maned ISS launch
PEAKE
E
A
K
E
T-5 min
ESA or NASA livestream?
T-1min 30 sec
>>7721885
nasa
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
Soyouz taken from the ISS while burning.
>50 years of pissing about in low earth orbit
Just go to the moon already
>>7721909
With wich money ? Nobody puts moyen in space since the fall of URSS.
>>7721997
I dont know how about dont send 10 low earth orbit rockets and use that to pay for it
Brits go here:
http://blogs.esa.int/tim-peake/2015/12/15/see-the-soyuz-and-space-station-just-before-docking/
British astronaut Tim Peake blasted off on schedule at 11:03 GMT
Rocket should dock at the ISS today at 17.24 GMT
Live footage will be streamed from 18.45 GMT as the hatch opens and the astronauts board the ISS
How can they arrive so soon? Doesn't it normally take at least a day to get to the ISS?
>>7722112
The Russians recently derived a fast-track trajectory for their Soyuz/Progress flights. (It falls back to the usual couple day flight if anything goes off-nominal. This happened once.) They get the six hour trip if they launch exactly on time. I think it also requires the ISS to also be at a particular altitude and phase compared to the launch site.
This is a busy week for spaceflight! Tomorrow, India is launching their fifth rocket, making this their busiest year ever. And China is also doing a commercial launch that day. On top of that, SpaceX is doing the static fire test for their return-to-flight Orbcomm mission on the 19th. The ESA is also putting up a pair of Galileo satellites using another Soyuz from their Kourou launch facility on the 17th. And Russia launches a Progress cargo run to the ISS on the 21st.
>>7722158
Don't forget Akatsuki finally achieving orbit on Venus.
>>7722112
>Doesn't it normally take at least a day to get to the ISS?
...you underestimate Russian clever resolve....
;)
>>7722043
There is nothing for humans to fo on the Moon, while there's plenty of research to be done in LEO. If you want adventure and humans in space, start colonising Mars.
>>7722209
Retarded when we can't even get our shit together enough to colonize something right next to us.
>>7722213
Then sending people to the Moon is even more retarded. There are no benefits whatsoever and there's nothing new to do there.
>>7722209
>start colonising mars
How would we prepare for this i wonder? Oh thats right by practising on the moon first.
>>7722236
>There are no benefits whatsoever and there's nothing new to do there.
>Except explore the surface and set up a burgeoning colony
>Helium 3 is wave of the future
>Powering rockets that will get us to Pluto, and maybe the Ort Cloud
>Muh Antimatter/Matter Enginez
>mfw the Moon is ripe with Helium 3
>>7722236
>nothing new to do there
How about setting up a base.
Testing new landing/departure tech.
Study long term radiatiom effects.
Etc etc.
There is literally nothing more to do in LEO.
>>7722236
You don't quite understand. It's more about the journey than the destination.. If we were able to set up a viable moon colony, we would have come to understand a good deal about setting up functional ecosystems. Practical oxygen recycling, limiting exposure to radiation and cosmic rays. Living in low gravity environments and how the body responds long term. Etc.
It could be used for a processing center for asteroid mining. Could be used for rocket launches, and rocket designs that would be impossible to get to escape velocity on Earth. Build structures and devices, again, impossible on earth. Optics comes to mind.
No. I don't know what the hell happened, I really don't, but popular culture seems to have skipped onwards to Mars. And it's not a good shift. 50's / 60's sci-fi was correct. A moon colony is the first step.
>>7722238
Moon bases have no benefits to them and the Moon is more hostile than Mars.
>>7722248
>no benefits
Sure sure....
>>7722246
>There's nothing to do in LEO
Then what is ISS doing up there and how come the astronauts conduct research for 9 hours a day five days a week?
>>7722248
>A near vacuum is more hostile than a planet with myriad carcinogens and perchlorates for soil
>>7722253
Good question. Nothing that couldnt be done by machinary.
>>7722248
>Moon is more hostile than Mars
the Moon isn't hostile, it's been together with us our whole life
>>7722258
>a planet with CO2 and water supply for oxygen and fuel
>a moon with some helium we can't even utilise
>>7722253
>Then what is ISS doing up there and how come the astronauts conduct research for 9 hours a day five days a week?
......they aren't really up there. And the ISS is hanging by several fishing wires. And the stars aren't stars at all...its a large sheet of black construction paper that has numerous pin holes....and a bright light behind it.
But seriously....
>>7722266
>a 2 year journey
>a 3 day journey
>>7722266
>Implying the purpose of a moon colony is to mine the goddamn thing
>Implying you're actively employing something comparable to thought
>>7722266
>a moon with some helium we can't even utilise
...not yet anyway. Soon.......
>>7722273
Can't wait for fusion powered rockets. Our best bet on interstellar travel IMO.
Holy fuck ISIS in space???
>>7722247
>A moon colony is the first step.
Yes it is. But some folks still think Direct Ascent is the best way to go. Despite the fact it is completely inefficient (and very expensive to build).
In the late 1950's, the Air Force (and later NASA) was designing rockets that would go to Mars. Essentially it was a much larger version of Saturn 5, and in some designs the 1st Stage Rocket had 14 F1 engines.
Could you imagine how enormous that rocket would have been, had it been built?
Again, the best approach is to set up a functional colony/base on the Moon. It is the only logical we do so, based on the distances and energies needed to get to Mars.
>>7722276
Me neither.
:D
If you had a rocket capable of going to and landing on mars wouldnt you first test it going to the moon? Seems like a no brainer.
>>7722282
the USAF has a space program??
>>7722289
Before NASA was commissioned in October of 1958, they were the principle financiers and developers of an early space program. (Albeit their main goal was to build ICBM's).
That all changed when NASA was established, of course.
Did the van allen radiation belt not exist in 1969?
>>7722307
>Did the van allen radiation belt not exist in 1969?
........yes
>>7722262
>the Moon isn't hostile
True, but the inhabitants of the far side are a bit scary at times. Ask Dr Edgar Mitchell.
>>7722316
>are a bit scary at times
They are a private bunch of ayylmaos.....all they want to do is to be left alone....
>>7722161
Fuck yeah, Japan makes the most amazingly robust scientific probes. Remember Hayabusa, the little sampler that could, limping home on two broken thrusters?
>>7721865
How did ISIS get in space
>>7722322
What exactly is the benefit of going to/colonising Mars that we wouldn't get by colonising the Moon?
>>7722332
>What exactly is the benefit of going to/colonising Mars that we wouldn't get by colonising the Moon?
Knowledge of planets other than our own
A greater understanding of how our solar system formed
A greater understanding of how planets in general formed.
A greater understanding of what happened to Mars billions of years ago
How does Martian weather differ from our own?
Why doesn't Mars have an active magnetic field like Earth?
How did Phobos and Deimos get captured?
Were there any ayylmaos that lived on Mars in the past?
If so, how does that relate to our own development on this planet?
I could go on and on........
>>7722332
None. Its a meme because we cant even get to the moon and noone wants to be butthurt about a failed moon mission when we can just "aim" for mars at some arbitary time in the future.
>>7722344
Curiosity is already doing all that.
>>7722307
>>7722284
>dat pic
But Avatar's Venture Star used matter-antimatter rockets, not fusion rockets
>>7722332
big time knowledge of mars is the biggest benefit by far.
in 1 hour, 1 human could gather more info than all of our rovers combined have gathered.
>>7722367
one rover can only explore so much of an entire planet
ISIS can into space? We're fucked
>>7722390
Especially when it goes at like 0.019 mph.
>>7722307
Something tells me you don't know much about radiation.
BURGERS BTFO
>>7722393
Get some originality, fuckhead.
>>7722439
>No fun allowed
Get that stick surgically removed from your asshole, asshole.
>>7722435
Honestly I just want to see faster rovers soon.
>Time of docking: 17:33 under manual control. @astro_timpeake @astro_tim & Yuri are secured to the #ISS. #Principia
>yuri
>docking
l-lewd
>>7722447
>repeating the exact same joke over and over is fun
>>7722447
OMG ISIS are in space!!!1
>>7722268
Try 3 week journey, if we actually get useful thrust out of emdrive or build fusion rockets
>>7722494
>>7722490
>thread about how world governments can put aside their differences to focus on humanity's common future
>discussion devolves into shit throwing over a bad joke
>>7722151
What do you mean by recently derived? Did they only just recently compute a trajectory that makes this possible?
>>7722373
...technically they used matter/antimatter fusion rockets. The annihilation products were forced out of two nozzles--of which hydrogen was injected into those same nozzles for that "added extra kick"...
FAT FAGGOT BURGERS CANT EVEN LAUNCH THEIR OWN FAT FUCKS INTO SPACE FUCKING FAILURE OF A COUNTRY
LONG LIVE RUSSIA
>>7722497
>3 week journey
Try 5 minutes when real life becomes like star trek
>>7722819
inorite
I'm a Brit and all that hype and flag-waving is cringe-worthy. Seriously, we send a man trained by ESA on a Russian rocket and we're all like it's an incredibly amazing achievement for the UK, and that, more than 50 years after manned spaceflight in LEO was mastered.
If anything it highlights how much our national space program is non-existent.
>>7722273
>400 kilotons of activated almonds
>>7722927
You are missing the point, Britfriend:
The self-indulgent flag waving is not pride or patriotism on our part - it is actually a promotional tool for UK science, aimed squarely at inspiring the younger generation.
I am hyped for Tim Peake and humbled by his dignity in the role of UK ambassador for space and science in general. He knows that job is more important than the ISS experiments themselves.
We need more scientists in the UK if we are ever going to remain credible and maintain a grip on future technology markets to add to our proud history (steelmaking, jet engines, industrial revolution etc.)
>>7722819
SOON
>>7723013
>SOON
The time is drawing neigh, anon....
>>7722527
I dunno why it took so long to try it, but the Progress M-16M flight in 2012 was the first to dock only four orbits (six hours) after launch, over a decade after flights were being made to the ISS.
>>7722946
If it works, then it's great and I'm all for it. But I still think the best way to inspire the young would be to actually achieve great things in space instead of forcing hype because an European with a British flag on its shoulder visited the ISS.
For instance, I'm thinking of meaningfully contributing to ESA missions (instead of spending all our ESA effort on boring things like telecommunication) or, more importantly, getting the Skylon to fly (that would be really grand).
>>7722236
>nothing new to do there.
there is everything to do
because we haven't been there yet
>>7722158
POO IN LOO
O
O
I
N
L
O
O
>>7723060
Skylon is an exciting project for sure and the Sabre engine could well be a gamechanger, but Reaction Engines is a company still in it's infancy and they haven't been very good at convincing investors
The "boring things like telecommunication" make up a huge part of the UK space industry and bring in £££. Companies like Inmarsat are world leaders in these areas and the UK is ahead of the game when it comes to small satellites. It would be stupid not to invest in these areas where we are already strong.
tl;dr People with money don't want to lose it, so they would rather invest in pylons than Skylons
>>7722245
There may be a significant amount of Helium 3 in the Lunar regolith, but estimates suggest that over 150 million tonnes of regolith would need to be mined in order to obtain just one tonne of Helium-3.
Why is NASA spending so much on a giant launch rocket like the SLS
Is it really so hard to assemble premade components in orbit sent up one at at time with a cheaper rocket?
>>7722435
The crewed Martian rover is made to cover a 300km-radius zone.
Il would take one hundred years to 75 years to do the same.
And they're going back with rocks to test in all the possible ways unlike the rover which can only do a few tests.
>>7724220
Why does it need a crew for that? There has been plenty of development for autonomous vehicles on Earth and Mars has none of the obstacles they need to interact with.
>>7723227
>but estimates suggest that over 150 million tonnes of regolith would need to be mined in order to obtain just one tonne of Helium-3.
Current mining techniques allow for such inefficiencies, so yes, that estimate is accurate.
In time such inefficiencies would be replaced with better off-Earth mining techniques that would allow for the collection of H3 without such a large lunar mining footprint.
>>7723117
The British development of the Skylon is the one of the single most exciting things to come out of a civilized nation since the Apollo project.
I for one am eager to see it come to fruition. But as you said, Reaction Engines needs to convince investors.
If they are smart, they could overcome potential investor objections by showcasing how successful SpaceX has been in recent years.
>If only Reaction Engines had a secondary company making electric cars the Limeys would buy
>>7724220
Why even have a rover? Humans riding mountain bikes is the most efficient solution.
>>7724264
Skylon is vaporware. I am usually a champion of "out there" ideas but this is barely any better than a Kickstarter pitch to me. They have nothing to prove their product works despite years of research.
>>7724316
>Skylon is vaporware
Building the Skylon isn't the problem, its ensuring the Sabre Engines are working properly.
>They have nothing to prove their product works despite years of research.
The European Space Agency is partially funding the building of the engines. The US Airforce has determined that building the engines is feasible.
As of last October, the project got additional funding from BAE systems.
If this was a Kickstarter pitch, then it's likely to be a successful one since REL is getting funding and support from major government and private firms.
