/sci/ - Science & Math

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835489]

http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=78041

At 11:20 EST(25 minutes from now) an american company will announce it's new rocket.

It probably will be the most powerful rocket in the world.

And people say we are declining.


Also Human spaceflight thread

[Anonymous No.2835502]

>it's
Declining? Yes, it shows. Meanwhile enjoy hitching a ride from ruskies.

[Anonymous No.2835503]

watch it you faggots this could be our future.

[Anonymous No.2835507]

>>2835502

With FH we wont even need NASA

[Anonymous No.2835511]

lol there is like one person there.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835514]

>>2835511
The press conference has not started yet
>>2835502
Our public space program is declining.

Out private space program on the other hand is going faster then the Chinese space program .

[Anonymous No.2835520]

Is this conference being held in a closet?

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.2835531]

>>2835489
Well crap, i cannot view that stream...

[Anonymous No.2835546]

>>2835489
>most powerful rocket in the world

nope.

it's nice though, that's for sure.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835551]

>>2835520
Holy fuckballs 54,431 kilograms

[Anonymous No.2835558]

oh god the music

[Anonymous No.2835559]

100.000-120.000 lbs to LEO
twice the payload of the shuttle, bla bla bla

must be based on merlin-2 / raptor upper stage to get that capability.

[Anonymous No.2835562]

HOLY FUCK CROSSFEED

they will actually try that?

2 sep events!
mother of christ, that will be insane.

[Anonymous No.2835564]

>>2835546
The N-1(4 launches with 4 failures) and the Saturn V could carry more. 120,000 pounds to LEO at half the cost of the delta V is a big step.

[Max Planck !!jT+l3v7Nbt6 No.2835567]

>mfw the stream wont work for me

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835569]

Oh god Fuck You China

You can't hope to match this

[Anonymous No.2835571]

>>2835562
YOU CAN LOOSE AN ENGINE AND MAKE IT ORBIT.

Now he is mentioning mars.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2835573]

>>2835569
Meanwhile...

[Anonymous No.2835576]

ITT: Idiots think it is important from which imaginary land border scientific advantages come.

[Anonymous No.2835578]

30,000 pounds to mars with one rocket.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2835580]

>>2835576

[Anonymous No.2835583]

>>2835571
depends on how you lose it.

still, cross-feed was unexpected, because it is really hard.

now, if they make an raptor upper stage I'll cream my pants.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835587]

Two falcon heavy launches for a manned moon mission.

AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2835589]

>>2835587

[Anonymous No.2835598]

"We plan to produce more boosters than the rest of the world combined"

When price per kg is much much less than other options they will be.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835601]

>>2835573
This rocket can carry twice as much and Chinas new rocket.

That be finished in 2014

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2835608]

>>2835601
And nothing major will happen until near 2020.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835609]

>>2835589
Its private fucktard

CAPITALISM FUCK YEAH!!!!

[Anonymous No.2835612]

2 to 3 years before commercial launches.

11 launches a year.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2835615]

>>2835609
Oh gee, I wonder who's SpaceX's largest customer?

[Max Planck !!jT+l3v7Nbt6 No.2835618]

>>2835609

>Corporatism

Fix'd

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835624]

You know im starting to think they're serious about a manned mars mission by 2020.

[Anonymous No.2835627]

>>2835618
Corporatism would be selling launches %10 cheaper than the competition because the investers love money

They are doing it at half the cost.

[Anonymous No.2835628]

>>2835624
nope.

robotic sample return by that, yep.
asteroid, sure.

but manned is quite a bigger scale.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835633]

Just admit we are better then you

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2835636]

>>2835633
I wish to know, how did you become so blatantly patriotic? Do you have Republican parents or something?

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835638]

Super heavy lift mean over 50,000 Kg to LEO

this qualifies

[Anonymous No.2835644]

>>2835633
could you stop with the insane "HURR DURR MURICCA " screaming? it distracts from the rocket and science we are talking about here.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835647]

>>2835636
Sorry faggy Australian

brb making a Super Heavy Lift while you do jack shit

[Anonymous No.2835650]

>>2835627
> implying that's not because they had to win a contract with NASA

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835651]

>>2835644
Elon musk loves america too

[Anonymous No.2835652]

>>2835638
that is an completely arbritary scale.

also, the shuttle is a super heavy launcher, but it's payload is low.

also, tons to leo does not directly scale to tons to TLI or HEO or asteroid schemes.

also, diffirent inclinations.

not pissing on your parade here, but really, it's not like it's magic.

[Max Planck !!jT+l3v7Nbt6 No.2835653]

>>2835627

>Subsidized Corporatism

[Anonymous No.2835654]

>>2835636

Hah good try. You conveniently forgot to add the part where we are number 1 at being morbidly obese.

NUMBER ONE NUMBER ONE NUMBER ONE NUMBER ONE

[Anonymous No.2835658]

>>2835636
> developed the telephone
> first nuclear weapons
> landed man on the moon
> developed facebook
> first and only operator of stealth aircraft
> invented the internet
> developed the personal computer.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2835663]

>>2835647
>thinks i'm proud of my country
>doesn't realize I will always troll you because the country you're derping on about isn't actually the best in everything
>as the anon above stated, Idiots think it is important from which imaginary land border scientific advantages come.

Two hundred nation states, six global powers. The potential to become one planet.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2835665]

>>2835654

[Anonymous No.2835676]

>At 11:20 EST(25 minutes from now) an american company will announce it's new rocket.
A company that's a rocket?

This I have to see!

>It probably will be the most powerful rocket in the world.
It stands to reason. But will it be the most powerful *company* in the world?

[Max Planck !!jT+l3v7Nbt6 No.2835680]

>>2835658

>Facebook
are you fucking kidding?
>invented the internet
hahhaahah - Arpanet and the Internet are NOT the same. CERN developed the protocols we use today in the modern internet.
>Stealth Aircraft
Russia is catching up buddy. They already have 3 developed. Give them another 5-10 years you'll see.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835681]

He just said With Falcon Heavy/Dragon you could do a manned lunar flyby.

I love This company so fucking much

[Infinigger No.2835683]

>>2835665
>US ahead of China in CO2 emissions
lolnope

[Anonymous No.2835685]

>>2835663
Actually it kind of does because those imaginary borders come with a lot of political, economic, philosophical, and religious differences which will determine how that advantage is used to affect the rest of mankind.

Are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.2835686]

The guy just mentioned space faring civilization.

He may be one of the best CEO's I have heard from.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2835687]

>>2835683
Surprisingly, they still are.

[Anonymous No.2835688]

>>2835665
Oh no! Not #1 in McDonalds and Plastic Surgery!

That totally cancels out the fact that we have the biggest economy, all the world's top schools, invented the internet, and went to the moon.

[Anonymous No.2835690]

>>2835573
That is an obvious fake. Here is the real story.

U S A!
U S A!

[Anonymous No.2835693]

He is talking about building a rocket %50 bigger than the Saturn V to get costs below $1000/lb

[Anonymous No.2835700]

EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it!

>World's Richest and Most Successful Country Spends Most Money on Stupid Shit!

(buried on page 43: World Richest and Most Successful Country Also Spends Most Money on Non-Stupid Shit)

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2835701]

>>2835685
>he still is loyal to his country
Past the attachment from living in that country since you were born there should be nothing more than the quality of life and the difficulty of the language influencing your view on a nation. Great people can come from everywhere, it's just in already developed countries far more people get education and exposed to experiences which lead them onto greatness. It is these people who lead their countries forward. And then others falsely praise their entire country for the successes of these few people.

>>2835686
Elon Musk is awesome.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835702]

>>2835663
Yes I agree we should become 1 planet.

But realistically that won't happen for a while.

For now I want this country in charge so advances in science and technology continue or exceed the same pace.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2835707]

>>2835702
>For now I want this country in charge so advances in science and technology continue or exceed the same pace.
Four words.
STEM CELLS AND REPUBLICANS

[Anonymous No.2835709]

>>2835686
hey, the iron man in the movie was partly based on elon musk. He has a cameo in there aswell.

[Anonymous No.2835712]

>>2835688
>the world's top schools

hahahaha, good one
america has one of the worst school systems in the developed world
the universites are good because they charge whatever they want, and of course with shit loads of money they will be better
still got nothing on Cambridge, enjoy debt

[Anonymous No.2835732]

>>2835712
>implying anything other than college level matters
wtfamIreading.jpg
>>Cambridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities
5th place, nice. You're only beaten by 4 American schools.

[Anonymous No.2835735]

what exactly does he intend to do with this rocket
dragon crew wont be ready for years yet and it's not really fitted out for lunar missions, and nasa have no proposals to buy this sort of thing, and they certainly aren't going to be lead
it has no place in today's current market for launches
this seems to be nothing more than a publicity stunt at the moment it looks like it ill end up like the delta IV with only military contracts but this wont even have that

[Anonymous No.2835739]

>>2835735
heavy ( GEO ) satellites, the biggest market right now.

[Anonymous No.2835743]

The big problem with US science is that they think quantity = quality

Russian engineering works. Seriously, fire all your U.S. and Indian nationals in NASA and hire 500 ruskies.

By 2020 we will have colonies on Andromeda.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835747]

>>2835701
>And then others falsely praise their entire country for the successes of these few people.

Im going into aerospace engineering

[Anonymous No.2835750]

>>2835712
>the universites are good because they charge whatever they want, and of course with shit loads of money they will be better
More to the point, because they're not (all) run by the government, there's no central force trying to spread the great minds around evenly.

Schools can get the best professors, which brings in the highest tuitions, which means they can pay the best professors the most and give them the highest research budgets, which means they get more of the best professors, which means that it's more attractive to the best professors because they all want to work with each other, which means they can get higher tuitions... etc.

And so the universities can fulfill their true purpose: to bring the best minds together to both expand and disseminate knowledge.

[Anonymous No.2835752]

>>2835732

Perelman is the brightest scientist alive.
Graduated from a school not even mentioned on any rankings whatsoever.

Milton Friedman is the greatest American of the past century;
Graduated from Rutgers, shitty as well.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835754]

>>2835707
Fuck you

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835756]

>>2835743
>The big problem with US science is that they think quantity = quality

Thats China not America

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835773]

>>2835735
Giant ass satellites thats what

[Anonymous No.2835782]

>>2835756

Explain why NASA can't afford its programs then ?

1 Russian can do the job of 50 NASA physicists because he will work smarter and more efficiently.

You throw money around without having ideas. That's choosing quantity (of $$$) over quality.

You will need a massive overhaul if you want any breakthrough. This time, no nazi/german scientists to do the job instead of you (Einstein, Von Braun, etc).

That's why the NASA crisis is good. They'll have to work smarter from now on and stop trying to drown instabilities with scale adjustments.

Sputnik had chunks of wood in it.

[Anonymous No.2835791]

>>2835752
Uh... colleges don't produce great minds, they're not supposed to. I guarantee you anyone who amounts to anything intellectually laughs their way through their undergrad studies, and rolls their eyes at the silliness of the hoops they have to jump through.

The structured training part of college is for the mediocre minds. For the great minds, it's a place to meet each other and talk and get paid.

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835793]

>>2835782
> This time, no nazi/german scientists to do the job instead of you
SpaceX only hires Citizens/permanent residents

[Max Planck !!jT+l3v7Nbt6 No.2835797]

>>2835793

>woooooooooooosh

[Anonymous No.2835798]

>>2835793

The only 2 breakthroughs in U.S. science (Manhattan, Apollo) were 99% driven by German scientists.

I agree that the rest (ie. failures) are done by U.S. citizens.

Your scientists aren't any dumber than others. The system however is dumb.

Financial hardships will only improve NASA's results.

[Anonymous No.2835801]

>>2835782
>implying that the Russian space program wasn't based on the efforts of captured German rocket scientists

[Anonymous No.2835810]

>>2835801

If that was the case, then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Korolev

wouldn't have gotten out of gulag to do everything.

When Korolev became ill, all of the soviet space program died with it. If German scientists were involved, they would have made it to the moon despite Korolev's death.

The Germans were used (and then killed) for the nuclear bomb. Not the space race.

[Anonymous No.2835814]

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835817]

>>2835798
brb being the greatest rocket scientists in history

[Anonymous No.2835820]

>NASA

>Implying we want to give all our hard-earned rocketry research to the Chinese so they can improve their ballistic missiles.

[Anonymous No.2835821]

>>2835739
>>2835773
its all well and good saying that but we have launchers that are capable of launching satelites two or three times the ones they are currently launching
big satellites are expensive and new launchers do not lead the satellite providers to build bigger ones just because they can
big satellites may happen eventually but the growth in the top end is small, the focus is on smaller satellites, nanosats and such
there will always be large GEO satellites but they aren't in any hurry to get much bigger

there is no market for this kind of launch elon admitted it what they are trying to do is to lead nasa to do what they want

i doubt it will work

[Anonymous No.2835828]

>>2835817
yeah those nazi's won't forgive themselves or get themselves out of war crimes charges

[Anonymous No.2835845]

>pounds
>pounds
>pounds
this is rocket /sci/ence stop using medieval units faggots

[Anonymous No.2835846]

>>2835821
You can't have a market for a service that isn't available at any price.

Once the service is available, the market will develop for it.

[Anonymous No.2835847]

>>2835820

They'll buy Soviet tech which is both more reliable and cheaper. In fact, they already did.

[Anonymous No.2835861]

I long for a future where condoms grow in and out of your penis.

[Anonymous No.2835871]

>>2835846
yeah like i said much heavier services currently exist but suppliers still build the same small satellites
there is no reason so suddenly go 2.5 times larger just because there's a new rocket
and the fact that in the past when heavier rockets came on line satellites didn't get any heavier proves this

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835877]

>>2835871
This rocket can also take humans to the moon in two launches.

Also Elon has a BS is business I think he knows what he is doing

[Anonymous No.2835894]

>>2835871

This rocket will be the largest since the Saturn V

[Anonymous No.2835902]

Whats next?

ERROR

[Anonymous No.2835920]

>>2835877
oh he has a bs well he must be the master of the launcher industry, you don't think someone at boeing had a degree before they built the delta iv which then turned out to be useless
i bet they too thought nasa would want to buy a new bigger rocket to do bigger things
but no
and yes it could go to the moon but there's nothing to send, you could do a manned flyby but this is a gimmick its much cheaper to send an orbiter which can stay for longer
and we don't have a lander or a capsule to go
and even if they do that what then, pointless sorties like apollo which will ultimately cancelled, the whole international moon base idea has died so that isn't happening
so what we have a rocket but we should now spend 10's of billions of dollars building everything else so we can do moon missions we don't want

i don't think so

[Anonymous No.2835945]

>>2835871
>implying that every single launch now is for tiny satellites
>implying that there are no maximum-available-size satellite launches at all
Nobody is saying that this is going to be the only rocket anybody will ever need.

It's not competing with the low-end rockets. There is a high-end market, and this is not just competing in that segment, but breaking ground in a whole new market segment.

They don't need to beat small rockets, or convince people who were going to make small satellites that they should launch large satellites instead, they only need to find a few customers who want to launch a few big satellites.

Jesus, this is like saying that anyone who builds supercomputers is destined to fail and have no customers because "these days the computer market is all about small, low-power devices like smart phones and netbooks".

It's grossly ignorant oversimplification.

[Anonymous No.2835947]

>>2835920

The issue with your argument is cost. The whole point of "commercial space" is to allow availability be cutting cost.

[Anonymous No.2835959]

"ready to launch within the next year"
great news

[Scia !!cjW58FjfJHZ No.2835964]

>>2835959
actually 2013

[Anonymous No.2835971]

Another thread ruined by tripfags, or rather, one in particular.

Amerifag here, by the way.

[Anonymous No.2835972]

>>2835964

something about a demo flight happening next year.

[Anonymous No.2835973]

>>2835964
What use will that be when the world ends in 2012?

We need a way off this planet much sooner than that!

[Anonymous No.2835983]

>>2835945
yes but look at the delta IV and the atlas V both came with the option of the largest yet launches
but the larger atlas has never found a customer and the delta has only been used by the military

the ariane 5 is the current dominant launcher in the market but never has it flown with the largest variant available at the time fully laden with one commercial satellite
even with dual launch the heavy is simply to large
yes it will have a few launches but not enough to justify it

[Anonymous No.2835997]

>>2835947
oh so because the rocket costs less we will spend 10's of billions of dollars on missions we still don't want
and bear in mind that spacex can't do all or even most of it, congress will not allow nasa to put all its eggs in one basket

[Anonymous No.2836016]

Why doesnt the government TAKE the resources and PUSH them over to nasa?

Fuck. Im sick of this "derp no money"

Everybody knows this is good for humanity, so you take the fucking resources AND YOU PUSH THEM TO NASA. Can someone explain why not?

[Anonymous No.2836024]

One 50 ton Bigelow module would be almost as large as the whole ISS.

SpaceX facebook page for anyone interested:

https://www.facebook.com/SpaceX?ref=ts


Go, SpaceX!

[Anonymous No.2836025]

>>2836016
Um... because NASA is a huge tangled bureaucracy that wastes human potential even more than it wastes money with its politics-ridden decision-making processes?

[Anonymous No.2836040]

I hate people who suck Russian cock all day. The RSA sure isn't bragging. Russians have never even attempted a mission outside of earth orbit for two decades. NASA if funding the russian space program because they like working with them, They pay 50 million for astronauts to ride Soyuz even though a greater number of cosmonauts rode the shuttle for free. Two of the russian ISS modules are completely paid for by NASA.

[Anonymous No.2836047]

>>2836025
Ya but im not even talking about money here. I mean why don't they literally take every resource they need from the EARTH. So they don't fuck with the economy.

[Anonymous No.2836058]

>>2836047
I'm not sure I'm totally clear on what you're saying, but I don't think it's a good idea to waste the Earth either.

[Anonymous No.2836066]

>>2836040
You don't happen to have similar charts for other planets?

[Anonymous No.2836070]

>>2836058
>but I don't think it's a good idea to waste the Earth either.

Well then with that mindset we can never leave earth. But I mean like fuckin.. if they need a fuckin piece of plastic u make a piece of plastic with whatever the fuck you use. LOL you just do it... No need to buy anything

[Anonymous No.2836079]

[Anonymous No.2836087]

>>2836070
That's not how we do things in the US, we have a market economy not a command economy, the government can't just demand some company produce random plastic parts or something.

[Anonymous No.2836090]

>>2836070
Oh shit, folks, we've got an economic/industrial genius on our hands here.

He knows how to get everything you want for free!
>But I mean like fuckin.. if they need a fuckin piece of plastic u make a piece of plastic with whatever the fuck you use. LOL you just do it... No need to buy anything

[Anonymous No.2836100]

>>2836087
Ya but thats where you hire a bunch of people to make the required parts for Nasa. Its essentially free if you find someone with the knowledge and provide the required parts to make the parts. Like miners or w/e.

[Anonymous No.2836103]

>>2836100
I really hope you're trolling or high or something.

[Anonymous No.2836111]

>>2836103
No im not fuckin trolling or high.

Im proposing a different idea to things. Lets say nasa needs a huge ass piece of metal for a rocket. All you do is you hire a legitimate MINE. Thats really cheap to hire a bunch of guys to do some labor. Then you find your shit and you hire 1 GUY to weld it into whatever. Ectetera. I have no clue how the shit works but its cheaper than buying everything for a set price( however much the seller wants).

[Anonymous No.2836124]

>>2836040
>Russians have never even attempted a mission outside of earth orbit for two decades

If your entire country collapses overnight, that's quite understandable. They've been heavily involved with the ISS, they're planning returns to mars, the moon and venus in the next few years and are developing a new booster for a possible manned moon mission.

>I hate people who suck Russian cock all day

I hate people who pan everything that isn't American. The Russians have an almost unbelievable list of achievements and firsts in space, and rightfully receive admiration for it from people who care about actual space exploration, rather than screaming MERRYKA STRONG and having a temper tantrum whenever they believe someone may be suggesting that a country other than America has done something of note

On a slightly different note, April 12th is the 50th anniversary of the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin. I hope anyone who has an interest in space will be raising an ice cold glass of Stolichnaya to his achievement and memory, and a toast to mankind's future in space.
Za druzhbu myezhdu narodami!

[Anonymous No.2836128]

>>2836111
> I have no clue how the shit works

Perhaps that's why nobody is taking you seriously? The cost of the parts is due to the labor and capital that the provider has invested into that part. Sure, you could spend money to collect materials yourself, but it would be a much slower process, and then you yourself would have to invest in production equipment.

[Anonymous No.2836135]

>>2836111
> I have no clue how the shit works
Well at least something you said is accurate.

[Anonymous No.2836137]

>>2836128
Meow.

[Anonymous No.2836170]

>>2836124
>fly into space on the top of an ICBM
>orbit the earth in a malfunctioning tin ball
>re-enter, and jump out of the plummeting capsule whilst still kilometres up, with a normal 60's parachute

Balls
Of
Steel

в вашей памяти, Юрий!

[Anonymous No.2836197]

>60 tons maximum lifting capacity
AAAHAHAAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAAH
weak ass faggot

come back when you can haul 550 tons without breaking a sweat

[Anonymous No.2836204]

>>2836197
come back when you exist

[aether No.2836208]

Quality > Quantity
>>2836197

[Anonymous No.2836215]

>>2835707
>my face when embryonic stem cells are horribly instable and cancer prone, where as adult stem cells are far more reliable and readily available.
and republicans fund adult stem cell research like crazy

[Anonymous No.2836331]

>>2836111
>Ectetera

[Anonymous No.2836499]

What happened to the old good super-over-exaggeration of 20th century? Why no one has mentioned project "Orion"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

I think that could be a nice breakthrough. Landing on Moon, well it looks nice on CV but it's practically useless. A permanent space station delivers much greater value for money. Trip to Mars, well it's prestigious, it delivers a lot of advertisement, attraction for young scientists... but apart from that it's a MASSIVE resource burner (in fact the moon is overly expensive so the Mars is pretty much a waste of effort).

Or say one gigantic telescope on Earth's orbit. It seems that'll be much more useful than all the Moon landings taken together. Don't you think?

[Anonymous No.2836521]

>>2836137
FAP FAP

[Anonymous No.2836525]

>>2836499
>blah blah blah money blah blah blah

Meanwhile China will probably have a giant communist metropolis on mars by 2050. Do you really want the red planet to be populated by reds? well, do you, boy? Sounds like we got us one of them queer fifth columnists here. You need a damn you whupping, son

[Anon E. Mouse No.2836536]

>>2836499
Well we can mine on the moon and Mars. We can mine materials that aren't overly abundant on earth. Inb4 we'll change the mass of the moon. As you mine from the moon, you populate it and replace that mass. It really isnt a waste of resources. same for mars.
also, Inb4 "we cant live on the moon and mars" terraforming isnt that hard of process once we get there.

[Anonymous No.2836542]

>>2836499
because detonating tens of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere is a horrendously bad idea?

Sea dragon and orion are the two sacred cows that get wheeled out every single time there's a space thread, and they both stink. Sea dragon less than orion, but the stench is still palpable.

[Anonymous No.2836546]

>>2836499
>hasn't noticed the global hysteria from the largely contained Japan situation.
fuck, the supposed nuclear loving French people bought up all the geiger counters for sale in their country in the first week after.
I’d rather see a fleet of fully reusable sea dragons making daily flights anyway.

[Anonymous No.2836550]

>>2836536
>terraforming an entire planet isn't that hard

[Anon E. Mouse No.2836555]

>>2835798
uhm yeah... pay the fuck attention to whats actually going on and you wouldnt believe that. Americans just like 5-upped everybody in the world, including the 6 nations that actually got into space

[Anon E. Mouse No.2836562]

>>2836550
its not, you melt the polar caps on mars which are just frozen atmosphere. and yeah I know Im going to get argued with. oh well. anyone with an idea gets argued with until it gets proven. But, it would work. thats not the only step but its the first. and no im not explaining the rest of it.

[Anonymous No.2836570]

>>2836562
Total recall wasn't a documentary, bro

Terraforming a planet would take centuries, easily.

The fact that you think you could just melt the tiny icecaps and that would be it shows how little you know

[Anon E. Mouse No.2836579]

>>2836570
Ha... forgot they did that in total recall. and what they did wouldnt even work over hundreds of years because there is nothing keeping it from refreezing. As for the time table, no. its a 22 year process. And thanks for proving my point. Im going to get argued with, I understand that. But remember, the world said we couldnt put a man on the moon. then we did it. Just because you dont know how to do it doesnt mean it isnt possible. I expected a higher caliber of intelligence on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.2836587]

>>2836579

How much energy and what kind of production methods would you expect this terraforming process would require?

[Anonymous No.2836591]

>>2836124
Fuck yeah Yuri's night! I wish the Russians had put all their efforts into space, rather than the pathetic dick waving contest about who had the most nukes with man-children America and Britain. If they did that and Korolev hadn't died, Man would be on Mars easy by now

[Anon E. Mouse No.2836600]

>>2836587
since i dont have the process in front of me because Im in class, we're going to call it shit tons of energy at first because you would need to melt a bulk of the polar caps then lower the power a lot to cause a slow release. Then the rest you'll have to figure out for yourself.

[Anonymous No.2836603]

Payload this, mass that, thrust this, BORINGGG. This guy cant conference for shit.

[Anonymous No.2836608]

>>2836536
I mean undoubtedly yes it is possible but you can terraform the ocean say somewhere in the Pacific you could simply build a floating metropolis for the price of a village on Moon or a house on a Mars. - At least the air support is for free, gravity free, magnetic shielding from cosmic radiation free, temperate temperature for free (no need to deal with -30C like on Mars)...

Which precious materials are in abundance (or in significant quantities) on Moon and Mars and aren't on Earth and worth all the effort?

The gigantic telescope can be used for improving of our understanding of fundamental sciences. That's a unique "resource" that can not be mined from Earth so I understand sending a overly expensive telescope out there. It could measure distant universe which in a natural way provides otherwise unaffordable experiments with an extreme fields and energies (so we don't need to replicate them - or at least don't need so many of them).

[Anon E. Mouse No.2836611]

>>2836603
and his caring cup for you doesnt even exist. So shut up.

[Anonymous No.2836617]

>>2836579
>Species can't even manage it's own planet's biosphere properly
>just about managed to get to a lump of rock 240,000 miles away
>claims can fully terraform barren desert planet 35 million miles away
>in 22 years

whatthefuckamIreading.iso

Link me to a source and I might not think you're batshit crazy. Terraforming a planet would probably take from between 500 to well over a thousand years, even with magic infinite power sources and no limit on resources

[Anonymous No.2836621]

>>2836611
You enjoy sitting listening to this guy stutter and drone on about the same thing over and over, id rather sit and read the fucking wiki.

[Anon E. Mouse No.2836637]

>>2836608
First: its nice to see some intelligence on /sci/. And Im not saying the space telescope isnt worth it. I think that it is one of the best things we have done in space yet and we should continue the venture. I was just defending the moon and mars point. The moon has an abundance of thorium. Thorium could be used thoroughly on earth. The first thing Im thinking of is increasing the output of nuclear reactors. We only get (i think its 11% efficiency) out of our reactors now. With a thorium core we could get at least 15% instead. That isnt even the only material but its what I can think of in the middle of class.

[Anonymous No.2836640]

>film fragment
>HOLY SHIT ROCKETS ZOMG
>suddenly, UAC decides to throw a popup
Fuck it. We will never venture into space.

[Anonymous No.2836671]

>>2836600

So basically the claim that it is easy is just horse shit because it would assume that you could easily create a shit load of energy on mars easily. I mean dude, you'd need to have hundreds of nuclear plants just to even melt the ice. Calling that easy is like saying that it's easy to go the moon, you just need a big rocket.

[Anonymous No.2836675]

>>2836637
The way you talk, it's almost as if you're a visionary scientist and nuclear/rocket engineer, who bestrides the earth as a godlike colossus of knowledge and can solve every problem which afflicts mankind with just one thought from his mighty cranium, rather than a poor to middling student in some bumfuck school or college who reads popular science magazines

inb4
>err no actually i work for nasa and am an astronaut and brain surgeon in my spare time and i built a reactor once
sure thing, bro. sure thing.

[Anonymous No.2836687]

>>2835489
Thank you for appreciation of my post. I read a bit about Thorium and yes it seems to be fairly rare, though less rare than Uranium or Plutonium but still very precious:

http://www.science.co.il/Ptelements.asp?s=Earth

I got the point it seems thatit might be really economically feasible and worth it. Although I wonder are they on Moon in sufficient quantities? Because As far as my poor knowledge of moon goes there are primarily light elements, while we are more interested in heavier (they are more precious). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Anon E. Mouse No.2836691]

>>2836671
Im not assuming on using nuclear reactors. Yes I know im going to get attacked again for this statement too but I dont care because none of you are ever going to be paying my bills or giving me my paycheck. The energy would be a matter-antimatter reaction. instead of 11% efficient release of energy, it is closer to a 71% efficient release of energy. I know we havent mastered the processes for a matter-antimatter reaction. The terraforming process isnt all science and technology that has been mastered. A lot of it is still being worked on.

[Anonymous No.2836712]

>>2836691
So, what you actually should have said was "We can terraform mars in 22 years if loads and loads of sci-fi technology which is so far away from development that not even our children's children will see it operation is magically available"
Well, sure. I can turn myself into a levitating space jesus with that sort of technology.
Keep your star trek nonsense in /tv/, please.

[Anon E. Mouse No.2836731]

>>2836675
No, I actually go to a really good tech school and I want to work for SpaceX when I graduate and this is the kind of shit I want to do with my everyday life. And dont try to tell me youre not so forever alone neckbeard that sits and reads wikis all day. I know the kind of asshole that trolls 4chan. Instead of attacking me why dont you grow the fuck up and stop working at some greasy place or from your fucking basement.

[Anonymous No.2836738]

>>2836542
don't lump sea dragon in with orion. orion has essentially no value due to the stupid concept of atmospheric detonations and the hueg g forces it'll undergo. not to mention the amount of engineering needed to get it working right.

Sea dragon is basically a large saturn V, and the launch platform won't require much thought, just use a nuclear aircraft carrier for the electrolysis and the command center. done.

[Anonymous No.2836742]

Thorium is hardly "precious", and neither is uranium.

They're both concentrated in good ores and are in little demand other than as nuclear fuel, which uses very small amounts of ore.

Their prices are in the same neighborhood as copper. Nowhere close to the precious metal range.

[Anonymous No.2836751]

>>2836742
copper is $4.50 per pound
uranium is $60
thorium is $28

[Another Bus No.2836753]

I LOVE SPACEX!!!!!!!! btw the difference between the Falcon 9 and the Falcon 1 is that the Falcon 9 is BIGGER! trollface.jpg

[Anon E. Mouse No.2836755]

>>2836753
The difference is 8 my young padawan
>amidoingitright.jpg

[Anonymous No.2836756]

>>2836753
wait, i thought it could carry 60 tons, not just 28!?
who gives a fuck about 28 tons per launch. where is my sea dragon?

[Anon E. Mouse No.2836759]

>>2836756
Where are you getting 28 tons?? Nowhere does it say just 28...

[Anonymous No.2836760]

>>2836751
I call that a neighborhood, and they're only that high in that neighborhood because they're specialty products and don't benefit from economy of scale.

Silver is around $500/lb, gold over $20,000/lb.

That's a whole other neighborhood.

[Anonymous No.2836764]

>>2836753
>>2836759
24,750kg == 28 tons == 54,500 lbs

[Anonymous No.2836771]

>>2836731
looks like he struck a nerve
Nice "I'm a genius and everyone else is an idiot" complex you've got going on there.

[Another Bus No.2836776]

>>2836756
The Falcon 9's LEO payload capacity is almost 12 tons or 23,000 lbs. The Falcon 9 Heavy's (the biggest one) LEO is designed to carry almost 60 tons or 120,000 lbs. (btw this is off the SpaceX website)

[Anon E. Mouse No.2836777]

>>2836764
Ok thought you were talking about the heavy. the S5 and the S9 are not the heavy.

[Anonymous No.2836779]

>>2836776
>60 tons
that's a lot, but still not that much
i'm honestly wondering if the current nasa administration is simply not aware of sea dragon

[Anonymous No.2836785]

>>2836771
>Nice "I'm a genius and everyone else is an idiot" complex

welcome to /sci/

[Another Bus No.2836793]

>>2836779
60 tons is equivalent to a 737 fully loaded with a little more than 100 passengers... "maximum take-off weight of a fully-loaded Boeing 737-200 with 136 passengers" from a SpaceX email... thats still not much? are you a fuking giant?

[Anonymous No.2836796]

>>2836779
It's a theoretical design, from the 60's. There are probably many, many, many problems with it.

[Anonymous No.2836803]

>>2836796
Don't give NASA so much credit.

These are the people who built the space shuttle, saw how well it actually worked in practice, and went ahead with building a fleet of them instead of going back to the drawing board.

[Anonymous No.2836804]

>>2836793
not much for serious space operations.
also consider that "lots of small launches" is generally far far far far more expensive than one massive one.

550 tons means you could very easily and pretty cheaply do deep solar system exploration missions. like one large automated craft to explore every moon of jupiter in a single go, each moon getting its own orbiter and lander

[Another Bus No.2836809]

>>2836804
Do you not realize that the Falcon 9 Heavy is going to be THE most powerful rocket in use today?

[Q. Mechanics No.2836812]

>>2836804
You build it Ill buy it. Til then, this is the best we have -_- dont be stupid. The Falcon 9 heavy is literally the very best that has ever been designed. It works. We dont have anything that even come close to 550 tons. Dont think because you can pull a random number out of your ass that it means someone can do it yet

[Anonymous No.2836815]

>>2836809

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)

Prepare your anus.

[Anonymous No.2836821]

>>2836812
550 tons was in reference to sea dragon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)

again, pretty much all the components could have been designed and built in the fucking 60s. everything is there.

[Another Bus No.2836823]

>>2836815
if your going by thrust that R-36 only has 4.5 MN of thrust the Falcon 9 Heavy will have 17 MN... how is the R-36 better?

[Q. Mechanics No.2836824]

>>2836815
>ICBM
ICBM engines would not last nearly long enough to make it anywhere not on earth... They are not space-based engines. They are deliver a payload. And ^ this.
And again... wiki is now the best scientist ever... -_-

[Anonymous No.2836829]

>>2836815
>Throw-weight of the missile is 8,800 kg

Also, it wasn't a space vehicle. ICBM's are ballistic lobbing devices. They could be used to get stuff into orbit, but they have to be heavily modified and just used as boosters. I think there was a plan floated a few years back to use all the trident rockets as launch aids when they get retired

[Anonymous No.2836848]

interesting thread. I'm no expert on rockets and shit, but I find the arguments that there is no need for so much pounds to be launched as sort of retarded. Again, I have no clue what the process of launching a sattelite is, but could you perhaps launch multiple sattelites at once? That would sure be more cost-effective.

[Anonymous No.2836854]

>>2836821
Sea dragon was basically a "what-if" idea. None of the main and most important parts of the vehicle had been developed, or were close to being developed, when it was brainstormed. Look at the engine power and size requirements, for example. No one took it seriously, because it was not a serious proposition at the time.
The cost estimates for kg-orbit are also flawed. Seriously flawed. Space-x can do $1000 per kg, proven. Sea dragon claimed $50-600. Claimed. And that's without development costs, the permanent use of a fucking aircraft carrier or floating nuke plant and recovery and refurbishment facilities, and ignoring the fact that it would require at least a decade of development. It can be done in theory, but theory and reality have a habit of not matching up. Claiming that a sea dragon program would be cheap is nonsense. It would cost an enormous amount. Normal rockets cost an enormous amount, so why people think that a "reusable" rocket designed to be a part time ship and requiring a nuclear reactor to fuel would be cheap is a mystery to me.

That's not to say it couldn't be done. It could. But the reality is that it is probably cheaper, easier and more effective to go with programs like space-x than sea dragon.

[Anonymous No.2836857]

>>2836824

I admit, it was some half-assed trolling I did there.

Still, the Russians can craft some epic shit with this kind of architecture.

[Anonymous No.2836862]

Enjoy launching your rockets from Earth and wasting massive fuel reserves, I'll be here in my orbital shipyard making freighters bigger than a skyscraper.

[Q. Mechanics No.2836873]

>>2836862
Oh you live in the star wars galaxy? Sweeeet. I wish I was there.
>trollface.jpg

[Another Bus No.2836881]

>>2836862
obviously we shouldnt burn any fuel we should just use flash lights!

[Anonymous No.2836933]

>>2836204
told

[Anonymous No.2837030]

>>2836751
Honestly I was surprised! You are right nuclear fuel isn't expensive at all:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
311.124 US$/kg
although the source seems to be biased if it is below 1000 US$/kg it is still a very good price.
I am very surprised because I was expecting it to be much more expensive due to high energy density and extremely good properties compared to other fuels. I thought at least because of that the price would be much higher. Though the price is also low because it isn't really used in a very extensive way.

[Anonymous No.2837052]

>>2835489
But hold on there is more gold on earth than Uranium, gold is expensive only because it's shiny and yellow, not because of it's usefulness. So it is a matter of time when it's price will fall below the price of useful Uranium.

[Anonymous No.2837077]

>>2836779
>thinks NASA cares about anything but spending money in key congressional districts.
Do you honestly believe the shuttle derived crap was about SAVING money?

[Anonymous No.2837227]

>>2836854
the biggest and possibly only real problem is the engine design, yes. but then again the objective to date hasn't really been on larger engines

also the nuclear reactors on aircraft carriers are pretty well built, and not prohibitively expensive.

the cheapness comes from the fact that there is no necessary materials design, it's mostly just mapping out the components and wiring, adding some struts, designing the best fuel tank ect.

the advantage is that everything it needs uses techniques already developed from R&D of other rockets. it's not an upgrade so much as a sidegrade.

[Anonymous No.2837232]

>an american company will announce it's new rocket
>announce it's new rocket
>it's new rocket
>it's

[Anonymous No.2837243]

>>2837227
this
people love to shit on sea dragon for being pie in the sky and far fetched......but it's really not that crazy. Unusual, yes. Eccentric, yes. but not out of reasonable reach

[Anonymous No.2837279]

>>2837243
>>2837227
People aren’t really shitting on it, its just that like usual around here, you kids are busy jerking off over phase 5 when phase 2 is what needs to be focused on and 3 and 4 are still being refined.

[Anonymous No.2837283]

>>2835688

Oxford and Cambridge would like a word.