orion
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
So, in 2014 space flight is no more interesting..
/g/ is very interesting in 2014 either
How are they going to launch shit into space when they run out of oil?
Are there any researches into that?
>>45477189
Well, for one, there has been little innovation in spaceflight for decades.
For it to be interesting to me at this point, either some new kind of drive must be invented, or there must be some (manned) mission beyond the moon. Neither is likely to happen in my lifetime, the way things are going on the ground.
>>45477233
Who uses oil in flight rocket fuel?
>>45477289
Maybe as a lubricant but I'm sure NASA has better stuff than just oil.
>>45477189
I wanted to watch the launch but the live stream stopped working seconds before launch. Thanks Nasa.
I'm pretty fucking hyped that the eventual mission profile of Orion is to be a launch vehicle to get people to a SPACE STATION ORBITING THE MOON so they can board their ROTATING-GRAVITY SPACESHIP TO MARS.
>>45477321
they use liquid hydrogen according to wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
>>45477189
when is that thing launching?
>>45477462
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J92MxvIANEQ
It's already gone. But it will come down again.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/#
>>45477478
fuck did it go to the iss?
i would have love to watch it dock live at http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/#.VIG12jGsWzE
>>45477478
them flames holy shit
>>45477492
Nah, it's a test of the equipment. It'll get in orbit, make some tests and splash down again.
Big deal, I did several launches this morning.
>>45477478
Thanks for the climate change, NASA, that's gotta be a lot of carbon.
>>45477605
ebin
>>45477615
Not as much as say, a tenth of a large shipping tanker
>>45477366
>Thanks Nasa.
More like thanks NSA
meh
>>45477815
That Delta IV doesn't have Orion on top, which was the whole point of today's launch
Call me when they figure out a way to travel faster than light
>>45477865
If FTL, when is when?
>>45477865
I'll call you before we figure out FTL.
>>45477849
Well my Rocket Also doesn't have "Orion" on top.
>>45477865
NASA's doing preliminary testing of warping spacetime at small scales. Yes, exactly like Star Trek.
Those retarded Imperial Units man. Why does Nasa use them?
>>45477929
muritards
>>45477233
Do some research next time and spare us from your ignorance.
>>45477384
why are YOU using CAPS like THIS!?
Srsly dude grow up
>>45477865
That would break the simulation.
>>45477849
Orion is attached, but unmanned. The actual whole point is to test the capsule.
>Testing out new craft
>While the brave Rosetta astronauts are still awaiting rescue
>>45477615
There's no carbon in liquid hydrogen you dumb piece of shit.
>>45477929
They don't. Not when building anything anymore. All of the manufacturing is metric. Which is where it really matters.
>>45477929
You know exactly why they use them, you snarky cunt.
>trying to get shit started on /g/
>>45478034
never5get the remote-controlled astronaut
This is obviously fake like the moon landing, they keep showing a spacecraft that is clearly CGI.
>>45477234
NASA has a plan to use Orion for manned missions to an asteroid or Mars
This is how you escape the solar system
>>45478161
Might want to check your staging, it looks like your boosters detach when they ignite.
>>45478019
Did you not look at the post I was replying to? It included an image of a Delta IV with no launch escape system, meaning no Orion onboard.
>>45478056
But in the live stream they always talk about miles and °F
>>45478161
That's a really shitty ship mate
>>45478255
Know your target audience
>>45478289
Dumb, fat Muriplebs.
>>45478161
Apply yourself.
>>45478313
>design over functionality
7/10
>>45477605
Me too!
this was a test flight, landing on minmus and coming back. the real thing is headed to Gilly with a few changes
>>45478353
no pics of the new ship under that shroud, but here is me main exploration ship i send into low orbit and then bring back. it's done Duna, Eve and Gilly so far
>>45478313
>1.7km/s at 87km with a lot of vertical velocity.
Looks like you didn't make orbit, better luck next time
>>45478255
Gee, I wonder why? That's such a hard thing to figure out.
>>45478369
the big tank drops when empty to make the last of the fuel last longer, then under that is 3 ion engines, this was a test flight and only had one ion engine at the time
>>45478376
He's coasting to apoapsis in that picture.
He still has shitloads of fuel left.
Not to mention he's almost in orbit already.
>>45478376
Didn't make orbit yet*
Lol just spotted the other fuel tanks...
>>45478376
it's an old pic I had
IIRC, I was waiting for the apoapsis to make the last burn to get an orbit with the fuel left that stage
>>45478353
>mods
>shit design
Man what the fuck is that even
>>45478388
the test flight also saw the engine accidentally left on, draining the power and leaving it spinning out of control losing a chute. at least the two remaining chutes still were enough to save it. the final version also had a drouge chute that fired first
>>45478353
>>45478369
>>45478388
Where do I get those parts?
>>45478406
I realized my mistake. You most certainly had enough fuel to make orbit, carry on
>>45478411
i've found it's the best way into orbit actually.
>>45478417
i installed part of the scott manley modlist, ask /ksp/ in /vg/ becasue it's 2:30 and i'm gong to bed goodnight
>tfw areobreaking
>>45478452
Look up asparagus staging
This is now KSP thread
>>45478470
>what it actually needs to get uplift
>>45478312
> Dumb
> Only country to conquer the moon
> Getting ready to conquer Mars
Maybe if the rest of the world wasn't using fag measurements for tags they would be building a space empire too.
>>45478470
Nice, m9. But mine doesn't need engines.
>>45478484
Nice bait.
>>45478470
>video games on /g/
Guess its time for bed
>>45477984
Lmao talk about stick up an asshole. How about YOU grow up and realize adults can be excited by stuff too and trying to show that through text is going to happen.
>>45478492
how do you get it in motion?
>>45478498
KSP is as much a video game as it is a learning tool
And it's a bit relevant to the topic
I learned more about spaceflight playing it then anything I knew before
>>45478468
that's unrealistic though
>>45478512
Probably wiggle it around until it oscillates itself forward
>unity not us
>>45478512
By simply moving all those wings and the SAS, it fucks up with the game's lift and drag physics and accelerates it. It goes crazy once the SAS makes the whole thing vibrate.
This guy has a video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsSlKsU7p6Q
>>45478498
Another faggot pretending to be all grown up.
>still shitposting on 4chan
>>45478532
lol >>45478550
>>45478452
Jesus Christ that KSP thread on /vg/ is autistic.
>>45478520
I agree about it being a learning tool, yet it none of the discussion so far has been technology related. I have no problem with KSP being referenced but an attempt to force a KSP thread by posting irrelevant screenshots is inappropriate.
>>45478551
A KSP centric thread does not belong on /g/, especially when there are already two boards dedicated to video games. Threads on /g/ should focus on technology, not video games. No need to get butthurt about it
>>45478598
The KSP threads on /vg/ are always terrible, which is why we don't need to bring that crap here.
>>45478656
That may entirely why it needs to be here.
Like how the Transformers General on /co/ is a shithole so people on /toy/ often discuss "lore" even though that is technically /co/s territory.
Sometimes a separate good outlet is good.
Wouldn't a cylinder-shaped rocket like the Saturn-V be more efficient? Or does the delta-v in the Delta IV compensate for the increase in A (pic)?
>>45478788
Fd is net downwards force?
A is surface against the air?
I'm not familiar with p or Cd
>>45478788
FD is force due to drag
A is cross sectional area perpendicular to air flow
CD is drag coefficient
p is actually Greek rho, for air density
>>45478788
It's the drag formula.
F sub D is drag force
A is the cross-section area of the rocket, the Delta's should be much bigger than a simple cylinder
p is the density (air, so it changes with altitude) and C sub D is the drag coefficient, which depends on the shape
>>45478506
Just for you
>>45477233
We're not running out of oil you nigger. Ever.
Fuck you and your garbage school who taught you that we'll be running out of oil in two seconds.
>>45478956
Meant for >>45478855
>>45478788
As for you. The Delta IV doesn't add that much more A as far as your formula is concerned. If you are asking why we use Delta IV instead of Saturn V, it is because we don't have any Saturn Vs and we can't make any (we lost the technology). We are however designing/developing a new launch vehicle for Orion called the SLS, and it will be very similar to the Saturn V, with similar payloads to orbit. The SLS will carry the next Orion to orbit, and is the reason why the next Orion test mission is scheduled for 2017; we've only just barely started developing the SLS.
>>45479037
This. Pick any three commodities. I guarantee you they won't run out in the next 100 years.
>>45478484
> landed on moon 50 years ago
> America now is pic related
>>45479072
Phosphorus. Topsoil. Perhaps uranium.
Topsoil is a bit mean since we already ran out of that.
>>45479079
>NASA hasn't done anything since landing on the moon
>>45479094
>Ran out of topsoil
What are you smoking, and where can I get some?
>>45479105
>The United States alone loses almost 3 tons of topsoil per acre per year.[5] This is of great ecological concern as one inch of topsoil can take 500 years to form naturally.[6] On current trends, the world has about 60 years of topsoil left.[7]
60 years of keks later
>>45479124
That's the thing though. That's a projection. We're always running out of something, always this always that. We find better ways of doing things.
Also
>Wikipedia, ever
>2014
>no space planes
Why even moon.
>>45478484
The flags on the moon aren't American flags anymore. They have lost any and all colour.
America isn't even the only country to have landed on the moon. Wtf shit are you trying to start?
Also, we already have tons of shit on Mars. Opportunity has been on Mars for a decade now when its mission plan was only for 90 days.
>>45479164
Plane needs flat runway to land. Rocket needs flat circle to land. Do you even SpaceX? They are going to try landing their 14-story building tall stage one on a 300 foot boat on Dec. 16th btw, if all goes according to plan.
>>45478976
Such a Big Guy...
>>45479273
What's wrong with just orbiting and having a single-stage reusable spacecraft?
It'd be great for cargo.
>>45477289
Kerosene (well, RP-1) is the most common fuel for booster stages. It's density specific impulse is far superior to LH2/Lox that the delta-iv heavy uses.
>>45479102
> Murrica lands on moon
> Becomes a country of Murrifats
> NASA can't do shit because they can't make a large enough rocket to push Amerifats into space.
>>45479174
> Robots on the surface
> Conquering
Gotta put a person there mate.
Nobody in any position of power gives a fuck about space. Our society is fucked.
>>45479322
Single staged craft lose efficiency. Lower efficiency means it is worse for cargo, not better, because you can't bring as much cargo to orbit.
>>45479387
True.
But it's so neat :D
>>45479273
like this.
>>45479380
People don't vote for space.
>>45479348
RP-1 is less useful in the upper atmosphere than it is at low altitudes.
>>45479367
I don't see any people on the moon, so no one has conquered it. Also, robots can just about do everything people can do, and they don't require life support, nor do they complain.
>>45479393
Pfft, I did that in KSP.
Hell, I also did that to get a rocket into a water to test it 'splashed down'. No explosions... on like the 15th try.
>>45479273
A spaceplane would be easier to maintain and reuse, while a rocket needs thousands of tons of fuel. It's a unfortunate that there's little research being done on them on top of the recent crash of SpaceShipTwo.
They both have their use, rockets can carry huge payloads while spaceplanes could quickly and efficiently ferry people and small cargo to stations and vehicles in orbit and back.
>>45479441
Don't kid yourself, a spaceplane would still need tons of fuel and an incredibly powerful booster to make it to space.
That being said, you're definitely right. Spaceplanes have the advantage of flexibility and reusability while vertical launch boosters have unparalled payload capacity
>>45479350
NASA can't do expensive shit cuz budget and politics. But they still do plenty of shit
>conquered Earth
>conquered the Moon
>going to conquer an asteroid next
>going to conquer Mars after that
oh man I can't wait until America develops interstellar travel and spreads freedom across the galaxy
>>45479441
The problem with SpaceShipTwo is as follows:
1. It's fucking called SpaceShipTwo
2. It's targeted for space tourism.
3. It smacks of 'by the seat of our pants'
>>45479522
Interstellar travel isn't going to happen in the next 100 years. Space is too big. The asteroid thing is going to take a decade and going to Mars could take 2 decades unless we change congress
>>45479480
Can we use magnetic catapults and rail gun tech to launch the plane?
>>45479611
magnetic catapaults and/or rail guns are useful technologies but they cannot accelerate a manned spaceplane to a near orbital speed without a prohibitively long track. Humans are pussies and can't handle more than about 8-9Gs of sustained acceleration.
Catapaults are useful for overcoming the most fuel inefficient part of a space launch which is accelerating from a dead stop on the ground. You still need a powerful booster to gain altitude and additional speed.
>>45479692
I wonder if it's possible to "stiffen" up a human without killing him so we could accelerate way faster
>>45479480
>Don't kid yourself, a spaceplane would still need tons of fuel and an incredibly powerful booster to make it to space.
That's the current problem, which is why more research needs to be done. Spaceplanes don't have to fight drag and gravity like rockets do since they can use air-breathing propulsion and wings for the first few thousand meters of altitude, for which rockets need huge stages and tons of fuel.
This craft could theoretically take off and reach orbit by itself using a hybrid air-breathing (for atmosphere) and rocket (for high altitude and vacuum)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_%28spacecraft%29
The entire program could cost less than an US aircraft carrier.
>>45479611
By applying a huge initial speed from the ground, the aerodynamic friction could rip it to shreds, not to mention what
>>45479692
said
>>45479720
And with stiffen I mean inject him with some substance to all the organs get hardened or something
Would not recommend being a test subject
>>45479611
Yes and no. It works on paper but it is, as it turns out, complicated and expensive in real life. Unless you catapult it above the majority of the atmosphere, it will just lose all the energy from the catapult to air resistance. And if you do catapult it above the majority of the atmosphere, then you don't need wings, so you're throwing a rocket instead of a plane. Also, planes don't work on the moon and don't work good enough to be used on Mars (not for landing anyway). So to land the plane anywhere other than Earth you'll need a rocket anyway.
Although planes are more elegant looking than rockets, they are worthless when it comes to space travel.
>>45479754
Can you fly on mars with huge wings or is the air too thin?
>>45479752
Heart isn't strong enough to pump blood at Gs much higher than 9, which is why people blackout.
>>45479072
All I have is helium, and that's because it literally fucks off out of the atmosphere whenever it gets the chance to.
>>45479778
You either need huge wings or to be traveling at the speeds near the speed of sound to generate enough lift. Which can be useful for like drones that map the surface or something, but not so useful for landing (large wings are fragile and touching down at high speeds is...not a good idea)
>>45478255
Are you fucking retarded?
>>45479720
>>45479796
Humans can sustain Gs close to 100 or above for VERY short times (like crashes in racetracks), it's that sustained force that messes up the fluid in our bodies, or kill us. Which is why not many people can handle 8-9 Gs for sustained amount of time.
>>45479969
That's why I suggested sitffening up the body.
Give a treatment that increases the viscosity of bodily fluids.
I know this sci-fi stuff but wouldn't that allow a bit more Gs?
>>45479812
That I have to give to you. Sausage-sized freedomland fingers crossed that fusion comes fast enough that Helium becomes cheap.
>>45479989
It would require humans to have a much larger and more robust heart to pump blood at high sustained G-loads. Which means it's not going to happen.
>>45479748
As for hybrid rockets. they still wouldn't be nearly as efficient as single purpose boosters. You would sacrifice a large amount of payload to have a true SSTO vehicle.
>>45480045
>It would require humans to have a much larger and more robust heart to pump blood at high sustained G-loads. Which means it's not going to happen.
Technological enhancements to the heart?
Like adding a pump, or enhancing the heart muscles somehow?
It just seems like a trivial problem with a complicated method to fix.
>>45479989
About the only thing we can do are G-suits, which squeeze the lower part of their bodies to prevent blackouts. That's about the only way we safely 'stiff' our bodies to tolerate sustained Gs today. Having thicker blood would be too dangerous physiologically.
Nigga, just put your brain in a cyborg body and call it a day. Or just remote-control the thing.
>>45480079
Improved rocket and orbital insertion technology is a more worthwhile investment and more publically appealing than enhanced humans which is why something like that will probably not be proposed.
>>45480143
This. Space elevator way better than modifying all space faring humans for high acceleration. Both are probably on the same scale in terms of complexity and expense
First of all I'd like to welcome you to /g/ friend, and you may not know, but we only discuss consumer electronics here. It's a classic rookie mistake, no harm no foul.
>>45478145
its showing a representation of the spacecraft using data transmitted live from the rocket.
you know, because there is a point when the rocket is so high you cant see it with a normal camera anymore.
Thread tl;dr.
How did it go? Is it in your opinion a proud heir of Saturn V?
>>45481203
It went exactly as they planned
>>45480079
Artificial heart is a thing, the drawback is that it requires power to operate. Nobody in his right mind would switch a perfectly good heart for something with a battery that you have to keep permanently charged, or else you die. I guess it wouldn't be a problem to modify it to adjust its rate according to g-force, but again - right now it is only a replacement for weak old men or fat fucks - not very good astronaut material.
