It’s not the height, it’s the velocity.
It’s also worth noting that a suborbit can be accurately defined as an orbit that intersects the earth or its atmosphere. So even if you have orbital speed, if there’s not a sufficient horizontal component to it, you’ll still end up back on the earth before you go around.
Click on it. You know you want to.
And yes, before anyone complains, there are many inaccuracies. It’s entertaining nonetheless.
I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but this looks like an interesting master’s thesis.
An asteroid will pass us on Sunday at about a tenth of the distance to the moon.
There are a lot of natural disasters we won’t be able to prevent (e.g., supervolcano explosions, or a nearby gamma-ray burst). But this is something that we could, if we were willing to devote more resources to it. And it wouldn’t take a lot more. In fact, it could be done for a lot less than we’re wasting on SLS/Orion.
So the big news today is that they’ve named the supercluster we live in:
Scientists previously placed the Milky Way in the Virgo Supercluster, but under Tully and colleagues’ definition, this region becomes just an appendage of the much larger Laniakea, which is 160 million parsecs (520 million light years) across and contains the mass of 100 million billion Suns.
Which kicked off this Twitter exchange between me and Lee Billings.
Your cosmic address: Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, and now, the Laniakea Supercluster. http://t.co/eKbFMzJC8r
— Lee Billings (@LeeBillings) September 3, 2014
@LeeBillings Does this mean we need more numbers for our zip codes? Also, "Local" Group doesn't seem very descriptive. Everyone has one.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 3, 2014
@Rand_Simberg Given that we'd have to travel a few megaparsecs to shift our perspective to another "Local Group," I think the name is okay!
— Lee Billings (@LeeBillings) September 3, 2014
@LeeBillings Not consistent. Why does every other level get a name? Why not "Local Star System," "Local Galaxy," "Local Supercluster," etc.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 3, 2014
@Rand_Simberg You'd need to ask Edwin Hubble, who coined the term. Or maybe other mid-20th-century astronomers who adopted it?
— Lee Billings (@LeeBillings) September 3, 2014
Accordingly, I propose that we rename the Local Group the Hubble Group, in honor of its namer, and making it consistent with the other names. I will henceforth call it that. If anyone asks, I’ll explain.
Bill Nelson wants to speed it up (to where it was before) by wasting even more taxpayer money on it.
I agree with Stephen Fleming about this press release.
Every word in the second paragraph of this release is a lie. (With the possible exception of "the" and "and.") #space http://t.co/yTwUvQZDbP
— Stephen Fleming (@StephenFleming) August 30, 2014
I’ve been pointing out all of the nonsensical, engineering-illiterate praise for SLS on Twitter. “Most powerful,” “fastest” etc. I loved this one today:
The new #NASA megarocket is going to be big and LOUD! http://t.co/3DMZIZX7N6 pic.twitter.com/JSQIr8rCIw
— NTS (@nts) August 30, 2014
My response:
@nts Who knew that LOUD was a figure of merit for launch systems?
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 30, 2014
Apparently it was a blocked sensor port:
“I can tell you that it certainly looks like it was basically a single-point failure that existed on that test article that does not exist on the Falcon 9,” Reisman said. “We think it was a failure of a single sensor, and Falcon 9 has multiple sensors in its algorithm that it uses. So if the same failure occurred on the Falcon 9 it would not affect the mission in any way.”
The sensor failure in one of the three Merlin 1D engines on the Falcon 9R caused the vehicle to stray from its intended flight path, triggering an automatic self-destruct command to ensure it did not threaten nearby people and property.
Reisman said an operational Falcon 9 flight, which uses nine first stage engines, could overcome the loss of an engine. On the three-engine Falcon 9R, such redundancy does not exist.
But still no announcement of a new launch date for AsiaSat 6?
This looks like an interesting plan, but it’s not clear that making it a tourist destination would be compatible with its current R&D activities.
As Jim Muncy points out in comments, we’ve seen this show before.
[Update a few minutes later]
More on Congressional stupidity over at Space Politics.