/sci/ - Science & Math

Jobs was working on doing it in style, but he died.

>>3866892
I heard he was going to call it the iRam.

More like iQuit.

Because it's fucking hard and expensive.

>>3866887

Costs too much to get stuff into orbit for construction.

Fuck rockets.

Can't use cannons because.... I'm not sure why.

Can't build space elevator because we haven't figured out how to cheaply manufacture reasonably long carbon nanotubes.

Japan's working on that in between nuclear catastrophe.

>needs to buy transport to ISS from Russia
>dreams exploring the galaxy

>>3866887
btw i met the guy that designed that starship.

robert bussard like a boss. he died like a month later.

no, it was the i-ran right after the i-rack?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw2nkoGLhrE

>>3867090
You better fucking believe I do.

>>3866887
>Why aren't we exploring the galaxy at relativistic velocities yet?
Ships large and sophisticated enough to do so would be absolutely gargantuan, and as sending anything into orbit costs thousands of dollars per kilogram, it hasn't been done. We require some way of easily assembling most of the heavy components in orbit out of asteroids/minor gravity wells.

...because our civilization has myriad fundamental flaws.

NASA's budget is smaller than the militaries budget for air conditioning in the Middle East alone.

>>3867127

>>3867139
And most of NASA's budget is siphoned off by bureaucracy.

>>3866887
Rome wasn't built in a day. Interstellar colonization won't happen in just 50 years.

Yeah, let's get to spreading that nifty Islam thing to the rest of the Universe, ASAP.

>>3867149
We could have been doing it by the time the 20th century ended.

>>3867090
We don't need to, we want to. But nice facts.

>>3867127
That's hilarious. I can't tell if you are joking though.

>>3867149

But Rome was built in a day. Their expanded Roman empire took a bit longer to establish.

>>3867163
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8601975/US-spends-12.5-billion-a-year-on-
air-con-in-Iraq-and-Afghanistan.html

Because the closer to a relativistic speed an object goes, the heavier it gets. The space time dialation is "relative" to a velocity curve, and when time gets slower, things become smaller and more dense and massive. As we know, force equals mass times acceleration, and at huge masses youd need an incredible amount of force needed to push it with even a slow acceleration and our energy sources just arnt capable of doing the job, i believe one day we will achieve it, then we're off to the stars :D

>>3867168
Hey man, it's fucking hot over there.

>>3867177
USE PORTABLE LFTRs THEN GODDAMNIT

We have telescopes, they explore the universe at the most relativistic of relativistic velocities.

>>3867184
Light? :p

>>3867168
Well shit.

>>3867168
>telegraph
>according to a retired officer
>including transport and security
>about 12.5 Billion
>about

how scientific

>>3866887
Dat some BUSSARD RAMJET I see?

>>3867181
The...the fuck? Yeah, let's get right on that. Expensive portable nuclear reactors in the most violent region on the planet. What could go wrong?

>>3867196
>being in the most hostile place on Earth in the first place

>>3867191
Is NPR better for you? Same ultimate source of course.
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning

>>3867127
>NASA's budget is smaller than the militaries budget for air conditioning in the Middle East alone.
>NASA's budget is smaller than the militaries budget for air conditioning
>NASA's budget is smaller than the budget for air conditioning
>budget for air conditioning
ASFJOKBVFSAI:PFVHL:BOFSBVL:JFHONBH{FIBBOJ:OVFUJDVFGJFGUBSVFBVJLFDUBGKJBUGBFSLKVBSHUGGTEURSB:OJKBDOFG
UDBFGBGOLK)FSGRHEWS

>>3867717
$20 billion, in fact

We are exploring them at relativistic speeds, but not velocities yet, we need more technological advancement.

>>3866887
Christians

\thread

>>3867081
>Can't use cannons because.... I'm not sure why.
Because the last guy that tried that got assassinated by Mossad.

>>3867759
Really? I wouldn't put it past them.

>>3867764
He was working for Saddam Hussein at the time, and it is kind of suspect that the cannon was pointed in the direction of Israel.

>>3867775
So why haven't WE done it? It sounds cheaper.

>>3867784
Because it's very very hard to get a mass moving at the velocities needed to get into orbit using a cannon. A rocket has constant thrust, allowing it to build up to the necessary velocity over time instead of having to get to that velocity while still close to the ground.

>>3867803
So do a combo. Use a cannon to get over the initial 'oomph' and then blast off and away!

>>3867784
Apparently we did it just couldn't quiet reach orbit, and I guess we just lost interest after Gerald Bull's assassination.

>>3867813
That sounds massively over complicated and expensive.

>>3867837
Not really. The only tricky part is scaling it up. I'm pretty sure something like that already pseudo exists. I'll be back in a sec...

>>3867813
>>3867837

>Martlet 2G-1
> A proposed space launch vehicle variant of Martlet 2G, which had a solid rocket motor in the projectile. The follow-on 2G-2 would have had a second rocket motor and been able to place the second stage in orbit, though with little or no payload.
>Martlet 3
> A series of more advanced rocket propelled projectiles in the HARP project.
>Martlet 3A
> Intended to be a 16-inch (410 mm) diameter, gun fired rocket projectile able to reach 500 km altitude. The rocket motors' solid propellant deformed during firing and the design was never successful, despite several test firings.
>Martlet 3B
> Similar to the Martlet 3A, using steel casings and attempting to solve some of the 3A model's problems. Unsuccessful.
Martlet 3D
> This model was going to be a suborbital test rocket, using the first stage of the Martlet 4 solid rocket version. As Martlet 4 was never built, no Martlet 3Ds were produced either.
Martlet 3E
> A suborbital solid rocket designed to be fired from a smaller, 7-inch (180 mm) cannon used in the HARP project.
>Martlet 4
> Two versions of full scale orbital launch vehicle projectiles were proposed in the Martlet 4 series. The first used three solid rocket motor stages and was planned to orbit about 50 pounds of payload. The second used liquid rocket motors and was planned to have orbited 200 pounds of payload. Both were about 28 feet (8.5 m) long and 16 inches (410 mm) in diameter, weighing about 2,900 pounds (1,300 kg) at launch. No Martlet 4 vehicles were built; the project halted before the design was completed.

For whatever reason during Project HARP we stopped right before the good part.

>>3867849
Found it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun

>>3867813
>>3867837
>>3867849
http://www.universetoday.com/73536/nasa-considering-rail-gun-launch-system-to-the-stars/
Sort-of cannon.

>>3867863
>For whatever reason during Project HARP we stopped right before the good part.
Here, from the WikiLink.
>The politics of the Vietnam War (then in its fifth year) and soured Canada/U.S. relations played their role in the project's cancellation. The project received just over 10 million dollars during its lifetime.

>>3867884
> The project received just over 10 million dollars during its lifetime.
Meanwhile...
>The amount the U.S. military spends annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan: $20.2 billion, according to a former Pentagon official.

>>3867863
because aliens recently contacted us an gave us better technology. but instead of using it for good it'll be used to enslave us all by the illuminati and then illuminati will slowly be infilitrated by aliens. the aliens have pretty much outsmarted our elite

none of you will ever go into space nor know scientifically if we will ever make it into space, so stop posting about it and trying to waste money on it

Bussard ramjet makes me lol

Good luck slowing down once you get to wherever you're going

>>3867970
They could always turn around?

>>3867991
you only need to take one look at the design to see that the craft relies on the forward motion to continually propel itself forward

ergo, with the bussard ramjet design, thrust only goes in the direction you are already traveling

>>3867939
The technology:
http://techland.time.com/2011/04/06/spacexs-falcon-heavy-most-powerful-private-rocket-ever/
http://www.universetoday.com/73536/nasa-considering-rail-gun-launch-system-to-the-stars/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4799369.ece
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43451526/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/nasa-selects-new-heavy-lift-r
ocket-say-sources/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/24/skylon_esa_report/

The will:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bIQLiKi3g
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/02/lord-british-wants-to-take-you-to-space-and-hes-closer-th
an-you-think.ars/3
http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/04/26/elon-musk-we-can-put-a-man-on-mars-in-10-years/
http://www.gamefront.com/john-carmack-helps-make-space-travel-more-affordable/
http://www.virgingalactic.com/

>>3867939
The time (and one of the main kicks in the ass to get it started):
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/forever-young/manhattan-beach-project-end-aging-2029
http://www.ted.com/themes/might_you_live_a_great_deal_longer.html
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/sierra-sciences-working-towards.html
http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3329065877451441972#
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-biologists-yeast-cells-reverse-aging.html
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-dna-reverse-premature-aging.html

The economic benefits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
>At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Earth_Objects#Near-Earth_asteroids
>As of May 2010, 7,075 near-Earth asteroids are known,[14] ranging in size up to ~32 kilometers (1036 Ganymed).[16] The number of near-Earth asteroids over one kilometer in diameter is estimated to be 500 - 1,000.

>>3868016
I see you're still ignoring how badly you got told in that solar panel thread yesterday...

>>3868027
You'll have to refresh me on that as I believe I had to leave before that thread concluded.

>>3868014
>>3868016
not this bullshit again

>>3868040
Copypasta'd for your enjoyment.

>>3868036
That mining asteroids for the purpose of returning said resources to Earth is not viable. The fact that you're impressed by big numbers such as "$20 trillion dollars" doesn't change that.

Mining asteroids for purposes of in-situ resource utilization, on the other hand, is another matter altogether...

>>3868036
Also, for all you derps herping about the unviability of Photovoltaics and Thermal Solar: STRATOSOLAR.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/stratosolar-for-concentrated-solar.html

>>3868045
see
>>3866849

>>3866887
we are relatively exporing the galaxy.