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]