But the example isn’t about small rocky planets in general, it is worded to specifically be about small rocky planets at a comfortable distance from their star. We aren’t just looking for Earth-sized planets, we are looking for Earth-sized planets at an Earth-like distance from a Sun-like star.
Class “M” FTW, me hearties! 
I am wondering if any (obviously tentative and provisional) concensus has started to emerge among professional astronomers & astrophysicists about just how typical, or otherwise, our solar system is?
And by extension, how probable Earth-like planets are in the galaxy?
Presumably by some sort of compilation and meta-analysis of results to date, allowing for observational limitations?
We’ve found a lot of hot Jupiters, for example, and I assume that if a star has one of those, its planetary system is very unlike ours and almost certainly won’t have an Earthlike planet. But of course, what we can observe is still very limited by instrumentation, and thus biased.
That’s in Star Date code though, isn’t it? Aaargh, to be sure, Cap’n…
This article links to two studies published this year.
Thanks for the link. I would have been surprised if people weren’t already thinking about this; it’s an obvious question.
I do wonder about the statistical coverage, though. What percentage of somewhat sunlike stars within the range where we can so far get useful data have yet been observed in sufficient detail?
So we can classify them into, say:
- definitely has at least one planet (hot jupiter or whatever) that rules out a solar-system like ours
- Looked at but no planets detected so far, might be ones we can’t detect with current instruments, but at least no hot Jupiters solar system showstoppers etc.
- Not surveyed yet
Well, we will get better results as instruments improve!
A neat video of the Orion capsule coming in from orbit:
Some of the sounds are a bit terrifying. The big clunks are the reaction control thrusters, used to orient the capsule. It’s neat how the gases from the system affect the plasma trail. They change the shape of the trail almost instantly, illustrating how fast the external flow actually is (>10 km/s). From one frame of video to the next, any change in the trail has already traveled hundreds of meters.
Thanks for that! Super cool.
It’s a time lapse, so all that movement we’re seeing is accelerated. Still a neat video, thanks.
ETA sorry, I’m conflating this one you posted to one a different one I watched that was a time lapse. The one you posted is not, sorry about that.
I’d forgotten that Artemis/Orion did that “let’s bounce off the atmosphere multiple times” thing. The video made a whole lot more sense when I remembered that.
No prob. It’s rare that we get to see full, real-time videos of reentry. I recall one from the Shuttle’s SRBs, but that wasn’t from orbital speeds. And a partial one from SpaceX’s fairings, but again not orbital.
Well, this isn’t exactly ‘exploration’, but today the FCC revoked SpaceX’s $885 million Starlink grant to provide high speed internet to rural areas.
IMO, this is more retributional targeting of everything Musk does by the Biden admimistration. They also reduced Tesla’s EV subsidy to zero in January, when it was expected to be cut in half.
Their reasoning is novel: Spacex is supposed to provide a certain number of customers (640,000 or something) by 2025. The FCC decided, in a first, to forecast the future and decide in 2023 that SpaceX won’t meet a target two years from now. They aren’t holding any other award recipients to this, even though SpaceX is very likely to hit their target and the others aren’t.
Here’s a dissent from one the FCC commissioners:
Pretty obvious double standard here. Not only is it ridiculous that they are holding Starlink to a performance standard today that competitors must only meet years away, but they did so in the most pessimistic way possible, by averaging in performance results from dense areas. But the subsidy is for rural users, who are in exactly those areas where Starlink service works best.
They could have just put some people in a van and driven around to a few of these areas to see what the actual performance is like. Of course, that still wouldn’t account for future improvements in satellite capacity, etc., but it would be better than what they did.
And even aside from all that, if they were really being fair they’d apply a discount to competitor services, since Starlink works today, while the others are theoretical. ISPs have not been known for following through on their plans in the past.
Letter of dissent in a more readable PDF form:
In other news, Saudi Arabia is pulling out of the UN Moon Treaty in favor of joining the Artemis Accords:
https://thespacereview.com/article/4706/1
This is good news for space development.
Pour one out for Booster 1058:
During transport back to Port early this morning, the booster tipped over on the droneship due to high winds and waves. Newer Falcon boosters have upgraded landing legs with the capability to self-level and mitigate this type of issue
Went to space and back 19 times and lost due to Poseidon’s bullshit. Had a good run, anyway. Has hauled 860 satellites weighing 260 tons to space, which is more than many spacefaring nations have launched in total. Won’t be long before one of their boosters hits 20.
Makes me wonder whether it’d be cost effective to have some humans go out there within a few minutes or hours of landing & clamp, chain, or weld the landing feet to the deck. Might be a low-tech and relatively low-cost way to increase the maximum survivable tipping angle.
Clearly they thought of this possibility, but I wonder if the “minimize human workers” mantra overrode the engineering and accounting.
They have a robot called the ‘Octagrabber’ which scuttles out after landing and secures the rocket:
The older booster may not have had whatever the grabber needs, though. I vaguelly remember something about it only working with a newer generation roxket.
Early on, they did have workers board the ship and weld shoes onto the “feet” to secure it. A pretty dangerous operation even under good conditions. As Sam Stone said, they have the Octagrabber now that stabilizes the rocket, but it wasn’t enough in this case. The Octagrabber is the somewhat mangled-looking white square at the base of the rocket:
They’ve lost a couple of boosters previously due to high seas. Boosters cost around $30M, and it seems that the loss rate is around 1%, so whatever the fix is, it should probably cost <$300k to be worthwhile. It wouldn’t surprise me if the insurance costs alone for putting humans on the barge would exceed that. Hopefully, Octagrabber upgrades plus the new self-leveling system will help bring the loss rate down further.
Booster comments from SpaceX’s VP of Launch:
Super disappointing and sad to lose booster 1058.
Tippy boosters occur when you get a certain set of landing conditions that lead to the legs having uneven loading. Heavy wind or sea state then cause the booster to teeter and slide which can lead to even worse leg loading. In this state, securing with the OG is super challenging and often only partial successful
We came up with self leveling legs that immediately equalize leg loads on landing after experiencing a severe tippy booster two years ago on Christmas (first flight of 1069). The fleet is mostly outfitted, but 1058, given its age, was not. It met its fate when it hit intense wind and waves resulting in failure of a partially secured OG less than 100 miles from home.
One thing is for sure… we will make lemonade out of lemons and learn as much as possible from historic 1058 on our path to aircraft like operations.
OG = Octagrabber. I’m thinking the new system compensates for the crush cores somehow. The legs have extruded/honeycomb aluminum cores that absorb energy on a hard landing, but end up permanently crushed, so if one side landed harder, that leg will be shorter, and the booster will end up tipped in that direction. The new system either compensates for the crushing or replaces the crush cores completely.
Might indicate a downward adjustment to the Drake Equation and its derivatives…