|
Whitlam posted:I work for a Member of Parliament, and our government is currently removing 50 of them. Two are in our electorate. Multiple times a week I have to deal with people insisting they're not time-consuming (down for 30 minutes of the daily two hour peak period) and perfectly safe (two children under the age of 12 have been killed, one person suffered permanent brain damage) and "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." They modified a bunch over the years with underpasses with the rail going above, vice-versa, but many remain and some are very, very old. Also there is a long stretch of Provincial Road 116 that has railroad crossings as entry/exit for several small towns and it breaks down all the time causing the fences/lights to activate and block traffic for 1+ hour at a time even if no train was present. When that happens it causes massive traffic that lasts hours after normal rush hour usually ends. So if that's not time consuming, I don't know what it is Pretty sure those same people who say they don't care or it's not worth it would be the first with to take pitchforks and torches if something happened to their families though.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 15:09 |
|
|
# ? May 31, 2024 06:01 |
|
musk can't even reliably land the unmanned rockets on his barge so I don't think the manned version is ever happening
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 15:30 |
|
actually could you even do course changes with a suborbital launch? I'm picturing the sea state suddenly changing after launch preventing a landing
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 15:33 |
|
OTOH I am 100% behind shoving rich people into rockets and shooting them into space.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 15:36 |
|
The Lone Badger posted:OTOH I am 100% behind shoving rich people into rockets and shooting them into space. Rich people create jobs and their wealth will trickle down one day.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 15:42 |
|
oohhboy posted:The costs are going to be astronomical no matter how reusable it is. Even if you could turn it around like a normal passenger jet you have to deal with Concord economics that didn't work even in what is the biggest route for rich assholes that don't have noise problems. There were profitable Concorde routes, in that the flights themselves covered their own operating expenses and made a profit. quote:Man rated rockets don't really have a safe abort either other than riding it up until you can detach assuming you don't just explode or the range officer blows you up because you are going to hit a city. Yes, yes they do. The Space Shuttle didn't because it was poo poo, but launch escape systems are a thing and man-rated rockets have them. Apollo had one, Mercury had one, Soyuz has one, Orion will have one. Here's SpaceX's for the Dragon 2 capsule: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8 Apollo's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ Soyuz. This one had people in it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7LTdfBfOVY Raskolnikov38 posted:musk can't even reliably land the unmanned rockets on his barge so I don't think the manned version is ever happening Not that this isn't a really questionable idea, but how do you figure that SpaceX hasn't reliably been landing unmanned rockets? The last time a malfunction led to a landing failure was in January of 2016. The two subsequent failures were low-probability-of-success in the first place because the mission profile meant they were probably going to run out of fuel on the way down. Since that January '16 failure they've landed 15 of them. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Oct 6, 2017 |
# ? Oct 6, 2017 15:50 |
|
The point to point rocket transport idea is just a way to get press coverage, I'd be shocked if it ever really came about.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 16:31 |
|
oohhboy posted:Man rated rockets don't really have a safe abort either other than riding it up until you can detach assuming you don't just explode or the range officer blows you up because you are going to hit a city. No, that was just the Space Shuttle sucking rear end. Pretty much everything else has a decent launch abort system. Here's Apollo's working as intended (amusingly, when the rocket they were going to deliberately trigger the launch abort test on fails), and here's a test of Dragon 2's. They haven't done an in-flight test yet, it's scheduled for after the first unmanned orbital test but before the first manned launch.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 16:37 |
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Russia also seems to have these wacky ramps that are set into the road and which pop up to block people from entering the railway crossing when a train is approaching. Of course, Russian drivers and cyclists always think they can beat the train so they try to drive around the boom gates and forget that there's a ramp ahead of them and hilarity ensues ... They should lower the ramps. EPIC fat guy vids posted:Rich people create jobs and their wealth will trickle down one day. Better if it rains down.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 16:46 |
|
My favorite bit of ol' musky's "cram you into a Minuteman" airline is when someone asked him about how he plans on handling the stress of a rocket launch https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/913775198423408640 hmm. A "mild to moderate amusement park ride" eh? Let's hear what some astronauts have to say about the experience quote:With a few seconds left, the auxiliary power units start. The beast that terrified you out on the launchpad? Now that beast is waking up. At six seconds you feel the rumble of the main engines lighting. The whole stack lurches forward for a moment. Then at zero it tilts back upright again and that’s when the solid rocket boosters light and that’s when you go. There’s no question that you’re moving. It’s not like Oh, did we leave yet? No. It’s bang! and you’re gone. You’re going 100 miles an hour before you clear the tower. You accelerate from 0 to 17,500 miles an hour in eight and a half minutes. quote:Six seconds before launch of the shuttle the engines start to light and when the engines light it bends the whole thing, so you can actually feel the whole vehicle sway away from you as the engines light. You watch the launch pad disappear out the window. By the time we clear it, we're going 100 miles per hour straight up. And you accelerate at just such a brutal manner. The vibration is so high and, it's not like an airliner that kind of flops along through the sky, this thing moves like a tuning fork. Launch is immensely powerful, and you can truly feel yourself in the centre of it, like riding an enormous wave, or being pushed and lifted by a huge hand, or shaken in the jaws of a gigantic dog. The vehicle shakes and vibrates, and you are pinned hard down into your seat by the acceleration. note that in a suborbital trajectory like this the passengers won't really get that weightlessness; it's acceleration all the way up and then deceleration all the way down. quote:Seen from the inside of the spacecraft, it felt like there was somebody out there outside the spacecraft with a sledgehammer was hammering here and there, up and down. And so every few milliseconds, the spacecraft was shaking. There's a 'BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!' It felt really interesting, actually. At the end of the atmospheric reentry, you really start hearing the noise of the wind and the sound. You're almost breaking the sound barrier, and then in the opposite direction, of course. You're coming back into the normal area of flying. And this is around 30,000 feet that the parachute has to open. This is actually a very critical moment. And it's one of the only things in the Soyuz where the crew does not have a manual override. So this is only an automated system.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 16:49 |
|
You're comparing apples and oranges. The shuttle was a jackrabbit off the pad. For a bunch of reasons. spacex has much finer control, and with a larger rocket, accelerations will be dampened.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 16:57 |
Sagebrush posted:My favorite bit of ol' musky's "cram you into a Minuteman" airline is when someone asked him about how he plans on handling the stress of a rocket launch If you ever go to Epcot, ride Mission: Space on the orange side (the green side disables the acceleration and is family friendly). It's basically a simulator attached to a centrifuge, allowing you to hit 2.5 g's several times as it simulates space travel. You're only kept at that level of acceleration for about 15 seconds at the longest, and it's incredibly unpleasant if you're not used to it. It's also interactive so you need to try and hit buttons while accelerating, and when you're not used to the acceleration you just kinda flail helplessly trying to smack the console in front of you. Trust me, you ain't putting grandma on this rocket.
|
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 16:58 |
|
Nerobro posted:You're comparing apples and oranges. The shuttle was a jackrabbit off the pad. For a bunch of reasons. spacex has much finer control, and with a larger rocket, accelerations will be dampened. Dampened with what? You still have to go up on a barely controlled explosion.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 17:09 |
|
Nerobro posted:You're comparing apples and oranges. The shuttle was a jackrabbit off the pad. For a bunch of reasons. spacex has much finer control, and with a larger rocket, accelerations will be dampened. no you're right i'm sure that elon "elon musk" musk, who has never launched a human-capable rocket into space, has already addressed all the violence and energy of space launch that has so far meant that every astronaut must train for months and be medically certified in good physical shape to be cleared for flight. I'm sure the solution is just "use a larger rocket" and this is all it takes to go from 85 pounds of survival gear and "being shaken in the jaws of a giant dog" to sipping red bull and kombucha on the ride up with the other tech bubble shitlords
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 17:09 |
|
EPIC fat guy vids posted:Rich people create jobs and their wealth will trickle down one day. Yeah, trickle down over several square kilometers of ocean
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 17:11 |
|
haveblue posted:Yeah, trickle down over several square kilometers of ocean 70% chance of this happening.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 17:13 |
Seriously, even Musk himself is saying 2 to 3 g's. If you've actually experienced that kind of acceleration, you'll be very aware that it's far from enjoyable.
|
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 17:15 |
|
chitoryu12 posted:If you ever go to Epcot, ride Mission: Space on the orange side (the green side disables the acceleration and is family friendly). It's basically a simulator attached to a centrifuge, allowing you to hit 2.5 g's several times as it simulates space travel. This. I rode it three times when we were there in 2000, and after the third time, my daughter actually had a broken blood vessel in her eye (not the dangerous kind). This is before it killed people, though, and they dumbed it down a bit as I understand. Trying to follow Gary Sinese's directions and working the controls under that kind of acceleration is hilariously difficult. We made a great team, though, and didn't fall off the cliff at the end. Best amusement park ride I've ever ridden.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 17:50 |
|
The Lone Badger posted:OTOH I am 100% behind shoving rich people into rockets and shooting them into space. The Marching Morons solution. (Spoiled for giving away plot of a CM Kornbluth story.)
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 17:55 |
|
boner confessor posted:there was some miserable show called bering sea gold and it was about these people who live on the alaska coast and try to scrape enough gold out of the ocean to live a marginal existence through the long alaskan winter. everyone had these homemade gold dredges and most of them involved divers vacuuming silt off the ocean floor but the big dogs in town had a barge with a backhoe that would scoop up silt and dump it in a machine to shake out the gold, they often ended up paddling the barge around with the backhoe as well. so if you want to watch a whole bad show about this concept its out there To be fair at least the Pomrenke crew was at least somewhat competent results-wise, although OSHA as gently caress. The other excavator crew was also sometimes functional. ...But still I mostly loved to watch the show for the complete trainwrecks using their lovely suction dredges to make almost the minimum wage. Did they ever do a follow-up on that one rear end-hat (who originally wast the "headliner" personality) who went into rehab midway thru the fourth season? In my country we get constant reruns and the "new episodes" are at least two seasons behind on the free channels.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 18:01 |
|
But how enjoyable is travelling 24 hours to Australia? I can see the benefits of a suborbital shuttle, especially if I can bill it to a customer.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 18:08 |
BlankIsBeautiful posted:This. I rode it three times when we were there in 2000, and after the third time, my daughter actually had a broken blood vessel in her eye (not the dangerous kind). This is before it killed people, though, and they dumbed it down a bit as I understand. The actual ride experience hasn't been toned down except for adding a "green side" that isn't on a centrifuge, so there's no acceleration. Other than that, they added sick bags and told people to hang on. The one good thing I can say is that all of the people who did die had pre-existing conditions rather than the ride being so extreme that it murders you if you're not a fighter pilot. Either way, a rocket with 2.5 g's of acceleration (to say nothing of 3) is absolutely going to kill people on takeoff if it becomes commonplace. If you want more fun with feeling acceleration, a catapult launch off an aircraft carrier generates I think 3 to 4 g's. Kingda Ka at Six Flags generates 5.
|
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 18:22 |
|
haveblue posted:Yeah, trickle down over several square kilometers of ocean You're acting like that economic theory is flawed or something.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 18:30 |
|
The problem with all those other rockets was that the Gs weren't in a comfortable direction. If you strap people in face-down, it's like a spring breeze.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 18:38 |
|
chitoryu12 posted:The actual ride experience hasn't been toned down except for adding a "green side" that isn't on a centrifuge, so there's no acceleration. Other than that, they added sick bags and told people to hang on. Let's be honest though, the kind of people that would be able to afford these flights are the ones we'd be better off without.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 19:06 |
Oh, another fun thing that Mission: Space taught me about acceleration! Make sure you keep your head back and looking straight ahead. As soon as you start looking around, you get nauseous real fast.
|
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 20:26 |
|
Apparently the Gravitron ride at the fair can hit 3g. I'm basically an astronaut
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 20:55 |
|
Sagebrush posted:note that in a suborbital trajectory like this the passengers won't really get that weightlessness; it's acceleration all the way up and then deceleration all the way down. There are a lot of flaws in ICBM based transport, but this sentence right here makes it abundantly clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 21:06 |
|
PittTheElder posted:There are a lot of flaws in ICBM based transport, but this sentence right here makes it abundantly clear you have no idea what you're talking about. I would have just said
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 21:17 |
|
PittTheElder posted:There are a lot of flaws in ICBM based transport, but this sentence right here makes it abundantly clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 21:54 |
|
oohhboy posted:Dampened with what? You still have to go up on a barely controlled explosion. Mass. And distance from the engines. If rocket engines don't burn smoothly, ~verybadthings~ happen. The whole "engine rich combustion" thing. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/7829/launch-accelerations-values-history The graph there, shows the acceleration curve of the Saturn V. It's curve seems to show that the engines were not throttled back to any significant factor. (not that the F1's were friendly to throttling..) All of the sources I found say the shuttle never topped 3g on launch, or landing. At least, sustained loads. The SRBs were not the smooth(ish) burn you get from the SSMEs. If Elon wants less than a 3g peak, he can do that. SpaceX's technology does seem like it would give that option. And they can afford the gravity losses. Sagebrush posted:no you're right i'm sure that elon "elon musk" musk, who has never launched a human-capable rocket into space, has already addressed all the violence and energy of space launch that has so far meant that every astronaut must train for months and be medically certified in good physical shape to be cleared for flight. I'm sure the solution is just "use a larger rocket" and this is all it takes to go from 85 pounds of survival gear and "being shaken in the jaws of a giant dog" to sipping red bull and kombucha on the ride up with the other tech bubble shitlords *hands you a doll* Here, take your straw man. As I understand it, most astronaut training is not "about the flight" but about their jobs on the flight, and survival training. And for a ride on the shuttle? But really? That's where you wanna go? Bigger makes smaller changes in thrust (that violence you speak of) seem smaller. Being taller, puts you further away from the noise makers. Again, taking away part of that violence. A couple G is not a place to be enjoying drinks. But it's also not even bothersome. (to me.. at least... 1.4 is a giggle, 2 is fun.) But I woudl't put my mom though it. Volcott posted:The problem with all those other rockets was that the Gs weren't in a comfortable direction. If you strap people in face-down, it's like a spring breeze. G's are most survivable on your back. Laying down. Facing away from the G's is the least survivable direction. Crushing your stomach, chest, and face aren't conducive to survival. Course, I could have just missed a joke. Heh.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 22:06 |
|
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 23:03 |
|
Nerobro posted:Mass. And distance from the engines. If rocket engines don't burn smoothly, ~verybadthings~ happen. The whole "engine rich combustion" thing. You missed a joke. I'm very sorry.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 23:17 |
|
elon musk isn't even real
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 23:19 |
|
chitoryu12 posted:Oh, another fun thing that Mission: Space taught me about acceleration! That's not really due to the raw g-force, rather it's because of the centrifugal force from the spinning of the centrifuge. You wouldn't experience that effect in a real world G load.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2017 23:20 |
|
So... drowned or crushed by the ferry?
|
# ? Oct 7, 2017 01:03 |
|
Synthbuttrange posted:So... drowned or crushed by the ferry? lol I tried to see if "Drove Off Ferry Drowned" would bring it up on Google...good god drat: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3796854/Impatient-motorist-speeds-ferry-ramp-early-ends-plunging-straight-SEA.html Apparently he made it. I mean his body was brought onto shore at least, good enough for Russians or w/e.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2017 01:09 |
|
I assume a suborbital rocket airline would make passengers sign more waivers than a home loan.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2017 01:26 |
|
FuturePastNow posted:I assume a suborbital rocket airline would make passengers sign more waivers than a home loan. Rocket airlines is one of those things that seem really cool until you start thinking about how it would actually have to work.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2017 01:30 |
|
|
# ? May 31, 2024 06:01 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpV_MEgd8Qo Carnivals are pretty (That fall looked kinda cool though, apart from the injuries and stuff.) monolithburger fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Oct 7, 2017 |
# ? Oct 7, 2017 02:54 |