The Astronomy Thread

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
khorum

khorum

Murder Apologist
24,338
81,363
The really heavy fuel is really just to get into orbit. Once in orbit, you can get to mars and back with TIE-fighter engines powered by an RTG if you're not in some big hurry.

Actually, some guys at MIT managed to get ion drives working on an airplane---potentially leading the way to drones that never need to land:



I wonder if that's been modded into kerbal yet.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
So they managed to do another one of those crazy thruster landings?

Impressed. Two in a row is spectacular.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1WTF
Reactions: 2 users
Gavinmad

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
43,962
52,738
khorum said:
The really heavy fuel is really just to get into orbit. Once in orbit, you can get to mars and back with TIE-fighter engines powered by an RTG if you're not in some big hurry.

Actually, some guys at MIT managed to get ion drives working on an airplane---potentially leading the way to drones that never need to land:



I wonder if that's been modded into kerbal yet.
Click to expand...


Astr0 specifically said land on Mars and return, not just orbit. We're talking about an extra 8000m/s of delta V to land and get back into orbit as well as enough thrust from the engine to handle the job.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Gavinmad

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
43,962
52,738
Chukzombi said:
if you took your fucking head out of your ass for five minutes you would understand
Click to expand...

You're the only one with your head up your ass you goalpost shifting faggot.

Chukzombi said:
i'll start getting excited when we land a ship on mars and then it launches itself back out to come home. thats when it starts.
Click to expand...

Chukzombi said:
not necessarily, i mean if its a self contained ship with enough fuel for a round trip to mars, then yeah, not gonna happen for a while. but sending fuel ahead for one of our ships to dock with and refuel for the return mission is something we could do within ten years.
Click to expand...

Chukzombi said:
i dunno about no bombs. everything we send into space is full of fuel when it starts off. sending fuel cells into space to orbit around Mars shouldnt be too difficult if we can do the same with satellites already. all it would take is have one of our ships rendezvous with the fuel satellite and then start up an automatic refuelling program. it wouldnt take as much fuel to leave mars than it would to leave earth. lower grav and such. we have the tech right now to send a drone to Mars and have it come back if planned right over the next several years.
Click to expand...

Chukzombi said:
i think gavin is thinking we are talking about some large space craft here, when all i'm talking about is something not bigger than a large model rocket that kids make in school. i just need a proof of concept. get some tiny little ship over there and bring it back. do that and then we can start thinking about making things bigger and more efficient.
Click to expand...

Start out talking about landing a ship on mars and bring it back home and end up switching to oh i just mean a model rocket, and then post a video of a model rocket barely breaking atmosphere here on Earth as opposed to a different planet 100 million miles away.

Fucking twit.
 
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 user
Oldbased

Oldbased

> Than U
28,526
67,584
It doesn't take near the fuel to leave Mars as it does Earth. The question is why do it without people. We have plenty of rust here on Earth.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
pharmakos

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,305
-2,233
Gavinmad said:
Astr0 specifically said land on Mars and return, not just orbit. We're talking about an extra 8000m/s of delta V to land and get back into orbit as well as enough thrust from the engine to handle the job.
Click to expand...

That's for Earth. Mars is significantly smaller and has thinner atmosphere, takes way less thrust to launch from Mars.
 
Gavinmad

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
43,962
52,738
pharmakos said:
That's for Earth. Mars is significantly smaller and has thinner atmosphere, takes way less thrust to launch from Mars.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ. It's almost like I said land AND return to orbit, which is why I doubled the delta V from 4k to 8k.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,191
214,514
Gavinmad said:
You're the only one with your head up your ass you goalpost shifting faggot.









Start out talking about landing a ship on mars and bring it back home and end up switching to oh i just mean a model rocket, and then post a video of a model rocket barely breaking atmosphere here on Earth as opposed to a different planet 100 million miles away.

Fucking twit.
Click to expand...
ive been saying the whole time the size didnt matter you fucktard. all it needed to do was get there and back. proof of concept.
 
Oldbased

Oldbased

> Than U
28,526
67,584
Elon will do it before USSF/USAF/NASA. His initial BFR's first missions was ferrying fuel and supplies to space. Since just 1 falcon 9 booster stage is very capable of leaving mars and having enough fuel to burn for Earth due to Mars low gravity, it would be fairly easy to get a shelled booster to Mars intact and even if need be LAND. The first hurdle is having someplace to even land. Makes it all dull when you think about it. Like Boring dull, or rather Boring machine automation.
 
Mudcrush Durtfeet

Mudcrush Durtfeet

Hungry Ogre
2,428
-757
Pretty sure the main point of the BFR _is_ to go to mars and come back (refueling on Mars).

If someone built a nuclear thermal rocket it could be done. Politically not feasible for the U.S.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
I wonder if the math gets better if you make smaller craft.

Fail rate is ok. Spend 500k each, send a bunch. If only 15% of them come back you've still retrieved samples at a lower risk than one multi billion mission.

Your probably have to launch nuclear reactors though. No bueno i guess.

And the math might suck to begin with.
 
pharmakos

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,305
-2,233
Gavinmad said:
Do you understand that when a delta-V map says it takes 9400 m/s of delta-V to go from Earth's surface to LEO, that figure remains constant regardless of what you're trying to get from the surface into LEO?
Click to expand...

Yeah I do now, I admit I'm a bit over my head in this conversation, but I also have read enough popsci written by people that do know that they're talking about to know that people a lot smarter thank chuk also think his idea is possible in current year. You're talking about it as if it's infeasible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.