BF2S Forums D&ST - Science

Why do you keep calling me Flaming_Manc?

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

You also used the very specific term nuclear reaction. Which is utterly irrelevant.

I used the very specific term nuclear reaction because I can't believe that you would think containing a small amount of radioactive material would be an issue when the entire purpose of the mission would be the security of the package, even before the delivery of the package. A nuclear reaction would be the circumstance when all bets are off I should think.

All bets are off with a Hydrogen/LOX explosion. Let alone anything else.

source

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

You don't seem very up to date with current NASA objectives. Within the next decade they plan to land on an asteroid and plan a manned mission to Mars by 2030.

Jesus christ can you add?

Flaming_Manc wrote:

In the current political climate primarily because of the current economic climate going to Mars in the next ten years is completely unrealistic.

2030 - (2010+10) = 10 years

Jesus Christ can you read?

Within the next decade they plan a manned mission to an asteroid. Within the next decade is less than 10 years away.

I never said anything about a manned mission to an asteroid. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Why is it unrealistic? Apart from not being possible with current technology? What makes you think that we are capable of doing so? Because it would be stupidly expensive. Projects which would have costs greater than the GDP of the most prosperous nation on Earth are unfeasible any time in the foreseeable future.

What technology is limiting us from making it happen?

Space elevator technology would be the only way to do it in practical terms. You can't launch all the parts for a vessel of that size individually in such a way they could be assembled in space. If that was available it would make it more possible, but still not feasible.

You could construct it on the ground. That would be technically possible, but you couldn't do it in space. You'd also need to do shedloads of testing before you could actually construct it, which would all be very difficult and expensive.

Space elevator is not the only way to do it in practical terms. The next greatest human achievement in exploration could very reasonably require hundreds if not thousands of chemical launches. A space elevator would be ideal but not necessary. It is certainly not an argument against the technical requirements for such a mission.

When the Egyptions built the pyramids, they did it with a shitload of slaves. An achievement like that seems incomprehensible now, because technology has raised the bar for the worth of a man hour. The idea of quantity over quality in terms of efficiency is unreasonably lost on the Western world. If we wanted to get such a large ship into space and assemble it there, we most certainly CAN do it, it's merely a matter of will.

But again, what technology is preventing us from making it happen? You danced around the question.

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Dude I went on about how politically unfeasible it is any time in the foreseeable future. Again you are trying to pin me into a time frame I have said nothing about.

You have inferred timeframe in several posts as responses to mine. I have consistently maintained that there could well be applications for it if you're talking in timeframes of centuries rather than decades. You have refuted those points, thereby inferring a timeframe.

_wow_ you are so full of shit. Quote me where I refuted these points. For that matter quote yourself where you say nuclear pulse could be applied centuries from now.

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

A sealed container withstand a rocket exploding lol You are optimistic. They've done tests on this and they didn't go well. Source - Fortescue P and Stark J, Spacecraft Systems Engineering.

They also touch on these principles in Wertz JR and Larson WJ, Space Mission Analysis and Design.

All the design work done worked on the principle that total containment was impossible and focused on limiting the spread of radioactive debris falling to Earth.

WOW now you're giving me sources without content? Is it impossible to get a claim with a source produced in juxtaposition?

You asked me for the sources I was using - those are them. Talking about this stuff got me pulling my old textbooks off the shelf and flicking through my old course notes. That's where I'm getting this information from. I'm not typing out massive chunks of text from textbooks. I've paraphrased sections from them and you've ignored it all. Because you don't listen - you just look for links to Wikipedia.

You are just saying "x isn't true - sourced to a book you obviously don't have". You could be saying anything and sourcing it to these people as if that makes it right. You aren't even paraphrasing the tests, you only stating the alleged results.

Start typing.

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Damage to pusher plates is considered by many to have too high a probability for the technology to be feasible with current engineering - the results of the Put Put tests were hardly conclusive, there were numerous failures.

fucking source? Not even making the argument yourself, but pinning the content on "many" and no source?

I've got sources. I'll give you page references and ISBN numbers if you want. I'm not trawling the internet for stuff I can already read very easily from textbooks that are of a higher quality than stuff available online for free.

Yeah I want page references, I really want quotes. Because you give enough of a shit to argue but not to quote empirical facts from sources that will apparently prove your point in its entirety.

The thing is, people that are full of shit claim things to be true without sourcing them. They will say someone says something, they will state an experiment proved one thing, but they won't give the quote or show the data. You are either a) full of shit or b) too lazy to pull up the quotes. At this point, b seems unlikely because you could have found the quotes in the time you have spent arguing here and made everything very simple.

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

You haven't addressed the cost issue - which is the main factor.

How is this the main factor? Any en devour is going to be stupidly expensive. If using nuclear pulse shaves decades off of the trip, even a cost difference on the order of magnitudes could be debated. I never said it was cheap, but technological feasibility is a hell of a lot more important than cost in getting these projects off the ground. Yes cost kills a lot of projects, but there is no point in even debating the cost of a project that is not technically viable.

How is it the main factor? Tens of trillions of dollars and you're asking how it is the main factor?

Because even beginning to convince the public will take a lot, if you get them onboard it isn't difficult to pull out the pocketbook. The space race for example. Besides the fact that "tens of trillions of dollars" is not sourced and has most likely been retrieved from the depths of your ass.

Berster7 wrote:

No any endeavour will not be stupidly expensive. They'll cost a lot, a couple of billion here, a couple there - but not trillions. Certainly not tens of trillions.

and I say again, source

More on costings:

The basic rule of thumb for cost estimates is weight - which is why the comparison with the ISS makes sense.

The ISS has cost ~$100 billion to construct and weighs ~350t.

A lighter momentum based design for Orion might weigh 400Kt. That is approximately $100 trillion (or about 50 years worth of the entire US federal tax revenue) at roughly the same rate.

Also bear in mind that you'd need to test this and you can't do proper testing without a prototype - which would have similar construction costs (can't make it much smaller, because of the limitations of the design - make it too small and it just gets blown up). Orbital construction on this scale is just not currently possible.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-08-16 15:59:43)

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why do you keep calling me Flaming_Manc?

Why do you keep calling me Berster7?

touche

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

You also used the very specific term nuclear reaction. Which is utterly irrelevant.

I used the very specific term nuclear reaction because I can't believe that you would think containing a small amount of radioactive material would be an issue when the entire purpose of the mission would be the security of the package, even before the delivery of the package. A nuclear reaction would be the circumstance when all bets are off I should think.

All bets are off with a Hydrogen/LOX explosion. Let alone anything else.

source

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

You don't seem very up to date with current NASA objectives. Within the next decade they plan to land on an asteroid and plan a manned mission to Mars by 2030.

Jesus christ can you add?

Flaming_Manc wrote:

In the current political climate primarily because of the current economic climate going to Mars in the next ten years is completely unrealistic.

2030 - (2010+10) = 10 years

Jesus Christ can you read?

Within the next decade they plan a manned mission to an asteroid. Within the next decade is less than 10 years away.

I never said anything about a manned mission to an asteroid. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Going to the moon in the next ten years is unrealistic.

A mission to an asteroid is more difficult and costly than a mission to the moon. You just cut the point I was referring to out of your response and claimed only to have been talking about missions to Mars.

Nice backtracking.

The advantages of landing on an asteroid are far greater than the advantages of merely returning to the moon. I also said we wouldn't revamp the shuttle system in the next ten years - clearly the most achievable goal but we aren't going to improve on something that is still working in these economic times.

I only brought out the Mars point because I didn't fucking say anything about an asteroid. That was the only part of the response that could conceivably be refuting a point I made.

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Why is it unrealistic? Apart from not being possible with current technology? What makes you think that we are capable of doing so? Because it would be stupidly expensive. Projects which would have costs greater than the GDP of the most prosperous nation on Earth are unfeasible any time in the foreseeable future.

What technology is limiting us from making it happen?

Space elevator technology would be the only way to do it in practical terms. You can't launch all the parts for a vessel of that size individually in such a way they could be assembled in space. If that was available it would make it more possible, but still not feasible.

You could construct it on the ground. That would be technically possible, but you couldn't do it in space. You'd also need to do shedloads of testing before you could actually construct it, which would all be very difficult and expensive.

Space elevator is not the only way to do it in practical terms. The next greatest human achievement in exploration could very reasonably require hundreds if not thousands of chemical launches. A space elevator would be ideal but not necessary. It is certainly not an argument against the technical requirements for such a mission.

When the Egyptions built the pyramids, they did it with a shitload of slaves. An achievement like that seems incomprehensible now, because technology has raised the bar for the worth of a man hour. The idea of quantity over quality in terms of efficiency is unreasonably lost on the Western world. If we wanted to get such a large ship into space and assemble it there, we most certainly CAN do it, it's merely a matter of will.

But again, what technology is preventing us from making it happen? You danced around the question.

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Dude I went on about how politically unfeasible it is any time in the foreseeable future. Again you are trying to pin me into a time frame I have said nothing about.

You have inferred timeframe in several posts as responses to mine. I have consistently maintained that there could well be applications for it if you're talking in timeframes of centuries rather than decades. You have refuted those points, thereby inferring a timeframe.

_wow_ you are so full of shit. Quote me where I refuted these points. For that matter quote yourself where you say nuclear pulse could be applied centuries from now.

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

A sealed container withstand a rocket exploding lol You are optimistic. They've done tests on this and they didn't go well. Source - Fortescue P and Stark J, Spacecraft Systems Engineering.

They also touch on these principles in Wertz JR and Larson WJ, Space Mission Analysis and Design.

All the design work done worked on the principle that total containment was impossible and focused on limiting the spread of radioactive debris falling to Earth.

WOW now you're giving me sources without content? Is it impossible to get a claim with a source produced in juxtaposition?

You asked me for the sources I was using - those are them. Talking about this stuff got me pulling my old textbooks off the shelf and flicking through my old course notes. That's where I'm getting this information from. I'm not typing out massive chunks of text from textbooks. I've paraphrased sections from them and you've ignored it all. Because you don't listen - you just look for links to Wikipedia.

You are just saying "x isn't true - sourced to a book you obviously don't have". You could be saying anything and sourcing it to these people as if that makes it right. You aren't even paraphrasing the tests, you only stating the alleged results.

Start typing.

6 failures during testing in 1959. Designs were altered after each failure. It demonstrated the concept could work - but it went wrong more often than it went right. They were called the Put Put tests - read up on them. They are widely considered to be a successful POC - but also show the inherent risks.

ignoring all the points you skipped

I can't find anything about the tests googling "put put tests", "put put tests nuclear", and "put put tests nuclear rocket".

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Damage to pusher plates is considered by many to have too high a probability for the technology to be feasible with current engineering - the results of the Put Put tests were hardly conclusive, there were numerous failures.

fucking source? Not even making the argument yourself, but pinning the content on "many" and no source?

I've got sources. I'll give you page references and ISBN numbers if you want. I'm not trawling the internet for stuff I can already read very easily from textbooks that are of a higher quality than stuff available online for free.

Yeah I want page references, I really want quotes. Because you give enough of a shit to argue but not to quote empirical facts from sources that will apparently prove your point in its entirety.

The thing is, people that are full of shit claim things to be true without sourcing them. They will say someone says something, they will state an experiment proved one thing, but they won't give the quote or show the data. You are either a) full of shit or b) too lazy to pull up the quotes. At this point, b seems unlikely because you could have found the quotes in the time you have spent arguing here and made everything very simple.

You really want me to just type out paragraphs of textbook?

I don't understand why I wouldn't want you to type paragraphs out of a textbook.

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Manc wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

How is it the main factor? Tens of trillions of dollars and you're asking how it is the main factor?

Because even beginning to convince the public will take a lot, if you get them onboard it isn't difficult to pull out the pocketbook. The space race for example. Besides the fact that "tens of trillions of dollars" is not sourced and has most likely been retrieved from the depths of your ass.

Bertster7 wrote:

No any endeavour will not be stupidly expensive. They'll cost a lot, a couple of billion here, a couple there - but not trillions. Certainly not tens of trillions.

and I say again, source

Source? For the costings, basic extrapolations from your own source. Wikipedia. Estimated contruction costs for Orion (Energy limited design for more dramatic numbers) 1x US GDP (1968 - though space engineering costs as a function of GDP have remained fairly static since then, in fact they have slightly increased in many areas (the expensive big engineering ones) and decreased dramatically in others - computer based systems). That's into the tens of trillions already. That's based on ground based construction, which is obviously far, far cheaper. Add to that testing costs and development costs and you get a sum in the range of tens of trillions of dollars (if not hundreds). In fact if you work at the same rate as the in space construction costs of the ISS (~$100 billion to launch and assemble ~350t of materials) then the cost of delivering that bulk of material (40Mt) into orbit and putting it together would be a little under $12,000 trillion. Probably more since you are working with lots of hazardous material and there are extra costs involved with that.

Momentum based designs, the costs would be between 10 and 100 times lower. Still completely impossible.

You don't seem to get the immense orbital construction costs with current technology. Which is the biggest point here.

little something called economics of scale buddy

Say it is in the tens of trillions. So what? You said yourself that is in the range of the current U.S. GDP. Projects like this would almost certainly be international and take place over decades if not a century.

Construction costs would be obscene by layman's terms no matter where it is constructed. Extra obscene if assembled in space yes. But there is a huge difference between something you can do only under extreme pressure and something you are actually incapable of doing. I said

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's not as if the technology behind nuclear pulse isn't there.

Then you said "It isn't" and called the entire notion insane. Simply not true.

Kmar wrote:

I have a bud that could probably answer some of these questions with ease (he just aced Space Propulsion Systems on his way to his second masters) .. fat chance of getting him to register here tho ..lol. I'll ask him though.

I'd be very interested to hear his opinions.

Maybe I could email my old Professor on this. See what he thinks about it - but he was pessimistic about all this sort of stuff. He liked cleaner more exotic propulsion systems like ion engines and laser drives.

Kmar wrote:

I was saying I would try to have him register .. I literally just went from reading this..
http://i36.tinypic.com/9u6umw.jpg
to reading you guys talking about space propulsion systems. It would be interesting to hear something other than what you dug up on the internet in your spare time. Someone who does it for a living. That is all.

I did spend a year studying it at uni (it was that, cybernetics and robotics or databases) - I'm not going from what I've dug up on the internet, but from what I've read in my course notes and old textbooks.

It's not like I'm a professional - far from it (very, very far from it). But I have studied it a bit and propulsion is the most fun bit, so I found it easier.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-08-16 16:24:24)

And another thread made unreadable by lowing... oops, I mean FM.

wtf is this shite?

tl;dr

Can someone please give me the abbreviated version of the conversation here (the important stuff, not the incessant arguing)?

Thanks.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Formally requesting that posts beyond this point return to topic.

Leave this space blank. ON PAIN OF DEATH.















...

When I'm interested enough I'll answer to Flaming_Maniac (hopefully so that we can both understand what I mean ). It's probably going to be a lengthy post so can you, newbie13, (or any other mod) create a new thread for space related stuff/discussion and move all space related "conversation" from this thread in there?

This looks promising:

A Protein Killer Could Treat All Cancers, and Possibly All Illnesses
Source: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 … ry-disease

We have had a decent amount down here, we've gone up to ~64% for the first time since... 2002? 2003?

AussieReaper wrote:

http://www.crispian.net/ScienceMapv0.37.png

Some names on there I didn't expect to see (due to relative obscurity) but fully deserve to be there... whoever did this knows their stuff, impressed.