The Biggest Rocket Launches and Space Missions We're Looking Forward To in 2018 (theverge.com) 112
Loren Grush, writing for The Verge: Next year is already overflowing with exciting missions to space. NASA is launching a new lander to Mars, as well as a spacecraft that will get closer to the Sun than ever before. And two of NASA's vehicles already in space will finally arrive at their intended targets: one will rendezvous with a nearby asteroid, while another will pass by a distant space rock billions of miles from Earth. But it's not just NASA that has a busy year ahead; the commercial space industry has a number of significant test flights planned, and the launch of one of the world's most anticipated rockets, the Falcon Heavy, is slated for early 2018. And if all goes well, people may finally ride to space on private vehicles. Here's the complete list.
What we need right now... (Score:2)
Is a wheel in orbit, so we can spin it and test fractional-g on mammals.
Even a big baton with mice at one and and a counterweight on the other. Something.
Re: (Score:2)
The habitat would have to be truly enormous, on the order of d = 1 mile or more, before these forces become low enough to not be an issue.
Is there any data you could link to backing up this assertion? Not being snarky, but [citation needed].
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
That looks like a good place to start, sure. It says that 2 revolutions per minute generally produces too low Coriolis forces to be significant, and that a 30-second period would need a 224m radius to produce 1g. That's pretty substantial, but not a mile (1609m). For an orbital period of 15s, which might not produce significant Coriolis forces (the article says that 2 rpm is generally considered safe, but humans have adapted to 23rpm), the radius would be 56m, which seems much more reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
That looks like a good place to start, sure. It says that 2 revolutions per minute generally produces too low Coriolis forces to be significant, and that a 30-second period would need a 224m radius to produce 1g. That's pretty substantial, but not a mile (1609m). For an orbital period of 15s, which might not produce significant Coriolis forces (the article says that 2 rpm is generally considered safe, but humans have adapted to 23rpm), the radius would be 56m, which seems much more reasonable.
Thanks, AC, for the Wiki link.
What you describe here pretty much outlines major characteristics for different classes of future manned space vessels and orbital stations.
Smaller diameter centrifugal ships/stations would be for shorter trips and occupancy durations, and the larger diameter types for longer trips and longer occupancy durations.
Class I Centrifugal Vessel/Station = Under 200m
Class II Centrifugal Vessel/Station = Over 200m
Anyone care to CC Elon on this? :)
Strat
Re: (Score:1)
Well, at least it's not a Phallic-cy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For research purposes, what has been proposed is a "Variable Gravity Research Facility" (VRGF). This consists of a backbone truss, similar to the one on the ISS, and movable modules that can be positioned as needed for various g-levels. The truss can also vary the rotation rate as needed. It would allow testing multiple g-levels in parallel. The main levels we want to test are Lunar, Mars, and various levels between 0 and 1 g for long term crew missions. We also want to test how plants respond to vario
Re: (Score:2)
>A rotating wheel gives you the same gravity level all the way around. That's good once you figure out how much gravity we humans need to stay healthy, but for research we want to test all different amounts.
Yes, of course. So a giant baton where the occupied module and the counterweight can move towards and away from each other on the shaft.
I'm not a big fan of attaching such a thing to the ISS due to the vibration issues. If it's not attached to anything else, that problem goes away.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the ISS isn't set up to control such a large rotating object. You want a separate orbiting facility.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the ISS isn't set up to control such a large rotating object. You want a separate orbiting facility.
Well, what we need is an entire deep space, ie outside LEO, research station for effects of gravity, radiation, environmental containment, shielding, and all other sorts of stuff that will need to be developed for the Mars mission that everybody is talking about but not funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh...if only we had something like that on ISS [iss.jaxa.jp]. That would have been a great idea. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Remember when they used to have "Baton Twirlers" in skimpy little outfits in parades? They would light the end of the baton on fire an do all kinds of neat tricks with them. That's what I want to see in space. Flaming, Mouse-Tipped, Giant Batons in Space! That's what I want my tax dollars going for!
Mars (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you mean "we" as in people, Musk wants to go directly to Mars and start colonizing, as soon as the mid- to late- 2020's, (whenever his BFR starts realistically will be flying.
A much more efficient route is to use electric tugs for cargo delivery, and set up a "Transit Station" in a cycling orbit between Earth and Mars. That way you only need to put it in position once, and use it many times. The tugs and transit station both use asteroid rock for shielding, water, and propellants. This cuts down how m
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, besides the big rocket most of the costs are catering [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Oops wrong one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So when are we going to Mars? Apparently all it takes is a big rocket and some space factories and some asteroid dust to protect us from the radiation in transit.
About 30 years after somebody decides to start funding the most expensive engineering project in the history of man.
Add BFR construction (Score:3)
BFR? Big Friendly Rocket? (Score:1)
After all BFG is "Big Friendly Giant", right?
Re: BFR? Big Friendly Rocket? (Score:2)
Left Out Stratolaunch (Score:3)
Their list left off Stratolaunch Systems, which has built the world's largest airplane (400 ft wingspan) out of parts from two used 747's, plus a new carbon fiber body. It is intended to carry rockets up to 500,000 lb under the wing so they can get about twice the payload compared to the same rocket from the ground. The carrier plane has already started taxi tests in the Mohave desert, and is expected to reach first flight in 2018. Launching rockets may come later in the year or next year.
Airplanes are highly reusable and relatively cheap per flight by rocket standards. If the first rocket stage is also recovered (which it won't be for the earliest rockets), it should be an economical launch system. The company is funded by Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft, who has more than enough money to see this through.
Stratolaunch probably won't be more efficient (Score:3)
I remember reading a great article in Aviation Week years ago about Orbital ATK flying Pegasus missions from their converted L-1011.
The cost reduction of using an aircraft as the first stage wasn't very significant and there was actually less flexibility in terms of launches than if you were taking off from the ground. The only significant savings was in infrastructure - you can launch from a runway, not a complex.
The lack of cost reduction is due to the fact that an (converted) airliner provides less than
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of cost reduction is due to the fact that an (converted) airliner provides less than 5% of the energy and altitude normally provided by a traditional first stage - the economics change more in favour of a launch aircraft when you get above Mach 5 and 200k feet but there are no aircraft with this capability.
Less than 5% of the energy, but if you take the rocket equation into account then about 16% of the launch weight while staying subsonic. And probably 1/5th the launch height (~10 km vs ~50 km) getting you past the densest parts of the atmosphere. It's better than single stage to orbit and potentially cheaper than throwing away the first stage. I saw that 5% claim came from Musk, he's probably talking it down since they went another route but if you got reusable first stages it seems quite superior. At least
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the height - it's the energy. When the Falcon first stage is jettisoned, the second stage and payload is moving at 7,000+ kmh. If you assume that the aircraft releases the rocket stack at 900 kmh, it only has about 1.6% of the energy which means that the rocket must make up the remaining 98.4% itself. I don't have the background to do all the math, but I would think that saying air launch provides 5% of the energy of a traditional first stage is being generous.
Air launching is an idea that seems
Re: (Score:1)
Where are they? Let them announce them for next year and you can post that info here. Good luck getting it.
Is SpaceX/Dragon going to repeat Apollo 8? (Score:2)
I remember earlier in 2017 that Mr. Musk was hoping to launch a Dragon capsule, with astronauts around on a Falcon Heavy and have it fly around the moon on the 50th anniversary of Apollo 8.
Is there updates/plans/announcements about this?
That would definitely be an inspiring and depressing (it took 50 years to repeat Apollo 8) mission.
The Earth isn't accelerating (Score:1)
The Earth is moving, aside from almost immeasurable friction due to "dust" in space, at a constant velocity along a straight space-time trajectory. Because the presence of mass "bends" space, that straight space-time trajectory follows a curve around the sun (in a strictly space trajectory) (actually around the center of mass of the earth-sun-planetary system, which, for the earth-sun is inside the radius of the sun itself). This "orbiting" around the sun is nearly indistinguishable from an accelerating fra
Re: (Score:1)
Jesus, this isn't that hard. This is like teaching astrology to school children.
Yes, we all know how you like to diddle school children!
If you paid attention in school, you would know that their are experiments that verify these facts. Also, all modern technology, including GPS, relies on these facts to function correctly. You can do the experiments.
Oh, I forgot, you don't have time for actual knowledge or experiments because you are too busy diddling children while gargling your own cum while your mother eats the undigested cum-shit out of your ass.
Re: (Score:1)
Put two magnets against each other with like poles together. Then let go. They repel without ANY energy being input.
WRONG! The energy used to separate them is the potential energy that you imparted by using kinetic energy to push them together. In other words, you have "stored" energy in the field by changing the positions of the two objects with kinetic energy. So, it kind of like pushing a wagon up a hill and then letting it roll down. You are converting kinetic energy to potential energy then back to kinetic energy.
Again, you can verify these things with experiments if you weren't busy having the cum-shit eaten out of
The only case that is closed... (Score:1)
...is the case that shows that you diddle children while your mom eats cum-shit out of your ass while you gargle your own splooge. Inadvertent use of the incorrect homophone doesn't change those facts! TRUTH!
Re: (Score:1)
the potential energy was stored when the Earth & anti-Earth were created. This was done with enough energy to keep them accelerating away from each other until the universe expires
That's not what happens with magnets. They don't continually accelerate away from each other at constant acceleration. The acceleration drops off rapidly to zero as the force drops when the change in the field position converts the potential energy to kinetic energy. So, if it worked anything like magnets, which you are trying to assert, the acceleration would fall-off, not remain constant.
Also, "their", "there", and "they're" are all "homophones" of one another. Homophones are words that sound alike, but,
Oh, another thing that proves you are a.... (Score:1)
...child molester.
You claim the Earth is accelerating upward at a constant 9.8 m/s^2, correct? OK, then, how come I measure the acceleration due to gravity as different values at different altitudes and positions on Earth? How can the Earth be under a constant upward acceleration and allow for different measurable accelerations at different altitudes?
This proves you are a child molesting, cum gargling mother fucker whose mother dines upon the undigested cum-shit that you try to keep bound up for her in your
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I'm enjoying this spirited, rational, and lengthy debate over whether or not gravity exists, one question occurs to me that hasn't been asked:
When you see a man arguing with a mule, which of the two looks foolish?
This proves you are a child molesting, cum gargling mother fucker whose mother dines upon the undigested cum-shit that you try to keep bound up for her in your anus.
With eloquence like that I can't believe anyone would debate you. You've got AC on the ropes. I think you've already convinced most of us that gravity's real.
DFTT.
No you child molesting idiot.... (Score:1)
Words like SCUBA, RADAR, and LASER are acronyms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym).
Homophone is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, once again, through your ignorance, you demonstrate you are a cum gargling pedophile whose mother dines on your shit.
Time Dialation? (Score:1)
So, you admit that space-time is bent by the presence of mass? So you admit General Relativity? Explain how General Relativity fits with your idea of a disc-like earth under constant acceleration?
You can't, because you are a child molesting, self-cum swilling, shit feeding to mother, jack-off. TRUTH!
So, again you contradict your own argument. (Score:1)
This proves once again you are a child molesting, cum swilling jack-ass whose mother eats the shit out of your asshole. TRUTH!
Well no shit. That's the difference between magnets and antimatter. Pay attention.
You tried to justify earth and anti-earth flying apart by what happens with magnets. Now you're saying it isn't like magnets. Which is it?
CHILD MOLESTER! CHILD MOLESTER! SHIT EATING FAG! LET YOUR MOTHER EAT YOUR SHIT, JUST HOW YOU LIKE IT! YOU'RE A MOTHER FUCKER! DIDDLING CHILDREN! TRUTH! TRUTH! TRUTH!
Again you prove you are a child molester... (Score:1)
...by once again contradicting yourself. You claimed they were acronyms a moment ago? Can't keep the fact straight can you? Just like the fact that you are a child molester whose mother eats the shit out of your asshole while you gargle your own cum. Right? Admit it! Actually you've already admitted it! TRUTH!
Really? (Score:1)
Are you seriously suggesting i have an eloquent argument with this jack-off? The point of the over-the-top accusation is to get him to request that I prove it. Then I can re-tort, "Oh, you want proof for assertions. Please provide your proof that the Earth is a disc under constant acceleration orthogonal to its surface".
Amazingly, he has de-facto accepted the accusation that he is a child molester by not challenging the assertion, not even once. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that he knows the accusation
Incorrect. (Score:1)
Both repel each other
Matter and Anti-Mater don't repel each other. In fact, they attract to each other and annihilate one another turning to pure energy. So, why again is Earth and Anti-Earth repelling from each other? Oops! You fucked up again with your facts.
If you'd stop diddling children, get your mother's tongue out of your ass, and spit your own cum out so you could take a breath, you'd be able to think logically and maintain a consistent argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously suggesting i have an eloquent argument with this jack-off?
Not remotely. You misunderstand. I'm suggesting that you're getting trolled and should ignore that jack-off.
Yeah, but it's fun! (Score:2)
See, here's the thing. The guy is making assertions he knows to be false. He is using bullshit arguments that sound kind of "truthy"! It is the kind of "truthy" bullshit that religious people, politicians, so-called businessmen, and other shills spout all of the time. Arguing with someone like this over something so stupid, who is, I must admit, quite adept at keeping up his bullshit line and refraining from being bated into debating his child molestation, is quite fun and entertaining because I have to act
Re: (Score:1)
Matter and Anti-Mater don't repel each other.
If you think that I can't help you. Google it.
OK: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=matter+an... [lmgtfy.com]
Hmmm...seems to contradict you.
In fact, they attract to each other and annihilate one another turning to pure energy.
Right. And mass attracts other mass. And mass bends space. And mass and energy are the same thing. Got it.
So, why again is Earth and Anti-Earth repelling from each other?
*are*
I've already explained that like I would to a five-year-old. I don't think you're capable of understanding.
Oh, shit! Man! You WIN! I made a grammar mistake/typo! That invalidates my entire argument and position. You fucking served me! Shit! I got SERVED! You were all like up in my gear and shit! I'm like, so embarrassed. I guess you're not a child molester after all! In fact, I think you are a hero! You sure showed me!
You are correct! The Earth is round! Gravity Exists! GR is a fact!
I bow down to you and admit you are correct about the earth bei
Re: (Score:1)
As much as I'm enjoying this spirited, rational, and lengthy debate
Spirited? Sure, I'll agree.
Lengthy? Not like the Bible lengthy or Homer Epics lengthy, but, yeah, it's up there!
Rational? Ummmm.....I think we'd really have to be stretching the definition of that word! I imagined you'd agree! :)
What?!? (Score:1)
Exactly. And they all have different meanings. Just like "their", "their", and "they're" except pronounced differently.
No, they aren't. LASER, RADAR, and SCUBA are all pronounced exactly the same, unlike, "their", "their", and "they're". But, "there" is pronounced the same as SCUBA.
Once again, you demonstrate your complete ignorance and affinity for molesting children! Please just stop! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN FOR PASTA'S SAKE?
Apparently, you admit defeat! (Score:1)
I had the last and final word. That makes me right and you wrong. Oh, and you're still a child molester!
Re: (Score:1)
Constantly accelerating but at a constant velocity.
So, where is this constantly increasing force coming from to maintain the constant acceleration? Don't say anti-matter. That test can be done. Take a positron and and an electron and measure the force they exert on one another. Ooops! They attract not repel! You fucked up! Also, the amount of attractive force decreases with distance. So, your argument is a sham! Do the experiment! That's the difference between bullshit and truth. Truth has an experiment you can do to verify the veracity of the claim!
You are
FAIL! (Score:1)
That would require double the constant of input energy, not zero it. To accelerate two objects away from each other at a constant acceleration requires opposite forces to be constantly applied to each in opposing directions. So, now you need to account for twice as much "perpetual" energy input? What's your answer? You can do the experiment yourself regarding opposing accelerations with real objects. You can measure these things. If you stopped diddling children while gargling your own cum while your mom ea
The only thing in asses.... (Score:1)
...is your mother's tongue in your ass while you gargle your own cum and diddle children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THIS is the launch I look forward to the most: That one guy who wants to prove the Earth is flat.
Re: (Score:2)
"See! The earth is a huge ball!"
"Now wait just a minute, all I see is a huge circle."
No. I've already "addressed" Roy Moore! (Score:1)
https://www.reddit.com/r/uspol... [reddit.com]