/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9841249]

It's pretty impressive how they managed
to come up with such complex technology
in the 60's and actually keep the flight crews alive

[Anonymous No.9841253]

>>9841249
Yes, when you have 2.5% of the fed budget instead of less than .5%, space programs can actually progress.

[Anonymous No.9841264]

is that supposed to be some kind of a gay poem?

[Anonymous No.9841269]

>>9841249
one little known fact, for the manned Apollo missions the cabin atmosphere is initially (during launch) a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen, to avoid fires. But, once in orbit they change it to 100% oxygen

[Anonymous No.9841288]

>>9841249
>such complex technology
It was actually simple technology, refined by testing.

[Anonymous No.9841309]

>>9841269
What? Why in the hell didn't they succumb to over-consumption of oxygen then?

[Anonymous No.9841311]

>>9841309
anon...

[Anonymous No.9841327]

>>9841311
What? Am I misinformed? I was under the assumption that humans are built to breathe an atmosphere that isn't pure oxygen.

[Anonymous No.9841331]

>>9841327
100% is fine, at low pressures. Using 100% oxygen on Apollo kept the schedule on track, prevented the bends during abort situations (and in general), and allowed for more suit maneuverability. A full redesign after Apollo 1 would have taken too long, so the mixed-atm during launch-solution was devised

ISS and Soyuz use a 40/60 blend or thereabouts, but we still use 100% oxygen for spacewalks

[Anonymous No.9841345]

>>9841327
>humans are built
No.

[Anonymous No.9841369]

>>9841264
poems are wasted
on fat ugly mongoloids
like you and your mom

[Anonymous No.9841370]

>>9841327
Pure oxygen is fine. Actually makes you slightly more awake/alert for a brief period (then your body adjusts). The reason elevated oxygen levels are unsafe is because it is extremely reactive and will make fire spread insanely fast.

[Anonymous No.9841377]

I always wondered if you could electrolyze breathing gas out of water without separating the hydrogen out of it, just pack the fizz into bottles. The only thing anyone ever said was it might hydrogenate all the fats in your body. Stop laughing.

[Anonymous No.9841621]

>>9841269
>>9841370
So I know pure o2 is a nightmare for fire risk at ground level (when it's at atmospheric pressure like Apollo 1), but how much more dangerous is it at 4.7psi than breathing mix at 14.5psi?
Is fire more dependent on oxygen partial pressure or total oxygen percentage?

[Anonymous No.9841768]

>>9841253
That's not all. You also needed arian Germans instead of the diversity hires NASA has today

[Anonymous No.9841877]

>>9841768
Actually NASA had lots of black women in the 60's who were smarter than the Germans. There was a whole movie about it.

[Anonymous No.9841878]

>>9841877
LOL

[Anonymous No.9841880]

>>9841878

[Anonymous No.9841886]

>>9841369
For a proper haiku you actually want to avoid use of pronouns

[Anonymous No.9841887]

>>9841877
Yeah man I saw it too it was a really nice comedy

[Anonymous No.9841889]

>>9841887
Maybe you missed the part where they said it was based on a true story

[Anonymous No.9841913]

>>9841253
2.5% of their budget is way smaller than 0.5% of our current budget

[Anonymous No.9841923]

>>9841377
it's easy to do on earth, just separate the electrodes. the gas goes up into different reservoirs. i would imagine it would be harder in microgravity, but there's probably a way to keep the electrodes separated by a membrane or something

consider though: you have to take the water up with you. what do you do with the hydrogen? if you just put it in a bottle and never use it, that's wasted mass budget you could have put into bringing more oxygen. do you just blow it into space? same problem. fuel cells? well, where do you get the oxygen from? burn it for energy? again, the oxygen issue, and why go to the effort of engineering a hydrogen-fueled combustion engine in space when there's all that free solar energy that doesnt need moving parts?

[Anonymous No.9841927]

>>9841886
a proper haiku is also written in japanese, not english

[Anonymous No.9841928]

>>9841913
>inflation

[Anonymous No.9842077]

>>9841877
Ahahahahahahahah

[Anonymous No.9842084]

>>9841877
They did tedium like algebra and arithmetic. None of the work they did was in any way any more significant than anyone else. They are just talked about because they were some of the first black women "human computers", a job at the time at NASA. To say they're smarter is just a funny joke.

[Anonymous No.9842103]

[Anonymous No.9842157]

>>9841928
Actually the federal budget is higher, even adjusting for inflation.

[Anonymous No.9842177]

>>9842157
That's not the point. The NASA budget was higher in inflation adjusted dollars in the 60's than today

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

[Anonymous No.9842184]

>>9842103
>Apollo rehearsal rig

[Anonymous No.9842193]

>>9842184
No blast crater.

[Anonymous No.9842221]

[Anonymous No.9842234]

>>9841249
why are you typing
like an absolute retard
is it autism or brain damage

[Anonymous No.9842240]

>>9842193
>No blast crater
Why would there be a blast crater through solid rock with such low thrust needed to land in a low gravity environment?

[Anonymous No.9842252]

>>9842240
There is a layer of moon dust - there are no scorch marks or anything. It was just dropped onto the set by a crane.

[Anonymous No.9842262]

>>9842252
>There is a layer of moon dust
And what do you think is going to "blow" it away when you don't have atmosphere. Also the top part of the lander blasts off from the bottom part, not from the ground. That big booster on the bottom is for breaking in orbit, it doesn't land on a vertical jet of fire.

[Anonymous No.9842275]

>>9842252
What would be scorched? The exhaust immediately at landing was very low and spread very little heat. Dust was blown all over and settled back down quickly due to there being no atmosphere to stop it. There was nothing to scorch.

[Anonymous No.9842278]

some commentary from schmitt about the dust:

"Recently, a lot of us have been trying to figure out why it is that, when you stir up the surface near the LM, it seems darker while, away from the LM, you don't see that. And my conclusion at this point is that the winnowing effect of the descent engine effluent increases the frequency of small rock fragments compared with dust in the area around the LM, and that, in turn, results in a higher than normal albedo. Rock fragments give you a higher albedo than the dust does. And so, when you walk over it and stir it up, you bring up the normal regolith on top of this winnowed material. And as you move farther and farther away from the effects of the descent engine, you see less and less of that happening. The samples taken near the LM and underneath the LM never showed any chemical contamination or any other reason for that lighter-colored albedo. Yet the visual effect was so marked that you could see a landing site from orbit. We could see ours after we were back in orbit, and we could see Apollo 15 when we flew over it later in the mission."

[Anonymous No.9842280]

>>9842275
It's also basalt dust. In a vacuum. I don't know what you'd need to do to cause scorching under those circumstances, but I imagine it would have to be something a lot more impressive than the diffuse spray of a vacuum engine.

[Anonymous No.9842286]

>>9841327
It's a matter of pressure. For physiological effects (and fire hazard), the partial pressure of oxygen is what matters. You can get the partial pressure low by either having the oxygen diluted with inert gases or by having the total pressure be low.

The Apollo fire was a result of sea-level-pressure (higher, actually) pure oxygen, and a careless attitude toward flammable material, ignition sources, and emergency procedures.

[Anonymous No.9842298]

>>9841887
>comedy
Dont you mean fiction?

[Anonymous No.9842320]

>>9841309
21% oxygen at 1atm = 100% oxygen at 0.21atm

[Anonymous No.9842347]

>>9842262
>And what do you think is going to "blow" it away when you don't have atmosphere.
Oh I dunno, perhaps the gas coming out of the rocket?

[Anonymous No.9842351]

>>9842275
So you expect there to be no evidence of movement of the dust underneath the craft whatsoever?

[Anonymous No.9842359]

>>9842351
So you can't read? I said there would be no scorching, not no evidence of dust moving.

[Anonymous No.9842362]

>>9842351
>no evidence of movement of the dust
except the literal exact thing >>9842278 talks about

it's not a dramatic effect because it's not a particularly dramatic landing, and you're seeing it up close so you can't see the differentiation

[Anonymous No.9842379]

>>9842362
yep. there has been plenty of research into lunar dust and how it behaves when disturbed.

"Further Analysis on the Mystery of the Surveyor III Dust Deposits" is an excellent paper on the subject. Darcy's law can get pretty complicated...

[Anonymous No.9842411]

>>9842234
so id make it easier for you to read it.
long lines of text are not as eye-friendly

[Anonymous No.9842413]

Consciousness consists of sonar energy of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a maturing of the astral.
This life is nothing short of a condensing rebirth of high-frequency peace. You and I are storytellers of the grid.
You may be ruled by selfishness without realizing it. Do not let it obliterate the birth of your story.

[Anonymous No.9842421]

>>9842413
dude weed lmao

[Anonymous No.9842438]

>>9842421
We are at a crossroads of karma and illusion. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the universe via ultrasonic energy. Reality has always been aglow with mystics whose hearts are nurtured by joy.

Without grace, one cannot vibrate. We can no longer afford to live with discontinuity. Only a being of the universe may harmonize this fusion of choice.

[Anonymous No.9842443]

>>9842438
wew

[Anonymous No.9842657]

>>9841927
ハイクとは
君のデブ母
水の音

[Anonymous No.9842713]

>>9841369
Low IQs believe
Haikus are 5-7-5
This is in error.

[Anonymous No.9842715]

>>9841345
What do you mean? I built two myself.
(Well, my wife helped some.)

>>9841621
Much less.

[Anonymous No.9842718]

>>9842193
Nor should there be.

[Anonymous No.9842733]

>>9841249
Solar cells lmao

[Anonymous No.9842982]

>>9841877

OH NO NO NO HO HO HO!!!

AHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.9843178]

>>9841877
>>9841889
>getting your knowledge of history from hollywood
LOL, next time read a book or something that actually has citations

[Anonymous No.9843196]

>>9843178

[Anonymous No.9843200]

>>9843196

[Anonymous No.9843436]

>>9841249
>in the 60's and actually keep the flight crews alive

Unless they were using solid chemical like a self contained rebreather does, there's not enough space there for them ot have bottled oxygen for a moon mission.

Hoax

[Anonymous No.9843438]

>>9842240

What solid?

You really think we've learned all we dould from the moon because a bunch of guys supposedly went up there with garden shovles?

Why haven't any drilling rigs been sent up there?

[Anonymous No.9844777]

>>9843438
no monies

[Anonymous No.9844792]

>>9843436
>Cabin atmosphere was maintained at 5 pounds per square inch (34 kPa) of pure oxygen from the same liquid oxygen tanks that fed the electrical power system's fuel cells.

durr

[Anonymous No.9845996]

>>9841878
>>9841887
>>9842077
>>9842084
>>9842982
>>9843178
Can't deny the truth. This is on the front page of reddit right now.

[Anonymous No.9845998]

>>9844792
which was actually pretty risky
they actually use synthetic air now, i think

[Anonymous No.9846042]

>>9842715
>Much less
As in pure O2 is less dangerous than a mixed one at their respective operating pressures? Wait really? Literally everything else I can find says the opposite, do you have a source I can read?

[Anonymous No.9846055]

>>9845996
That's not the point, just because the movie was based on a real life figure doesn't mean the movie is historically accurate. The antagonists in that film aren't neither real people or based of real people.

>This is on the front page of reddit right now
go back there and stay there

[Anonymous No.9846068]

>>9845996
>reddit
OH NO NO NO NO NO PFFFFFFF AAAAAH AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.9846076]

>>9843438
You're right, it could be made of cheese.

[Anonymous No.9846090]

>>9842657
>you shouldn't use pronouns in a haiku
>kimi

[Anonymous No.9847059]

>>9841269
Huh. Confirmed. And I did not know that before.

[Anonymous No.9848348]

>>9847059
there's a lot of neat design features in the Apollo hardware that people don't know about. the "moon machines" series is gr8

[Anonymous No.9848354]

>>9841768
holy shit do you ever turn it off?

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9848534]

>>9841249

And we are in 2018, with a 10^5 better science, better technology, better humans (better trained, better prepared) and richer BUT we can't return on the Moon because reasons.

Truly /x/ material

[Anonymous No.9848550]

>>9848534
Multiculturalism ruined everything forever.

[Anonymous No.9850007]

>>9842286
>For physiological effects
Yes
>and fire hazard
No. Inert nitrogen carries away a lot of heat from a fire.

[Anonymous No.9850044]

>>9848534
Elon is building a hyper advanced spaceship at literally this moment, so rejoice, you fool.

[Anonymous No.9850212]

>>9850044
when the thing is actually in orbit i will believe it.

[Anonymous No.9850215]

>>9850212

[Anonymous No.9850237]

>>9842177
It depends how you look at the chart. Early Gemini program 1961 to 1963. Current budget is higher than that adjusting for inflation.

[Anonymous No.9850250]

>>9848534
it's partly cause NASA is a meme now that thinks of material for popsci outlets and makes predictions of what it'll do in the future, and partly because there's just not much demand for another moon landing
back in the day they made it happen just cause we were comparing cocks with Russia

[Anonymous No.9850257]

>>9850215
>tfw someone posted my may-may on spacexmasterrace and it got updooted

>>9850250
NASA still does great atmospheric research and neat x-plane stuff, plus JPL is the top cheese when it comes to building probes and space hardware. Sure, NASA isn't landing people on the Moon anymore, but the stuff they do outside of SLS is generally an excellent use of tax dollars.

[Anonymous No.9850275]

>>9850257
>tfw someone posted my may-may on spacexmasterrace and it got updooted
Yeah, "someone"...

[Anonymous No.9850282]

>>9850257
of course a redditfag would be gagging on nasa's schlong

[Anonymous No.9850287]

>>9850282
>ree NASA is bad
congress tells nasa what to do and gives them a budget, even if you want to believe that nasa a shit you gotta put the blame on the right people

[Anonymous No.9850297]

>>9850287
that's a good point, either way I'm just hoping some monetary incentive to space exploration will show up so the private industry will start putting real development into it

[Anonymous No.9850333]

>>9841913
And a cup of coffee now costs $3,- in stead of $0,20.

[Anonymous No.9850339]

Here, actual numbers:
For fiscal year 2017, the NASA authorization act appropriated $19,508,000,000 to the agency. For the same fiscal year, net U.S. outlays (spending) were $4,147,000,000,000. Therefore NASA utilized 0.47% of the entire federal budget. During 1966, the height of the Apollo program, NASA was appropriated $5,933,000,000. At the time, this was 4.41% of the total federal budget. In other terms, current NASA budget is a little more than ten percent of what it was in 1966.

[Anonymous No.9850343]

>>9842177
On a rising curve
On a plateau
These are the same

[Anonymous No.9850358]

>>9850339
% of national budget is not a meaningful distinction of spending power. NASA's budget is a little less than half by inflation adjustment, and that's compared a very brief fervor of only a few years.

[Anonymous No.9850364]

>>9841886
> For a proper haiku you actually want to avoid use of pronouns

Fuck you and the rules
I'll write what I fucking want
Suck my fucking dick

[Anonymous No.9850365]

>>9850358
spending power doesn't mean everything either. A 20¢ loaf of bread from 1930 or whatever might be cheaper, even after inflation, but compared to the nutrition of loafs from 2018 you can't exactly compare them directly.