Astronomy and space exploration
- Thread starter eloic
- Start date
So apparently airplanes are also a stupid idea?
Do aeroplanes
1: contain a vacuum
2: do they contain this vacuum while surrounded by air at 1 atmosphere
3: can you think of another reason apart from passengers being shot and hijacking as to why they dont allow guns on planes
4: do you think its easier to prevent someone denting a plane 76 metres long travelling at 500mph when its at high altitude or a stationary tube 500 miles long running along the ground
take your time with number 4 its a tough one
heres what happens when a container holding a vacuum gets damaged
And to add extra comedy value the hyperloop will run though an earthquake zone
and run in the middle of a highway, imagine a car hitting one of the supports
1: contain a vacuum
2: do they contain this vacuum while surrounded by air at 1 atmosphere
3: can you think of another reason apart from passengers being shot and hijacking as to why they dont allow guns on planes
4: do you think its easier to prevent someone denting a plane 76 metres long travelling at 500mph when its at high altitude or a stationary tube 500 miles long running along the ground
take your time with number 4 its a tough one
heres what happens when a container holding a vacuum gets damaged
And to add extra comedy value the hyperloop will run though an earthquake zone
and run in the middle of a highway, imagine a car hitting one of the supports
Last edited:
Do aeroplanes
1: contain a vacuum
2: do they contain this vacuum while surrounded by air at 1 atmosphere
3: can you think of another reason apart from passengers being shot and hijacking as to why they dont allow guns on planes
4: do you think its easier to prevent someone denting a plane 76 metres long travelling at 500mph when its at high altitude or a stationary tube 500 miles long running along the ground
take your time with number 4 its a tough one
I think you probably know very little about air pressure.
At a typical airplane cruising altitude (~12,000m), the air pressure is about 20% of the ground air pressure.
For economic reasons, airplanes keep about ~70% air pressure in the cabin. However, that's still more than 0.5 atm of pressure differences.
It's really not much better than your "1 atm vs vacuum" situation. Yet, hundreds of thousands of people travel by air safely around the world daily.
Furthermore, the original Hyperloop proposal is not even in total vacuum. If you haven't read it before (which seems to be quite likely), why do you find it reasonable to ridicule it as stupid?
Yeah, and Shinkansen must be such a failure because it's invented in an earthquake prone country.
In this case, Elon Musk is the successful one, because his company managed to land 1st stage rockets routinely.
[EDIT]I think I need to clarify about some of these arguments.. the point is not about any specific details. All (or at least, almost all) innovations will be challenging. If it's not challenging then people would already be doing it. Problems like "vacuum is difficult to handle" is really not a very good counter argument. It's just a technical hurdle that needs to be overcome. If all new ideas be ridiculed as stupid simply because it's challenging then we'll still be sitting in caves eating under cooked meat.
Last edited:
in the alpha whitepaper its a 99.9% vacuum
then you answer my 4 questions by saying a plane is nothing like a vacuum tube which was my point
It's not 99.9% vacuum. It's a partial vacuum pushed by an air pressure (not unlike a pneumatic tube).
What you were saying about was, a bullet would cause a serious problem to a Hyperloop tube. However, if you look it inside the pod, then it's not very different from the situation an airplane faces (at most 0.5 atm vs 1 atm, which is not much). If you look it from outside, then it's the same problem with railway safety. How do you prevent someone from sabotaging a high speed rail? It's the same problem Hyperloop will face, and I believe can be solved in a similar way.
The only stupid thing IMHO in the original proposal is the cost. Elon Musk underestimated the cost by a huge margin.
Not stupid per se (hyperbole on my part) just highly impractical and incredibly overhyped
To cope with thermal expansion its going to need airtight expansion joints every 100 metres every one a point of failure and if they just weld the tubes together the tube will expand by the length of about 3 football fields between the hotest and coldest days and your going to need a very long platform to deal with that. burying the tube underground solves a lot of problems but massively increases the cost and makes maintenance a bitch
From the whitepaper
99 pa atmostperic pressure at sea level is 101,325 Pa thats 1000th of an atmosphere aka 99.9% vacuum
Last edited:
From the whitepaper
99 pa atmostperic pressure at sea level is 101,325 Pa thats 1000th of an atmosphere aka 99.9% vacuum
But as you can see in the diagram only Air In is near vacuum, other parts of the system is not. Thus "partial vacuum."
Therefore, it won't be a catastrophic destruction when either the pod or the tube has a puncture.
Anyway, I think this is OT enough. At least on this topic (space exploration) Elon Musk is quite successful, that's why I find that your opinion on him is quote ironic.
and it will be equal to the air out unless your suggesting the engine creates air ?
I dont have an opinion on him. I have an opinion on the hyperloop
The point is that this partial vacuum is not as dangerous as you made out to be. But no matter, because I don't want to argue with someone who just wants to argue.
Yeah, and then you said because of that his Mars plan is not trustworthy. Apparently Hyperloop is closer to the Mars plan than SpaceX. Again, I'm not willing to have a discussion with someone who believes that.
http://astronomy.com/news/2017/08/astronomers-map-antaresAstronomers have just mapped the surface of Antares
This is our best yet image of a star that’s not the Sun.
By Alison Klesman | Published: Friday, August 25, 2017
Astronomers have mapped the surface of the star Antares in unprecedented detail, producing the best image of a star’s surface to date other than our Sun.
When you look up into the night sky, you can spot thousands of stars from a dark location on a given night. But those stars only appear as pinpricks of light to the human eye; unfortunately, they look much the same to advanced telescopes as well. While nebulae and clusters can span hundreds of light-years, a single star alone is quite small. In the past, this left astronomers with but one star whose surface could be studied in any real detail: the Sun. But now, a team of astronomers has combined three telescopes to map the surface of another star: the red supergiant Antares.
This is the kind of image of another star we get with our current level of telescope tech, and even though fuzzy as it is, it fuggin boggles my mind!
The next gen telescope is still being built (whatsitscalled, in Chile IIRC), imagine if we had access to it already, or anything like the crazy huge prospects that have been made (100m reflector is probably the biggest astronomer wet dream seriously suggested that I know of).
What would Antares look like THEN?
The next gen telescope is still being built (whatsitscalled, in Chile IIRC), imagine if we had access to it already, or anything like the crazy huge prospects that have been made (100m reflector is probably the biggest astronomer wet dream seriously suggested that I know of).
What would Antares look like THEN?
That's exactly what I thought. This picture is amazing. I imagine how things will be in a near future...This is the kind of image of another star we get with our current level of telescope tech, and even though fuzzy as it is, it fuggin boggles my mind!
The next gen telescope is still being built (whatsitscalled, in Chile IIRC), imagine if we had access to it already, or anything like the crazy huge prospects that have been made (100m reflector is probably the biggest astronomer wet dream seriously suggested that I know of).
What would Antares look like THEN?
Magnetars are worse, from what I hear...Old video but still interesting nonetheless
I haven't heard about that before. Thanks.Magnetars are worse, from what I hear...
-------------
I can't wait until next year: two BIG, important launches: TESS and James Webb Space Telescope.
Also, let's hope the New Worlds Mission (huge occulter to block the light of stars, to better observe their planets) won't take too long to launch, either...
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/08/clockwork-roverNASA may make a mechanical computer to navigate Venus’ surface
21st century, meet IRL steampunk.
By John Wenz | Published: Thursday, August 31, 2017
A team of researches are still studying how a rover like AREE would operate in extreme conditions.
NASA/JPL-Caltech
Venus is a famously difficult planet to explore — but a new NASA proposal that borrows a thing or two from steampunk science fiction could make things easier.
The proposal, part of the experimental NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program, calls for a rover that is minimal on electronics. Instead, it navigates more like a clockwork construct, allowing for higher temperature resistant materials to fully explore the surface of the planet for the first time.
