/sci/ - Science & Math

space is still 100km to me

>>10212245
Are they still developing that death trap?

though some argue that space only counts if it's orbital

two men, Mark Stucky and C.J. Sturckow.

>>10212248
80km is a much, much better boundary. http://planet4589.org/space/papers/Edge.pdf

>>10212252
Supposedly they expect to start sending paying customers into "space" next year.

>>10212245
The US airforce and FAA count 80km as where space starts. To many this seems more logical than the internationally accepted karman line at 100km; this is because, it's around where the Mesophere ends and the 100km mark is just a juicy round number with no scientific value. Anyway, both pilots have been awarded commercial astronaut wings.

>>10212253
That's a nonsense argument. If I launched something on a ballistic trajectory that went "straight up" 1,000 miles and then "straight" back down, would they argue I had not launched something into space?

Space is being in orbit above 100km.

honestly i never expected them to actually use that dumb plane

>>10212245
Space isn't real, this is the best you're gonna get after 14 years.

NASA had four payloads aboard
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/flightopportunities/Four_NASA_Sponsored_Experiments_Set_to_Launch

>Collisions Into Dust Experiment (COLLIDE)
The experiment aims to map the behavior of dust particles on planetary surfaces. Suborbital flights let Colwell and his team gather data useful for designing exploration architectures at the Moon, Mars and beyond.
The presence of dust on asteroids and moons with low surface gravity introduces challenges for both human and robotic missions. Particles can damage hardware and contaminate habitats. Understanding dust dynamics could help NASA design better tools and systems for exploration missions.
On this microgravity flight, COLLIDE will simulate the dusty surface of an asteroid and a surface impact. The experiment will collect high-quality video of the dust dispersing.

>Microgravity Multi-Phase Flow Experiment for Suborbital Testing
Life support systems are an integral part of a deep space habitation capability. They typically include processes where liquids and gases interact, therefore requiring special treatment in space. This two-phase system separates gas and liquid in microgravity. The technology could also be applied to in-situ resource utilization, power systems, propellant transfer and more.

>Validating Telemetric Imaging Hardware for Crew-Assisted and Crew-Autonomous Biological Imaging in Suborbital Applications
In order to live in deep space, astronauts will have to grow their own food. This experiment studies how microgravity affects plant growth. The experiment uses a biological fluorescent imaging instrument designed to collect data on the biological response of a plant, or plant tissue.

>Vibration Isolation Platform
Spacecraft and payloads are subject to intense launch environments. This mounting interface for orbital and suborbital vehicles is designed to lessen disturbances on payloads during launch, re-entry and landing.

So V-2 tier?

>>10212245
>virgin galactic
>sending one miserly human barely into space
When are we gonna get chad galactic desu senpai?

>>10212310
>In order to live in deep space, astronauts will have to grow their own food. This experiment studies how microgravity affects plant growth.
Fuck off, rotating habitats now. Stanford taurus hanging gardens of Babylon breadbaskets for outward expansion into the solar system.

>>10212371
>chad galactic

>>10212373
I hope you like grubs and algae soup

>>10212393
If it's a rotating habitat they're effectively under gravity as far as your plants are concerned. Then you're free to experiment all you want. If you're exploiting asteroids you're going to have plenty of raw material to feed your orbital farms. You wouldn't need to bring anything UP from earth except people. Everything else would be coming down hill.

>>10212272
100 km is a buzzword

>virgins
>Getting into space

It's really space if the sky is black, all these other arbitrary lines and arrogant definitions are stupid as fuck.
A private enterprise just went to space and will take people to space privately so socialists and communists have to downplay it as hard as they can.
All Elon Musk is doing is helping the DOD move payloads into space, Virgin Galactic is making mankind better.
80KM should be named the Bransen Line, the official designation for the line of 'outer space' from the earth's surface.
Bravo Virgin Galactic, you changed history forever.

>>10212471
Do it at night then.

>>10212252
Explain how that is a death trap more than any other barrel sent into space?

>>10212472
top kek, but I hope you know what I meant; when in broad daylight and the blue sky changes to black.
>out of the blue and into the black.
Space.

>>10212470
Of course Wizards were the first to do it faggot.

>>10212271
>If I launched something on a ballistic trajectory that went "straight up" 1,000 miles and then "straight" back down, would they argue I had not launched something into space?

Depends on delta-v. True definition of a space launch should be "payload achieves delta-v of 8 km/s or more". Anything else and it is a mere suborbital craft.

>if you slowly hover into outer space, you're not there unless you also did it following my arbitrary rules.
Fuck off.

>>10212272
Space is when the daytime sky turns from blue to black. Once you pierce the sky you're in space, orbit, or any of that shit, doesn't matter. Orbit is just one thing of many you can do in outer space. 100km line is arbitrary.

>>10212475
Yeah I know. But that won't happen at 80 km desu

>>10212484
>suborbital
You don't have to be orbital to get into space though.

>>10212504
>that won't happen at 80km.
You've been there?

>>10212504
You're right it happens much lower. Here's a photograph for you.

>>10212473
Humans in direct control of it. No "launch" abort systems in place.

>>10212551
Serious question. Who do you file the flight plan with for something like this?

>>10212338
Is it supposed to do sweet backflips?

>>10212568
Cars are death traps too. Unfortunately yes, when you fly into space, like when you drive your car to work, there is a chance you will encounter a fatal accident.
This is a poor excuse to discourage private space exploration, and just like with cars, safety feature rackets by the oligopoly will be lobbied in continuously create a barrier to entry (defacto socialization of the industry) to satisfy retards like you anyway, so quit complaining.

>>10212569
the FAA

>>10212569
You will be denied. Only elites are even allowed to try. Thank American Socialism.

I really hope this develops into viable alternatives to rockets.

60-ish miles is space though, not 51.

>>10212576
The big selling point besides weightlessness is being able to see the curvature of the Earth.

What's the point of this? There is no viable way to scale this to an orbital craft, it will always be limited to useless suborbital hops.

>>10212583
Sauce?

>>10212594
Space/Eco tourism and proof of concept for reusable suborbital shuttles which have been something airlines and MI contractors have been burning money on for decades with nothing to show for it.
I mean people take chartered flights around places with scenic value all the time, now there's a way for people with the most disposable income to raise the bar.

I honestly believe this guy has the best chance at moving large numbers of people into space. Especially if this technology is scalable.

80km is high enough to reach a skyhook linked to an orbital station. From there the passenger module could be winched up the rest of the way.

Face it guys, rockets aren't ever going to move a substantial portion of our population off earth.

Richard Branson is our best hope for cheap tickets to the oportunities in space. Lets hope he can get his shit together.

>>10212617
>Face it guys, rockets aren't ever going to move a substantial portion of our population off earth.

This desu.

Vid very much related:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMbI6sk-62E

>>10212501
Honestly this, space should be defined by a metric of particle density, and people should just argue about that instead of km

>>10212642
80km fits that bill. see: >>10212255

>>10212368
Jesus, it almost exactly is. Why the fuck haven't they just saved a shitload of money and made a V2, strapped some chump to it, and given him astronaut wings.

These people aren't astronauts, they're test pilots, which is still cool, but they're definitely flying a rocket plane rather than a spacecraft.

If I dip my toes in the ocean does that make me a sailor?

>>10212617
Where are you moving them too?
There's nowhere to move them too.
If you're talking about orbital habitats, off world colonies, asteroid mines, deep space exploration, etc, you need a shitload of infrastructure already in place, laid with more conventional means before you're going to be building space elevators to get people off earth. Hopefully by that then you'll have solved the materials problems.
You've got to get across the river before you worry about how to get over the mountains. Ideally the whole enterprise should boot strap itself.
None of that happens without viable economic incentive.

>>10212603
Webm: Wanderers

60-ish miles: Karman line

>>10212603
Looks like Europa Report

>>10212672
So by your logic we should just throw his whole idea in the wastepaper basket?

He isn't draining billions of government dollars rebuilding a rocket we already had once upon a time.

We have two potential futures; massive population decline or mass exodus from earth.

I know which future I choose and we need this guy to make that happen. Musk is no silver bullet.

>>10212691
>So by your logic we should just throw his whole idea in the wastepaper basket?
Only if you're mentally retarded and jumping at the paranoid spooks in your head anon.
What I'm saying is that you're putting the cart before the horse. Way way before it.
And if your problem is with overpopulation, it isn't about getting people OUT, but about getting resources DOWN, which is relatively easy.
Then it's just allocation and policy problems to get human populations stabilized and in check while repairing the ecosystem now that industry and agriculture are done in orbital farms and factories.
Then you can leave filthy earther scum where they belong, and the chad spacers can go on to populate the rest of the galaxy while babysitting their retarded siblings.

>>10212245
Virgin Galactic has been baffling me with its existence for over a decade now- it's easily the most pathetic of the private space memsters, including Rocket Labs. What's even the point of these retarded sub-orbital flyers? To ride rich plebs on a short rollercoaster- why even bother?

>>10212735
I can agree that it's a little early for mainstream use. However I'd rather get the R&D done now and have the tech sitting on ice till it's needed.

I'm not sharing in your sanguine beliefs about the future of earth though. We've been trying for almost an entire generation to get people to show enough concern about their environment that they would be willing to make sacrifices. They don't care and won't sacrifice. It's complicated but we are dooming ourselves.

Earth is overcrowded. We aren't going to be able to fix the environment. More resources won't help. It's all about finances.

If we don't start moving people off earth we face economic, technological and population collapse. Through climate change and pollution or through war.

We are looking at a war. A world war. It's the sensible option from here and we are running out of time for alternatives.

A world war will lower population without sacrificing the economy or our technology. It does not solve the environmental crises though so I believe we are already committed to moving off earth en masse.

Space as a whole won't be an elitest population though some colonies will be.

I see disaster at every turn. Our species is just too self absorbed to see the big picture. Something big has to be done soon and these spaceplanes are the best tech currently in use for getting a lot of people off earth.

>>10212821
Free Fall rollercoasters are one of the most popular kinds. Pretty tough to beat a 50km one where you get to pierce the blue sky into the black expanse of space, with a picture of you in it, at the forefront of the age of space exploration, retard.

>>10212884
>Pretty tough to beat a 50km one where you get to pierce the blue sky into the black expanse of space, with a picture of you in it
Nice romanticization, mouthbreather- it's still a retarded gimmick, that eats up funds that could've gone to somethng better.
>forefront of the age of space exploration, retard
Too bad it could never acheive orbit. It's a joke.

>>10212897
>eats up funds.
It's privately funded. You're talking about Space X and NASA, who aren't trying to let you or me go to space, but are taking our money.

>>10212897
Too bad the demand isn't to go into orbit, and those ones that can cost way more to launch.
He built a tool to meet a demand, not your inane and arbitrary guidelines about what counts as a cool advancement, which you would attempt to make look understated whatever it was, since it wasn't your communism that did it and never will be.

>>10212908
This.

Can only imagine what Virgin Galactic would have achieved by now with the funding NASA and SpaceX have gobbled up.

>>10212256
if one of those dudes silently stabed the side of the fuselage with a knife creating a very small holw that would go undetected until it launched would there be any way to stop it?

>>10212271
But its a shitty distinction, anything that merely goes to space and is not moving at orbital speeds is destined to go back down, its a mere stunt its not something nice and scientific that can develop into something more grand its like a trick the delta V is around 3% of that required to go to orbit.

going to orbit->means you can put shit in orbnit which can stay there for long periods of time or go to other planets if it changes its orbit

going to a height thats big no matter ho big with no orbital speed relative to the earth->its a trick yourt not going anywhere the sky just changes from blue to black then back to blue and you crash into the ground if youre unlucky or just go right were you started, a roller coster rie a no no nothing nothing ise ver done fwrpo

>>10212471
>Virgin Galactic is making mankind better
how the fuck? they just take rich assholes to almost space. Elon musk is literally making humanity a multiplanetary species making space access cheaper and therefore more democratic and accessible for all people and countries, hes literally enabling the tehcnology that will let us dream in big space missions again

>>10212371
>>10212376

>>10213063
Except sub orbital hops are a really great way to get around the planet quickly.
And arguing that you're not in space because you don't stay there is like saying you've never gone swimming because you're not a fish.

>>10212920
What demand retard
Who is jumping to pay millions a seat for a shitty free fall trip

>>10213191
You still need many times more delta-v to actually travel anywhere wuborbitally

Which means dealing with way more velocity

This scam has no expandibility

>>10212338
A part of me says fuck off, you're not orbital, and another says that's space

Which company is the chad one then?

>>10212470
I'm waiting for Chad Galactic's space flights.

>>10213048
It might take them weeks to notice.

>>10213093
Virgin galactic vs Chad Musk edit when?

>>10213380
The issue with tiny holes is that reentry will get in there
Suborbital hops don't have reentry heat like that

>>10213063
Okay I see your point. I did some research and learnt how far out geostationary orbit is, which makes a skyhook kindof impractical.

Is it still feasible for these craft to reach higher altitudes by going into an elliptical orbit?

>>10213354
SpaceX > ULA > Virgin Galactic > the dipshits making the SLS for NASA > Blue Origin

>>10213500
It's a bit out there, yes.

>>10213500
you need to get to orbit before you can have an elliptical orbit

>>10213553
Okay, so their 100km goal will not allow them to skim the upper atmosphere by utilising a rocket and gravity assisted boost?

At this height is it simply impossible? Do they need to push higher?

>>10213637
you need a lot more juice than they're bringing with them
orbital launchers from airplanes exist, the Air Force has one, but it's a tiny payload
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)

>>10213509
What are blue origin's achievements anyway?

>>10213652
They sell engines to other companies.

>>10212663
You can't land a V2

>>10212245
two people died for this.

>>10213083
>Elon musk is literally making humanity a multiplanetary species
imagine actually believing this.

Virgin Galactic is so pathetic.

>>10214265
Can't see any difference between any of these if you add NASA.

>>10214269
NASA's logo is all the way outside the solar system

I mean yeah it's technically space but it's still a fucking gimmick.

Pretty cool, I love the idea of space planes and hope they continue to develop their technology.

>>10214127
Wasn't it just one? And that one was the guy who pulled the lever when he shouldn't have.

>>10214448
yeah, only one of the pilots died in that flight, the other survived the airplane disintegrating around him

>>10213652
Next day delivery with Prime.

>>10213652
building and successfully using the first reusable rocket
musk couldn't even do that first lmao

>>10214510
Not really, the Space Shuttle, numerous sounding rockets and the DC-X were all reused multiple times. The difference between them and SpaceX, is that the Falcon 9 managed to make the concept of reusability practical and profitable; which is what none of the previous vehicles and New Shepard have managed to achieve. It also makes me extremely happy that Branson cucked Bezos yesterday, even if it took 14 years...

>>10214448
>>10214450
Another one died during an engine test even before that fatal test flight. They didn't know how dangerous the chemicals were they were dealing with and didn't have proper safeguards as a result.

>>10212484
But a rocket can expend 8km/s delta-v and never go above 1km

>>10212642
This desu. It works on any planet with an atmosphere, and also successfully labels non-atmospheric bodies as already in space.

>>10212245

I find it extremely interesting that sub-orbital spaceflight is back in the public eye again-right as I started paying attention. And if this tourism takes hold, the flights are going to balloon quite rapidly.

The actual sample size of suborbital flights is quite small. Mercury 3 & 4, the botched Soyuz 18a launch (crew aborted and survived, but got banged up pretty good), Joe Walker's X-15 flights 90 and 91, and the three SS1 flights from 2004 all got above 100km. These eight are the "proper, 100km+" sub-orbitals. Whatever German autist runs "spacefacts" doesn't even bother counting these.

http://spacefacts.de/english/e_missions.htm

That's by the real, international standard. By the burger standard (50 miles, or 80km, so close that it literally makes no difference in any case), only a few more can be added: 11 additional X-15 flights between 1962 and 1968 (one fatal), the Soyuz MS-10 abort from a few weeks back (topped out at 93km apparently I still wish I could see a better straight-from-roscosmos source on that number), and now this. This type of flight was going on a few times in the 60s, and a wee bit 15 years ago, but now we have some more samples just a few weeks apart from each other.

>>10212252

They (the Chad builders and pilots) didn't puss out and stop developing Apollo or Soyuz either, because they don't have the virgin-loser mentality like you do.

>>10216494
That would be still impressive feat compared to this glorified rollercoaster.

>my face when my normalfaggot friend smugly proclaimed that they beat SpaceX

>>10212248
>>10212646
>>10212255
True space starts at 600km, beginning where the thermosphere ends.

>>10216743
And to orbit instead of just fall back down you need to be almost five times further out.

It's interesting to see how much of the way a balloon will get you. It's a shame vacuum balloons are so heavy.

>>10216767
Yes, but "space" should be the lack of all planet influences besides gravity. That's because the gravity from a planet affects everything int he entire solar system to some extent.

As for vacuum balloons, even if they weren't so heavy, they'd be inefficient in short order, due to reduced atm as they attain altitude.

>>10216767
Well the ISS plops about at about 400km, but i guess it kinda relates to the definition of "fall back down", with drag and whatnot

>>10216743
>9miles=15 km
>31miles= 15 km
i don't trust your image one bit

>>10216908

>>10216908
Evidently, this is children's science stuff. Like what you get in 3-4 grades.

The chad Musk
OC - SpaceX Falcon 9 launch 46 Iridium-4 launch viewed from over 600 miles distant (550.8 exact miles from photo location to the SLC-4e launch pad it took off from, actual distance to rocket is farther, likely 600-650 ish or 1,000 kilometers as the phenomenon occurred over 2 mins into flight just after 2nd stage ignition).

>>10218343
Here's the live stream point of 2nd stage separation when the phenomenon became visible across the southwestern US, even 600+ miles distant.

>>10212576
Yes. That's entirely part of the flight profile.

>>10213652
First propulsive landing of a rocket from space.
First large scale METHOLOX engine.

Blue Origin are playing the long game, though changes in the satellite market could kinda make their New Glenn rocket kinda pointless.
Large sats are decreasing in quantity, small sats are in. Having a smaller launcher that is built cheaper and can be quickly integrated and launched is coming more in demand. Being able to launch 100 of these sats at once has its benefits but ironically it's more likely Electron will eat into this section of the market, especially if they're able to scale up their operations to the level they're after.

New Glenn could see itself being used as much as Falcon Heavy.

>>10218407
>First propulsive landing of a rocket from space

SpaceX gets that one. BO's first landing was from high atmosphere and not true space. They still have yet to match the height that SpaceX can reach with a landing.

>>10212256
Uhhh where's the diversity...?

>>10218490
>BO's first landing was from high atmosphere and not true space.
It reached 100km so it's fair by any standard.
It's less impressive than SpaceX, though, because it was just an up-down test flight while SpaceX put a payload in orbit with theirs.
I think it's unfair to disqualify BO for that, because it is kinda making the rules after the fact.

>>10218498
Look closer, the exposure is wrong

>>10218498
Looks like a pretty diverse group of individuals to me. Have you tried opening your eyes?

>>10218512
You are correct on that.
However if we are talking about the category of simply going up and coming back down without significant payload, then no, they are still not the first.

BO is Bezos jumping into the space race and badly stalling.

In fact, Bezos has already been using the news to try and make other companies look bad with shitty journalism.
Who do you think owns the Washington Post?

>>10218681
>However if we are talking about the category of simply going up and coming back down without significant payload, then no, they are still not the first.
So which was the first to reach space and come back?
And we are talking vertical propulsive landings.

>>10218694
>And we are talking vertical propulsive landings
My bad, misread that, you're correct

New Shepard is a fucking toy compared to Falcon9. New Shepard is about 23% the size and 10% the weight of a Falcon9.

No shit they landed first, its almost a model rocket

>>10218724
Hardly matters in regards to the achievement.
Yes, SpaceX did it on hard mode, and you could make a new subcategory for that, but BO was still the first.

>>10218728
The new category is reusable rocket booster, all that matters is that it put something in orbit and then came back down

>>10218731
>>10218724
>>10218728

That shit isn't a rocket booster. Its a tin can that goes up and down. If it could actually put shit in space that would stay there, it would qualify.

Fuck the fact that space x or anyone else does a vertical landing, how about we focus on the ability to reuse a rocket or whatever that actually does something? NASA put the space shuttle in space and it could come back and land on wheels.

>>10218731
>The new category is reusable rocket booster, all that matters is that it put something in orbit and then came back down
You see, but technically the Falcon didn't put something in orbit before coming back down either. The second stage then took the payload into orbit, but the booster had already landed by then.

So now you have "interpretation" of that category to deal with.

>>10218766
Yes, we agree. Falcon 9 is a reusable rocket booster
New Shepard is a fancy sounding rocket with a human payload capacity and an exotic recovery method

>>10218772
It put that second stage in space
The orbit capable second stage

>>10218777
Okay, fair enough. So the problem with BO is that they didn't put a tiny SRB on the top of their NS that would go into orbit after the launch (yes, I understand that would be difficult and possibly impossible).

Why are musk fanboys so insecure?

>>10218792
The problem is BO flew up to the 100km mark and came back down to a landing. Good for them, really.
But it wasn't functional, they didn't accomplish making a reusable booster, because it literally doesn't have the power to put anything into orbit. They made a model rocket that goes up, gets a good view, and comes back. It's completely for space tourism, and only for a few seconds. If they could reach the iss, moon, or even put a cubesat in orbit I would be impressed.

>>10218821
Okay, that's a fair enough argument.
So you can quite fairly argue that SpaceX achieved the first vertical propulsive landing of a (commercial) orbital class booster.

>>10216743
The space station is under that

>>10218999
Guess we should rename it to the ITS then.

>>10214447
I'm hoping that Dream Chaser succeeds at cargo delivery, so they go back to its original purpose of launching crew.

>>10218821
Maybe they'll be able to fill a niche with it
That flight plan is much less demanding on the rocket, and good cheap space tourism can only be good
You only need orbit if you want something to stay up there

>>10219093
New Shepard isn't really aiming for any niche other than space tourism, which will be find as a money earner.
It's a tech demonstration craft first and foremost. Working on all the technologies they'll need for NG.

>>10219302
I would say that they're reaching their goals admirably. I think they could have been a bit more ambitious with it, however.

>>10218999
The space station has never actually been in space though. It is just a NASA grant farm.

>>10218681
>In fact, Bezos has already been using the news to try and make other companies look bad with shitty journalism.
Who do you think owns the Washington Post?
source?

>masters student
>find new gf
>she told me she has a legit verified IQ of around 70
(which is in the mentally retarded area)
>is going to a community college
>can speak 3 languages
>has no problems holding a conversation
>just has trouble with numbers and remembering things

IQ is a meme

>>10219565
>Who do you think owns the Washington Post?

Nash Holdings, created by Jeff Bezos specifcally for acquiring the Washington Post. Evidently, he was doing something right, because others have tried to tear him down for "conflict of interest" in what the Washington Post reports on. Which is the most fucking laughable thing ever since every news media is top tier conflict of interest. It just means that, "someone," didn't like what was being published in the news.

>>10219016
>still developing a dead shuttle tech

I guess the military are still rubbing their dicks all over NASA's face and putting money in its garter belt.

>>10212338
Y'know in theory I'd like to go to space but I know full well I'd be shitting it and would quite possibly have a panic attack if I was in a small tube of fuselage tumbling through the infinite fall of the vacuum, being slammed right in the frontal lobe with the scale of the Earth and how miniscule and fragile the craft is.

Like you've stranded yourself far beyond what is effectively your universe, the small man made object you're in feels more like a Honda Civic than the Starship Enterprise, and getting home alive depends on dozens of complex steps all going absolutely perfectly.

>>10214101
28 seconds wtf was that by exhaust trail (black dot)

>>10212471
>conviniently ignores the massive governamental support these ""private"" companies recieved
WOW SO BASED N RED PILLD XDDD

>>10219754
It can't be as bad as the Total Perspective Vortex. And I could go with a nice bit of fairy cake right about now...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Total_Perspective_Vortex