User Panel
[#1]
Originally 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. View Quote Cortana, what exactly am I looking at? |
|
mene mene tekel upharsin
That others may think |
[#2]
|
|
"And I never did get my lawnmower back!" - Bandit 6
"On the bright side, the money we saved by not going to Mars in the 1970s, we spent on welfare and public schools." - @MorlockP |
[#3]
|
|
"Never attribute to malice that which can be ascribed to sheer stupidity." LTC (CENTCOM)
"Round is a shape, right? I have the body of a god...Just happens to be Buddah! Az_Redneck |
[#4]
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion: https://i.imgur.com/Gtb7Kf6.jpeg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/43261/main-qimg-26fa19db25f78e7956712722f8e9af-3189252.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/43261/main-qimg-f7fb7690297699c82f74ed7d9ceca0-3189253.jpg View Quote Bezo's is more of an O'niell cylinder fan. Which is more fun because then you get big AR15s. |
|
Pemberton the carbonated, behind his tasty bubbles, whispering of the love that is more horrible than hate.
|
[#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 |
|
|
[#6]
Originally Posted By iwouldntknow: Blenders are cheap and available. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally 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. |
|
|
[#7]
|
|
|
[#8]
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?) View Quote |
|
"Freedom isn't free. It costs a hefty fuckin' fee. And if we don't toss in our buck 'o five, who will?"
|
[#9]
Originally Posted By webtaz99: You aren't giving humans enough credit. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally 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?) |
|
I've seen better riots at Walmart on a black Friday - SrBenelli
|
[#10]
|
|
|
[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. |
|
|
[#12]
Originally 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. View Quote There's a protocol literally called "InterPlanetary File System" which is designed to solve the caching problems. |
|
|
[#13]
Originally 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. View Quote 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. |
|
|
[#14]
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. View Quote 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. |
|
It’s… probably not as bad as you think it is.
|
[#15]
Any updates on IFT-4? Still thinking late May?
|
|
|
[#16]
Originally 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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! Dancing T-handle in zero-g, HD |
|
Fetchez la vache!
|
[#17]
|
|
It’s… probably not as bad as you think it is.
|
[#18]
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally 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-HMSCDYtM This explanation is helpful. The Bizarre Behavior of Rotating Bodies |
|
|
[#19]
Originally Posted By Hesperus: That's pretty cool. https://youtube.com/shorts/ugS8kPcMJ3c?si=y_wftRkBoYCE6SyP View Quote That would be awesome to see |
|
EP429: Today's lesson - Don't provoke ARFCOM. People will see your butthole.
|
[#20]
View Quote thanks. |
|
"Never attribute to malice that which can be ascribed to sheer stupidity." LTC (CENTCOM)
"Round is a shape, right? I have the body of a god...Just happens to be Buddah! Az_Redneck |
[#21]
|
|
|
[#22]
|
|
|
[#23]
Originally Posted By Chokey:
View Quote Attached File |
|
|
[#24]
Originally Posted By Chokey:
View Quote 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. |
|
|
[#25]
Originally 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. View Quote 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. |
|
|
[#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! |
|
|
[Last Edit: fox2008]
[#27]
Originally 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally 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. |
|
EP429: Today's lesson - Don't provoke ARFCOM. People will see your butthole.
|
[#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.
|
|
Fuck Cancer. Love you Pop.
|
[#29]
|
|
|
[#30]
Originally 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. View Quote We are going to need a lot of fission reactors to sustain that kind of thing. That said, I'm looking forward to it. |
|
It’s… probably not as bad as you think it is.
|
[Last Edit: AmericanPeople]
[#31]
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. View Quote 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? |
|
|
[#32]
Originally 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? View Quote 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. |
|
It’s… probably not as bad as you think it is.
|
[#33]
Originally 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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally 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. |
|
Fetchez la vache!
|
[#34]
Originally 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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally 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 |
|
Shit like this is why you don't give typewriters to monkeys. - L_JE
Colonialism, bringing ethnic diversity to a continent near you. - My Father Me being brief, this is like seeing a comet - Geralt55 |
[#35]
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 View Quote 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. |
|
|
[#36]
Originally 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally 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. |
|
Shit like this is why you don't give typewriters to monkeys. - L_JE
Colonialism, bringing ethnic diversity to a continent near you. - My Father Me being brief, this is like seeing a comet - Geralt55 |
[#37]
|
|
Preferred Pronoun: Space Lord Mutherfucker
|
[#38]
Attached File |
|
"And I never did get my lawnmower back!" - Bandit 6
"On the bright side, the money we saved by not going to Mars in the 1970s, we spent on welfare and public schools." - @MorlockP |
[Last Edit: kill-9]
[#39]
|
|
Just say no to doom propaganda.
|
[Last Edit: SuperHeavy]
[#40]
Originally 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! View Quote 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. |
|
|
[#41]
EVA suit trailer just dropped:
The Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Suit |
|
|
[#42]
Originally Posted By Volksgewehr: EVA suit trailer just dropped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdELVCg2Ank View Quote And the EVA rig in the nose of Dragon is called Sky Walker... LOL. |
|
Scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely. -- George Santayana
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance. |
[#43]
|
|
|
[#44]
SpaceX Static Fires Ship 30 in Preparation for the Fifth Starship Flight |
|
|
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.