HOME | DD
johnjoseco — Building a Vessel to the Stars
Published: 2012-08-26 18:27:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 68256; Favourites: 4402; Downloads: 2559
Redirect to original
Description
This is a bonus request for the Special Request SaturdayBuilding a space shuttle, in honor of recently departed Neil Armstrong? Could involve Spike too
Maybe Spike will get a cutie mark for being a space dragon.
Related content
Comments: 532
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Cutie Mark Crusaders Rocke...... Aerospace Engineers! YAY!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
One stubby step for dragon kind . . . . And uh . . .another one since spike has small legs . . .
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Funnily enough, that did just happen IRL: [link] (spacecraft)
That said, Spike could be the first dragon to land on the Moon, and the first to discover a large, black monolith.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like the cutie mark on Spike's helmet. Nice detail.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sweetie Belle: "Applebloom,Scootaloo and Spike(what a surprise)
I know what we're gonna do today!"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
....science is so TERRIFYINGLY awesome.....no matter what the age....X3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Aero-space engineer cutie marks go! Just hope Sweetbell didn't make the whole rocket.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Please, let this rocket be the Challenger.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ppfffft. that won't work. don't they know it has to be orange?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like how even Peewee's getting in on the action.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMOMOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG
THIS IS TOO MUCH
OMG.
IN LOVE
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
*metallic voice*
Dad are you space?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, now we are a family again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
As I was viewing this picture I am listening to Everfree Raido and Baschfire - Equestria's Ponylimpics Theme came on and I'm like, "THIS SONG!!!!!!.....THIS PICTURE!!!!!......"
Here is link to song - [link]
Here is link to Everfree Raido site - [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dang it!! spelt Radio wrong....TWICE!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
We'll miss you, Armstrong! Your soul is now forever in the depths of Outer Space. (salutes)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This can't end any worse than Show Stoppers.
Rest in Peace, Neil.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Are they bringing the Space core with em?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tsk tsk. With a mass ratio like that, and a heavy design? That's not going anywhere
Lesson one: Spacecraft must be many times their own weight in propellant (oxidizer and fuel, normally liquid oxygen, or LOX for oxidizer) to go anywhere. As such, a rocket is a stack of two flying fuel tanks with engines behind each (first and second stages - assuming this is a normal 2-stage design), and the "manned", or habitable portion is a tiny capsule on top.
Here's the design of the might Moon-rocket Saturn V: [link]
And an image of the SpaceX Falcon 9: [link]
The falcon 9 has a larger payload / propellant ratio, because it only needs to launch it's payload, a capsule, into orbit, whereas the Saturn V must launch it to the moon, and the Command Module (CM) and Lunar Excersion Module (LEM) must return it to Earth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
With this...they shall receive, no, they shall EARN their Cutie Marks.
Moral of this epic illustration: Dare to Chase Your Dreams
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You know there is a much easier way to go to the moon. Just really piss Celestia off.
Also R.I.P Neil.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This Is fantastic! Rest in peace Neil, you're one of america's last heroes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is just adorable, I love appleboom on her sci coat 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha, I'm an aspiring aerospace engineer, lemme tell'ya, faked moon landing? Hogwash. I can go to the Huntsville space and rocket center, and touch the real rockets sitting there. And if you'll give me time, I can explain all the science and engineering that makes it possible, and prove to you it's possible, and not only that it's possible, but that it happened.
For example, they placed reflectors on the moon, and observatories have actually proved those to exist with laser lights. We've even gotten scientific data from them. It being a fake is just pure ridiculousness that comes from the general public not understanding the science behind it.
If you don't accept my word for it, then I can drag you through every step of the science if you like
PS - there's no stars in the videos for the same reason you don't see them in daylight - it's not actually that there's an atmosphere that blocks stars, it's that the daylight is so bright your eyes adjust so you can't see stars, which are incredibly faint by contrast, and camera lenses do the same.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've went through all the scientific arguments, and yes, they are all plausible and good, yet all the conter-arguments are quite good, too. This is just one of those topics that comes to a never-ending cicle of explantions from both sides. I chose to believe it never really happened (mostly because of the existence of the van allen radiation belt and all the accidental deaths of nasa employees after the landing event) This is just my opinion, though. I respect those who believe it happened (like I said, both arguments are good) and I wish I would believe it too.
Sorry for the poor english, it's not my native lenguage and I'm still learning
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Okay, more specifically addressing your points:
Accidental deaths: really? Accidents happen. Aerospace engineering is a very tough profession that involves high energies and pressures on very lightweight material under massive amounts of stress right up to it's limits, and material limits is an extremely imprecise science. There are accidents. Sometimes people die because of it.
Van Allen belts: I already mentioned exposure limits are wrong, but if you're really going to make me do this, I'll use a spreadsheet to calculate their exact exposure to radiation using Euler's method to calculate their trajectory through the belts, and belt intensity at differing points.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Btw, I couldn't even tell it's not your native language, good English.
And in that other reply I mentioned "TLI CO", that's astro-speak for "Trans-Lunar Insertion Cut Off", TLI is when the engines fire to put the vehicle on trajectory for the Moon, and CO means the engines cut off.
Since the engines impart an acceleration, when they're done accelerating the craft is going at it's maximum speed, from there it "glides" on a ballistic trajectory (free-falling) under the influence of gravity, which slows it down.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Van Allen radiation belts? Not nearly as intense as they're made out to be. What figures are you using for exposure limits?
In some incident during the Cold War, radioactive material was accidently released to large sections of the population in the U.S, which resulted in various illnesses, etc. The government stated X amount of exposure, and as such, the safety commission based their numbers off of those events.
But the government was either misinformed or lied with that paper. There was FAR, FAR more than X amount of exposure, so the safety standards are set many times lower than they should be (it takes much more radiation to make people sick than they say), and everyone knows it, but it's just a taboo, I guess, to get up in a government meeting somewhere about safety and say: "we should allow people to feel more radiation"
And seriously, I challenge you to come up with any good counterarguments. There are working, existing rockets sitting around that are 50 years old that are capable of going to the moon. What the heck? How the heck can you deny we went to the moon when the rockets to do it are sitting there, and I can prove they're capable? I seriously challenge you to come up with any working counter-argument to that.
And what about the fact that now PRIVATE COMPANIES are going into space? Are you going to tell me those thousands of people are in on it, too?
What about the small groups of unorganized clubbers who managed to launch a model rocket past the karman line? (Not into orbit, but into space). They did it with the same math that I can use to prove that those rockets at the Huntsville Space and Rocket Center can go to the moon. So are random groups of civilians who get together with a big model rocket, are they in on this conspiracy, too?
What about all the underlying physics and mathematics that the "rocket equation" depends on? Was Isaac Newton in on this conspiracy, too?
Because those spacecraft that went to the moon, are sitting in a museum right now. It's indisputable that they exist. It's indisputable they're 50 or so years old.
And those equations, I guess you could dispute them, but that would also be saying Isaac Newton was in on the conspiracy, too, because they're all based off of Isaac Newton's work, and if you'd like, I could show you exactly how, mathematically, step by step
And so if the equations are correct, and those vehicles are sitting there and 50 (43 to be exact) years old, then we were capable of going to the Moon in 1969. And if we were capable of going to the Moon, then why would we launch this huge, extremely risky and dangerous conspiracy to do it when we were capable?
So, those vehicles exist, I can go and touch them, that is indisputable.
The math, might be fake, though.
But there's no way Newton was in on this, we can prove his theories in a Grade School classroom. And I can take Newton's equations, and show you that the math is not, in fact, fake.
Shall I begin? Do you know summation (Sigma notation)? I need to know what level of math you can work with. If you don't know calculus, we'll need to begin with summation. If you don't know summation, I can teach you that, too.
And back to the radiation belt issue, I'm going to tackle that if you'd like. It will take quiet a bit of research, but I'm not going to put up with this "Faked moon landing" nonsense, and if I have to do a whole bunch of work, then so be it, though I would prefer conspiracy theorists just put their paranoia aside, because it's going to be very hard for me, since I'm in college and am very busy as it is.
Anyways, the Apollo CSM/LEM spacecraft, at TLI CO was going whereabouts 10,000 m/s (back to Newton). If you're not satisfied so far, I'll do all the calculus to show how long it spent transiting the Van Allen belts, then can use that to get a figure on radiation exposure from data on the belts themselves.
But I believe you'll be disappointed. Jupiter has human-killing radiation belts. Earth, does not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First of all, thank you for all the technical details and trustful explanation. I don't have a master degree in physics, actually I'm not even much into the engeneering world (I'm a med student XD) but I do have great interest for those subjects. It was really interesting to read explanations from someone who seems to know the topic well. I would really like to keep chatting about it, even ask a few more things, but I don't think it would be nice to fill john's page with moon debates. Would it be ok if I send you a message? (there are some other details I'm kind of confused now, if you have the time and the patience.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure, go ahead, by all means. And check this out (I wrote) [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This reminds me of Our First Steps by Mrakoplaz [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Dawww, look at Pee-Wee. Such a happy little creature.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
OMG that Sweetie in a cap.
I'm melting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>