Spacecraft thread! Anything is applicable, from predictions on significant advances in related technology to information on past and current spacecraft.

File: 24 KB, 600x264, normandyag1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 15:49:43 2010 No.1373918 [Reply] [Original]

Spacecraft thread!

Anything is applicable, from predictions on significant advances in related technology to information on past and current spacecraft.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 15:54:43 2010 No.1373941 So, you've put basically the same thread in /tg/ as well? great

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 15:55:43 2010 No.1373947 >>1373941 The fuck are you on about?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 15:57:43 2010 No.1373957 I thought BSG's approach to space travel was acceptable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 15:57:43 2010 No.1373960 File: 42 KB, 600x506, 13334141_11n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1373918 Falcon 9, it's awesome, and it makes 'Constellation' fans butthurt.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 15:59:43 2010 No.1373964 File: 798 KB, 1280x800, Space_Shuttle3b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The space shuttle is fucking gorgeous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 15:59:43 2010 No.1373965 Shit...what's the scientific term for the theoretical warp drive? You know what I'm talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 15:59:43 2010 No.1373967 File: 71 KB, 384x561, Ariane 5-384-ARIANESPACE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] We need landable first stage rockets and landable booster rockets. This would make the system a lot more reusable with less turnaround time

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:00:43 2010 No.1373973 >>1373965 You mean when you fold space in front of and behind the ship? No idea pal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:01:43 2010 No.1373981 >>1373965 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:02:43 2010 No.1373985 >>1373981 Thank you!

>>	Scia Sat Jul 10 16:03:43 2010 No.1373992 File: 55 KB, 800x450, 1278633057659.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:03:43 2010 No.1373993 >>1373985 Dude, it was literally 10 seconds to find it. I typed 'warp drive' in the wikipedia search bar.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:04:43 2010 No.1373997 >>1373965 There are a few hypothetical FTL drive concepts floating around, some of them even use principals that aren't completely incompatible with currant observable reality.

>>	Scia Sat Jul 10 16:04:43 2010 No.1373999 File: 1.20 MB, 1536x1024, Soyuz_acoplada_MIR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:08:43 2010 No.1374014 >>1373992 That's not a spaceship, that's a passenger version of the x-15

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:08:43 2010 No.1374017

>>1373960
Indeed. I love how the 'save constellation' camp spent months hammering away at the idea of private spaceflight being a joke, a dream, that nothing would come of it for decades. F9 went up and that talking point vanished and all the people who ever brought it up have suffered collective amnesia.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:09:43 2010 No.1374024 I liked how they built a functional FTL capable space ship in the middle of a forest inside a dirty grain silo in Star Trek First Contact.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:11:43 2010 No.1374042 >>1374024 >grain silo it was a nuclear missile launch complex, what do you think they used as a starting point for the warp ship?

>>	Lone Wanderer !!TI3ka8HOGie Sat Jul 10 16:12:43 2010 No.1374046 >>1373957 The only realism salvageable from BSG, love it as I do, is the liberal use of nukes in space.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:12:43 2010 No.1374049 File: 927 KB, 1280x800, shuttle nose 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm sad that they are retiring the shuttle. :(

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:15:43 2010 No.1374067 >>1374049 We all are... but you've had six years to come to terms with it. Get over it and look towards the future!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:15:43 2010 No.1374069 >>1374049 At least something even more awesome will replace it! That is assuming that Nasa gets any funding, I wish the government would focus as heavily on space as possible.

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:17:43 2010 No.1374077
File: 65 KB, 550x412, buran-pad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Why don't we build a new breed of space-shuttle with good computers on it and more boosters so it can build space stations in higher orbits?

We could build a "fly-back" fuel tank that lands on the runway!

The space shuttle is really old now, we need a new shuttle, I mean a new fleet of shuttles.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:18:43 2010 No.1374086 File: 12 KB, 371x371, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Infinite improbability drive The only way to do space travel right.

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:18:43 2010 No.1374087

>>1374046
I really liked how the vipers maneuvered by using those small thrusters on the nose and the back. And they also had the main engines facing both directions. Those were a really nice touch and made the whole thing more realistic.
Although they forgot to do the same with the raiders which just sailed through the ocean of space...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:18:43 2010 No.1374090 File: 12 KB, 436x435, 1276314213051.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1374069 >implying any of the current in-house options NASA has pursued/proposed aren't festering piles of shit.

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:18:43 2010 No.1374091

>>1374069
Yeah that's the big problem right now. While the proposed $6 billion of additional funding for NASA over 5 years is a good start, let's be fucking honest - if we want to go anywhere in the next decade they need more like an extra $10-15 billion over the next 5 years.

The main reason that the timeline in the new proposal is so stretched out (new design finalized by 2015, asteroid missions in the 2020s, Mars missions in the 2030s) is because no one in the administration or at NASA thinks there's going to be any steady or sufficient funding.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:20:43 2010 No.1374103 >>1374086 So improbable it actually sounds plausible. The craft simultaneously occupies every conceivable point before reemerging at the desired location.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:21:43 2010 No.1374104 >>1374077 The whole concept of a reusable spacecraft is just really unprofitable at this time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:21:43 2010 No.1374109 >>1374091 A plan! I have one! Redirect all funding from Iraq and Afghanistan to Nasa, on the condition that they equip a satellite with 'Rods From God'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:23:43 2010 No.1374123 >>1374109 Didn't we sign some treaty prohibiting the development of space-based weapons?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:24:43 2010 No.1374131 >>1374123 Fuck that shit, I'd like to see the UN stop a kinetic bombarment!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:25:43 2010 No.1374139 >>1374123 Only bans testing nukes in space. Kinetic kill vehicles still count as conventional.

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:31:43 2010 No.1374178

>>1374109
That's overkill. While NASA does need more funding, if you throw several hundred billion dollars a year at them they're not going to have a fucking clue what to do with it.

Increasing the annual budget to say, $30 billion a year is more than enough. Or if you REALLY wanted to help secure long term funding, require a certain percentage of the Federal budget each year to be set aside for NASA.

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 16:48:43 2010 No.1374259
File: 52 KB, 800x600, 1274584411025.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1374131
Easy, we have a lot of anti-satellite missile.

And I want to slap you to propose us a idea that could result in the Kessler's syndrome.

My pict : Bussar Ramjet.
Unpractical for interplanetary travel but with great potential for Interstellar distance....and further.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 17:02:43 2010 No.1374331 File: 552 KB, 800x600, Tardis_Earthbound3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1374086 Yeah, Infinite Improbability is okay. Let's add another dimension up in here!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 17:07:43 2010 No.1374355 File: 143 KB, 793x1020, SP-X33.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 17:40:43 2010 No.1374525
File: 30 KB, 640x360, Doctor-Who-Series-5-Coming-Soon-Trailer-71.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1374331
Do you TRY to sound like an intergalactic wog or does it come naturally? If you weren't such a tosser you'd realize that the infinite improbability drive is CLEARLY the most logical and likely option.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 17:42:43 2010 No.1374544 File: 187 KB, 658x428, 6a00d8341bf7f753ef00e55395f8cd8834-800wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The only spacecraft america will have soon

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 17:44:43 2010 No.1374558 >>1374544 Launches at 1/20th the cost of one space shuttle mission? Well that there's a heck of a deal! I'll take it!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 17:45:43 2010 No.1374561 >>1374558 even if the awesomeness is 1/40th?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 17:46:43 2010 No.1374565 >>1374544 >spacex >speisex >spacesex

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 17:47:43 2010 No.1374568 Solar sails, how do they work?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 17:52:43 2010 No.1374590 >>1374568 lol... >>1374565 >>1374558 >>1374544 Meh, SpaceX is shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 17:55:43 2010 No.1374601 >>1374561 Space Shuttle - 24,000kg to LEO, ~$1b per launch Falcon 9 - 11,000kg to LEO, $50m per launch Falcon 9 Heavy - 32,000kg to LEO, $78m per launch $41,600/kg with the shuttle vs $4,500-2,500/kg with the F9 No contest

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 18:00:43 2010 No.1374627 >>1374590 >butthurt 'Constellation' fan

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 18:00:43 2010 No.1374629 >>1374590 Serious question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 18:14:43 2010 No.1374704 >>1374627 more than likely

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:07:43 2010 No.1375331

>>1374629
>>1374627
>>1374704
I'm a fan of neither actually, I absolutely HATE Elon Musk (the owner of SpaceX, among other things). He's using archaic chemical propulsion methods to fund not only his other ridiculous projects but also his "holier than thou" big-dick ego. Fuck him.

I'm a proponent of tapering off use of chemical propulsion in exchange for using EM technology in, at first, a hybrid chemical rocket and eventually total reliance on magnetic railguns.

And don't even get me started on solar sails. Light provides, at BEST, 8 millionths of a Newton of thrust.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:09:43 2010 No.1375342 >>1375331 8 millionths of a Newton of thrust per meter squared of sail* Sorry, left that out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:12:43 2010 No.1375362 >>1375331 True, but unlike others in the space game, he's actually delivering on his promises so far.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:14:43 2010 No.1375367 Shame that true space travel will never be possible ;_;

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:15:43 2010 No.1375370

>>1375331
>Buzz word circle jerk

Sooo, you idea is to dump technology that works, and is actually dropping in cost, in favor of dumping billions into a system that is at best 0.1% fiscally efficient to chase technologies that won't, at best, have basic test articles for a decade and will almost certainly cost way more to run than the currant system.
facepalm.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:15:43 2010 No.1375374 >>1375367 Pessimist. Also I don't know what more you expect from space travel besides traveling... in space, which we do on a somewhat regular basis now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:16:12 2010 No.1375375 >>1373916 Ｗｗw.aＮｏLｏlTAlk.Ｓｅ_ＲｅPｌacE_lol_ｗITｈ_ｎ n s eyckdiwq lia unmrty na ir gw kkofp

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:18:11 2010 No.1375385 >>1373917 www.ＡｎｏlＯｌＴａＬｋ.Sｅ_ReＰＬＡＣe_ｌＯl_ｗＩｔｈ_N k r p fs ero a rcsm ux tzkar esj tmpqhaf fwy

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:18:43 2010 No.1375387

>>1375374
I mean like why we used to dream of as a kid.
Such as in star trek (I'm thinking if voyager) but none of the technology is even nearly here.
We would hav to be able to create wormholes on command to be able to travel even nearly fast enough to get anywhere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:19:43 2010 No.1375391 >>1375387 *how we

>>	Scia Sat Jul 10 20:22:43 2010 No.1375406 File: 703 KB, 2389x1564, apollo_11_lunar_module1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] bump for space thread

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:27:43 2010 No.1375435

>>1375387
Sure, we're not likely to be soaring to planet Vulcan anytime soon... but always look on the bright side. You're living in what will probably be one of the most exciting eras in history, spaceflight will continue to become more and more affordable over the coming decades, and many companies (Bigelow Aerospace for example) are already working on plans for commercial space stations within the next five years. Humanity is finally moving up from dipping it's toes in the water to wading into the shallow end of the pool. We'll live (well, most of us) to see Man return to the Moon, travel to Mars, and likely beyond.

The best is always yet to come!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:30:43 2010 No.1375453 >>1375435 Space: The Final Tourist Destination

>>	снайпер Sat Jul 10 20:33:43 2010 No.1375473 >>1375331 >herp derp we should use magic instead of chemical rockets You're a moron, and I want you to know this.

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:35:43 2010 No.1375487

The secret for making access to space cheaper isn't ever more expensive high-tech boondoggles. It's flight rate, even with expendables the more launches you can spread your non recurring costs over the better, the more experience you get launching your system the better, the more chances to improve your production efficiency the better. And once you get the pump primed with a cost drop, you attract more work. In time more exotic systems will develop, fully reusable systems will begin to dominate before the end of the decade and then mass drivers and laser launchers will be perused, but only after earlier systems establish the market to make it cost effective.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:40:43 2010 No.1375534 >>1375487 Exactly, and these private companies are already making huge progress! SpaceX has already cut the cost of launches by 90%, imagine if that trend continues at even remotely the same rate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:41:43 2010 No.1375537 >>1375331 > railguns fuck you.

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:52:43 2010 No.1375636

>>1375534
yup, and they are set to eat everyone else's lunch, we will see some fascinating stuff as the current semi private launchers scramble to compete. And the launch market is going to explode, the global number of launches per year is going to at the very least triple in the next 5 years, in the existing telecom and earth sensing markets alone we will see many new entrants. (that's ignoring the manned market) then it will really take off as the development cycle drops from 5 years to 6 months and we see a few years of annual doubling of flight rate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 20:53:43 2010 No.1375646 The normandy < The collector station

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 21:15:43 2010 No.1375783

One of the things that doesn't get a lot of mention with the F9's maiden flight is the abort. The launch was aborted with only 5 seconds left to ignition, yet they managed to fix the problem and make for a second, successful, liftoff in less than an hour. Before then, that kind of turnaround was unheard of. If that had been NASA, the ESA, or the RSA - the launch would have been delayed for days.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 21:18:43 2010 No.1375806 What we need for space flight is the food replicator from star trek. Basically you can make food/clothes etc out of thin air. Unfortunatly this is impossible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 21:31:43 2010 No.1375879 >>1375806 How about we worry about affordably transporting crew and cargo before magic alchemy boxes?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 21:44:43 2010 No.1375945 >>1375879 i think he's mocking >>1375331, at least i hope so, because >>1375331 needs to be mocked.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 22:07:43 2010 No.1376086 >>1375945 this is true

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 22:08:43 2010 No.1376092 File: 13 KB, 298x298, tardis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] i wish

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 22:11:43 2010 No.1376112

>>1373964
Little known fact: the Space Shuttle only looks how it does because of warfare. When the Shuttle was being designed, NASA was in a era of budget cuts. However, at the time, the Air Force still had an independent program for their spy satellites and nuclear deliverance. The Air Force agreed to relinquish its space budget to NASA in exchange for the use of the Space Shuttle and influence in design choices.

The Space Shuttle as we know it was chosen for its ability to deorbit before a full orbit; it was meant to deliver military payloads into or over Soviet airspace without being tracked.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 22:16:43 2010 No.1376135 File: 133 KB, 304x400, GenesisI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Bigelow bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 22:18:43 2010 No.1376146 >>1376112 A choice the Air Force regretted quickly, the shuttle was never an effective military sat launcher and was bottleneck for the early 80s

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 22:20:43 2010 No.1376158 >>1376146 But its inception as a weapon pains my inner child. I'm not being sarcastic. The thought actually hurts.

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 22:28:43 2010 No.1376196

>>1376158
Wow, and the irony is your pussy attitude is why the assholes of the world are allowed to run free. Realize weapons are part of not just the real human experience, but the life experience.
You want people to not get hurt? Get strong enough to protect them.
From each other.

Anonymous Sat Jul 10 22:35:43 2010 No.1376215

>>1376196
Oh shut the fuck up. I live and work on a military base as a researcher for DRDC / DND. I evaluate and refine weapons systems for the Canadian Forces and NATO professionally at CFB Suffield. My job is making our militaries more lethal. Don't give me your bullshit as if you know who I am or my views on life or reality.

My opinion on the Space Shuttle is unchanged.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 22:43:43 2010 No.1376252 >>1376215 >>1376196 >>1376158 >>1376146 i laughed at this exchange

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 23:06:43 2010 No.1376317 >>1375487 This

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 10 23:09:11 2010 No.1376324 >>1373914 WｗW.ANoｌolＴＡｌk.SＥ_ReｐLａＣＥ LＯＬ_ｗＩＴＨ_Ｎ hxnkmia duitkd hcqm bxf n xvyhrachaurvjn o wq

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 00:43:43 2010 No.1376758

>>1375945
>>1375537
>>1375473
>>1375370

Ha! See, you all just don't get it. BAE systems already has a 32MJ railgun being tested for naval use in kinetic weapons. Note that this system doesn't even utilize superconducting capabilities. If we apply Moore's Law to this system, we can expect a doubling to 64MJ per railgun in 2.2 years. At the very least, in a system of 8 of these 32MJ devices in a cylinder encircling a craft of 20 tonnes, you can accelerate the craft to 161m/s before chemical rockets kick in (note that I did say this was a hybrid system). So, I'm not actually dropping the use of chemical propulsion, but slowly fading it out as this technology improves to use fuel (electricity) straight from the grid, to eliminate some mass of the craft that is devoted to fuel storage and at the same time save money! In addition, you can already do it with currently available technology. Arguably, it's a lot better of an idea than sticking to an archaic method. Continue "mocking" me if you like, I'll just continue laughing at your ignorance.

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 01:20:43 2010 No.1377020

You people disgust me. All this circular talk when anyone with half a brain can tell that conventional propulsion will never get us off this rock. Hell, the Apollo rockets were superior to the Space Shuttle. We've reached the limit with what chemical propellants can do. If we as a race weren't too stupid to figure out that "nuclear" isn't a fancy work for something that spontaneously explodes we would have a permanent base around Jupiter by now.
And before one of you fucks says something stupid about fallout, I'm not talking about the Orion engine. There are other ways to utilize nuclear space propulsion. Though, I would still take an Orion over that peice of crap space shuttle.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 03:04:43 2010 No.1377558 >>1375331 Fail, chemical propulsion is the only real way to leave the earth..... Plasma engines work great, In space... AND rail guns are still a long way off, let alone a launcher that could send cargo

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 03:15:43 2010 No.1377615

Chemical propulsion is the best available means at the moment. Plenty of cash is being dumped into developing better means but until they produce results and can be replicated affordably and reliably all you're doing by bitching at NASA and SpaceX and everyone else for using chemical rockets is griping that we should refuse to use the best available means of getting into orbit until the magic AWESOMENGINE is designed.

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 04:30:43 2010 No.1378004

You can mine Earth's magnetic field for antiparticles. Antimatter is produced naturally there, through interactions between particles from the sun and space. There's enough there to harvest, and it's being produced at a steady rate.

Jupiter has a far, far larger and more powerful magnetic field than Earth does. So does Saturn.

Nature's already given us a shitload of antimatter factories. All we have to do it get off our asses and get it. Just my two cents.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 04:34:43 2010 No.1378024 File: 46 KB, 757x375, Daedalus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 04:53:43 2010 No.1378094 >>1378004 I fling the pennies into your face before kicking you out the fucking door

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 04:54:43 2010 No.1378100
File: 202 KB, 1000x608, venturestar-x33.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1377020
Well, as far as I agree with your statement that we should use Nuclear propulsion since a hell of time.

You have no idea how "problematic" it would be if said Nuclear Rocket exploded during one launch even out of 1000.
Fusion rocket are less risky and less radioactive but still FAR out of our range.

The problem isn't to use Nuclear in space (we already do it on small pile) but to bring it into space surely.

Since LEO are decaying Orbit I don't think we would accept one under MEO with strapped booster to send it to the sun in case of problem.

This said, I'll wait until my Venture Star is complete (the real one, not the "wrongname" one from Avatar)

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 05:45:43 2010 No.1378202 >>1378004 >derp derp antimatter guys! duh! its so obvious!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 05:56:43 2010 No.1378237 >>1378094 Die in a tire fire, screaming. >>1378202 And you can join him. There's plenty of room.

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 06:00:43 2010 No.1378245

>>1378237
Guys... guys... I got an awesome idea. Guys... listen, we build a magical antimatter vacuum, guys, and we send it into orbit and harvest antimatter from the magnetic field. Then, guys are you listening this is such an awesome idea, we contain the antimatter... 'somehow' and use it to power a freakin' sweet spaceship... that somehow runs on antimatter.

... it's gonna be awesome guys.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 06:15:43 2010 No.1378284 >>1378245 Read, doofus. It's old news. http://www.niac.usra.edu/studies/1107Jackson.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7538

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 06:20:43 2010 No.1378301 http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/blog/antimatter-propulsion-beginnings-true-interstellar-flight/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Valkyrie

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 06:21:43 2010 No.1378306 >>1378284 >"It's just a matter of finding an efficient way to do it." Which has yet to happen. It's possible Teddy Bears make better fuel for fission reactions than plutonium or uranium... it's just a matter of finding an efficient way to do it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 06:22:43 2010 No.1378308 File: 92 KB, 600x754, 4564078.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 06:23:43 2010 No.1378312 >>1378306 I am intrigued by this teddy bear-powered nuclear reactor. Have a proposal on my desk by tomorrow morning.

>>	AIJOU !dYUUJOUw3k Sun Jul 11 06:26:43 2010 No.1378321 File: 113 KB, 684x800, 4577570.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 06:54:43 2010 No.1378401
File: 28 KB, 512x453, project pluto.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

like the other anon i too am holding out for non-chemical atmospheric orbital propulsion methods, such as magneto-hydro-dynamic electric.
such a nice word.

But i guess i'd settle for a fission nuclear atmospheric rocket.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 07:03:43 2010 No.1378450 >>1378401 >Inside SLAM >ISLAM

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 13:01:43 2010 No.1379806 >>1378450 NASA's new goals are finally being met.

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 14:20:43 2010 No.1380301

>>1375331

You are a God damed moron.
>And don't even get me started on solar sails. Light provides, at BEST, 8 millionths of a Newton of thrust.
...And thrust is only important in defeating gravity. When it comes to interplanetary flight ISP is whats important.

EM... Electro Magnetism... THE SHIT THEY CAN"T MAKE PRACTICAL ON A TRAIN!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 14:24:43 2010 No.1380327 Say what you will about them Space-X is going to be the Ford of spaceflight.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 14:26:43 2010 No.1380336 Lol at all the people suggesting magical 'fairy dust' solutions to spaceflight.

Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 14:32:43 2010 No.1380359

ITT: Butthurt Constellation fans who don't understand the following:

- A railgun for sending shit into space would cost 800 billion (Look up: "Mass driver NASA")
- Nuclear propulsion will only be achieved once we get rid of the "LOL END OF THE WORLD" bandwagoners
- Chemical is cheap, and the best we have without making a large group of imbeciles butthurt
- Obama actually increased NASA's budget
- Obama handed space access to corporations because he understands corporations are not controlled by ignorant congressmen who cancel everything
- NASA's new direction: Hammering out tech for the corporations

We'll colonize the solar system in this century and have neo-feudalism... In SPACE!

What's not to like?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 14:35:43 2010 No.1380373 File: 23 KB, 440x257, colonial_vipers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] retro spaceships

>>	Someone else. Sun Jul 11 14:37:43 2010 No.1380381 >>1380359 all hail glorious Chrysler/FedEx venusian imperiatae!

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 14:41:43 2010 No.1380406 File: 1.24 MB, 250x250, 1278376267804.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1380359 I forgot my image.

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 14:42:43 2010 No.1380414

>>1380359

i want it done NOW and not by the end of this century. it could be done by 2050. also there are oceanic cannons that will launch shit into orbit at only like $500 per kg or something ridiculous cheap.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/cannon-shooting-supplies-space

Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 14:44:43 2010 No.1380430

>>1380414

If you want to get it done then try to get people to stop worrying about nuclear power and get them interested in space.

Instead of sitting in your basement bitching about how Elon Musk is the new Howard Hughes and you're somehow still sad, do something.

Jesus.

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 14:58:43 2010 No.1380505 File: 39 KB, 1024x768, ringworld.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] And now a real spacecraft: Ringworld. Propulsion: Bussard Ramjets Crew: 1.5x10¹²

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 14:59:43 2010 No.1380510 File: 44 KB, 314x468, kzin_seductress.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1380505 Also comes with added features.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:04:43 2010 No.1380537 >>1380505 >Bussard Ramjets Oh dears.

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 15:06:43 2010 No.1380554 File: 30 KB, 631x428, 1278632661453.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1380537 >Doesn't like Bussard Ramjets >ROBERT ZUBRIN DETECTED

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:09:43 2010 No.1380574 >>1380554 Enjoy your no nuclear fusion.

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 15:09:43 2010 No.1380577 File: 29 KB, 364x358, 1276808358924.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1380574

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:10:43 2010 No.1380585 >>1380577 No brah, clearly you just mad.

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 15:11:43 2010 No.1380599 File: 8 KB, 251x205, 1278694327931.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1380585 >Is Robert Zubrin

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:12:43 2010 No.1380606 nuclear explosion putt-putt boat in space. Fuck nuclear disarmament, use that to build a mighty ship to the stars.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:13:43 2010 No.1380613 >>1380599 >Implying I am Robert Zubrin >Implying there is a high-enough concentration of hydrogen

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 15:13:43 2010 No.1380618 >>1380606 Let's call it "The Good Old Boom-Boom". Alternatively: Betsy

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 15:14:43 2010 No.1380625 >>1380613 >implying you're not Robert Zubrin >implying you can't gather enough Hydrogen with an electromangetic ramscoop, UV lights to ionize it, and going fast enough

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:14:43 2010 No.1380627 >>1380618 >Betsy A coconut powered spaceship! Genius!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:15:43 2010 No.1380635 >>1380625 >Implying I am >Implying you can

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:17:43 2010 No.1380643 File: 147 KB, 800x596, oneill.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Mars fetishists Enjoy your sweaty crowded and poor hamster tube colonies. Me? I’m thinking about kayaking, then a nice walk in the woods.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:18:43 2010 No.1380659 is this the same thread that was here yesterday or is it a repeat?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:19:43 2010 No.1380662 >>1380618 >>1380627 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:20:43 2010 No.1380666

>>1375370
YOU TOTALLY DON'T SOUND LIKE SOMEONE AGAINST ELECTRIC LIGHTING OR ANYTHING
Sooo, you idea is to dump technology that works, and is actually dropping in cost, in favor of dumping billions into a system that is at best 0.1% fiscally efficient to chase technologies that won't, at best, have basic test articles for a decade and will almost certainly cost way more to run than the currant system.
facepalm.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:22:43 2010 No.1380677 >>1380662 Oh shit I was thinking of Patsy. My bad.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:22:43 2010 No.1380678 >>1376758 >implying moore's law actually has any relevance

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:25:43 2010 No.1380697 >>1380677 I miss carl sagan so much...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:40:43 2010 No.1380797 Aske this in another thread but also asking here. What are the laws on building space rockets/shuttles and launching into space? Can anyone with the miry/resources do it, or is there laws against that?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:42:43 2010 No.1380814 >>1380666 lol, wut?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:42:43 2010 No.1380815 >>1380797 you need a license to launch anything over a certain height

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 15:45:43 2010 No.1380838 >>1380815 Thanks. Figured there would be some laws put in place as you are making something that could technically be used as a weapon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 16:20:43 2010 No.1380997 >>1380838 You need special licenses to build and special approval to build... but if you can get them and afford to build it... you're welcome to.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 16:23:43 2010 No.1381009 >>1380997 Not person you are replying too but imagine how much shut you would get into if you accidently damaged a satalite or space station when you went up.

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 16:34:43 2010 No.1381074

>>1380815
>>1380797
>>1380838

Obviously the laws and licensing will change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The biggest concern isn't that you're going to weaponize a rocket, but that you'd interfere with civilian passenger traffic. And so very dense areas like the Eastern Corridor or Southern Ontario will have much stricter laws than say, Alaska or the Northwest Territories. Similarly there are separate laws concerning launches within 5 miles (or some other unit of distance) of an active runway or airport.

Essentially, if you can show that you're not going to interfere with military or civilian flights, that (if you're going more than 100km up) you're making efforts to minimize hazards to orbital property, and that you're capable of cleaning up if you fuck up, the permits aren't hard to come by.

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 17:46:43 2010 No.1381516

>>1380301
>implying thrust isn't used to accelerate any craft whether it be provided by light, nuclear, or chemical power
lolwut, dipshit

>>1380359
I find it funny that the same guy that's calling us butthurt constellation fans and preaches the dramatic cost cuts when space is being handed over to private hands, uses a Nasa paper to defeat the cost effectiveness of railguns. Jesus Christ, do you know how much of a dipshit you sound like? Whichever way you put it, there are more cost effective solutions than chemical propulsion in the long run.

>>1380678
Because it obviously does? Railguns rely on the amount of current that can be supplied to each individual system. To get that current, railguns require capacitor banks and capacitors follow Moore's Law.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, I'm surrounded by idiots that know nothing of science.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 17:51:43 2010 No.1381552 File: 179 KB, 326x312, warby_by_m7md911.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] WILL, IS THAT YOU?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 18:04:43 2010 No.1381619 Scramjet-assisted launching is where it's at. Oxygen's fucking heavy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 18:04:43 2010 No.1381623 Or Fluorine or whatever oxidizer you want to use.

Anonymous Sun Jul 11 18:10:43 2010 No.1381663

>>1381619
As much as I hate the "derp hyper expensive magic tech will magically make things better!!!" I do have a place in my heart for the gauss launched hybrid rocket/scramjet idea. But it won't be economical till there is an existing market for a hundreds of flights a day.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 18:27:43 2010 No.1381747 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_%28rocket%29 This should have been made.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 18:30:43 2010 No.1381761 >>1381747 Fuck yes, reusable super lifter, could have been made in with simpler tech than the Saturn rockets.

Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 18:43:43 2010 No.1381830
File: 54 KB, 604x453, 1276912762635.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1381516

>Whichever way you put it, there are more cost effective solutions than chemical propulsion in the long run.

Hint: In the Real World(tm) no politician or CEO gives a single scramjet-assisted flying fuck about the long-term. They want something that works, now.

Chemical is the best in the current political climate. Nuclear will only be used when all the conservative Baby Boomers are dead and buried. EM will only be used when we have a strong economy or room-temp superconductors to make the task easier.

Have you ever herped so much that you derped?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 18:49:43 2010 No.1381863 >>1381830 Scramjets are a chemical propulsion system you dipshit.

Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 18:54:43 2010 No.1381886

>>1381863

You think there is no research going into scramjets?

Skylon, and not to mention the recently tested X-51 which set a new record.

Sure we could build them NOW, but it would cost a lot and it would be so horribly dangerous and "Oh the humanity!"-inducing.

So sit and wait until we have perfected the air-breathing engines and THEN, we can start building cheap scramjets to get shit into space.

Which is one of the top priorities of NASA's new direction, Mr. Butthurt Constellation Cultist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 19:01:43 2010 No.1381946 >>1381886 Who said anything about Constellation? You implied that scramjets weren't included in the category of chemical propulsion systems. And yes I know about the X-51, I've seen its engine in person.

Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sun Jul 11 19:05:43 2010 No.1381978

>>1381946

>You implied that scramjets weren't included in the category of chemical propulsion systems.

No I didn't. I just said "Chemical", I assumed you people would know scramjets are into the chemical category. But some people probably need me to say "Chemical (ie: Hydrogen/Oxygen rockets, Metha/Oxygen rockets, scramjets, etc etc.)

'-_-

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 19:07:43 2010 No.1381992 >>1381978 I think you're being trolled.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 19:08:43 2010 No.1381995 >>1381863 No fucking way. Really?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 19:08:43 2010 No.1381997 Everybody is trolling everybody.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 19:31:43 2010 No.1382177 File: 33 KB, 635x352, Bsg-bsg-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 20:06:43 2010 No.1382447 BUMP

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 11 22:34:43 2010 No.1383396 >>1382177 Fuck yes this!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 02:55:43 2010 No.1384803 this thread is going places

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 07:59:43 2010 No.1385899 This thread is still alive?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 12 08:59:33 2010 No.1386066 why is dis thard still hear

>>	Technocrat !O7iFDnU5eI Mon Jul 12 10:36:43 2010 No.1386360 A whole thread and nobody's mentioned Jesus or magnets? Unless you count the railguns, I suppose. I mean for magnets, not Jesus. To my knowledge, theology doesn't lend itself well to gauss guns.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math