Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

science.nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 115 posts

Re: Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

#41

Post by Morromist »

ChocolateGod wrote: post #39
Morromist wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I see it Musk is lobbying the goverment to give him money to do useless stuff & expensive in space like land on the moon again - basically redirecting funds away from useful stuff like the James Webb Telescope for publicity stunts. Not any different from the legacy aerospace companies, who also lobbied like crazy, except on a bigger, dumber scale.

Starship is mostly funded by Starlink. Yes, Musk is a crappy character, but that's not a reason to make things up. This isn't Reddit.

Starship isn't actually operational. I'll let you look at their plans for it and you can tell me if they involve doing things the goverment would pay for like landing on the moon and building space stations or not.

Re: Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

#42

Post by dotancohen »

Morromist wrote: post #36
ChocolateGod wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musks company provides not only the most cost effective but also the most reliable access to space that is currently unparalleled by any other company. We should thank the government for spending tax money efficiently. You should blame the legacy aerospace companies whom purposely inflate contracts and take forever to do things for there being a lack of competition, not Musk.

As I see it Musk is lobbying the goverment to give him money to do useless stuff & expensive in space like land on the moon again - basically redirecting funds away from useful stuff like the James Webb Telescope for publicity stunts. Not any different from the legacy aerospace companies, who also lobbied like crazy, except on a bigger, dumber scale.

Then you see it wrong. Plans for returning humans to the surface of the moon have been being developed for longer than you've known Musk's name.

The Artemis program was developed out of the Constellation program, which was initiated sometime around 2005 or 6.

Re: Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

#44

Post by icegreentea2 »

dylan604 wrote: post #33
ck2 wrote: post #3

I'm still holding my breath on this one, will be most amazing telescope in my lifetime parked in L2 a million miles away with 500mbps data transfer rate (1.5TB per DAY) we've made it past DOGE destroying it we've made it past him renaming it after himself and putting his mugshot on it but Musk still needs to send it out of orbit without explosions, so here's hoping (Falcon Heavy, don't tell me the odds) * https://nex…

> * https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/6983/ 06:25 AM Window Open 06:26 AM Window Close Is it really just a 1 minute launch window? That seems incredibly tight. If there's any hitch in the countdown, that would pretty much mean a scrubbed launch. Not being well versed in orbital mechanics, why would the window be so short?

There's some discussion about a similar launch ~10 years ago (in that case going to L1) https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2vb5kv/1second_laun...

Re: Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

#45

Post by Morromist »

dotancohen wrote: post #42
Morromist wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I see it Musk is lobbying the goverment to give him money to do useless stuff & expensive in space like land on the moon again - basically redirecting funds away from useful stuff like the James Webb Telescope for publicity stunts. Not any different from the legacy aerospace companies, who also lobbied like crazy, except on a bigger, dumber scale.

Then you see it wrong. Plans for returning humans to the surface of the moon have been being developed for longer than you've known Musk's name. The Artemis program was developed out of the Constellation program, which was initiated sometime around 2005 or 6.

How is landing on the moon not a publicity stunt? What can the humans do that massively cheaper robots couldn't - besides take some awesome photos and bring back some more moon rocks?

Of course there have long been plans to go back to the moon because its a cool fun thing to do and whoever happens to be president would likely be well remembered for taking credit for it. That doesn't give it credibility as a useful endeavor.

Re: Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

#46

Post by ChocolateGod »

Morromist wrote: post #45
dotancohen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you see it wrong. Plans for returning humans to the surface of the moon have been being developed for longer than you've known Musk's name. The Artemis program was developed out of the Constellation program, which was initiated sometime around 2005 or 6.

How is landing on the moon not a publicity stunt? What can the humans do that massively cheaper robots couldn't - besides take some awesome photos and bring back some more moon rocks? Of course there have long been plans to go back to the moon because its a cool fun thing to do and whoever happens to be president would likely be well remembered for taking credit for it. That doesn't give it credibility as a useful en…

> How is landing on the moon not a publicity stunt? What can the humans do that massively cheaper robots couldn't - besides take some awesome photos and bring back some more moon rocks?

Humans have intuition and curiosity, they can spot something quickly in the distance that looks peculiar, go to it and quickly inspect it.

Re: Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

#47

Post by Jtsummers »

lokibumdo wrote: post #35
macintux wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose we should be grateful he didn’t force his own name at the last minute. I suppose he still has time.

[flagged]

Is this a joke or just a demonstration of ignorance? The name Obamacare was not given to it by Obama, but by opponents of the law. The Obama administration just leaned into it. Blame conservatives if the name bothers you, not Obama and his administration from the time.

Re: Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

#48

Post by Polizeiposaune »

dylan604 wrote: post #33
ck2 wrote: post #3

I'm still holding my breath on this one, will be most amazing telescope in my lifetime parked in L2 a million miles away with 500mbps data transfer rate (1.5TB per DAY) we've made it past DOGE destroying it we've made it past him renaming it after himself and putting his mugshot on it but Musk still needs to send it out of orbit without explosions, so here's hoping (Falcon Heavy, don't tell me the odds) * https://nex…

> * https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/6983/ 06:25 AM Window Open 06:26 AM Window Close Is it really just a 1 minute launch window? That seems incredibly tight. If there's any hitch in the countdown, that would pretty much mean a scrubbed launch. Not being well versed in orbital mechanics, why would the window be so short?

Not unusual, and there are likely a number of contributing factors.

Falcon launches to the ISS typically have an instantaneous launch window (roughly, when the plane of the ISS's orbit sweeps over the launch site). If they miss it, they try again about a day later.

Falcon (both Heavy and its little sibling Falcon 9) uses subcooled densified propellants which limit how long it can sit waiting for launch while fueled before the LOX warms and expands too much.

A short window means they only have to compute and verify and program one trajectory.

Re: Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

#49

Post by jibal »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace_Roman

P.S. I didn't post this at top level ... it was in response to a silly joke about the Romans which has since been flagged by dang ... apparently my comment was relocated to the top level but it's redundant here as this link was already given in the post (which I didn't see when I made this comment.)

Post reply on HN