Forget going to Mars. How long until someone builds a proper

>>7639960
How long until your startup space station company gets off the ground?

>>7639960
why would anyone need that ?

File: 1429739600365.gif (397KB, 245x138px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 245x138px

>>7640396
>gets off the ground
8/10 made me giggle senpai

>>7639960

Personally, I would think a moon base for further shenanigans would be more cost effective and long-term stable.

>>7639960
I thought the point of the wheel was to simulate gravity, not just spin your tanks full of stuff around.

File: 1441820431067.png (74KB, 171x278px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 171x278px

>>7640429

Anyone know what that gif is from? I have a static image of it. His reaction is absolutely spot on for a reaction image.

>>7639960
>>7640566
Look up what spinning (oscillation (moving)) metal objects do in magnetic fields
>>7640536
Honestly aars base makes more sense than a moon base

File: IMG_20151101_193323.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>7641033
Mars*

>>7641008
the dudes name is David Mitchell and it's from "would I lie to you"

File: 1446646029228.png (815KB, 680x659px) Image search: [Google]

815KB, 680x659px

>>7641046
>"would I lie to you"
Was expecting to get some sort of troll because of "would I lie to you" but looked up dude's name
Good on you anon

File: North American Self Deploying Station.png (138KB, 1085x487px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1085x487px

Wheels are dumb. Self Deploying Arms are superior. pic related

>>7640566
If you have a shitload of old empty tanks lying around (As you would if you're launching the shit to make a wheel space station), you can refurbish them into habitat modules. NASA looked into using both Saturn V upper stages and later the Space shuttle's external tank as space station. Never got the funding to do it though.

>>7641033
so you're saying a spinning station would essentially electrify the entire station killing anyone that comes in contact?

File: this is why we cant have nice things.png (90KB, 776x866px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 776x866px

>>7639960
>>7641131
pic related

>>7641139
Military spending is a lot higher than on the charts, as emergency spending isn't counted towards the military budget. Emergency spendings accounts for twice that of the military budget. So in reality, military spending is 3x larger than reported.

>>7641033
>Look up what spinning (oscillation (moving)) metal objects do in magnetic fields

>implying there would be a noticable difference of potential anywhere

>>7641131
>live inside a tank that had been filled with rocket fuel

Isn't rocket fuel fairly harmful to the human body? doesn't really seem safe or practical.

>>7641187
Depends on the fuel. The Space Shuttle and the Saturn V's upper stage used LOX and LH, Once the LOX and LH are out of the tanks its perfectly fine. Of course other fuels such as those based on hydrazine are highly toxic and getting near any of them without protective gear is a bad idea.

>>7641139
>>7641173
>Military spending is a lot higher than on the charts
So is the science spending, since institutes like DARPA does top-level research. Some of which have led to technological revolutions for everyone. GPS for example. And things like federal research/university grants are not included for some fucking reason.
Point is charts like that are retarded because A) They're too dumbed down to accurately describe anything B) They're made to promote some shitty agenda on facebook instead of having people discuss the actual data

>>7641227
>a few percentages up and down refute the point the graph makes
Nitpicking makes you look stupid, not smart.
Reconsider your trigger buttons.

>>7641240
1. Even if it was nitpicking it doesn't change anything about point A) and B)
2. It's not a few percentages. There's a huge overlap between the defense budget and money spent on science. Then the grant spending that is deliberately omitted easily account for a 100% increase alone*. Then there are institutions like FBI and CIA which also do government funded high-level research which aren't represented in any of the categories.

Speaking without even quickly googling basic facts makes you look stupid
*wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_grants_in_the_United_States

>>7641265
And the funding going to the FBI and CIA is helping space exploration how again?
You are just spitting shit in order to have an argument with somebody.

>>7641278
why do you reply to obvious retards fishing for attention.
ignore and move on.
everything else just gets them excited.

>>7641278
>helping space exploration how again?
Jesus christ how hard can you backpedal? You were talking about spending on science vs military in general. If you wanted to talk about space exploration in particular you would have reacted when DARPA or General grants were brought up.
Case closed.

>>7641338
>You were talking about spending on science vs military in general.
I wasn't.
The pic I posted in >>7641139 was me, it was my first post and only one in this thread so far.
Sorry you are too autistic to distinguish multiple anons.
But feel free to sperg out more.
As the other anons already pointed out, you are desperate for attention.
I already regret revisting this thread, I shall depart again and leave you to it.

>>7641345
Then why did you reply to an ongoing conversation with something completely irrelevant?
Why is 60% of your post simply name calling?

>>7640417
Laundry dryer?
Lottery randomizer?
Keeping space hamsters busy?

>>7639960

*Precisely* as long as it takes for someone to find a way of turning a profit in doing so, plus as long as it takes to secure investment funds, design it, build it, launch it, and assemble it.

If you want to shorten this amount of time, you can best help by finding a way for someone to use one to make money and then share your insight with the world.

A nuclear verne gun to lift a payload of food, water, air, and steel up to orbit would be a good way to kickstart any space industry.

>>7641387
>Why is 60% of your post simply name calling?
Given he made 1 - one - posting, the 60% must be your wild guess based on, well who knows?

>>7642171
Orions would be better. With them you'll have acceleration that stuff can actually withstand. A Verne Guns is going to wreck all but the most sturdy of cargoes.

>>7642255
A lot of payload to space IS sturdy cargo
Then you send up welders to start putting habitats together from the I-beams and sheet metal in the payload.

A significant problem with a rotating space station is how you pull off a bearing wide enough for people and cargo to get through, strong enough to handle forces caused by the station being off balance and thermal expansion, and able to stay completely air-tight through all this.

>>7640536
I support this and suggest we install a pool on the moon for science

>>7641096
Honestly it's so fucking depressing looking at schematics and texts about possible space structures and other cool stuff knowing they will never be built within our lifetimes if funding continues at this abysmal rate.

>>7642687
What's really depressing is that if you go back to the late 60s, many of the Apollo Applications Program concepts that NASA studied would have easily been achievable if they hadn't had their funding cut.

>>7642738
>>7642687
>not wanting to spend 2 billion a pop (not counting R&D costs) on B2 stealth bombers which where used on average a whopping 2 times in combat against mudinhabitants who can't even detect regular planes, and then became "obsolete" so the next generation of awesome looking bombers can be bought to blow some more tax dollars into rich CEO asses
it is like you hate america.

>>7642185
>you are too autistic to distinguish multiple anons.
>feel free to sperg out more.
>you are desperate for attention.
>Reading is HARD

File: USAF Orion.jpg (136KB, 1213x557px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1213x557px

>>7642783
Who needs B-2s if you fulfill the USAF's longstanding wet dream or Orion Drive Space Battleships. Guaranteed to kill commies, terrorists, and space aliens with nuclear fire.

>>7642796
looks to me me you are indeed desperate for attention cause you indeed keep sperging out in a days old thread.
not thos anons btw cause we both know what you want to post next.

>>7642806
did they just slap some tank turrets on a spacecraft?

>>7642817
They're five inch naval guns. Because the engineers behind Project Orion wanted to give USAF as many ways to kill commies as they could practically fit on a spaceship.

>>7642824
did they forget about newton's laws or deliberatley ignored them for cannon-boner effects?

>>7642824
>>7642817
>five inch naval guns
...which were intended to be loaded with plasma-lance-type tactical nuclear shaped charge munitions.

File: neat.jpg (28KB, 500x491px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x491px

>>7641096

>>7642852
>deliberatley ignored them for cannon-boner effects?

they didn't actually want to build it, so they made is as scary looking as they possibly could so kennedy would say "no". and thats exactly what happened.

>>7642861
Source it didn't happen.

>>7642864
*or

>>7642854
Actually those were part of an entirely different weapons system. The Casab Howitzer. Based on what has been declassified its unlikely that a casaba could be fired from a five inch gun. Although they may have considered more conventional nuclear shells for the cannons. I believe that the launcher for the Casabas was omitted from this drawing due to the fact that there are no declassified drawings of the system. Other drawings I've seen placed the launchers next to the naval guns, but I think that placement was mostly conjecture.

>>7642824
I assume that they had a method to deal with the recoil. In addition the mass of a shell is small compared to the ship, even when accounting for the velocity of the shell the ship wouldn't be moving much,

>>7642861
I think it was "We know at this point that this project isn't going to happen so we may as well have some fun."

>>7639960

Your feet would be travelling faster than your head, sounds nauseating

>>7642889
It depends on the angular velocity. If your wheel is big it won't need to rotate fast and you'll be fine

>>7641646
underrated post