I'm so excited for this. Really hoping for great success.

Rapier108 said:

---

I know most people here don't care about the SLS for whatever reason, but the first launch is set for 8-29 with a 2 hour launch window opening at 7:33AM Central Time.

---

I am very much into this launch. Sure it's very late and way over budget, and Starship will make a much better rocket, but I've been waiting for 50 years for this. I will be watching closely.

We have a million data points to study over less than a 500 year period of time. Our human data points mean nothing on the a galactic scale, we are interpreting things that we can only guess about.

Now, the theory that the Big Bang didn't occur is big news but moving it back further in time wouldn't be that surprising.

Trying to make plans to go down to Kennedy next Monday. 50% chance of rain early that day though. Have family in Coco beach.

I'm pumped for Artemis I. While there are very valid critiques about it, it's a big hairy American rocket and I want it to achieve its mission objectives. We don't know what the space world will look like by the time Artemis III happens but it'll be great to see the huge orange fuel tank back in the skies.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

I'm pumped for Artemis I. While there are very valid critiques about it, it's a big hairy American rocket and I want it to achieve its mission objectives. We don't know what the space world will look like by the time Artemis III happens but it'll be great to see the huge orange fuel tank back in the skies.

---

Agree with this. The more options to go to space, the better.

I'm reading one of the articles linked in your article:
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215

I don't understand this:

Quote:

---

the new galaxies have redshifts which are also two to three times greater.

This is not at all what is expected with an expanding universe, but it is just exactly what I and my colleague Riccardo Scarpa predicted based on a non-expanding universe, with redshift proportional to distance. Starting in 2014, we had already published results, based on HST images, that showed that galaxies with redshifts all the way up to 5 matched the expectations of non-expanding, ordinary space.

---

I thought redshift was proportional to distance because the universe is expanding. Redshift comes from both the velocity between us and objects we observe and the expansion of space. If space isn't expanding, then we're back to everything just speeding away from us without explanation?

OnlyForNow said:

---

We have a million data points to study over less than a 500 year period of time. Our human data points mean nothing on the a galactic scale, we are interpreting things that we can only guess about.

---

We have datapoints including objects 12.9 billion lightyears away. That's far beyond galactic scale.

But the time scale in which we have to observe these things isn't. It's on the human scale and we've been "guessing" at ages for a while now.

Having a lot of data points is great, but if the data is all only from the last 500 years it doesn't mean anything, as we have no way to calculate rate of change on a scale of something that is between 300 million and a billion years old.

We know approx. how long it takes light to get from here to there but that's it.

You might want to watch this video from an astrophysicist to decodes the latest findings and settles the discussion down (and start at 9:41 where he starts getting into it)

bthotugigem05 said:

---

I'm pumped for Artemis I. While there are very valid critiques about it, it's a big hairy American rocket and I want it to achieve its mission objectives. We don't know what the space world will look like by the time Artemis III happens but it'll be great to see the huge orange fuel tank back in the skies.

---

There are so many better options than SLS. Hanging our hats on SLS as "well, it's American and it's a way to space" is what got us stuck with shuttle, and let Shelby et al do so much damage.

We need to move on from a rocket with no future( not just because it's expensive.... we still d9nt have a supply of engines in the long* run)

The problem with SLS is not that it's flying, it's that it's keeping other, BETTER options from being developed and used, just like shuttle did.

OnlyForNow said:

---

But the time scale in which we have to observe these things isn't. It's on the human scale and we've been "guessing" at ages for a while now.

Having a lot of data points is great, but if the data is all only from the last 500 years it doesn't mean anything, as we have no way to calculate rate of change on a scale of something that is between 300 million and a billion years old.

We know approx. how long it takes light to get from here to there but that's it.

---

I'm sure you probably know this, but if not or other readers don't know - when we're looking at something that's 12.9 billion light years away, we aren't looking at something that happened within the last 500 years. We're looking at something from 12.9 billion years ago. And that's one of the main purposes of looking at things far away: to look further back in time.

And by looking at objects everywhere in between here and 12.9 billion LY, we get a large statistical sampling of what occurs at all times in between.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

There are so many better options than SLS. Hanging our hats on SLS as "well, it's American and it's a way to space" is what got us stuck with shuttle, and let Shelby et al do so much damage.

We need to move on from a rocket with no future( not just because it's expensive.... we still d9nt have a supply of engines in the long* run)

---

I think there will be a point within 3-5 years where it will become blatantly obvious to even the most hardcore SLS supporters that SLS is pathetically outclassed by Starship, and Starship will replace it.

I look forward to seeing what happens, and hope to see landings at Shackleton Crater

Decay said:

---

Eye roll time.

No real astronomers, physicists, or cosmologists are "worried" about having more data to examine the early universe. Identifying holes in established theories is what's good about actual progress.

This is more a blow for the weird scientism people that are obsessed with "settled science". Of course they usually want to make overreaching policy based on it.

My guess is that this is probably going to throw more numbers into the age of the universe formula instead of changing the whole paradigm.

---

No, the people that are "panicking" are plasma cosmologists, who have never been taken seriously and who cannot explain everything that big bang cosmologists have seen as evidence. They're seizing the opportunity after a new telescope comes on line to get their voice out there to journalists who don't know better to sow doubt in the big bang theory.

No, that I understand; at least as much as my biology brian can warp around it. What I am pushing is that, we don't know what those masses/galaxies/formations/stars looked like 1 million years ago (earth time).

Hell there could literally be no discernible change from then until now.

Looking further out into the universe allows us to look at light from objects, this light is from years in the past telling a story, the problem is, I don't think we have a very good handle on how to interpret this information.

We do what we can with what we have, but we don't understand it. We're throwing theories against the wall basically (I know it's not that simple - but in the scheme of the cosmic universe, it is the bacteria, on the pimple, on the fly, on the elephant.)

I actually think we may be looking at a push for an LEO to LLO ferry concept by then. With starship having a massive refueling capacity, and lunar starship being able to make multiple landings before refurbishment, a dedicated lunar "taxi" starts to make sense.

Thx, it's all pretty fascinating to me. I dunno who is right at all.

Edit: yes, a lot of clicks can be generated with sensationalist claims/headlines. My guess is that…Einstein/Big Bang/relativity/genesis hold up, yet again. But who knows? That's the fun part of the game.

OnlyForNow said:

---

No, that I understand; at least as much as my biology brian can warp around it. What I am pushing is that, we don't know what those masses/galaxies/formations/stars looked like 1 million years ago (earth time).

Hell there could literally be no discernible change from then until now.

Looking further out into the universe allows us to look at light from objects, this light is from years in the past telling a story, the problem is, I don't think we have a very good handle on how to interpret this information.

We do what we can with what we have, but we don't understand it. We're throwing theories against the wall basically (I know it's not that simple - but in the scheme of the cosmic universe, it is the bacteria, on the pimple, on the fly, on the elephant.)

---

If you want to know what objects 1 million light years away looked like 1 million years ago earth time, look at objects 2 million light years away. No, they aren't the same objects, but you can see statistical trends that will tell you what the object you're looking at 1 million light years away would have looked like 1 million years ago earth time.

You would probably say, yeah, but we don't know, and I know there's some people who revel in thinking there's things we don't know when we actually do. I'm not saying this without knowing there has been tons of experiments on light and time propagation that give us very good confidence in saying that you can trust that looking at something 1 million light years is exactly like looking at something 1 million years ago. This isn't chaotic stuff like weather that is significantly affected by small changes in a variable. This is pretty straight forward stuff and is very repeatable.

As for the so called discrepancies claimed by some of these plasma cosmologists, there's really not any point in their theories since they cannot explain why there isn't anything seen beyond 13.7 billion LY, so their theory is stuck right now until they can get past that hurdle. If they want to explain the discrepancies they claim JWST is seeing they'll need to first come up with a new theory that explains why nothing is seen beyond 13.7 billion LY.

I don't know enough about this to make inferences regarding comparing two things that aren't the same but should be considered similar.

It's done in a lot of other fields in specific situations and then not done for exactly the reason that you stated, "just don't know".


So what's your take on this new information?

Sorry if you already posted it.

I love the idea of "big bang deniers" running to get headlines out there.

It's definitely attention-grabbing, and being used to draw in audiences.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

I'm pumped for Artemis I. While there are very valid critiques about it, it's a big hairy American rocket and I want it to achieve its mission objectives. We don't know what the space world will look like by the time Artemis III happens but it'll be great to see the huge orange fuel tank back in the skies.

---

There are so many better options than SLS. Hanging our hats on SLS as "well, it's American and it's a way to space" is what got us stuck with shuttle, and let Shelby et al do so much damage.

We need to move on from a rocket with no future( not just because it's expensive.... we still d9nt have a supply of engines in the long* run)

The problem with SLS is not that it's flying, it's that it's keeping other, BETTER options from being developed and used, just like shuttle did.

---

Are you referring to the RS-25? Because Aerojet posted on their LinkedIn page a couple weeks ago that they've manufactured the full set of engines required for Artemis II (I would assume that includes the RS-10, as well). So I'd say the engines are the least of our problems with SLS at this point.

Senate Launch System gets around $2.8 billion a year, plus Orion etc.

That's money that could/would otherwise go...to better things.

https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-james-webb-space-telescope-images-do-not-debunk-the-big-bang/

Quote:

---

Where did "the Big Bang didn't happen" come from?
It all started with an article at The Institute of Art and Ideas, a British philosophical organization, on Aug. 11. The piece was written by Eric Lerner, who has long argued against the Big Big theory. He even wrote a book titled The Big Bang Never Happened in 1991.

This provocatively headlined article at IAI is also related to an upcoming debate Lerner is participating in, run by the IAI, dubbed "Cosmology and the Big Bust."

Lerner's article gathered steam across social media, being shared widely on Twitter and across Facebook, over the last week. It makes sense why it's caught fire: It's a controversial idea that upends what we think we know about the cosmos. In addition, it's tied to a new piece of technology in the James Webb telescope, which is seeing parts of the universe we've never been able to see before. Including Webb as the news hook here suggests there's new data which overturns a long-standing theory.

Don't get me wrong -- there is new and intriguing data emerging from the JWST. Just not the kind that would undo the Big Bang theory. Most of this new data trickles down to the public in the form of scientific preprints, articles that are yet to undergo peer review and land on repositories like arXiv, or popular press articles.

Lerner's piece uses some of the early JWST studies to attempt to dismiss the Big Bang theory. What's concerning is how it misconstrues early JWST data to suggest that astronomers and cosmologists are worried the well-established theory is incorrect. There are two points early in Lerner's article which show this:

He points to a preprint with the word "Panic!" in its title, calling it a "candid exclamation."
He misuses a quote from Allison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas.
The first point is just a case of Lerner missing the pun. The full title of the paper is "Panic! At the Disks: First Rest-frame Optical Observations of Galaxy Structure at z>3 with JWST in the SMACS 0723 Field." The first author of that preprint, astronomer Leonardo Ferreira, is clearly riffing on popular 2000s emo band Panic! at the Disco with his title. It's a tongue-in-cheek reference, not a cosmological crisis.

As for the second point, Lerner takes this quote from Allison Kirkpatrick, which comes from a Nature news article published on July 27:

"Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning and wondering if everything I've done is wrong."

This cherrypicked quote isn't in direct reference to the Big Bang theory. Rather, Kirkpatrick is reckoning with the first data coming back from the JWST about the early evolution of the universe. It's true there are some puzzles for astronomers to solve here, but, so far, they aren't rewriting the beginning of the universe to do so. Kirkpatrick has stated her quotes were misused and even changed her Twitter name to "Allison the Big Bang happened Kirkpatrick."

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

So what's your take on this new information?

Sorry if you already posted it.

---

I think it's BS. See Definitely Not A Cop's post above.

nortex97 said:

---

Senate Launch System gets around $2.8 billion a year, plus Orion etc.

That's money that could/would otherwise go...to better things.

---

Oh dude, you're preaching to the choir here. I've gone on record saying SLS isn't a good idea. I was just curious if Ag_08 was referring to the RS-25, as that seems to be the least of the problems with SLS (I would argue it's a good engine, actually, though I wish we weren't chucking actual Shuttle articles into the ocean).

TexAgs91 said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

So what's your take on this new information?

Sorry if you already posted it.

---

I think it's BS. See Definitely Not A Cop's post above.

---

Agreed, but unfortunately none of the rebuttal in that article really explain why.

However it's new data and so I think we'll know a lot more once papers that are actually peer-reviewed come out.

nortex97 said:

---

Senate Launch System gets around $2.8 billion a year, plus Orion etc.

That's money that could/would otherwise go...to better things.

---

I don't disagree but based on our current govt here are the better things they would spend it on
1. Ukraine
2. IRS agents
3. Student loan forgiveness
4. Free stuff for illegals

Out of these choices it's a great spend. But yes it is still a yuge waste

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Senate Launch System gets around $2.8 billion a year, plus Orion etc.

That's money that could/would otherwise go...to better things.

---

I don't disagree but based on our current govt here are the better things they would spend it on
1. Ukraine
2. IRS agents
3. Student loan forgiveness
4. Free stuff for illegals

Out of these choices it's a great spend. But yes it is still a yuge waste

---

Literally launching money into space is better than our government spending it... sh-t I wish you were wrong

Private PoopyPants said:

---

I'm so excited for this. Really hoping for great success.

---

Sadly the SpaceX fanboys want it to fail. While they will use various reason why (cost, engines, prevents development, etc. etc. etc.), they pretty much want SpaceX, and maybe one or two small companies to handle the mundane stuff, so SpaceX can get all the headlines.

Decay said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

So what's your take on this new information?

Sorry if you already posted it.

---

I think it's BS. See Definitely Not A Cop's post above.

---

Agreed, but unfortunately none of the rebuttal in that article really explain why.

---

See this video at 9:41

Elon had a funny quip about that too. Can't remember the precise wording but something along the lines 'thank goodness we haven't discovered intelligent life elsewhere yet, or our government would have sent them money.'

So can they get a pic from Uranus or Neptune? We havent had a good pic of that since Voyager.