But now I wonder what a working UX looks like that sends commands to such very remote spacecrafts.
Do they have a review process, a checklist? Does one person just type some stuff and a file gets uploaded (like a cosmic ftp command)?
Some satellites pay for time on a set of air Force satellites in Geo called TDRSS to give them continuous comms but those are really expensive and really slow compared to what you can downlink to the ground.
I suspect the design is inspired by the 2014 mockups for SpaceX's Dragon capsule control panel: http://www.americaspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Drago...
Cool looking, but I hope the real capsule's UI looks absolutely nothing like that, judging from the stories I've heard of the Model 3's touchscreen locking up and needing to reboot mid-drive fairly frequently. Not everything ought to be a touchscreen.
Esp. the moon because you can use a cannon to launch spacecraft so you don't need to use fuel on it (if you'd do it with a magnetic cannon you could do it entirely with solar arrays).
ps. it's actually interesting concept, you could have something similar to medieval catapult on the Moon and throw rocks on Earth which would be equivalent to nuclear explosions, no?
Just launching cargo is a lot easier, we already know how to accelerate things to the speed of a bullet in a variety of ways. Scaling up a railgun to handle heavier bullets is comparatively easy.
Cargo could be made to go much, much faster.
For alive payloads, the rail becomes longer.
The advantage is that on the moon the low gravity and no atmosphere make megastructures like this easier to build. Energy is also no concern either, you have pure unfiltered sunlight for about 15 days each month on each side of the moon.
Yeah, heavy REMs are still expensive but there is really no reason to believe that they'll stay that way. New sites will be found, new extraction techniques will be tried and new processes developed and then the problem will go away. Sure, it could happen in space but it's so much easier to do here on earth that it might never be worth it to go to space for it.
I'm not an emissions system engineer so I can't evaluate the truth of the statement. If it is true, and supply existed: it would create demand, potentially it could even drive up price as potential users quit using less desirable alternatives.
That's a bit of an overstatement. We have a 3d printer on the ISS and me make great strides in producing fiber optics in space that are superior to what we can do on earth at similar price points .
Once you have capabilities to build in space, going down gravity wells makes zero sense.
Want to build a factory or physics lab in space. You just mine things there and build them there. After a while you are looking at permanent colonies and then it's useful there.
No, it's not. I'm pretty sure it's silicon. Iron is relatively rare (but not as rare as platinum or gold of course).
Iron is the most abundant element in the Earth, but not on it. The core is full of iron. But that doesn't help us at all, because we can't get to that. We can only access materials in the crust, and there isn't much iron there.
If you include the biosphere, it's carbon. If you include the oceans, it's hydrogen (the hydrogen atoms in water).
Even if you just include inorganic materials in the crust, I believe oxygen is more abundant than silicon (oxygen is part of silicate rocks).
Oxygen is #1, silicon is #2, aluminum is #3, and iron is #4 (though far less than O or Si). Carbon doesn't even rank in the top 9.
It says "in the Earth's crust". That indicates to me that the biosphere and the oceans are not being counted. Also, it's giving abundances by mass, which is not the only way to do it (I was actually thinking of abundance by atom count).
Later in the same Wikipedia article, the top eleven abundances by mass for the ocean are given: oxygen and hydrogen are the first two, carbon is #10, and silicon doesn't even make the list.
No figures are given in that article for the biosphere; my statement of carbon being the most abundant for that is based on the fact that it forms the "backbone" of all of the main types of molecules in living organisms: proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids.
As for the "crust", the definition of the Earth's crust I'm pretty sure includes the oceans, the seafloor, and everything down to the mantle, so the biosphere and oceans should be counted there. Hydrogen doesn't rank highly because it has little mass compared to other elements. Atom count seems like a pretty pointless metric; we're talking about resources available for mining, in which case mass is what counts.
Of course silicon doesn't make the list for oceans because it's mostly water, and a lot of dissolved CO2. Count the seafloor and you'll find lots of silicon (and probably some iron, aluminum, titanium, etc.).
If the crust included the oceans, there wouldn't be different figures for the oceans in the same article.
You make a valid point about the seafloor being part of the crust; but I didn't intend to include the seafloor in "oceans".
> Atom count seems like a pretty pointless metric; we're talking about resources available for mining, in which case mass is what counts.
That depends on what we're mining the resource for. For example, if we're mining for metals to use in catalytic converters for vehicles, atom count is the relevant metric, since the catalytic effectiveness depends on the number of atoms, not on the total mass.
No, it isn't; each hemoglobin molecule has just four iron atoms in it (IIRC--each heme structure has one, and I think there are four heme structures in one hemoglobin molecule). Most of each such molecule, by either mass or atom count, is carbon. And each red blood cell is more than just hemoglobin molecules.
Asimov truly was legendary.
story & characters are definitely "american-style" (very direct & aggressive), but in these cases I ended up liking quite a lot this approach (basically it fits the setup of the stories because of the fight for survival of the species).
List of books (Spoiler alert - don't read the plots):
Looking glass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_of_the_Space_Bubble
Troy rising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Rising
There is very little coherent argument for bringing space resources back down to earth.
Sure, fully automated mining, refining, QA, etc. isn’t ready yet, but it’s not implausible, and those things are all still increasingly automated even down here on Earth.
Similarly, we can expect that the early solar economy will provide opportunities for the same, though there is a lot of still undiscovered issues at hand.
Here, Mars/Moon will make the food and other 'simple' goods that are then sent to the Asteroid Belt. This is because the delta-V to get foodstuffs and goods off Mars/Moon is a lot less than on Earth and, depending on more surveying, there seems to be a fair bit of water on Mars that you can use. It seems thus far that corn-pone and beef-steaks do not grow well in 0G, though that remains to be seen.
These simple goods and food-stuffs will then be consumed by the Asteroid Belt in the use of mining for rare-earth elements and in production of vehicles and fuel for use in the outer solar system. The mined elements and materials will then be sent back to Earth for use in highly complex machines and other things.
Highly complicated machines built by people that do not want to raise their kids in the Belt or on Mars/Moon will then be sent to Mars/Moon for use in production of simpler goods.
A company with skills in (robotic?) space shipping and landing could make a profit at every gravity well.
This triangular trade is not likely to last very long as greenhouses are set-up (if possible) in the belt, manufacturing and leisure are made easier on Mars/Moon, and as techniques and science are improved on Earth.
For really far bases you would need spin gravity in a hollow asteroid for the staff.
Edit: hmmm... it seems that escaping Earth and the Sun would be easier from the Moon, since the Moon trajectory components include already the 9 km/s and 30 km/s of Moon and Earth's orbits. Once in Moon's orbit, with the right angle and a little push, you should be able to escape Sun.
It could make sense if you can design a spacecraft that can use Mars' atmosphere to slow down (aerocapture) without going all the way to a landing.
Being able to use the atmosphere to slow down is why in some ways it's easier to land a heavy payload (like Curiosity) on Mars than on the Moon.
(Self promotion warning!) If you find space science, CubeSat engineering, and space startup news interesting, I'm starting a short weekly email newsletter that I think you will enjoy. https://goo.gl/forms/uGi2AL7ELpJK86bx2
As long as it’s an easy unsubscribe I’m happy to receive them.
Currently that methane is coming from natural gas, and represents a tiny, tiny fraction of our current natural gas use. If we didn't want to use natural gas, methane can be made from hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This is critical to SpaceX's Mars plan, as they're planning on making their propellant for the return trip once they get there. If you can produce it on Mars, you can definitely produce it on Earth.
For example, hydrogen and oxygen are the 1st and 3rd most abundant elements in the universe, so liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen fuel is always going to be an option
For example, Blue Origin and SpaceX are developing launchers that run on methane - fantastically plentiful on Earth in the form of natural gas. Delta IV runs on hydrogen, which can be synthesized through gasification or electrolysis. Falcon 9 and Atlas V burn kerosene, also very common.
The real issue is whether, at high launch rates, this will become a meaningful contributor to climate change; hopefully through use of space-based resources we can reduce the up-mass requirements enough to avoid that problem.
It's a slightly more complicated platform (using hydrolox for the upper stage, and optional strap-on solids for the booster), but the bulk of the propellant is methalox.
Aside from synthetic fuels, you can launch rockets on methane. Can't make methane? (You are a robot society by now, because it would mean there is no biosphere anymore). Still fine! We can convert our oceans into fuel (hydrogen + oxygen), given energy input. Energy can come from renewables, nuclear, etc.
No, we are not going to run out of fuel for as long as we have water.
I'd be more worried about conflicts breaking out due to mass migration due to parts of the world becoming harder and harder to eek out an exsistance in.
If they meant decaying in the "climate change is destroying the world" sense, then presumably the idea is that we've learned our lesson and won't destroy the next rock the way we have this one. Debatable, but at least the next rock is unlikely to have dead dinosaurs for use to dig up and burn.
If they meant decaying as in "the sun is eventually going to swallow us up", the presumably we will spread humanity across a bunch of decaying rocks, and continually migrate for the most decayed to newly formed rocks.
We don’t have them yet because they are expensive investments. It’s like flying NYC-SFO because building a 747 is cheaper than building the I-80 freeway — It seems like a no-brainer now we have Silicon Valley in one and Wall Street in the other, but imagine it from the point of view of Teddy Roosevelt rather than Franklin Roosevelt
Hey let's go visit an asteroid.
Might as well stick a rover on it.
Why send one rover when you can send four!
Hey guys, let's bring back a chunk of it.
You know what'd be great? Explosives! Let's blow off a deeper chunk and bring that back too.
So many moving parts to this mission.
And in general US media is very centered on the US. The outside world doesn’t exist much to them if there is no connection to the US.
To return samples to Earth it does not need to match it's orbit since the atmosphere provides a convenient way to slow the samples without powerful engines and large amounts of fuel.
In comparison, meeting something massive like a planet is very single: go into any orbit that nearly hits the planet, and when you are there slow down enough to let charit gravity pull you into an orbit around that planet.
tl;dr: more gravity makes rondevous easier and quicker
>>Due to its high density, shaped charge and explosively formed penetrator liners have been constructed from tantalum. Tantalum greatly increases the armor penetration capabilities of a shaped charge due to its high density and high melting point.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalum )
I guess they are not advertising as much as NASA does.
However, JAXA engineers saved the spacecraft and salvaged the mission: after five years of orbiting the sun (beyond its expected lifetime), Akatsuki's far smaller attitude-control thrusters were lit up (for 20 minutes straight!), causing it to successfully enter Venusian orbit in 2015, and it's been functioning ever since.
How is this possible. What are people been taught?
For each and every think you know, there was a time where you didn't know it.
I already knew other countries were launching rockets/satellites to the space but I always assumed they are not for scientific reasons.
Keep in mind that not everyone knows the same things. Why not just be happy that they learned something?
That's a generalization about hundreds of millions of people. You were very clear.
When it comes to education, according to the PISA, at a 15 year old level of development, the US ranks just behind Norway and ahead of France, Sweden and Austria on science; ahead of Israel and Greece on mathematics and just behind Slovakia; ahead of Spain, Austria and Switzerland on reading and just behind the UK, France, Sweden and Denmark.
On reading the US is one point behind the UK, and two points behind France; the UK is 37 points behind Singapore (the top) for comparison of the scale.
The US is 20 points behind the UK in mathematics; the UK is 72 points behind Singapore and 29 points behind Switzerland.
Nagasaki is just 800km away from Shanghai. How ICBM is relevant here is really beyond my understanding.
They were the first to launch a satellite, the first to put animals in orbit and the first to retrieve animals savely from orbit, first EVA, the first probe on the Moon, on Venus and on Mars, the first robotic rover, the first woman in space as well as the first hispanic and black person in space, the first space station as well as the first permamently settled one, ...
I don't think their capabilities tell us much about Japan's.
SpaceX is certified for critical / national security launches and does not use Russia tech.
If you're space faring on a large scale you probably had to leave conflict and infighting to lesser races, just so you could focus energies on making that leap.
That's just another argument that humans are truly a race of barbarians.
relative to what? we don't know how violent alien species are. they could be very peaceful in comparison, but it is just as likely that they are more violent than we are.
All the evidence available to us (Earth) suggests that the best killer on the planet will be the dominant species. It's been that way for billions of years.
The video argues many points, an important one are
1 you can't stay hidden, advanced civilizations will detect you or can send probes to destroy any viable solar system,
2 if you try to kill everyone else you will eventually find someone bigger then you so maybe the strategy to make alliances is better, you will have a better chance surviving in an alliance when you eventually meet something bigger then you.
Since I realized that, I've stopped whatever slight worry I may have had about the "kill everyone you discover" theory. If it was going to happen, it wouldn't happen in the near future because some of our radio waves finally got somewhere, it would happen eight or nine hundred million years ago and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.