1103

NASA (mander.xyz)

submitted 6 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 48 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] glimse@lemmy.world 59 points 6 months ago

Who does this

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 55 points 6 months ago

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

[-] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 14 points 6 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.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 months ago

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

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

This is the correct answer.

[+] Wanderer@lemm.ee -7 points 6 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!

[-] CptEnder@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[-] Wanderer@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 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.

[-] Oisteink@feddit.nl 30 points 6 months ago

NASA

[-] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 18 points 6 months ago

FROM FUCKING SPACE!

[-] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 49 points 6 months ago

400 km?

[-] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 66 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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

[-] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 46 points 6 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.

[-] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 months ago

Even the Mars pics are great these days. There are some awesome photos over at !perseverancerover@lemmy.world.

[-] jaykay@lemmy.zip 18 points 6 months ago

Ooo not that far, I might take a bike trip

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

Get some grippy tires.

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 6 months ago

jump good

[-] praise_idleness@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago

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

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 months ago

Valid, but I hate your texas analogy.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

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

[-] navi@lemmy.tespia.org 3 points 6 months ago

ISS orbit is 408km.

[-] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 11 points 6 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

[-] CommissarVulpin@lemmy.world 3 points 6 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

[-] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 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.

[-] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

That is well within the range I posted, yes.

[-] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 41 points 6 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.

[-] BluesF@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

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

[-] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 6 months ago

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

[-] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 7 points 6 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.

[-] monobot@lemmy.ml 35 points 6 months ago

While going 17000km/h.

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 22 points 6 months ago

Well, depends on your reference point.

[-] IrritableOcelot@beehaw.org 9 points 6 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.

[-] Dippy@beehaw.org 5 points 6 months ago

That's very earth centric of you

[-] IrritableOcelot@beehaw.org 2 points 6 months ago

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

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 26 points 6 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.

[-] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

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

[-] DrownedRats@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

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

[-] tal@lemmy.today 3 points 6 months ago

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

[-] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

Edit: thank yall, I was being cheeky

[-] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 8 points 6 months ago

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

[-] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

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

[-] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The moon is 4 •10^5^ km away

[-] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

400km = 248.5485 miles

[-] thegoodyinthehoody@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 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…