JAXA does great work, they also publish the highest resolution open access global surface elevation model. Really impressive for a country with about 1/10th the GDP of the US.
4 ton launch mass, so 8x mass increase against Og Hayabusa probe(510kg). About 5.4x Satrlink V2 mini sats.
The OG Hayabusa was tiny as it was on the M-V 3-stage all-solid launcher with just 1.85t to LEO of max payload. This one was on H3-24L with up to 16t to LEO(91% of an F9 ASDS) so it's bigger accordingly.
BepiColombo, another joint ESA-JAXA mission, will enter orbit around Mercury next month after a longer-than-expected journey. It will be the third spacecraft to visit Mercury.
I'm really exited about Dragonfly, as Titan is a world not too different from ours: it gas lakes and rivers (made out of hydrocarbons, like methane), dunes and mountains
It would be very expensive, but not impossible, to make big enough spaceships in which to have suitable life conditions for humans in our current form, including gravity at the terrestrial level and radiation shielding.
Living inside huge spaceships, orbiting around some planets, where everything needed for a permanent stay should be provided, is a far more plausible way for humans to expand in the Solar System, than living on the surface of any planet or satellite of the Solar System.
The experiments with mice on the ISS have indicated that, at least for them, the gravity level at which no health problems appear is around two thirds of the Earth level, and at least one third of the Earth level is needed to avoid very serious health problems. Humans might support a somewhat lower gravity level than mice, but it is not likely that the difference is great.
Except perhaps when floating in the atmosphere of Venus, there is no place in the Solar System where the gravity is suitable for long term living. On the other hand, in a rotating spaceship the gravity level can be adjusted to whatever value is desired. One could build a rotating part also in an underground base, but unlike in a spaceship that would consume energy continuously.
I'm not an expert, but in my mind if you actually want to make the human species interplanetary, flying small groups of people to the planet won't do anything for it. Send robots to build a base first, and yes that will take a long time. Otherwise you'll just be a species that visited other planets. (which would already be cool though obviously)
It is important to get people excited about science, and inspire the next generation of scientists rather than choose the cheapest path to ‘good science’.
Without public support, you’ll soon find yourself without any funding. This pretty much explains NASA’s dire funding situation over the last thirty or so years.
You can only get so many people excited about weather balloons and space rock chemistry.
My annual thing I can genuinely comment on in relation to hackernews. This is fucking so cool, I simply cannot tell you how rare it is we get primary material to do anything with.
36 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 33.6 ms ] threadThe OG Hayabusa was tiny as it was on the M-V 3-stage all-solid launcher with just 1.85t to LEO of max payload. This one was on H3-24L with up to 16t to LEO(91% of an F9 ASDS) so it's bigger accordingly.
Venus and Europa could use some attention. Anything underway?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BepiColombo
For Europa, Europa Clipper Mission (already on the way): https://science.nasa.gov/mission/europa-clipper/mission-time...
... and JUICE (already on the way): https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Juice
There might be others, those are just what I found in a quick search.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ice-war-on-europa-warforever
(Minor spoilers for The Expanse, word Protomolecule means something there.)
Unlike iPhone selfies around the moon, or golf on mars.
Manned space missions are very rarely justified in the modern era.
An unmanned probe doing science for 20 years, or a one shot influenza photo op.
The cost is about the same...
Unless you want to be interplanetary
Living inside huge spaceships, orbiting around some planets, where everything needed for a permanent stay should be provided, is a far more plausible way for humans to expand in the Solar System, than living on the surface of any planet or satellite of the Solar System.
The experiments with mice on the ISS have indicated that, at least for them, the gravity level at which no health problems appear is around two thirds of the Earth level, and at least one third of the Earth level is needed to avoid very serious health problems. Humans might support a somewhat lower gravity level than mice, but it is not likely that the difference is great.
Except perhaps when floating in the atmosphere of Venus, there is no place in the Solar System where the gravity is suitable for long term living. On the other hand, in a rotating spaceship the gravity level can be adjusted to whatever value is desired. One could build a rotating part also in an underground base, but unlike in a spaceship that would consume energy continuously.
If you want to "live on mars", just bury a cargo container in the Nevada desert and move in.
You'll have the advantages of significantly reduced cosmic radiation, and the grocery store is much closer...
Without public support, you’ll soon find yourself without any funding. This pretty much explains NASA’s dire funding situation over the last thirty or so years.
You can only get so many people excited about weather balloons and space rock chemistry.