400 km?
NASA
Submitted 3 weeks ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/bb8fc7db-95b2-46e1-a40e-f4416b1bcd8e.jpeg
Comments
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Soulg@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
The ISS orbits at web altitude between 360-440 km
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
People are complaining about pics from the ISS? I thought they must be talking about Mars or something. ISS pics are usually amazing.
jaykay@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Ooo not that far, I might take a bike trip
navi@lemmy.tespia.org 3 weeks ago
ISS orbit is 408km.
zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
No, it currently is at an altitude of 426km (was at 423km when I started writing), the orbit isn’t at a fixed altitude though, it varies, and the residual atmosphere causes drag which means every once in a while the orbit has to be adjusted.
Soulg@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
That is well within the range I posted, yes.
praise_idleness@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
But that’s shorter than Texas! How hard can it be!
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Valid, but I hate your texas analogy.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Texas is nearly 4,000 miles tall. We just hang out on the surface.
zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
400km is nothing, if you have/had satellite TV the signal comes from a geostationary orbit (35 786 km) and it has to get there first and if you’re not exactly below the satellite it’s even farther away. Streams from the ISS having low quality (do they actually have low quality?) is due to either bad cameras or cameras aging faster in space due to high energy particles hitting it.
BluesF@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The ISS also moves relative to the receiver, whereas geostationary satellites don’t.
xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
I feel like “moves relative” also understates just how fast it moves: ~19,000mph
zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
It’s a trade-off, either you have to do tracking and compensate for doppler shift or you have to deal with really bad SNR.
monobot@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
While going 17000km/h.
pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 3 weeks ago
Well, depends on your reference point.
IrritableOcelot@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Well, yeah. The earth is a better reference frame, but the orbital velocity of the moon (3679.2 km/h) is no less impressive.
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
There was an unfortunate overwriting incident:
The Apollo 11 missing tapes were those that were recorded from Apollo 11’s slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape at the time of the first Moon landing in 1969 and subsequently lost.
CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Meanwhile the perseverance rover sending back incredible quality footage of its landing
DrownedRats@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I was going to say, forget 400km, try 8.5 light minutes lol
HexBroke@hexbear.net 3 weeks ago
The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, NASA officials said on Thursday.
h3mlocke@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Is 400 km a lot? 🤷♀️ I’m american…
TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
It’s 200 km from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. The moon is 400.000 km away
NegativeInf@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Your fancy decimal/comma swapping sure does make this seem like nothing with extra significant digits.
thegoodyinthehoody@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I truly don’t mean this as an insult, but the second half of your post could apply to almost anything after a question mark it could be a new form of “that’s what she said”
You could be a trailblazer🤷♂️ But then I’m Irish…
helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
tal@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
glimse@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Who does this
BakerBagel@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
Musk-ovites that want to take NASA’s budget and out it in Elon Musk’s pocket.
threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
This used to be the case, but now the tables have turned. There was a time when SpaceX launches were streamed in 4k and NASA launches were only 720p. Now NASA streams launches in 4k and SpaceX streams moved to Xitter.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Should all of NASA’s budget go to SpaceX? Obviously not. But should they outsource their rocket development and launches to SpaceX? Without question.
The Falcon 9 has already revolutionized earth observation and science projects with how cheap it has become to get science satellites into orbit, and Starship will be able to lift 100 to 150 tons for $30M per launch, and will be able to launch 30+ times a year. SLS, NASA’s traditionally designed and built rocket, will be able to lift 95 tons to orbit for $2200M per launch, and can only ever launch twice per year.
Do you know how crazy of a difference that is for NASA’s science programs? For their exact same budget, they can either launch 100 tons of experiments once per year, or they can launch 100 tons of experiments every 5 days.
PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
This is the correct answer.
Wanderer@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Starship is coming in a lot cheaper than SLS and SlS had a lot of legacy projects already paid for.
The fact of the matter is the real brainwashed people here are the ones that think Elon Musks Spacex isn’t a revolutionary company. People are talking about rocketry like they are experts but don’t know anything about it.
Giving up on Shuttle and switching to Falcon 9 instead of developing something new was the best use of money Nasa could have done.
Just yea keep circle jerking how Musk is the worst person in every possible way, at least you’re cool!
Oisteink@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
NASA
RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 3 weeks ago
FROM FUCKING SPACE!