2·
3 months agoI agree completely! Life is so cool. I would also say that we are a very, very long way from sending tons of dirt to Mars, but current probes are essentially sterilized, which adds billions to their cost, and for what?
- 0 Posts
- 8 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 1st, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
10·3 months agohttps://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823378186836889699
CNBC updated its story yesterday with additional factually inaccurate information.
While there may be a typo in one table of the initial TCEQ’s public version of the permit application, the rest of the application and the lab reports clearly states that levels of Mercury found in non-stormwater discharge associated with the water deluge system are well below state and federal water quality criteria (of no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity), and are, in most instances, non-detectable.
The initial application was updated within 30 days to correct the typo and TCEQ is updating the application to reflect the correction.
Planetary Protection is one of my absolute FAVORITE can of worms!! Obviously it is a good idea to be careful and mindful, but I personally believe that NASA’s current policies are complete overkill.
Let’s think this through. Why don’t we want to bring earth life to another world?
Maybe because then we won’t be able to tell whether it is indigenous or not? Baloney! Imagine you accidentally bring a lizard to an island that doesn’t have them. If it is indigenous, there would be evidence of them being there in the past, through fossils or otherwise!
Maybe we don’t want to infect any life that is on that other planet, that earth life could take over that ecosystem like an invasive species? Astronomically unlikely. All earth life is evolved to live in its specific environment and to interact with the species with which it has evolved alongside. As such, totally unrelated organisms form different planets would be so completely alien to each other that they would be unlikely to interact to begin with. Additionally Mars, for example, definitively has no macro-fauna or flora. As such, any possible microbes on Mars would be completely at a loss on how to interact with humans or indeed any earth life.
Finally, Earth and Mars, for example, exchange ~500 kilograms of material every year. Analysis shows that some of that material never exceeded a temperature high enough for sterilization. Thus, if there was any life on mars, it would have reached us by now, living in our biosphere along with us.
Anyways I’m a big nerd and I hope this stuff is interesting!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
If a rocket gets to orbit, it most certainly hasn’t blown up ;) Furthermore if it is reusable (which only SpaceX has) then it doesn’t even crash into the ocean.
Let’s be very clear on what rockets generally do. Last year, there were just over 200 launches worldwide (a world record, btw). ~10 of these sent professional astronauts to space stations. The rest deployed satellites that do all sorts of amazing things, including astronomy research, weather and earth observation, and communications. If 1 or 2 are a tourist flight, what’s the big deal?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
SpaceX can likely build and launch a fully expendable version of Starship for about $100 million. Most of that money is in the booster, with its 33 engines. So once Super Heavy becomes reusable, you can probably cut manufacturing costs down to about $30 million per launch.
This means that, within a year or so, SpaceX will have a rocket that costs about $30 million and lifts 100 to 150 metric tons to low-Earth orbit.
Bluntly, this is absurd.
For fun, we could compare that to some existing rockets. NASA’s Space Launch System, for example, can lift up to 95 tons to low-Earth orbit. That’s nearly as much as Starship. But it costs $2.2 billion per launch, plus additional ground systems fees. So it’s almost a factor of 100 times more expensive for less throw weight. Also, the SLS rocket can fly once per year at most.
A lot wrong here, I’m sorry to say, and I’m really not a fan of Musk. He is absolutely not selling Starlink to be used by Russia. That would be shut down real quick. (They may be using black-market terminals, but that’s a different question.) And this new constellation will, as I understand it, be owned and operated by the US govt. Think like every single spy satellite ever: govt finds a contractor and asks them to do a thing.
The De Cecco box always recommends 56g, and I never feel like I need any more!
Personally, I think it’s a great thing that the US arguably has the best military surveillance and communication satellites. Certainly I prefer money going there than into literal bullets. In any case, doesn’t this have nothing to do with space tourism?