Carl Sagan

If you look at the data, the Human condition was pretty much unchanged for thousands of years. Then, in the English Midlands, and via the Derbyshire mills, the world was changed in such a way that we may go on to colonize the Universe. Everything pivots on the industrial revolution. Before then, no country in the world had life expectancy over 40. Now no country has life expectancy below that, with the main number around 80 and still rising. Before the industrial revolution, almost everyone in the world lived on subsistence wages, with just a handful not in absolute poverty. Now only a handful of the world's population lives in absolute poverty. 

It happened by the creation of wealth, leading to incredible economic growth. Which allowed the creation of the other technologies we have today. If you were able to travel back in time to the Middle Ages and show them the technologies some of what we now have, it wouldn't make any difference as no one would have been able to afford to create it. Here's a graph of GDP per capita over the last 2000 years to show what I mean.

Next time you visit Arkwright's Mill, understand that it might have changed the entire future of the Universe. Waves spreading out from Derbyshire that affected everything. Ultimately enabling trillions of Humans and PostHumans to live among the stars, doing  good. 

Road closures at the Boca Chica launch site now cancelled for Thursday, with the test flight now scheduled for between 2pm and midnight (UK time) on Friday and with a backup of the same launch window on Saturday. Bring it on! ??

Tonight SpaceX really went for it in Boca Chica, with three successive static fires of the engines through the afternoon, while holding the rocket down on the pad. There's only ever been one every few days before. Given the hugely experimental nature of the rocket, it was a tremendous achievement it held together in one piece, leaving the way open for the high-altitude test flight. I suspect they will want to study the engine fires first, but clearance is there to do this any time from tomorrow (Thursday).

Here's a thread with footage of all three engine fires:

Where to begin? :)

9 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Bit of a tangent and I know these are absolutely bleeding edge in tech terms, but I do rather like the somewhat art deco styling of these rockets. 

Retro yet futuristic at the same time. This is a great side-by-side comparison, which is all the more striking when you remember Starship is just the top portion (fully reusable second stage) of a fully reusable rocket. 

As for the mighty fully reusable first stage, the Super Heavy booster, Elon has announced a new landing plan. The enemy of every rocket is mass, so he's decided they'll try to get rid of the landing legs and reduce the mass. At the top of these boosters will be gigantic titanium grid fins, which act to steer the rocket to the landing pad. Now the Super Heavy booster will descend through some sort of gigantic ring structure which these grid fins will rest on top of, so it stops above the ground. Crazy, audacious and utterly brilliant! 

The moveable feast that is Starship launch dates has shifted. Friday and Saturday's  airspace clearances have now been cancelled. Now we have NOTAMs (notice to airmen) running from Sunday 10 January all the way through until Wednesday 20 January. There's some thought that this will allow for test flights of both SN9 and SN10, which would be exceedingly cool.

2 hours ago, Bearwood Ram said:

This piece of genius appeared in Bearwood during lockdown number one. 

"A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies. A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure."

Absolutely fantastic, thanks.

5 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

For my work (completely unrelated to the subject matter of this thread), I recently did a location report on the new spaceport that's about to be built in Sutherland (north coast of Scotland), which I believe will be the UK's first spaceport.

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this if you have any, @Carl Sagan.

Fantastic! Space is one of the world's massive growth industries yet the UK is the only nation ever to have developed its own independent satellite launch capability, only to abandon it. At the time (early 1970s) the Americans promised if we stopped developing our own rockets they'd let us use theirs for free - honest guv. And our stupid politicians believed them. 

Sutherland probably will be first and will definitely be the first vertical launch. Cornwall is also developing  site but that will be for horizontal (runway-based) space launches. Of course Sutherland is incredibly remote but launch sites are often in such places to avoid accidents with population centres. But relevant to this thread, only a very few years ago Boca Chica, Texas, was a field in the middle of nowhere yet it is rapidly expanding into a massive complex. With plans to also turn it into a tourist attraction! There is a UK risk by locating the main spaceport in the far north of Scotland, but it also demonstrates commitment to the Union in Westminster. The Westminster government is massively committed to  making us a strong player in space. And the secret twinkle in my eye has always been that the proposed airport in the Thames estuary on "Boris Island" should be built as a spaceport in future. Very convenient for Starships to land and take off for the half hour flight to New York.

For certain launch trajectories it helps to be as close to the equator as possible as you get a boost because Earth's rotation is fastest there, giving you a bit of a headstart, but Sutherland wouldn't be used for those types of launches. There are other orbits for which its location is fine. 

Basically, thrilled for Sutherland and Scotland and the UK that this is finally happening (long overdue) but it mustn't end there. I want spaceports all over the place.

The Starship program is starting 2021 in good shape. While the 9th prototype (SN9) stands on the testpad, SN10 is fully built, while SN11 and SN12 only needs flaps adding. Work has progressed as far as SN17 while there's also significant progress on the first massive Super Heavy booster (this prototype is designated BN1, I suspect with B for booster).

Tonight a static fire test is planned for the three raptor engines on SN9. The rocket is held down while the engines briefly fire to check everything is in order.

Then the test flight to 40,000 feet is scheduled for Friday afternoon (UK time, 2pm-midnight), with a backup window on the Saturday with the same flight window. Bring it on!

The next prototype, SN9, has been rolled out to the test/launch site. It's only a small improvement from SN8, with the new rocket made completely of a new version of stainless steel that SpaceX thinks will perform better. I don't know if anything has been done to address the landing failure of SN8, due to a loss of pressure in the small fuel tank in the nosecone.

Meanwhile, here's a fantastic annotated recap of the launch and landing of SN8, the proof of concept that it's possible to use this method of flying and falling to land anywhere in the solar system without a runway. Including the Moon and Mars.

18 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

Do you get much space time!??

I’ve never seen a more apt typo! ?

Hilarious! I promise it wasn't intentional. ✨?✨

On 18/12/2020 at 20:50, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Why do you say he’s a poor scientist? Genuinely interested.

And I’d seriously recommend watching this episode. Rogan’s IQ seems to vary based on his guest, but he actually asked some really interesting questions in this one.

Science for me follows a model a little like set out by Paul Feyerabend in his book Against Method. The claim is there are two types of scientists. One are the puzzle solvers, who are effectively working out crossword clues as they try to fill in the gaps, the minutiae of the detail of the current scientific paradigm. The other are the great scientists who move the discipline forward, who have the imagination to devise new paradigms, overthrowing the scientific orthodoxy with brilliant creative new theories.

Cox only thinks inside the box. He is a puzzle solver. For me he always accepts the current scientific orthodoxy. And he bangs on and on about "the scientific method" espousing a very naive point of view that scientists are objective and the are discovering some sort of objective truth about the Universe.

For me, issues such as dark matter and dark energy, and the failure to understand quantum mechanics and the ongoing mysteries over the nature of time, point to a massive revolution in science coming our way. An example of a brilliant visionary scientist is Feynman and he talked about the difference between knowing the name of something and understanding it and Cox hears the words "dark matter" and thinks we understand it. Also, I've talked with him about extraterrestrial intelligence and he has such an unimaginative old-fashioned view and doesn't seem to comprehend the implications of it. 

I promise if I do have a space 150 minutes in the next few weeks I shall take a look, at least art the start to see how it's looking. Thanks for the heads up!

11 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Not telly, but watch this and it might blow your mind, even if you’re @Carl Sagan.

 

I've always been in two minds about Coxy. He is a good communicator but a poor scientist. I talked with him a few times about writing Wonders because he was frustrated there weren't any scientists working on the show. I was prepared to sit through 2+ hours of Rogan for Elon, but I'm really not sure I'd do it for this. Maybe after Christmas! ?

The damage to the 9th prototype (SN9) when its stand failed doesn't appear terminal which in itself is a good thing and shows the resilience. The next road closures, when it is likely to be rolled out to the test pad to begin fuel tank pressure tests and also engine fires, are now scheduled for 28-30 December. 

Meanwhile, SN10 is racing to beat it, and it's not entirely clear which will make it out of the hangar first. There are now two test stands so we could even end up seeing two Starships on these together before the year I'd out! A little like in this render... 

The stand that was supporting the next prototype (SN9) collapsed yesterday, causing the Starship to fall into the wall of the chamber (the High Bay) where it was awaiting roll out onto the test pad. At the moment the cranes are there trying to sort things out, but it won't be ready for pressure/engine fires/flight tests quite so quickly. And we don't yet know if it's salvageable.

It's a shame as it was complete and ready to go, but even if it cannot be saved, there are another six (at least) under construction that will be ready soon.

Scored and assisted in an 11-minute cameo against Boro in the week.

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/pne-emil-riis-middlesbrough-goal-19433609

4 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

Am I right in thinking of you could build a ship in space and launch it from a space station / moon base, it wouldn’t need to be able to withstand any atmospheric pressure?

but then how do space ships shield against little meteors and things? They must be hitting it like bullets all the time, but I imagine it has to be as light as possible, so doesn’t want to be covered in armour plating. 

The future is definitely "on-orbit manufacturing and assembly". What you need is the infrastructure to be able to use the raw materials available to us in space (so you're not carrying everything up from Earth's gravity well) and an automated industrial/manufacturing process. If Starship works it's big enough to be able to create this infrastructure, so in a way it might be the last big chemical rocket we need. 

Lightweight shielding is currently required because everything needs to be as light as possible when you're carrying it up from Earth, so the Whipple Bumper is the current mainstay, using layers of aluminium foil that are surprisingly effective at slowing down projectiles such as micrometeorites. There's a list of shielding techniques at https://hvit.jsc.nasa.gov/shield-development/

If you're building in space you don't necessarily have the same mass constraints if the final structure is to be stationary. But if you're moving it somewhere then the mass is still an important factor. So space stations would likely have more solid shielding whereas spaceships will be more lightweight to be able to whizz around.

In the future I hope for giant spaceships built in space that criss-cross the solar system but never land anywhere, and then we have smaller vehicles to ascend from and descend to planetary bodies. Earth is the most massive body we'll probably want to land and take off from. Starship is designed to take off on its own from Mars (single stage to orbit) for the trip home, but requires the giant Super Heavy booster to be able to reach orbit from Earth. Also Starship's Raptor engines are a brand new type that use methane and oxygen for fuel, on the premise that you can manufacture both fairly easily on Mars or anywhere in the solar system for that matter. 

SN8 is dead; long live SN9!

The crown passes to Serial Number 9 (the 9th prototype) which rolls out onto the test pad this coming Monday. First off will probably be pressure tests to ensure the fuel tanks are up to the job. The ship can fly if the tanks withstand 7 bar (7x atmospheric pressure) but the goal is to get them over 10 bar as that's what's required for future Human certification. 

15 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

So is it concerning that this one blew up, or was it all part of the plan? Or do we take the 1 in 90 chance when we fly on it?

Not at all concerning. Pre-flight assessment was that it would almost certainly blow up somewhere as long the way, so to make it all the way to the landing pad and just arrive a little too fast is seen as a great success. These rockets will fly many hundreds, probably thousands of times, before they start transporting Humans. 

4 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

I posted a question early on in this thread about the effects of (the lack of gravity) on people planning to live on Mars

An interesting article here explains a little more

https://medium.com/predict/space-exploration-needs-artificial-gravity-623cbd42121

Astronauts on the ISS have serious side effects from microgravity after 6 months - and that's just the one way travel time to Mars. If Mars travellers then try to live in microgravity on Mars for a further prolonged period, it  will wreck their bodies

Sorry to miss this. It's a great and important point. As you rightly state out microgravity (what most people think of as Zero-G) wrecks the Human body fairly quickly. One of the issues with Starship is the duration of the Mars flight, which will probably be around 5 months. Not great for then getting to work on Mars. 

There's a key unknown question which is, "what level of gravity is safe enough for Humans to live - and do things such as give birth - long term?" We do not know the answer and should be working to find out. I know some former NASA engineers who have a fantastic design for a rotating space station, which would be large enough to simulate Mars gravity (about one-third Earth). We need to start building structures like this. 

Also, I've suggested to them (and they liked the idea!) that they link two counter-rotating stations and then stick a Starship in the middle to power it, and then you have a genuine interplanetary spaceship with artificial gravity, and Bob's your uncle! Here's a video of their concept. 

31 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

A couple of questions

Whats the idea behind the horizontal approach ?

why so close to the ground, it barely has time to correct itself back to a vertical position ?

The horizontal approach is to maximize the surface area in contact with the atmosphere. When returning from space this will help increase the air resistance to slow the rocket down and spread the heating over the widest area.

From space, especially if on an interplanetary trajectory, you are travelling *really* fast yet have to bring that speed down to zero. And you will have as little fuel as possible (because of the weight penalty). So getting close to the ground just optimizes this part of the process.

SpaceX has successfully landed more than 60 of its Falcon9 rockets from space missions, and these only relight one engine when close to the landing site, so they know that final burn can be done pretty close to the ground. 

At first this looks like a render, but it's amazing real footage! 

View of the "landing" from the beach: 

First flight was amazing. It all lasted just a little under 7 minutes.

The first 4:45 is a vertical ascent, first on all 3 engines, then down to 2, and then a single 1. The engines cut off and the ship coasts upward a little longer and turns horizontal, preparing to "belly flop" back to Earth, falling with style, until it approaches the ground when it relights its engines and turns vertical again, ending with a controlled upright landing. Quite how any Humans onboard (and ultimately it's meant to hold 100 of us) cope with the changing orientation is yet to be seen.

Well worth watching the full video. Including the dramatic finale!

We're good to go at this point. The SpaceX feed is just about to go live. Launch timetabled for just after 9pm

We're trying again tonight, but in case of more problems the no-fly zone above the launch site has been extended to also cover Thursday and Friday. But the tank farm (which provides the cryogenic fuel) is now active (venting fuel) and the NASA high-altitude spotter plane has filed a flightpath from Florida to Texas to observe the hoped-for launch, so hopefully tonight is the night. Not as many streams right now, but it's live here:

Aborted! The Raptor engines automatically shut down  with 1 second to go (reason unknown). Presume we go again tomorrow.