/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 55 KB, 670x440, spacex-grasshopper-03-670x440-130426.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jul 19 01:32:16 2013 No.5910712 [Reply] [Original]

How can this be even feasibly more economical than a spaceplane design, like UK's Skylon that recently got approved for funding? The economics of the fuel required to slow down the rocket on descent completely baffle me.

Skylon spaceplane: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/across-the-universe/2013/jul/17/sabre-rocket-engine-reaction-skylon

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 01:35:16 2013 No.5910717 I was thinking the same thing OP who knows if it will even work (theyve only done extremely small scale tests)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 01:49:16 2013 No.5910726 >>5910712 I would assume most of the velocity is burned up on reentry. Besides, I read that these reusable rockets can only haul 40% of the payload of a disposable version, So I think it balances out.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 02:05:47 2013 No.5910742 nasaspaceflight.com Read and learn, OP.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 02:11:47 2013 No.5910747 >>5910712 It's economical because that britbong spaceplane isn't going to be able to haul 24 tons of material into orbit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 02:17:16 2013 No.5910753 >>5910747 In one go maybe not, but considering that it would be relatively easy to adopt a modular or self assembling design for the payload its fairly economical, stay mad americlaps.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 03:20:17 2013 No.5910797 >>5910753 I'd like to see what SpaceX and Skylon comes out with in a decade. Projections are almost always wrong, by a large margin, and the only way to compare is when they start launching.

>>	joker !KNs1o0VDv6 Fri Jul 19 04:01:46 2013 No.5910841 I just want them to mass produce space craft like they do with Jumbo Jets,versus spending billions and years of research to produce at most 5. Everyone wants to become an astronaut...

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 04:36:16 2013 No.5910873 File: 159 KB, 497x637, jet cum.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5910712 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23338947 >jet-cum I don't have a face for this

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 04:44:47 2013 No.5910879 >>5910797 >Skylon Skylon is the name of their concept plane, not the company. Reaction Engines have no interest in manufacturing the plane, they want someone else to take this part on.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 04:45:18 2013 No.5910880 >>5910841 >versus spending billions and years of research to produce at most 5. It's extremely difficult and expensive to do.

>>	QN !!qYHToIkDc/a Fri Jul 19 05:24:46 2013 No.5910923 >>5910841 >I just want them to mass produce space craft like they do with Jumbo Jets,versus spending billions and years of research to produce at most 5. So you think that somebody, sometime just farted out the design for 747?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 05:31:47 2013 No.5910930 Some places you might want to land don't have an atmosphere that would enable an aerodynamic landing. It's often better to have one primary landing system instead of two to eliminate points of failure.

Anonymous Fri Jul 19 05:34:16 2013 No.5910936

>>5910712
People with the aim of making spaceflight cheaper who concentrate on the cost of fuel have obviously no clue about spaceflight costs.

Even though the best rockets of today can only bring about 7% of their starting mass into orbit as payload, the high costs of spaceflight don't come from the fuel.

Anonymous Fri Jul 19 05:37:17 2013 No.5910939

>>5910712

>Rockets are cumbersome because not only must they carry fuel, they also need an oxidising agent to make it burn. This is usually oxygen, which is stored as a liquid in separate tanks. Spaceplanes do away with the need for carrying most of the oxidiser by using air from the atmosphere during the initial stages of their flight.

The fuck? Why wasn't it always done this way? Didn't anyone realize that it's a waste to store oxygen in the spaceship when it's so readily available?

Anonymous Fri Jul 19 06:34:47 2013 No.5910999

>>5910939
Because a rocket is much easier to accomplish than what Reaction Engines are doing.

The Sabre engine has a revolutionary heat exchanger that will allow it to work. There are at least two major problems their heat exchanger solves; rapidly cooling the air results in major frosting over the components, their design solves this. Then there is the weight problem, their design is MUCH lighter than conventional heat exchangers and is suitable for aerospace application.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 07:46:17 2013 No.5911077 >>5910712 Lecture from Reaction Engines founder, Alan Bond. In my opinion it's excellent and very worth watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G-HPHNrrLQ

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 08:02:17 2013 No.5911090 >>5911077 Note it is more technical than you will find in those gay TED lectures and this only makes it more interesting.

Violent Simians Guy Fri Jul 19 09:21:47 2013 No.5911196

>>5910797
> Projections are almost always wrong, by a large margin, and the only way to compare is when they start launching.

If your projections are almost always wrong, a rational and honest man starts correcting for that, so his projections become correct again.

This proves that aerospace isn't run by rational or honest men. And THAT shows that aerospace is doomed, since it can only run sustainably by rationality and honesty.

Do you Cheetos eaters and virgin nerds actually believe that you can fool the taxpayers into paying for your spaceflight erection? We're bankrupt now, so it's OVER.

Anonymous Fri Jul 19 09:30:46 2013 No.5911210

>>5910712
I don't know much about the skylon, but the entire point of the grasshopper is that it can be reused. Where as with previous versions of rockets they were essentially junk after a single flight which made many repeat flights economically prohibitive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 10:02:46 2013 No.5911254 >>5911210 Skylon is to be fully reusable. The proposed advantage is it does not require the additional fuel/oxidiser for landing and it should require less oxidiser on take off because it's air breathing.

>>	joker !KNs1o0VDv6 Fri Jul 19 10:25:17 2013 No.5911294 >>5910880 They could offer a few to the US as a stop gap program. It's cheaper for the US to order 5,instead of starting a program from scratch and building 5 of their own design..

Anonymous Fri Jul 19 10:59:16 2013 No.5911356

>>5911254
The big differences between Grasshopper and Skylon: technology. Grasshopper is using existing technologies in a new way, plus some control theory enabled by faster computers to do the vertical landing. Skylon is requires radically new technologies to work: dual mode engines, oxygen harvesting, advanced cooling, strange shaped lifting body. Historically, programs that rely on so much new tech research will fail (X-33) because either the tech doesn't work or it is too expensive to develop. The main risk with Grasshopper is that the reentry turbulence will be too harsh for the empty first stage to withstand, which is how SpaceX failed all its other recovery attempts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 11:24:16 2013 No.5911403 >>5910939 Taking in air increases the drag, which can easily wipe out the savings without some very clever designs. The problem with clever designs is they tend to be quite expensive and historically it's been cheaper to be dumb about this problem.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 13:58:18 2013 No.5911606 But spaceplanes can only land on Earth. Isn't it s a good thing to design spacecrafts keeping in mind that some day we'll want to land elsewhere?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 14:15:47 2013 No.5911643 File: 30 KB, 320x293, 1354795661059.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw Britain colonises space >mfw Admiral Alan Bond sinks the Martian Armada

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 14:26:16 2013 No.5911655 >>5910873 >being this underage

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 14:28:47 2013 No.5911659 >>5910939 >scoop up five liters of air for every liter of oxygen you need >have to compress it or separate its constituents to efficiently combust or >store one liter of air

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 17:20:46 2013 No.5912011 File: 24 KB, 443x126, jetcum.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5910873 I do

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 01:54:17 2013 No.5912761

>>5911659
>>5910939
>>5911403
>>5910999
I remember seeing a complex but clever space delivery system. It was a maglev track that would accelerate a scram-jet vehicle which would act like a space-plane up to near orbit then the space craft attached to it would launch and continue on under it own propulsion. The space-plane part would come back down and land to be reused, the more radical version called for regenerative braking to regain some of the energy as it lands on the magnetic track.
Of course a big rail gun pointed up would be really simple and cheap, even more so if you did not bother to make it long enough to not have lethal G forces during launch, most cargo can be made to survive things we can't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 04:48:17 2013 No.5913088 >>5911196 Idiot. Aerospace has plenty of money.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 04:50:47 2013 No.5913090 >>5912761 It's stupid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 04:57:17 2013 No.5913100

>>5910712
Spaceflight isn't about economic feasibility because a) there's not much of a market and b) the space industry is swimming in money and has no incentive to have an eye on costs.

On average we have about 60 launches per year and about 30 different carrier systems active (not counting subvariants). You don't need to be an economist to realize that 30 competitors competing for 60 contracts per year is simply a ruinous market. Yet these providers manage to stay alive. This is due to enormous government subsidies as spaceflight is hugely prestigious for politicians and because independent access to space is also seen as strategically important for many countries.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 05:08:17 2013 No.5913119 >>5913100 >Spaceflight isn't about economic feasibility because a) there's not much of a market and b) the space industry is swimming in money and has no incentive to have an eye on costs. False dichotomy

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 05:17:47 2013 No.5913126 >>5913119 It's not a dichotomy but a list.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 05:31:17 2013 No.5913146 >Skylon I wonder if this could straight up replace modern air travel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 05:44:47 2013 No.5913165 >>5913146 somewhere they talked about making a plane version it sure would revolutionize the meaning of "next day air" you could ship large amounts of freight in barely any time

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 05:46:16 2013 No.5913172
File: 105 KB, 800x533, 800px-ThrustSSC_front.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5913146
That's about as probable as a derivative of Thrust SSC replacing modern land travel. The increase in speed makes costs rise exponentially. With Mach 2 Concorde only aimed for doubling the speed/halving the travel time. Yet it flopped economically.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 06:19:16 2013 No.5913233 >>5913172 it seems like you're assuming it would fly at sea level it would probably fly at quite high altitude to reduce drag, the flights probably wouldnt be cheap but I wouldnt count it out right away

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 06:21:46 2013 No.5913240 >>5913165 Sooner or later hydrogen will probably become the dominant fuel for aircraft. We can build electric cars but so far no one is building electric jet engines.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 06:22:18 2013 No.5913244 >>5913172 If they can show the engines/plane will require similar maintenance to typical commercial aircraft, there is no reason why it should not be economic for super fast transport. Imagine getting kidneys imported from China is less than 3 hours.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 06:30:18 2013 No.5913268 >>5913244 >>5913172 >>5913233 Idea What if Nascar but with space planes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 06:32:17 2013 No.5913274 >>5913268 We fly them round in circles until they crash? Space travel has 6 degrees of freedom and is therefore too difficult for the average NASCAR fan.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 07:12:16 2013 No.5913361

>>5913233
>it seems like you're assuming it would fly at sea level
No, I didn't and it doesn't.

>it would probably fly at quite high altitude to reduce drag, the flights probably wouldnt be cheap but I wouldnt count it out right away
Concorde flew at an altitude where there's only a half the air density that regular airliners have to deal with. Didn't work out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 07:20:47 2013 No.5913370 >>5913361 >Didn't work out. the fuck are you talking about? concordes operated for 30 years which is quite typical life span for a jet. the demand is still there for fast travel

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 07:22:17 2013 No.5913376 >>5913370 It flopped economically. Like most of the space projects it was made for politicians comparing their dicks.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 07:35:17 2013 No.5913389

>>5913376

Skylon has been entirely privately funded since the early 90s.

Alan Bond worked on HOTOL. It was funded by the government and came with serious problems related to the confidentiality of the technology when trying to when the project was canceled and he moved.

He is very surprised about the £60m funding and I have no doubt he is wary of their intentions.

I'm fairly sure he gives a proper explanation for HOTOL in this lecture

>>5911077 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G-HPHNrrLQ

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 07:39:47 2013 No.5913392 >>5911655 I don't know what it is. Is it a mistake?

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 07:45:47 2013 No.5913398

>>5913100
>a) there's not much of a market
There is still a market that needs to have its requirements fulfilled. We absolutely can not do without satellites

>b) the space industry is swimming in money and has no incentive to have an eye on costs.
The space industry has a duty to do difficult things right, first time. Costs are a second priority when seeking the success of a mission. The automotive industry will be the opposite to this, costs must be brought down as much as possible.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 07:50:17 2013 No.5913402

>>5913389
>Skylon has been entirely privately funded since the early 90s.
See? That's 20 years now and all they have to show for is one subsystem of the engine. Seems they cannot attract enough private capital to develop this thing within a human lifetime, which might be an indicator that it's a shitty idea to begin with or that there's simply way too much risk involved.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 08:00:17 2013 No.5913410

>>5913402
>See? That's 20 years now and all they have to show for is one subsystem of the engine

They were developing it on a shoestring budget and you underestimate the importance of that subsystem and this engine.

They are working closely with the ESA to finalise proof of concept and have had a string of successes in recent years. People will be throwing very larges sums of money at them very soon.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 08:04:16 2013 No.5913417

>>5913398
>There is still a market that needs to have its requirements fulfilled.
The commercially most successful system to date, the Ariane 4 rocket family, did that job quite well until the satellite masses exceeded its payload capacity. And even being the commercially most successful system still meant it coun't have survived without government subsidies.

>We absolutely can not do without satellites
That's debatable. I estimate that within a decade or two we will have UAV gliders that can climb to ~30km altitude during the day using photovoltaic power and sink to ~15km during nighttime and can stay airborne for months at a time. These UAVs will take over the roles of geostationary communication satellites at a fraction of the cost. This is the bulk of the market. What remains then is military applications, satellites with polar orbits and planetary probes. Obviously the military will always find a way to have their toys payed. The scientists, as usually, will be pleased with the leftovers.

>The space industry has a duty to do difficult things right, first time. Costs are a second priority when seeking the success of a mission.
Thanks for proving my point.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 08:16:46 2013 No.5913426

>>5913417

I've never thought about replacing satellites with UAVs before. Interesting.

>What remains then is military applications, satellites with polar orbits and planetary probes.

Asteroid mining and space manufacturing will require many launches.

Private competition will be enough incentive to bring costs down.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 08:19:46 2013 No.5913432

>>5913410
>They were developing it on a shoestring budget and you underestimate the importance of that subsystem and this engine.
If its so great why couldn't they attract more private capital? Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is and invest your retirement savings in Reaction Engines Ltd.

>They are working closely with the ESA
Cooperation with state or superstate agencies proves nothing in terms of economic feasibility. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of space projects that were once planned and worked on in close cooperation with space agencies.
Wernher von Braun wanted to go to Mars in the 70s. So what? It was a project once, too. But as soon as the "space race" was over people looked at economic feasibility for the first time and not only cancelled the Mars plans but even the rest of the Apollo programm as well. Apollo had served its purpose: politicians' circle jerk. The scientific value was close to zero and could have been done at a fraction of the cost with an all unmanned system. But of course that couldn't have had the same impact on Hollywood-stupified voters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 08:22:16 2013 No.5913435 >>5913417 How exactly you think a UAV will stay in one place over the earth at 30 or 15km altitude is beyond me

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 08:30:16 2013 No.5913444

>>5913426
>I've never thought about replacing satellites with UAVs before. Interesting.
The abstract concept is called high-altitude platform. Airships have been proposed for that among other things. But my guess is that UAVs will do the trick. Since the UAVs would be much closer to earth they would require much less transmission power in comparison to GEO satellites. But you would of course require more of them since the cover less area. But UAVs can return to Earth easily for maintenance etc. And more UAVS than satellites requires also means a higher production rate, thus saving costs through the economies of scale.

>Asteroid mining and space manufacturing will require many launches.
We're faaar away from doing stuff like that.

>Private competition will be enough incentive to bring costs down.
True. But it has to start first. Right now we have none. And I don't see any in the satellite market as it is flooded with government money.
IMO it will start with suborbital jumps for rich fucks to experience some minutes of microgravity.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 08:36:46 2013 No.5913449

>>5913432
>If its so great why couldn't they attract more private capital? Invest your retirement savings in Reaction Engines Ltd.

>implying I have savings
If I did, I would.

Having too much money, too early is no use to them. A small team of specialist engineers were getting the theoretical work out of the way. They are now gearing up for the more expensive manufacturing tasks.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 08:41:47 2013 No.5913456

>>5913435
>How exactly you think a UAV will stay in one place over the earth at 30 or 15km altitude is beyond me
It's called loitering. NASA's Helios showed the feasibility of reaching these altitudes via motorgliding. And in contrast to Skylon it was already airborne a couple of times. Private companies already manufacture UAVs that do 20+ km. Plus the UAV market is rapidly growing. There won't be a shortage of investment capital anytime soon. It's just a matter of time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 08:44:46 2013 No.5913462 >>5913449 >If I did, I would. So you're either a teenage techie dreamer or simply can't handle money. Either way, Skylon seems perfect for you. Rejoice!

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 08:48:47 2013 No.5913466
File: 291 KB, 893x981, skylon.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5913444
>We're faaar away from doing stuff like that.

10 years

>>5913432
>But as soon as the "space race" was over people looked at economic feasibility for the first time

They have put a lot of effort into making sure this is feasible. This pdf is interesting and outlines the required infrastructure for success.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24621.0;attach=478467

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 08:49:46 2013 No.5913467 >>5913462 >So you're either a teenage techie dreamer or simply can't handle money Mature student pursuing an engineering degree. No money left.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 09:05:17 2013 No.5913485

>>5913466
>10 years
Hahahaha. There will always be some projects that lie just ten years in the future since 30, 40, 50 or even more years.
It's called the tyranny of the rocket equation for a reason:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition30/tryanny.html

Exponential growth has some serious consequences if one doesn't only wan't to get there, but there and back again with payload, as this xkcd points out:
http://what-if.xkcd.com/38/

>http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24621.0;attach=478467
People from Reaction Engines conducting an analysis that shows that Skylon is feasible. It's like asking Exxon Mobile how long the oil reserves will last.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 09:09:17 2013 No.5913490 >>5913467 Once you earn some money, things start to look a little different.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 09:24:47 2013 No.5913506 >>5910939 random anon has such genius. we are not worthy. we store oxygen in the tank because the oxygen density in normal atmosphere is not great enough fuckwit

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 09:43:47 2013 No.5913537

>>5913485
>There will always be some projects that lie just ten years in the future

There will be but that does not mean that will be the case here, there's nothing funny about what he said.

>http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24621.0;attach=478467

That isn't the only analysis done. ESA conducted a review of the major technological barriers and said it was feasible. ESA is currently funding them as evidence of this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 09:45:46 2013 No.5913541 >>5913506 That's not true, Skylon, NASP, scramjets... there are lots of examples that show the people who know the most never thought it impossible. The reason it wasn't done is due to mass ratios.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 10:18:16 2013 No.5913567

>>5913537
>That isn't the only analysis done. ESA conducted a review of the major technological barriers and said it was feasible
Read: technically feasible. The economics is another story. It's also not the first spaceplane project that has an ESA study to back it up. The old reusable two stage to orbit concept of MBB, called Sänger II, was IMO even more convincing and more realistically calculated.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saegerii.htm
Yet the anticipated cost reduction didn't justify the risk.
Btw: when Encyclopedia Astronautica says "the design would reduce costs only 10 to 30% below that of the Ariane 5 expendable vehicle" it means the cost of Ariane 5 as it was anticipated back then, as Ariane 5 was still under development during that time. It turned out that Ariane 5 itself couldn't back up its claim of cost reduction, so the anticipated cost reduction of Sänger II would have been even greater. But most certainly still not enough to justify the risk. It might have turned out just like Ariane 5 and be unable to reduce costs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 10:50:16 2013 No.5913592 >>5913268 Entertainment and way to sink massive amount of competitive money for development of space travel. Where do I sign?

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 11:00:54 2013 No.5913606

>>5913090
If you are going to say something is stupid. Please bother to articulate what it is. The first idea I put forth seems good and the second seem bad when compared to the link you gave, but that assumes you have atmosphere between the ground and space to put lots of drag on it. The modification I would add to the Gauss gun (I switched from rail gun for wear reasons) would dramatically reduce the air resistance to a near vacuum making it much more feasible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 11:10:26 2013 No.5913618 >>5913606 I don't think it's a coincidence that the same guy is pushing the hyperloop and SpaceX. 4000 mph is a decent fraction of escape velocity.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 17:31:05 2013 No.5914126

>>5913567

I don't see why it won't be economically feasible if all of the technical hurdles are overcome. They say they have nothing more to research and are ready to go into full development from now.

They're expecting 200 flights before it will need scrapped. They're confident this number is fine and is not long enough for fatigue to set in seriously.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 17:59:35 2013 No.5914150

>The economics of the fuel required to slow down the rocket on descent completely baffle me.
Dragging the first stage + wings + rolling landing gear + orbital reentry gear for the whole fucking thing all the way up to orbit sure as hell isn't going to save you any fuel.

Anyway, according to SpaceX estimates, a fully reusable 2-stage VTVL rocket is only going to burn about 3 times as much propellant as an expendable rocket, and the reusable launch vehicle is only going to cost about as much as an expendable that can carry 3 times as much. And they're developing theirs on a budget that would be low for an expendable.

That's a real bargain. It's not the propellant that's expensive. Buying the fuel and preparing the liquid oxygen is less than 1% of the cost of launching a rocket. The liquid oxygen is especially cheap, and it's always the greater part of the propellant mass.

The real beauty of this approach is that they can afford to try different things out, and change things if something doesn't work.

There will undoubtedly be better systems in the future, but this is the approach most likely to produce a dramatic reduction in launch costs this decade.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 18:01:35 2013 No.5914151 >>5913618 Hyperloop isn't going to go anywhere near 4000 mph. It will probably be well under 1000 mph.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 18:52:34 2013 No.5914221 >>5914151 do you have any citation for this?

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 19:10:35 2013 No.5914264

>>5914221
On wikipedia: "The system would, according to Musk, be able to travel from downtown Los Angeles to downtown San Francisco in under 30 minutes, or 343 miles (552 km) at more than 685 mph (1,102 km/h)."

Common sense should tell you that an air hockey tube train isn't going to go at hypersonic speeds. It's not a vacuum tunnel, it's a pneumatic tunnel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 19:40:05 2013 No.5914321 >>5914264 A lot of recent sources are quoting the 4000 figure, but that may be for an international version.

Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY Sat Jul 20 20:13:05 2013 No.5914383
File: 2 KB, 176x554, Kite_Launcher_at_Max_Vtip.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5910712
The Technological Readiness Level(TRL) of SABRE is pretty low. It's going to grinding to increase the TRL of SABRE.

The TRL of launching rockets is pretty high, the TRL of getting rockets to hover is also fairly high.

TL;DR, it may not be more economical, but it's what we have right now.

Honestly, I'd like to see someone test out a KITE space launch system, which uses a regular 747 to KITE things into orbit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch#Endo-atmospheric_tethers

Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY Sat Jul 20 20:19:35 2013 No.5914392
File: 38 KB, 620x200, supersonic wing in ground effect.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5914264
685 Mph at sea level is a Mach number of 0.9, that's far from hypersonic. Still, playing 'air-hockey' near the speed of sound is going to be pretty gnarly aerodynamically speaking.

Perhaps they intend to use some sort of supersonic Wing In Ground effect vehicle. Pic related, very roughly what a supersonic WIG could look like.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 21:01:05 2013 No.5914456

>>5914126
There are a number of reasons. Experience shows that it's cutting edge technology that makes spaceflight expensive. Fuel costs are negligible. Developing and manufacturing the engines is the biggest chunk. The commercially more successful systems were the ones that mostly resorted to mature technology and used cutting edge tech only if it yields great gains in payload at justifiable cost. The best negative example in this regard is Japan. The Japanese like to use cutting edge tech like in the H-II. With a mass of only 258 tons it has the same payload as the more than 400 ton heavy Ariane 44LP. But it's also twice as expensive. All Japanese rockets are so prohibitively expensive that they could hardly win any commercial contract in more than 25 years. They are confined to national military and scientific payloads. Using new tech also resulted in a number of failures in the H-II. Mission success is also something where it can be better to use mature technology to bring down costs.

Another thing is that there's not much gain for the market in cutting the cost of the launch system. If you want to put a satellite into orbit, the satellite itself is usually twice as expensive as the service of having it put into orbit. With scientific payloads it's even worse. So bringing the costs of the launch system down only affects a fraction of the costs of space operations. And the carrier itself is again only a fraction of that fraction. At Arianespace just preparing and performing the start of a rocket makes up 20% of the launch costs. And Arianespace have a reputation of being flexible and efficient. For one Ariane start they need about 70-100 people for about 18 days. At Cape Canaveral they need about 200-300 people for 30-40 days. People always concentrate on the carrier as it is the most prominent representative of spaceflight, but there're huge costs hidden in all kinds of things. Insurance for example are another 12-18% of launch costs.

(to be continued)

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 21:01:34 2013 No.5914457

>>5914126
We can't know today what ground operations of Skylon will cost. And we can't discount them for costs. The Space Shuttle required $ 2.5 billion each year even without performing any start. In the end the Shuttle was more expensive than an expendable launch system despite being reusable because of fixed costs. NASA stressed that the flight of the Shuttle itself costs only about $ 84 million. That's how badly fixed costs smashed hopes of cost reduction.

Studies by both NASA and ESA concluded that a reusable launch system could cut launch costs to 50% to a third of today's prices at the very most. But since launch costs are only a fraction of the costs of space operations, such a reduction would result in a 20% decrease of total cost at best. Hardly a game changer. That's simply not enough for all the risks involved in R&D. In addition to that there's also much potential in cutting costs of expendable launch systems as well. Most of today's carriers are just subsequent developments of former intercontinental ballistic missiles. They were conceived with different requirements than low launch costs.

(to be continued)

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 21:02:35 2013 No.5914458

>>5914126
As with the figure of 200 uses of Skylon before scrapping, one should be careful with such claims. The Shuttle aimed for much less ambitious 55 uses of the SSME. Partly because they couldn't achieve the planned dry mass and chose to increase engine performance instead, accepting a reduction to 55 uses from the initially planned 100. But this increased wear and parts had to be changed more often. It was to a large degree because of the costly inspections that the Shuttle was a commercial failure. Speaking of changing parts, the thermal protection system was also a cost driver and the TPS of Skylon is yet to be developed. As I understand it's planned to use brand new cutting edge tech for this subsystem, too.

Lastly, there simply aren't the lucrative payloads for Skylon to transport. With 12 tons to 300km LEO, as the C1 version is supposed to carry, this means that to the ISS it's just 9.5 tons. GTO won't work. It's too much delta v. Like all SSTO vehicles Skylon is very vulnerable to an increase in dry mass. But GTO is the bulk of the commercial market. Since it's a European (British) project, it won't win contracts from the US government. So what remains? Maybe a couple of near Earth orbits that are covered by Sojuz and Vega now.

I'm the last guy that wants to see technological stagnation but I'm very sceptical if Skylon can achieve something, given that the total lifetime costs are estimated at $ 12 billion.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 22:05:35 2013 No.5914542
File: 67 KB, 550x261, railgunjet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5913618
Same guy? Who is this guy and what is he pushing?
I am looking at this, which started at NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/horizontallaunch.html
though I will admit it reports switch between maglev and rail gun depending on who you ask.
This appears to be somewhat different from Maglifter or StarTram, though they all share similar points.
Also more specifically what do you think of the idea in the article?

>>	Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY Sat Jul 20 22:14:06 2013 No.5914545 >>5913618 4000 mph is not how fast the hyperloop goes. However, Elon Musk is big on scaling and building a 500 mile long magnetic people mover certainly advances the prospects for HUGE SPACE GUNS.

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 22:36:34 2013 No.5914565

>>5914458
Yes I agree that Skylon looks too good to be true and is fuzz on some vital details.
The other point of issue with many of these space ventures is the lack of distinction between getting to space, getting to orbit and breaking orbit out into deeper space.
I spent a lot of time and frustration trying to understand how the Virgin's space plane's "revolutionary" shuttle cock reentry method made it so survivable, then someone pointed out the huge discrepancy between orbital reentry and vertical reentry, man did I feel stupid of course it so survivable because it never get that fast in the first place. (It is hard to fall when you are already on the ground.) Looking back Virgin never said orbit, but they did imply it and never bothered to correct the media when they used space and orbit interchangeably. Moral of the story get clarification on what they mean by "space", after all it got a lot easier when they change the space boundary definition to 100km from sea level.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 22:36:37 2013 No.5914563 >>5913274 My sides

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 22:38:05 2013 No.5914569 >>5914264 The one's traveling between cities is supposed to be much slower than the cross-country and intercontinental lines.

>>	Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY Sat Jul 20 22:42:37 2013 No.5914576 File: 53 KB, 550x413, rocket plane racing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5913268 Been tried, there were funding issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Racing_League

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 07:56:04 2013 No.5915195

>>5914456
>At Arianespace just preparing and performing the start of a rocket makes up 20% of the launch costs. And Arianespace have a reputation of being flexible and efficient. For one Ariane start they need about 70-100 people for about 18 days. At Cape Canaveral they need about 200-300 people for 30-40 days. People always concentrate on the carrier as it is the most prominent representative of spaceflight, but there're huge costs hidden in all kinds of things. Insurance for example are another 12-18% of launch costs.

A major target for Skylon is to reduce turnaround time from weeks to overnight. Being SSTO and an air-breathing hybrid both help to achieve this goal. SSTO means no reassembly is required which in turn means the infrastructure required for the space-port is much less; less specialised equipment and less manpower.

The Sabre engine won’t need the same maintenance as the Space Shuttle’s main engines. The air-breathing nature of it means it has a shorter period of full rocket burn compared to full rockets. Less extreme loads means less maintenance.

Yes it is new technology and everyone knows new technology has new problems but progress is not impossible and I don't think they have the same need to /wildly/ exaggerate their claims.
I imagine the major political difference between NASA and Skylon has an impact on their achievable targets. NASA had a massive list of conflicting expectations and demands for their program, a lot of them were extremely difficult and got in the way of other goals. The ability to position a satellite in a single polar orbit is a tall order and can affect other parts of the project very negatively. Of course they never did this in practice but it was designed with the Cold War at its height.

cont...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 08:13:35 2013 No.5915213 >>5913592 I can already picture the red bull logos..

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 08:15:34 2013 No.5915215 >>5914542 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 08:18:04 2013 No.5915217

>>5915195

Skylon has very clearly defined goals with zero private or military interests forcing wants onto them. Skylon is working with decades of experience from other programs freely available to them. There are lots of things to learn from the Shuttle program and the engineers behind Skylon are well aware of this fact. Work experience on the HOTOL project also is a great benefit. They're intimately aware of why projects fail and have come back with solutions.

>>5914458
>But GTO is the bulk of the commercial market
They have concepts for booster modules to take satellites to higher orbit. It’s another ‘minor’ problem to be dealt with later on. I think it’s worth remembering that satellites are getting much smaller, having a massive payload is not always important.

>>5913466
>http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24621.0;attach=478467

>(p6)The general support elements, such as the spaceport and ground control are either existing or will be part of the SKYLON development programme and have always been included in the costing of the acquisition programme.
>Thus all the cost involved to acquire a system that can launch payloads into LEO have always been fully accounted for in the quoted $13.5 billion ($2009).

They are aware that the basic Skylon model is not enough for it to be viable. They need the special modules and stages described in the pdf.

>(p6)However the market analysis has shown that the basic SKYLON capability could only support about 20% of the total launch market. The complimentary elements that would be required if SKYLON is to capture a(sic) enough of the market to make in(sic) viable,

They estimate another $4bn to cover full functionality. This isn’t a project they want to do alone, they want independent and even competing organisations to contribute as they see fit. I see them as laying down a workable framework; being more driven for success than greed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 08:18:35 2013 No.5915218 >>5915217 >>http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24621.0;attach=478467 >AN ANALYSIS OF THE SKYLON INFRASTRUCTURE >Mark Hempsell >Future Programme Director >Reaction Engines Ltd

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 08:27:33 2013 No.5915222

I know nothing about History of science nor epistemology, I don't even really follow closely all those projects talked about.

Something feels quite not right though:
>We're stagnating.

In 80 years, we went from zero to hero. From not flying at all to THE MOON. 40 years after the moon, robots on mars and all but nothing happened. No great invention, no space trade, no other countries even equaled the US performance, no revolution, no great new technology developed due to advancements, only small improvements. Agencies have to fight to keep their budgets and people completely lost interest in space, worse they take it for granted. "we can go to the moon but I have terrible reception on my cellphone".

0: ground level
40: jet engine
80: moon
120: "guys let's take a break"

Plenty of projects, ideas, nerd arguing over feasibility but nothing actually gets done. Did our balls drop off?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 08:32:34 2013 No.5915224 >>5915222 Think of the moon race as more of a proof of concept than as the beginning of a project. The chinese had rocket weapons thousands of years ago, but we only got cruise missiles in the last few decades.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 08:41:33 2013 No.5915227

>>5915224
Is it like a guy climbing up the K2 to realize once he's up there that there's no secret medicinal flower, no philosophical illumination, no award received just a colossal exhaustion and once he's back home life returns to the normal. And it just makes a fun anecdote..

We discover a new continent, it's a game changer. We physically challenge gravity, lack of atmosphere, set foot on another celestial object other than earth and none cares.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 09:33:03 2013 No.5915269

>>5915222
>We're stagnating.

We're busy. We dipped our toes and got a feel for what problems were ahead of us. We're dedicating lots of resources into problems that don't require us to launch rockets every week, this doesn't mean we're stagnating.

If you want to see the space industry move forward, become a scientist or engineer and dedicate your life to achieving that goal. It's what I'm doing, even if I'm not directly doing research in the ESA I will be taking every opportunity at my disposal to put my skills in use to contribute.

Space engineers are not unemployed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 09:34:34 2013 No.5915270 >>5915227 It's just a stunt. There's nothing on the moon. A new island on earth would be far more useful.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 10:43:04 2013 No.5915301

>>5915270
There are plenty of useful things on the moon that would be very valuable to building a colonies and deep space exploration. Aluminum, Oxygen, Helium 3, Low gravity. The problem is that it is not valuable to people on earth because of shipping and because we already have most of it here as well. The best argument I can think of is sending robots to harvest Helium 3, but because we have not gotten around to making competitive fusion reactors and there is enough political fighting and treaties, anyone harvesting it could start World War 3. That is actually why the UN pushed to declare it a human treasure or something like that which bans any permanent structures and resource collection, (Antarctica is kind of similar which scares me. Any evil overload here? Go make an archeology to mine Antarctica) As for low gravity manufacturing this can be done in low orbit and the cost has many never be covered by the gains, though low gravity manufacturing can make some real cool stuff.
So don't say there is nothing on the moon, it better to say there is nothing that is economically worth it there unless everyone gets along and agrees, in which case world peace or world war, is a prerequisite to going back to the moon. In which case it worth fixing earth first so we don't just make wars bigger.
We got to fix the real problems before we can go play in the stars.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 11:08:04 2013 No.5915332

>>5915301
>As for low gravity manufacturing this can be done in low orbit and the cost has many never be covered by the gains

I imagine there are some things that won't respond well to low/zero gravity manufacturing. The moon can provide an intermediary low gravity manufacturing location.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 11:31:06 2013 No.5915368 >>5910930 yup, I think that, for earth-LEO trip at least, the delta-V required for a grasshoper-style rocket would imply a ridculously big amount of fuel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 12:25:04 2013 No.5915420 >>5915368 You're right, it'd be WAY more economical to send their shit to the moon and then test their grasshopper there instead. Good point.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 21:45:34 2013 No.5916372
File: 136 KB, 639x528, a_level_physics_notes_artificial_gravity2_html_986f3cc.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5915332
If you want more G force just add spin, "Everything's Better with Spinning", in this way you can control the levels to what you are building.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 05:25:34 2013 No.5916905

>>5915195
>A major target for Skylon is to reduce turnaround time from weeks to overnight. Being SSTO and an air-breathing hybrid both help to achieve this goal.
Putting two more technologies on top of a rocket (turbojet+ramjet) won't really help in getting maintenance down.

>SSTO means no reassembly is required which in turn means the infrastructure required for the space-port is much less; less specialised equipment and less manpower.
SSTO means single stage to orbit. SSTO vehicles can be expendable or reusable. SSTO in itself says nothing about maintenance requirements. Neither does reusability. Just look at the Space Shuttle.

>The Sabre engine won’t need the same maintenance as the Space Shuttle’s main engines. The air-breathing nature of it means it has a shorter period of full rocket burn compared to full rockets. Less extreme loads means less maintenance.
I seriously doubt that. With its mass fraction Skylon has no other choice than to push the envelope with its rocket engines. In some other thread about Skylon I calculated that it won't be able to deliver the payload and may be even unable to reach orbit at all. Mach 5.5 is nice and fast for an aeroplane. But in comparison to first cosmic velocity it's tiny.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 05:56:34 2013 No.5916928

>>5915217
>They have concepts for booster modules to take satellites to higher orbit. It’s another ‘minor’ problem to be dealt with later on.
Which is yet another investment requirement. I wouldn't call it minor problem.

>I think it’s worth remembering that satellites are getting much smaller, having a massive payload is not always important.
No one can reliably predict how satellite masses will develop. The hugely successful Ariane 4 was basically put out of business because the satellites became ever more heavy. The advent of ion thrusters in satellites will no doubt save weight. But that doesn't necessarily mean satellites will become lighter. The weight savings might just as well be used to increase capabilities of satellites. After all operators have to calculate for existing launch systems, not future dreams.

>They are aware that the basic Skylon model is not enough for it to be viable. They need the special modules and stages described in the pdf.

>They estimate another $4bn to cover full functionality.
You can't validate the feasibility of a yet to be realized system by adding further yet to be realized systems. You're just increasing investment risk and magnitude.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 06:04:04 2013 No.5916930 >>5916372 Problem is, everything is spinning.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 06:13:34 2013 No.5916937

The skylon does seem more economically feasible but it seems like a political issue more than anything else. Most of the funding for private companies that work on weapons and especially rockets now, are from prior employees of the government that have contracts because they are buddy-buddy with the people that sign off on the these contracts. Trust me this stuff is horseshit, you may have a better design, but its more about who you know.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 06:45:33 2013 No.5916973

>>5916905
>In some other thread about Skylon I calculated that it won't be able to deliver the payload and may be even unable to reach orbit at all.

>engineer spends 30 years of his life designing and testing revolutionary engines
>"B-BUT I CALCULATED THEY WONT WORK!!!"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 07:06:33 2013 No.5916994 File: 12 KB, 381x295, trb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] wat abut teh tr3b

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 07:22:05 2013 No.5917018

>>5915222
>In 80 years, we went from zero to hero. From not flying at all to THE MOON.
That's the American narrative. Realistically you'd have to start with the Montgolfier brothers. So your feeling of stagnation may just be due to cognitive distortion.

>Did our balls drop off?
No, but the showing balls advertising was the whole point of the Moon landing. In 1953 the first men reached the peak of Mt. Everest. But nobody's complaining that we're not building a permanent base there. In 1960 the first men reached the Marianas Trench. Nobody's complaing that we're not building bases there. It's really just the big PR fuzz around the moon landings that makes people feel so strongly about it, including the hoaxers. I've never heard anyone doubt the achievement of Piccard and Walsh. And there have been more people on the surface of the Moon than on the bottom of the ocean. Plus the journeys to the Moon are easier to verify for outsiders than those to the bottom of the ocean.

And btw the other space activities like Sputnik, animals in orbit, men in orbit, space walks etc. were just PR stunts, too; born out of the east-west-antagonism. The difference to the Moon landings is that since then we've found other uses for that technology - especially non-military ones and especially commercial ones - that justify the investment this technology requires. That's not the case with the Moon landings, at least not yet and certainly not in the near future.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 07:24:07 2013 No.5917020 >>5916973 Never seen a technical project fail because it couldn't live up to the claims that were made during development?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 10:25:03 2013 No.5917154 >>5917018 All space colonization plans are predicated on the assumption that the elites, controllers, rulers and capitalists are going to expand Human civilization instead of letting it shrink due to war and starvation. That assumption is wrong.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 11:04:34 2013 No.5917203

>>5916973
If it looks bad on back of the napkin calculations, then it looks bad.
When you look at complex airplane design they will often start off with saying the plane is X weight and need >X lift to fly, if you are relying on the smaller yet highly complex variables to make the difference then you margin for error is small and the engines are going to be borderlineing so much that I do not what to be on it when it takes off, if it takes off. Then one argues that there is the large factor that was missed, that is why the calculations failed. While if it such an important variable then why is it not covered in the public data, how could that be missed? The Skylon has published lot of data to reassure people it not smoke and mirrors, I doubt they are hiding some important element that makes it work.
From my calculations it may work, but the payload will have to be very small if any and it is not reaching orbital speeds, it just goes to space and comes back down like the Virgin One. The problem is in order to put satellite in orbit or reach the space station requires at least reaching low orbit speeds or much higher, you can forget faster things like going to the moon or farther out. Reaching space is easy, going to space and staying there long enough to do anything useful is hard.

We need to better distinguish the types of space travel, at this point I can see the public confusing a low orbit satellite deployment and a trip to a different solar system because they both go to "Space!".

That said a single stage launch would be an impressive feat, though I question why do something so difficult when it can not do much else and other ways are easier. Skylon does not have much merit as a project in my opinion, given the real goals they picked not the flashy media ones that float around. It looks more like a orbital plane perfect for sending a small strike team anywhere fast given the way it is structured, which is cool but kind of scary given who is backing it.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 11:18:34 2013 No.5917239

>>5917018
Yes that is why I use to support space research, then I realized how much better those resources could have been used if applied directly to the other more valuable problems they solved. Think of instead of making X for reason X that is needed for the space project, which is then adapted to Y which gives a boost to everyone. You spend that money on project Y so there is no adaption costs and the outcome is better optimized for Y, which is what really made the different. There is not much reason to go passed high orbit, barring some world uniting issues where space is the only answer. Given how we are floundering with other global issues which are easier to solve it kind of sad. Given our track record I fear we may be like locust, terraforming planets only to wreck them and move to terraform another world while leaving the poor behind to suffer and die.
Let's clean up at our act at home before we go messing space up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 11:47:34 2013 No.5917316 >>5917239 >i fear we may be locuts >fear Fucking hippies.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 13:27:04 2013 No.5917580

>>5917239
>Think of instead of making X for reason X that is needed for the space project, which is then adapted to Y which gives a boost to everyone. You spend that money on project Y so there is no adaption costs and the outcome is better optimized for Y

The technologies are developed before the offshoot problems are even recognised.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 13:49:03 2013 No.5917615 >>5917239 we arent wreacking our planet, we are changing it... if the change is negative or positive only we and the other life can judge but the other life would do the same if they could...

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 13:53:34 2013 No.5917624

>>5917239
tbh, also,

a lot of those problems we would be unaware of if we werent gone into space

most satellites wouldn't have happened if we didn't go to the moon (they are not in low earth orbit, or the tech just wasn't there until the moon landing and its doubtful if the tech would be developed with the moon landing due to the high cost low return)

without satellites, we wouldn't know about 95% of global climate change for example

space is like a nuke making a ticking noise, maybe we don't know how to defuse it yet, but its ticking... and if we don't look and try we are going to end like the dinosaurs... if we blow ourselves up trying to defuse it then at least we tried

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 14:02:34 2013 No.5917635 >>5910879 A perfectly good engine will end up setting on a shelf somewhere in britbongastan while SpaceX brings us orbital bliss.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:03:04 2013 No.5917764
File: 15 KB, 320x240, Problem_Driven_Solutions.002.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5917580
That is seldom true from an insiders perspective, but it looks that why to the uninformed public. Look at many things that were big game changers, CD, microchips, internet, cell phones ... People are amazed when some new tech comes out of seemingly nowhere and added the market in ways never imagined, it is huge. Unless you ask the someone working to make it happen back before it was even in development, there are lots of people trying to make it happen, thousand upon thousands of people who see it coming and know it is the next big thing well before the investors, stock trades, media and the public. The only real question is when it hits the market.

Sure there are some exceptions and some accidents, but there are some things to consider there. One, is that no one saw it coming, that kind of how we define accidental discoveries, so in those cases you can not pick the winner. Two, many of these happen because of expensive research that had little to no correlation to the application. Three, it gets a lot more coverage when someone accidentally makes something then when they make something they spent 20 years talking about and making, this leads to lots of papers and and press covering the accidents but not much press on the other things which leads to a perception problem on where the value is made. If I tell you every few days I will give you $1000 at a date one year from now and I follow though you like it, but it I just walk up and give you $1000 it will be a much bigger memory in your mind despite the value being the same (this is neglecting inflation, that you run away thinking it is a scam and other things)

If you look at the unpredictability of accidental discoveries and solving for unknown future problems, all research is equally valued. So the best strategy is to focus on solving problems we want solved and it will likely spawn offshoots solutions along the way to getting what we want. This is sound economics that has lots of historical backing.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:33:34 2013 No.5917843

>>5917624
I not totally against space projects. I think we get a lot for satellites and other things and I do not ignore the value space technology has given us, we need more satellites as it is. But I am against the blinders people get when they talk about going back to space or mars or something like that. If there is a solid reason to go to space, lets go to space, but do not tell me let go to space then we will find solid reasons for having got there.
When people talk about how space technology gave us Y, I do not disagree with that and I do not disagree about the value of Y, I just think there are better ways to get Y. Name a big benefit of going to the moon or mars or out to the stars, that does not involve colonization or escaping a messed up or dying planet and I am fairly confidant I can find a better way to solve the problem.
I want a goal and justification, (and it needs to be better then the "mars is cool" rhetoric or "look at how good it was" I hear too often, yes it was good, but there where better ways to do most of it even back then with the knowledge they had.)
just like a sound investor who is willing to entertain ideas and take some risk but wants so agreeable road map before running off. I think it is sensible. I can even see reasons for a better space station but it has to be for the right reasons and it has to be better then the other things we could spend resources on.
That is the issue, the project has to be better then the other projects to get funding, being good is not good enough to cover the opportunity costs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:02:04 2013 No.5918191 >>5917764 Pure mathematics is done to solve specific problems.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:03:28 2013 No.5918193 >>5917843 >If there is a solid reason to go to space, lets go to space We need to go to space or else we are going to die because of a large asteroid. We don't know when this will happen but we know it's very possible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 09:03:50 2013 No.5919580 >>5916928 >>5916905 I want to reply to this later bump

Anonymous Tue Jul 23 22:05:54 2013 No.5920740

>>5918193
Invalid reason given the structure I provided. I said "that does not involve colonization or escaping a messed up or dying planet" that falls escaping a dying planet. This is the kind of stuff I was complaining about, there are so many reasons to use can't someone find one that meets my criteria?

>>5918191
Please explain? I do not get what you are trying to say with that statement.

Also Bump for interest

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 22:41:24 2013 No.5920778 >>5920740 I don't know what you're complaining about. Space is extremely important to science. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_by_name.html

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 01:23:23 2013 No.5921001
File: 85 KB, 540x701, 20101209.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5920778 & others
The problem here is the use of the term space and the value of use. Are we talking low orbit, going to a different galaxy or somewhere in between? You see I am not against space projects, I just want justification and as you may have noticed I am picky. Now let us say we have a project and I say it should not be done, people here get mad. But when I say that a project should not be done it does not mean that there is no merit to it, it just means that there are other projects of higher merit when resources are limited. Now I fully realize that there is subjectivity involved here, but that should be even more reason to fully explain the value of a project.

Here is a check list
1 it can not be done on earth
2 the project needs to be arguably be worth the investment to do it
3 it is worth the opportunity costs to do it from the knowledge at that time
4 the purpose of the space project is not to prepare for yet to be defined future space project
as well as some other context dependent things that can not easily be listed here as the vary project to project

Something that commonly comes up is leaving earth, from the context it strongly implies it is not just a few days on the space station. Now that this raises the question, why leave earth? Excluding colonization or fleeing the planet, why invest those resources that way? Despite these rules of discussion I set up, people keep bringing up things that break the rules like "we are going to die because of a large asteroid". Yet to my bewilderment none have asked why I made such rules or tried much to work within them.
A few have pointed to the technological gains the space programs have given us and there is not debate about those gains, the debate is about the opportunity costs of those gains. Note it is basically impossible to compare selective old gains to general ones that have yet to happen. Also there are some miss associations as NASA does a lot more then space projects.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 04:54:24 2013 No.5921233 The economics on it don't make a ton of sense

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 06:48:54 2013 No.5921298

>>5921001
>The problem here is the use of the term space and the value of use. Are we talking low orbit, going to a different galaxy or somewhere in between?

Long term goals
Establish full manufacturing capabilities in space. This will allow us to build incredibly large cruise ships suitable for interplanetary travel. It is impossible to construct this on Earth because it will be larger than the largest sea-ships and will need launched. Smaller systems and equipment can be ferried to it with the Skylon.

Mid term goals
Develop the technologies required to sustain life on Mars indefinitely.
Develop asteroid mining techniques and develop the processes and machines required.
Infrastructure is likely to be established on the moon for materials storage and processing that requires gravity.

Short term goals
Improve the economics of getting to space in the first place. Watch as SpaceX and Skylon unfold over the next three years.
Improve tracking systems for rogue asteroids
Develop contingency plans to let us fight off at least some asteroids.

There is a general direction we know we must work in.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 07:50:53 2013 No.5921336

>>5921298
Your medium and long term goals are pure science fiction.

As with the short term goals: Improving the economics is a good and worthwile thing to do. Yet I doubt, Skylon (and SpaceX for that matter) will be able to achive this.
Regarding the asteroid threat, with limited resources to allocate one has to look at the potential damage a certain event can cause and the probability of its occurrence. The potential damage of an asteroid may be big but the probability is tiny. And there's a lot of uncertainty included. There are things which are much more certain. For the purpose of saving human lives investing the same money in the health sector instead will likely yield a much greater gain.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 07:51:54 2013 No.5921338 >>5921336 >Your medium and long term goals are pure science fiction. You're an idiot.

Violent Simians Guy Wed Jul 24 09:39:25 2013 No.5921489

>>5921233

Neckbeards (basement-dwelling, virgin-nerd Cheetos eaters) don't care about economics. That's why they never have any money, and why they never end up directing enough capital to make their dreams come true.

I applaud the OP's intentions in posting this thread, but let's get real about what's going to happen: Space efforts will eventually cease. We'll be too busy waging the Resource Wars on Earth, which will merge together into the Last War. Humans are all about fighting and gathering wealth; combine the two and you get Humans that gather stuff by taking it from other Humans.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 09:57:23 2013 No.5921511

>>5921489
>We'll be too busy waging the Resource Wars on Earth
>Humans are all about fighting and gathering wealth

First access to the seemingly infinite resources of the solar system will put that state in a much better position than the rest of the world.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 10:18:54 2013 No.5921532

>>5921233
Exactly, lot of things are good they are just not worth the cost. That is what I been try to explain for awhile.
>>5921298
The first reply you got was not me.
I do think we are capable of doing just about anything and am certain we can master this solar system at the very least. Also while I feel you explanation reflect the general mood here, which I what I suspected, it is a disservice to assume everyone I talk to wants interplanetary travel which is why I go by projects. It is not that hard to include that information in a project's description.

Can't someone reply with something other then
asteroids/impending doom
it must be done
for the future/greater good
we need to live in space
it was awesome last time (this last one is true but neglects opportunity costs and other details)
because exploring is good/who we are (no ones given that one yet but it goes on this list)

Maybe an analogy will help here.
It is like answering "why are you eating?" with "food is good". Hunger is a much stronger reason, heck even saying cake is good because of X (taste of sugar is my guess for X) is better as it provides information. "food is good" is a valid opening statement, not a justification, it is even worse as it uses some of the most subjective word section. Which food? How good? Why is it good? ...
Seriously these are justification I expect to get from /pol/ not /sci/. Go back and read my posts
4 >>5921001
3 >>5917843
2 >>5917764
1 >>5917239

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 10:26:55 2013 No.5921540 >>5921338 If you want to use technology that exists in your dreams rather than in reality, then it's science fiction. If you want to use existing technology, then it's your turn to calculate here for everyone to see that it's feasible.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 10:33:24 2013 No.5921549
File: 34 KB, 198x280, homer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5921489
>>5921511
The point is we can solve the resource wars right now with the tech and supplies we have. These problems are mostly social in nature, a new technology seldom helps in these matters and even then it always seems to be a temporary fix. (tech is like alcohol, see pic, mainly because of how we use it, it is not inherently good or bad)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 10:37:25 2013 No.5921556 >>5911196 >SpaceX >Tax Payers money

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 10:38:23 2013 No.5921557

>>5921511
Colonization of the solar system at our current state of development is just plain nuts. We haven't even colonized the Earth's deserts to any noteworthy extent. But the deserts are infinitely more hospitable places than anything you can find in the solar system. In the deserts of Earth you can find a friendly atmosphere of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, just as we need it. There's also a nice air pressure of about 1 bar, just as we need it. The deserts are protected by a strong magnetic field and an ozone layer which protects you from the lethal radiation of space. It's easier to find water in the desert than on Moon or Mars. And the deserts are far easier to reach. You want to be some frontier colonist? Go ahead, colonize the desert.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 10:48:25 2013 No.5921572 >>5921557 Bravo, bravo, this poster has a head on their shoulders.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 11:18:24 2013 No.5921613 nuclear powered rockets when

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 11:35:24 2013 No.5921640 >>5921557 Deserts don't even have trace water.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 12:15:25 2013 No.5921696 >>5921640 Sure they have. They have groundwater. They have moisture in the air. And they receive precipitation. Of course all of that in far smaller numbers than in temperate climates but in far greater numbers than on Moon or Mars.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 12:18:26 2013 No.5921704
File: 24 KB, 300x166, Allan-Savory-Green-TED-Talk-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5921640
While deserts have less water. Ancient cities were built in deserts and with air wells they could make enough water to get by. With current tech we make ancient air wells look laughable, although it my not meet the extravagant western lifestyle it is by no means roughing it. Not to mention we know how to make deserts stop being deserts using ideas that are very old tech. Sure turning a desert into a forest is hard, but not nearly as hard as it is to make a space station. In fact one setup nearly pays for its self by exporting the gains. Why not have science and space funds help pay the remain difference and chalk it up as terraforming research for those who keep talking about going to mars. That way we get a real solid gain and data for other things.
Plus despite how much I am against weather manipulation as we do not fully understand the implications, desert reclamation can done by small incrementally changes so we can stop it if things start going bad and it it far better understood, unlike some of those plans to spray things into the upper atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 12:21:25 2013 No.5921710 >>5910712 cost per launch regular launch vehicle: 10,000 worth of fuel and 250,000 rocket stage grasshopper: 20,000 worth of fuel

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 13:44:25 2013 No.5921858 >>5910712 >How can this be even feasibly more economical than a spaceplane design, like UK's Skylon that recently got approved for funding? Skylon doesn't work on the moon. Grasshopper does.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 13:52:25 2013 No.5921879 >>5921858 >Skylon doesn't work on the moon Yes it does. Just go full rocket mode.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 14:12:25 2013 No.5921921 >>5921879 Skylon can't land or launch without runways. Landing it on moon desert would be suicide.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 14:26:54 2013 No.5921950 >>5921921 Realistically, building near-earth infrastructure is far more important to space development than sending rockets to the moon.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 14:37:54 2013 No.5921975
File: 15 KB, 221x280, ObviousChoice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5921704
> air wells
> enough water

Choose one. Passive dew collectors are very limited in capacity. Any idiot can see this. Technology and economics don't make much difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_well_(condenser)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 14:42:24 2013 No.5921989 >>5921298 >Watch as SpaceX and Skylon unfold over the next three years. Remove Skylon from the equation. Skylon is 99.9% hype, nothing more.

Violent Simians Guy Wed Jul 24 14:46:23 2013 No.5922003

>>5921511

You're thinking like a neckbeard again. You're running a spreadsheet that none of your leaders bother running. All they know is the Genocide Spreadsheet. That's all they've ever needed. It's always cheaper to invoke genocide during a true demographic catastrophe than to incur the costs and risks of expanding enterprise to bring in more plentitude for everyone.

Get it yet? You neckbeards aren't leaders.You're not capitalists. You have technical knowledge, but that doesn't direct or steer your cultures. Money and political acumen direct or steer your cultures. And those with money and political power think nothing like you do, and they always have genocide options ready to use.

Considering what Petroleum Starvation will do to Humanity, it's essentially certain that Humanity will never leave the Earth to form a permanent culture in space. Exploiting space just takes too many resources, and your resource controllers don't believe in space colonization. The end.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 14:47:55 2013 No.5922004

>>5921950

Realistically, you can't build that infrastructure without rockets.

With Skylon, a space station and something like Grasshopper you can basically have a transit system to the moon.

You just use Skylon to get to a space station orbiting the Earth and change to Grasshopper which goes to the moon. Everything is single stage and the cost of traveling to the moon and back decreased by a factor of something like fifth to a hundred.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 14:47:55 2013 No.5922005

>>5921298

>Improve tracking systems for rogue asteroids
>Develop contingency plans to let us fight off at least some asteroids.

Asteroids are zero threat to us. You misjudge the danger because you don't comprehend the extreme rarity of asteroid impacts compared with the human lifespan.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 14:53:23 2013 No.5922020 >>5922004 Shouldbe >fiftieth to a hundred.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 14:53:55 2013 No.5922019

>>5921298

>Develop the technologies required to sustain life on Mars indefinitely.

Mars is a pointless dead end. It's like Greenland was for the Vikings. Not worth the energy and expense for the marginal increase of habitation space in marginal conditions.

Then there's this simple fact. Mars enthusiasts will have to self fund mars colonization, but they are nowhere near rich enough to afford this. Basically no one has put any thought into the monetary cost to establish a viable colony and a viable economy on an airless gravityless world
that you have to remake anew, while it being far as heck away. It is not a replay of any colonization experience on earth, its a millionfold more difficult.

Every Mars enthusiast is deluded. The conventional wisdom surrounding Mars is wrong. Mars is just there, it isn't any good, but because nothing else really exists, dreamers have latched onto it just because it is there.

Violent Simians Guy Wed Jul 24 14:55:54 2013 No.5922026
File: 16 KB, 244x408, whyeffemm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5921549
> The point is we can solve the resource wars right now with the tech and supplies we have.

Ah, no. Technology doesn't actually create energy. You can't make 1 trillion more barrels of oil appear in our metal pipes at the same cheap cost as it appeared in our pipes during the 20th Century. It can't be done.

Pic related.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 14:59:54 2013 No.5922039 >>5922004 >With Skylon, a space station and something like Grasshopper you can basically have a transit system to the moon. You've forgotton a thing or two. You also need capital, and an underlying valid rational for doing all that. You have neither.

Violent Simians Guy Wed Jul 24 15:04:53 2013 No.5922052
File: 133 KB, 300x222, all-my-bonners.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5922019
All of my erections. Exactly. There's precisely ONE rocky planet that has any value to Humanity, and that's Earth. All others are economically useless. Once you're in space, you're not going to incur the costs of dropping back into a gravity well just to need to keep climbing out of it again. And the terraformation costs are equally pointless. Why terraform when you can just make a Bernal Sphere or O'Neill Cylinder for a billionth of the cost?

By the time a truly spacefaring Humanity needs to use Mars, it will be for raw material for the Dyson Swarm we're building. Mars would be torn apart. As a planet, it's USELESS.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 15:08:24 2013 No.5922062 File: 603 KB, 582x550, ron paul.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5922003 >>5922026

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 15:14:54 2013 No.5922075

>>5922019

>It's like Greenland was for the Vikings

Greenland only failed because it gradually became less and less relevant to European trade. The colony did have a glory period of about a hundred or so years where population expanded greatly and where they exported huge amounts of goods.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 15:20:53 2013 No.5922083 >>5922075 Mars is even less viable than Henderson Island, if that will satisfy you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 16:28:01 2013 No.5922202 >>5922075 If your name is robotbeat, please disregard my flippant statement as not being applicable to you.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 16:33:02 2013 No.5922217

>>5922019

> Not worth the energy and expense for the marginal increase of habitation space in marginal conditions.

Naturally. It'll doubtless be something like "minerals", at some point like "there's none left on Earth at any reasonable price", to the point of "seriously, Mars is starting to look like a reasonable investment, even after accounting for all these ridiculous costs". Of course, those aren't figures we can even arrive at until we get more info on Mars, which is why the current line of research (stuff like Curiosity) is on the right track. More survey-type study, preferably with robots, is exactly what we need now.

Of course, mining is a bottom-line enterprise. Don't expect mining corporations to set up a colony for shits and giggles; expect them to send more robots, and the only humans involved in the operation to be telepresence operators, relaying commands from Earth. Not a romantic colony thing at all, really... at least, not before there've been robots crawling all over the place for decades, setting up infrastructure, to the point where bandwidth/delay issues actually make it worthwhile to establish a local human presence.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 17:03:02 2013 No.5922278
File: 65 KB, 708x612, 8299011_3301b2af53_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5916905
>I seriously doubt that. With its mass fraction Skylon has no other choice than to push the envelope with its rocket engines. In some other thread about Skylon I calculated that it won't be able to deliver the payload and may be even unable to reach orbit at all. Mach 5.5 is nice and fast for an aeroplane. But in comparison to first cosmic velocity it's tiny.

You do realise these calculations are seriously trivial and incredibly unlikely to be the failure of this project?

This project is workable. All major milestones have successfully passed their tests this far. They're finished with researching. There's no fudging numbers to get a handful of contracts. There is just good honest engineering with a lifetime of dedication and hard work.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 17:39:32 2013 No.5922346
File: 35 KB, 468x344, prosperity-without-growth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5922026
True, we can not create energy in that sense. But through conservation, increased efficiency, new renewable power sources and other things we could do fine if a large amount of oil vanished. Now obviously there is a time delay because of building and implementing, having the plans of a power plant and actually having a power plant are different, but that does not involve new tech or resources so my claim stands.

We have all we need to solve these problem right now.
But we may not if we keep doing what we are doing, who knows where the line is exactly. Everything has limits and prevention is far less costly then clean up.
Inb4 we just go to space when things get too bad.

If one has the tools and supplies they need to build what they want then, they have all they need to complete their task "at" that moment, but not "in" that moment.
(and no I have not read this book, but the cover picture is perfect for the message I am sending)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 17:53:02 2013 No.5922365 >>5922019 >Basically no one has put any thought into the monetary cost to establish a viable colony and a viable economy on an airless gravityless world The cost is to be spread over hundreds of years. It's negligible for the return.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 17:57:34 2013 No.5922370

>>5922005
>>5922005

>Asteroids are zero threat to us

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor

>The atmosphere absorbed most of the object's energy, with a total kinetic energy before atmospheric impact equivalent to approximately 440 kilotons of TNT (about 1.8 PJ), 20–30 times more energy than was released from the atomic bomb detonated at Hiroshima.
>20–30 times more energy than was released from the atomic bomb detonated at Hiroshima.

We're lucky it wasn't that tiny big larger to survive the trip to the surface.

Unpredictable rogue asteroids have a statistical significance. Their threat is very real. I would like to be prepared to do something and not ever need it than vise-versa

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 18:19:32 2013 No.5922401

>>5922217
It does not work out even with robots are used, though I glad to see a more reasoned based approach here. Look at the energy need to go there harvest something and come back versus the energy needed to harvest it here, it does not look like it will ever be worth it. So then we go get things we don not have here right? Well that a sticky wicket, what makes those things so valuable it there rarity and bringing more here lowers their value. So some small shipments may be worth it to start out with, but in a short time the finical feasibility is shot. One paper I read showed that if people knew the resources were coming the price would respond before arrival to the point it could only work if you secretly mined mars, you can thank speculators for killing the fun before it starts. Good luck keeping it secret.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 18:41:32 2013 No.5922416
File: 513 KB, 619x799, Skylon manualp2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5921921

Skylon being able to use a runway is a big advantage for frequent, small transits. While they may want their own airfields there is no reason why it couldn't have a station at a regular major airport.

Imagine waiting for your boring flight somewhere and you see a Skylon landing on the runway. A sleek, black, legitimate space-plane larger than any typical passenger craft.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 18:44:01 2013 No.5922420 >>5922416 They said the runway has to be specially reinforced, so you won't see them at airports any time soon.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 18:48:01 2013 No.5922427

>>5922365

You think it makes it cheaper to spread it out, but even the near term costs are beyond the scope of realizable reality. Requireing a hundred years investment in order for something to be viable makes the entire project fragile. A few decades into it and your income source dries up and the entire investment is compromised. The early investors are aware of that possibility and dont provide the initial investment because it's too risky. Catch 22.

What return? Is there an actual one outside of feel good rhetoric? Who pays the exorbitant costs? Are the people you want to pay the costs going to receive the return, or is someone else going to receive the return? If you expect philanthropy, then you have to accept that you do not have the money to dictate philanthropy on your terms, that philanthropic people have their own fields of interests, and that there are many worthy projects competing for the philanthropy of people than your feel good scifi shithole.

Mars is worse than Henderson Island because no one gets to the stage where they even touch it and live on it for an appreciable period of time.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 18:50:02 2013 No.5922430

>>5922278
The triviality of these calculations is exactly the point. I believe it was Wernher von Braun who once said that rocket science fits on one sheet of paper and everything else is engineering work. Tsiolkovsky's equation isn't hard to understand. Yet its implications cannot be altered.
When SpaceX made announcements in 2008 about how much payload the Falcon 9 rocket will be able to carry, people with basic knowledge could convince themselves that their claims were boasted, just by using the trivial rocket equation and a little guesswork from experience. SpaceX claimed 12.5 tons for LEO back then. Adjusted for the ISS orbit using values from the Falcon 9 User Guide this would've meant 11'645 kg to the ISS orbit. Well, there were fewer critics of SpaceX back then than there are now. But the critics were the ones who knew how to apply the rocket equation. And they calculated something slightly above 8 tons for LEO or, adjusted for the ISS orbit, about 7.5 tons. How did it work out in reality? Depending on what value one uses as dry mass for the Dragon spacecraft (there are different ones in different sources and in SpaceX's favor I used the heaviest) in the CRS-1 flight the Falcon 9 carried a payload of 7'185 kg to the ISS orbit. Much closer to the prophesized 7.5 tons than to the claimed ~11.5 tons of SpaceX.
Magic, isn't it? One could predict the payload of the Falcon 9 v1.0 in 2008 better than the engineers of SpaceX just using pencil and paper and be confirmed by reality four years later. Of course the payload announcements varied over the years. The last value I read was about 10.5 tons for LEO. But the Falcon 9 never proved it and the v1.0 version will never fly again.

But you're right about one thing. My calculations are indeed incredibly unlikely to be the failure of Skylon. Even though I give the C1 version a payload of 5 tons for LEO at best, what's more likely to happen is that they never manage to secure funding and we will never see who's right.

Anonymous Wed Jul 24 18:53:02 2013 No.5922432

>>5922427
>If you expect philanthropy

I expect my taxes to be spent on something as awesome as space exploration.

We have NASA doing thousands of different retarded things, at the expense of the public, because we're not interested in a profit from it. We realise that it's worth researching just for the hell of it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 18:56:01 2013 No.5922436 File: 38 KB, 500x500, fu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5922432 Great. 16 trillion in the hole and you're burning money for the hell of it. > Fucking physicist welfare, that's all it is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 24 19:26:01 2013 No.5922483 >>5922436 Sorry for making your life so great you gigantic dickwad.

Anonymous Thu Jul 25 07:30:02 2013 No.5923257

>>5913240
>Sooner or later hydrogen will probably become the dominant fuel for aircraft.
Not really. Hydrogen is a logistical nightmare. You need to supercool it which compared to liquifying oxygen is a much greter technical challenge. The temperature band where it stays liquid is only 7 Kelvin wide, so you need elaborate and expensive insulation. Even in liquid form is has a very low density, so you need gigantic tanks. And the molecules are so small that over time they diffuse through every wall, a problem known as "boil off" and which makes it impractical for storage over longer durations.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 07:44:03 2013 No.5923267 I can't help but be reminded of Tintin by this rocket

Anonymous Thu Jul 25 07:49:32 2013 No.5923274

I would consider the Skylone (or other SSTO vehicles. Not the Grasshopper though, as that is determined for cargo) more as a shuttle which take people to spaceships manufactured in space through asteroid mining and then return to earth.

I doub't I will witness it, though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 08:03:03 2013 No.5923291 >>5923267 The Tintin rocket looks much more like the German V2 rocket really.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 08:15:03 2013 No.5923301 >>5914458 but see what if skylon is flown like an airplane you would need only 1 person to fly much like airplane wow

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 08:21:02 2013 No.5923310 >>5922420 >lay steelplates on it >reinforced not that hard

Anonymous Thu Jul 25 09:09:02 2013 No.5923366

>>5923301
>you would need only 1 person to fly

Fully automated, no pilot required.

This means the vehicle does not require permanent life support built into the flight structure. Life support is only required and will be included on the passenger modules.

Violent Simians Guy Thu Jul 25 09:52:34 2013 No.5923460

>>5922217

You're not going to telepresence from Earth to Mars. Lightspeed is the limit. The LS delay (command and response) between the two worlds ranges from 8.4 minutes to 25 minutes, depending on how Earth and Mars are located in their orbits around the sun.

Running a stupid exploratory rover from the Earth is entirely different than running a mining robot. A mining robot is in constant danger. And if mining robots ever made any sense anyway, WE'D ALREADY BE USING THEM ON EARTH. But we don't; we keep lots and lots of Human around at the mine face since that shit needs constant and routine oversight.

What's happening here is that you virgin-nerds know manned spaceflight is dead, forever, so you're wallowing in self-pity and have adopted a mental defense mechanism, where you accept all this robot crap as being viable.

Violent Simians Guy Thu Jul 25 09:58:02 2013 No.5923472

>>5922346

You're smoothing over a serious problem. You keep assuming that we'll somehow adapt on the supply side, but we can't, since no energy supply beats the economics of petroleum, natural gas and then coal. Remember: All those are fossil fuels. They are only depleting, petroleum the worst of all.

Remember when Jimmy Carter told the American public they'd have to turn down the thermostat and wear sweaters? Dude, nobody does that today in the USA except the very poor or some demented Greenies. And Reagan ripped those ridiculous Carter-era solar panels off the White House. American culture doesn't run on conservation and less; it runs on gross expenditure and MORE MORE MOARRRR!

When it comes to energy supplies, you'd have to be the staunchest of intellectuals to resist being sucked into the cultural black hole of religious faith that technology will somehow "save us".

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 09:58:31 2013 No.5923471 >>5923460 Lightspeed may be the limit. For now. But we'll eventually learn how to warp space around what we're transmitting, which will allow it to move faster than light. Its the same concept as the alcubierre drive.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 10:03:03 2013 No.5923485 >>5923472 >When it comes to energy supplies, you'd have to be the staunchest of intellectuals to resist being sucked into the cultural black hole of religious faith that technology will somehow "save us". It already has.

Anonymous Thu Jul 25 10:55:32 2013 No.5923529

>>5923460
>Running a stupid exploratory rover from the Earth is entirely different than running a mining robot. A mining robot is in constant danger.

What are closed-loop control systems?

>And if mining robots ever made any sense anyway, WE'D ALREADY BE USING THEM ON EARTH

We use robots in mining all the time. Not all processes have been automated yet but that doesn't mean it's impossible, they're just not yet cheap enough to use if you don't absolutely require them; they will get cheap enough.

Stop being a Luddite

Anonymous Thu Jul 25 11:07:01 2013 No.5923543
File: 65 KB, 640x422, white house solar panels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5923472
While the economics of it are a massive pain, I did not say it would be cheap, just that we could afford to buy it if we really wanted to buy it. Try announcing a carbon tax and clearly layout plans to slowly increase it over time, the window is long enough that most businesses won't get messed over and short enough that businesses won't ignore it, then watch things change. Also make sure the environmental costs don't just move somewhere else, there are some ways "green" energy can be worse if not managed right. There is a very good reason China can make cheaper solar cells and batteries, they just dump the toxic waste. I could layout my plan but I won't do it here as that would take some time and the character limit would drive me nuts.

As for culture that is what I mean by a social issue. If every one thought the Carter-era solar panels were cool rather then ridiculous, lot of people would go solar just for the sake of fashion. Sure culture is hard to change, but it is not immune. Depending on ones views of utilitarian ethics is may even be acceptable to use the manipulative media to manipulate the public into changing for the better, after all they are already manipulative (of course that down plays how much of an ethical issue it really is).

Thank you, few people call me a the staunchest of intellectuals. (Not ignoring the value of tech of course, but that is different then betting on it to pull my butt out of the fire)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 11:11:02 2013 No.5923547 File: 197 KB, 320x297, generalfusion1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5923472 No, you just don't deserve to have your ass saved.

Anonymous Thu Jul 25 11:21:32 2013 No.5923557

>>5923460
When you add the cost of keeping workers alive in a hostile environment you fine robots look a lot cheaper. A mine on mars is going to be worse then a mine on earth and robots are already taking mining jobs slowly but surely as they keep getting cheaper. The real econ problem is here >>5922401
>>5923529 may also want to see this

>>5923485
see >>5921549 that last part in () and the text in the picture, you can ignore the rest.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 11:30:31 2013 No.5923564 File: 810 KB, 1132x921, 3792783508_83f0fd182a_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5923547 Yes those that don't not believe that science will save them and contribute to the R&D budget shall not be saved.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 14:28:32 2013 No.5923840 File: 67 KB, 1067x743, france-nuclear.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5923472 >oil consumption goes down >energy production goes up >fuckin' miracles

Anonymous Thu Jul 25 15:45:03 2013 No.5923990

>>5923840

>he thinks that a country's electricity usage is its energy usage.

bitch, we got off oil for electricity production in the 80s, yet the world now uses 90 million barrels a day of the stuff anyways.

cheap oil = productivity. less oil = less productivity. expensive oil substitutes = less productivity. less productivity = less surplus economic capacity. less surplus economic capacity = no colonization.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 15:55:33 2013 No.5924002 >>5923840 Holy shit France is pretty pollution free.

Anonymous Thu Jul 25 15:55:34 2013 No.5924001

>>5922217

Mars has no useful "minerals". fictitious plot convenient "unobtanium", you mean. No unobtainium, no reason for your far away mining concern, and no reason for your dumb colonization scenario.

When we're so starved of "minerals" we'll be too poor to afford a super ambitious space program to get some for super high costs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 16:00:03 2013 No.5924006 File: 38 KB, 560x347, oil_con_FGUI[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5924002

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 16:03:04 2013 No.5924011 >>5924001 >>5922217 Hydrocarbons from asteroids are far more likely to become valuable enough to justify the expense of obtaining them long before any metal from any planet will.

Anonymous Thu Jul 25 16:13:01 2013 No.5924016

>>5924011
>Hydrocarbons from asteroids are far more likely to become valuable enough to justify the expense of obtaining them long before any metal from any planet will.
That's the most retarded shit i have ever heard.
There are metals that literally costs hundreds of thousand of dollar per kilogram. Oil costs about 1 dollar per kilogram.
We can probably make hydrocarbons from CO2 at the expense of less than 10 dollars per kilogram.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 25 16:21:33 2013 No.5924033 >>5924016 Value is relative to availability, and we don't burn metals. Furthermore, a metal mining operation can't produce it's own fuel. I'll make an exception for some radioactives of course - but even nuclear plants in their current form need water.

Sceak !!LciZj2frsW6 Thu Jul 25 16:44:01 2013 No.5924082

>>5910712

The need is for a new energy source.

Robots are possible, even semi-sentient ones, but they would need to be recharged every few hours or be the size of rooms. It's possible to make efficient ones, but chemical energy storage is just limited.

As far as space goes, the same applies. I'm not really interested in space tourism, and I didn't even read the article, but the need is for a new energy source, or new energy storage method.

Sure, I could build a Terminator, but it'd be a freakin' diesel-powered collossus, and you can only take so much chemical fuel off the surface. Your query should also be about the efficiency of taking fuel up to take the thing down. Shit's heavy, y0.

Anonymous Thu Jul 25 21:44:13 2013 No.5924692
File: 54 KB, 825x1050, 007 PH05-132.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5910712
Thing should use a parachute so it could use less fuel slowing down the last bit with active landing control, also the tech for parachute steering have come a long way since they started (see pic of the automated Screamer Precision Cargo Delivery System). Let friction do the work, you only have to decelerate from your terminal velocity to landing velocity. The way they do it they need to carry a lot of fuel up so they can get back down, maybe some one should tell them about how gravity will help in that department.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 26 04:08:33 2013 No.5925188 >>5921549 Energy companies are at the cutting edge of technology, it would not be surprising if they get technically stagnated for a period of time. It's not always a good thing to assume we will always have an option to solve our problem.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 26 04:28:33 2013 No.5925197 >>5923310 It'll probably be more involved than that, but that's still not a reason against doing it at a major airport

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 26 05:52:32 2013 No.5925306 >>5924002 If you don't count nuclear waste as pollution, sure

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 26 06:02:01 2013 No.5925312 >>5925197 >It'll probably be more involved than that, but that's still not a reason against doing it at a major airport One argument is that people won't want rocket (Hydrogen/LOX) fuel stored so close

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 26 07:16:49 2013 No.5925361 >>5925306 You mean nuclear fuel stocked because hippies ?

Anonymous Fri Jul 26 09:22:49 2013 No.5925564
File: 6 KB, 281x180, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5925188
It depends on how you define the problem. I am curious what problem you think I am thinking of because I think your thinking of something else.

Insightful, slightly unrelated question time!
If the problem is lots of people died in car crashes then we can solve it by?
A. Get the engineers working on a safer car, and maybe a self driving feature
B. Ban cars as they are inherently unsafe
C. Limit driving by requiring a very demanding driver license tests, if you ain't as good as Mario Andretti you don't get car keys
D. Change urban layout so cars are not need for most things
F. Give people flying cars so they have more room to avoid accidents

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 26 09:50:49 2013 No.5925605 >>5925564 >If the problem is lots of people died in car crashes then we can solve it by? C) Teaching people how to drive.

Violent Simians Guy Fri Jul 26 09:53:49 2013 No.5925607

>>5923543

You clearly don't seem to understand what "afford" means at the same time you have a society. Sure, if you dumped your health insurance, I'm sure you could "afford" higher prices for gasoline and electricity. This point is constantly missed across our society. Prices will keep rising until people are critically deprived of the Western lifestyle. This will cause geat strife, since these people will continue to live in the West, which still demand that they comply with that lifestyle (taxes and other conformance to law).

Your society runs on cheap energy. Without cheap energy, your society can't run. Get it? Technology can't make it run either. Stop believing in magic, son.

Violent Simians Guy Fri Jul 26 09:57:49 2013 No.5925615

>>5923547
> No, you just don't deserve to have your ass saved.

Oh, I agree. I'm nobody. That's what the Resource Wars and Last War will resolve. There are BILLIONS of Humans who will have to die off before their natural spans, since there just won't be enough cheap energy to fuel the massive, energy-intensive, heavily mechanized system of agriculture and distribution that we use today.

Thanks for pointing that out for me. It's one of my basic points and it's good to see other people have finally caught the fuck ON.

Violent Simians Guy Fri Jul 26 10:06:49 2013 No.5925633

>>5925564
> Get the engineers working on a safer car, and maybe a self driving feature

Cars today are as safe as can be made possible by technology and economics (i.e. affordability). The real issue is that it's simply impossible to affordably shield a person from a high-velocity impact by a very heavy object. Either you slow everyone down to 25MPH (40KPH) max, or cars become tanks.

> Ban cars as they are inherently unsafe
> Limit driving by requiring a very demanding driver license tests, if you ain't as good as Mario Andretti you don't get car keys

Impossible. People need to get around.

> Change urban layout so cars are not need for most things

Impossible. You're talking about radical land reform. Even leaving all the residences intact, you're talking about physically re-arranging by government fiat all the businesses.

> Give people flying cars so they have more room to avoid accidents

Put people in flying cars, and they'll drop out of the skies by the dozens each day.

Anonymous Fri Jul 26 11:48:49 2013 No.5925749

>>5925607
>afford : to be able to bear the cost of
There are of course limited resources, there there are limits to what can be afforded, we can't buy everything but we can bear a lot more then we are. A perfect example is the idea of trading health care for energy as you have it all wrong. We can easily get a win win. Think of restructuring the city so people can walk and bike everywhere and the city can make a decent deal of renewable energy. Now you got people being more physically active which will dramatically lower health costs and (while you are technically using more energy as food is energy demanding) the load from that is more flexible and less damaging when done right, so the total cost of the energy used is lower. Sure if you are addicted to the extravagant western lifestyle you will have some withdrawal issues, but it not going to kill you. And I have seen very sensible plans to have the vast majority of things you would need with in around 5 km to 10 km distance depending on which way you do it. If you factor the ratio of speed/distance many of these walking plans are faster then some city traffic, it would be near nothing with a bike. For the remaining rare occasions farther out a train system of some kind works wonders and those miles of track can be incorporated as links to off site renewable energy sources for more power as needed. As for energy needed for things outside of transportation, we already have negative energy homes and buildings which can do the same things they already do and the remaining amount form all the energy producing places can be sent to energy intensives things like industry and manufacturing. And then I assume you will ask about cost and say rebuilding a city is expensive. True, but building a new city is much cheaper and we need to replace the things we have before things fail so when you consider those and other things it is not much more. The surplus the first city makes can be used to make more.

Anonymous Fri Jul 26 12:30:49 2013 No.5925815
File: 236 KB, 411x500, 4015688799_6a0cf3f9d2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5925633
Yes, someone who know physics and understand economics! As for speeds they do not have that much significance in crash prevention, in fact there is some evidence to the contrary, they just reduce the damage and likelihood of death. Tanks are typically not as safe in normal application.

Banning cars is small strategic areas actually show good gains.

While I was joking some about holding everyone to Mario Andretti standers as it is not very feasible. Limiting driving by requiring a very demanding driver license tests is. In places were they view driving as a privilege earned not a given right, the rate of crashes is much lower even when factoring in the fewer people that drive.

We can defiantly change the urban layout, we done at least three times now in most older American cities.

Agreed flying cars are a terrible idea when you stop and think about them. (although I am still playing with the mad idea of ground effect vehicle and hover craft as they have certain advantages)

Bottom line is science people keep telling me we can and will do the impossible and for the most part I agree. Then I mention some radical idea that is well withing the current understanding of physics, every tells me it is impossible. Do not tell me we can not do things history has already shown we can do as we have done them before.

Heck for even more radical things then what I suggested (in this case bad) just look at how China literally deformed part of a tectonic plate and shifted the center of the planets gravity by enough to make the earths rotate slower extending the day by 0.06 microseconds and dragged the true poles of by as much as 2 centimeters. (see gravity and tectonic study of Three Gorges Dam).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 26 12:45:49 2013 No.5925822 rocket fuel is cheap. it's like oxygen and something else, like hydrogen peroxide

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 26 12:46:49 2013 No.5925825 >>5925749 Use a paragraph once in a while for fuck sake.

Violent Simians Guy Fri Jul 26 13:11:49 2013 No.5925849

>>5925749
> "to be able to bear the cost of"
> can't bear the cost of ALL he had before

Clearly you have trouble with the scope of what I'm saying. Like I clearly said before, drop your spending in other areas, even necessary areas, and you can pump spending into one of the remaining areas of your budget... but that's not "AFFORDABLE".

Anonymous Fri Jul 26 13:16:49 2013 No.5925855

>>5925815
>Bottom line is science people keep telling me we can and will do the impossible and for the most part I agree. Then I mention some radical idea that is well withing the current understanding of physics, every tells me it is impossible. Do not tell me we can not do things history has already shown we can do as we have done them before.

You suggested a load of shitty technical projects to solve a problem that isn't a problem. Most road accidents are caused by incompetent road users.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 26 13:23:49 2013 No.5925867 >>5925822 >Cut self pretty bad doing some woodwork >My hydrogen peroxide expired! >Head to CVS >Like six NASA guys at the checkout line with the store's entire supply of H2O2 FUCKIN' NASA

Anonymous Fri Jul 26 13:50:49 2013 No.5925905

>>5925822
>oxygen and something else, like hydrogen peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide, being an oxidizer, would be a substitute for oxygen rather than something that goes with oxygen.

Hydrogen and oxygen is a good pair, though rather bulky. Kerosene (like jet fuel, but a higher grade of the stuff) and oxygen is what the SpaceX Grasshopper and Falcon rockets use. It's much more compact and easier to handle. UDMH/NTO is what's used in the Proton rocket that just blew up -- these are very toxic, but both are liquid at room temperature, and they spontaneously ignite when you mix them, simplifying the engine design.

Common liquid rocket fuels: hydrogen, kerosene (RP-1), ethanol, hydrazine (and its derivatives, UDMH and MMH, and mixtures thereof)
Alternatives: methane, propane, ethylene, methylacetylene, turpentine, ammonia

Common liquid rocket oxidizers: oxygen, dinitrogen tetroxide (NTO), red fuming nitric acid
Alternatives: hydrogen peroxide, nitrous oxide, fluorine, white fuming nitric acid

Anonymous Fri Jul 26 14:21:49 2013 No.5925934
File: 151 KB, 640x476, 8155234285_74171201b8_z.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5925825
Sorry, I think in constant stream of fluid thoughts, so I never know where the spacing should go and adding it in every X number of lines seems like a disservices to the flow of the idea for the reader. How do people make these decisions, or does everyone think in liner block structuring? That would explain why concept returns are rejected so often by others after following one line of thought for some time. Like what airports would the Skylon fly in and out of? Given the need for LOX fuel I doubt many would what it near them. LOX has such annoying requirements.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 26 14:27:49 2013 No.5925943 >>5925934 Learn programming. Nothing teaches you better to structure your thoughts.

Anonymous Fri Jul 26 14:36:49 2013 No.5925953
File: 66 KB, 480x706, 947340_456272381125649_133274580_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5925855
Which problem are you referring to? And which project ideas are bad?
Are road accidents not a problem? Well I will agree that they are not the root problem, that is more the fact we empower incompetent road user which then create the accidents as you identified.

(side note: One problem with problems is what we trace it back to and declare the target problem, this is why we have some people with dangerous ideas like "Idiots are the problem, let's go kill idiots")

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 26 14:40:49 2013 No.5925962 File: 79 KB, 847x478, 1360243062568.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5925867 >your local hardware store will never stock 95% hydorgen peroxide solution

Anonymous Fri Jul 26 14:46:49 2013 No.5925972

>>5925943
I took a whole year of C#, I do not think it helped. Interestingly everyone seems to love how well my codes preformed in the testing, then would threatened to kill me when they saw how it worked calling it an abomination. I can't really mark it off as jealousy as even the teacher had reservations, admitting that it preformed very well but would never work in the real world.

Anonymous Fri Jul 26 14:58:49 2013 No.5926002

>>5925972
Well if your code looks like this: >>5925749 then it indeed didn't help you. But one year is too short anyway. Try coding something of considerable complexity, then leave it and after a year of not looking at it try to grasp what you wrote there.

>>	Violent Simians Guy Fri Jul 26 15:29:49 2013 No.5926059 >>5925934 Doesn't even seem like English. Looks like a paragraph from "Atlanta Nights" by Travis Tea.

Anonymous Fri Jul 26 15:31:49 2013 No.5926063
File: 18 KB, 1683x150, sector1big.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5926002
Well I was doing something like that making a real time power point game like the original Zelda using HTML, did not get that far but it was working. I had this neat idea and some friends helped refine it after hours of complaining about everything in a games we hate. But one of my friends made me swear to stop it when he say how I was making it, he said he would make it for me the right way if I never worked on a power point game again. Since we graduated he never did help make the game. I thought is was clever because it ran from a power point file and nearly anyone can run those.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 26 15:35:49 2013 No.5926067 >>5926059 Even though I grew up with English, it has always been a problem. When people hear me talk they think I am a genius, when they see my writing ... well it not as nice and we will leave it at that.

Anonymous Fri Jul 26 18:29:12 2013 No.5926381
File: 247 KB, 1000x1000, 1370639455740.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5925934
Slowly read over what you have just written and think to yourself as if you were speaking. Find points where you can imagine "The eyes of the person trying to listen to me have started glazing over and my seemingly unstoppable river of verbal diarrhea should pause to let everyone breathe"

If you're changing the subject or point of focus, use a paragraph.

Anonymous Sat Jul 27 06:37:41 2013 No.5927565

>>5921704
>Sure turning a desert into a forest is hard, but not nearly as hard as it is to make a space station.

Both not nearly as hard as building a space station on Mars. Hard but not impossible. It's always good to expand our horizon and do incredibly difficult things, it makes the not so incredibly difficult projects seem a lot easier.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 27 06:55:41 2013 No.5927585 >>5925197 And the fact that, like actual spaceports, the closer the equator, the better, and that you want no human inhabitants too close.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 27 08:21:13 2013 No.5927655 http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/35824musk-humans-on-mars-before-spacex-goes-public#.UfO6PW2nnJC At least he knows there's no way to get a space colony going and also keep shareholders happy.

Anonymous Sat Jul 27 10:43:57 2013 No.5927823

>>5927565
>"It's always good to expand our horizon and do incredibly difficult things, ..."
While I like expand our horizon and do incredibly difficult things, I must disagree that it is always good. What is the net gains to going to mars?
If you make the argument that it will make new tech the can be later used to solve other problems here on earth. Then consider if we researched solving those problems directly rather then indirectly, might it be solved faster and cheaper?
If you make the argument that it we don't know what solutions we will make until we go to mars. Then consider that is true for any new research endeavor, might it be better to get these unknown solutions while working to solve a more important problem?
If you make the argument that we need to do it to leave earth or some other really big thing, and if we don't start now it will be too late when it is needed. While this maybe true, that can be said for many other types of unlikely, yet plausible, disasters. (though needing to quickly evacuating the planet is near the top of on the devastation scale) We can not really address every doomsday situation so we have to pick our battles. Why should we pick this one over the others? (I really do not like how so may of these arguments boil down to "we need to go to space or we die!")
Also consider that the longer these projects take the less likely they are to get completed as the market strongly favors the short term. So is fixing the economy the first step in the plan to go to mars? Things got to be worth the cost and I just have not seen a good enough argument for mars yet. Colonizing the deserts and oceans make a lot more sense and many of the tech made for those can be adapted to a mars project later on if it comes up, you can think of them as baby steps to mars.
---
I swear I had second post further down in the conversation replying to >>5921975 that covered some other these things but it is not there anymore, weird.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 27 10:49:57 2013 No.5927835 >>5927823 >What is the net gains to going to mars? A planet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 27 10:50:26 2013 No.5927837 >>5926381 >of course not What a persuasive man.

Anonymous Sat Jul 27 11:46:57 2013 No.5927935
File: 16 KB, 590x443, known-as-the-red-planet-due-to-rumors-about-soviet-colonization-mars-also-has-a-reddish-tint-which-is-the-reason-that-we-have-the-mars-crayon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5927835
It is not that simple. First we have the issue of what you really mean by gaining a planet. I do not think if the worlds governments signed over the rights to Mars to you right now you would really gain. (well I suppose you could auction it off to prospectors and cash in that way but that is different) So lets assume we can get to mars, so that is not an issue.

So how expensive is it to get to and from there? What state is mars in? and More importantly who is going to gain from it? If we just say we can get to and from mars like it is now then see my posts >>5922401

If we assume that we can get there cheaply then it is as about as value as a massive desert, it is less valuable but I'm being nice and assuming some valuable ore or something is found to cover the cost of such a deadly environment and as it is cheap and easy to get to and from there then the companies can afford to mine it slowly and ship it back in lots of small shipments so the market shocks will not destroy the value and they may make some money, but know that is assuming a lot of things go perfectly and even then it is not that profitable so the mines will be off and on depending on the market.

If we make mars is a lush green basket of bounty, one must ask how did it become like that? Who paid for it and why? And given the typically way the planet is setup the new atmosphere will be blown away in a few hundred years making it even worse was.
Domed cities they can work here to stop that and the lower gravity make building is easy. Well why would people move there and how much does it cost to stay?

more issues, but do not feel like making another post now

Lastly look at how Antarctica and the Moon are going, you can see how likely it is to trigger a world war should access to those areas become profitable, just think of what Mars would do politically when added to the table for real, it is very scary. If it is not profitable we don't go, if it is we fight over it like never before.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 27 16:10:55 2013 No.5928513 >>5927935 It's a planet. You live on it. Sunlight falls on it. It is made of atoms which can be put into more useful arrangements. It is big.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 27 16:16:56 2013 No.5928531 >>5927935 you don't have to mine the planet and haul it all back to earth the people colonizing mars can use the stuff that's on mars so the cost is only what it takes to get people a one way ticket from here to there

Anonymous Sat Jul 27 16:27:28 2013 No.5928552

>>5928531
Well yes. It affords great wealth and prosperity to any Martian colonists. But it does not really do anything for people on Earth.
The issues is that I assume the people of Earth are going to be the ones investing all these resources into getting there and not dying there, but I see no real why to pay Earth back for the cost of settling Mars. Add to it the issues of timescales for payback and there is a good chance those who invested in it would be dead before the return ever came, if at all.

Anonymous Sat Jul 27 16:31:26 2013 No.5928559

>>5928552
people may have to make some sacrifices to ensure the survival of the human species
we need to diversify by expanding to places outside of the earth, like Mars or Io, a moon of Jupiter, or other moons
I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of people willing to invest in that, or atleast there are going to be more and more people willing to invest in the future

Anonymous Sat Jul 27 16:55:29 2013 No.5928619

>>5928552
The people who are going can pay for it, of course.

We're sure as fuck not going to go when it costs $10,000/kg just to get into LEO, but the required fuel only costs about $10/kg (that's kg payload to LEO, not kg of fuel). The high cost is because we've never had an efficiently reusable orbital launcher.

Usually, we build something as sophisticated and expensive as an airliner, use it once, and let it burn up / crash. The space shuttle was an attempt to make it cheaper, but because it was done by a government agency, it turned into a ridiculous pork project and ended up being more expensive than single-use rockets.

When we have an actual space ship, instead of these ridiculous missiles, you'll be able to go to space for the price of a car.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 27 19:51:26 2013 No.5929153 >>5928619 >When we have an actual space ship, instead of these ridiculous missiles, you'll be able to go to space for the price of a car. >Enter Skylon

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 27 22:56:28 2013 No.5929460 File: 113 KB, 580x652, 5068224405048653fe6do.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5929153 Were you all not satisfied with this?(pic) Why was it only cool for such a short time?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 00:42:25 2013 No.5929633 >>5925312 >One argument is that people won't want rocket (Hydrogen/LOX) fuel stored so close is jet fuel supposed to be any safer?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 00:44:26 2013 No.5929640 >2013 >Not using laser rockets laughing_girls.jpeg

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 01:36:25 2013 No.5929729
File: 8 KB, 500x308, purple-k.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5929633
Jet fuel is very safe by most comparisons. In many ways gasoline is more dangerous then jet fuel, despite the fact gasoline has a lower energy it is much easier to ignite.

Most Jet fuels have to be pressurized before it can explode, otherwise it just burns and even then it has to meet certain conditions which do not always happen. There is a reason they have a rule banning people from putting out their cigarettes with jet fuel, people use to do that as it was relatively safe, key word relatively as it still a stupid thing to do. When it does burn it is easier to contain and let itself burnout, but most of the times lots of Purple K puts it out before it is done burning. (that stuff is awesome right up there with Halon, although Halon is banned in most cases)

The big problem with LOX is it has to be kept in cryogenic conditions until right before use thus it needs to be actively cooled.

Which is easier to keep from phase changing(igniting) a block of ice(LOX) or a cup of water(jet fuel)? (Yes phase change and combustion are different but I think it gets the point across on how much a active vs passive containment system matters from a safety perspective.)

But both are liquid fuels so they can normally be cut off with a valve unlike solid rocket fuels.

>>5929640
Laser rocket are very nice, but require the rocket to travel in a very straight line to keep it efficient which is not really feasible as far as I know, and doubt it will be if there is any wind nearby.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 01:45:27 2013 No.5929736 >>5929729 Its clear you noe nothing about jet fuel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 01:49:28 2013 No.5929739 >>5929729 LOX is not fuel

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 02:02:26 2013 No.5929745 >>5929736 How so?

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 05:26:26 2013 No.5929939

>>5929460

Because that doesn't get anything to space. It's a holiday cruise for millionaires dreamed up by a weird looking rich man who can't read.
Skylon was dreamed up by a weird looking engineer who has dedicated 30+ years of his life to making sci-fi a tangible reality.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 05:39:26 2013 No.5929943

>>5929729
>The big problem with LOX is it has to be kept in cryogenic conditions until right before use thus it needs to be actively cooled.

That is not the BIG problem with LOX.

The big problem with LOX is that it makes things explosive. Very explosive. I don't mean it makes things burn very quickly (which it does), I mean that it literally can make things detonate that aren't meant to detonate.

Hydrogen is a bitch to store because everything leaks and it likes to explode when the conditions are right.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 06:10:56 2013 No.5929961 >>5929729 >Laser rocket are very nice, but require the rocket to travel in a very straight line to keep it efficient which is not really feasible as far as I know, and doubt it will be if there is any wind nearby You can't launch with a laser.

not that guy Sun Jul 28 07:08:55 2013 No.5930005

>>5929961
Not that guy, but you can still get a lot of momentum from the laser while the rocket is still atmosphere. End even outside atmosphere, the rocket could carry a little propellant to be injected into the reflective cavity to be heated by the groundside laser.

Even if these methods couldn't provide the boost to get the rocket into orbit, they could increase launch efficiency.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 10:39:56 2013 No.5930160
File: 65 KB, 500x340, layyyzeerrrrlaunch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5930005
The problem is there are several types of laser propulsion.
Well there are many to methods for laser rockets, here are the few I know of.
1. shoot the laser up at a dish the refocus it to super heat the air right below it, this provides some thrust and is the one I see the most often.
2. is to have a ablative dish that the laser slowly vaporizes, solid to plasma makes a good deal more thrust and can work in space. (this is the one I like)
3. is to use the photons to push it, the thrust from this is near insignificant but depending on how you set things up there are some cases where it does not look too silly.
4. is just using a laser to the crafts solar cells, which is more a power transmission then propulsion, but this get clumped in at times so it is worth mentioning.

The major benefit is most of the parts and energy supply is on the ground making the craft much lighter and reducing many other issues, the flip side is the laser alinement matters a good deal so if the craft drifts too much it loses thrust.
Also something to consider is while a catastrophic fuel explosion is basically impossible as the power comes from the ground station, I would want a lot more testing before I sit directly down range of what is basically a modified laser cannon. Also there nothing saying you can't keep addition propulsion systems for other parts of the trip.
wiki has a much better break down and more types of the idea as I just doing this from a few minutes of memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion

not that guy Sun Jul 28 10:56:28 2013 No.5930185

>>5930160
How is that a problem?
Those seem like different methods for different applications, which is natural.

The alignment problem could be mitigated with an actively homing laser.
And if laser sails are used in the inner system, we could go the oft-imagined Asimov-Array route and put the power collectors and lasers on Mercury.

Utilizing the Mercury lasers, we could then send fuel, propellant and other volatiles(gleaned from comets entering the inner system) to depots in the outer system for use in nuclear-powered craft and to power whatever bases and outposts that might be established there.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 11:07:27 2013 No.5930206

>>5929943
The majority of LOX explosions are attributed to the storage unit not staying cool enough, leading to an over pressure condition that ruptures the container and then ignites with something in the area.
So yes it explodes very easily as just about anything it the area can set it off and that does make it very dangerous, more so given how much energy it has, but most of those explosions would not have happened if the unit had stayed cool enough. So I see the real dangerous as a coolant failure as that was the declared cause of most of those accidents. Leaks where the second and third was other violations of the area safety rules (which in one case includes a guy smoking).

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 11:08:26 2013 No.5930209

>>5930160
>3. is to use the photons to push it, the thrust from this is near insignificant but depending on how you set things up there are some cases where it does not look too silly.
not for launching from earth into orbit though, right? I can believe you could use this to navigate very precisely in space but not to get into orbit

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 11:29:56 2013 No.5930232

>>5930185
The reason way it is a problem is lack of specifics, which has more to do with communication and labeling, then the actual technology.
If we are to have a good discussion about "it" then we need to agree on what "it" is. And if we talk about a different type it needs to be declared as to prevent confusion that leads to pointless arguing.

Like if one person was talking about a photon pushing version and said it had near insignificant amounts of thrust and was thus a stupid idea. And someone else was talking about the ablative plate version and how viable it is. Now they get into an argument about how much thrust it makes and how viable it is, but wastes many anger posts as they both just used the label laser propulsion. All parties have valid points and are right in their context, but not declaring the context is why people got made.
Worse yet if some uninformed person comes by and uses the info they heard in the argument to make judgments about laser propulsion. Then imagine that person telling another that tells another, maybe someone in this link is a politician or news anchor. Before you know it inaccurate hear say is used to make very important decisions and make a very real problem.
Now comes the part were people say I am overreacting. But things really are connected far more then we understand and even worse as most don't understand much at all. Every action we make has ramifications that can become huge.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 11:35:56 2013 No.5930240

>>5930209
Correct, we are not using it to get to orbit.
Using photon pushing in an atmosphere is stupid by all rights, I can think of and I can think of many more then most. As for space travel in a vacuum it becomes some what useful, but in most of those areas I think some kind of ion thruster would work better.

not that guy Sun Jul 28 11:46:26 2013 No.5930257

>>5930232
Well, I don't see it as much of a problem, since the laser sail is the more known form, and it's almost never called just 'laser propulsion', but as 'laser-assisted solar sail' or similar specific name.

When people say 'laser propulsion', it's generally taken as granted that the topic is about laser-ablation or laser-impulse propulsion.

I do agree that if someone starts to go on a tangent about another form, he should be corrected. Unless the comment contributes to the topic at hand of course.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 12:51:56 2013 No.5930376

>>5930206
>The majority of LOX explosions are attributed to the storage unit not staying cool enough, leading to an over pressure condition that ruptures the container and then ignites with something in the area.

Where are you getting this information?

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 14:00:40 2013 No.5930482
File: 644 KB, 1500x1125, 125200543.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

People keep talking about Hydrogen leaking and I read that is is true. But it none of them say why it is leaking. Are the purposely letting some boil off in a controlled fashion too prevent pressure build up or is the 1% a day loss rate really just from atom diffusion though the containers wall.
And how dangerous is it really? While it is very energy rich it does not seem that dangerous in a situational sense. I mean it was not to long ago we were talking about putting it in our cars.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 14:22:39 2013 No.5930520

>>5910712
I'm super late to this thread, but I figured I'd just say that Skylon is only going to be able to haul 15 metric tons to LEO whereas SpaceX is looking at at (though it may be down the line, admittedly) fully reusable 100+ metric ton vehicles. This gap is due mainly to the fact that Skylon is single stage to orbit (SSTO) whereas Falcon 9R is two stage. SSTO is an inherently difficult design to work with because you are hauling your entire vehicle with you the entire way whereas with two stage to orbit a large portion of your mass can be left behind. I really really doubt that SSTO will ever be able to rival two stage to orbit in terms of payload capability.

Don't get me wrong, Skylon with be fantastic for relatively small payloads, but it will not render SpaceX's efforts useless in way, shape, or form.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 15:45:39 2013 No.5930676 Does anyone know an approched budget distribution for a typical rocket launch (e.g. Ariane 5) ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 15:59:39 2013 No.5930707 >>5929939 >Skylon was dreamed up by a weird looking engineer who has dedicated 30+ years of his life to making sci-fi a tangible reality. You're getting into cultish personality worship now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:02:41 2013 No.5930713 >>5930707 It's got quite a way to go before it gets to the cult of Musk.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:04:09 2013 No.5930716 Things that will never exist: Skylon

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:06:41 2013 No.5930721

>>5930482
For a rocket, hydrogen makes sense in terms of energy per gram. For a car, the ability to sit with a full (or partially full tank) is desirable and the far lower rate of energy consumption make the properties of hydrogen a less inviting fuel. There are also issues of rendering existing vehicles obsolete without an expensive conversion. It is more practical to convert the hydrogen to an alcohol.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:09:42 2013 No.5930723 >>5930713 This, so many cringeworthy comments.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:09:42 2013 No.5930724 >>5930713 Musk delivers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:13:38 2013 No.5930732 >>5930724 Yes but people are talking about him as if he'll have Mars fully colonised and terraformed within the next 10 years.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:14:08 2013 No.5930734 >>5930206 >the storage unit not staying cool enough since when do they store LOX in a refrigerator?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:16:12 2013 No.5930738 >>5930732 Well, now you know how Skylon cultists sound like, except without any proposed application.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:26:09 2013 No.5930759 File: 24 KB, 500x316, 1958_Ford_Nucleon_03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5930721 So I guess your not a fan of the Ford Nucleon as the future of personal transportation?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:32:09 2013 No.5930778 >>5930732 I'm doubtful of that, it amazes me that he managed to start a company that developed it's own fucking rockets.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:34:09 2013 No.5930782 >>5930759 I wonder if this could be accomplished with today's technology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:39:38 2013 No.5930793 >>5930778 He did it by hiring a shitload of people who used to work at NASA.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:44:09 2013 No.5930809
File: 27 KB, 556x334, elon lay-zers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5930793
partly, but also by being very very selective on hiring just the cream of the crop of new graduates as well. Really, he did the same thing NASA did back in the Apollo days. It was our best, brightest, and youngest who got us to the moon!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:45:42 2013 No.5930811 >>5930793 Now now, the average age of spacex employees is under 30, lets not over state things in jealousy.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:46:41 2013 No.5930814

>>5930734
Since we added the L in Liquid Oxygen. It needs to be keep very cold or at insane pressures, or some mix.
Can someone get a phase diagram of oxygen in here?

And by the way folks, in most papers it is written LOx.
The LOX and lox version are not commonly used so it looks silly.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:51:39 2013 No.5930826

>>5930721
It's not only the energy density of the fuel. Hydrogen has a nice gravimetric energy density but a poor volumetric energy density. But what makes it such a good rocket fuel is that the reaction products of the hydrogen-oxygen reaction are light molecules. Lighter molecules can be accelerated faster for the same reaction energy. That's important for the effective exhaust velocity. One mol of water weighs only 18 grams, one mol of carbon dioxide 44 grams.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 16:54:41 2013 No.5930833 >>5930793 Then Skylon is doomed then.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 18:01:40 2013 No.5930995

>>5930759
The nucleon is a nice idea but you simply can't miniaturise a reactor that much and maintain shielding. You know the idiots who cruise alongside you? Imagine if their reactor is now level with your head with a shit load less shielding and inverse square than they're benefiting from?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 18:24:08 2013 No.5931041 >v1.0 falcon 9 rocket Its as if there is suppose to be a new version or something. Did I miss something?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 18:33:38 2013 No.5931058 >>5931041 There is, the next flight will be a larger reconfigured falcon 9 v1.1

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 18:54:09 2013 No.5931090 >>5930833 >Skylon is doomed They only have engineers from BAE and Rolls-Royce. They know fug all about aerospace engineering. http://www.theengineer.co.uk/aerospace/in-depth/skylon-and-sabre-your-questions-answered/1014164.article

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 18:57:09 2013 No.5931103

>>5930826
Water is actually a pretty poor combustion product to have in rocket exhaust. As a triatomic molecule it has too many modes of vibration that take up heat energy in ways that don't contribute to the speed of molecules flying around.

So in actual hydrogen/oxygen rockets, they dump way more hydrogen in than can be burned by the oxygen. That way, most of the energy goes into the free hydrogen, which has its molecules shooting around very fast at a given temperature compared to water vapor, and so the combustion chamber temperature stays manageable and the rocket nozzle works efficiently.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 19:17:08 2013 No.5931152

>>5931103
That's a strange response. Though you say nothing wrong, your categorization of water as "poor" is just off target. The effects you describe are for gaining something like 200 m/s more. The effects I describe are much more fundamental. Deciding on the type of propellant by looking at the weight of the reaction molecules can make differences of 2000 m/s.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 19:46:39 2013 No.5931210

>>5931152
I think you're pretty confused about this. A hydrogen/oxygen rocket with a stoichiometric oxidizer/fuel ratio would work very poorly.

Consider the highest known example of specific impulse: the lithium/fluorine/hydrogen tripropellant rocket. The lithium fluoride comes out as a liquid, because it can't really exist as a gas. So these droplets of lithium fluoride are only heating and being pushed by the hydrogen -- a lithium/fluorine rocket with a stoichometric ratio would have no thrust at all, it would just make hot liquid. But despite lithium fluoride being perfectly unsuitable as the working fluid of a rocket, lithium/fluorine/hydrogen gets the highest known specific impulse of any chemical rocket propellant combination.

Water isn't good to have in the exhaust because it's an efficient working fluid in a rocket, but because it means you've been burning hydrogen with oxygen, which puts out a lot of thermal energy. It mainly serves the same role as the lithium fluoride: as a heat source, while the free hydrogen makes the rocket efficient.

Heavier molecules, like nitrogen or hydrogen fluoride, can be more efficient as working fluid than lighter ones, like water.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 20:36:08 2013 No.5931312 >>5931210 >Consider the highest known example of specific impulse: the lithium/fluorine/hydrogen tripropellant rocket. Ah now I get it. You're trying to have an entirely academic discussion. Well, I was actually talking about real rockets.

>>	Carbon Sun Jul 28 20:46:40 2013 No.5931329 >>5910712 Why no parachute?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 21:10:10 2013 No.5931382 >>5931329 I asked that already >>5924692 >parachute never get answers from people here. Good luck.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 21:13:38 2013 No.5931387 >>5931312 I get that you're embarassed about not understanding how rockets actually work, but that's no excuse for trying this sort of dodge.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 21:19:08 2013 No.5931406
File: 64 KB, 640x479, big20truck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5930782
>>5930995
I do not know, when I talked we some Nuclear engineers about it they laugh and said a large truck would be about as small as it gets if I want the power output to drive normally given the added weight of the shielding. (pic is about the size they showed me and they called it as small as they would go) Thou I could think of some fun uses for something like that. But the real issues is I do not trust anyone on the road with what they have now, I would never give them that kind of vehicle.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 21:48:08 2013 No.5931447 >>5931329 They tried this on one of their Falcon 9's already. Didn't work.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 21:59:09 2013 No.5931467 >>5931447 My bad, their first 2 Falcon 9 flights.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 22:09:09 2013 No.5931485
File: 35 KB, 658x456, strictnozzle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5931387
>>5931312
Cool it both of you. The distinction of what is optimal for practical settings and what is optimal for from the narrow academic views are important. You are both right in your own context. This is why I keep railing no about context.>>5930232
But it if you want real rocket power your thinking to small.
Check out this beast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb
It out preforms every design I seen and is surprisingly feasible. Then incorporate some kind of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_nozzle
into it tailoring it to your target application. And you have the best rocket I can think of.

(the one in the picture is not exactly how I would do it as my inner plate would incorporate more of an aerospike, where the spike can move inside and outside the bell, but as you can guess there is some fine tuning to do. Point there is other nozzle designs need to be looked at more closely as some show a lot of promise.
Most of the cool things are stuck in development hell,
It needs a solid safety record before people will build it. People must build it before it can build a solid safety record.)

Although I have lots of other cool ideas which might be incorporated for more gains, but then things get complicated and more application specific.
As for not melting everything, there are some materials that the military has that should handle the load nicely, but they are not very good about publishing black papers for peer review.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 22:24:09 2013 No.5931512 >>5931485 what about using multiple small bells versus 1 large one to get redundancy? what about letting fuel flow trough the bell as it travels to the ignition room to cool it? ive read about these suggestions, are they viable for space?

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 22:30:38 2013 No.5931522
File: 92 KB, 1024x638, Vasimr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What do you all think of the VASIMR. I hear it is suppose to be very adaptive so it can optimize for most situations, more then making up for the few short comings elsewhere.
But critics say that it will not work like planned, as they say where all the energy to power this thing is going to come from is not addressed properly.
Is the VASIMR going to change stuff or is it just smoke and mirrors?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 28 22:52:40 2013 No.5931561 >>5931522 The energy requirements are absolutely ridiculous. It's not happening any time soon.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 23:44:38 2013 No.5931648

>>5931512
Redundancy may add to safety, but it also adds to the ships mass and complexity. It depends on what you are trying to do and how much risk you are willing to take.

That is a common practice that is very useful. But I am not considering that for 2 reason. 1. moving pipes are a real pain 2. I can easily picture materials holding well under exhaust values of 4000 C. Seeing as our Hydrogen flames top at around 3200 C, I would try using a nuclear system to run exhaust at 3500 C.
The question to me is where to top things out at, till I know more I will say 3500 C. The nuclear engine can reach insane temperatures at which no material can hold, which gives near perfect efficiency, but I have to admit trading efficiency for an engine that does not melt is a compelling argument.

I do not know if you are referring to engine or the nozzle, but it does not matter as both work well "IN SPACE". (sorry I just had to do that dramatic text) It dominates when it comes to getting off a planet, which is the hardest part.
Things get tricky for trips outside the solar system, you start to run into reactionary mass issues, but every system I know of has that problem. For really long trips like that it may be worth looking into a way to cap the engine into a closed loop generator to get huge amounts of power for an ion drive as I think that may have better reactionary mass ratios for deep space. But how much better is the question, as any system can get you you there once you reach escape velocity, you just coast the rest of the way. So it really more a matter of how fast you want to get there, but factoring in relativity it does not look as bad.
I would use it as a powerful shuttle to get supplies into space to build a big generational ship, then have it mount into and modified it to be used as a generator for the trip. Once there modify it back to be use as the colony shuttle. Not as cool, but much less complicated and more feasible given our current tech level.

Anonymous Sun Jul 28 23:51:09 2013 No.5931658

>>5931561
So it is smoke and mirrors, thanks.

No! Now I am thinking of how useful smoke and mirrors would be. The smoke as a reaction mass and the mirrors for focusing light to super heating the smoke and as solar sails.

Also how ridiculous of energy consumption are we talking about, for normal use and in atmosphere use? (Yes I know it is a stupid question, but not as stupid when you figure in how much thrust the gas may give when it expands when heated to a plasma.)

Anonymous Mon Jul 29 00:10:09 2013 No.5931718

>>5931658
Atmospheric use? Ion thrusters are pretty much for in interplanetary travel only. They just don't produce enough thrust to be useful on earth. To give you an idea of what I mean, Dawn (a NASA mission headed to Ceres right now) is using a ion thruster with 0.09 newtons of thrust, the VASIMR VX-200 engine Ad Astra is working on produces 5.7 newtons of thrust. Now, compare this to a conventional chemical rocket engine like SpaceX's Merlin 1D which has 650,000 newtons of thrust... yeah...

As for space use, I'll quote the Zurbin article "The VASIMR Hoax"

"To achieve his much-repeated claim that VASIMR could enable a 39-day one-way transit to Mars, Chang Diaz posits a nuclear reactor system with a power of 200,000 kilowatts and a power-to-mass ratio of 1,000 watts per kilogram. In fact, the largest space nuclear reactor ever built, the Soviet Topaz, had a power of 10 kilowatts and a power-to-mass ratio of 10 watts per kilogram."

That should give you a pretty good idea of how far off we are from having the capability to power these things.

Anonymous Mon Jul 29 00:22:09 2013 No.5931756

>>5931718
But is that 5.7 newtons of thrust just from the ion flow or is that including the air that is heated.
See my crazy idea is to use the electricity to super heat the air and magnetically confine it to a one way flow. Terribly inefficient I know, but if one can get decent thrust from that then a modified ion drive could be used under nearly any condition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 29 01:59:09 2013 No.5931948 >>5931756 Not that guy, but that's such a bad idea. The ionized oxygen would wreck the engines during the first atmospheric usage.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 29 03:09:09 2013 No.5932063 >>5931387 A large percentage of real rockets, my friend, use hydrogen/oxygen as propellants not because it's so bad as you're trying to suggest but because it's so good precisely because of the reasons I mentioned.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 29 06:40:18 2013 No.5932228 >>5931103 >>5931152 >>5931210 >>5931312 Interesting

Anonymous Mon Jul 29 06:45:18 2013 No.5932234

>>5931329

Parachutes are only useful up to a limited weight, more weight means a larger parachute and more force. It's one of the contributing reasons why the MSL had its insane sky crane system.

Martian Series: Testing Curiosity's Parachute Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7vf2HUMMdo

Anonymous Mon Jul 29 06:56:09 2013 No.5932242
File: 179 KB, 635x423, internet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5930232
>Now comes the part were people say I am overreacting. But things really are connected far more then we understand and even worse as most don't understand much at all. Every action we make has ramifications that can become huge.

Picture related...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 29 07:02:22 2013 No.5932246 >>5931561 What if we use thermite to drive a turbine to power the magnets? The magnets can then act as a rail/coil gun to expel the heavy iron from the thermite reaction. The fact its iron means it will generate a lot more thrust than a gas.

Anonymous Mon Jul 29 07:06:09 2013 No.5932249

>>5931718
>0.09 newtons of thrust, the VASIMR VX-200 engine Ad Astra is working on produces 5.7 newtons of thrust. Now, compare this to a conventional chemical rocket engine like SpaceX's Merlin 1D which has 650,000 newtons of thrust... yeah...

Miniaturise the size of the ion engines and build an array containing 200,000 of them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 29 09:12:22 2013 No.5932397 >>5932249 So crazy it could work, I like it. If we can make a light weight high temperature super conductor that might work, just maybe. Given the way things are I could see that happening in the future, but not anytime soon.

Anonymous Mon Jul 29 12:33:22 2013 No.5932712

>>5921557
>we haven't even colonized earths deserts

There's there no reason to colonize earths deserts either you dunce. Not when it's much easier to settle in some river basin.

Interplanetary colonization is not at all analogous to the more inhospitable regions on the planet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 29 12:33:22 2013 No.5932714 >>5932249 And that array would need 200,000 * 200,000 = 40 GW of electricity ? Keep in mind that a lambda nuclear power reactor has an output of ~1GW

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 29 12:46:10 2013 No.5932728 >>5932714 You could keep a lot of the reactors on the ground and power the craft by a cable for a lot of its journey. So instead of 40 reactors to space, you will only need to bring about 10.

Anonymous Mon Jul 29 13:25:10 2013 No.5932789

>>5922003
>exploiting space just takes too many resources

Where the fuck do people get this from? NASA accounts for about half a percent of the US federal budget.

Resources has never been the issue with space programs, it's always been political motivation or lack thereof - and that comes from ignorance. NASA (and various other companies and agencies) are pathetically subpar when it comes to Pr with politicians. You need someone to hammer into them on a week in, week out basis on why this shit is important.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 29 14:49:10 2013 No.5933028 >>5925962 This is actually a problem for many amateur groups. For example, the Copenhagen Suborbital team is refining their own hydrogen peroxide.

Anonymous Mon Jul 29 16:20:08 2013 No.5933178

>>5932712
>There's there no reason to colonize earths deserts either
And there's even less reason to colonize the solar system.

>Interplanetary colonization is not at all analogous to the more inhospitable regions on the planet.
You're right. As I have shown, the conditions are much more difficult. So there's absolutely no point in it. It's so difficult actually that we just couldn't do it, even if we decided to undertake that stupidity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 29 18:19:09 2013 No.5933483 >>5933178 >there's even less reason to colonize the solar system Wrong.

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