The International Space Station (ISS)

Discussion in 'Science, Tech, & Space Exploration' started by Toroid, Feb 12, 2018.

  1. Toroid

    Toroid Founding Member

    Messages:
    6,166
    • Like Like x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  2. Toroid

    Toroid Founding Member

    Messages:
    6,166
    NASA has cancelled an all women spacewalk because they can only offer one suit that would fit them.
    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tanyachen/nasa-women-space-walk-suits-sexism

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKpcJKSLxpY
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  3. Toroid

    Toroid Founding Member

    Messages:
    6,166
  4. Toroid

    Toroid Founding Member

    Messages:
    6,166
  5. Toroid

    Toroid Founding Member

    Messages:
    6,166
    Trash is a major issue aboard the ISS. My understanding is they even discard their clothes because they have no way of washing them.
    NASA Announces Trashy Award-Winning Ideas for Cleaning Space Station
     
  6. Toroid

    Toroid Founding Member

    Messages:
    6,166
  7. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    15,909
    It would be nice to have a space shuttle program once more to support the space station...

    NASA Live

    Today's successful launch of Northrop Grumman's Cygnus spacecraft that will deliver ~7,600 pounds of science & supplies to the Space Station.

    D4ZSejwW4AEhf4g.jpg large.jpg
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Toroid

    Toroid Founding Member

    Messages:
    6,166
    The Cygnus supply capsule arrived at the ISS.
    Cygnus supply ship delivers 3.8-ton cargo load to International Space Station – Spaceflight Now

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuQp8T8M2vE
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  9. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    15,909
    Clever idea, just don't push the engines too much...

    ...
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  10. Toroid

    Toroid Founding Member

    Messages:
    6,166
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  11. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    2,213
    The ISS was a colossal waste of time and money.

    We should have done a "US only" space station. Much cheaper and more control.

    What is worse is that in 2026 we are going to deorbit it because nobody is willing to pay to support it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  12. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    2,213
    Probably should have added that we should have created a space station with at least one centrifuge element if not the whole station.

    We know zero G isn't good for people, why keep proving it?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  13. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,330
    why even have space stations at all?
    focus on the moon or mars
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  14. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    2,213
    It depends on what you are doing.

    If you want to send a spacecraft to Mars you would want to do final assembly in space.

    Moon has some advantages - the gravity would mitigation some of the problems zero-G causes.

    Payload fraction taking off from earth is about 5%.

    Payload fraction taking off from the Moon is over 50%.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  15. Toroid

    Toroid Founding Member

    Messages:
    6,166
  16. Toroid

    Toroid Founding Member

    Messages:
    6,166
  17. Shadowprophet

    Shadowprophet Truthiness

    Messages:
    3,158
    I like Russia don't get me wrong. personally I feel Russia gets bad press in America for whatever reason. I mean in almost every boots on the ground war Russia has had our back. with that said. I'm certain NASA would help repair the leak if Russia would simply allow the assist.. it's sad that forign relations are so tense.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    2,612
    These are not a new idea. Could easily be a horrifying weapon but the concept is interesting

    Could Moon Miners Use Railguns to Launch Ore into Space? | Space

    Could Moon Miners Use Railguns to Launch Ore into Space?
    [​IMG]


    The United States Navy fired a projectile at Mach 6 during a recent test with an electromagnetic railgun, suggesting that early ideas about using such tech to launch payloads from the lunar surface might not be so sci-fi after all.
    Mach 6 (six times the speed of sound) is 4,567 mph (7,350 km/h). The escape velocity at the moon is just a shade faster than that — 5,300 mph (8,530 km/h).
    The Office of Naval Research work on the EM Railgun launcher is being pursued as a long-range weapon that fires projectiles using electricity instead of chemical propellants. [The Most Dangerous Space Weapons Ever]
    [​IMG]
    Magnetic fields created by high electrical currents accelerate a sliding metal conductor, or armature, between two rails to launch projectiles.

    In 1974, Princeton professor and space visionary Gerard O’Neill first proposed using an electromagnetic railgun to lob payloads from the moon.

    "Mass drivers" based on a coilgun design could be adapted to accelerate a nonmagnetic object, O'Neill suggested. One application he proposed for mass drivers: tossing baseball-size chunks of ore mined from the surface of the moon into space, where they could be used as raw material for building space colonies and solar power satellites.

    O'Neill worked at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with Henry H. Kolm and a group of student volunteers to construct a mass driver prototype. Backed by grants from the Space Studies Institute, later prototypes improved on the concept, showing that a mass driver only 520 feet (160 meters) long could launch material off the surface of the moon.

    An official at the Office of Naval Research, contacted by Inside Outer Space, said this of O'Neill's seminal work on mass drivers: "Very interesting proposal to use electromagnetic launchers for space vehicles. Considering the fact that the railgun is working with a small hypervelocity projectile, and requires significant power and thermal management, I suspect working out the details for movement of larger space vehicles/payloads is a long way off.

    "But I also believe that current efforts will be successful, and electromagnetic thrust will eventually be considered for other applications, including space," the official added.

    You can check out a video showing work on the U.S. Navy's EM Railgun here:

    O'Neill, who died in 1992, founded the Space Studies Institute (SSI) in 1977 with the hope of opening the vast wealth of space to humanity. For more information on SSI’s ongoing work, go to: Space Studies Institute | Technology for Human Space Settlement

     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. wwkirk

    wwkirk Celestial

    Messages:
    1,960
    My dream (nightmare?) weapon is a railgun firing an antimatter projectile. w24
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    2,612
    I think a rock launched from one of those things would suffice. But what the hell, in for an antipenny in for an antipound.

    This is a version of what an Abrams tank does. It fires a 120mm projectile in a sabot that peels away from a depleted uranium penetrator rod. 20 pounds of inert hurt traveling in excess of 5K fps.

    The Pentagon’s New Super Weapon Is Basically A Weaponized Meteor Strike

    The Pentagon’s New Super Weapon Is Basically A Weaponized Meteor Strike

    In 2013, the U.S. Air Force 846th Test Squadron and civilian researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory successfully test-fired a kinetic energy projectile, a tungsten-rich shell moving at 3,500 feet-per-second — more than three times faster than the speed of sound — on a specialized track at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. More recently, the Pentagon has tested the Navy electromagnetic rail gun’s hypervelocity projectiles with the help of conventional U.S. Army howitzers; the Navy hopes the completed cannon will be able to launch shells at up to 4,500 mph, six times the speed of sound.

    Explosives may be dazzling in their destructiveness, but there’s an elegant, almost Newtonian lethality to the kinetic energy projectile, explains Matt Weingart, a weapons program development manager at Lawrence Livermore.

    “The classic way of delivering hurt against a target has been to pack a lot of chemical explosive into a container of some kind, a barrel or a cannonball or steel bomb,” Weingart told Task & Purpose in a phone interview. “The violence comes from the chemical explosive inside that bomb sending off a blast wave, followed by the fragments of the bomb case. But the difference with kinetic energy projectiles is that the warhead arrives at the target moving very, very fast — the energy is there to propel those fragments without the use of a chemical explosive to accelerate them. The more mass, the more violence.”
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page