It's that time again.

[Anonymous No.1733488]

Ask a Ph.D candidate in aerospace engineering anything.

[Anonymous No.1733490]

Which is easier: reaching Mercury or reaching Jupiter?

[Anonymous No.1733495]

>>1733488
how fast is the earth going around the sun compared to mars' speed around the sun?

>why the fuck are on 4chan instead of trying to figure out faster space travel you fucking lazy bitch

[Anonymous No.1733500]

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Anonymous No.1733502]

what math formula/theory gave you the most problems?

[Anonymous No.1733506]

>>1733490
I believe Mercury is considerably easier, but I don't really do astrodynamics.

[Anonymous No.1733509]

How many dicks will it take to bring my dickship out of orbit?

[Anonymous No.1733516]

>>1733495
Everybody's gotta take a break sometimes, man. I've had my best luck when walking away from hard problems.

>>1733502
Hrm... I suppose "the most problems" would have to be the specific area I work in, Navier-Stokes. I didn't really have any problems with any concepts in undergrad work. Analytical compressible fluid mechanics (old style stuff) I find pretty challenging at a graduate level.

[Anonymous No.1733519]

>>1733509
too easy. over 9000.

[Scia No.1733522]

How impractical is my plan(from a engineering standpoint)
-Outline-
I have a plan for the private colonization of the moon.

First SpaceX launches the bigelow aerospace Sundancer Inflatable habitation module into LEO and offers rides to it by its dragon spacecraft.
Later once Virgin galacticor Reaction engines limited creates a spaceplane that can get to LEO (probobly in late 10's or early 20's),If its Virgin galactic it will probobly be SpaceShipFour
because SS3 is going to be point to point suborbital. Then the ferrying of people to the Bigelow space stations can be taken over by one of these companies. By this point the Falcon 9 rocket
is expected to be completely reusable, and can be used to carry Cargo or Space station parts (Such as the BA 330) to LEO. By this point Access to LEO will be relativity cheap
and routine, with Cargo being carried to LEO by the reusable Falcon 9, and people by the SKYLON or one of SpaceShip series. Also we will have space station technology superior
to the international space station. Next you launch a bigelow space station into geostationary orbit around the earth to act as a transfer point to the moon. You can get
there using a modified Dragon SpaceCraft, you could make this craft small and without living space because its a relativity short trip.

Then SpaceX(maybe with the collaboration of bigelow)can create a spacecraft that is designed to go from GEO to Lunar orbit and only operate in space. This Spacecraft
might be based of the Apollo CSM, the command module could be a modified dragon spacecraft. The Service module could be a BA 330 to act as living quarters.The engines might be
SpaceX merlin engines, this space craft would be launched from a space station In LEO or GEO. Another thing We would need is Cargo transport to the moon. We could make this craft
Powered by VASIMR engines It would take a long time but then again cargo does not need life support.

[Scia No.1733524]

This Spacecraft would cheaply ferry humans to lunar orbit to dock with another Bigelow space station complex launched there beforehand by SpaceX's Heavy lift rockets.
At this time I think that SpaceX will have a Super heavy lift launch Vehicle(SpaceX has already Proposed building such a rocket). After the LEO to lunar orbit spacecraft docks
with the lunar orbit space station they will take a lunar lander built by armadillo aerospace to the surface. Armadillo's work on VTOL spacecraft makes them the ones that will
probably make this craft. The moon base will be made of BA 330 modules set underground as to protect the lunar colonists from the dangerous solar radiation.

-Summary-
The main things we need are

1.Routine access to LEO using completly reusable spacecraft this craft only needs to carry passengers.
2.Private space stations in LEO and maybe GEO.
3.Completly reusable Earth Orbit to Luanr orbit craft that will act as a passenger transport.
4.Reuseable rocket to carry cargo to LEO.
5.Earth orbit to Lunar orbit cargo ships.
6.Lunar space station that will act as a transfer point to the groud and not as living space.
7.Reusable lunar landers
8.Moon base infrastructure(solar power, living space, Hydrophonic gardens, lunar rovers, ect...)

[Scia No.1733532]

Of course the previous Outline just gave a estimate of what we can do now and in the near future and we can just alter the plan as new technology comes around.

-Business-

The main reason why space is something not many people invest in is because its a very high risk High cost thing. Also it takes a long time to make a profit
because it takes such a long time to develop the craft. My plan eliminates these economic problems by making each part of the plan worth money on its own.

Aside from that Im not business Savvy(yet)so Im going to need some help on this(Such as should they collaborate or compete ect....)

-links-

Armadillo Aerospace: http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home
Virgin galactic: http://www.virgingalactic.com/
SpaceX: http://www.spacex.com/
Ad astra rocket company: http://www.adastrarocket.com/
Bigelow aerospace: http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/
Reaction Engines Limited: http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/

-Citations-

Reuseable Falcon 9: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/musk-ambition-spacex-aim-for-fully-reusable-falcon-9/
Elon musk out of orbit Goals and Heavy lift rocket: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Future_plans
Bigelow aerospace Lunar Goals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Aerospace#Aspirations_beyond_Earth-orbit
Virgin Galactic SpaceShipThree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipThree

[Anonymous No.1733536]

>>1733522
Why the fuck do you want to colonize the moon you faget. Space stations is where its at. You know, like with EARTH LIKE GRAVITY unlike the big pile of cheese.

[Anonymous No.1733545]

>>1733522
>How impractical is my plan(from a engineering standpoint)

Well, I'd first have to point out how impractical it is from an economic standpoint. That shit is *expensive*, and i don't see it being developed anywhere near the timeline of late 10s/early 20s you state.

In your summary, you list 8 technologies that either don't exist or are wholly unreliable or are absurdly expensive or any combination of the three. You can't just make a goal that in 10 years you'll have developed all 8 of those new technologies in order for your plan to come to fruition. R&D just doesn't happen that fast.

Additionally, you're relying on a helluva lot of different spacecraft, and that introduces many points of failure. It's a fundamentally flawed mission design, in that sense. Simple = good.

[Scia No.1733553]

>>1733536
Because
1.All of our earth infrastructure was built for a environment with gravity so It will be easier to build things on the moon
2.The moon can hold more people
3.You can mine it so it can reap a profit(Unlike floating in a vacuum)
4.If you go underground you can be protected from harmful radiation(Unlike space stations, Out of LEO is even worse)
5.Because you could start industry there and that would lean to a much cheaper launch market(allowing the cheap colonization of mars)

[Scia No.1733559]

>>1733545
Agreed I will take that into consideration

But 2 and maybe 4 probably will happen by the end of the decade(Bigelow plans of launching the sundancer in 2014)

[Anonymous No.1733562]

>>1733553

You can't mine the moon. Removing resources (matter) from luna would be phenomenally stupid.

[Anonymous No.1733571]

>>1733562
OP here. Why do you say removing matter from the moon is bad? Are you suggesting we could ever remove enough mass to actually effect it's orbit?

And there's certainly things that can be mined on the moon. Not the least of which would be some form of rocket fuel.

[Anonymous No.1733573]

>>1733553
STILL FAGET. You can build more than one space station. ALSO GRAVITY. Profit is not to be found on the moon but in the asteroids.

There is zero - well okay, very little - incentive for permanent settlements on the moon or mars in comparison to permanent settlements in space.

[Anonymous No.1733583]

>But 2 and maybe 4 probably will happen by the end of the decade(Bigelow plans of launching the sundancer in 2014)

That still leaves you with 6 other techs to develop, and you've still got an overly complex plan. There's a reason why a SSTO craft is desirable == it's conceptually simpler. Look at every successful spacecraft mission undertaken: they always use a bare minimum of new technologies and the fewest parts/stages possible. The safety factors in aerospace are so low, that introducing as many points of failure as you have is not a good idea. Consider Apollo 11. If your plan is more complex (uses a greater variety of crafts) than that, just to get to the moon landing, then I have to oppose your idea.

[Scia No.1733585]

>>1733573
you know stating your opinion without reasons to back it up is not a very compelling argument.

[Anonymous No.1733586]

>>1733573
Furthermore... Unless a new earth appears in our solar system, it makes zero sense for any large number of people to live on the moon or on mars or anything.

Because guess what, you sure arent getting earth like gravity or earth like conditions there unless you are in star trek. Unlike space stations.

Moon & any other piece of garbage in the sky - automated fuel depots and stupid shit. Space stations - people actually living as opposed to having low gravity and shitty living conditions.

[Anonymous No.1733590]

>>1733585
Maybe, but that sure doesnt make colonization of the moon any less stupid and useless.

[Anonymous No.1733592]

>>1733571

My implication precisely. I don't feel it's outside the realm of possibility that we'd end up strip mining the moon. Yeah this is a random number, and probably an impossibly large amount of matter to remove, but.. Say space travel ramps up, and we remove 5% of the moon; would that not be enough to affect things? Would you really like to see if we could stop people from doing so once it began?

I'm honestly not great at math, but I would assume even minimal extraction could result in catastrophic effects. The moon does control tidal patterns, and our orbit characteristics in general, no?

Maybe that's just a sky is falling type scenario. I dunno. Feels wrong to me.

[Anonymous No.1733595]

>>1733590

Oh, not to say I don't agree that we should colonize the moon, just saying. Give a mouse a cookie, and he's gonna eat the whole fucking moon.

[Scia No.1733599]

>>1733583
I agree that we need a SSTO craft and is there any way I would lower the amount of craft I use?

Maybe I should take out the Lunar space station and just do what Apollo did.

Such as develop a Reusable LEO craft then just Undock from the Bigelow space station then just do everything apollo style,except the Lunar lander would have to be reusable

[Scia No.1733603]

>>1733590
you know stating your opinion without reasons to back it up is not a very compelling argument

[Scia No.1733607]

>>1733599
We could buy the Altair plans from NASA if there any good(Like Bigelow bought Transhab)

[Anonymous No.1733611]

>>1733603
I like how you cling to your homosexual fantasy instead of facing the facts.

Facts like:
Space stations are able to provide not only an earth like gravity but an earth like environment. That means trees, water and shit.

Can a moon settlement offer that?

The moon might be useful for its resources, sure. But lets not forget the asteroids which are the real deal here.

Do you need to colonize the moon for that?

Either way no matter what you want from space colonization - resources or settlements for a large amount of people - the moon is not all that. In terms of resources colonization does not come into the equation at all, in terms of settlement space stations are superior.

[Anonymous No.1733616]

>>1733592
>My implication precisely. I don't feel it's outside the realm of possibility that we'd end up strip mining the moon. Yeah this is a random number, and probably an impossibly large amount of matter to remove, but.. Say space travel ramps up, and we remove 5% of the moon; would that not be enough to affect things? Would you really like to see if we could stop people from doing so once it began?

By this logic, we should be concerned about slowing the rotation of the earth because of putting satellites into orbit.

>I'm honestly not great at math

I picked up on that =)

The mass of the moon is 7.36 × 10^22 kilograms. The Saturn V rocket (I believe the largest vehicle ever launched) was 3x10^6 kg. So let's say we started building huge fucking rockets using only materials found on the moon. And let's say, maybe we'd be concerned if used 0.01% of the mass of the moon.

That would come out to 2.5 TRILLION Saturn V rocket launches.

[Anonymous No.1733622]

>>1733599
>Maybe I should take out the Lunar space station and just do what Apollo did.

I'd say that sounds like a start. I did a mission design thing for lunar entry as an undergrad (many years ago, so my memory is fuzzy), but I think the lunar capture and descent is a wayyyy lower energy cost than the other stages. You should be able to find a delta-V budget for the mission published somewhere.

[Anonymous No.1733649]

Not sure if you're the same guy from a week or so ago but...

I'm an Aero E undergrad, and will be interning at Langley Research center this summer. I believe much of what I'll be working on has to do with causes of plane crashes. What can I expect my average day to be like? Go in, sit down, and start doing problems? Entering data into spreadsheets? I'm pretty unsure of what I *actually* do in any given day!

[Anonymous No.1733651]

What's it like, taking it up the ass?

[Anonymous No.1733662]

nuclear pulse propulsion

Why are people not looking into it today? Are they really such pussies that they think 1 life fore every 1,000,000 tonnes of cargo to LEO is not worth it? Because if that is the case then they need a reality check since 1 man dies in the construction of any building taller then 10 stories.

[Anonymous No.1733664]

>>1733649
I only know grad students that have done internships at major research centers like that, so I really can't tell you what your experience will be like. Most likely you'll have two components: one that's largely bitch work like putting data into a spreadsheet, but another that's kind of a creative component of you doing your own work under a supervisor.

[Anonymous No.1733671]

>>1733662
>nuclear pulse propulsion
>Why are people not looking into it today?

Because the mere suggestion of setting off nuclear explosions in space causes so many non-sciencey-educated-people to shit in their pants, that there can be no political will for the idea at all. I'm 100% serious.

[Anonymous No.1733684]

>>1733671
So everybody is a bunch faggots then? Okay just wanted to confirm that. It'll happen eventually anyway, unless they make a langstrom loop instead. Which I think is possible with currently available materials but you're the engineer I'm just a geologist with a boner for space mining and imperialism.

pic:I want my space battleships propelled by nuclear bombs damn it!

[Scia No.1733894]

>>1733622
Also once The falcon 9 becomes completely reusable

Do you have any idea of how much a single Launch of a dragon spacecraft to the ISS will cost?

Because if its low enough we might not even need a spaceplane passenger transport

[Scia No.1733947]

>>1733495
>>1733495
well earth goes at about 30 K/s around the sun
Now the orbital speed is proportional to the inverse square root of its orbital distance

Earth=1 Au away from the sun
Mars=1.52 away from the sun

so (1.52/1)^1/2=1.23288

so 30/1.23288=24.3

mars goes about 24.3 Km/s

this is just a rough calculation
Earths actual average orbital speed is 29.78 km/s
and mars is 24.077 km/s

[Anonymous No.1734009]

Goddamn scia stop shitting up the threads with your ideas and highschool astrphysics

If the aerofag is still around,

Did you take aerodynamics? How tough was it, i'm on my second year and they say its one of the toughest subjects, even harder than the ones in 5th year

[Anonymous No.1734038]

>>1734009
>If the aerofag is still around,
y halo thar

>Did you take aerodynamics? How tough was it, i'm on my second year and they say its one of the toughest subjects, even harder than the ones in 5th year

Yeah, like I said, my research work is in fluids. I've had about a half dozen aerodynamics courses. I'd say "they" are right, that aerodynamics are generally considered among the toughest aerospace courses. The Navier-Stokes equations are no joke man. You should know by now that it's one of the most important unsolved math problems in existence.

But that's what makes it such a beautiful field... you need solid knowledge of the analytical, computational, and experimental regimes of aerodynamics, which require strong foundations in advanced calculus, software engineering, numerical methods, and physics.

[Scia No.1734064]

>>1734009
>Goddamn scia stop shitting up the threads with your ideas and highschool astrphysics
First of all thats college intro astrophysics(they don't teach astronomy very often in the US)

Also im trying to figure out whats shitty about my plans so I can make them better

Whats wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.1734070]

I'm in my third year of Mechanical Engineering.

Is it realistic for a college graduate with 1 year of internship experience to get even an entry level job in aerospace, like at Lockheed Martin? (I have very good grades).

I hear that fluids courses are the hardest in ME. Are they hard due to the math involved, or some other conceptual factor?

Thanks for your time, OP.

[Anonymous No.1734156]

>>1734064
>First of all thats college intro astrophysics(they don't teach astronomy very often in the US)

A semester of orbital mechanics is mandatory for every undergrad aerospace engineering in the US that I'm aware of.

>>1734070
>I'm in my third year of Mechanical Engineering.
>Is it realistic for a college graduate with 1 year of internship experience to get even an entry level job in aerospace, like at Lockheed Martin? (I have very good grades).

That's absolutely realistic. LMCO is a massive organization with many many areas a ME is going to be useful in. Besides that, ME has tons of overlap with AerE. Many universities even have combined departments.

>I hear that fluids courses are the hardest in ME. Are they hard due to the math involved, or some other conceptual factor?
Undergrads struggle with the math. Even introductory courses require a decent amount of vector & differential calculus that a lot of people do struggle with. But if you paid attention in your introductory calc and diffeq courses, an ME instructor is going to know how to teach you introductory fluid mechanics.

An hour sitting around with Van Dyke's "an album of fluid motion" will do wonders to help your understanding of the conceptual side.

[Anonymous No.1734179]

>>1734156

Well that's a relief! I had little to no trouble with vector calculus/differential equations, I just thought that upper division fluids courses would introduce some ridiculous math that I'd have a hard time grasping. Though as I understand it, numerical simulations are very important as well. The only real numerical simulations I have done were with the Rayleigh-Plesset equation. Does numerical simulation get harder due to the equations involved, or the complexity of the approximation algorithms?

[Scia No.1734191]

>>1734156
Sorry about that I meant in high school

[Anonymous No.1734202]

If you're so smart, why didn't you get a degree in something that will make you actual money?

[Anonymous No.1734210]

Do you know about this woman?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALLUuvsVkM

[Anonymous No.1734211]

>>1734202

[Anonymous No.1734218]

>>1734179
heh, well now you're really getting into my area...

ME's tend to do less fluids work than AerE's naturally, so if anything it'd be easier than what I experienced. Do you know what text you'll be using, or a syllabus or something?

The most advanced math a first-semester fluids course is typically going to cover would include Gauss divergence theorem, and Reynolds transport theorem. They're pretty direct applications of vector calculus from what's usually a 3rd semester calculus course.

ME's will certainly do some kind of boundary layer work for things like internal flows in pipes, which can be a bit more involved. More advanced mathematics used in fluid mechanics like calculus of variations aren't things you typically find in undergrad courses, I don't think.

Numerical simulations are definitely hugely important, but the kinds of simulations normally found in required courses are fairly trivial. They involve discretization concepts like Taylor's theorem you've probably seen, and obviously some computer programming, and things from linear algebra, depending on how in depth you go. Fully fledged CFD has to deal with the full Navier Stokes equations in all of their hideous glory which certainly demands some very high level math and algorithm understanding, but that's not something undergrads are ever forced to do.

[Anonymous No.1734228]

>>1734202
>If you're so smart, why didn't you get a degree in something that will make you actual money?

When you tell a high class female that you're a rocket scientist with a phd, she wants to have your babies. Girls hit on me like I'm a surgeon.

But yeah, just gonna assume the quip about money is a troll, we do alright ;)

[Anonymous No.1734245]

>>1734218

Well that clears up some stuff for me. I've gotta go, but thanks for the responses!

[Anonymous No.1734252]

>>1734228
Aerospace isn't as big as it used to be.
Odds are you'll end up using all those math skills originally intended for your major in something like accounting and finance.

[Anonymous No.1734262]

hey OP are you excited about the future of aerospace engineering? anything cool and new on the horizon?

also, why do chicks think rocket scientists are cool? they just look at paper all day, it's quite different than a surgeon imo.

[Anonymous No.1734273]

how to you feel that a structural engineer ist better than you?

[Anonymous No.1734285]

>>1734252
>Aerospace isn't as big as it used to be.

That simply isn't the case. Aerospace & defense employ as many as ever, and there is a large need to replace an aging workforce. Google it.
>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/SURVEY.xml&amp
;headline=Aviation%20Week%27s%20Latest%20A&D%20Job%20Market%20Overview%20Shows%20Pay%20And%20Ben
efits%20Not%20Deciding%20Factors%20For%20Aerospace%20Engineers
>http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/aerospace-job-forecast-skies-are-clearing

>Odds are you'll end up using all those math skills originally intended for your major in something like accounting and finance.

lolno. american aerospace phd's don't have problems finding aerospace work.

[Anonymous No.1734303]

>>1734262
>hey OP are you excited about the future of aerospace engineering? anything cool and new on the horizon?
Not specifically technical, but I'm immensely excited by the prospects of the small, high tech startup business models that are fully utilizing modern technology, bypassing the industrial inertia that is bogging down the big boys like LM and Boeing.

>also, why do chicks think rocket scientists are cool? they just look at paper all day, it's quite different than a surgeon imo.
Because, like a surgeon, there's a certain allure associated with it. On a more primal level, it means high income and smart babies, which are things that chicks want more and more when they get to be college age. Ever heard of an MRS degree?

>>1734273
>how to you feel that a structural engineer ist better than you?

This is a joke, right? Aerospace engineers have to know everything about structures that a structural engineer knows; more, even. Compare the structural factor of safety used in the aerospace industry (say, 1.05 to 1.5) to what civil people use (10-20.) We have to design structures, but with far greater precision.

I'm obviously biased, but aerospace engineering is the true king of majors =)

[Anonymous No.1734345]

>>1734303

you know, a lots of structural engineers designs aircrafts and satelites structeres, because a mechanical engineer or a aerospace engeneer have no idea about structures or fem (finite element method),

[Anonymous No.1734360]

>>1734345
I have to pause to wonder whether you're actually trolling... which is sad.

[Anonymous No.1734392]

you think, you learned more in the same time than other engineers? a structural engineer learned the whole time "only" structural mechanics, structural dynamics, structural failure and numerical analysis but you a better in structural things than a structural engineer?

[Anonymous No.1734569]

>>1734303
>On a more primal level, it means high income and smart babies

It also means a higher risk for autism, which has already been proven to be heriditary.
Enjoy your ADHD babies.

[Anonymous No.1734581]

>>1733488
>mfw aerospace has a rightful place in the history of human endeavour and that the future of mass-transport of people and cargo is in evacuated tubes

TUUUUUUUUUUUUUBES

[Scia No.1734593]

I plan on majoring in Aerospace engineering

Is there any way to have a focus on astronautical engineering?

[Anonymous No.1734595]

>>1734593
Depends

What experience do you have in building Dyson Spheres?

[Anonymous No.1734603]

>>1734303

Astrophysicist, Ph.D.

Son of:

Quantum Physicist, Ph.D.
And.
MD.

Student of another Quantum Physicist, Lars C. Smedskjaer.

Grandson of:

Mathematician.
And.
Chemical Engineer.

Sibling of:

Civil Engineer.
And.
Program Engineer.
And.
Space Engineer (Yes, the major exists).
And.
Deep Water Engineer (As in, the guys who design systems to operate at high pressure depths).

Trust me, none of us, who are still alive, are impressed by aerospace engineering.

[Anonymous No.1734604]

>>1734581

ships are the important mass-transport devices in history and future.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1734607]

>>1734595

Scia and I had a little competition: Who could turn over 95% of a dwarf galaxy's mass into a galaxy-wide Matrioshka brain before ten million years.

He won by a couple of kiloyears, but I armed by Dysons with Nicoll-Dyson lasers and shot all of his down.

Five hundred trillion uploaded minds died but hey at least we had some fun.

[Anonymous No.1734608]

>>1733488
...anything? Okay:
Was class the determining factor in the English Civil War?

[Scia No.1734609]

Well to build a dyson sphere we would have to have access to the entire solar system for resource gathering.
We would need massive Cargo ships

Personal I don't see it happening in this century

Maybe just maybe is the 2200's(probably not)

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1734617]

>>1734609

Just tie a Bussard Ramjet to every planet in the solar system and get done with it.

[Scia No.1734623]

>>1734617
you do know bussard ram jets are used for interstellar not interplanetary flight

A anti-matter engine is more likely

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1734631]

>>1734623

Hydrogen is everywhere, and from a star's stellar wind it's much easier to catch than in interstellar space, because the density is greater and it's already ionized.

No need for huge startup speeds or kilometer-long ultraviolet lasers ahead of the ship.

tl;dr a bussard ramjet can work in interplanetary space.

[Scia No.1734641]

>>1734631
Maybe so but its still impractical

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1734646]

>>1734641

[Scia No.1734663]

>>1734646
>>1734646

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1734682]

>>1734663

But seriously now, I'd rather have a ship that uses up interplanetary or interstellar hydrogen for propulsion, rather than an unstable antimatter-driven rocket that is limited by its deltaV capacity and the changing tides of the antimatter market.

Not to mention the antimatter might go off the Penning Trap and turn me and my ship into a redshifting star.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1734685]

>>1733488
>>1734663
>>1734646
>>1734641
>>1734631
>>1734623
>>1734617
Dyson spheres are a silly concept at present. Might as well be asking people in the bronze age to make an O'Neil Cylinder

And fusion is the superior space travel power candidate and you both know it.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1734688]

>>1734682
Remember the Valkyrie. That is one of several ways to do anti-matter right.

[Scia No.1734690]

>>1734685
No wait I got a great idea

Lets make a huge fucking cannon and launch things

WITH NUKES

[Scia No.1734695]

Guys lets just keep it realistic here(realistic in the sense of doable with current and/or near future tech)

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1734703]

>>1734688

So um I don't know much about magnetism and shit, but how exactly do you keep frozen Hydrogen floating magnetically? Does it have magnetic properties at that temperature?

Then there's the slight problem of an impact on Valkyrie at 92% of lightspeed. The droplet shield-radiators seem like a great idea, but I doubt they will be able to brush away golfball-sized chunks. Or something.

>>1734690

>implying Schroeder Guns are not superior to filthy rockets

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1734707]

>>1734690
Nuclear Cannon is the best idea ever and you know it.

[Scia No.1734711]

Fixed

[Scia No.1734720]

>>1734707
if you make all of the stuff you shoot up there immune to heat sure it would work

Discounting that the populous would not like a nuke cannon

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1734739]

>>1734720

>Discounting that the populous would not like a nuke cannon

This is why every day I try to be a bit like Carl Sagan and when the subject of nuclear power, why space travel matters, 2012 or black holes from the LHC I explain them the reality.

tl;dr space matters nuclear power = good black holes from LHC = false

[Anonymous No.1734763]

Despite all this so called technological innovation, all this alternative energy sources and methods of population built after the 1960s has never been able to approach the sheer efficiency and power of pure nuclear power. Why did we waste so much money on everything else when the answer has been in front of us all along?

[Scia No.1734770]

>>1734763
Its the liberals faut

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1734771]

>>1734763

Because of Greenpeace spouting bullshit 24/7 since the 1980's and all the alarmists and idiots go all "LOL NUCLEAR POWER? DON'T U KNOW THAT EXPLODES? END OF THE WHURRRRRLLLLDDD!!!"

Needless to say nuclear power plants can't explode like a nuclear bomb, and these people think Chernobyl did. Bleh.

[Scia No.1734779]

>>1734771
If I remember right don't you live is some shitty country?

Emigrate to america we have the biggest rockets

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1734782]

>>1734771
Chernobyl had a meltdown because it was built improperly, operated improperly, and then the teams for handling the meltdown handled it improperly.

That is the ONLY nuclear disaster to ever occur. Somehow this means all nukes are bad, despite many nuclear plants operating problem free for decades. We need nuclear power, and fuck what's presently popular with the public. As long as things like eating food, having clean water, and having air conditioning in the homes is more important than politics, than fuck the politics and get the plants up and running.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1734795]

>>1734779

>If I remember right don't you live is some shitty country?

Yeah.

>Emigrate to america we have the biggest rockets

Well who knows with some luck I may get accepted in one of the 50 unis in the US that teach aerospace.

I have a few teachers that love me and would follow me to the gates of Hell, so I think I can get them to write a recommendation letter. Plus dad knows a former student of the uni of San Diego, that should help. With all that how hard would it be to get accepted? No scholarships or anything fancy, just accepted?

[Scia No.1734803]

>>1734782
people are stupid irrational morons
this is new to you?

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1734809]

>>1734803
My statement implied it is not new to me and that everyone rational needs to start ignoring the irrational morons. Who gives a fuck what people think of nuclear power? Not me. I know what works and I prefer working technology as opposed to politics.

[Scia No.1734812]

>>1734795
Where do you live?

Also I don't know that much about american uni

All i know is that we have good schools(Higher education only)

[Scia No.1734819]

>>1734809
Because they will riot and bitch and things

Then the government will cock block us for votes

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1734822]

>>1734819

Oh God this is heading into the technocracy thing again.

brb food

[Anonymous No.1734828]

...9999.0 = ?

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1734832]

>>1734812

Sorry I'm too paranoid to release this information, but it's not any neighbouring country, or an Asian one you guys seem to love so much for edu.

[Scia No.1734839]

>>1734832
>Sorry I'm too paranoid to release this information

Whats going to happen?

someones hunts you and has millions of suspects?

[Anonymous No.1734844]

1. How close are we to a real space elevator?

2. What were the NASA experiments all about where they were dragging cables through the upper atmosphere?

3. What is your opinion of the UFO phenomena?

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1734865]

>>1734844
>Real Space Elevator

50 years after everyone stops laughing.

>Space Cables

It was SO AWESOME!

>UFOs

Their name implies we have no idea what they are. if we knew, they would not be UFOs.

[Anonymous No.1734908]

>>1733516
where did you do your undergrad/masters?

[/a/nonymous No.1734917]

>>1734782
>As long as things like eating food, having clean water, and having air conditioning in the homes is more important than politics

But that's the thing, people don't understand that, whether it be in regard to power generation or automating a workforce.

[Anonymous No.1734945]

>>1734771
Thats really fucking stupid. Nuclear power is clean, eficient, and the only solution that is realistic for our energy needs.
Solar and wind power are a complete waste of fucking time. The only ones promoting that broken technology are liberals and people born after the 1970s. Those guys in the 1950s really were smarter than us.

[Anonymous No.1734961]

>>1734865
>>Real Space Elevator
>50 years after everyone stops laughing.
On the meantime I'm going to laugh at you
Also why have a Phd in engineering?
You might as well get one for a real science (physics)

[/a/nonymous No.1734962]

>>1734945
>the only solution that is realistic for our energy needs.

Actually that's incorrect, the answer lies in having multiple sources of power generation and avoiding over dependence on any one source. Thus the renewable sources are not a waste of a time but they are not the second coming of Christ returned to save use from fossil fuels either.

[Anonymous No.1734964]

[Anonymous No.1734981]

>>1733488
>Ask a Ph.D candidate in aerospace engineering anything.
>anything
I keep asking this question of /sci/borgs but I ain't got no answer yet. Brother, I'd like you to give it your best shot:
Will Mourinho be able to overcome the lack of an out and out striker to challenge Barca for La Liga? And if not, which player would be the best compromise between the wishes of the board and the needs of the manager? And why?

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1734993]

>>1734962
Solar needs improvements to make it cost effective. The presently overhyped form of wind turbine is horribly inefficient and there are better designs we should use. America seems to be the only country that does hydroelectricity correctly. Add to these nuclear plants, and we will be fine.

>>1734961
...are you agreeing with me that Space Elevators are silly? Then why state it in the form of a disagreement? I advocate a nuclear cannon.

[Samefag No.1734997]

>Ask a Ph.D candidate in aerospace engineering anything.
>anything

If Ironforge is directly North of Stormwind, why does the deeprun tram that connects them run directly East-West?

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1735005]

>>1734997
The stations themselves are aligned east west. The tram takes several turns along the route.

[Anonymous No.1735027]

>>1734993
Wind and solar are unreliable and unsustanable. They cost more per watt than any other energy source, including Hydroelectric. Wind power is good for remote weather stations, but to spend 40 years of funding and science on wind and solar is a waste. Every 10 years we spend improving a solar panel's efficiency by 10%, we can double the power efficiency and safety of a nuclear reactor by 250%

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1735059]

>>1735027
You're using the numbers from the crappy wind turbines. The verticle helix is an awesome design that works great in windy areas.

But Nuclear Power is proven and reliable and we need more of it ASAP before we can worry about supplements.

[/a/nonymous No.1735069]

>>1734993
I don't disagree. Though there are advancements being made to solar, notably the printable solar cells and I recall other work being done to broaden the spectrum of light used in power generation.

And if your talking about the pinwheel looking wind turbines than I agree, if only because they waste so much of the space they occupy. I'm much more fond of the various vertical designs.

You also leave out geothermal oddly, which is no less viable than hydroelectric considering they are both very location dependent.

>>1735027
>10 years
>double
>250%

Where are you ass pulling these numbers from I wonder.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1735090]

>>1735069
God, you're right! how could i leave out geothermal!? We have the drills, we know how a frakken boiler works, we need earth-heat power!

[Anonymous No.1735641]

>>1735090
geothermal makes zero pollution, nuclear power still makes nuclear waste, solar cell's need sunlight, wind turbines only work where its windy.

geothermal can technically run anywhere

downsides to geothermal- small earthquakes and a huge startup cost

[Anonymous No.1735665]

>>1735641
Thorium makes much less waste than conventional reactors and the waste is not as dangerous.

[Anonymous No.1735676]

>>1735027
>>1735069

eh, I'm studying the economics and effectiveness of energy engineering. I highly doubt your assessment of wind and solar, particularly because (a) you don't consider solar thermal and (b) you do not take into account the economies of scale that accrue from large scale production. You assume that large scale production of wind turbines will cause wind power to remain the same price. I agree that solar PV is probably a bad idea unless you're in places like the American southwest, but you're neglecting the much more mature technology in solar thermal power plants.

Also note that nuclear power is also unsustainable, depending on it will only get us another 200 years or so. And EGS right now is NOT a mature technology, talking about depending on it is silly. Drilling deep enough to get the appropriate heat quality is highly impractical in many places; you won't have to focus on hot spots, but it is by no means "anywhere." Where I live in upstate NY, for example, you'd have to drill a good 8 kilometers.

[Anonymous No.1735690]

>Ask a Ph.D candidate in aerospace engineering anything.

LIES

[Anonymous No.1736921]

>>1735676
The best combination is Nuclear, Hydroelectric, and Geothermal.
All 3 sources provide a steady and predictable amount of power over time. We dont need to invent technology for 200 years in the future, just the next 20.

[Anonymous No.1738082]

>>1734603
I'm very impressed by the educational history of people who are not you!

[Anonymous No.1738087]

>>1734593
>I plan on majoring in Aerospace engineering

>Is there any way to have a focus on astronautical engineering?

Of course. look at the upper level technical electives of your potential universities.