Space Exploration

Are NASA's future missions and budget justified?

  • It's worth the time and expenditures

    Votes: 223 66.0%

  • Complete waste of money

    Votes: 41 12.1%

  • We need to explore, but not at the current cost

    Votes: 74 21.9%
  • Total voters
    338
#4,126
#4,126
Velo Vol said:
What's the largest object retrieved from orbit to date?
Click to expand...

I don't know about retrieved, but the Shuttle put Hubble into orbit. I'd have to assume (no engineer here) the Starship has set last the same sized cargo bay if not more in the cargo configuration.

At a minimum, get it into a stable and higher orbit. They could do that with a PAM booster (if they're still around) and a Dragon or Starliner mission.

It might be a tad expensive, but the historical value of the Hubble makes it worth the cost. I'd dare say they could get the private sector to chip in on such a mission.
 
#4,127
#4,127
Grand Vol said:
I don't know about retrieved, but the Shuttle put Hubble into orbit. I'd have to assume (no engineer here) the Starship has set last the same sized cargo bay if not more in the cargo configuration.
Click to expand...
I'm way behind the times, didn't realize this was a reusable space rocket.

They'd still need a big arm, like the shuttle had. I suspect it's vastly more complicated to retrieve/load something of that size than it is to deploy it, but theoretically possible.

Easier to keep it in orbit, but longer-term, they've got more space telescopes in the works, and one may overlap what Hubble is doing.
 
#4,128
#4,128
Grand Vol said:
I still want to see a mission to either boost it into a stable orbit or a SpaceX Starship cargo mission to bring it back.

The Hubble deserves a place in the Smithsonian, not a death by fire.
Click to expand...
A SpaceX mission to service it and keep it going another 15/20 years.
 
#4,129
#4,129
Velo Vol said:
What's the largest object retrieved from orbit to date?
Click to expand...
I think the largest object returned from space was one of the Spacelab missions on shuttle. I had to Google about retrieved objects; looks like shuttle could bring back about 15 tons or so. Something called the Long Duration Exposure Facility gets the nod here. Not counting any classified payloads or retrievals we are not privy too, of course.
 
#4,131
#4,131
Grand Vol said:
I don't know about retrieved, but the Shuttle put Hubble into orbit. I'd have to assume (no engineer here) the Starship has set last the same sized cargo bay if not more in the cargo configuration.

At a minimum, get it into a stable and higher orbit. They could do that with a PAM booster (if they're still around) and a Dragon or Starliner mission.

It might be a tad expensive, but the historical value of the Hubble makes it worth the cost. I'd dare say they could get the private sector to chip in on such a mission.
Click to expand...

It's just a machine, when it's no longer useful let it burn.
 
#4,132
#4,132
hog88 said:
It's just a machine, when it's no longer useful let it burn.
Click to expand...

The Wright Flyer is just a machine that's not terribly useful these days.

Same with the USS Constitution.

The scientific value of what the Hubble brought us is eclipsed by its historical value. If possible, it does deserve a spot in a museum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel
#4,133
#4,133
Grand Vol said:
The Wright Flyer is just a machine that's not terribly useful these days.

Same with the USS Constitution.

The scientific value of what the Hubble brought us is eclipsed by its historical value. If possible, it does deserve a spot in a museum.
Click to expand...

Build a mockup and display that. Save the $$ and put them towards getting humans to Mars.
 
#4,136
#4,136
Did you know: That it took only 48 grams or just over 1 1/2 ounces of gold to coat the JWST mirrors. The gold coating is only 600 atoms thick. It was applied as a vapor inside a vacuum chamber.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and twoffo
#4,143
#4,143
I read a few days ago that the launch and subsequent burns were so accurate that there would be enough station keeping fuel to keep Webb in service well beyond the expected 10 years. NASA always seems to underestimate (or underreport) the life expectancy of their projects. I can see why they would.

NASA: Perfect Webb Launch Will Extend Observatory's Lifespan - ExtremeTech
 
#4,145
#4,145
Regarding SLS, it's a boondoggle jobs program for certain congressional districts. This thing is horribly behind schedule and over budget, not to mention THROWING AWAY 4 RS-25's (basically SSME's WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO BE REUSABLE) with each launch... I'd be much happier if that money was directed to SpaceX.
 
#4,146
#4,146
SAPPER 5 said:
Regarding SLS, it's a boondoggle jobs program for certain congressional districts. This thing is horribly behind schedule and over budget, not to mention THROWING AWAY 4 RS-25's (basically SSME's WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO BE REUSABLE) with each launch... I'd be much happier if that money was directed to SpaceX.
Click to expand...
So would Elon.
 
#4,148
#4,148
So,

They say the Webb can see detail the size of a penny (3/4") at 25 miles.

If I wanted to know what detail it could see in feet say from earth to moon at its L2 orbit and it operates at its peak.

Earth to moon 238,855 miles / 24= 9,952.29

9,952.29 x .750= 7464.23 inches

7464.23/12=622.01ft

I'm no math person, anyone want to tell me if this is right or does it even work this way as far as seeing detail. I was trying to calculate it at Proxima B distance to see what detail it could see but got into too many big numbers.
 
#4,149
#4,149
TVOLS said:
So,

They say the Webb can see detail the size of a penny (3/4") at 25 miles.

If I wanted to know what detail it could see in feet say from earth to moon at its L2 orbit and it operates at its peak.

Earth to moon 238,855 miles / 24= 9,952.29

9,952.29 x .750= 7464.23 inches

7464.23/12=622.01ft

I'm no math person, anyone want to tell me if this is right or does it even work this way as far as seeing detail. I was trying to calculate it at Proxima B distance to see what detail it could see but got into too many big numbers.
Click to expand...

It's different so to speak. I remember seeing an article about the Hubble "focusing" on the moon and the range is too short or something along those lines.

Basically, the images we see from that far off are taken over days and weeks of light collection. I wouldn't imagine the JWST to be much different.
 
#4,150
#4,150
TVOLS said:
So,

They say the Webb can see detail the size of a penny (3/4") at 25 miles.

If I wanted to know what detail it could see in feet say from earth to moon at its L2 orbit and it operates at its peak.

Earth to moon 238,855 miles / 24= 9,952.29

9,952.29 x .750= 7464.23 inches

7464.23/12=622.01ft

I'm no math person, anyone want to tell me if this is right or does it even work this way as far as seeing detail. I was trying to calculate it at Proxima B distance to see what detail it could see but got into too many big numbers.
Click to expand...
I think you are over complicating a bit. And making a not unfair assumption.

Just doing the math I got:

3/4" over 25 miles = 0.03" per mile
Proxima B is 4.24 light years
1 light year 5.88 trillion miles
Comes out to about 25 trillion miles.
Apply the .03" per mile. And its
747,936,000,000 inches, or 62,328,000,000 feet or an object 12 million miles in size would be visible

Which doesnt seem right, which takes me back to the assumption that the scale loss is consistent. I have no idea what our current capabilities are but this doesnt seem too impressive.

Or I can be dead wrong on the math.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top