>>7640566 If you have a shitload of old empty tanks lying around (As you would if you're launching the shit to make a wheel space station), you can refurbish them into habitat modules. NASA looked into using both Saturn V upper stages and later the Space shuttle's external tank as space station. Never got the funding to do it though.
>>7641139 Military spending is a lot higher than on the charts, as emergency spending isn't counted towards the military budget. Emergency spendings accounts for twice that of the military budget. So in reality, military spending is 3x larger than reported.
>>7641187 Depends on the fuel. The Space Shuttle and the Saturn V's upper stage used LOX and LH, Once the LOX and LH are out of the tanks its perfectly fine. Of course other fuels such as those based on hydrazine are highly toxic and getting near any of them without protective gear is a bad idea.
>>7641139 >>7641173 >Military spending is a lot higher than on the charts So is the science spending, since institutes like DARPA does top-level research. Some of which have led to technological revolutions for everyone. GPS for example. And things like federal research/university grants are not included for some fucking reason. Point is charts like that are retarded because A) They're too dumbed down to accurately describe anything B) They're made to promote some shitty agenda on facebook instead of having people discuss the actual data
>>7641240 1. Even if it was nitpicking it doesn't change anything about point A) and B) 2. It's not a few percentages. There's a huge overlap between the defense budget and money spent on science. Then the grant spending that is deliberately omitted easily account for a 100% increase alone*. Then there are institutions like FBI and CIA which also do government funded high-level research which aren't represented in any of the categories.
Speaking without even quickly googling basic facts makes you look stupid *wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_grants_in_the_United_States
>>7641278 >helping space exploration how again? Jesus christ how hard can you backpedal? You were talking about spending on science vs military in general. If you wanted to talk about space exploration in particular you would have reacted when DARPA or General grants were brought up. Case closed.
>>7641338 >You were talking about spending on science vs military in general. I wasn't. The pic I posted in >>7641139 was me, it was my first post and only one in this thread so far. Sorry you are too autistic to distinguish multiple anons. But feel free to sperg out more. As the other anons already pointed out, you are desperate for attention. I already regret revisting this thread, I shall depart again and leave you to it.
A significant problem with a rotating space station is how you pull off a bearing wide enough for people and cargo to get through, strong enough to handle forces caused by the station being off balance and thermal expansion, and able to stay completely air-tight through all this.
>>7641096 Honestly it's so fucking depressing looking at schematics and texts about possible space structures and other cool stuff knowing they will never be built within our lifetimes if funding continues at this abysmal rate.
>>7642687 What's really depressing is that if you go back to the late 60s, many of the Apollo Applications Program concepts that NASA studied would have easily been achievable if they hadn't had their funding cut.
>>7642738 >>7642687 >not wanting to spend 2 billion a pop (not counting R&D costs) on B2 stealth bombers which where used on average a whopping 2 times in combat against mudinhabitants who can't even detect regular planes, and then became "obsolete" so the next generation of awesome looking bombers can be bought to blow some more tax dollars into rich CEO asses it is like you hate america.
>>7642854 Actually those were part of an entirely different weapons system. The Casab Howitzer. Based on what has been declassified its unlikely that a casaba could be fired from a five inch gun. Although they may have considered more conventional nuclear shells for the cannons. I believe that the launcher for the Casabas was omitted from this drawing due to the fact that there are no declassified drawings of the system. Other drawings I've seen placed the launchers next to the naval guns, but I think that placement was mostly conjecture.
>>7642824 I assume that they had a method to deal with the recoil. In addition the mass of a shell is small compared to the ship, even when accounting for the velocity of the shell the ship wouldn't be moving much,
>>7642861 I think it was "We know at this point that this project isn't going to happen so we may as well have some fun."
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.