EPTOn September 10 2016 05:29 JimmiC wrote:
If it doesn't help you masturbate can it even be considered a "super" power?
If it doesn't help you masturbate can it even be considered a "super" power?
What superpower helps you masturbate?
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 499
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Acrofales
Spain18488 Posts
What superpower helps you masturbate? | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10167 Posts
| ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On September 10 2016 05:29 JimmiC wrote: If it doesn't help you masturbate can it even be considered a "super" power? If superman can't even feel bullets how strong must Louis be? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thouhastmail
Korea (North)876 Posts
p.s. wCw Rocks! | ||
|
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9336 Posts
| ||
|
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
Edit: I guess I'm looking for a phone ad blocker that doesn't need access to my camera (why would it need that?). I really tried to go without but ads have gotten really invasive. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9336 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
I know from a practical sense it's pretty tough, since just to get to the moon and back requires 17,500 delta-v (Saturn V had 17900~), and just to get a Mercury capture orbit require 20,900 delta-v~ (and 208,000 to get to 10,000km sun orbit)... But I was just having a little thought experiment, and I remember that roughly the formula for radiation: Energy transfer rate = 4pi*r_sun^2*(stefan–boltzmann constant)*(temperature^4)*(what % is shining on solar panel) Now obviously we can't change anything but what percentage is shining on the panel, But since the surface area of a sphere is 4pi*r^2, it means that moving same object twice as far away will make the light 4x as weak. But say we could get to within 9 million miles of the sun for a cost of I dunno, say 40,000m/s delta-v, that would mean according what I know, the solar panels could in theory produce 100x as much energy as on earth? And I dunno, maybe you can somehow use a gravity sling to get closer to the sun as well. My thought was it could be a pretty neat thing for far cheaper electricity than on earth over long periods of time so that the probe could pay for itself. Yeah, you can't attach a cable to earth, but you could do stuff like Bitcoin mining, or anything that doesn't require frequent access but high energy costs at a small weight. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
To get there... at first glance it's tempting to think it's easy, as you actually want to drop further down into the gravitational well of the sun. Going to a lower energy state should be easy, right? Turns out not really. You get a lot of kinetic energy that you can't really get rid of easily, and all the speed will bring you straight back out again. You'd end up in a very elliptical orbit. And that's not mentioning that you need shift your velocity start going down week the first hand. Maybe reverse slingshot around a closer planet can fix that as you say. Then whether today's solar panels can handle 100x intensity of a different question. And it probably will be cheaper to just build 100x as many panels on earth. But well.  | ||
|
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On September 13 2016 13:27 Cascade wrote: Yeah the intensity per area scales as the inverse square of the distance. Transmitting the energy back to earth isn't really feasible as you say, but interesting idea to outsource computers or whatever to a close orbit. To get there... at first glance it's tempting to think it's easy, as you actually want to drop further down into the gravitational well of the sun. Going to a lower energy state should be easy, right? Turns out not really. You get a lot of kinetic energy that you can't really get rid of easily, and all the speed will bring you straight back out again. You'd end up in a very elliptical orbit. And that's not mentioning that you need shift your velocity start going down week the first hand. Maybe reverse slingshot around a closer planet can fix that as you say. Then whether today's solar panels can handle 100x intensity of a different question. And it probably will be cheaper to just build 100x as many panels on earth. But well. The gravity well effects are well known, and hence I listed the delta-v values of rockets to get to those locations, and I did state that it would take more than twice as much delta-v than what the Saturn V had, the heaviest rocket that worked ever (I think it's fairly on par to that Russian one that kept failing), it's also the launch vehicle that brought people to the moon. The moon mission required a delta-v of around 17,500m/s, but it was carrying a fairly large module, so the Saturn V could realistically squeeze out some 25,000m/s with a small payload and a 4th stage. Versus Mars, which requires a delta-v of 12,600m/s for a one way trip and 18,300m/s for two way in the best case scenario. All transfer orbits are assumed to be Hohmann transfers, which do the burns at the perigee (highest speeds to maximize kinetic energy gain) to maximize the Oberth Effect. + Show Spoiler + so to lower your orbit around the sun, your be at a roughly circular orbit around the sun just like the earth, and then make an extremely elliptical orbit until your perigee is is at 1/10th of Earth orbit (or whatever your aim is), and then once you're at that point, perigee point, you'd do another burn until you're roughly at a circular orbit at your new radius. So we're not too far from reality to bring something to that distance of 1/10th of earths distance from the sun, plus with reusable rockets and whatnot, might be more feasible in the future. Either way, it's not science fiction territory. I suppose my question was more directed at what kind of temperatures would be experienced, and how the radiation differs from what's on earth, and how materials would be able to handle this. Venus has a temperature of 450C, while Mercury goes from between -150 and 400+ depending on the shade. For some reason I'm having trouble finding the solar system temperature vs distance from sun, it keeps giving me temperatures on the planets which is of no interest to me. Also I imagine the materials would be subject to way more UV, X-ray, and Gamma radiation, so I wanted some insight to how the materials would handle that, and hence deduce a reasonable distance that we could get to the some from the materials standpoint. I also don't know how orbits "very" close to the sun behave. Do they get pushed outwards due to the extreme amounts of radiation and high energy photons pushing it out, or do they act like an atmosphere with some many particles, and could they act like an atmosphere to slow a rocket down and make it require less energy to get into orbit? On September 13 2016 13:55 Birdie wrote: This is kind of related to the idea of a Dyson Sphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere Yeah, from reading that wiki, that looks highly impractical and extremely expensive, with no consideration for the engineering design. Just to get one of those rings shown into place, you'd need more more materials than exist on earth. To me I'm looking at it like this: Saturn V missions cost $6b back then, so around $36b in today's dollars, assume some solar braking system would work, or advances in rocket nozzles or some kind of other engines raised specific impulse compared to those times by 2, and the cost would be the cost of a Saturn 5 mission. Also I have some uncertainties, for example how close to the sun we could get, and exactly how much delta-v an effective maneuver would require. Now SpaceX does missions for lets say around 10x cheaper than NASA, so lets say it'd be the case with this as well, and we're down to $3.5 billion per launch. A typical solar panel / m^2 produced 200 watts due to how the sun is hitting it from an angle on earth. If in theory the solar panel could handle the higher intensity light, it'd be 100x more power...Plus it'd be turned to the sun directly, and hence the power would be closer to 600*100W /m^2 (1050-1367W/m^2 is what sun gives off on earth, maximum efficiency of an infinite p-n junction count is 68.7%, currently highest is 46%, so I did around average of 1050-1367 x some reasonable efficiency to get 600W/m^2) So now we're up to 60kW per meter... Now lets treat weight of solar panels at 10kg / m^2, that Saturn 5 could handle 47,000kg payload for Lunar missions, so lets assume they make the payload half solar panels, and then the rest would be containment, as well as the stuff to keep the solar panels together, and the actuator that "opens" the solar panels up (it's space so low stresses on the connection points).... So now we have 2350m^2 of solar panels... Or 141MW of electricity production in space (at a constant rate mind you). Now lets look at a typical electricity price of say $0.1/kWh... So we have 141,000kW, or we're making $14,100 per hour. So it would take 255,320 hours to pay it off, or converting to years... 29.15 years. Not too shabby given the fact that it takes up no space. On earth that would require 705,000m^2 of solar panels. New York is 305mi^2, while this would take up 0.27mi^2... So that's a whole community in NY. We can't stop there, for constant power output, you're going to need a really large storage system to deal with it going dark every night. So by doing this Fermi estimate, on a very rough scale, I've shown that this could be a viable technology not too far in the future. Of course that electricity could only be used for some computing purposes like database storage, cloud-computing of complex simulation, etc... Unless there was some massive breakthrough in laser power beaming to send the energy to Earth. edit: The numbers I chose for most things are probably leaning on the edge of better case scenario, but I was just trying to run through my thought process to show it might not be a completely far fetched idea, though I'm sure if it was possible, it would have been used by now. I'd just like to learn more about what the limiting factors to making this work in our society | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
| ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On September 13 2016 15:58 ZigguratOfUr wrote: While I don't think anyone has studied placing solar panels very close to the sun, space-based solar panels have been extensively theorized upon. Even near the earth they do carry some sizeable advantages (24 hrs of sunlight, no atmosphere obstructing). And if it's close to Earth you can get the energy back using microwave beams. The launch costs are usually seen as the main problem (though there are others like degradation, difficulty of repairs), but some people have thought of ways to minimize the problem using either very low earth orbits, or by building the solar panels on the moon using self-replicating robots. when has that ever been a good idea? | ||
|
ragnasaur
United States804 Posts
| ||
|
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24504 Posts
On September 15 2016 11:45 ragnasaur wrote: Is there any way or are there any places in the U.S.A. that someone can legally pitch a tent or something and live indefinitely wothout paying rent? Like out in the woods or something? I kinda know of one? If you are disabled (doesn't have to be 100%) or are over the age of 62, you can get a lifetime forest pass for $10. That would allow you to legally stay indefinitely in the forest. You may have to move from a particular site (mainly if it's a frequently used site) but you could live there without any further payments. On September 15 2016 11:57 JumboJohnson wrote: National forests as long as you move at least 5 miles every 16 days. Not sure if this is a state thing or not but usually one still can be sited if found without a pass (though I've never had a ranger check for camping, couple times when we were shooting, but I presume that's because a lot of people don't pick up spent casings). | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46686 Posts
On September 15 2016 11:45 ragnasaur wrote: Is there any way or are there any places in the U.S.A. that someone can legally pitch a tent or something and live indefinitely wothout paying rent? Like out in the woods or something? Ah yes, the question that every poor college student asks themselves  | ||
| ||
