/sci/ - Science & Math

[Scia No.1528007]

Human spaceflight thread!

What different spacecraft do you think will be used in the future?(space stations count)
I think the BA 330 has great potential for future space space stations. With 1
being able to hold 6 people long term and 1 only costing 100 million i think that
in the future we will have massive space stations capable of holding 50+ people.

But of course the main problem facing spaceflight is the cost. This is because
No spacecraft now is completely reusable. so what we need is a spacecraft that
can get into LEO and the only thing it will use up to get there is fuel. Do you
know of any promising designs?

[Scia No.1528043]

Engineering threads get replies but this does not?
/sci/ i am dissapoint

[Anonymous No.1528076]

>>1528043
It's what happens when you make fun of us.

[Anonymous No.1528081]

oh I wish there was someone who worked on the practical problems to give OP an answer, but they seem to have left due to being called faggots all the time
...........

/troll face

guess they're off having an orgy

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1528083]

>>1528007
THIS THING! It is one step to getting us there!

[Anonymous No.1528096]

Ah, astronautical engineering thread.

[Anonymous No.1528110]

hey dude, I found that ship in silver colour!

lolz.

[Anonymous No.1528117]

>>1528083
fuck yeah, combined cycle engines!

[Scia No.1528145]

What what do you people think about using the bigelow complex as a transfer point to the moon?

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1528193]

>>1528145
I don;t see what a theme motel in Nevada can do to help us with... oh the space station. Oh, yeah that'd be ok. But the reusable SSTO craft of the SABRE engines is the really big development. It makes all other ventures much more possible.

[Scia No.1528208]

>>1528193
But who would fund it?
ESA's small grant is not enough

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1528212]

>>1528208
Telecom agencies need to fund it since it is directly connected to their profits. Everyone who ever launched up to 10tons needs to fund it so they can keep launching and make better return on investment.

[Scia No.1528227]

>>1528212
Then why haven't those companies funded it already?

Do they need to show that the SABRE engine will work?

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1528235]

>>1528227
Why are any companies acting the way they act right now?

[Scia No.1528255]

>>1528235
You tell me

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1528299]

>>1528255
I DON'T KNOW! It's as if the majority of the human race decided to hate things like development, profit, and progress, all at once!

[Scia No.1528306]

>>1528299

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1528344]

>>1528193

This.

The hardest part of spaceflight is finding a cheap way of getting into orbit, to allow private ventures to actually take place with minimum input and maximum gain. Right now they don't want to spend billions sending people into space because if it fails they'll have lost that money, but if we get the Skylon and the Lightcraft we will be able to send shit into orbit at a much lower price, allowing commercial development, the privatization of space.

First LEO, the the Moon. Mars and the asteroids follow, then magsails carrying colonists to Cisjovia and Titan.

And now, thanks to SpaceX and Bigelow, that dream is slowly becoming a reality.

[Scia No.1528350]

Also i think that if a earth to moon transport is made it should at least be partially based on the Apollo CSM

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1528377]

Think of it. In only a few decades, this is what you could wake up to see.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1528389]

So, guys, when do you think humanity's first interstellar flight will happen?

[Anonymous No.1528396]

>>1528377
I don't think I'd want to wake up and see that. That picture implies some pretty nasty tidal forces.

[Scia No.1528397]

>>1528389
late 21st century or early 22nd

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1528404]

>>1528396

Fine.

Pic related is better.

[Anonymous No.1528416]

I'd be happy cruising around space in this thing while having romances and killing geth

[Scia No.1528427]

>>1528404
I dout that
Man kind will have make antimatter plentiful
for sub light speed interstellar travel to be possible


I don't see that happening this century

[Scia No.1528434]

>>1528416
Im not even going to start at why that is never going to be possible

[Anonymous No.1528439]

>>1528434

o rly?

[Scia No.1528452]

>>1528439
1.element zero is bullshit
2.The ship is unnecessarily aerodynamic real spaceships wont look that cool
3.aliens are not going to be humanoid
4.charon is a moon not a FLT gate
5.ect...

[Anonymous No.1528462]

>>1528434
>>1528439
>>1528452


hook, line, sinker

way to go "o rly" troll

[Scia No.1528469]

>>1528452
Also the probability that the protheans had a base on mars is highly unrealistic

It even says in the codec that less then 1% of the systems in the galaxy weren't mapped

[Scia No.1528472]

>>1528439
>>1528462
samefag

[Anonymous No.1528481]

>>1528452

You can't have point 5 as etc.

Doesn't make sense. argument invalidated.

[Anonymous No.1528484]

>>1528452
Actually, a spaceship capable of traveling from atmospheric to outer space WOULD need to be aerodynamic to some degree- see, the space shuttle, rockets, all of which have aerodynamics taken into consideration.

And any worthy spaceplane design is going to look that cool simply because it is aerodynamically designed. You're an idiot.

[Scia No.1528493]

>>1528484
IRL its a better idea to dock with a station then take
a aerodynamic craft to the surface.

No need to complicate things

[Scia No.1528499]

>>1528484
2001 got it right

[Anonymous No.1528503]

space sperm leaving a space penis

[Anonymous No.1528520]

>>1528493
You ARE unnecessarily complicating things.
>>1528499
A spaceplane capable of flying off of a planet and then going into some mode of interstellar travel is far desirable to a big clunky mass of fuel and engines.

2001 got it "right" so far as what we are most likely to create in the near future for long range spacecraft, but the design is comparatively primitive to what other spacefaring civilizations are flying right now.

Believe me, where I come from, designs like the Discovery are only used for unmanned ore freighters.

[Anonymous No.1528536]

>>1528520

Someone wants a word.

[Anonymous No.1528599]

why fly space when you can step through the chappa'i

[Scia No.1528601]

>>1528520
Why is an alien on /sci/

[Anonymous No.1528618]

>>1528520

>Human spaceflight thread
>Talks about hypothetical infeasbile designs that if ever feasible are outside our technical capabilities
>herp derp blerp perp

[Anonymous No.1528651]

>>1528601
It's the more /sci/ version of being a furry.

Though we have furries here, too.

[Scia No.1528657]

>>1528618
But remember he is an alien

[Anonymous No.1528658]

>>1528472

a marvelous accusation and conclusion derived from the fact that I agreed with the troll's basic premise

however it suffers from being completely wrong

[Scia No.1528748]

>>1528658
how verbose of you

[Scia No.1528956]

bump

[Anonymous No.1528989]

fucking 16 year old deist faggot

[Scia No.1529003]

>>1528989
are you from HGH?

[Anonymous No.1529022]

As long as going into space is occasional : rocket.
When we will have to transport small mass like food or crew to a LEO station we'll probably use reusable shuttle, maybe scramjet plane.

And when will go massively into space, THEN we will thing about space fountain launcher or the space elevator.

>>1528520
HELL NO !
Space is all about moving mass, there is several way to do it and usually we try to avoid unnecessary mass like :
- Jet engine that don't work in space, only on the ground. (with the atmosphere efficient fuel)
- VASMIR or Plasma thruster than don't work in atmosphere (with the reactive mass adapted)
- Wing, because that HEAVY when you talk about space travel.
This is also common sense if you plan to get back into orbit anyway, just let the space thruster up there.

And having to make a rocket aerodynamic is a technical nightmare. You can't make centrifugal gravity ring, you can't have solar panel or large heat radiator for the possible inboard nuclear reaction
It's like trying to make a boat capable of going on road.

Please also remember that all space thruster aren't powerful enough to lift from a Earth-like gravity field. And those who are are usually also radioactive.

For example : just try to make this capable of landing.

For more information on that topic : see this link.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3ay.html

[Scia No.1529040]

>>1529022
Nuclear rockets are never going to happen.

The goverment would stop it if private people tried

[Anonymous No.1529058]

The most cost efficient and possible is probably to have some kind of space dock where you park your ship made for interstellar spacetravel and then you take one of the ships at the dock made for landing and/or taking off

Also, captcha says: Horrible Success

[Scia No.1529079]

>>1529058
MY plan for lunar colonization
and yes its a good idea

[Anonymous No.1529233]

>>1529040
Fission, maybe. Fusion, no.

I still hate you more than anything on God's green Earth, Scia.

[Anonymous No.1529253]

>>1529233
Got that reversed. Fission rockets aren't going to happen, fusion rockets, maybe. Simply because a loss of fusion fuel in orbit wouldn't be as harmful as a loss of fission fuel and subsequent burnup in the atmosphere.

[Scia No.1529273]

>>1529233
Why would you hate me?

[Anonymous No.1529286]

>>1529273
In every single thread you post, I'm the guy that always tells you to suck a dick, fuck off, go back to fellating Elon Musk, etc.

[Scia No.1529304]

>>1529286
Why?
Do you stalk my threads just to insult me?

[Anonymous No.1529311]

>>1529304
No, I just hate the fact that you suggest we support Elon Musk when I think he's the anti-thesis of a public space option motivated by discovery rather than profit. The last time I got really pissed at you was that crock o' shit survey you posted that made me rage like no other.

[Tribersman No.1529313]

>>1529040
And then they will authorize it when they'll want to take Helium3 or space resource cheaply.

You can delay the time they'll be used but can't deny them unless you want to let the entire humanity DIE without leaving the planet.

Of course by the time we are desperate enough to leave we will probably have got rid of moron who could become terrorist. (basically we would have created a near perfect society or fused into an hivemind)

>>1529079
You plan ? They did that during Apollo mission you know.

Ho wow : my catpcha : 1968 portents

>>1529233
This guy is right : >>1529253
Fusion can't go critical.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1529314]

Fact: For every tripfag or namefag on 4chan, there will always be an Anon dedicated to telling them to fuck off and die.

>My face when that doesn't happen to me

[Scia No.1529324]

>>1529311
SpaceX is really only useful in cargo hauling

1.Reaction engines limited
2.bigelow aerospace
3.beoing
are the future

[Anonymous No.1529325]

>>1529314
NIGGER

[Scia No.1529330]

>>1529313
there were no space stations in the apollo program
>>1529311
the survey was a troll thread, apparently you were stupid enough to fall for it

[Anonymous No.1529336]

>>1529313

I know, I posted both of these:
>>1529253
>>1529233

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1529337]

>>1529311

Get off the clouds you boob.

The whole "Let's explore space for discovery and the expansion of knowledge!" won't get a penny from the public, or research grants, or anything. No one. Except a bunch of butthurt commies and idealists.

When there's profit to be gained, people will become interested.

You may think that it's not the best way since it encourages greed and according to you people "herp derp greed is bad hurp corporations = evilness perp blerp".

But fuck. That. Shit. Whatever gets us into space, advances knowledge, improves society, and allows me to fuck a genetically-engineered super-furry can't be bad.

[Anonymous No.1529341]

>there were no space stations in the apollo program

skylab

[Scia No.1529350]

>>1529341
not as transfer points to the moon

[Anonymous No.1529351]

>>1529324
I know. I support reaction engines limited. Elon Musk insists on using barbaric ways into orbit while putting money in his own pocket. But reaction engines limited will be able to put cargo AND people into orbit at a fraction of the cost that Elon could, if it were to evolve into an industry rather than just a design firm. Combine that with the fact that ESA is more willing to give money to fund its goal of creating an orbital shipyard by 2025, and SpaceX will (hopefully) be a thing of the past.

I still hate you though. Even if that survey was a troll of not.

[Anonymous No.1529359]

>>1529314
Fuck off, egocentered tripfag.
>My face when i tell you yo fuck off.

[Anonymous No.1529362]

>>1529313
Also, fusion could go critical, but that's not the danger from fuel falling into our atmosphere.

>>1529337
And I totally agree with you. My point is that research would be the pretext under which government would fund private space corporations. Once we've been there and done that THEN it's every man for himself mining whatever he wants, be it ore from asteroids or Helium-3 from the gas giants (or moon). But in the meantime, we have to rely on research to get us up there and the initial interest to get us to other planets

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1529374]

>>1529351

It's just a chem rocket. If the idiots didn't go all "LOL END OF THE WORLD" every time nuclear power is mentioned we would have nuclear rockets asnd Orion Drives to get shit into orbit if the Test Ban Treaty was modded.

Until then, the rocket is fairly good.

Railguns cost too much, space elevators require nanotube production that won't be available until the end of this decade, give or take a few years, and betting on rockets is better than saying "LOL LETS GAMBLE 200 BILLION ON A MAGNETIC LAUNCHER THAT MIGHT FAIL HORRIBLY."

[Scia No.1529377]

>>1529351
So why do you still hate me

SpaceX really is not part of my plan

[Scia No.1529419]

>>1529374
He means multi-stage vehicles
at least i hope he does

[Anonymous No.1529471]

>>1529374
Scia's pretty much right in this sense. Like I said, I'm a fan of SABRE and anything like it. I'm also a fan of nuclear (more so for interstellar travel) because I'm an engineer. But I also think that railguns could stand a bit more research.

[Anonymous No.1529476]

>>1529377
I guess I always will. What really got it started was your insistence on "your plan" to get us off this rock that I swear was posted every other day, by you.

[Scia No.1529488]

>>1529476
you mean this?
-Outline-

This is a plan to provide cheap travel to and eventually colonize the moon, mars, and eventually the solar system. First we have to build space infrastructure,
then we put a modular space station that uses centrifugal force for artificial gravity in an orbit around the earth, Then we take a reusable spacecraft and dock with the station. After that we take a take a shuttle using VASIMR technology/chemical propulsion to a second station orbiting the moon. It depends if the nuclear technology required to use VASIMR to its full potential is available or plausible to build at that time. Then use an advanced lunar lander to get to the moons surface.
Once on the moon build factories to create more stations, colonies, and spacecraft as in the long run it's cheaper to launch things off of
the moon, maybe with a mass driver.

Eventually we would be able to build nuclear powered interplanetary spacecraft able to ferry us to mars in only 39 days. This ship would be constructed
in lunar orbit, now because we can launch stuff off the moon for a very low cost(1/6 gravity/no air resistance) we can make this ship big enough

[Scia No.1529497]

>>1529488
to be able to handle all the needs of a deep space craft. For example it would be able to ferry people and cargo to mars. This ship would eventually
be the main and maybe only spacecraft needed to traverse interplanetary space. Then we can reliably colonize the red planet after building the infastrure
required to make cheap reliable trips there possible. Also when we get to mars we will need to use a mars lander using chemical propulsion due to the fact
that VASIMR powered craft can only operate in space because VASIMR does not have suitable thrust to escape a planet's or moon's gravityfrom the surface.
Eventually we would have space stations around mars aswell. We could use the plane piggyback system just like the one we would use on earth. Now this is
possible due to the fact that one of this plans long term goals is the thermoforming of mars. This involves raising the density and contents of mars atmosphere
to be suitable for humans to survive, this would allow aircraft to be usable on mars.

Now the reason the moon is more cost effective in the long run, is that to colonize mars we need supplies carried
there. At 1/6 of earths gravity those launches over a long peroid of time would make it far easier/cheaper. The main point
of this plan is to create a long term plan for the colonization of mars and eventually the solar system. Now the biggest problem
is obviously funding. I think the best way to solve this problem is to have different companies work on separate parts of the plan,
but all of them are working twords the same goal. This way the funding required would be divided among multiple parties making
the cost much more manageable.

[Anonymous No.1529496]

>>1528007

OMG thanks for the .gif
audrey tautou is so epic i have a whole gallery with pics of her.

[Scia No.1529505]

>>1529497
-Vehicles and infrastructure-

Heavy lift rocket: Falcon9 heavy lift launch vehicle.
Interplanetary craft: Uses nuclear powered VASIMR engines and is able to ferry humans and cargo to mars/moon.
Moon station to lunar surface lander: Built by armadillo aerospace
Earth station to moon station shuttle: Nothing yet
Earth to LEO reusable spacecraft: Uses the plane piggyback system that the SpaceShipTwo/WhiteKnigtTwo Uses.
LEO space station:Uses BA 330 habitation modules for living space.
lunar orbit station: Uses BA 330 habitation modules for living space.
moon colonies:Manned
Moon factories:unmanned

-partners-

Armadillo aerospace
1.Designs the reuseable lunar lander

Scaled Composites
1.Makes the Earth to LEO reusable spacecraft using a system similar to the spaceship 2/white knight 2.
2.Works with Ad astra rocket company to develop the Earth station to moon station shuttle.

Ad astra rocket company
1.makes the VASIMR engines required to cheaply traverse interplanetary distance.
2.works with scaled composites to develop the Earth station to moon station stuttle.

SpaceX
1.Takes the spacecraft and space stations into orbit using the falcon 9 heavy lift rocket.
-Pros and cons-

Bigelow aerospace
1.Makes BA 330 inflatable habitation modules used for living space on the space stations.

-Links-

VASIMR: http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/
Scaled Composites: http://www.scaled.com/
SpaceX: http://www.spacex.com/
Ad astra rocket company: http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/
Bigelow aerospace: http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

Its an old plan I have since revised it
I just suck at writing so much I don't want to write it up

[Anonymous No.1529509]

>>1529374


OMG thanks for the .gif
audrey tautou is so epic i have a whole gallery with pics of her

if you often read riligious i`m sure you`ve seen some audrey pics, they were all mine.

[Anonymous No.1529518]

>>1529505
>>1529497
>>1529488


That would be the one...dick.

[Anonymous No.1529519]

>>1529374

OMG thanks for the .gif
audrey tautou is so epic i have a whole gallery with pics of her

if you read riligious threads i`m sure you`ve seen some audrey pics, they were all mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjUbHUHC6a4

[Anonymous No.1529551]

Whats the point of going to space? We have our problems and goals here. Theres no point in space. Go to space for the sake of it? No, its a waste of money.

[Scia No.1529572]

>>1529518
trololololololololololol

[Scia No.1529577]

>>1529551
If humans don't go to space we will die

[Anonymous No.1529597]

>>1529577
Go back to watching Trek.

[Scia No.1529624]

>>1529577
I don't watch trek

[Anonymous No.1529646]

>>1529624
Well then fuck your shit.

[Anonymous No.1529845]

we need more warfare in space in this thread

[Scia No.1529872]

>>1529646
:(

[Anonymous No.1530468]

bump

[Anonymous No.1530517]

Personally, I don't think we belong in space. But we are capable of designing robots that do. I envision a new mechanical ecology in the solar system. Automated factories on the Moon and other planetesimals, turning the resources there into solar sail craft which drift between planets, seeding mechanical life onto all the asteroids and moons.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1530532]

>>1529337
Colonel Coffee Mug... I need the help of your Marines to push aside some humans who are stopping me from... obtaining... profitable materials from space. In space, in a near earth asteroid, there is one million tons of platinum. That platinum could do a lot of good here on earth, and create a lot of profit, and will more than pay for any space venture. Same rocks also has 50 million tons of nickle for more profit, and 50 million tons of iron for making on site maintenance cheaper.

We have to go to space, space has materials we need in quantities we need it and not at all buried. We can carve up and process the rocks.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1530589]

>>1529551
You don't know, do you. Lots of stuff can't be made in space.

[Anonymous No.1530614]

>>1528350 good lord why, that system is ancient (seriously it was used 45 years ago when space travel has been around for 55ish, yeah that makes sense)

>>1529505 falcon 9 isn't a real good HLV, it isn't that big man

also,
SSTO---lol learn your rocket equation

source: I'm an aerospace engineer working on space system design

[Anonymous No.1532484]

>>1529488
The problem is : is Platinium rare enough to justify all that ? I'm not even sure Helium3 could do the trick.

I am a space enthusiast but space will stay costly with today's economy.

>>1530532
Okay, but is that really cheaper to get than on Earth ?

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1532494]

>>1532484
There is nowhere near that much on earth. Of course chemical rockets alone will not be enough to send up the equipment needed to process and retrieve the material. The only way to do it cheaply is to use a massive launch cannon to send up the entire mining facility in one shot. Then use something considerable smaller and "gentler" to send up the people to unpack the mining facility from the launch state and steer it to the rock they are going to carve.

[Anonymous No.1532500]

>>1530614
>good lord why, that system is ancient (seriously it was used 45 years ago when space travel has been around for 55ish, yeah that makes sense)
I ment in shape not in tech
>SSTO---lol learn your rocket equation
So as an aerospace engineer what do you think of the SABRE engine?

[Anonymous No.1532506]

>>1532494
>massive launch cannon to send up the entire mining facility in one shot
or more realistically use a smaller catapult and shoot the facility modules into orbit to be assembled by the crew.

[Anonymous No.1532519]

>>1530614
Also
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1532533]

>>1532506
Well, I didn't say this part but, the facility needs to be MASSIVE. And the launch cannon needs to be powerful. It's going to be a nuclear powered launch. A thermonuclear device buried deep underground, the radiation absorbed, and the blast directed down the massive launch tube. With 100% of the force focused you can shoot about 280,000 tons into LEO. I wouldn't need to send up that much, but in order to make the facility work it is going to mass about the same as a couple oil rigs. Thousands of tons of rock need to be processed every day.

Build the whole thing here, launch it all up in one shot, then send the people.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1532553]

>>1532533
Never mind that "couple oil rig" figure. The point is it's going to be an entire mining facility and it has to process somewhere between 3000 and 5000 tons a day. More than 5000 tons would be preferable. Fortunately, you can carve out chunks by the tons and heat them quickly in space, especially if using nuclear power.

[Anonymous No.1532855]

>>1532533
I understand your pseudonym now...
You do know that you don't have to send it in one go and that there is other way to go to LEO ?

That would also make it a technical nightmare if you have to make every part capable of resisting a 100G acceleration.
A coil/railgun could avoid that but really, the space canon is the most retarded launch system ever.

Unless you are talking about Magnetic launcher on a airless planet.

[Anonymous No.1532874]

Nuclear in space is not a big problem for countries like China, Russia, India. With enough will and money, there is nothing to stop humanity from utilizing nuclear-electric or nuclear-thermal propulsion for great effect.

[Anonymous No.1532917]

Ok so we need to fund the reaction engines SKYLON
how do we do it?

[Anonymous No.1533190]

SO who will get to mars first the private sector or the public sector