Jump to content

Spaceception

Members
  • Posts

    2,968
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3,728 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Sci-Fi writer
  • Location
    Setting course for Rocheworld
  • Interests
    Gloria in astra caput
    Lets head to the stars

    Writing, KSP (Duh), Spaceflight (Manned and Unmanned), Astrobiology, Habitable Exoplanets, Interplanetary colonization, Interstellar travel, Stranger things, and Gravity falls.

Recent Profile Visitors

60,078 profile views
  1. So this is really all in the title, but what limitations and challenges are there to using methods like radial velocity to find more planets in the solar system, like planet x, or other major bodies that might be far from the sun? I know radial velocity relies on the Doppler shift of a star's light, so are we too close for it to work? Or do hypothetical Oort cloud planets have too weak of a pull to really be noticeable? Either because of their extremely long orbits or comparatively small masses. What needs to change to make it feasible, and would it be worth our time - or would it make more sense in the end to continue observing as we always have, and simply send up more telescopes to cover the sky? I was about to post this in questions that don't merit their own thread, but I figured this might.
  2. This looks really good https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-webb-reaches-alignment-milestone-optics-working-successfully
  3. Exoplanets can teach us a lot actually. There are only 8 (maybe 9) planets in the solar system, and they don't represent every arrangement for a solar system. In this case, from the Proxima Centuari system in general, we can start to get an idea of what planetary conditions are like around a red dwarf, from being too close (this planet), in the habitable zone (Proxima b), and being too far (Proxima c, if it exists). It's the closest star to us, and dim to boot, so our instruments will be ready to study it sooner than say, planets around sunlike stars. It's not monumental, but it's still a new interest of study. It also brings home how common planets must be in the universe if some of our nearest neighbors have several. Beyond that, regardless if planets are potentially habitable, exoplanet studies in general can teach us about: -Planetary formation studies at different points in a solar system's development -Worlds we don't see in our solar system, and their conditions (super-Earths, hot jupiters, binary gas giants, planets around binary stars, etc) -Different planetary conditions we don't see in our solar system often (like Titan's methane seas, what about other fluids?) -Planetary environments around different star types, and ages - what kind of differences are there between young and old worlds? -And yes, habitable planets are also a pretty important subject, which stars can life thrive around? How common is it? Could we stumble on unique biosignatures we've only theorized about? How early can life emerge? But those studies will be in tandem with general exoplanet discoveries, and could even help inform astronomers better when we find potentially habitable worlds. Like what atmosphere compositions are more likely to be natural, or biological? Iirc, oxygen was thought to be biological for a long time, but scientists proposed natural processes that could create a false positive. Learning how to distinguish between those will be important.
  4. Will they be using the neutral buoyancy center for this? I wonder when they'll set up their own astronaut corps and training center. All these missions seem like a precursor to doing that, but they'll eventually need their own place to train their own astronauts.
  5. Getting some reel footage now Idk, the beat almost reminds me of the song irresistible, but it's not quite right
  6. Wow, I'm really behind on things, when did the engines get covers? Are they there to prevent corrosion, or just to look nice?
  7. What are the possibilities that NASA will request funding for a servicing mission once JWST is in position? Is it even possible? I saw somewhere that exhaust gas from a spacecraft going to rendezvous could hit the mirror of the telescope.
  8. The title needs to be changed now. JWST: it's in space!
  9. Aw, come on, I missed the whole launch. I mean, that removes some of the stress but still
  10. Every sentence gets worse and worse, it's incredible. On topic, I suppose we could expect B8 to begin stacking within the month, and ready for its test campaign by Janurary. It's quite the skip though, was there a reason given like going from SN15 to 20?
  11. So, now that all the fuel is loaded, how long can JWST remained fueled before they have to detank, in case there are any more delays? Or is it fine? I don't know a lot about Hydrazine. 2 more weeks
  12. Vacuum optimized Archimedes, as per their site https://www.rocketlabusa.com/launch/neutron/ So I suppose they're going for streamlined reuse and reflight by using the same propellants on the first and second stage.
  13. This feels like a dumb question, but where can you find the field of view for James Webb? I assume it can rotate 'easily' enough to have 360 visibility along its "North/South" of the ecliptic, but because it needs the sunshade, it would be unable to do many observations along the ecliptic, right?
  14. Well yes, but that could be what they're aiming to do, even if it doesn't reflect what they're doing. And if they want to build this "road to space," they need to figure out how to at least get to pace with SpaceX eventually.
×
×
  • Create New...