/sci/ - Science & Math

As cool as it sounds

I want a fucking education paid for.

I want goddamn health care paid for.

Jesus Christ, we can spend trillions and trillions on a stupid war caused by the murder of 3000 people, or we can let more people die to disease or murder from the ignorant or ignorance every year for far cheaper.

This picture here shows the process: The first rocket is the automated ERV, then the piloted rocket with the crew and a second automated ERV, rinse and repeat and progressively explore Mars.

NEXT CHART.

Here's a slight modification of the Mars Direct called Mars Semi-Direct made by a mission architect who thought the mass of the Mars Direct was too optimistic (ie accused Zubrin of being a fraud, bad bad bad) and so it eventually somehow became the Mars Reference Mission, because NASA apparently likes expensive nonsense.

It consists of using three rockets per launch to launch more shit, an ERV, a hab, and an orbital ERV, so instead of taking the ERV directly to Earth orbit they take the ERV to an orbital ERV and fly to Earth there.

>>2232723
Typical whining liberal retard.
Free market will fix everything.

It'd be great if it was the work of the international community.

It should totally totally be done. Robert Zubrin is da bomb. I think that this project would change the way people view the future and we would have another age like after we landed on the moon.

>>2232723
>>2232723
It's not like we need more people anyways.

>>2232780

>Can't agree on shit
>Expects us to get together and fund a Mars Mission, even an ultra-cheap makeshift desperate one like Mars Direct

Nope.avi. This will be done by SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace and with some hope the Open Space Movement to get HUGE public support revived so the GLORIOUS AEROSPACE CORPORATIONS have their way. Yeah, that's right, back to the 60's hope bro!

Apollo cost 150 billion in today's dollars, I find it hard to believe Mars is doable for a third of that.

Here's a Mars Direct-derived plan which involves using the ICANN-II antimatter rocket. Looking at the images it's inefficient as fuck: Half the mass is a radiation shadow shield.

You gigantic retards. Have you not even heard of Charles Pellegrino? You don't need shadow shields, just have the engine at the front towing the ship and that allows the radiation to disperse >_>

Then you have the problem of the tether being torched: Angling the thrusters would not be an option because a mere five degrees would imply 30% thrust loss. Putting the thrusters on telescoping booms, however, would work.

>>2232793
>glorious aerospace corporations
>mfw corporate territorial control, factional warfare in space, gleaming interplanetary battleships with super-advanced technology
WELL FUCK, COUNT ME IN.

>Earth Return Vehicle

lol. Or not and save $$$

The plan Obama layed out for NASAs next 30 years is basically a lite variation of Mars DIRECT.

So you just need to stay alive until 2030 to see if it works.

>>2232843
forgot my face

I don't get why mars direct people constantly throw out calculations as if the more numbers they show the more likely they will convince someone.

NASA KNOWS HOW TO GO TO MARS FAGGOTS. The one and sole reason it isn't happening any time soon is because of $$$$$$.

>>2232843

>>2232899

>The one and sole reason it isn't happening any time soon is because of $$$$$$.

Once upon a time the Senate gave NASA total freedom to chose the way things were done in space. The 90-day report had a price tag of 450 billion.

Enter Robert Zubrin and the other guy, with their 50 billion Mars-and-back three-year mission.

Enter Elon Musk, with rockets capable of carrying as much as the space shuttle for one tenth of the cost.

The Von Braun Mars Mission study, back in the day where Collier's said "Man will conquer space SOON".

This is a seabro driveby. Reminding everyone that the ISS is ten times larger than America's only undersea science base, which does ten times as much actual science.

Mankind's nature is to expand into every frontier which offers resistance. As if we know nature is keeping something good from us; resources, adventure, dominion.

That expansion will not only be into the reaches of space, but also the depths of the sea, both on Earth and on other water planets like Europa.

>>2233163
>mfw undersea trans-humans are just as crazy if not more than regular trans-humans.

The sea colonies of the near future will teach us how to build the lunar and martian colonies of the far future. Everything we applied to Skylab and the ISS, from life support to breathing gas mixtures, was pioneered ahoard Sealab I and II.

>>2233163
>>2233178

Hey it's all fine and dandy with me as long as we don't leave any place unsettled. We have to do it, not for Humanity, but for the whole community of life: Our job is to go around and turn lifeless hollow husks into life-bearing habitats, and sentience-bearing ones when possible.

And I think we never really had a choice in the first place.

We'll build metal skeletons of new domes, electrify them, and they will naturally accrete ultra dense "biorock" coral; essentially growing new livable space without the use of nanotechnology.

>>2233200

I'm with you, just representing for seabros and posting cool artwork.

Awww yeeeeeeeeeeee

Huh... Seabro driveby reminded me that we haven't done shit in space or the sea: I mean we have the ISS and the Voyagers and Aquarius, but fuck. Civilian outposts? Anything massing over seven hundred tonnes? Undersea self-sufficient cities?

NOPE.avi

Well guys, at least your cities don't need delta-v's of 7.5 km/s to reach.

Pic mildly related.

>>2233200
>Our job is to go around and turn lifeless hollow husks into life-bearing habitats, and sentience-bearing ones when possible.

AHAHAHAh no.

>>2233221
Dat Inurdaes Art.....

>>2233241
:3

>>2233221

MILLION NUKES

>>2233225

>>Civilian outposts? Anything massing over seven hundred tonnes? Undersea self-sufficient cities?

An undersea civilian colony is in the works. Two modules have been built and will undergo testing in 2012, in preparation for the founding of the colony in 2014.

http://www.underseacolony.com/

This is possible because of centrifugal oxygen separation, a simple low cost technology which permits enough air to be removed from seawater for one human being at only 150 watts, in a package the size of a suitcase:

http://www.likeafish.biz/

While surface buoys will stick around for emergency support, they will ditch the costly always-on gasoline generators and air compressors that make Aquarius expensive to keep running and instead use solar panels to drive centrifugal separators which will fill banks of scuba cylinders sufficient for 2 weeks or so of backup air.

>>2233255
CCM, I've been meaning to ask you about this.
I cannot into physics for shit, we would there be a difference if the nukes didn't slow down Phobos, but just deflected it? As in it would still go the same speed bu the explosion would send it off to a different trajectory. Would still a fuckhuge amount of nukes need to be used?

>>2233268

>testing in 2012, in preparation for the founding of the colony in 2014.

Just in time for the Bigelow space stations.

COINCIDENCE?

>>2233272

I will show you what would happen with another educational image.

>>2233281

>>Just in time for the Bigelow space stations.

Imagine a video call between Atlantica and the bigelow space hotel. It would be the civilian equivalent of the radio conversation between Scott carpenter in Sealab I and an astronaut aboard Skylab that blew everyone's minds in the late 60s.

This guy's also being built right now. The funding's there, courtesy of sponsors, but there's a bit of a dispute over the preferred site.

http://www.seabase1.org/

If they can settle everything quickly they should begin laying the foundation shortly.

>>2233272

And the heavy lifter to take us there.

>>2233365
Can't make a spiral without a continuous burn (or series of burns.)

>>2233479

Reminds me of the 'Jupiter' heavy lifter. That design was insane. Two external fuel tanks, with four SRBs? They were just begging for something to go wrong.

It frustrates me no end when people talking about setting up a semi-permanent base on mars before doing it on the moon first, where it's safer and easier. Not going to get into it though.

Also, no one on /sci/ ever talks about the development of scramjet technology, which is the being pursued to some degree by all the spacefaring countries, and is one technology that holds the promise of single-stage-to-orbit.

>>2233365

>>2233539
You do realize CCM is not an expert right?

>>2233554
He can into physics at least a little bit.

>>2233571

No. You need to get rid of the orbital momentum entirely, that is, one nuke after the other with the explosions on the side of Phobos that faces its direction of motion.

>>2233525

>It frustrates me no end when people talking about setting up a semi-permanent base on mars before doing it on the moon first, where it's safer and easier. Not going to get into it though.

Nope. Zubrin has been going on and on about this. The Moon has water spread out in a few particles per cubic meter, it has no Carbon or radioactive stuff, all it has is cratered wasteland. If we're going to the Moon, it will be to deploy Von Neumann robots and turn the whole fucking thing into a solar panel. And beam it all to Earth.

Mars has all the elements needed to support, well, anything really, and can be terraformed within centuries, or, if we develop molecular nanotechnology within this century, it can be done in lass than 150 years, ie. Von Neumann Greenhouse Gas Factories or whatever.

>Also, no one on /sci/ ever talks about the development of scramjet technology, which is the being pursued to some degree by all the spacefaring countries, and is one technology that holds the promise of single-stage-to-orbit.

Scramjet spaceplanes are complex and have short lifetimes. Rockets may be inefficient, but they are simple straightforward things, and build a super-heavy lifter wouldn't cost much: Really it's just all a scaled up rocket, nothing more, the added fuel doesn't change the cost since fuel is 3% the cost of a rocket.

>>2233525
> doing it on the moon first, where it's safer and easier.

Not by a long shot. The moon has no atmosphere, so it's being constantly bombarded by meteorites the size of a grain of sand but with the energy of a bullet. There's a reason the lunar surface is covered in really fine dust.

Mars has enough atmosphere that only sizeable meteorites will make it to the surface, and they're many orders of magnitude less common than the tiny ones.

Also, resources are rather scarce on the moon, while mars has significant amounts of useful materials (e.g. CO2, water, nitrogen).

>>2235495

This.

People only want to go to the Moon first because it's nearer, but in reality, once you get into orbit it really isn't a big deal, moving around interplanetary space.

>>2232779
>another age like after we landed on the moon

>implying Murrcs ever landed on the Moon.

>>2232760

Just like it fixed the economy. Oh wait, it was the repealing of the Glass-Steigel act and the creation of an economy with a complete lack of regulation that got the entire world into this fucking mess in the first place.

Fucking logic and education, how does it work?

>>2235250
One of the problems of cost is the fact that each rocket stage is disposed of except the solid rocket boosters of the space shuttle.

What if each rocket section could 'transform' from a cylinder shape into an aircraft shape and fly back home?

If each rocket stage had more weight because of jet engines, foldable wings, landing gears, wouldn't the rocket need an extra stage or two for the payload to get to orbit?

At least that way if three sections could undock and land at a runway safely wouldn't that make getting to orbit a lot cheaper if the entire rocket was re-usable and could fly straight back to the depot reducing recovery time and costs?

Wouldn't this ultimately lower the cost of getting to Mars?

>>2235708

Well, I'm pretty sure the stages of the Falcon 9 separate and splash down.

>>2235708
Perhaps it could just glide down instead of using jet engines?

>>2235715
Sorry Coffee Mug,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdgDTgEKPXs

Elon Musk got interviewed about Falcon 9's reusability, its NOT.
Dragon, maybe yes. but the first two stages are not recoverable. they burn up on reentry.

To overcome this problem particularly with the second stage is you will need to turn the 2nd stage into a drone and it needs to be piloted in such a way it can return home safely, and it will undergo enormous heating from partial re-entry. Heatsheilding the 2nd stage would add weight to the entire system and probably require an extra rocket stage to compensate, and if the 3rd stage has to be heatshielded also, maybe you need a 4th stage.

So to have a completely reusable, fly-backable system to get a dragon sized capsule into orbit you would probably need a seemingly inefficient 4 stage to orbit design. But with the added bonus of being able to do a launch a week. :D

What happens if the wind makes it glide into a house or a school?

>>2235751
Hire Steve Jobs as PR and get him to convince everyone else it's an added feature.

>>2235751


CASUALTIES OF PROGRESS

>>2235744

Ah fuck it then. Let's see how different it gets with the Falcon XX.

Maybe we can have a skyhook tether the stages into an orbit for recovery and use as space station parts? :D

>>2235744
This is Buckypaper its made from fullerenes (nanotubes) carbon held together by the van der waals force.
Its light as a feather, strong a steel, can be cut with scissors and very heat tolerant.
I'm surprised Musk hasn't invested in this material, it would surely allow any second stage rocket reentering the atmosphere to survive the sheer heating caused by air friction.

Shame its quite expensive still, it would be a good investment if you wanted a reusable 2nd stage however I feel.

What are your thoughts?

>>2235798

Well, we have at least five or ten years before nanomaterials become common and affordable. Then two decades or three or four until molecular assembly, and at that point, when we get the assemblers, we'll be able to look back and say that all former times have come to an end.

>>2235810
Have you ever thought about colonising Venus instead of Mars?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus

I accept that the Venera probes by the soviet union all died and it took 12 missions just to get a single photo off the surface before even the pressurized, cooled rover cooked.

I would argue "Don't land on the surface"

Instead inflate a biglow station about 48km above the surface at which point the pressure outside is 1 bar, same as earth and the temperature is between 0-50 degrees c. Solar panels would work VERY well in high venusian atmosphere but very poorly on the surface which you wouldn't go to unless you had a liquid helium cooled diving bell.

Stay afloat, harvest residual oxygen out of the atmosphere and find out ways of turning gases into food water and oxygen.

I know its a bit off-topic but I'm just trying to think outside the box.

I mean, Mars is fricking freezing, why not go somewhere nice and sunny instead?

>>2235858

In the 1920's Buckminster Fuller calculated that a large enough geodesic dome would lift off and stay afloat without any Hydrogen or Helium, just air. On Venus it would be much easier due to the high density, the heat and all that, and let's not forget the huge amounts of Carbon just scattered about. It's a simple thing, really, carrying a folded Fullair to Venus and deploying it there, then using assemblers inside to make more fullairs, each with terrafoming facilities, etc etc.

>>2235858
Well how do you cook your meals on venus, do you just lower it on a chain until you reach 3 bar 200 degrees then haul it back up after half an hour?
Mmmm methane presure cooked emergency rations.

>mfw i'll be in the asteroid belt, then on to the stars

>>2235869
Can we convince someone to fire a rocket at venus with a model airship and prove that the concept will work? Maybe then we'll send astronauts somewhere nice rather than a freezing cold rock

>>2235890
Less gravity that's for sure, just make sure you teather yourself down when you go to sleep.

Watch out for meteorites, remember it doesn't matter if the rock hits the glass or the glass hits the rock, the effect is still the same

>>2235858
I have two objections:
Solar radiation
Sulphuric acid eating away at structures

>>2235902
That's what vacuum skins and genetic engineering are for. Have fun among the cosmos brother, maybe we will meet one day in some part of space-time. Best of luck, in your endeavors.

>>2235911
Solar radiation: Roofing lead +loads of solar panels, problem solved.

Sulphuric acid? Pah, potassium doped ceramic paper lining around the entire station's shell.

Take loads of Sodium Hydroxide with you to neutralise any seepages.

>>2235938
Eh, sounds good, but I wouldn't dare step on the station for fear of some catastrophe that would send it plunging into the depths of the Venusian atmosphere.

That scene from The Core when the ejected compartment of the digger got crumpled gave me nightmares, even with all the scientific inaccuracies.

>>2235938
>>2235938
>>2235911
The acidic atmosphere is going to be quite an issue, I can see any venusian floating colony requiring plenty of resupplies of acidic resistant material, unless we could send down dive teams to the surface to get venus rock which doesn't seem to mind the corrosion terribly.

If only we could coat the whole of Venus with solar panels we could cool the world down enough to be terraformable.

>>2235960

>>2235955
Hmm what would you die from first, getting dissolved by the acid, asphixiated by lack of oxygen or crushed from atmospheric implosion?
Better make sure you repair any punctures QUICK

>>2235981
You forgot that the temperature is 475'C