Wanna Go Into Space?
-
I'd like to experience micro-gravity (for more than the fractions of seconds that one feels when one jumps), but otherwise the current state of the art is much too primitive. If we had drives that could take us around the Solar System in a few days, I'd love to see Jupiter and Saturn close up. If we had faster-than--light warp drives, there are astronomical sights I'd love to see with the naked eye.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
If we had drives that could take us around the Solar System in a few days, I'd love to see Jupiter and Saturn close up. If we had faster-than--light warp drives, there are astronomical sights I'd love to see with the naked eye.
If we could travel across the solar system in days, that would definitely be more than enough incentive for me to travel into to space. This is why I find special relativity to be depressing. Then, we have quantum mechanics. If any two subatomic particles are in a state of entanglement, then a change in the quantum state of one particle immediately changes the quantum state of the other, regardless of what the distance is between the two subatomic particles. From what I understand, everything without mass only travels at the speed of light. If something has mass, it can only travel a tiny fraction of light speed. What would happen if we were to "turn-off" mass at the quantum level? If that could be done, then travel at the speed of light could be a real possibility. In terms of how acceleration dilates/contracts time? I haven't come up with any guesses. The more acceleration an object has in relation to another, the greater the difference in the speed of time becomes. If I could travel across the solar system in a matter of days, the length of time that elapses back on Earth in relation to the rate of time I experience would be greatly accelerated. That means my loved ones back on Earth would grow old and die in a couple of months. I know that's depressing, but I take solace in the fact that I have no understanding and knowledge about how the universe actually works. I hope someday that we'll be able to travel at speeds greater than the speed of light while somehow eliminating time dilation/contraction. Who knows what's possible, right?
-
Paul6124 wrote:
I don’t think it’ll be liquid nitrogen somehow
Oops. I meant to say liquid hydrogen.
Don't they use hydrazine, or am I woefully out of date?
-
Don't they use hydrazine, or am I woefully out of date?
Alister Morton wrote:
Don't they use hydrazine, or am I woefully out of date?
I think you might be right on that, but it's a vague memory. Hydrazine sounds like a term that I've heard before. I know that NASA uses more than just hydrogen and oxygen in rocket fuel. I forget what the space shuttle used in its solid rocket boosters, but if I remember correctly it was loaded with some sort of chemical that's rich in nitrogen. When it comes to the majority of explosive substances, nitrogen ranks near the top. Consider potassium nitrate. It's one of three main ingredients in black powder. I've heard of all sorts of things used for rocket fuel, but the chemicals used depend on what space vehicle is being launched. I've heard of liquid natural gas being used in rocket fuel. I have no clue as to what purpose that serves. Hydrogen peroxide can also be used in some way. I don't know of any chemicals that match the energy output of hydrogen with oxygen. That's about the extent of my knowledge when it comes to rocket fuel. You may be woefully out of date, but I'm just plain ignorant.
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
I'd like to experience micro-gravity (for more than the fractions of seconds that one feels when one jumps)
When I was in training to be an airline pilot, I discovered microgravity. I'd climb to an altitude of 13,000 ft AGL. Then, I'd push the yoke forward and put the plane into a dive. It took some practice to get it right. Sometimes I would dive too steeply and everything in the cockpit would fly up and stick to the ceiling. Other times, my dive wouldn't be enough to achieve a state of microgravity. Once you go it right, though? It's really cool! I've never actually timed it, but I estimate that I've experienced microgravity for about up to 25 seconds or so at a time. It's just like what you see on videos of astronauts playing with things in low earth orbit. I remember watching my car keys float up into the air. They'd float in one spot and rotate slowly just like it would be in orbit. Then, you'd eventually have to pull out of the dive, and everything that was floating falls to the floor. It makes a huge mess when that happens. There were some heavy items you'd have to bring along while flying. The FAA Regulations book was the size of a dictionary. I was fortunate enough to avoid it hitting me while pulling out of a dive. I'd always lose my pen, which was annoying. Microgravity is fun, but if you experience enough of it, I've found that it loses its luster. As long as there was the novelty aspect to it, it was a lot of fun. Either way, I'm still not fond of being within a mile of thousands of gallons of liquid hydrogen. That's some f***ed up s***.
There's also NASA's "vomit comet". AIUI, they place the plane in a climb, turn off the engines, and get about 10 minutes of microgravity before they have to turn the engines on again. It doesn't sound very safe, but compared to sitting on top of hundreds of thousands of litres of burning liquid hydrogen and oxygen... :~
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
I already am in space. :) But, seriously, I have trouble on Space Mountain these days.
-
lots of folks were Spaced Out back in the 60's. :) I would probably not fly in a craft made up of thousands of parts purchased via low bid.
>64 It’s weird being the same age as old people. Live every day like it is your last; one day, it will be.
-
f*ck yeah. real space, not just low orbit stunts.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
-
Don't they use hydrazine, or am I woefully out of date?
Kerosene for the recent Falcon 9 launches I've watched.
-
There's also NASA's "vomit comet". AIUI, they place the plane in a climb, turn off the engines, and get about 10 minutes of microgravity before they have to turn the engines on again. It doesn't sound very safe, but compared to sitting on top of hundreds of thousands of litres of burning liquid hydrogen and oxygen... :~
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
about 10 minutes of microgravity
Oh hell no. ChatGPT says 20-25 seconds. [Space](https://www.space.com/37942-vomit-comet.html) says 25 seconds ("How it works" section, near the bottom). [Live Science](https://www.livescience.com/29182-what-is-the-vomit-comet.html) also says 20-25 seconds. Even [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity\_aircraft) says 25 seconds. Any plane with its engines stopped won't experience 10 minutes of freefall, no matter what altitude it reaches. Gliding, sure, but you won't reach zero-G while doing that.
-
Yes, and I don't even mind that the current technology isn't sofa-ready.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
I would. In the future it may be no big deal, but in our lifetimes not many people do. Would be a joy to experience something so rare.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
about 10 minutes of microgravity
Oh hell no. ChatGPT says 20-25 seconds. [Space](https://www.space.com/37942-vomit-comet.html) says 25 seconds ("How it works" section, near the bottom). [Live Science](https://www.livescience.com/29182-what-is-the-vomit-comet.html) also says 20-25 seconds. Even [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity\_aircraft) says 25 seconds. Any plane with its engines stopped won't experience 10 minutes of freefall, no matter what altitude it reaches. Gliding, sure, but you won't reach zero-G while doing that.
I sit corrected. :)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Alister Morton wrote:
Don't they use hydrazine, or am I woefully out of date?
I think you might be right on that, but it's a vague memory. Hydrazine sounds like a term that I've heard before. I know that NASA uses more than just hydrogen and oxygen in rocket fuel. I forget what the space shuttle used in its solid rocket boosters, but if I remember correctly it was loaded with some sort of chemical that's rich in nitrogen. When it comes to the majority of explosive substances, nitrogen ranks near the top. Consider potassium nitrate. It's one of three main ingredients in black powder. I've heard of all sorts of things used for rocket fuel, but the chemicals used depend on what space vehicle is being launched. I've heard of liquid natural gas being used in rocket fuel. I have no clue as to what purpose that serves. Hydrogen peroxide can also be used in some way. I don't know of any chemicals that match the energy output of hydrogen with oxygen. That's about the extent of my knowledge when it comes to rocket fuel. You may be woefully out of date, but I'm just plain ignorant.
IIRC, hydrazine was used in the attitude thrusters for many missions.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Kerosene for the recent Falcon 9 launches I've watched.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Kerosene
No kidding? I know many formulations of jet fuel are very similar to kerosene. I remember hearing that kerosine is used in jet fuel because it burns more slowly than other petroleum chemicals. I would have never guessed kerosine to be a viable option for rocket fuel. Do you know what chemical(s) are used for oxidation w/ kerosine? According to a quick Google search, liquid oxygen is most commonly used as an oxidizer for kerosine. What would the advantage be in using kerosine over liquid hydrogen? ...Aside from the likelihood of a massive explosion... In terms of specific gravity, liquid hydrogen is very lightweight. I don't know the specific gravity of kerosine, but its weight-to-energy output ratio can't equal that of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Kerosene
No kidding? I know many formulations of jet fuel are very similar to kerosene. I remember hearing that kerosine is used in jet fuel because it burns more slowly than other petroleum chemicals. I would have never guessed kerosine to be a viable option for rocket fuel. Do you know what chemical(s) are used for oxidation w/ kerosine? According to a quick Google search, liquid oxygen is most commonly used as an oxidizer for kerosine. What would the advantage be in using kerosine over liquid hydrogen? ...Aside from the likelihood of a massive explosion... In terms of specific gravity, liquid hydrogen is very lightweight. I don't know the specific gravity of kerosine, but its weight-to-energy output ratio can't equal that of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
Kerosene and LOX is what I understood. It also seems that Falcon 9s use a shallower trajectory, so maybe a longer time in the atmosphere is a factor. : shrug : I'm no rocket scientist, I just write software for them.
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Kerosene
No kidding? I know many formulations of jet fuel are very similar to kerosene. I remember hearing that kerosine is used in jet fuel because it burns more slowly than other petroleum chemicals. I would have never guessed kerosine to be a viable option for rocket fuel. Do you know what chemical(s) are used for oxidation w/ kerosine? According to a quick Google search, liquid oxygen is most commonly used as an oxidizer for kerosine. What would the advantage be in using kerosine over liquid hydrogen? ...Aside from the likelihood of a massive explosion... In terms of specific gravity, liquid hydrogen is very lightweight. I don't know the specific gravity of kerosine, but its weight-to-energy output ratio can't equal that of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
Kerosene and LOX is what I understood. It also seems that Falcon 9s use a shallower trajectory, so maybe a longer time in the atmosphere is a factor. : shrug : I'm no rocket scientist, I just write software for them (not for Space X). P.S. "The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket uses liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) as fuel." P.P.S. "they are moving to methane as the fuel in their next generation of engines"
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
about 10 minutes of microgravity
Oh hell no. ChatGPT says 20-25 seconds. [Space](https://www.space.com/37942-vomit-comet.html) says 25 seconds ("How it works" section, near the bottom). [Live Science](https://www.livescience.com/29182-what-is-the-vomit-comet.html) also says 20-25 seconds. Even [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity\_aircraft) says 25 seconds. Any plane with its engines stopped won't experience 10 minutes of freefall, no matter what altitude it reaches. Gliding, sure, but you won't reach zero-G while doing that.
Maybe when the technology improves, Aircraft still use Bird technology, Rockets use Balloon technology.
-
Yes. I hate it here.