nasa

File: acktchuallee.jpg (49KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1200x800px

what

>>8932703
/thread

>>8932703

Still, so risky it's unbelievable I've seen the video it's not safe. Safety is about control you can't control that so it's not safe. Back to making fighter jets that can dock and have acceleration control in space, not rockets that will veer into your ship or station and blow a hole into it killing everything and everyone inside because that's what rockets do. The whole design is an arrow.

I'm not riding in a flying arrow designed to Spear me into whatever object it comes across.

>>8932497
>>8933786
>t. so-obviously-not-an-engineer

interplanetary spacecraft can have pretty much any shape, a sphere would be convenient because it minimizes angular momentum, rockets don't have to be long if they are built on space

>>8933786
I understand your point, but that's the only way we found to leave the atmosphere. Maybe in the future we see something different, who knows.

>>8932497
>> get a fighter type jet in space with steroided engines
So how the hell are you going to do that?

>> designed to explode
Cars, fighter jets, and rockets are all designed to explode in a controlled manner

>>8933786
>> have acceleration control in space
So uh... how are you going to get the forces fro that acceleration in space?

Think about it. Just think about it.

File: images.jpg (17KB, 226x223px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 226x223px

>>8933953

I don't know have an f16 fly straight up see what happens experiment. It was expedient to get rockets up there. I don't know how engines work in space, if you just float. I don't know. I do know that a rocket is the wrong way to go in the long run. Maybe we can fly some jets up there. Try to figure out what problems present themselves once we're up there.

>>8933968
>> what problems present themselves once we're up there
Hmmmm..... could the reason that we have never flown a jet engine into space is that there is no air?

>>8933968
This has got to be bait, nobody is this stupid right?

> have an f16 fly straight up see what happens
at a certain point, it won't go up anymore

>I don't know how engines work in space
they don't

>I do know that a rocket is the wrong way to go in the long run.
how do you know that

rockets are pretty much the only thing that work in space. real life isn't star wars tie fighter shit flying around in space

>>8933968
Ok so here's the deal, rockets and jet engines work by throwing stuff back. Fighter jets can get high forces for (relatively) long periods of time because they can throw back air. A rocket engine has to carry everything it throws back in a tank because there is no air.

Because you have to carry all the stuff you throw back it's difficult to do fighter jet style maneuvering because of how heavy the stuff you haven't thrown back yet is. You also tend to run out of stuff to throw back fast.

That being said, you can get some pretty good roll authority in space:
https://youtu.be/TB4TenTk-Bc

>>8932497
They landed a handful of rockets on the moon with no failures in the 60s, I'm sure we'll be able to do it reliably on Earth soon.

>>8934043
>turns up volume
>why isn't there any sound in spa-
>oh ok
Also that puts my KSP skills to shame.

>>8934214
the video was probably sped up, this is more realistic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25zeINY8AF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX381EWXvCE

It's embarrassing to still use 1940's technology. There's literally no point in wasting time on that dangerous and polluting stuff when you could be working on figuring out a better and safer way to travel in space.

File: wheel.jpg (202KB, 1500x938px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1500x938px

>>8934316
It's embarrassing to still use prehistoric technology. Pic related

>>8934316
figure out a way to travel in space that doesn't involve throwing stuff.

Good fucking luck with that.

>>8934324
disc brakes? Wheels?

File: flintstones[1].jpg (100KB, 611x404px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 611x404px

>>8934332
cars

>>8933968
>I don't know have an f16 fly straight up see what happens
It stalls out
>I don't know how engines work in space
Hint: Air breathing engines don't work in an airless environment.

>>8933968
>I don't know have an f16 fly straight up see what
getting into orbit is more than aim straight upwards and burn, google the word "gravity assist", also google the minimal speed needed to get into orbit and show me the jet engine which can burn with 8km/s

>>8932497
Perfect example of an actual retard/12 year old on /sci/

>>8934922

So what's out in space? Are there engines to kick back at that element specifically? Have a duel engine system then, one kicks out air, the other kicks back at whatever is in space.

>>8934332

metal?

>>8932497
.... you sound genuinely retarded. Complete middle school and then feel free to post here.

>>8933833
>Can be a sphere

You dont know anything about forces do you?
A sphere would be a fucking nightmare to control, especially if you want to go interplanetary with it.

That's why our meatbag bodies are obsolete and must either be somehow augmented or replaced so that sentient life can survive in harsher conditions than earth.

Only solution, only way forward, and why AI research is the most important thing in the world today, not physics, not rocket science, not nothing.

>>8935537
>>So what's out in space?
nothing*
>> Are there engines to kick back at that element specifically?
you can't kick back at nothing.

*ok maybe like 5 atoms per cubic centimeter, near earth at least. To get thrust on the order of a jet engine at the size of a jet engine by moving these, you'd need to move these couple of atoms at VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY high percentages at the speed of light.

>>8936016

Space is so hostile to life. What's the point then. you accelerate by force if there's nothing to exert force on....then its game over.

>>8936041
And that's why we use rockets, because by bringing mass along and throwing it back they can generate a force.

But hey, because there is nothing we can reach really high speeds and we never slow down.

>>8933968
I can't tell if it's trolling or the site has really gotten this dumb.

>>8936106

Well that's how stuff works you experiment with it and see what happens. It's not all theory.

>>8934002
Ofcourse theres air up there its just spread out like ontopof a big mountain. Or else how could the atronauts breath dumbass?

>>8936577
>I don't know have an f16 fly straight up see what happens experiment. It w
definitely trolling

>>8933786
calm down your autism op

Its like that now because it takes a lot of force to escape earths gravity, but we'll have ships like that when we have more efficient methods of propulsion. I think thats part of skunkworks plan too

>>8936787
They bring air with them. I sincerely hope you are trolling.

>>8936933
>> more efficient means of propulsion
Well you can make things more efficient by throwing stuff at higher velocities, this comes at the expense of thrust if we keep power the same. The get more thrust we need more power.

To get 1 g acceleration(over an extended duration) or more, we need quite a bit of power

why do people keep responding to this dipshit?
at least try to kick off a conversation about crazy shit without pretending to be retarded
maybe there would be something interesting to read

>>8934330
Solar sails