Wanna Go Into Space?
-
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Don't they use hydrazine, or am I woefully out of date?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Don't they use hydrazine, or am I woefully out of date?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.
-
I wouldn't. I find space to be mostly dull and uninteresting, punctuated only every several hundred light years with something beautiful. May as well look through a telescope. Although it would be kind of cool to see earth from orbit, but I can already do that on NASA's website.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
Well, watching a game from a seat in the stadium and watching the same game on TV are most definitely not equivalent. Watching on TV shows you what is happening but you just don't have anything like the experience that the whole immersion in the stadium atmosphere brings. So going to space and seeing it through a telescope are quite different things - ask any astronaut!
-
Well, watching a game from a seat in the stadium and watching the same game on TV are most definitely not equivalent. Watching on TV shows you what is happening but you just don't have anything like the experience that the whole immersion in the stadium atmosphere brings. So going to space and seeing it through a telescope are quite different things - ask any astronaut!
My point is you're not going to be close enough to anything aside from earth and the moon to really see anything you couldn't see through a telescope, and at roughly the same level of remove, even if it is from orbit or something. Aside from that, I'm not really interested in floating. It seems inconvenient.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
-
The whole idea seems very cool. Zero grav. Seeing the earth from above. Seeing the universe from our atmosphere. The science of it. Call me a whimp, but the idea of "using the bathroom" in zero gravity scares me off the idea.
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
I wouldn't. I find space to be mostly dull and uninteresting
Oh, thank you! I didn't think anyone would share my opinion on taking a trip to space. That's why I didn't answer my own question when I posted this thread. If I were offered the opportunity to travel into space, I'd respond with a halfhearted "Nah... Thanks, though" There's nothing up there. Why would I want to travel to visit nothing? I don't know. There's plenty of space junk floating around. There might be the occasional micrometeoroid, some space dust, and... Well, that's about it. What would happen if you went on one of those space tourism rides, and someone in the capsule vomited from weightlessness? You're trapped in a tiny little capsule, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's bad enough when someone vomits while on Earth, but in microgravity? The little blobs of vomit would be floating all over. There's nothing you can do. I know that if you were in space and someone vomited in that little capsule, it could easily make other people gag and vomit too. Then there's the liquid hydrogen. I'm not going near that s***. I won't go within a mile of any launchpad with a fueled rocket. Then there's the countdown till launch. You just sit there, trapped inside what's essentially a tin can perched atop thousands of gallons of liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen. If that's not enough, they light it on fire. What a great idea. Let's go sit atop a controlled explosion and get hurled 62 miles straight up into absolutely nothing. You can't even bring beer with you. I don't know if a keg of beer could fit inside the capsule, but that would be awesome. You could get completely wasted drunk while waiting on the launchpad. You could light up a couple of joints and hotbox the capsule. If you've got to be trapped inside that thing, you might as well do something to make it fun.
Quote:
if you were in space and someone vomited in that little capsule, it could easily make other people gag and vomit too.
Have you seen the movie, "Stand By Me"? The vengeance of Davey "Larda$$" Hogan at the Great Tri-County Pie Eating Contest is epic. X|
Cheers, Mike Fidler "I intend to live forever - so far, so good." Steven Wright "I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met." Also Steven Wright "I'm addicted to placebos. I could quit, but it wouldn't matter." Steven Wright yet again.
-
For a while, I would have wanted to go to Mars, but not anymore. There are the dangers - radiation, collisions with micro thingies, the risk of missing the target or supply vessels missing it, and so on. But the main problem for me probably would be spending the eight month journey going there, with 3 other people in a very small capsule. Ouch! And according to one of the moon landers, there tends to be a certain smell after a while. That being said, I have asked my wife it she would allow me to go, and she said yes. Should humans go to Mars at all? I don't think so, but I certainly hope we do. Before I figuratively leave Earth ( close to 70 now). pibbuR who still would like to go to the moon. To for a short while be as far from Norway as possible.
-
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.