Is it possible for one human to create their own spaceship capable of completing one full orbit around the Earth?
How?
>>928329
First you need a lot of money. When you have that come back and we will tell you step two.
>>928329
Possible, yes. Probable, no.
>>928329
Just buy one off the Russian space program.
Nope, just one human no. He would need to mine the metals, melt, forge, build machines, program computers, etc. This would require more than 1 life.
>>928339
>being a literal idiot
>>928339
if he has to mine shit hes better off making something carbonfibre / composite
simple is better
>>928343
Nah hes right. if you devoted your self and did it tediously and didnt half ass it. 20 years. you gotta design it. the heat resistant meaterial isnt that expensive. in fact liok uo how nasa foynd it,it was one of those things that was in commercial hse already,and they foynd a property for it. anyway, you coudl build a small space craft.
>>928343
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc
>>928329
The Canadians launched a (lego) man into (near) space on a weather balloon. Total cost $400.
Red Bull launched a (real) man into (near) space on a balloon.
I've always wondered if a person could send a small object to the moon. Say the size of a portable ham radio and a small camera.
I would use a balloon rocket. I think it would be the best chance for an amateur.
>>928373
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJGI3NjJso
Like this!
>>928329
No.
You'd need hundreds of millions of dollars, and you'd need an entire specialized workforce to launch the thing.
>>928329
Sure, just install Galacticraft.
>>928363
A weather balloon is not orbit mother fucker. Launching a model rocket off a weather balloon is also not orbit.
There are hundreds of magnitude differences in the energy required to reach an altitude, and to be in orbit at an altitude.
reaching even what would be called 'orbital altitude' is VERY different from going fast enough that you stay at orbital altitude. This is high school physics guys. You aren't just jumping up to space, you'd fall back down right away. You need to run so fast that when you fall towards earth you miss the ground.
>/diy/ spacetravel
fucking lost
>>928392
This. Op needs to play more kerbal. Its not a matter of going up, its a matter of reaching a thinner layer of atmosphere then entering boost phase where you curve away and accelerate tangentially, simultaneously stopping the rocket from falling straight back down and accelerating parallel to the earths surface so that you continue to fly around it.
how har would it be just to uncontrollably crash something onto the moon?
>>928503
Even faster and more energy and more impossible you little shit trll
OP it's not that hard. The modified V2 rockets that sent men to orbit a long time ago where simple in design.
The real problem is that you need to crash a 100 rockets to get 1 to work. Hence the term rocket science.
The development of such a rocket will take a ton of money and time. Testing will set you back as well. Rocket fuel is not something you get at the hardware store(V2s used oxygen and alcohol tho. These are not space worthy).
Also orbital mechanics are a bitch to get right. And even id you make a rocket the government will take it since it's essentially a weapon (and a potential WMD). Even If you get past this you need to get the right paperwork to have something in orbit, signals for your rocket must not effect other signals like telecommunication or GPS, as well as a licence to "see from space" if you have any sensors in your design, witch is a bitch to get approved internationally.
There is a saying that in order to get a rocket in to space you need a stack of paperwork as high as your rocket.
So even if you where some sort of billion dollar nut job genius you still need to get to the proper legislation.
Having said that you can hire a company to do the work for you. I cant remember the company but I think the did low orbit satellite work. These have a 3 year life span and burn up on re-entry and if I remember correctly it was really really cheap about 8-10k $ with some weight and volume restrictions. So if you really want to get something up there this might be your best bet.
>>928329
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: Play Kerbal Space Program. You'll learn why.
Really Long Answer: Getting to space is easy. Go 30km straight up. 90% of the world's population lives farther from a beach then they do from space. Getting to orbit is fucking hard. Go 30km straight up, while also overcoming drag, while also accelerating to 8 thousand meters per second (aka 17895.49 mph), while not burning up from the compression heating due to those speeds on the way up, while carrying the fuel you need to get back (and not burning that, either), while having enough heat shielding left to not burn up on the way back, while carrying enough oxygen to live (and not burning that! o2 really likes to burn after all), while carrying some kind of recovery system (such as parachutes) (and also, not burning those) and do all of it without losing control of your craft and either experiencing an unplanned lithobraking event up or drifting away into space forever. Oh, and you have to do all of this by yourself, including the materials research, infrastructure creation, and everything else.
Good luck with that. It took world superpowers with unlimited money multiple decades to pull it off their first time. Maybe you'll have better luck though.
>>928531
Forgot to add:
https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
>>928505
but you dont need to controll any of that shit mid flight
>>928353
Do you just not fucking proofread what you write or something?
Build a super cannon to be legal however it would have to be a black powder, muzzle loading cannon.
We;re already on a spaceship man
>>928771
he's probably on his phone and has fat fingers
>>928343
question implies only one person can create it.
if not literal.
>Elon Musk created a space ship that can re-enter earths atmosphere.
>>928339
inb4 minecraft
That question is very poorly laid out. Please define your terms. For instance when you mean "capable of completing one full orbit" what do you mean? Holding pressure for one orbit? That would be easily done i believe. Though it of course depends on how big the item you are talking about would be.
The main problem with space flight is getting enough energy(fuel) and controlling it well enough to get into orbit. the orbiting, and the design of the orbital vehicle are of least concern compared to getting safely and securely into orbit, and coming back down in the same manner.
>>928329
getting into orbit is gonna be the expensive part
I don't think OP can do it, but there's probably quite a few sharp folks on /diy/ who could do it. Y'know, if they had a Powerball jackpot to spend and a no social obligations.
>>928776
Maybe the government doesn't want people launching tons of random shit into space?
Not a /diy/ thread, and this isn't /spoonfeed/.
Get out.
>>931573
I used to do a lot of amateur rocketry a while back. Most of my launches were solid fueled, but my most fun were with simple liquid fuel. designs with a solid booster stage. I made the engines with a friend of mine, but the limitation was always the budget and the fact that our metalworking skills are shite.
I think that, if given the resources (budget!), and the help of a skilled metal worksman, I would at least be able to send a tiny payload to space on a ballistic trajetory.
Orbit on the other hand, that I doubt. I simply have no knowledge of how to calculate the shock heating experienced during launch and reentry, much less cater for it with appropriate shielding.
>>928329
I had less lofty goals several years ago and I wanted to send a rocket to the altitude of the international space line. It would cost about $35,000 for the fuel alone.
If you wanted to do an entire orbit, you'd spend more than that. I imagine minimum you're looking at $150k if you really scrape things together.
>>931568
just use a weather balloon
>>930052
Well, some would say that mining is a craft.
Do you guys think this would work? We could have someone on a space station(Attached to it) hold a giant rope all the way to the bottom of the earth. Then a guy on a really-powerful catapult would grab the rope and be swung around to the space station.
>>933217
Yes, but all these guys'd better come back down again or the earth will stop spinning.
>>933217
100%
send this to NASA, they need to know
A weather balloon can get you as high as 300,000 ft. Launching a rocket at that altitude reduces delta v requirements to something more manageable as long as the payload is light enough. I'm not saying you are going to be able to send your own communications satellite, but something like sputnik is doable.
>>928332
American ones sell cheaper these days. Most Russian ones are in use by thr US government, so do the Chinese.
American space hardware may be crappy and dusty but at least you can get it cheap off thr scrapyard.
There was a rocket enthusiast i heard about years ago that was trying to do just this. Hes ~49 and was building progressively larger and larger solid rocket motors. Using something mixed in with a type of rubber as fuel IIRC.
He'd even made a mock up capsule thing that fitted him, avionics LS and not much else in it for his orbital (sub-orbital??) trip. It had taken him years to get to like 4-5 metre long rockets, and he had heaps of help to get there. His most recent one blew up tho :/
So no, you can't do it yourself, but you can get high enough if you got a couple spare decades an lots of money :D
>>934519
You can't get any decent hardware off a scrapyard anymore. Fear of terrists in spaaace means modern hardware is damaged so it can't be used again, or destroyed. There is/was a lot of Apollo and cold war space hardware, but it's now a collector's market.
>>934541
>orbital (sub-orbital??)
Once again, there's a massive difference between getting into space and getting into orbit. Building a rocket capable of lifting a man into space is quite an achievement in itself.
what about using the weather balloon thing from the kingsmen movie? add some hybrid rockets to each side gut all of the missile stuff add some shielding for the pilot. components have gotten quite a bit smaller since the Apollo missions surely you should pack only the necessities (guidance and life support) in to that small space.
>>934728
>Once again, there's a massive difference between getting into space and getting into orbit. Building a rocket capable of lifting a man into space is quite an achievement in itself.
NO.
FUCKING NO. THOUSANDS OF TIMES NO.
I'M SORRY YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO REALIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORBITAL ENERGIES AND SUB ORBITAL ENERGIES. go play kerbal space program.
>>934418
Delta v to LEO is about 9k m/s (17,600 MPH for the Muricans. Yes, thats right, seventeen fucking thousand). LEO velocity is 7.8k m/s. That means you're only saving 1.2k m/s by using a balloon - and that's assuming the balloon gets you all the way past the atmospheric boundary, which it can't. In reality, the balloon only gets you 500-800 DV, which won't make a dent in achieving orbit.
OP knows not this is not a /diy/ thread.
What is a search engine?
Get out.
>>934779
wont that shave weight and fuel requirements also the atmosphere is thinner making for a more efficient launch? multi stage launch could help with achieving orbital velocity as well right?
>>934823
Remember that 90% of getting into orbit is gaining velocity. Altitude is easy, so a balloon just doesn't save you much. Orbital velocity is 7,800 m/s. Since a balloon won't have any velocity to start, just altitude, you need to carry enough delta v in fuel to get all 7.8k of that.
That's still going to be a LOT of fuel. Let's look at a real rocket. I've *VERY* roughly divided it's stages (completely guessing on DV numbers, I don't know what the Falcon 9 actually uses). Yes there is more then 9k DV, but the rest will be used for delivering the payload into a higher orbit, I'm assuming it's a communication satellite that needs to be way up there. About 1/4 the boost stage is used to gain altitude, the rest is spent overcoming drag and gravity and accelerating. By the time the boost stage separates, it will easily be at the same altitude as a weather balloon (if not higher), and also already be traveling about 2km/s.
So, to launch from a balloon and enter orbit, you're only cutting off 1/4 of the boost stage. You still have to lift the entire rest of rocket. Balloons are just not practical for things that big.
>>934853
but i'm trying to come up with a way one human ~250lb 113kg can get to LEO using a hand built craft so i'm trying to reduce complexity by using balloons to reduce size of the craft.
ultimate goal: do a dab in space and deliver pepperoni pizza to ISS.
>>928353
Are you having a stroke?
>>934868
can any one think of a way to make this eaiser for a few people to build
>>934885
No. You're a terrible troll, go away, we've had enough.
>>934904
Do you speak for /diy/?
>>934853
Have you ever heard of a tethered rocket? I read somewhere they were contemplating a tall rocket tower that feeds the rocket fuel. The idea is that because it burns so much fuel fighting inertia you could keep the fuel coming for a little while. At least until it clears the tower.
>>935007
Interesting idea, never heard of it before. I don't know enough about actual rocket tech to say for sure, but AFAIK it isn't possible. Rockets use a TON of fuel (literally - they use tons per minute) and pumping that much fuel around that fast is really hard.
>>928329
A manned capsule? Sure, easy as shit, that's actually the easiest part of the whole thing. Hell, getting it back down wouldn't be particularly hard, just have drag fins with some sort of ablative material (corkwood is surprisingly a viable option) and a heat shield to take the brunt of the atmospheric drag and also provide enough deceleration so you can open your chute at a low enough altitude. You could source all the materials needed to build your capsule locally, and if you wanted to be extremely conservative with your design you could just forego windows entirely for an even simpler and safer design.
Now... the hard part is getting the son of a bitch up there, but you didn't ask about that part.
>>928531
> 30km
Earth is not like Kerbin mate....
>>933217
except the catapult bit this is how you build a space elevator. you usually don't start building up but you build it downwards
OP: Don't listen to the NAYsayers. it took a long time to learn to fly. nowadays everyone with a bare minimum in avionics could build his own airplane in a garage.
Maybe there are some tricks to get it working, tricks that these people don't even try to come up with
>>928374
What was this video? Everything about it has been taken off.
>>928329
>one human to create their own spaceship
Simply, no.
You need a massive rocket to escape the atmosphere.
>Pic related is a standard rocket used for putting satellites in space.
You'd need to weld on a scale that normally takes 100 people months.
You'd need to host an entire control room yourself.
You'd need to have build a massive launch pad with coolant systems.
You'd need thousands of gallons of solid and liquid fuel
On top of this, if you don't do it exactly right, your millions of dollars will self destruct on launch.
It is simply not possible.
>>935095
No. It's not. But he was correct in everything he said. He said you still need to get going 8km/s, that's low earth orbit.
30km is reasonable round number for the ceiling you could reach with a balloon lift device in earth's atmosphere.
>>928329
Huh. just reread question. technically the answer is yes. would just need to build pretty much a submarine, which people have done on their own before.
The trick is launching it. So: build, wait for a space elevator to finally be built, buy ticket, orbit with tiny pressure valve rockets for orbit correction, hook back up to elevator top after a day with orbit correction (because elevator station would also be in geosynchronous orbit), done.
![800px-Lambda_Rocket_Launcher[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TCeMgFT.jpg "800px-Lambda_Rocket_Launcher[1].jpg")
If you only need to get "something" into orbit - it is not terribly out of reach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_4S
10 metric tons, 17 meters long, 70s tech.
The rocket size is quite manageable for a solo operation. 26 kg payload is not much but with some proper calculations enough to hold the ISS hostage or broadcast a constant signal of goatse.jpg
Nevertheless it will still cost a fortune, trigger ICBM warning systems and will probably take quite a few launches to get right.
>>933217
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_(structure)
>>928329
Lemme guess OP. You just watched the Astronaut Farmer.
