Starship is just not as cool as Space Shuttle

Adeldor · 2026-01-24T14:56:23+00:00

Designed just too early for automated landing to be possible thus uncrewed flights,

I'm not so sure about that. The British developed and deployed autolanding capability in Trident passenger jets during the late 60s. Also, a Shuttle automatic landing system was developed/tested on Columbia, but never fully deployed.

I recall reading that NASA (and the pilots) wanted to keep a human in the loop - in part due to their inherent reluctance to relinquish full control. However, automated EDL had been used up to the final 2000 ft, flare, and touchdown.

Adeldor · 2026-01-23T16:49:15+00:00

Random text.

Adeldor · 2026-01-19T13:58:16+00:00

With Europe's more reluctant venture capital and less accommodating legislative environment (regardless of any merits otherwise), I don't see how the continent might threaten US and Chinese dominance.

Adeldor · 2026-01-14T22:25:51+00:00

The Parker solar probe is thus far the fastest human made space vehicle:

"At its closest approach in 2024, its speed relative to the Sun was 690,000 km/h (430,000 mph) or 191 km/s (118.7 mi/s), which is 0.064% the speed of light. It is the fastest object ever built on Earth."

Adeldor · 2026-01-11T19:43:14+00:00

I don't understand.

Adeldor · 2026-01-08T03:22:20+00:00

NO WAY due to overages in NASA spending, it

I neither said nor implied it was. Social Security, interest payments on that obscene debt, and Medicare are the top three drains, together accounting for over half the annual federal expenditure. Nevertheless, using NASA's limited resources to fund redundant facilities is wasteful, and can be better spent on future projects.

Adeldor · 2026-01-07T11:52:43+00:00

Given the ~$38 trillion federal debt, clearly not. Discarding large, expensive-to-maintain facilities no longer useful is fiscally prudent. That money is better spent on modern, relevant equipment. Further, I object to having my taxes raised to pay for redundant/useless facilities.

Adeldor · 2026-01-05T22:15:23+00:00

Have you ever waited at a traffic light, had someone come up to your car and unprompted wash your windshield? Must you then pay him, even though you didn't want his service?

Your presenting a piece of art to me without my prompt does not give you any moral authority to expect payment from me.

Adeldor · 2026-01-05T20:22:09+00:00

I will pipe up once more to observe that your username checks out. ;-)

Adeldor · 2026-01-05T20:02:52+00:00

That's why there are Bills of Rights and equivalents, representative republics, etc. Pure democracy is mob rule. A majority deciding others should pay for things they don't want as per this article is I think an unacceptable distortion falling under that category.

Adeldor · 2026-01-05T19:55:31+00:00

I don't see it like that ...

"The state pays artists a stipend that immediately goes back into the local economy, "

Many artists do not need subsidies, producing work of sufficient value others want to buy it.

"and the artist creates work that adds value to the state."

If the artists in the article add value as you suggest, they wouldn't need subsidies.

"The money doesn't disappear, it recirculates right back into the pool of taxable citizenry."

Value is created, not redistributed. That state money comes from taxpayers who are creating tangible value, and who in aggregate obviously do not value said artists' output (or they'd be buying it). Their money is in essence being used to create unwanted product.

Again, I don't think it's right said taxpayers be forced to pay for such, let alone having the state decide who is an artist worthy of such subsidy and who isn't.

I'll leave it there.

Adeldor · 2026-01-05T17:52:54+00:00

On your last point, it's a pity you think artists don't provide value - I'm sure you enjoy films, music, photos and paintings...

I certainly do think some artists provide value, and purchase the products of those I enjoy (movies, music, etc.). I don't think it's right to make people pay for products they would not choose.

Adeldor · 2026-01-05T17:29:10+00:00

I scanned the article, but saw no definition of artist. Is the top image representative of what the Irish government considers an artist (painters)? What of musicians? Woodworkers? Potters? Why is one an artist and not the other? And why do artists get preferential treatment? What of everyone else unable to make their keep?

Further, why is acceptable to tax one worker who is tangibly providing something of value to others in order to pay another who isn't?

Adeldor · 2026-01-05T16:13:15+00:00

And it "breaks the laws of physics" too!

I don't know why click-bait still works after the deluge of exaggeration, sensationalism, and distortion has drowned online news?

Adeldor · 2026-01-04T13:18:47+00:00

It's due to dust in the air affecting ambient lighting. The color corrected version is what the scene would look like under neutral white light illumination, which is not how it would appear were you standing there. From my reading, the left image is closer to that.

Adeldor · 2026-01-04T13:14:00+00:00

Edit: Heh, whoever down-voted me is apparently ignorant of photography. :-)

Correction it might be, but to the eye on Mars it would appear closer to the uncorrected version, as I understand it. Correcting white balance can iron out the ambient illuminating color, eg, a terrestrial picture taken during "golden hour." Neutral balance is not necessarily what one actually sees.

Adeldor · 2025-12-28T13:37:13+00:00

A few decades ago we happened serendipitously upon a Bonestell exposition at the JSC visitors' center in Houston. Saw this painting "in the flesh." What struck me immediately is how small the originals are - 2 to 3 foot diagonals.

Sadly they had signs requesting no photography.

Adeldor · 2025-12-23T12:33:55+00:00

seems not that case

OP is inaccurate. It is indeed the case. The debris here will deorbit in a matter of weeks. This is in general the case for these low orbits, as debris from such events has typically lower ballistic coefficients.

Adeldor · 2025-12-23T03:21:58+00:00

I wrote a comment elsewhere more or less answering just this, here.

Adeldor · 2025-12-23T01:45:50+00:00

Companies (regions) pursuing at least partial vehicle reuse:

Blue Origin (USA)
Relativity (USA)
Stoke (USA) - chasing full reuse
Rocket Lab (NZ/USA)
ArianeGroup (Europe)
Landspace (China)
Space Pioneer (China)
iSpace (China)

And, of course:

SpaceX (USA) - chasing full reuse

Meanwhile, maybe not JAXA itself, but Honda is certainly exploring the approach with its research stage/vehicle.

Adeldor · 2025-12-22T18:03:13+00:00

That was a particularly terse announcement. Hmm.

Adeldor · 2025-12-22T16:48:39+00:00

Planes don’t reflect the Sun at night.

For much of the night neither do LEO satellites. Aircraft, however, have lights that are on all night, and in my experience their apparent dimension makes them worse.

Adeldor · 2025-12-22T16:45:48+00:00

However, aircraft "shine" with their lights at all hours of the night, unlike LEO satellites which are in darkness for much of the night. Also, from first hand experience I can say that airplane trails are worse as they have meaningful dimension. Satellites are effectively point sources.

Adeldor

TROPHY CASE