Martian Settlement, 2090

ISS - It's got maybe five more years and then it's toast

I always duck whenever it flies over.. cause there are parts I made on it .... a scary thought

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh X-Man2

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ISS is an outstanding success! It will continue existing for many more years to come, many decades, many of its parts will be replaced by than, but it will grow and be continued to be serviced by the Soyuz rockets as usual

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh and don't be afraid of anything falling from ISS, if there anything that will fall out of the sky it will be Delta II rocket parts =)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If the public only knew of some the problems

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and you obviously have access to top secret information which prove ISS will surely burn up in atmosphere and there is no saving it...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

and you obviously feel if you dance in your tutu's enough problems disappears

 

Do think we'll finish assembling it, before abandoning it?

 

I hope we can keep it up there until we cant any longer.

Also phlo, Robbert Goddhard made the first liquid fuel rocket

And the strength of gravity and thus orbit is determined by F=G*m1*m2/ d squared

The fact is that it does not matter how massive the sun is, there is a bare minimum amount of mass necessary for a sustained orbit of a station at the distance between the earth and mars.

And that formula, is Isaac Newton's and has been proven time and time again.

So do you really think im talking out of my ass? Because unless you can disprove Newton's theory of gravitation your wrong.

 

Do remember, the soyuz can only lift so much. And in case you dont know the soyuz uses disposable rockets too, so dont forget that chunks of the soyuz rockets will also be coming down.

 

huh? what? did someone forget about chunks of US rockets going down too

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't know, given the money problems we are looking at right now... that's a good question

 

You already made that clear in your own post. Its just that someone forgot to mention that their own rockets also have large chunks flying down to earth.

 

It was merely a proof of concept. Not a production, working rocket. I have a rocket, it's capable of a greater apogee than Goddard's, but I am no rocket scientist.

Doesn't matter? Why is there a term for it in the equation you quoted then?

\( F_{g}= \frac {m_{1} m_{2}} {d^2} \)

Where does the equation you posted demonstrate a limit?

(btw, if you demonstrated a command of LaTeX, you might convince people you actually had some academic experience in the sciences.)

 

If you decrease the mass of the orbiting object (m2) you decrease the force of gravity acting on that object; but since the mass is smaller then the force per unit mass remains the same. For this reason even very light objects fall downwards, or remain in orbit. The only exception would be an object that was so light that the force of gravity is less than the light pressure coming from the sun; a solar sail for instance.

 

So what your saying is that even though there is less gravity working on the object, the fact that the object is smaller means that you don't need as much force. Right?

Huh, didnt really think about it that way, but it seems to make sense.

 

So you quoted Newton at me, without really understanding it? Priceless noob! Did you never wonder why objects of different mass accelerate at the same rate due to gravity, even though their mass is factored into the gravitational force equation? You never figured out that's because their mass is also factored into F=ma, and therefore their mass can be cancelled from both sides of the equation?

No shit. Now stop quoting equations and better scholars than yourself until you understand what it is you quote.

 

Oh stfu and get some self help you arrogant assinine jack ass. I can atleast admit when I am wrong while you simply change thje god damned subject when you are wrong.

Boy and you call yourself a scientist.

 

You mentioned Newton, while not understanding the implications of the formula you pasted. You talk out of your hat, you really do.

Please point out where I have changed the subject? I caught YOU attempting to do that several times.

I'll let your ad-hom slip without a report. I find your frustration amusing.

 

Soooo...... How large should the launch vehicle be to mars? I was thinking we should construct a large ship in orbit around the earth instead of launching it from the ground so we dont have to limit weight and occupancy as much.

 

Currently, we don't have a launch vehicle with the capacity to launch a manned mission to Mars, so assembly in orbit is the only option.

 

How large do you think it'll be?
I personally vote for something about a mile long. That could allow for a significant amount of people to be on board. And you could have multiple satelites and landing vehicles kept on board. And hopefully after the initial landing it could operate as a spce station above mars.

What do you think?