/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10410639
Parachute dumbass.

>>10410642
Oh no! I'm hurtling towards the atmosphere at speeds upwards of 15,000 miles per hour! I know! These thin sheets of silk will save me!

>>10410639
it would not be not to burn up

>>10410639
Depends on a lot of factors. Not enough information was given.

>>10410639
How about this: what's the maximum velocity (and the maximum starting altitude (non orbital)) where a human wearing a standard NASA space suit could survive retry.

>>10410693
Hey you only said 350 miles up, you didn't specify that it was in orbit

>>10410842
Still, even if you did fall from 350 miles you still me going just under 700mph when you hit the thermosphere, and parachutes aren't even effective untill the stratosphere!

>>10410724
The air foil would cause the parachute not to open correctly.
As wing design doesn't work in the upper atmosphere.

>>10411007
The word your looking for is a parafoil

>>10410744
What factors do you need ?
Just a object
At what max speed will there be no burn up ?

>>10410766
1000 mph

So you can go up as fast as you went.
Coming back down you need slow down.
To 1000 mph or under ?

>>10411028
Is that actually the correct answer?

>>10411014
Yes sorry

>>10411058
Black bird suites were at 1000 mph along with the x 15 suits
The black bird broke apart one survivor the other broke his neck.
I think they were at Mack 6 at the time of break up

>>10410984
350 miles is the start of atmosphere. You'd be 0mph when you "hit" it since that is your starting point. All that's left is typical terminal velocity that increases as the atmosphere thickens. Meaning you wouldn't need a parachute until you reach the troposphere then you just use it as you normally would since terminal velocity will have already slowed you to the point you can use a parachute.

>>10411028
Well actually it's 1001 mph

>>10411159
Felix accelerated to 833 mph before he reached terminal velocity and started slowing down, and he only jumped from 24 miles. And recent studies have shown the "atmosphere" extends out to near or past the moon

>>10411191
>And recent studies have shown the "atmosphere" extends out to near or past the moon

lol No, they are only detecting the atmosphere trail where the particles that escape are being blown by, "solar winds."

>>10411189
Really
Wow I had always thought 1000 but 1001 would make scene .

Ok the space shuttle descends at 17200 mph this speed causes a burn up if you slowed that down to 1000 mph would you still have the burn up ? At what speed do you experience burn up from 350 miles above earth ?

>>10411272
17200 mph is about minimum orbital speed. To descend slower you can't rely on atmosphere braking like the space shuttle, you'll have to actively apply reverse thrust which I doubt any spacecraft can carry enough fuel for it.

>>10410639
Well, I'm not going to research your homework to actual numbers for you, but... Keep in mind that the X-15 flew in excess of 5,000 mph, and the SR-71 2,100. and that's in the thick atmosphere no more than about 20 miles up. There isn't much appreciable atmosphere to slow the dropped object (because it's nowhere near orbital speed), so you go figure out how fast it'd be before getting into thick enough atmosphere.

>>10411413
>>10411413
Right I understand that.
You would need to refuel in orbit then come back.
Reverse thrust with a s spiritual down using electric motors.
We know electric motors work in space
Mars rover
Moon buggie from apolo 16
Maybe it time to rethink
Like kit cars
Prototype aircraft is lot easier and cheaper then the apolo days.

>>10411737
>>10411737
The x 15 still had heat shields on it, what I'm saying is no one is changing re entry or thrust. Still using the van Braun brute force method

Now the size

>>10411852
That POS is gonna get more people killed

>>10411793
Electric motors would lose efficiency as you descend into the atmosphere. Roughly speaking, you need the same amount of thrust that got you to orbit to deorbit slowly. In case of the shuttle, you'll need another set of SRBs and external fuel tank waiting in orbit. You could probably get with less since you can rely on gliding and chutes for the final approach.

>>10411863
Ok so he is not safe with humans
But the technology is there for robots to fly unmanned
No one going to let him do something unsafe with humans
His autonomous is genius

>>10411889
It could be possible on a electric motor
If found a shape to give you lift at that altitude

>>10412012
Sorry, must have misunderstood you. I thought you meant electric propulsion, ie. Ion thrusters. Electric motors as in rotary propellers?

>>10412051
Yes rotary electric
For different environments

>>10410766
probably a couple meters, standard spacesuits don't have parachutes. There is the idea of space diving though, to sky dive from suborbital altitudes in a special suit. The main problem is attitude control so you don't spin out of control. There's no reason we couldn't make a space suit capable of withstanding reentry, although it may not end up being very suit like. See the MOOSE concept for more
>>10412088
past a certain descent rate, propellers don't create any thrust due to vortex ring state. Propellers also don't work very well at high mach numbers.

>>10412096
>>10412096
Right
But what if there was away
Wright brothers everyone was like ooo yea air foil
I understand what your saying
And a space suite is 7 layers of different materials you can't really stop your free fall from 350 with no friction

Plus you need a constant 4.8 psi in the suite

>>10412088
I doubt any electrical source is sufficient to power any sort of rotary engine, whether it's propeller of turbine, and produce any significant thrust. Batteries has shit TWR.

>>10412184
Right
But there getting better
The small green
Has helped that technology
Joke small green
The tall white

>>10412153
That's a fundamental limitation of propellers. Luckily there is such a thing as air friction. I have no idea why you brought up how many layers a space suit has.

>>10412206
I read it wrong
Sorry

There's other was no one has put it together yet .
Coal engines to electric engines
No I don't like the green deal

>>10411085
the blackbird cannot do mach 6

>>10412399
Mach 3 sorry

space isn't real you stupid cunts. it's 2019, you have to be really, really, really fucking stupid not to realize you're on a flat, stationary disc by now