if it is an orbit
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/180910-nasa-and-the-private-sector?page=90#1797
Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16051 Posts
May 26 2016 07:10 GMT
#1801
if it is an orbit http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/180910-nasa-and-the-private-sector?page=90#1797 | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
May 26 2016 11:25 GMT
#1802
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
May 26 2016 11:33 GMT
#1803
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
May 26 2016 12:17 GMT
#1804
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
May 26 2016 12:53 GMT
#1805
| ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8801 Posts
May 26 2016 15:22 GMT
#1806
| ||
oBlade
Korea (South)4912 Posts
May 26 2016 15:31 GMT
#1807
On May 26 2016 16:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Alan Sheperd's space flight was not an orbit. if it is an orbit http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/180910-nasa-and-the-private-sector?page=90#1797 Alan Shepard didn't go 5000 miles up. If you did that and weren't in orbit, you'd explode and die when you hit the atmosphere, are you on board with that? | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16051 Posts
May 26 2016 15:32 GMT
#1808
your comment was "is space flight without orbits" my reply was shepards space flight was not an orbit. 7 flights more than 1000 miles out makes it hard to generalize what is and is not possible. originally liquid fuel was the only safe way to put a human in space. as technology changed that "rule" disappeared. as technology evolves the absolutes we thought we can never change.. .change... solid fuel started to be used for human space flight. read my post. there are 2 options however, there are 2 options in my post. the other one indicates your incorrect post at the start of this discussion. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/180910-nasa-and-the-private-sector?page=90#1797 again 5000 was just a hypothetical... and it is between the belts you were brought up. without anything further to back up your point.....its just looks like you are making up stuff. the general point is.... lets not run around planning for 34 million mile space flights when we haven't gotten any further then 500 miles out in 40+ years its like the Wright Brothers planning on offering paid flights to Australia before they've got their first plane off the ground. but it is a great way to keep the tax money flowing into NASA while accomplishing nothing... and this leads to skepticism on NASA's motives. http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/space-experts-warn-congress-that-nasas-journey-to-mars-is-illusory/ the context dropping and the van allen belt red herring indicates you are not attempting a real discussion. | ||
puerk
Germany855 Posts
May 26 2016 17:08 GMT
#1809
the only relevant parameters are delta v and travel time. there is no inherent value to a distance in an arbitrary reference frame, one day 0.38 AU "up" you are on mars, an other day 0.38 AU up you are in the middle of nowhere. there is no value in arbitrary "record" breaking parabolic arches. your whole discussion style, especially when you came here declaring that general relativity is fundamentally wrong, because the equivalence principle doesn't hold, shows you are not familiar with the subject matter and have no basis for your grandiose statements. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16051 Posts
May 26 2016 17:13 GMT
#1810
that can't happen now. also,we won't know what the factors are relavent until testing is done. do you want a NASA video discussing this exact testing issue? | ||
puerk
Germany855 Posts
May 26 2016 17:18 GMT
#1811
On May 27 2016 02:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote: you can test how it impacts human physiology in real zero gravity situations. that can't happen now. also,we won't know what the factors are relavent until testing is done. do you want a NASA video discussing this exact testing issue? your understanding of "real" is not congruent with physics, so why bother with your "general relativity is wrong" red herring again and again? | ||
oBlade
Korea (South)4912 Posts
May 26 2016 17:53 GMT
#1812
On May 27 2016 00:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: don't drop the context of my reply your comment was "is space flight without orbits" my reply was shepards space flight was not an orbit. 7 flights more than 1000 miles out makes it hard to generalize what is and is not possible. originally liquid fuel was the only safe way to put a human in space. as technology changed that "rule" disappeared. as technology evolves the absolutes we thought we can never change.. .change... solid fuel started to be used for human space flight. read my post. there are 2 options however, there are 2 options in my post. the other one indicates your incorrect post at the start of this discussion. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/180910-nasa-and-the-private-sector?page=90#1797 again 5000 was just a hypothetical... and it is between the belts you were brought up. without anything further to back up your point.....its just looks like you are making up stuff. the general point is.... lets not run around planning for 34 million mile space flights when we haven't gotten any further then 500 miles out in 40+ years its like the Wright Brothers planning on offering paid flights to Australia before they've got their first plane off the ground. but it is a great way to keep the tax money flowing into NASA while accomplishing nothing... and this leads to skepticism on NASA's motives. http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/space-experts-warn-congress-that-nasas-journey-to-mars-is-illusory/ the context dropping and the van allen belt red herring indicates you are not attempting a real discussion. Here's the context: 1) You randomly say you want to see people go just 5000 miles from Earth. 2) To get to 5000 miles, your orbit passes through the Van Allen belt (That's just a jab at conspiracy theorists if there are any out there) 3) You tell me that I'm putting words in your mouth by saying they would be in orbit 4) I point out if you went 5000 miles from the surface and weren't in orbit, you'd smash into the atmosphere and die I am teasing you, puerk understands the subtext, for thinking "5000 miles from Earth" is some kind of destination. It isn't. It would be like Christopher Columbus building a ship to go to the New World and some guy saying "How can you be so sure your ship can get to another continent when it hasn't even gone to this random point in the ocean 200 miles off the coast of France where I dropped a brick overboard one time?" I wholeheartedly agree that it would be great for NASA to do great things in manned spaceflight again. So it's perplexing to see you suggest something that would be 100% waste. | ||
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
May 26 2016 18:08 GMT
#1813
| ||
cLutZ
United States19569 Posts
May 26 2016 18:22 GMT
#1814
On May 24 2016 06:27 Gorsameth wrote: Show nested quote + On May 24 2016 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: On Tuesday, budget writers in the US House will make changes to a bill that funds federal commerce, justice, and science agencies—which includes NASA—for the coming fiscal year. But a draft of the full bill released Monday contains a blockbuster for the space agency: the House calls for a pivot away from NASA’s direct-to-Mars vision toward a pathway that includes lunar landings first. Since a space policy speech in 2010 by President Obama, the space agency has been following a loosely defined plan to first send astronauts to visit a fragment of an asteroid near the Moon and then conduct other operations in the vicinity of the Moon before striking off for Mars some time in the 2030s. However a number of independent reports, such as the National Research Council’s Pathways to Exploration, have questioned the viability and sustainability of a direct-to-Mars plan. That panel called for NASA and the White House to reconsider the Moon as an interim destination. Source Sigh, there is nothing to do on the moon. How about politicians let NASA sort what is viable and/or smart. I mean, there is nothing to do on Mars either. NASA is just a PR program with a wiff of military application, so why not let politicians tell them what to do? | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
May 26 2016 20:24 GMT
#1815
NASA and Bigelow Aerospace are working closely to understand why the module did not fully expand today as planned. Engineers are meeting at the Johnson Space Center in Houston to discuss a path forward for the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM). They are evaluating data from the expansion that has occurred thus far. If the data supports a resumption of operations, another attempt to complete the module’s expansion could come as early as tomorrow. With the team focused on analyzing BEAM’s status, a previously scheduled teleconference for Thursday, May 26 at 10 a.m. EDT has been postponed until we have more information available to share. NASA will send an updated media advisory when the next step for BEAM operations is decided upon. Source SpaceX is on schedule to fly two NASA astronauts on a test flight to the International Space Station by the end of 2017, but there is a lot of work to do to ensure the company’s new Crew Dragon spaceship is up to the task and ready in time, a SpaceX manager said Tuesday. Benjamin Reed, director of SpaceX’s commercial crew program, said Tuesday that construction workers will install a crew access arm and other infrastructure for human spaceflights at Kennedy Space Center’s launch pad 39A this summer. The seaside launch facility — last used for the final space shuttle launch in 2011 — is being leased by SpaceX to support flights by the company’s future Falcon Heavy rocket, commercial satellite launches and piloted space sorties, which will blast off on the smaller Falcon 9. Meanwhile, SpaceX has finished qualification of the company’s own docking system to connect the Crew Dragon to Boeing-made docking adapters on the space station, and began testing of the capsule’s propulsion system, according to a presentation by Reed at the Space Congress 2016 industry conference in Cape Canaveral. Source The Next Generation Launcher will use solid motors based on those used by the shuttle’s solid rocket boosters in its lower stages, and an upper stage powered by Blue Origin’s BE-3U liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engine, a company official said Tuesday at the Space Congress conference in Florida. The rocket would launch initially from a refurbished shuttle pad at the Kennedy Space Center. Orbital received a contract from the Air Force earlier this year to support development, although a final decision on whether to pursue the vehicle is not expected until the middle of next year. Source | ||
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
May 26 2016 23:18 GMT
#1816
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
May 26 2016 23:22 GMT
#1817
| ||
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
May 27 2016 20:12 GMT
#1818
| ||
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
May 27 2016 21:52 GMT
#1819
| ||
misirlou
Portugal3227 Posts
May 27 2016 22:47 GMT
#1820
also the most important bit | ||
| ||
Next event in 16m
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games tarik_tv9799 summit1g9346 Grubby3674 hungrybox1658 Day[9].tv1363 shahzam617 Mew2King366 ToD284 Liquid`Hasu276 FrodaN253 Maynarde120 Livibee82 PPMD32 Organizations
StarCraft 2 • Berry_CruncH204 StarCraft: Brood War• musti20045 52 • Hupsaiya 39 • RyuSc2 30 • davetesta17 • sooper7s • AfreecaTV YouTube • intothetv • Kozan • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamezSOOP • Laughngamez YouTube • Migwel League of Legends Other Games |
OSC
WardiTV Invitational
BSL: ProLeague
TerrOr vs Dandy
XuanXuan vs Dark
Korean StarCraft League
Acropolis
SOOP StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SOOP
herO vs Cure
SC Evo Complete
PassionCraft
[ Show More ] BSL: ProLeague
Sziky vs Dienmax
Jimin vs RaNgeD
CSO Cup
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
|
|