Shpaget

I don't see internet constellations as an issue for space based scopes. Internet sats are in low orbit (low even for LEO standards) to minimize latency. Telescopes don't need low latency and can be placed higher which is beneficial anyway due to slower orbit decay, more sunlight, less of Earth in the sky etc.

But at least 50 of those 70 m are still in vacuum. It won't stabilize if it can't survive the first sideways impact with the air. It will have turned almost 60 degrees away from straight ahead before it encounters air.

That's what I'm worried about. I'd finish the sentence here. At 7,5 revs per second it takes only 33 milliseconds to rotate 90° (a good chunk of that rotation is still in vacuum in that chimney thing). It will have already be partially turned sideways before it encounters air. I don't feel confident about survivability of those fins, or anything else inside, for that matter. I'm trying to figure out what's the force of drag on a cylinder (1 m diameter, 5 m long*), travelling sideways through a sea level atmosphere at Mach 6, but my googlefu is letting me down. Anybody good at supersonic aerodynamics? *eyeballing from this pic:

Something that has occurred to me and and haven't seen mentioned before - with the plan being to spin the arm at around 450 rpm, once the projectile separates from the arm, the projectile will retain this 450 rpm (7,5 revs per second) rotation. Just a fraction of a second after launch it will be travelling through almost sea level souposphere sideways, not with the pointy end forwards.

Separate containers only make sense with DC. Using AC, you'll only end up with two containers of very nervous explosives. A 24V 2A power supply can be bought for $15 shipped. Is your life worth less?

You're using mains to electrolyze? You will blow yourself up. AC will produce a mixture of gasses in a perfectly exploady ratio. Also, exposed mains. You won't live long enough to blow yourself up. Use DC to separate H2 and O2 in separate containers, and even then be careful.

New Bezos, obviously.

There aren't many choices, apart from energy and death generation.

Have you tried suggesting that they don't schedule classes during rocket launches?

T-30 days LET'S GO!!

I'm not taking that bet, but it does sound incredible. Raptor hasn't even flown to space yet and it's already being deprecated. Anybody wants to take a guess at the improvements, other than changes aimed at manufacturing streamlining?

Regarding the envronmental impact study, what are the most troublesome aspects? While the fuel for SS is not the same as for F9, is it really that much of a difference? Both are relatively clean burning hydrocarbons. Is it noise? Aren't the F9 and FH in the same, insanely loud, ballpark as SS? Is it the size of the thing? Landing?

I realize this is not Starliner related, but it's still Boeing and this is the only active Boeing thread. Also, at this time it's nothing more that an allegation, but here it goes anyway https://www.expressnews.com/business/local/article/Air-Force-One-work-tied-to-Saudis-16595887.php tldr, Boeing got a contract to work on Air Force One 747, outsourced it to Saudis, they bailed, now Boeing is asking for additional 500 megabucks.

If inspired by Stg 44 Krummlauf, no need for orbital insertion burn.

This bit here sounds like legalise description of BO saying "We can't deliver what is asked, but we don't want anybody else to do it either."

Reading the tweet I imagined something more Jamesy Bondy - the thing flying through the cargo door after skydiving to intercept the Hercules, but this works fine too, I suppose. Cute wing tuck.

But that is due to the sunlight being refracted in atmosphere, not reflected.

This has, of course, been posted in the SX thread, but let's put it here as well, for posteriority and for me to point out something. No Jeff, you do not wish NASA and SpaceX full success on this contract. If that were the case, you would not have brought this lawsuit in the first place. Regarding the respect of this court's judgement and whether he appeals and pushes this to higher courts, that remains to be seen, but I would not be surprised if he was not done with this.

International treaties have always been little to no more than a pinky promise.

I object to this distinction. Social behaviour in humans is a product of evolution as much as it is the case with ants/bees.

You're thinking about the microbes, right? At least that's what that Zogg guy from Betelgeuse would have us believe. However, if you're thinking about humans, then I'd like to point out that big blue wet thing that covers almost 3/4 of the Earth (by surface area, and arguably a whole lot more than that in volume). Not that very many people out there, and those that do end up there, usually become a snack (for microbes, ultimately).

Decaded ago, when I was but a wee lad and did the same experiment, I put some dirt, straw and whatnot in the water and let it sit on a window sill for a few days. There were plenty of creepy crawlies swimming about.

Since you specifically mention it, in Star Trek the ships aroud which the plot revolves are not liners with a goal of transporting people to and from. They are more like a cruise ship with all paying customers being left in some port and crew going on a joy ride without a plan. They are also not bothered by TWR. There is no need to worry about that, not with their tech.

Op, whydon't you do a basic back of an envelope calculation to compare yield to mass ratios between nukes and fuel air bombs? That should have been your first step after coming up with this idea, long before posting it here. Do it now and you'll realize just how not sensible is your proposal.

Thanks to some gravitational lensing magic, the light from a supernova that blew up 10 bly ago has taken multiple paths and reached us multiple times over the span of several years, but not only that! Some very smart people at Niels Bohr Institute calculated that around 2037 we will be able to observe it going kablooey yet again. https://phys.org/news/2021-09-astronomers-supernova-timesand-fourth-sighting.html I find it amazing that they were (presumably) able to figure out the structure of matter so far away to be able to calculate the path of light. I propose we get busy and build a whole bunch of dedicated space telescopes, bigger than anything ever built and launch them quickly into space to observe the big boom from the start. Just how often we get to predict a star is going to go supernova with such accuracy?