User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:04:43 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_of_Orion: Mine Asteroids. They're already up there... you only need enough up mass from Earth to get things started and it will be self sufficient from there. Separating different elements from the asteroids requires either a gravity well or a centrifuge. The Moon or Mars are convenient places with enough gravity to process asteroids before we construct a rotating station to be a centrifuge. Construct rotating cylinders... Light source down the center. The entire inner surface is farm. Orbital farm cylinders provide food for any colonies. ... put engines on them and they're interstellar generation ships. The problem this faces is the same problem vertical farms here on Earth are facing right now. 1. Power. We'll need efficient long lasting cheap power generation... Nuclear or Fusion. 2. Sealed environments with recycled air and water... have been touted as a benefit to vertical farms... meaning it'd be easy to control the environment for ideal growth. In practice bugs and disease still get in and the recycling spreads infestations and disease faster than it would outside and way faster than it can be detected and mitigated resulting in massive crop failures. losts of research and development will need to take place to enable exporting our biosphere off Earth no matter where we want to export that biosphere to. Cortana, what exactly am I looking at? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:29:55 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:01:46 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By iwouldntknow: Cortana, what exactly am I looking at?    |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 6:21:34 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryBezo's is more of an O'niell cylinder fan.  Which is more fun because then you get big AR15s. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 5:00:34 PM EDT
[#5]
This is a really cool YT channel with info about Spacex and past history of space exploration most have never heard about such as the Soviet Mars missions back in the late 1960s and 70s. And it does not appear to be one of the many AI channels popping up every damn day.
  How SpaceX Will Land On Mars |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 5:37:28 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By iwouldntknow: Blenders are cheap and available. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By iwouldntknow: Originally Posted By shooter_gregg: Originally Posted By iwouldntknow: Originally Posted By shooter_gregg: Colonization will take a whole nother level of technology to make life possible without resources from earth. We are in the ideal position in the solar system. Nothing else comes close. Maybe habitats in orbit a little further out could raise food for exploration, but out past Mars the sunlight would be too dim without some way to enhance it for photosynthesis. I don't see any sort of protein farms in any way. (cows on the moon?) Crickets are protein too Blenders are cheap and available. Live and crunchy -> blended -> pan fired in butter -> yummy crunchy.    |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:31:08 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:11:34 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shooter_gregg: Colonization will take a whole nother level of technology to make life possible without resources from earth. We are in the ideal position in the solar system. Nothing else comes close. Maybe habitats in orbit a little further out could raise food for exploration, but out past Mars the sunlight would be too dim without some way to enhance it for photosynthesis. I don't see any sort of protein farms in any way. (cows on the moon?) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 10:34:07 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By webtaz99: You aren't giving humans enough credit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By webtaz99: Originally Posted By shooter_gregg: Colonization will take a whole nother level of technology to make life possible without resources from earth. We are in the ideal position in the solar system. Nothing else comes close. Maybe habitats in orbit a little further out could raise food for exploration, but out past Mars the sunlight would be too dim without some way to enhance it for photosynthesis. I don't see any sort of protein farms in any way. (cows on the moon?) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 5:08:29 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 4:20:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: mousehunter]
[#11]
A live connection to Earths Internet is kind of pointless. A cached internet would avoid constantly retrieving the same data. Plus, it will be a damn long time before Amazon Prime delivers to Mars... Not a whole lot of reasons to use Plenty of Fish over planetary distances. But yes, Only Fans would suffer.
As for as Robber Barons - are we talking about Mars, or politics as usual here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 11:06:04 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mousehunter: A live connection to Earths Internet is kind of pointless. A cached internet would avoid constantly retrieving the same data. Plus, it will be a damn long time before Amazon Prime delivers to Mars... Not a whole lot of reasons to use Plenty of Fish over planetary distances. But yes, Only Fans would suffer. There's a protocol literally called "InterPlanetary File System" which is designed to solve the caching problems. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 12:06:27 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_of_Orion: Construct rotating cylinders... Light source down the center. The entire inner surface is farm. Orbital farm cylinders provide food for any colonies. ... put engines on them and they're interstellar generation ships. Rotating cylinders are inherently unstable about their long axis. They tend to progressively wobble until they are rotating about their short axis. Which would be bad news for an O'Neill colony, for several reasons. This is one of the reasons why the original O'Neill cylinder design used two rotating cylinders connected together as a single unit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 12:18:12 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Fulcrum-5: Rotating cylinders are inherently unstable about their long axis. They tend to progressively wobble until they are rotating about their short axis. Which would be bad news for an O'Neill colony, for several reasons. This is one of the reasons why the original O'Neill cylinder design used two rotating cylinders connected together as a single unit. Yes and we don't see this very often in science fiction. Partly because a single cylinder looks more dramatic but I think mainly because most sci-fi productions are set on planets instead of large stations. Large rotating habitats do make a lot of sense in my opinion. Some designs can be really, really, really big but still within the limits of materials science. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 8:01:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Any updates on IFT-4? Still thinking late May?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 1:14:43 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Yes and we don't see this very often in science fiction. Partly because a single cylinder looks more dramatic but I think mainly because most sci-fi productions are set on planets instead of large stations. Large rotating habitats do make a lot of sense in my opinion. Some designs can be really, really, really big but still within the limits of materials science. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Originally Posted By Fulcrum-5: Rotating cylinders are inherently unstable about their long axis. They tend to progressively wobble until they are rotating about their short axis. Which would be bad news for an O'Neill colony, for several reasons. This is one of the reasons why the original O'Neill cylinder design used two rotating cylinders connected together as a single unit. Yes and we don't see this very often in science fiction. Partly because a single cylinder looks more dramatic but I think mainly because most sci-fi productions are set on planets instead of large stations. Large rotating habitats do make a lot of sense in my opinion. Some designs can be really, really, really big but still within the limits of materials science. Hold on!  Dancing T-handle in zero-g, HD |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 2:28:46 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 2:56:04 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By kallnojoy: Originally Posted By Hesperus: Originally Posted By Fulcrum-5: Rotating cylinders are inherently unstable about their long axis. They tend to progressively wobble until they are rotating about their short axis. Which would be bad news for an O'Neill colony, for several reasons. This is one of the reasons why the original O'Neill cylinder design used two rotating cylinders connected together as a single unit. Yes and we don't see this very often in science fiction. Partly because a single cylinder looks more dramatic but I think mainly because most sci-fi productions are set on planets instead of large stations. Large rotating habitats do make a lot of sense in my opinion. Some designs can be really, really, really big but still within the limits of materials science. Hold on!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n-HMSCDYtMThis explanation is helpful.  The Bizarre Behavior of Rotating Bodies |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 3:45:00 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: That's pretty cool. https://youtube.com/shorts/ugS8kPcMJ3c?si=y_wftRkBoYCE6SyP That would be awesome to see |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 9:17:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryYeah. his comment reminded me of that video too... but I was too lazy to look it up. thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 11:24:47 AM EDT
[#21]
 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 11:52:04 AM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:59:43 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey:
 Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 1:09:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey:
I would not call IFT-3 a great success. It make substantive improvements. That is like calling it a successful moon landing when a lander breaks a leg and tips over. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 2:14:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: I would not call IFT-3 a great success. It make substantive improvements. That is like calling it a successful moon landing when a lander breaks a leg and tips over. Are you quibling over the adverb the NASA rep used in front of the word successful or do you think IFT-3 was a failure? The entire point of their iterative development process is to quickly design, construct and safely fly prototypes while making substantive improvements on each flight. Pretty difficult to argue SpaceX has not been doing that. |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 2:39:48 PM EDT
[#26]
You’re telling me next year we get to watch 2 of these things take off the same day, mate in space, watch the lower stages land on the chopsticks, and then watch the ships land?
Man what a day that’s going to be! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 2:44:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: fox2008]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: I would not call IFT-3 a great success. It make substantive improvements. That is like calling it a successful moon landing when a lander breaks a leg and tips over. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: Originally Posted By Chokey:
I would not call IFT-3 a great success. It make substantive improvements. That is like calling it a successful moon landing when a lander breaks a leg and tips over. If the stated goal of a test is substantial improvements, and substantial improvements are made, then the test is a great success. ETA: lol....I didn't notice who I was responding to.....of course you wouldn't call it a great success. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 4:11:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Imagine when SpaceX gets so successful and runs launches like clockwork and colonizes the moon. You'll be like hey where do you want to vacation this year "How about the Moon". That's what it's going to be like.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 4:27:51 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 4:28:14 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voodochild: Imagine when SpaceX gets so successful and runs launches like clockwork and colonizes the moon. You'll be like hey where do you want to vacation this year "How about the Moon". That's what it's going to be like. We are going to need a lot of fission reactors to sustain that kind of thing. That said, I'm looking forward to it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 5:06:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AmericanPeople]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fox2008: If the stated goal of a test is substantial improvements, and substantial improvements are made, then the test is a great success. ETA: lol....I didn't notice who I was responding to.....of course you wouldn't call it a great success. Because it was not. Was the stated goal to just improve or was it to get through re-entry and splashdown Starship? What about the booster? Just get close to the water or go through a controlled burn as it touches water? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 5:19:02 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: Because it was not. Was the stated goal to just improve or was it to get through re-entry and splashdown Starship? What about the booster? Just get close to the water or go through a controlled burn as it touches water? Speaking strictly for me. I'm satisfied when they can get the thing far enough away from the pad that it won't blow everything to kingdom come if it blows. This is the biggest rocket in the world. There aren't many things that can compare to it. And one of the few things that can is N-1. A rocket that was an unmitigated disaster. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 5:33:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: Because it was not. Was the stated goal to just improve or was it to get through re-entry and splashdown Starship? What about the booster? Just get close to the water or go through a controlled burn as it touches water? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: Originally Posted By fox2008: If the stated goal of a test is substantial improvements, and substantial improvements are made, then the test is a great success. ETA: lol....I didn't notice who I was responding to.....of course you wouldn't call it a great success. Because it was not. Was the stated goal to just improve or was it to get through re-entry and splashdown Starship? What about the booster? Just get close to the water or go through a controlled burn as it touches water? The metric isn't the delta from the final product, but the delta from IFT-3's intended objectives. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 5:55:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: Because it was not. Was the stated goal to just improve or was it to get through re-entry and splashdown Starship? What about the booster? Just get close to the water or go through a controlled burn as it touches water? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: Originally Posted By fox2008: If the stated goal of a test is substantial improvements, and substantial improvements are made, then the test is a great success. ETA: lol....I didn't notice who I was responding to.....of course you wouldn't call it a great success. Because it was not. Was the stated goal to just improve or was it to get through re-entry and splashdown Starship? What about the booster? Just get close to the water or go through a controlled burn as it touches water? The stated goal was to attempt a bunch of things. Which they attempted. "The third flight test aims to build on what we’ve learned from previous flights while attempting a number of ambitious objectives, including the successful ascent burn of both stages, opening and closing Starship’s payload door, a propellant transfer demonstration during the upper stage’s coast phase, the first ever re-light of a Raptor engine while in space, and a controlled reentry of Starship. It will also fly a new trajectory, with Starship targeted to splashdown in the Indian Ocean. This new flight path enables us to attempt new techniques like in-space engine burns while maximizing public safety." https://web.archive.org/web/20240308191527/https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 11:16:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: The stated goal was to attempt a bunch of things. Which they attempted. "The third flight test aims to build on what we’ve learned from previous flights while attempting a number of ambitious objectives, including the successful ascent burn of both stages, opening and closing Starship’s payload door, a propellant transfer demonstration during the upper stage’s coast phase, the first ever re-light of a Raptor engine while in space, and a controlled reentry of Starship. It will also fly a new trajectory, with Starship targeted to splashdown in the Indian Ocean. This new flight path enables us to attempt new techniques like in-space engine burns while maximizing public safety." https://web.archive.org/web/20240308191527/https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3 For a test flight they got 6 out of 8 of those ambitious objectives and there were others they met not included. Seemed like something stupid and maybe easy to fix as far as the controlled reentry. Seemed like an rcs failed in some way. If it was some problem with the structure being aerodynamically unstable during a hypersonic reentry they probably would be drastically changing the flaps or something and not just yeeting another ship with the same basic design. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:08:42 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: For a test flight they got 6 out of 8 of those ambitious objectives and there were others they met not included. Seemed like something stupid and maybe easy to fix as far as the controlled reentry. Seemed like an rcs failed in some way. If it was some problem with the structure being aerodynamically unstable during a hypersonic reentry they probably would be drastically changing the flaps or something and not just yeeting another ship with the same basic design. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: Originally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: The stated goal was to attempt a bunch of things. Which they attempted. "The third flight test aims to build on what we’ve learned from previous flights while attempting a number of ambitious objectives, including the successful ascent burn of both stages, opening and closing Starship’s payload door, a propellant transfer demonstration during the upper stage’s coast phase, the first ever re-light of a Raptor engine while in space, and a controlled reentry of Starship. It will also fly a new trajectory, with Starship targeted to splashdown in the Indian Ocean. This new flight path enables us to attempt new techniques like in-space engine burns while maximizing public safety." https://web.archive.org/web/20240308191527/https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3 For a test flight they got 6 out of 8 of those ambitious objectives and there were others they met not included. Seemed like something stupid and maybe easy to fix as far as the controlled reentry. Seemed like an rcs failed in some way. If it was some problem with the structure being aerodynamically unstable during a hypersonic reentry they probably would be drastically changing the flaps or something and not just yeeting another ship with the same basic design. From watching the video, imho, it was either a flap issue, rcs issue, or a center of gravity issue. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:31:07 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: From watching the video, imho, it was either a flap issue, rcs issue, or a center of gravity issue. The aero surfaces didn’t contribute at that altitude. It was an RCS issue. Vehicle was rolling before it hit the atmosphere. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 7:12:25 PM EDT
[#38]
 Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:34:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: kill-9]
[#39]
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 12:33:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SuperHeavy]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ACTF_ZETT: You’re telling me next year we get to watch 2 of these things take off the same day, mate in space, watch the lower stages land on the chopsticks, and then watch the ships land? Man what a day that’s going to be! Probably a few days between launches. Putthing them both into the same orbit obviously gives the second one has a ton of launch windows every day depending on orbit height. |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 5/5/2024 1:55:04 AM EDT
[#41]
EVA suit trailer just dropped:
 The Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Suit |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2024 10:16:33 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Volksgewehr: EVA suit trailer just dropped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdELVCg2AnkAnd the EVA rig in the nose of Dragon is called Sky Walker... LOL.  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Yesterday 7:20:20 PM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Today 10:13:18 AM EDT
[#44]
 SpaceX Static Fires Ship 30 in Preparation for the Fifth Starship Flight |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File