IDNeon

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

So what? Are you saying you want a medal? budgets, costs will not nor will ever stop mankind's quest for scientific advancement and exploration

Budgets have literally caused revolutions killing tens of millions. So yes. It has stopped advancement.

Lol.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/last-year-reusable-rockets-entered-the-mainstream-and-theres-no-going-back/

4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You made a specific claim that it would cost trillions of dollars for manned exploration of Mars

This extrapolation based on payload costs based on the 2^5th payload to fuel ratio increase means that over $1trillion to fly to Mars is extraordinarily reasonable. 

I already presented my evidence quite well mind you.

If fuel to get a lander to Mars costs approximately 10million dollars. What's 10million times 2^5th to get a payload ratio of 3:6 to Mars?

Congrats you've successfully sent a shovel into Mars orbit at that ratio of 320million dollars per kg.

Now do it for 60,000 kg.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I warned you about this kind of crap here. You need to stop attacking people personally. If you have evidence to support this kind of statement, then please provide it, otherwise you're just trolling, soapboxing, and being abusive. It needs to stop now.

What do you call a person who has people believing he can do something he physically can't do? 

Just now, beecee said:

Nonsense. Or do you have any reputable scientific citation to support that?

You mean the evidence I literally cited in the original statement when I said we CANNOT shoot a meaningful payload to Mars?

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yeah of course, 🤣 and he also will never create a reusable rocket!!

Reusable rockets like the ones NASA has been using for 40 years?

Just now, swansont said:

It would mean something if you explained why, instead of just repeating it.

Because the Falcon Heavy has a certain payload it can put into GTO.

Therefore that is the MAXIMUM dV achievement per that payload.

That payload is half the weight of an Apollo CSM.

So let's assume you were flying to the Moon in a literal portable toilet, then you are only 1/4th the dV there. The difference of a GTO and Moon mission.

https://external-preview.redd.it/U5iH7huE5qKth7ZFvipXt8vzaFOO99qHFh9o9_SkLLk.png?auto=webp&s=d145ac9ae496abe35fae86fc11a584d62fe42592

What I'm trying to tell you is OF COURSE technology may change over time changing the status quo.

We have theoretical propulsion schemes to do this.

What I'm proving to you though is Musk'a Oxygen-PR1 rockets can't get to the moon.

They just can't.

And NO CHEMICAL rocket, even hydrogen and oxygen rockets can get a meaningful payload to Mars.

That is physical fact. It's a brick wall of reality. No way around it.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

SpaceX's achievements include the first privately funded liquid-propellant rocket to reach orbit (Falcon 1 in 2008),

What? 

Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, aren't privately funded?

They don't take telecom money to launch satellites? 

What a stupid claim.

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

the first private company to successfully launch, orbit, and recover a spacecraft (Dragon in 2010),

What? North American Aviation, Now North American Rockwell isn't a private corporation? 

Another stupid claim.

NASA operated both Apollo CSM and Dragon Capsule. Stupid claim that SpaceX is first. 

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

the first vertical take-off and vertical propulsive landing for an orbital rocket (Falcon 9 in 2015), the first reuse of an orbital rocket (Falcon 9 in 2017)

Other operators were smart enough to drop their rockets into the ocean.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

and the first private company to send astronauts to orbit and to the International Space Station (SpaceX Crew Dragon Demo-2 and SpaceX Crew-1 missions in 2020). SpaceX has flown and reflown the Falcon 9 series of rockets over one hundred times.

Wait what the literal fuck?

Rockwell International, builder of the space shuttle isn't a private company??

These accomplishments are literally shit.

None of them are new.

And SpaceX has been massively funded by governments for 10 years.

SpaceX is using OTHER people's technology. 

Nothing proprietary.

Thrust vectoring required to land a rocket like Falcon 9 or starship isn't anything new and wasnt invented by SpaceX.

So all SpaceX did was do what others did and claim they are the first to do it without government funding which isn't true.

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

You keep ignoring the fact that there is tomorrow, next year, next decade, next century etc etc. You seem stuck in some mythical stone age of your own chosing.

What technology will be invented to change the status quo?

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

So you have changed your mind? Good, we are getting somewhere at last.

Mars is not about cost because it's not physically possible. Moon is about cost. It costs about $30billion per moon-shot.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Correct, I am a lay person, but to my credit I am able to read, and comprehend reputable scientific accounts, by others far, far more reputable and obviously knowledgable then yourself

Out of everyone here I'm the only one who has talked about the dV budget and cited the dV budget.

So what's that about "obviously more knowledgeable than myself."

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

You just said costs does not matter or more correctly, it isn't about money. You seem confused

You literally don't know what dV is ... do you? Look up the dV budget then continue. It'll make more sense what I'm talking about.

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

And just as obviously again, you keep ignoring the fact that I, personally am not putting any time frame on either returning to the Moon

Musk cannot possibly return to the Moon because Musk doesn't have $30billion to waste.

China or US etc are unlikely to do it. China might for prestige but US will unlikely go back to "keep up appearances".

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

ow long is a piece of string? 

The time will depend on the pressure differential, the size of the valve aperture, the viscosity of the fluid passing through and the size of the space the fluid has to fill

No fluid has to pass through. 

I didn't mean that the pressure vessel was empty.

The conditions apply as before.

If you had a balloon of air in water in this pressure vessel at 1atm.

Then you open a valve to 10atm.

What happens to the balloon in the water? How fast does it get affected by the 10atm?

Generally. Not specifically.

Does it happen nearly instantly because the water is almost incompressible?

Just now, John Cuthber said:

Sorry, I hadn't realised how far into the realms of fantasy you were. I misread the 294 as 284.

 

I have a theory that it twill turn out that the only way to get the 294 isotope is by bombarding unobtanium with unicorn droppings

The difference is nuclear physicists theories are based on reality and the math used to define to it.

So I'll continue to believe Cn-294 has a half life of over 300 years.

This thread is about the plausibility of the Copernicium battery.

Not about its existence being verified. So naturally it deals a lot with theory. 

What's wrong with that?

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Citation or retraction please. Your choice.

I literally cited it in 2 separate sources. Go back and listen to the Navy's lecture on the matter.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If the Russians had gotten that right

The Russians refitted the hull with an entirely new flight. So I'm not sure what you're claiming? 

The Kirov from the Soviet Union no longer exists. They pulled the hull. Refurbished it. Gutted all its hardware and weapons.

About the only thing still Soviet on it is the Horse Jaw Sonar.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

China ( where they turned out to be crap and almost unuseable

China is currently using the Liaoning just fine. Maybe you need to stop watching Military Defense News YouTube channel.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Did you forget to mention that the Kirov never actually made it out of the Mediterranean Sea, where, during tis second deployment, it suffered reactor damage ?

Would be hard to do since the Peter the Great is in the Arctic Sea.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

It has basically been mothballed since the 90s, and although the Russians announced plans to overhaul the whole Kirov class nuclear missile cruiser fleet, the Kirov itself ( sometimes known as Admiral Ushakov ), and its sister ship, Admiral Lazarev, were beyond repair. 

The Peter the Great wasn't launched until 1996.

I guess you reveal your massive ignorance not realizing that Kirov is a class of ship and I'm not talking about the eponymously named of the class.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Get your military analysis from Jane's, not YouTube

I'll continue to get my analysis from experts. Not from Jane's which is just pulp fiction.

If we think Navies are trash because their ships catch fire what does that say about your views of the US navy then?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53450469.amp

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Are you a deuterostome? 

You think my Citation of the US Navy's own rear admirals should be rejected because it's on YouTube?

Citations:

Kirov class capabilities:

Future USN Fleet composition. Increase of SSGN capacity with VPN replacement and increase from 12 to 40 cruise missiles:

Dunno how more plain I can be.

So what would you think the time frame is for equalization?

If you open a very small valve on a gas filled pressure vessel the equalization would take some time?

But not with liquids?

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Well, he clearly didn't mean Copernicium. They can't even study it's properties, it's half-life is that short

None of what you said is true 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Lighten up my friend. This is a discussion site, not a boxing ring

Then it'd be nice if people actually discussed things instead of repeat non related things.

Im not talking about copernicium-284. Im talking about copernicium in the stable island range. 291-297.

Thank God I still had it.

There is not a single Rocket in existence that can get any payload of any responsible kind to Mars.

The reason we can send probes is because probes fall under the 1.6% payload 98.4% fuel ratio.

Saturn V was 36% payload and 64% fuel.

A Saturn V CANNOT get an apollo space craft (a portable flying toilet in terms of size) to Mars. Let alone get anything back.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

But you do? 😅 I smell an agenda of sorts

I just cited the dV problem.

There is no rocket on earth in existence today that can get anyone to Mars.

Musk hasnt changed anything. 

It's not about MONEY.

it's about dV

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php

Do you even know what delta V budget is?

Beece. You mentally do not comprehend what I'm talking about. You clearly have NO Orbital mechanics understanding what-so-ever.

How many times do I have to tell you we CANNOT budget for the dV required to go to Mars.

We can land probes that fall within a 1.6% payload ratio.

That's where it ends.

Can you imagine the Saturn V if it was 2^5 times bigger?

Lolololol.

Look the problem is NONE OF YOU know how Musk is full of crap.

Apollo could shoot the CSM to Alpha Centauri if you wanted it to.

Of course it could put a CSM into Mars Transfer Orbit.

You wouldn't be able to capture a Mars Orbit.

It took the ENTIRE Saturn V to capture lunar orbit, land, take off, and get back to Earth.

The ability to go to Alpha Centauri is meaningless. The dV budget is GOD.

And the dV of getting to the moon is far....far out of the reach of the Falcon Heavy.

Even if the Falcon Heavy can shoot a payload into Mars Transfer. It can't keep that payload there.

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Are you serious

Yes I'm damned serious.

Privatizing public assets is not an achievement, it's theft.

The people of the United States invented the rockets that Musk is building. He's using nothing proprietary or new.

NOTHING 

Musks great achievement was tying a bunch of smaller rockets together and calling that a heavy lift capability. 

So what? 

Northrup Grumman has the same capability at the same cost.

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

What point is that? The only point is that despite the obvious difficulties that will be encountered, despite the incredible costs that are going to be involved, Moon landings, and colonies, Mars landing and colonies, will in time be achieved...10, 100, 1000 years from now...you chose the time frame, but it will happen. Understand

What your argument says is that people are bound to build the great pyramids again. Because why not. 

If there's no money in it. It will never happen.

Giant worthless efforts are what economists call "tournaments".

Unless nations see a national security reason to compete sending people to Mars. They never will.

And no one will ever be rich enough to do it by themselves. 

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

all this should be an International effort, just as the ISS was

The ISS is astronomically (pun intended) more feasible than the Moon landing let alone going to Mars.

The Moon landings cost the US about 500billion USD in today's money.

15 minutes ago, Area54 said:

As I noted previously, your posts are singularily devoid of support

Do you not know what dV is?

Do you not understand how expensive getting to Mars is in dV. Forget about money. 

There is NO chemical rocket that can achieve a reasonable Low Martian Orbit with any meaningful payload.

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

To quote a great Predsident of the USA, "We don't chose to do these things because they are easy, we chose to do them because they are hard" 

So you're going to convince people to spend trillions of dollars to dig an igloo on Mars?

Just now, Area54 said:

Probably a lot easier than getting a helicopter there, so no problem really

A helicopter that weighs a couple pounds and cost 100million dollars to get there?

Thanks for proving my point

How many times can I say this?

Musk doesn't have the dV to get to the Moon.

Just now, beecee said:

 Rubbish. He has been shown to be worthy of the challenge and alreay has achieved much and I see no reason why his achievements should not continue

What achievement? 

Delta V is as expensive as its always been.

Dragon capsule does what Apollo did 60 years ago.

So what? 

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

You seem rather emotional in your fabricated replies as to why we will not/can not/should not, whatever your personal cause/case maybe

It's because human space travel isn't just absurd. It practicality is almost impossible. 

We will have to invent an entirely NEW type of propulsion to make it practical. No one has yet.

Until then.  Musk isn't going anywhere.

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Do you know how easy it is to move a 3' pile of Martian regolith

Do you know how hard it is to get a shovel to mars?

Also there is no guarantee Martian regolith is 3 feet deep. God forbid we have to break rocks on Mars.

A single bulldozer would cost a couple hundred billion dollars to send to the Moon 

Musk is a cult leader and that is no joke.

4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Quite correct. Nothing out there. Other than the rest of the universe

If you can build a chemical rocket big enough to get your life support payload enough dV to get to Neptune. It will take 90 years to get there. 

What more expensive ship will you build to get to Neptune in your lifetime and for what reason? To mine methane? 

5 minutes ago, Area54 said:

In the short term (fifty years or so) appropriate shielding provides a solution

Do you know how hard it is to provide ANY shielding?

Am I talking to brick walls?

Delta-V is your space currency.

Right now it costs about $400 per m/s per pound.

That hasn't changed since Apollo.

So please tell me how Musk is anywhere close to the moon.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Try NASA for starters

What part of physics don't you understand? 

NASA paying Musk is outright criminal theft of US tax payer money 

The unit cost of the mature technology SaturnV is now approximately $30billion.

How has the unit cost changed?

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Thankfully many more in the know then yourself, disagree with you

Name one and their argument?

Being higher than LEO is like being in the Chernobyl sarcophagus

1 minute ago, beecee said:

4 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Expand  

Facts speak louder then online rants

What facts?

You mean that NASA spent $2billion on Musk for a rocket that MUST COST $30 billion dollars?

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

10 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

And there is no work to be done because there's nothing of any value out there.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

Yeah whatever.

There is LITERALLY nothing of value in space.

Do we need MORE gold? MORE iron? Do we need to pay $100,000 per pound of bananas because we can't grow enough bananas on earth?

Helium-3 was the best bet and it was recently shown that Fusion power won't even use Helium-3 as fuel.

So EVERY possible reason to be in space died this year. 

Satellites are it's own thing and a mature automated technology 

Just now, beecee said:

like I said and  that's why NASA has given that job to Musk

Boy you're naive.

NASA gave money to Musk because Musk is now a billionaire and can tell congressmen to give him money. 

The days of the US accomplishing anything are fastly deteriorating. 

The US is like Rome in the 300s AD just eating itself.

Musk has shown ZERO capabilities of putting anything on the Moon 

4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

And eventually a safe non-return, aka colonisation

No. There's nothing out there and no reason to be there.

1/4 gravity over a lifetime is unsustainable.

Radiation is too high.

I think space enthusiasts just don't realize how worthless space is.

Machines can do all the work.

And there is no work to be done because there's nothing of any value out there.

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

While the timeframe maybe a bit ambitious, the point is we will return to the Moon

China will return to the Moon. I don't know what America has planned but whatever it's doing with Musk is criminal.

Physics hasn't changed.

It still takes a Saturn V to launch a CSM and LM to the moon.

It takes the GDP of a super power to build even one of those.

Musk isn't even close. He's not even off by a long shot.

It takes something like 4x the dV of a geosynchronous orbit just to be captured by the moon.

Then you have to repeat all that dV to get back to Earth.

It's another doubling to land and get back up to LLO.

Musk can barely get into geosynch