>Launch vehicles and spacecraft
>Astronomy and astrophysics
>Manned and unmanned missions
>Past / present / future of any space agencies and companies
>School and work in space-related fields
>Space in media / entertainment
Specialized in thermofluids in mechanical engineering, but I want to work on space hardware after my masters (Im in purdues aero astro masters program). People are just expecting me to continue on with my knowledge of thermofluids etc and dont really see my work as "astronaut experience." Have I made a grand mistake? I specialized in fluids because it was my only way into a top program like this, but now im competing with 22 year olds with flight experience whose dads were astronauts
>born just in time to see the colonization of the solar system
>born just in time to walk on Mars
>born just in time to see America develop 7 new rockets in 10 years
>born just in time to see the first dedicated ice giant exploration missions
>born just in time to see industry set up on the moon
>born just in time to learn what dark matter and energy are
>born just in time to see fusion power happen
feels good man
>tfw world governments focus on retarded shit like taxes and gender equality instead of advancing humanity and following our manifest destiny to the heavens
I wish Hitler were still here.
We'd be on fucking Alpha Centauri by now
So these guys are doing smallsat airlaunch (from an F-15):
The interesting bit for me is that they intend for their second stage to be fueled with a mixture of nitrous oxide and acetylene. A blend of an energetic oxidizer with an energetic fuel, one of which is so unstable that it can't be stored under compression on its own.
That's quite a thing to launch from an expensive fighter jet.
>What progress has there been since the last 40 years exactly?
There has been dramatic progress in enabling technologies for spaceflight. Computers, sensors, combustion simulation, automated production, material science, etc.
Furthermore, many systems have been designed and patented, and the patents have lapsed. Things that were cutting edge have become topics routinely discussed in undergraduate courses. And while launch vehicles have only become more reliable, there have been great advances in the capabilities and design process of spacecraft. Satellites, rather than being one-off jobs, are built on top of standard buses.
There's this great toolbox now.
Furthermore, for much of the past 40 years it was explicitly forbidden, or quietly discouraged, in pretty much all of the world, for private entities to develop and operate rockets, without it being a government contract.
About ten years ago, the USA passed a law directing the relevant regulatory agencies to support and encourage private spaceflight, including manned private spaceflight, and various levels of government have put considerable subsidies into it.
It takes a while to get people to understand that, yes, we're actually allowed to do this now, and to raise money and develop actual technologies. There's an explosion of capability and cost-effectiveness building up.
OP from first thread here
I'd like to update the OP, if the OP here is in agreement, I'll create a new thread with the updates and we can migrate to that one. I feel like I'm gonna keep missing the window in between the post limit and the creation of a new thread so I'd like to do this now before this thread gets a lot of posts
>I'll create a new thread with the updates and we can migrate to that one
Don't do that shit.
"Space General" is the only line that matters. Nobody's going to follow any rules you try to set. This is 4chan.
If you have stuff to add, just fucking post in the thread.
If you have something that deserves a separate thread, start a separate thread. Don't try and hijack a general thread because you think your ideas are super special and deserve to be in the OP of a thread that'll get bumped with unrelated discussion whether anyone cares about your contribution or not.
Try to grasp the concept of a general thread.
No, you completely missed the point. They found water, but realized they can't take the rover anywhere near it for fear of contamination. Now that you understand that, reread the question genius and try again
>The Pentagon on Friday declined to waive a U.S. law banning the use of Russian rocket engines for military and spy satellite launches, rejecting an urgent request from United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing Co.
>ULA, the monopoly provider of such launches since its creation in 2006, has said it needs the waiver to compete against privately held Space Exploration Technologies Corp, or SpaceX, in a new U.S. Air Force competition for satellite launches. Bids are due for the competition by Nov. 16.
Top fucking kek. Looks like the entrenched space lobby is having trouble with their government buddies.
Orbital ATK is only planning to launch 4 more times with those engines. After that, they'll likely go with a solid lower stage (or, likely, two solid stages to replace the liquid lower stage) from the ATK side of the merger.
All-solid's really not a bad design. Without any high-performance mechanical parts, you can just stick the payload on top and send it up. That's why they use it for ICBMs.
Oh look, more disinfo from the SpaceX fanfaggot club.
>The same government that pays more for Soyuz launches than making sure we fully fund the CCP
Even in the worst proposed appropriations bills, the percentage of funding requested vs actually appropriated is well into the 90% range. Just two years ago it was less than 50% funded.
>The same government that isn't getting onto Orbital ATK for using Russian engines
Orbital is not going to launch national security payloads using the Antares rocket. That is where the entire contravention around the RD-180 stems from.
>Orbital ATK is only planning to launch 4 more times with those engines.
Orbital is switching to the RD-181 on the Antares, which they intend to use for the rest of CRS-1 and all of CRS-2
>Orbital is not going to launch national security payloads using the Antares rocket. That is where the entire contravention around the RD-180 stems from.
Uh, no. The issue is that Russia is being economically sanctioned after annexing Crimea, and sending millions of dollars to Russia for rocket engines violates those sanctions. It has nothing to do with what the engines are being used for.
Russia has made noises about denying rocket engines if they would be used for national security payloads, but on the American side it's about economic sanctions.
>Orbital is switching to the RD-181 on the Antares, which they intend to use for the rest of CRS-1 and all of CRS-2
Orbital ATK ("Orbital" no longer exists) has ordered Atlas Vs for some CRS-1 launches. CRS-2 contracts haven't been awarded yet, and the details of the proposals are not public information.
ATK was pushing solid boosters at every opportunity before the merger. Likely the only reasons they went with the RD-181 were:
- the new solid booster would not be ready fast enough
- inventory of partially-completed Antares first stages
Orbital ATK is almost certainly introducing an all solid launch vehicle in the next five years, in particular to compete on the commercial market. That shit is cheap, so it will be interesting to see.
It's hard to see how that could compete with reusable launch vehicles from SpaceX and Blue Origin.
I think they're more interested in the national security market, having an inventory of large orbital rockets that can launch on a few days' notice to counter antisatellite strikes or launch a secret payload with no observable preparations, possibly without depending on a small number of launchpads which might be targetted (or lost to accidents).
From ICBMs and other missiles, ATK has lots of experience with "0th stage" systems to pop a rocket far enough into the air to light the main engine without damaging stuff or needing an elaborate launchpad.
Some astrophysicists (mainly pop) and scifi writers often mention or portray black holes as portals. Wouldn't you and whatever you're inside be pulled apart into pieces before getting anywhere near the centre?
>Wouldn't you and whatever you're inside be pulled apart into pieces before getting anywhere near the centre?
Yes absolutley, you'd be subject to 'spaghettification' , wherein your body would be stretched to a point where it would snap in half. These process would then be repeated for the two halves, and the the halves of those halves until your body is a pool of atoms sucked into the black hole. This happens even before hitting the event horizon as well.
That being said no one actually knows what happens in a black hole which can give authors creative license
that's only for small mass black holes
supermassive black holes with billions of solar masses would have event horizons much further out than the spagghetification radius
you could cross the event horizon of such supermassives with non-lethal tidal forces
Undergraduate in mechanical engineering here, what's the best way to enter the space industry when your country has no space program? Do I have no choice but to emigrate to freedomland or something
Literally just stop posting...
>The issue is that Russia is being economically sanctioned after annexing Crimea
Orbital has never been asked to stop using Russian engines. Only ULA has been asked to do this, because they launch US Government payloads.
Also, they didn't go with an "all solid" option because that would mean developing an entirely new rocket.
The only solid launch vehicle they have in the works is one for use on the stratolaunch aircraft.