The Spaceflight Megathread 3.0 - Now with added boosters!

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > The Spaceflight Megathread 3.0 - Now with added boosters!

Beer4TheBeerGod: Aug 23, 2004; Ere we go, ere we go, ere we go, ere we go through the cosmos
Ere we go, ere we go, ere we go, don't know where till we get there. Da red wunz go fasta
Best GM on the forums next to Tias, even if he is a brony :v

Fishstick posted:

This is also a good read re: nukes for meteors

I had no idea that guy had a blog. Definitely a lot of interesting commentary (fun fact: change the pusher in the unit from tungsten to something lighter and you get a nasty weapon).

The blog posts about muslims, guns, and girls are kind of weird though.

DeusExMachinima posted:

Freezing of your terrestrial assets aside, if the defending company has any other mobile resources nearby or mass drivers on large asteroids or the Moon, they might be able to forcibly evict you.

What if claim law required a physical human presence on the body in question? Terrestrial claim law apparently requires demonstration of an intent to occupy. If you don't have boots on the ground, you don't own the ground. Might make for an interesting solution to the issue.

# ? Feb 21, 2013 17:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2013 11:06

Powered Descent: Jul 13, 2008; We haven't had that spirit here since 1969.

kippa posted:

So apparently Dennis Tito's new company is making a "major" announcement about a manned mission to Mars next Wednesday. Apparently going to launch in 2018 and will get to Mars and back in 501 days, there's a bit more info here: http://spaceref.com/mars/the-first-...rs-in-2018.html

Is this even remotely feasible? As much as I'd love to believe it, 5 years doesn't seem like a lot of lead time for something of this magnitude.

I'm skeptical, but let's take a look.

A 500-day duration implies an opposition-class mission -- a high-energy transfer while the two planets are close to each other in their orbits. This kind of mission has the shortest overall duration, but it has high delta-v requirements and you only get to spend 30 days (maximum) at Mars. It may even be simply a flyby followed by a free-return. (Interestingly, this JPL paper [PDF] says there's a near-optimal free-return launch window in 2017, not 2018, so I'm going to guess the plan involves a month in Martian orbit and maybe a Venus flyby on either the outbound or inbound leg of the trip.)

So what would this require? Well, you'd need an entry capsule for Earth return, which a Dragon would fit nicely. A bit of living space during the year and a half mission would be nice, so let's put in a Bigelow-style inflatable hab module.

If (and this is a BIG if) your plan involves actually landing on Mars, you're going to need a way down and a way up. For the way down, a Red Dragon might work. For the way up, some sort of ascent vehicle, probably placed well beforehand.

Now you need a lot of in-space delta-v to haul all this hardware around the solar system. Total delta-V for a conjunction-class mission is about 7.8 km/s, so we're probably looking at multiple upper-stages cobbled together in LEO, with at least one stage using storable propellants so it'll work months after launch to get you out of Mars orbit and on track back to Earth.

Finally, you need to launch all this stuff into space. Falcon Heavies would be nice, but if necessary you could probably get by with more launches of smaller boosters like Atlas Vs or Delta IVs.

COULD this be done? If money was no object, they started today, development went perfectly, and they didn't mind not testing any of this stuff unmanned first... yeah, they might actually be able to pull it off. But in the real world, I wouldn't give them very good odds.

# ? Feb 21, 2013 18:13

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

What if claim law required a physical human presence on the body in question? Terrestrial claim law apparently requires demonstration of an intent to occupy. If you don't have boots on the ground, you don't own the ground. Might make for an interesting solution to the issue.

Considering how much payload a manned flight would add to a probe that doesn't need humans on the spot to do its job, I doubt it. It'd be a damper on industry and probably cost lives that didn't need to be put in danger in the first place. If it becomes enough of a sore spot between terrestrial governments and in-situ propellant depots become commonplace, you might be right. But even then, legal tradition would be established requiring only unmanned presence to have a claim (else how did those depots get stocked from asteroid mining in the first place?).

Powered Descent posted:

COULD this be done? If money was no object, they started today, development went perfectly, and they didn't mind not testing any of this stuff unmanned first... yeah, they might actually be able to pull it off. But in the real world, I wouldn't give them very good odds.

The ISS tours of duty are only six months and require some special treatment to recoup lost bone mass. Eighteen months is a frightening prospect with so little prep time and experience.

# ? Feb 21, 2013 18:23

Beer4TheBeerGod: Aug 23, 2004; Ere we go, ere we go, ere we go, ere we go through the cosmos
Ere we go, ere we go, ere we go, don't know where till we get there. Da red wunz go fasta
Best GM on the forums next to Tias, even if he is a brony :v

DeusExMachinima posted:

Considering how much payload a manned flight would add to a probe that doesn't need humans on the spot to do its job, I doubt it. It'd be a damper on industry and probably cost lives that didn't need to be put in danger in the first place. If it becomes enough of a sore spot between terrestrial governments and in-situ propellant depots become commonplace, you might be right. But even then, legal tradition would be established requiring only unmanned presence to have a claim (else how did those depots get stocked from asteroid mining in the first place?).

Well the manned presence would only be required if the claim itself warranted the effort. So for example if a company probes out a bunch of asteroids and discovers the one they like, only then would they have to send a manned mission to claim it. But you're right; the economic costs of mandating such an activity would be prohibitvely expensive and no company would want to do the exploration if they couldn't guarantee the right of exploitation.

Still it would be kind of cool.

# ? Feb 21, 2013 18:35

uapyro: Jan 13, 2005

DeusExMachinima posted:

Considering how much payload a manned flight would add to a probe that doesn't need humans on the spot to do its job, I doubt it. It'd be a damper on industry and probably cost lives that didn't need to be put in danger in the first place. If it becomes enough of a sore spot between terrestrial governments and in-situ propellant depots become commonplace, you might be right. But even then, legal tradition would be established requiring only unmanned presence to have a claim (else how did those depots get stocked from asteroid mining in the first place?).

The ISS tours of duty are only six months and require some special treatment to recoup lost bone mass. Eighteen months is a frightening prospect with so little prep time and experience.

There are I believe 2 people special extended year long stays on the ISS in a year or two to help study the effects for long duration better. If I remember correctly, Scott Kelly is one of them.

# ? Feb 21, 2013 18:43

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

Speaking of fusion, here's a recent article I found on NASA cold fusion research.

http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-lenr-nuclear-reactor/26309/

quote:

NASA's basement nuclear reactor

By David Szondy

February 20, 2013

If Joseph Zawodny, a senior scientist at NASA�s Langley Research Center, is correct, the future of energy may lie in a nuclear reactor small enough and safe enough to be installed where the home water heater once sat. Using weak nuclear forces that turn nickel and hydrogen into a new source of atomic energy, the process offers a light, portable means of producing tremendous amounts of energy for the amount of fuel used. It could conceivably power homes, revolutionize transportation and even clean the environment.

Currently, nuclear power means one of two approaches. There�s fission, which involves splitting atoms of uranium or plutonium to release energy, and is employed in all military and civilian nuclear plants. Then there�s fusion, which involves forcing together hydrogen atoms to form helium and releasing even more energy. The former has been controversial for decades while the latter has been in the research phase since the 1950s, and is still as far away from practical application now as it was then.

The problem with current nuclear technology is that fission produces nuclear wastes and has a poor public image, while both fusion and fission involve generating large amounts of dangerous ionizing radiation. It also doesn't help that both processes require large, complicated installations with heavy shielding. That�s because conventional nuclear reactions rely on what are called strong nuclear forces, which are the forces that hold atoms together. Breaking heavy atoms apart or forcing light atoms together releases enough energy to run a nation or blow one up.

What Zawodny and other researchers are working on is called Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions or Lattice Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). In the late 1980s, it went by the name of �cold fusion.� Its proponents were light on theory and not very rigorous in experimenting. They thought that nuclear energy was being released by a chemical reaction, but this theory ended up being discredited. Today, not only the name has changed, but also the theory and the approach of the researchers.

�There are a lot of people who are trying to just build something without understanding anything,� Zawodny said. �It worked for Edison and the light bulb, but it took him a long time and that was a simple system. This is very complex. And if they make something that just barely works, and accidentally one in a thousand works really, really well, it's going to take down a house with their trial-and-error method.�

According to Zawodny, LENR isn�t what was thought of as cold fusion and it doesn't involve strong nuclear forces. Instead, it uses weak nuclear forces, which are responsible for the decay of subatomic particles. The LENR process involves setting up the right conditions to turn these weak forces into energy. Instead of using radioactive elements like uranium or plutonium, LENR uses a lattice or sponge of nickel atoms, which holds ionized hydrogen atoms like a sponge holds water.

The electrons in the metal lattice are made to oscillate so that the energy applied to the electrons is concentrated into only a few of them. When they become energetic enough, the electrons are forced into the hydrogen protons to form slow neutrons. These are immediately drawn into the nickel atoms, making them unstable. This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons in the nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. This changes the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous ionizing radiation.

The trick is to configure the process so that it releases more energy than it needs to get it going. �It turns out that the frequencies that we have to work at are in what I call a valley of inaccessibility,� Zawodny said. �Between, say, 5 or 7 THz and 30 THz, we don't have any really good sources to make our own controlled frequency.�

LENR is a very long way from the day when you can go out and buy a home nuclear reactor. In fact, it still has to be proven that the phenomenon even exists, but hundreds of experiments worldwide indicate that heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input do take place with yields of 10 to 100 watts.

Much work needs to be done to validate these claims, but it may already be happening outside of the laboratory. According to the theory�s co-developer, Lewis Larsen, LENR may occur naturally in lightning or even in the primordial cloud of gas and dust that formed the Earth. If so, it would explain why the oxygen isotopes of our planet and the Sun are so different.

If it could be made to work, the practical applications would be as revolutionary as what fission has achieved and fusion has promised. Theoretically, the process could yield several million times more energy than chemical reactions. According to Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center, one percent of the nickel mined per year could meet the world�s energy needs for a quarter of the cost of coal. In past years, several labs have blown up while studying LENR and windows have melted � showing that if it really works, it can produce an impressive amount of energy.

Zawodny says that the most logical first application of LENR is the home reactor, which would produce heat and electricity for the home while charging the family electric car. Another area is in transportation, with the light, portable reactors powering supersonic aircraft and flying cars without the danger or radiation. It could even be used to power a space plane capable of reaching orbit without stages or external fuel tanks.

One area of particular interest is the environment, with the LENR reactor using carbon to run it, converting the element into nitrogen. According to Zawodny, this would be much better than sequestering carbon dioxide to control climate change, and could also be used to eliminate toxic carbon compounds by turning waste into fuel.

The future of LENR is a matter of taking a step back in nuclear physics. The first generation leapt straight to strong force reactions. Now the goal is to go back and study the weak forces.

�From my perspective, this is still a physics experiment,� Zawodny said. �I'm interested in understanding whether the phenomenon is real, what it's all about. Then the next step is to develop the rules for engineering. Once you have that, I'm going to let the engineers have all the fun.� He went on to say that, � All we really need is that one bit of irrefutable, reproducible proof that we have a system that works. As soon as you have that, everybody is going to throw their assets at it. And then I want to buy one of these things and put it in my house.�

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42hrCRx1JJY

# ? Feb 21, 2013 22:26

OMGVBFLOL: Dec 20, 2003; ....santa?

I love the mad scientist logic in that one paragraph: Some labs testing it blew up or melted their windows, so there must be potential!

# ? Feb 22, 2013 00:21

Klyith: Aug 3, 2007; ...and finally, harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.

Charlz Guybon posted:

Speaking of fusion, here's a recent article I found on NASA cold fusion research.

http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-lenr-nuclear-reactor/26309/

That is cool as hell, but I'll stay skeptical just because in the last few years "scientist at NASA" has not exactly been the seal of quality research. OTOH I'm ready to be convinced. I firmly believe there are useful ways of getting energy out of QM "tricks" like this once we know more about how to manipulate atomic processes.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 01:21

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

I guess there are worse things to throw money at than cold fusion. At least Zawodny seems more level headed about it than the vast majority of LENR "researchers." I'll stay skeptical because he hasn't identified a plausible underlying mechanism by which it can happen, but like the Alcubierre Drive, this kind of fringe research could stumble across other valuable findings, whether practical to use or simply advancing knowledge.

GWBBQ fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 01:27

# ? Feb 22, 2013 01:24

Beer4TheBeerGod: Aug 23, 2004; Ere we go, ere we go, ere we go, ere we go through the cosmos
Ere we go, ere we go, ere we go, don't know where till we get there. Da red wunz go fasta
Best GM on the forums next to Tias, even if he is a brony :v

I'd rather see the money be spent on that than billion dollar defense projects that have a 75% chance of not being fielded anyway.

Beer4TheBeerGod fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 02:38

# ? Feb 22, 2013 02:31

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005; TEAM LIBERAL
Defending and rationalizing Democratic policy since 2008
Please note: I represent the farthest left of allowed D&D discussion. Going beyond this point may result in probation

GWBBQ posted:

I guess there are worse things to throw money at than cold fusion. At least Zawodny seems more level headed about it than the vast majority of LENR "researchers." I'll stay skeptical because he hasn't identified a plausible underlying mechanism by which it can happen, but like the Alcubierre Drive, this kind of fringe research could stumble across other valuable findings, whether practical to use or simply advancing knowledge.

He actually does propose a mechanism, a sort of inverse beta-decay. It's not strong-force fusion, it's weak-force fusion - turning an electron/proton pair into a neutron. The neutron is absorbed by a nucleus, which then decays and, it is hoped, emits more energy than the initial e/p combination absorbed. It seems plausible, at least.

Apparently there have been some pretty convincing demonstrations of neutrons being produced by this method, but not in a particularly controllable fashion. There's just enough evidence that something may be going on that it seems worth the craps shoot that it may be ultimately useful.

I remain skeptical but hopeful about it. My suspicion is that if it does actually work, they'll find that the energy input needed to generate the neutron is greater than the energy released by the nuclear decay in most cases.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 02:53

McDowell: Aug 1, 2008; Surely, Caligula was my greatest role

So long as fusion is just around the corner we don't have to develop proven fission technologies and we can continue using fossil fuels.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 03:12

Zaran: Mar 26, 2010

If you want to ask the question you need to post it to their Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/SpaceX) in the comment thread for this photo. Gonna hope to see some goony questions asked on the 1st!

# ? Feb 22, 2013 07:31

Fishstick: Jul 9, 2005; Does not require preheating

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

I had no idea that guy had a blog. Definitely a lot of interesting commentary (fun fact: change the pusher in the unit from tungsten to something lighter and you get a nasty weapon).

The blog posts about muslims, guns, and girls are kind of weird though.

Yyeaaaaaaah.. He's got some political issues going on (eg; 'Would be okay with getting rid of NASA if we also got rid of the Social Security Admin'-type of libertarian), but the space stuff is really interesting to read, and I bought one of those blueprints as well.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 07:45

thehustler: Apr 17, 2004; I am very curious about this little crescendo

# ? Feb 22, 2013 08:01

Senor Tron: May 25, 2006

Still incredibly dubious about this, but it would be amazing if it happened. The psychological impact of seeing humans fly past Mars would definitely make a future surface mission seem more possible.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 09:52

Fishstick: Jul 9, 2005; Does not require preheating

That's a long time to be in space. Isn't the longest time spent in one flight like 400ish days, and that was on Mir which was probably a little more comfortable than a mars orbiter.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 10:11

Zaran: Mar 26, 2010

About 438 days according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...n_space_flights

# ? Feb 22, 2013 10:17

Fishstick: Jul 9, 2005; Does not require preheating

Wasn't too far off :v. But yeah, that was on a space station with what I assume have regular re-supply flights. ~550 days of freezedried food, o2 and water (even with their recycling capility) is huge. According to this (which is really interesting), for shuttle missions:

quote:

Weight allowed for food is limited to 3.8 pounds per person per day, which includes the 1 pound of packaging for each person each day.

That's nearly a metric ton of food per person for a 550-day mission, not including packaging since I'm assuming you'd use bulk packaging.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 10:23

OMGVBFLOL: Dec 20, 2003; ....santa?

Fishstick posted:

That's nearly a metric ton of food per person for a 550-day mission, not including packaging since I'm assuming you'd use bulk packaging.

The excessive-sounding weight of packaging is probably because of the nature of freeze-dried meals. A mars mission would probably find some way to economize, but packaging would still be a huge weight cost. "Cooking" freeze-dried food is just injecting hot water into the packaging, so bulk packaging beyond "six servings of the same meal in one bag" wouldn't really be possible. And the merits of even doing that are debatable. They'd have to all eat the same thing for every meal, and divide that bulk meal up evenly. Individual packaging lets each person choose a different meal and ensures that each person gets the correct serving size. Also, the bag serves as the "plate" that they eat from, so one big bag would have everyone eating from the same plate, making it even harder to portion things correctly.

I don't really see space food ever coming in any form other than individually-bagged meals.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 11:20

Cannot Find Server: Aug 13, 2008

Fishstick posted:

Wasn't too far off :v. But yeah, that was on a space station with what I assume have regular re-supply flights. ~550 days of freezedried food, o2 and water (even with their recycling capility) is huge. According to this (which is really interesting), for shuttle missions:

That's nearly a metric ton of food per person for a 550-day mission, not including packaging since I'm assuming you'd use bulk packaging.

Couldn't they send an unmanned resupply craft to Mars before launching the manned orbiter and have them rendezvous to give the astronauts more food? It'd cut down on weight for the initial launch, although I'd imagine it'd have a huge impact on the budget.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 11:30

Breaky: Jul 21, 2006; STRIKE FIRST
STRIKE HARD
NO MERCY SIR

Just pack in a few tons of almonds.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 12:48

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

Hate to be a killjoy, but a Mars flyboy seems kind of pointless. If you landed on the planet you could do some really interesting science, but they can't really do anything in a flyby that a satellite couldn't do better can they?

# ? Feb 22, 2013 12:52

Breaky: Jul 21, 2006; STRIKE FIRST
STRIKE HARD
NO MERCY SIR

It's a valid criticism. But, if you can do a flyby, then you've proven that you can get people there. That makes a manned mission far more likely to happen. If nothing else it's a good way to test out all the logistics / technology needed for long term spaceflight.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 13:09

thehustler: Apr 17, 2004; I am very curious about this little crescendo

Breaky posted:

It's a valid criticism. But, if you can do a flyby, then you've proven that you can get people there. That makes a manned mission far more likely to happen. If nothing else it's a good way to test out all the logistics / technology needed for long term spaceflight.

Not neccesarily because the dV/engineering requirements are different for a braking burn into orbit with additional staging etc.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 13:11

Zaran: Mar 26, 2010

Edit: ^^^^^^ Just do it like in KSP and aerobreak that sucka.

Just got confirmation that we will be getting a webcast on the 25th for the Indian Satellite launcher, hosted by the Indian Government it seems. Webcast will be here: http://webcast.gov.in/live/

# ? Feb 22, 2013 13:12

Breaky: Jul 21, 2006; STRIKE FIRST
STRIKE HARD
NO MERCY SIR

thehustler posted:

Not neccesarily because the dV/engineering requirements are different for a braking burn into orbit with additional staging etc.

Sure. But we already know how to get slightly smaller things to the surface. If we can say "ok we can move humans across planets and keep them fed / sane / alive" that's a good step.

But, you guys are right, this isn't really needed as we could just do that in LEO as an experiment.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 13:12

Shanakin: Mar 26, 2010

Last time I checked we haven't really succeeded in long term isolation experiments that simulate that on Earth so uh it will be interesting if nothing else.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 14:34

Le0: Mar 18, 2009; Rotten investigator!

OMGVBFLOL posted:

The excessive-sounding weight of packaging is probably because of the nature of freeze-dried meals. A mars mission would probably find some way to economize, but packaging would still be a huge weight cost. "Cooking" freeze-dried food is just injecting hot water into the packaging, so bulk packaging beyond "six servings of the same meal in one bag" wouldn't really be possible. And the merits of even doing that are debatable. They'd have to all eat the same thing for every meal, and divide that bulk meal up evenly. Individual packaging lets each person choose a different meal and ensures that each person gets the correct serving size. Also, the bag serves as the "plate" that they eat from, so one big bag would have everyone eating from the same plate, making it even harder to portion things correctly.

I don't really see space food ever coming in any form other than individually-bagged meals.

Just design a machine that takes a big bag of X meals and dispatches the same dose each day? I mean this is simple as it gets. You could have various different meals packaged in bulk and the very simple device would split accordingly and provide food.

Also while eating the same thing for a long period of time would probably not be very interesting from a tasting point of view, if all the nutriments necessary for the body were there, would there be any problem? The guys aren't exactly on a vacation trip

# ? Feb 22, 2013 15:20

blugu64: Jul 17, 2006; Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?

Le0 posted:

Just design a machine that takes a big bag of X meals and dispatches the same dose each day? I mean this is simple as it gets. You could have various different meals packaged in bulk and the very simple device would split accordingly and provide food.

I like the mental image of a soft-serve machine in space.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 15:27

Fishstick: Jul 9, 2005; Does not require preheating

blugu64 posted:

I like the mental image of a soft-serve machine in space.

That's probably what it would be. Bulk-store freezedried food and have it rehydrated with warm water as it comes out. A dollop of meatpaste and a dollop of veggiepaste

to spread on your cracker.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 15:29

Unormal: Nov 16, 2004; Mod sass? This evening?! But the cakes aren't ready! THE CAKES!

Do you want the SoyCrunch or the Lentil Strawberry Supreme today, sir?

# ? Feb 22, 2013 15:37

Beer4TheBeerGod: Aug 23, 2004; Ere we go, ere we go, ere we go, ere we go through the cosmos
Ere we go, ere we go, ere we go, don't know where till we get there. Da red wunz go fasta
Best GM on the forums next to Tias, even if he is a brony :v

Shanakin posted:

Last time I checked we haven't really succeeded in long term isolation experiments that simulate that on Earth so uh it will be interesting if nothing else.

What about this one that ended last year? That seems like a success.

Le0 posted:

Just design a machine that takes a big bag of X meals and dispatches the same dose each day? I mean this is simple as it gets. You could have various different meals packaged in bulk and the very simple device would split accordingly and provide food.

That's a possibility, assuming the machine itself doesn't take up more weight than whatever it is you save. If there's sufficient flavor and variety in whatever the machine produces then it could work. Another option would be something akin to edible packaging, like a fruit leather material, although that could get messy very quickly.

quote:

Also while eating the same thing for a long period of time would probably not be very interesting from a tasting point of view, if all the nutriments necessary for the body were there, would there be any problem? The guys aren't exactly on a vacation trip

You really can't underestimate the value of morale on a trip this long. Even if you take the most psychologically stable people on the planet there's no way of knowing how they'll survive after almost two years cramped together. Forcing them to eat unpleasant food (and after enough time everything gets unpleasant) will exacerbate the problem and increase the risk of a human factor affecting the mission.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 15:42

Fishstick: Jul 9, 2005; Does not require preheating

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

You really can't underestimate the value of morale on a trip this long. Even if you take the most psychologically stable people on the planet there's no way of knowing how they'll survive after almost two years cramped together. Forcing them to eat unpleasant food (and after enough time everything gets unpleasant) will exacerbate the problem and increase the risk of a human factor affecting the mission.

Unexpected side effect: all the food gives you gas. Manned mission terminated at MET 168h.

I wonder how feasible 3D-printing food would be by the near future.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 15:48

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012

Unormal posted:

Do you want the SoyCrunch or the Lentil Strawberry Supreme today, sir?

Project Rho (and spirulina) to the rescue!

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

You really can't underestimate the value of morale on a trip this long. Even if you take the most psychologically stable people on the planet there's no way of knowing how they'll survive after almost two years cramped together. Forcing them to eat unpleasant food (and after enough time everything gets unpleasant) will exacerbate the problem and increase the risk of a human factor affecting the mission.

I think I'd snap and go on a killing spree armed with a spacesuit helmet about the time we got there and I remembered it was all for nothing/just a flyby. Another strong argument to wait for faster travel methods.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 15:56

Elukka: Feb 17, 2011

Faster travel isn't going to just happen on its own if nobody is trying to get to Mars or where ever.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 16:08

Ola: Jul 19, 2004

Eating in space seems quite nice actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZx0RIV0wss

# ? Feb 22, 2013 18:12

withak: Jan 15, 2003; F != m * a

Fishstick posted:

That's probably what it would be. Bulk-store freezedried food and have it rehydrated with warm water as it comes out. A dollop of meatpaste and a dollop of veggiepaste to spread on your cracker.

Crackers would never work. Too many undesirable crumbs in zero-g.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 18:16

Beer4TheBeerGod: Aug 23, 2004; Ere we go, ere we go, ere we go, ere we go through the cosmos
Ere we go, ere we go, ere we go, don't know where till we get there. Da red wunz go fasta
Best GM on the forums next to Tias, even if he is a brony :v

Fishstick posted:

Unexpected side effect: all the food gives you gas. Manned mission terminated at MET 168h.

I wonder how feasible 3D-printing food would be by the near future.

It's already been done with chocolate.

# ? Feb 22, 2013 18:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2013 11:06

Greyhawk: May 30, 2001; I CHOO-CHOO-CHOOSE YOU

withak posted:

Crackers would never work. Too many undesirable crumbs in zero-g.

You'd think so, but

# ? Feb 22, 2013 18:32

«‹›75 »

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > The Spaceflight Megathread 3.0 - Now with added boosters!