SPACE - random thread about space stuff

[jztemple2]

[Isgrimnur]

‘Worst nightmare’: Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites could blind radio telescopes

Leaking radio emissions from SpaceX’s Starlink satellites are impeding observations by some ground-based radio telescopes and may eventually blind them, a new study using the Netherlands-based Low Frequency Array (LOFAR) radio telescope has found. The company’s second generation satellites, which it began launching last year, emit up to 30 times more radio waves than the first generation, the LOFAR team reports today in Astronomy & Astrophysics.

The radio leakage is at much lower frequencies than the bands used by Starlink satellites to deliver internet to customers and communicate with ground controllers, so the LOFAR team concluded it is unintentional. But it is 10 million times brighter than the dim astronomical sources LOFAR and similar scopes study. For radio astronomers, observing while a satellite is in its field of view is like trying to see the faintest star visible to the naked eye next to a full Moon, says lead study author Cees Bassa of the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy, which operates LOFAR.

Soon the interference will be continuous. More than 6000 Starlinks are already in orbit—more than all other operational satellites—and SpaceX has plans for tens of thousands. When that happens, it may become impossible for a wide-viewing telescope such as LOFAR to find an area of sky without a Starlink in it. “That’s sort of the worst nightmare,” Bassa says. “It’s a bit depressing how much worse it's gotten so quickly.”

[jztemple2]

‘Worst nightmare’: Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites could blind radio telescopes

And not much of a chance that this will change

Meanwhile, What to expect during SpaceX's 6th Starship test flight on Nov. 19

SpaceX is targeting Tuesday afternoon (Nov. 19) for the launch of its sixth Starship flight test.

The upcoming test flight is expected to lift off on Nov. 19 during a 30-minute window that opens at 5 p.m. EST (2200 GMT).

If all goes according to plan, the booster will once again demonstrate a catch landing back at Starbase during Flight 6, which will take place about seven minutes after liftoff. Otherwise, Super Heavy will default to a controlled splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico.

Meanwhile, after separating from the booster, Ship will fly the same suborbital trajectory as it did on Flight 5. This time, however, the spacecraft will attempt an in-space burn of one of its six Raptor engines, testing its deorbit burn capabilities.

Starship will also perform a series of heatshield experiments and maneuvering changes for reentry — including flying at a higher angle during the final phase of descent — before splashing down in the Indian Ocean about 65 minutes post-launch. The window for Tuesday's test flight is purposefully scheduled for late afternoon, allowing for better observations of reentry during daylight, according to SpaceX.

[jztemple2]

Launched on time, but didn't do the booster catch, dropped it in the water instead

Starship continues it's flight.

[Holman]

Random space thought:

I know from physics and Kerbal Space Program that it's prohibitively difficult to "shoot our garbage (or nuclear waste, etc) into the Sun."

But if we developed LEO and high-orbital industries that produced significant and dangerous waste products, how hard would it be to send those into a new garbage asteroid belt? A belt, say, between the orbit of Earth and Venus?

Would this be both feasible and better than letting the dangerous trash stay in Earth orbit?

[jztemple2]

Starship touched down in the Indian Ocean as expected. Overall an apparent successful flight, except for the booster not returning to the launch tower for capture.

[Kraken]

I'm sorry that I missed today's launch; it completely slipped my mind. Sounds like it wasn't a spectacle and didn't break any new ground, anyway. Did the Starship successfully restart an engine?

But if we developed LEO and high-orbital industries that produced significant and dangerous waste products, how hard would it be to send those into a new garbage asteroid belt? A belt, say, between the orbit of Earth and Venus?

Would this be both feasible and better than letting the dangerous trash stay in Earth orbit?

It takes a lot of energy to "fall" inward because you have to cancel some fraction of the Earth's orbital velocity. Feasibility would depend on how much waste you want to move and how much you're willing to pay to move it. There's no physical reason it couldn't be done, but I'd think it would be more practical to send it outward, into deep space. Low-thrust ion engines or solar sails could do the job.

[Holman]

I'm sorry that I missed today's launch; it completely slipped my mind. Sounds like it wasn't a spectacle and didn't break any new ground, anyway. Did the Starship successfully restart an engine?

But if we developed LEO and high-orbital industries that produced significant and dangerous waste products, how hard would it be to send those into a new garbage asteroid belt? A belt, say, between the orbit of Earth and Venus?

Would this be both feasible and better than letting the dangerous trash stay in Earth orbit?

It takes a lot of energy to "fall" inward because you have to cancel some fraction of the Earth's orbital velocity. Feasibility would depend on how much waste you want to move and how much you're willing to pay to move it. There's no physical reason it couldn't be done, but I'd think it would be more practical to send it outward, into deep space. Low-thrust ion engines or solar sails could do the job.

So maybe just tossing dangerous waste out into either the existing Mars-Jupiter asteroid belt or into a new Earth-Mars trash belt?

[Kraken]

I'm sorry that I missed today's launch; it completely slipped my mind. Sounds like it wasn't a spectacle and didn't break any new ground, anyway. Did the Starship successfully restart an engine?

But if we developed LEO and high-orbital industries that produced significant and dangerous waste products, how hard would it be to send those into a new garbage asteroid belt? A belt, say, between the orbit of Earth and Venus?

Would this be both feasible and better than letting the dangerous trash stay in Earth orbit?

It takes a lot of energy to "fall" inward because you have to cancel some fraction of the Earth's orbital velocity. Feasibility would depend on how much waste you want to move and how much you're willing to pay to move it. There's no physical reason it couldn't be done, but I'd think it would be more practical to send it outward, into deep space. Low-thrust ion engines or solar sails could do the job.

So maybe just tossing dangerous waste out into either the existing Mars-Jupiter asteroid belt or into a new Earth-Mars trash belt?

No: if you have continuous acceleration from ion, nuclear, or solar (supplemented by the Jewish space lasers) propulsion, you're on your way to interstellar space. Send it into infinity, and beyond.

[Max Peck]

Of course, in this timeline we'll just continue to let them burn up in the atmosphere or crash them into the ocean or wherever, whatever is the least expensive.

[Kraken]

I see Holman's question as a thought experiment. IDK what kind of waste is worth concentrating, encapsulating, and sending away when Earth's atmosphere is right there and ready to evaporate whatever you're willing to add to it.

[Isgrimnur]

Spoiler:

https://bsky.app/profile/redditspacevie ... gug7mir22e

[Punisher]

The hubble looks like someone forgot to clean the lense.

[Kraken]

The Hubble image approximates what you'd see if you were in the neighborhood. It's a colorized visible light image. Webb uses infrared to pierce the gas.

[jztemple2]

[jztemple2]

[Daehawk]

I just wanted to refresh raydude's post on Eyes on Asteroids from 2022. Its a really neat site. Came upon it again while cleaning up my bookmarks. Didn't want it to be forgotten and become dusty...star dusty swidt?

[jztemple2]

NASA Identifies Cause of Artemis I Orion Heat Shield Char Loss

After extensive analysis and testing, NASA has identified the technical cause of unexpected char loss across the Artemis I Orion spacecraft’s heat shield.

Engineers determined as Orion was returning from its uncrewed mission around the Moon, gases generated inside the heat shield’s ablative outer material called Avcoat were not able to vent and dissipate as expected. This allowed pressure to build up and cracking to occur, causing some charred material to break off in several locations.

“Our early Artemis flights are a test campaign, and the Artemis I test flight gave us an opportunity to check out our systems in the deep space environment before adding crew on future missions,” said Amit Kshatriya, deputy associate administrator, Moon to Mars Program Office, NASA Headquarters in Washington. “The heat shield investigation helped ensure we fully understand the cause and nature of the issue, as well as the risk we are asking our crews to take when they venture to the Moon.”

It's a long article, I found this part particularly interesting:

During Artemis I, engineers used the skip guidance entry technique to return Orion to Earth. This technique provides more flexibility by extending the range Orion can fly after the point of reentry to a landing spot in the Pacific Ocean. Using this maneuver, Orion dipped into the upper part of Earth’s atmosphere and used atmospheric drag to slow down. Orion then used the aerodynamic lift of the capsule to skip back out of the atmosphere, then reenter for final descent under parachutes to splashdown.

Using Avcoat material response data from Artemis I, the investigation team was able to replicate the Artemis I entry trajectory environment — a key part of understanding the cause of the issue — inside the arc jet facilities at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California. They observed that during the period between dips into the atmosphere, heating rates decreased, and thermal energy accumulated inside the heat shield’s Avcoat material. This led to the accumulation of gases that are part of the expected ablation process. Because the Avcoat did not have “permeability,” internal pressure built up, and led to cracking and uneven shedding of the outer layer.

Teams performed extensive ground testing to replicate the skip phenomenon before Artemis I. However, they tested at much higher heating rates than the spacecraft experienced in flight. The high heating rates tested on the ground allowed the permeable char to form and ablate as expected, releasing the gas pressure. The less severe heating seen during the actual Artemis I reentry slowed down the process of char formation, while still creating gases in the char layer. Gas pressure built up to the point of cracking the Avcoat and releasing parts of the charred layer. Recent enhancements to the arc jet facility have enabled a more accurate reproduction of the Artemis I measured flight environments, so that this cracking behavior could be demonstrated in ground testing.

[jztemple2]

From our local space-oriented news station:

It's official: @NASA's @SenBillNelson said the #Artemis II mission has been moved to April 2026 and Artemis III is now mid-2027.

[jztemple2]

Something to look for over the next few Falcon 9 landings on the SpaceX drone ships... SpaceX is supposedly adding a water deluge system to the ships to minimize the damage done by the rocket exhaust while landing. Right now the ships have to be taken out of service periodically to do repairs on the deck, the deluge is supposed to eliminate that requirement.

[jztemple2]

We're (probably) doomed: Experts think the Sun may produce gigantic, electronics-destroying superflares much more often than we previously thought

I've always wanted to write "We're doomed" with reasonable justification, and well, here we are. A study published by astronomers at the Max Planck Institute has concluded that, based on observations made by the Kepler space telescope, the occurrence rate of superflares from stars just like our sun may occur much more often than previously thought.

A superflare is essentially a solar megastorm, much more powerful than a regular solar flare and capable of releasing phenomenal amounts of electromagnetic radiation (via LiveScience). Past studies have indicated that superflares were likely to happen once every few thousand years, but a study of 56,000 sun-like stars has shown that powerful superflares may occur more like once every century. Bully.

That would make our own beloved orb somewhat overdue for a superflare of its own—and the effects on modern infrastructure would likely be immense.

[Max Peck]

We're already doomed six ways to Sunday, so what's one more added into the mix?

[Holman]

How bad is a superflare if it happens on the other side of the sun? How many degrees (angle, not temperature) would it affect?

[jztemple2]

How bad is a superflare if happens on the other side of the sun? How many degrees (angle, not temperature) would it affect?

Yup, I was thinking about this too after I posted. If there's a superflare on the average each century, how likely is it that the flare heads towards earth? One in a hundred? One in a thousand? Hmm

[Isgrimnur]

However, in 2021, another research team found that superflares tend to erupt from closer to the poles of stars, meaning that if the sun erupted with such a flare, there is a good chance it would miss Earth.

Giant white-light flares on fully convective stars occur at high latitudes

All four flares occurred at latitudes between 55° and 81°, far higher than typical solar flare latitudes. Our findings are evidence that strong magnetic fields tend to emerge close to the stellar rotational poles for fully convective stars, and suggest that the impact of flares on the habitability of exoplanets around small stars could be weaker than previously thought.

[Holman]

Well now I feel better.

[jztemple2]

Thank goodness, the last thing we need is another Carrington Event

[Max Peck]

Welp, I guess we probably need to look elsewhere for salvation from space. The ball is back in your court, Giant Space Rock.

[Holman]

Thank goodness, the last thing we need is another Carrington Event

[video of great shame]

The 80s were lucky that they didn't have memes.

[jztemple2]

It might be too late for this Christmas, but it's never too early to start making a wishlist for 2025!

You can now wear an Apollo Guidance Computer keypad as a wristwatch

When NASA's Apollo spacecraft launched to the moon, it had on board two briefcase-size computers that for their day would normally have required enough floor space to fill a couple of rooms. The compact devices were small, but had enough processing power and memory to guide the astronauts from Earth to the moon.

Fifty-five years later, the British startup Apollo Instruments has been able to shrink the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) even further — to the size of a wristwatch. Now, anyone can wear the display and keyboard system, or DSKY (pronounced "disk-key"), that astronauts used on the command and lunar modules.

The DSKY Moonwatch is more than just a novelty timepiece; wearers can interact with it just like the Apollo crews did and fly to the moon (rocket and spacecraft not included).



In addition to running the original guidance computer software, Apollo Instruments' DSKY Moonwatch is equipped with GPS, alarms and accurate timekeeping features. (Image credit: Apollo Instruments)

[Isgrimnur]

Digital Displa ... for an authentic

[jztemple2]

Digital Displa ... for an authentic

I suspect it was a screen capture of an animated clip.

The watch is very cool, but I'm wondering how I'd hit those little buttons.

For anyone wanting to try playing around with a simulation of the real thing, check out the below: