• Space Chat General
    3,363 replies, posted
I wanna go to space and fap there.
[QUOTE=cartman300;35969245]I wanna go to space and fap there.[/QUOTE] But it will float around the spaceship and get in the machines.
[QUOTE=Blazyd;35977600]But it will float around the spaceship and get in the machines.[/QUOTE] That's not all it will get sucked into [img]http://www.thezigzagger.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/58Vy3.gif[/img]
This recent discussion reminds me. To date, there's still nobody who's had sex in space. [I]That we know off.[/I]
[QUOTE=LarparNar;35978493]This recent discussion reminds me. To date, there's still nobody who's had sex in space. [I]That we know off.[/I][/QUOTE] It would actually be really hard to do. One or both partners would have to be strapped down to ensure one doesn't go flying off to the other side of the room. And plus, blood pressure is lower so it would be really hard to get an erection. And plus, if you happen to get someone pregnant, that baby will never be able to visit Earth without an exoskeleton suit. [QUOTE=Michael Collins]Imagine a spacecraft of the future, with a crew of a thousand ladies, off for Alpha Centauri, with 2,000 breasts bobbing beautifully and quivering delightfully in response to every weightless movement . . . and I am the commander of the craft, and it is Saturday morning and time for inspection, naturally[/QUOTE] Then again. :quagmire:
I came across a .pdf of a SpaceX powerpoint with details about the Merlin 2. This image was included: [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13781308/merlin2.png[/img] [IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-aaaaa.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]In 1994, engineers at Apple Computer code-named the Power Macintosh 7100 "Carl Sagan" in the hope that Apple would make "billions and billions" with the sale of the PowerMac 7100.[4] The name was only used internally, but Sagan was concerned that it would become a product endorsement and sent Apple a cease and desist letter. Apple complied, but engineers retaliated by changing the internal codename to "BHA" for "Butt-Head Astronomer".[63][64] Sagan then sued Apple for libel, a form of defamation, in federal court. The court granted Apple's motion to dismiss Sagan's claims and opined in dicta that a reader aware of the context would understand Apple was "clearly attempting to retaliate in a humorous and satirical way", and that "It strains reason to conclude that Defendant was attempting to criticize Plaintiff's reputation or competency as an astronomer. One does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase 'butt-head'."[63][65] Sagan then sued for Apple's original use of his name and likeness, but again lost.[66] Sagan appealed the ruling.[66] In November 1995, an out of court settlement was reached and Apple's office of trademarks and patents released a conciliatory statement that "Apple has always had great respect for Dr. Sagan. It was never Apple's intention to cause Dr. Sagan or his family any embarrassment or concern."[67][/QUOTE] Didn't know about this, thought it was pretty funny.
[QUOTE=Pelf;35984274]I came across a .pdf of a SpaceX powerpoint with details about the Merlin 2. This image was included: [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13781308/merlin2.png[/img] [IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-aaaaa.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] Holy shit it's larger than the Saturn V's F-1 [IMG]http://mailman.thegeek.nu/~dahanson/rockets/misc/saturn_v_05.jpg[/IMG] Why do they need an engine that big?
[QUOTE=Nutt007;35984595]Holy shit it's larger than the Saturn V's F-1 [IMG]http://mailman.thegeek.nu/~dahanson/rockets/misc/saturn_v_05.jpg[/IMG] Why do they need an engine that big?[/QUOTE] Because even though the Falcon Heavy will do certain things, it just doesn't make sense to rely on ~30 engines, that's what lead to the failure of the N1 project. With large payloads you're always going to be relying on clusters of engines, but if you can have just a few very large engines as opposed to dozens of small engines, assuming each engine has the same potential for failure, you greatly reduce the overall risk of the launch and the complexity of the vehicle.
[QUOTE=J Paul;35984655]Because even though the Falcon Heavy will do certain things, it just doesn't make sense to rely on ~30 engines, that's what lead to the failure of the N1 project. With large payloads you're always going to be relying on clusters of engines, but if you can have just a few very large engines as opposed to dozens of small engines, assuming each engine has the same potential for failure, you greatly reduce the overall risk of the launch and the complexity of the vehicle.[/QUOTE] Not so much risk reduction. It does add complexity but having many engines allows for the mission to continue if some of the engines fail. There were a number of other reasons the caused the N-1 to fail too. Also, on a less related note. the Merlin 2 is estimated to cost $50m a-piece. That's almost as much as an entire F9.
[QUOTE=J Paul;35984655]Because even though the Falcon Heavy will do certain things, it just doesn't make sense to rely on ~30 engines, that's what lead to the failure of the N1 project. With large payloads you're always going to be relying on clusters of engines, but if you can have just a few very large engines as opposed to dozens of small engines, assuming each engine has the same potential for failure, you greatly reduce the overall risk of the launch and the complexity of the vehicle.[/QUOTE] That makes sense. Which leads to something else, what were the Soviets thinking when they built the N1?
[QUOTE=Pelf;35984814]Not so much risk reduction. It does add complexity but having many engines allows for the mission to continue if some of the engines fail. There were a number of other reasons the caused the N-1 to fail too. Also, on a less related note. the Merlin 2 is estimated to cost $50m a-piece. That's almost as much as an entire F9.[/QUOTE] Engine out capability is very important in any cluster, but the idea is, say your engines have a failure rate of around 1 in 10, would you rather have 30 engines or 5 engines? It's like playing the lottery in reverse, the aim is to buy fewer tickets. It's just a matter of risk management. Not safety risks, I mean financial risks. Remember that SpaceX has to approach spaceflight from an economic perspective. [QUOTE=Nutt007;35984993]That makes sense. Which leads to something else, what were the Soviets thinking when they built the N1?[/QUOTE] It wasn't so much a matter of design choice, they were working with what was available, and there were many reasons it failed. We had something like a 5 year head start with the F-1 by the time the N1 ever came up in discussion. By then there was no time nor money to develop a new large engine for the N1. Rather than using toxic hypergolic fuels to reduce combustion complexity, they opted for a mix that while safer for people to handle, increases plumbing complexity in the fuel system (an already complex plumbing system made to support 30 engines) and caused a major argument between designers. The engines themselves were decided upon after much argumentative debate and lobbying between competing interests within the rocket bureaus, and after the leading engine designer in the soviet union eventually refused to work on the project due to these arguments. They were forced to use a new very small engine, produced in a very short time by a jet engine manufacturer with little experience in rocketry, and even though it was an amazing engine with an incredibly high reliability rate, because there needed to be so many functioning engines during the flight, the reliability just never got high enough to actually work. So while the NK-15 is probably more reliable than the F-1, you're launching 30 NK-15s at a time as opposed to only 5 F-1s.
Just found out this morning that my grandfather who worked as a programmer on the Apollo missions passed away. He was one of the largest reasons why I love space as I do now, and it makes me sad that now I wont ever hear any of his stories while he was working at NASA again.
[QUOTE=Shogun42;35990061]Just found out this morning that my grandfather who worked as a programmer on the Apollo missions passed away. He was one of the largest reasons why I love space as I do now, and it makes me sad that now I wont ever hear any of his stories while he was working at NASA again.[/QUOTE] You should take his place when you get older.
I hate the news. [i]"SpaceX launches it's commercial rocket to the ISS tomorrow! What's it mean for Obama? More at 11"[/i]
Lol, the media. Anyways, here she is, ready for the launch tomorrow: [img]http://s3.amazonaws.com/imgly_production/4385249/original.jpg[/img]
Scheduled for launch at 8:55 UCT That's 9:55 British Summer Time! Rocket launch and cornflakes, the best kind of breakfast.
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;36004548]Scheduled for launch at 8:55 UCT That's 9:55 British Summer Time! Rocket launch and cornflakes, the best kind of breakfast.[/QUOTE] Reminds me of that one My Three Sons episode were everyone is trying to get ready for school/work while the television is voicing over a rocket launch (And coincidentally their actions :v: )
Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the morning show today: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7408950n&tag=mg%3Bcbsthismorning[/url]
[QUOTE=OvB;36004769]Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the morning show today: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7408950n&tag=mg%3Bcbsthismorning[/url][/QUOTE] Seems more positive towards private spaceflight now than I've seen him before.
May be late but I just saw this: [video=youtube;17jymDn0W6U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U[/video] [editline]edit[/editline] Next Falcon 9 being built: [img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s720x720/538886_10151731598765131_353851465130_24204864_1572418031_n.jpg[/img]
Is there going to be a livestream of it? it'll only be 2 in the morning for me, so thats not too bad to watch it live
Yeah the livestream will be the same as it was for the static fire.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;36011914]Is there going to be a livestream of it? it'll only be 2 in the morning for me, so thats not too bad to watch it live[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.spacex.com/webcast/[/url] one hour 20 minutes till it begins.
Seven minutes, guys. ohboyohboyohboy [img]http://facepunch.com/fp/emoot/dance.gif[/img] The time the webcast starts, I mean. Not necessarily the launch.
[url]https://twitter.com/#!/elonmusk/status/203754513612537856/photo/1/large[/url] Mr.Musk is at his helm. [editline]19th May 2012[/editline] In related news, SpaceX has a good taste in holding music.
[quote]NASAKennedy Launch managers had a weather briefing at T-1 hour and there are no weather-related issues that would prevent liftoff at 4:55:26 a.m. EDT. [/quote] Yessssssssssss
She looks so beautiful on the launch pad with those lights...
[quote]‏@elonmusk KBro, the SpaceX dude with the mustache on the webcast looks just like Ron Burgundy. Stay classy :) #DragonLaunch[/quote] I was thinking the exact same thing, haha.
Excited! [editline]19th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;36013293]In related news, SpaceX has a good taste in holding music.[/QUOTE] Why am I not surprised?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.