User Panel
It's so annoying trying to have a Socratic argument with a psychopath.
|
Originally Posted By wwace: Probably runs on Windows ME. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By wwace: Originally Posted By midcap: Originally Posted By byron2112: awesome piece of technology, but death by fire would be poetic commentary on the state of this government. I seriously doubt it's going to work with out an issue when it gets up there. lol.... |
|
Take it easy and if it's easy take it twice
|
Friend of mine's dad is a retired astronomer and college professor. He is excited as hell about this. I hope everything goes perfectly with the launch.
If all goes well, this is going to be as big of a leap over the Hubble as the Hubble was to what we had before it. |
|
"I keep hearing 'must have a dialogue,' but I keep being told to shut up when I speak." -Sand_Pirate
“I’m starting to think the Internet was a terrible mistake.” -Subnet |
Yeah, it’s going to be awesome
|
|
|
Originally Posted By midcap: Elon could figure out how to get someone out there to fix it View Quote getting out there isn't the hard part. getting back is. especially because it will be orbiting around the L2 point. IIRC the problem is getting there, slowing down to match its orbit then having enough fuel to get back, because you can't assist off nothing. |
|
|
Originally Posted By wheel: Granted, government projects in general are bloated and result in poor quality. However, in this case you have to bear in mind that this is pushing the state of the art technically. Unlike Hubble, this telescope will be parked in a location that is too far out for us to service. So not only is it exceeding complex and bleeding edge, it HAS to be right. I'm sure there are redundant systems on board, but still it's an awfully daunting challenge. I wouldn't want to be the guy who made a stupid mistake that turned it into a boat anchor. View Quote |
|
|
Originally Posted By AgeOne: getting out there isn't the hard part. getting back is. especially because it will be orbiting around the L2 point. IIRC the problem is getting there, slowing down to match its orbit then having enough fuel to get back, because you can't assist off nothing. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By AgeOne: Originally Posted By midcap: Elon could figure out how to get someone out there to fix it getting out there isn't the hard part. getting back is. especially because it will be orbiting around the L2 point. IIRC the problem is getting there, slowing down to match its orbit then having enough fuel to get back, because you can't assist off nothing. that's why we need a orbital refueling station in space. |
|
Take it easy and if it's easy take it twice
|
|
Originally Posted By Alien: Yeah who gives a shit about learning new information about the universe that is impossible to glean otherwise. That's worthless. We should go back to living in mud huts. Then we don't need to worry about learning new things. Life is simpler. I seriously hope this is a troll but it's probably not. I really don't think people that make comments like this even comprehend how ignorant said comments are. Learning about physics and how the universe works and is made isn't curiosity. It leads us down new research paths for technologies. View Quote Short sighted smooth brain comments like that are what killed the super conducting super collider in Texas. The USA could be leading the world in physics, but we've ceded it to the Euros at CERN. The smooth brains in Congress couldn't comprehend the importance of such a device. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Mass-Length-Time: It will be put in orbit around the L2 Lagrange point: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/754_990528.jpg View Quote La Grange? Just let me know if you wanna go to that home out on the range. They gotta lotta nice girls. Have mercy. A haw, haw, haw, haw, a haw. |
|
Scratch And Sniff
|
I am almost certain the IR sensors were developed by my ex-brother in-law. I messaged him but don't really expect any answer back this year. I worked at the Los Alamos lab for 6 years and go to see some amazing things the scientist work on, and what they were hoping to see with this bad boy.
|
|
|
01/11/21, the day they tried to remove ARFCOM from the net.
|
Originally Posted By BFskinner: I would doubt at this point that the telescope is bleeding edge technology if it was designed 20 years ago. NASA is one of the biggest boondoggles in a government full of boondoggle agencies. That is not to say that interesting data will not be generated as long as it gets where it is supposed to go and does what it supposed to do but I have my doubts that will happen. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By BFskinner: Originally Posted By wheel: Granted, government projects in general are bloated and result in poor quality. However, in this case you have to bear in mind that this is pushing the state of the art technically. Unlike Hubble, this telescope will be parked in a location that is too far out for us to service. So not only is it exceeding complex and bleeding edge, it HAS to be right. I'm sure there are redundant systems on board, but still it's an awfully daunting challenge. I wouldn't want to be the guy who made a stupid mistake that turned it into a boat anchor. I would doubt at this point that the telescope is bleeding edge technology if it was designed 20 years ago. NASA is one of the biggest boondoggles in a government full of boondoggle agencies. That is not to say that interesting data will not be generated as long as it gets where it is supposed to go and does what it supposed to do but I have my doubts that will happen. NASA spawned the semiconductor and passive medical device technology. AFAIC, we need more NASA boondoggles to push the state of the art. What needs to happen is to get the politicized buearocracy out of NASA so ti can be more efficient. |
|
If you don’t see the irony of a gun ban being enforced by men with guns, then you fail to understand why the 2nd amendment was written in the first place - Kevin Sorbo
|
Did they get the grind right this time?
|
|
GD is like putting on crampons and walking through a room full of puppies.
|
Parking it at L2 (lagrange pt #2) about 930,000 miles from earth. The moon is 240,000 miles. It doesn't require much fuel to stay in position.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By midcap: that's why we need a orbital refueling station in space. View Quote considering the numbers and types of fuel and how many don't have long lives I think that might be a very, very expensive proposition. like it would be cheaper to just send a new space telescope up especially since we know way more about how to build it then we did in the past. |
|
|
The cost of this telescope is equal to 5 virginia class submarines.
|
|
|
So it's now outdated and new technology will render it useless.
|
|
Stop following me.
|
It's so annoying trying to have a Socratic argument with a psychopath.
|
|
|
Dear NASA,
I was big enough for your mom. Sincerely, Pluto |
Aren’t L1 and L2 points somewhat unstable... like you need monthly course corrections to stay there?
How long will this telescope be stable? |
|
Dear NASA,
I was big enough for your mom. Sincerely, Pluto |
Is it safe to hope it is bolted to something heavy so it can't fall over?
|
|
It's true no matter who you are, the worst thing you can do for someone is give them something for nothing. - 3rdpig
Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy. - Heinlein |
Originally Posted By Pneumagger: Aren’t L1 and L2 points somewhat unstable... like you need monthly course corrections to stay there? How long will this telescope be stable? View Quote It orbits the L2 point and has fuel for about 10yrs. Failed To Load Title |
|
|
what planit it gonna drive round on?
|
|
|
Originally Posted By AgeOne: considering the numbers and types of fuel and how many don't have long lives I think that might be a very, very expensive proposition. like it would be cheaper to just send a new space telescope up especially since we know way more about how to build it then we did in the past. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By AgeOne: Originally Posted By midcap: that's why we need a orbital refueling station in space. considering the numbers and types of fuel and how many don't have long lives I think that might be a very, very expensive proposition. like it would be cheaper to just send a new space telescope up especially since we know way more about how to build it then we did in the past. maybe just keep the LOx out there? |
|
Take it easy and if it's easy take it twice
|
Originally Posted By FunYun1983: It orbits the L2 point and has fuel for about 10yrs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=524fcGyki5c View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By FunYun1983: Originally Posted By Pneumagger: Aren’t L1 and L2 points somewhat unstable... like you need monthly course corrections to stay there? How long will this telescope be stable? It orbits the L2 point and has fuel for about 10yrs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=524fcGyki5c HOLE ON....all the money and this fuckin thing is only gonna last 10 years? |
|
Take it easy and if it's easy take it twice
|
Originally Posted By midcap: HOLE ON....all the money and this fuckin thing is only gonna last 10 years? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By midcap: Originally Posted By FunYun1983: Originally Posted By Pneumagger: Aren’t L1 and L2 points somewhat unstable... like you need monthly course corrections to stay there? How long will this telescope be stable? It orbits the L2 point and has fuel for about 10yrs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=524fcGyki5c HOLE ON....all the money and this fuckin thing is only gonna last 10 years? Its complicated.... Station Keeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope there will be a small propulsive station-keeping event every 21 days. Wikipedia says this will consume 2-4 m/s of delta-v per year from a budget of 150 m/s, so the lifetime could conceivably be much longer than 5-10 years, although I believe about [half of that (~67 m/s) will be used in mid-course corrections on it's way out to the Halo orbit... If you want to dive deeper https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/55309/james-webb-telescope-limits-to-propellant-lifetime Its schedule lifetime is 10yrs. If everything goes perfectly they will have fuel for a much more than 10yrs, but I have no idea if other parts of the telescope have short lifespans. Like almost every device sent to space, their actual lifespans usually greatly exceed their planned lifespans if there are no failures. |
|
|
"Freedom isn't free. It costs a hefty fuckin' fee. And if we don't toss in our buck 'o five, who will?"
|
Originally Posted By FunYun1983: Its complicated.... If you want to dive deeper https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/55309/james-webb-telescope-limits-to-propellant-lifetime Its schedule lifetime is 10yrs. If everything goes perfectly they will have fuel for a much more than 10yrs, but I have no idea if other parts of the telescope have short lifespans. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By FunYun1983: Originally Posted By midcap: Originally Posted By FunYun1983: Originally Posted By Pneumagger: Aren’t L1 and L2 points somewhat unstable... like you need monthly course corrections to stay there? How long will this telescope be stable? It orbits the L2 point and has fuel for about 10yrs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=524fcGyki5c HOLE ON....all the money and this fuckin thing is only gonna last 10 years? Its complicated.... Station Keeping Monte Carlo Simulation for the James Webb Space Telescope there will be a small propulsive station-keeping event every 21 days. Wikipedia says this will consume 2-4 m/s of delta-v per year from a budget of 150 m/s, so the lifetime could conceivably be much longer than 5-10 years, although I believe about [half of that (~67 m/s) will be used in mid-course corrections on it's way out to the Halo orbit... If you want to dive deeper https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/55309/james-webb-telescope-limits-to-propellant-lifetime Its schedule lifetime is 10yrs. If everything goes perfectly they will have fuel for a much more than 10yrs, but I have no idea if other parts of the telescope have short lifespans. da fuq....it's painfully obvious this project has been a giant clusterfuck from the get go...the icing on the cake is that shitty ass French rocket it's gonna be bolted to. |
|
Take it easy and if it's easy take it twice
|
Originally Posted By Jacon: This just made me spit my lunch out View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Jacon: Originally Posted By midcap: That Shitty French rocket is gonna yeet the homophobe telescope into the ocean It made me laugh too. Nice wording. |
|
"I keep hearing 'must have a dialogue,' but I keep being told to shut up when I speak." -Sand_Pirate
“I’m starting to think the Internet was a terrible mistake.” -Subnet |
"The difference between robbery and charity is consent."
|
Originally Posted By midcap: HOLE ON....all the money and this fuckin thing is only gonna last 10 years? View Quote many of these things go WAY beyond their lifepsan. Hubble has already doubled its lifespan. those little mars rovers kicked ass. many of the others that orbit planets get extended lives but have to be destroyed to prevent contamination of planets if fuel gets too low. they'll probably learn more about the orbit and change firmware to reduce fuel consumption in the long run. these are some of the only projects that teach us enough to make it worth our time. besides the space science, the material and production science we learned in the process is huge. I'm not for most gov spending, but at least these things have a substantial return. sending the money to asscrackistan or idiots to study transmice effect on climate science is just a big ass scam. that being said the cost overrun on this one are insane. I hope at least its a resounding success. |
|
|
Originally Posted By AgeOne: many of these things go WAY beyond their lifepsan. Hubble has already doubled its lifespan. those little mars rovers kicked ass. many of the others that orbit planets get extended lives but have to be destroyed to prevent contamination of planets if fuel gets too low. they'll probably learn more about the orbit and change firmware to reduce fuel consumption in the long run. these are some of the only projects that teach us enough to make it worth our time. besides the space science, the material and production science we learned in the process is huge. I'm not for most gov spending, but at least these things have a substantial return. sending the money to asscrackistan or idiots to study transmice effect on climate science is just a big ass scam. that being said the cost overrun on this one are insane. I hope at least its a resounding success. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By AgeOne: Originally Posted By midcap: HOLE ON....all the money and this fuckin thing is only gonna last 10 years? many of these things go WAY beyond their lifepsan. Hubble has already doubled its lifespan. those little mars rovers kicked ass. many of the others that orbit planets get extended lives but have to be destroyed to prevent contamination of planets if fuel gets too low. they'll probably learn more about the orbit and change firmware to reduce fuel consumption in the long run. these are some of the only projects that teach us enough to make it worth our time. besides the space science, the material and production science we learned in the process is huge. I'm not for most gov spending, but at least these things have a substantial return. sending the money to asscrackistan or idiots to study transmice effect on climate science is just a big ass scam. that being said the cost overrun on this one are insane. I hope at least its a resounding success. I am all for stuff like this, but man. NASA really needs a restructuring. |
|
Take it easy and if it's easy take it twice
|
Originally Posted By lumper: Is it safe to hope it is bolted to something heavy so it can't fall over? View Quote Attached File |
|
EVERYTHING WOKE TURNS TO SHIT!
|
Originally Posted By Alien: Yeah who gives a shit about learning new information about the universe that is impossible to glean otherwise. That's worthless. We should go back to living in mud huts. Then we don't need to worry about learning new things. Life is simpler. I seriously hope this is a troll but it's probably not. I really don't think people that make comments like this even comprehend how ignorant said comments are. Learning about physics and how the universe works and is made isn't curiosity. It leads us down new research paths for technologies. View Quote |
|
|
Originally Posted By AgeOne: Probably all the stuff they had to invent while making James Webb. View Quote Good explanation here: How Does The James Webb Space Telescope Work? - Smarter Every Day 262 |
|
Home schooling doesn't make you socially inept, it just makes you awesome enough to do shit people remember centuries later. ~ Frost7
Go Hokies! |
|
Coyote with 40 people crammed into a minivan gets into a chase with DPS, Paco over estimates his driving abilities and *whmmo!* the Astrovan of Immigration becomes a Pinata of Pain, hurling broken bodies like so many tasty pieces of cheap candy...
|
|
I find this kind of technology amazing , really looking forward to images. I hope in my lifetime they find something that answers the origins of life and forming of universe.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By midcap: I am all for stuff like this, but man. NASA really needs a restructuring. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By midcap: Originally Posted By AgeOne: Originally Posted By midcap: HOLE ON....all the money and this fuckin thing is only gonna last 10 years? many of these things go WAY beyond their lifepsan. Hubble has already doubled its lifespan. those little mars rovers kicked ass. many of the others that orbit planets get extended lives but have to be destroyed to prevent contamination of planets if fuel gets too low. they'll probably learn more about the orbit and change firmware to reduce fuel consumption in the long run. these are some of the only projects that teach us enough to make it worth our time. besides the space science, the material and production science we learned in the process is huge. I'm not for most gov spending, but at least these things have a substantial return. sending the money to asscrackistan or idiots to study transmice effect on climate science is just a big ass scam. that being said the cost overrun on this one are insane. I hope at least its a resounding success. I am all for stuff like this, but man. NASA really needs a restructuring. The worst 10 years of my career at Boeing was working for NASA 2nd hand, mostly on Space Station. Talking about walking, talking continual cluster-fuck. And Boeing itself even back then wasn't much better. The executives back stabbing each other back in the early 90's was juvenile and ridiculous. Moronic leadership. |
|
EVERYTHING WOKE TURNS TO SHIT!
|
Originally Posted By Merlin: The worst 10 years of my career at Boeing was working for NASA 2nd hand, mostly on Space Station. Talking about walking, talking continual cluster-fuck. And Boeing itself even back then wasn't much better. The executives back stabbing each other back in the early 90's was juvenile and ridiculous. Moronic leadership. View Quote Quite simply, the way it seems to me. Elon's philosophy seems to be, "I don't care how it gets done. Just get it done!" Boeing philosophy seems to be, "you gotta squeeze EVERY penny." NASA's philosophy seems to be, "we do not work here. We labor in the vineyards of knowledge, pushing the boundaries of wisdom, you miserable unwashed cretins." |
|
"Is it still larping when you actually chop someone with a battle axe?" Tacocat
|
vidi vici veni
I don't give a fuck. My name is Dave. TRUMP 2024 Never mind that shit, here comes Mongo. |
Originally Posted By AgeOne: no disagreeing there. worst part is they're probably one of the more efficient gov agencies View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By AgeOne: Originally Posted By midcap: I am all for stuff like this, but man. NASA really needs a restructuring. no disagreeing there. worst part is they're probably one of the more efficient gov agencies oh god |
|
Take it easy and if it's easy take it twice
|
|
I'm just glad that NASA is finally looking up again. They've been spending far too much time worrying about domestic political issues.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By Merlin: The worst 10 years of my career at Boeing was working for NASA 2nd hand, mostly on Space Station. Talking about walking, talking continual cluster-fuck. And Boeing itself even back then wasn't much better. The executives back stabbing each other back in the early 90's was juvenile and ridiculous. Moronic leadership. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Merlin: Originally Posted By midcap: Originally Posted By AgeOne: Originally Posted By midcap: HOLE ON....all the money and this fuckin thing is only gonna last 10 years? many of these things go WAY beyond their lifepsan. Hubble has already doubled its lifespan. those little mars rovers kicked ass. many of the others that orbit planets get extended lives but have to be destroyed to prevent contamination of planets if fuel gets too low. they'll probably learn more about the orbit and change firmware to reduce fuel consumption in the long run. these are some of the only projects that teach us enough to make it worth our time. besides the space science, the material and production science we learned in the process is huge. I'm not for most gov spending, but at least these things have a substantial return. sending the money to asscrackistan or idiots to study transmice effect on climate science is just a big ass scam. that being said the cost overrun on this one are insane. I hope at least its a resounding success. I am all for stuff like this, but man. NASA really needs a restructuring. The worst 10 years of my career at Boeing was working for NASA 2nd hand, mostly on Space Station. Talking about walking, talking continual cluster-fuck. And Boeing itself even back then wasn't much better. The executives back stabbing each other back in the early 90's was juvenile and ridiculous. Moronic leadership. I live it every day. NASA program leads love to speculate and hear themselves talk while cutting off the engineers that could actually provide them with real data and answers. |
|
|
I hope it lives up to it's billing. It should, and it should be awesome, but the program is... concerning.
Also, if it hasn't already been pointed out (we're in GD, so I skipped most of this), the EU is paying for the launch, which is partially why it's on Ariane 5. Also, the immense delays mean it was started before Falcon 9/Heavy was even a glimmer in Elon's eye. The Fairing thing really isn't that much of a problem; SpaceX could solve that easily, and probably still be the low bidder. Remember that FH is significantly more capable than Ariane 5, which is much more comparable to Falcon 9 than FH. F9, in expendable configuration, is only slightly less capable at most tasks than Ariane 5, it's just that F9 doesn't fly those missions because you're better off at that point with a reusable FH. Quicky Launcher stats (Keeping in mind, nothing has really pushed FH yet, so it's all very theoretical - that said, it's an order of Magnitude bigger than anything else flying. The Falcons are more efficient the lower the orbit is because of the relatively High Thrust but low Specific Impulse of the Merlin engine) Launcher Mass to GTO Mass to LEO Ariane 5 ~24,000# 44,000#+ F9, Expended ~18,000# 50,000# F9, Reuse ~12,000# 34,000# FH, Full Reuse ?? ~60,000# FH, Core expended* ?? ~114,000# FH, Expended 47,000#+ ~141,000#+ *-There are a couple Core-expended FH launches on the Manifest for Geosynchronous orbit... but they're DIRECT to GEO, not to a transfer orbit. For cost reasons, in the past, that just wasn't done. FH seems to make it more economical to expend the center core than to go to GTO and use a kicker to get to GEO. That may be an artifact of them not having 3 East Coast Barges to land on (thus necessitating throwing away the Center core if the side boosters can't return to the Cape) or it may just be that single F9 cores just aren't that expensive. The Gov't is paying less for an expended-center-core FH launch than the Average Ariane 5 launch, for what it's worth. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.