Well, the lack of atmosphere on a planet we expect to have the strongest outgassing (due to intense tidal/induction heating) to replenish anything lost in the wind is telling things about the other worlds. Still - fingers crossed for results on TRAPPIST-1 g which are apparently in the works right now.

[removed]

Larry Niven’s Ringworld series has entered the chat

In order to measure a planet’s atmosphere Webb needs to watch the planet transit it’s star (which provides light that filters through its atmosphere). The wavelengths of filtered light then tell us about the atmosphere (or lack thereof in this case).

This planet just happened to be transiting first, I’m sure they’ll look back and observe the others in the system when it’s their turn.

It was in the above link, and I think the localised heating was the suggested reason for the pioneer anomalies. This QI if true would explain the EM drive (which is still under considerable study by DARPA) it would also do away with dark matter explanation of outer galaxy rotation which in turn would mean we don't have to search forever for another particle that might not exist.

Which is really the whole point, an alternative theory has been suggested, the only way to test it is with a space test but everyone looks at this experiment and says oh another EM drive, it's not it's an experiment, the possible results could open up genuine new science and all everyone thinks it's a scam or something are chomping at the bit to say 'eternal motion device' or fringe theory, ok it is a bit fringe, but we accept hawking radiation, it may be we have to accept quantised inertia, there could be an absolute smallest amount of inertia (it's super tiny)

[deleted]

Why are they analyzing 1b when the priority ones in habitable zone are e, f and g? Obviously 1b is a dead planet that surprises no one

[removed]

No one said that all planets must have an atmosphere. I agree that temperature by itself is not a reason for the absence of the atmosphere - however close proximity to the star is - since the stellar wind will strip it, unless the planet has a very strong magnetic field. Venus is not that close to the star - its normal temperature without the green house effect wouldn't have been so high. Also, when you measure the temperature of a planet this way - it is not the the temperature of the surface - but of the emitting layer. And if the emitting layer is so hot - it is probably the ground and there is probably no atmosphere.

[removed]

I get that, I just think that it's important to state whether a photo is an actual photo, or a composite. Once you get into the realm of composites, virtually anything is possible, which means the work should be perceived and judged differently.

That would make the black hole 2 dimensional. I really doubt they are 2d

Starship is likely to do something different with GEO and further missions. Payload to LEO is just so huge and cheap compared to anything else that it will likely do a kickstage or just larger satellite thrusters. Falcon Heavy can only send 26.7t to GTO fully expended and doesn't have the volume to handle too large of a payload. Starship is 100t and likely more to LEO while fully reused with a massive volume as well. Elon himself doesn't care about Falcon Heavy, so I expect SpaceX to find ways to push everything away from FH as soon as possible.

Also keep in mind that once Starship is able to fly and be recovered reliably, it becomes more beneficial for SpaceX to fly Starship more often. A fully reusable Starship should be nearly 1/5th to 1/10th the cost to fly as a Falcon 9, and well past 1/10th to cost of Falcon Heavy.

At least they have built something and are willing to test it (not like Shawyer), the results will speak for themselves.

Of course, if it doesn't work, there will be a gazillion reasons why it should have, but we will see.

Landing a booster from an orbital rocket is a greater challenge than a sub-orbital rocket, but not insanely so. SpaceX took time to figure out how to do it because they were trying many different methods and they were trying to do the R&D extremely cheaply. And it worked. Today we have the benefit of hindsight, and companies like Rocket Lab have the benefit of being able to follow in SpaceX's footsteps, without having to steal their confidential trade secrets. Some lessons on the process are publicly known, such as the use of an entry burn to moderate speed, and so on. Some lessons are actually publicly available data because NASA commissioned SpaceX to gather data on supersonic retropropulsion to inform future Mars landings. SpaceX's "secret sauce" has never been trade secrets, it's always been it's ability to execute operationally and get things done.

Additionally, Neutron is attempting an easier flight profile than Falcon 9, it's not doing barge landings and instead focusing solely on returning to the launch site. SpaceX succeeded with their first ever attempt at an RTLS landing, which was their first successful landing overall, and their success rate for ground landings was very high (100% in fact) even while they were improving the reliability of drone ship landings. It's just an easier and simpler flight profile. But it requires you design the rocket from the get go with that in mind (because you need enough performance margin), which Neutron and Starship have been.

SpaceX may be able to get things done, but Starship is a tremendous amount to bite off all at once. The launch tower is different, the landing profiles are different, there is upper stage atmospheric re-entry and controlled descent, there is upper stage landing, there is the thermal protective system on the upper stage, there is orbital propellant transfer, and on and on and on. Getting all of these things working is required in order to meet their Artemis Program Starship-HLS commitments. Without those commitments it's possible that Starship could see commercial service in a sort of "early access" mode where they were still working on upper stage landings and reuse, but because of the Starship-HLS contract it's very likely that'll be a secondary priority.

I'm not sure why people have this idea that Starship is going to be easy or why Neutron is going to be hard. Neutron vs. Starship are just fundamentally different things. Neutron is a much shorter race to "run" compared to Starship, it's a sprint vs. a marathon. Even if SpaceX is much faster at working through Starship design and development issues than Rocket Lab is with Neutron they just have much, much longer to go.

Nobody cares if you leave the sub or not.

[deleted]

Since we are moving apart rather than together it will never happen…

Link?

The EM drive initial test results were all described as minor heating effects and equipment error and didn't scale.

Think about it, the light I captured is millions of years old already 🤯

Thanks! Sony a7iv, 24mm GM, benro polaris

[removed]

How did you get that cloud in bottom right of the sky to look stationary?

Falcon Heavy does direct GEO insertions that Starship won't do until orbital refueling is available and even then, it will be more expensive than most people expect.

[removed]