musk is the worst person in every possible way, at least you're cool!

[-] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Cheaper isn't always better. NASA programs like LM's SLS don't get to fail on live TV or they lose their budget, so they're over engineered and built slowly which leads to higher costs. But SLS also hasn't failed on any launch, unlike SpaceX programs.

Don't get me wrong, I want all space projects to succeed. But it's disingenuous to say people can't be critical of SpaceX because of "being brainwashed". They have a somewhat reckless deployment method for the space industry with dubious reliability.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Cheaper isn't always better no.

Which is why it is so impressive that the Falcon 9 is cheaper than the competition and more reliable.

SLS is still in early days so it's hard to compare as it lacks numbers of reusability. But any rocket that has flown a lot whether it be the shuttle or even the mighty Soyuz. Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in the world and the cheapest.

If NASA can't build rockets as cheap or as reliable as space X then I think the argument is that the SLS is a waste of money.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

SpaceX is a truly revolutionary company, and people often do not give them remotely the credit they deserve for how revolutionary they are because they're blinded by they're hatred of Musk.

But Musk is also a huge piece of shit. Both of those things can be true.

[-] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago

NASA

[-] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago

FROM FUCKING SPACE!

[-] [email protected] 48 points 5 months ago

400 km?

[-] [email protected] 64 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The ISS orbits at an altitude between 360-440 km

The generally accepted "border" between space and earth is the Karman line which is only about 100km up

[-] [email protected] 46 points 5 months ago

People are complaining about pics from the ISS? I thought they must be talking about Mars or something. ISS pics are usually amazing.

[-] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago

Even the Mars pics are great these days. There are some awesome photos over at [email protected].

[-] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago

Ooo not that far, I might take a bike trip

[-] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Get some grippy tires.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

jump good

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

But that's shorter than Texas! How hard can it be!

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Valid, but I hate your texas analogy.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Texas is nearly 4,000 miles tall. We just hang out on the surface.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

ISS orbit is 408km.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

No, it currently is at an altitude of 426km (was at 423km when I started writing), the orbit isn't at a fixed altitude though, it varies, and the residual atmosphere causes drag which means every once in a while the orbit has to be adjusted.

https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/tracking_map.cfm

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

My favorite fact about the ISS is that it actually has an engine to do its own orbital boosts. Astronauts have taken videos where they slowly drift from one side of the cabin to the other during a burn

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah, but as far as I know at least in the past they usually used Soyuz or Progress spacecraft for orbit boosts. Videos of it are very cool.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

That is well within the range I posted, yes.

[-] [email protected] 39 points 5 months ago

400km is nothing, if you have/had satellite TV the signal comes from a geostationary orbit (35 786 km) and it has to get there first and if you're not exactly below the satellite it's even farther away. Streams from the ISS having low quality (do they actually have low quality?) is due to either bad cameras or cameras aging faster in space due to high energy particles hitting it.

[-] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago

The ISS also moves relative to the receiver, whereas geostationary satellites don't.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

I feel like "moves relative" also understates just how fast it moves: ~19,000mph

[-] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

It's a trade-off, either you have to do tracking and compensate for doppler shift or you have to deal with really bad SNR.

[-] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago

While going 17000km/h.

[-] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago

Well, depends on your reference point.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

Well, yeah. The earth is a better reference frame, but the orbital velocity of the moon (3679.2 km/h) is no less impressive.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

That's very earth centric of you

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

One might say geocentric...Aristotle was right y'all.

[-] [email protected] 26 points 5 months ago

There was an unfortunate overwriting incident:

The Apollo 11 missing tapes were those that were recorded from Apollo 11's slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape at the time of the first Moon landing in 1969 and subsequently lost.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago

Meanwhile the perseverance rover sending back incredible quality footage of its landing

[-] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

I was going to say, forget 400km, try 8.5 light minutes lol

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

NASA TV was actually one few things I recall being on the Mbone.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Is 400 km a lot? 🤷‍♀️ I'm american....

Edit: thank yall, I was being cheeky

[-] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

It's 200 km from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. The moon is 400.000 km away

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Your fancy decimal/comma swapping sure does make this seem like nothing with extra significant digits.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The moon is 4 •10^5^ km away

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

I truly don’t mean this as an insult, but the second half of your post could apply to almost anything after a question mark it could be a new form of “that’s what she said”

You could be a trailblazer🤷‍♂️ But then I’m Irish…

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

400km = 248.5485 miles

this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024

1072 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

10413 readers

2888 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Science Memes

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous