Comments by "H. de Jong" (@h.dejong2531) on "" video.

  1. Generally, the faster, the better (less energy loss on the way up). For human launches, you want a slower rocket, to keep the G-loading on the astronauts tolerable.
    3
  2. The aviation industry uses about 100,000 times more fuel than the rocket industry.
    2
  3. That was recorded from an aircraft flying at an altitude of a few km. Look at the telemetry; it's not at an altitude yet that can only be reached by rockets.
    2
  4. Aviation uses about 100,000 times more fuel than the rocket industry. The industry would have to grow by several orders of magnitude to get to 'devastating' levels.
    1
  5. One disco ball vs. 25,000 Starlink satellites. Do you see the difference?
    1
  6. LARES-2 is an attempt to measure it more accurately.
    1
  7. LARES-2 is an attempt to measure it more accurately.
    1
  8. Yes. LARES-2 is an attempt to measure with more accuracy.
    1
  9. The descent stage uses a parachute, plenty of opportunity for some string to get loose before the landing.
    1
  10.  @passivehouseaustralia4406  "string" is shorthand for anything woven into a cable-like structure. I haven't seen a more detailed announcement.
    1
  11. You have to divide that cost by the number of targets, which will be a few hundred thousand over 20 years.
    1
  12. LARES-2 is an attempt to measure it more accurately.
    1
  13. Yes. LARES-2 is an attempt to measure it more accurately.
    1
  14. LARES-2 is an attempt to measure it more accurately.
    1
  15.  @qcodes5547  This is called 'gravity losses', this video explains how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOX1ldnO0Uo
    1
  16. 1. it's a "disco ball" that only reflects light in the exact direction the light came from. 2. one disco ball vs. 25,000 Starlink satellites. The difference should be obvious.
    1
  17. Amateur astronomers have taken pictures of JWST, so it's certainly doable for Hubble. But at a distance of 1.5 million km, it won't resolve much detail.
    1