Re: Post nothing for good reason (NSFW)

[Animal]

how much fuel would it take to fire a small rocket to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to 0 mph without killing him?

A lot more than they are willing to spend to take up with them.

really? in space where there is no friction or other forces acting on you? I mean, the fucking space station must weigh a god awful amount compared to a man and they constantly have to use rockets to boost its position to keep it in the same orbit.

[necronomous]

how much fuel would it take to fire a small rocket to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to 0 mph without killing him?

I also edited my last comment. You aren't necessarily moving that fast. If they drop just above atmosphere, a single person may not burn. But further out being pulled in probably would

[necronomous]

how much fuel would it take to fire a small rocket to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to 0 mph without killing him?

A lot more than they are willing to spend to take up with them.

really? in space where there is no friction or other forces acting on you? I mean, the fucking space station must weigh a god awful amount compared to a man and they constantly have to use rockets to boost its position to keep it in the same orbit.

that they send up on separate missions for that specific purpose. If the purpose is to get the people to the station, they aren't putting more fuel on to get them back when there is a way to do it without.

[Stapes]

If you could have infinite fuel for continuos thrust to travel 1 mph up you could eventually escape earths gravity. No such thing exists. The balance between thrust needed and fuel for escape velocity is 25,000 mph.

[Antknot]

1. You need enough fuel to stop the mass of the astronauts, their equipment, the rocket, and the fuel.

2. All of that requires even bigger rockets and more fuel to get into orbit.

[Animal]

1. You need enough fuel to stop the mass of the astronauts, their equipment, the rocket, and the fuel.

2. All of that requires even bigger rockets and more fuel to get into orbit.

Yeah, but i'm talking about just an astronaut in their space walking suit. How much fuel would a small hand held rocket booster require to get enough thrust in space to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to the speed of the earth's rotation? I would assume you would want to match the earth's rotation if the point is to float down to earth without burning up.

You know, like a leaf blower.

[Wut]

1. You need enough fuel to stop the mass of the astronauts, their equipment, the rocket, and the fuel.

2. All of that requires even bigger rockets and more fuel to get into orbit.

Yeah, but i'm talking about just an astronaut in their space walking suit. How much fuel would a small hand held rocket booster require to get enough thrust in space to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to the speed of the earth's rotation? I would assume you would want to match the earth's rotation if the point is to float down to earth without burning up.

You know, like a leaf blower.

All you need is a really long extension cord and an electric leaf blower and you’re set.

[Animal]

1. You need enough fuel to stop the mass of the astronauts, their equipment, the rocket, and the fuel.

2. All of that requires even bigger rockets and more fuel to get into orbit.

Yeah, but i'm talking about just an astronaut in their space walking suit. How much fuel would a small hand held rocket booster require to get enough thrust in space to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to the speed of the earth's rotation? I would assume you would want to match the earth's rotation if the point is to float down to earth without burning up.

You know, like a leaf blower.

All you need is a really long extension cord and an electric leaf blower and you’re set.

they make battery powered leaf blowers.

[Homebrew]

[Animal]

that's exactly what EV looks like shooting an AR.

[necronomous]

1. You need enough fuel to stop the mass of the astronauts, their equipment, the rocket, and the fuel.

2. All of that requires even bigger rockets and more fuel to get into orbit.

Yeah, but i'm talking about just an astronaut in their space walking suit. How much fuel would a small hand held rocket booster require to get enough thrust in space to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to the speed of the earth's rotation? I would assume you would want to match the earth's rotation if the point is to float down to earth without burning up.

You know, like a leaf blower.

If the purpose is to get the people to the station, they aren't putting more fuel on to get them back when there is a way to do it without.

[Animal]

1. You need enough fuel to stop the mass of the astronauts, their equipment, the rocket, and the fuel.

2. All of that requires even bigger rockets and more fuel to get into orbit.

Yeah, but i'm talking about just an astronaut in their space walking suit. How much fuel would a small hand held rocket booster require to get enough thrust in space to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to the speed of the earth's rotation? I would assume you would want to match the earth's rotation if the point is to float down to earth without burning up.

You know, like a leaf blower.

If the purpose is to get the people to the station, they aren't putting more fuel on to get them back when there is a way to do it without.

Well, i'm just saying that almost burning up to death on re-entry along with the shuttle that blew up doing it, if a few gallons of fuel might lead to a different approach, then that's all i'm sayin'.

[necronomous]

1. You need enough fuel to stop the mass of the astronauts, their equipment, the rocket, and the fuel.

2. All of that requires even bigger rockets and more fuel to get into orbit.

Yeah, but i'm talking about just an astronaut in their space walking suit. How much fuel would a small hand held rocket booster require to get enough thrust in space to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to the speed of the earth's rotation? I would assume you would want to match the earth's rotation if the point is to float down to earth without burning up.

You know, like a leaf blower.

If the purpose is to get the people to the station, they aren't putting more fuel on to get them back when there is a way to do it without.

Well, i'm just saying that almost burning up to death on re-entry along with the shuttle that blew up doing it, if a few gallons of fuel might lead to a different approach, then that's all i'm sayin'.

Your plan means they leave all the vehicles in space just to send people back alone.

[Animal]

1. You need enough fuel to stop the mass of the astronauts, their equipment, the rocket, and the fuel.

2. All of that requires even bigger rockets and more fuel to get into orbit.

Yeah, but i'm talking about just an astronaut in their space walking suit. How much fuel would a small hand held rocket booster require to get enough thrust in space to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to the speed of the earth's rotation? I would assume you would want to match the earth's rotation if the point is to float down to earth without burning up.

You know, like a leaf blower.

If the purpose is to get the people to the station, they aren't putting more fuel on to get them back when there is a way to do it without.

Well, i'm just saying that almost burning up to death on re-entry along with the shuttle that blew up doing it, if a few gallons of fuel might lead to a different approach, then that's all i'm sayin'.

Your plan means they leave all the vehicles in space just to send people back alone.

its not a plan. i'm just asking if its possible. if you had to, could you get a man from the space station to the earth without him burning up?

[megman]

1. You need enough fuel to stop the mass of the astronauts, their equipment, the rocket, and the fuel.

2. All of that requires even bigger rockets and more fuel to get into orbit.

Yeah, but i'm talking about just an astronaut in their space walking suit. How much fuel would a small hand held rocket booster require to get enough thrust in space to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to the speed of the earth's rotation? I would assume you would want to match the earth's rotation if the point is to float down to earth without burning up.

You know, like a leaf blower.

If the purpose is to get the people to the station, they aren't putting more fuel on to get them back when there is a way to do it without.

Well, i'm just saying that almost burning up to death on re-entry along with the shuttle that blew up doing it, if a few gallons of fuel might lead to a different approach, then that's all i'm sayin'.

Your plan means they leave all the vehicles in space just to send people back alone.

its not a plan. i'm just asking if its possible. if you had to, could you get a man from the space station to the earth without him burning up?

You watched the movie "Gravity" didn't you....

[Animal]

Yeah, but i'm talking about just an astronaut in their space walking suit. How much fuel would a small hand held rocket booster require to get enough thrust in space to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to the speed of the earth's rotation? I would assume you would want to match the earth's rotation if the point is to float down to earth without burning up.

You know, like a leaf blower.

If the purpose is to get the people to the station, they aren't putting more fuel on to get them back when there is a way to do it without.

Well, i'm just saying that almost burning up to death on re-entry along with the shuttle that blew up doing it, if a few gallons of fuel might lead to a different approach, then that's all i'm sayin'.

Your plan means they leave all the vehicles in space just to send people back alone.

its not a plan. i'm just asking if its possible. if you had to, could you get a man from the space station to the earth without him burning up?

You watched the movie "Gravity" didn't you....

was that with jodie foster? man, i barely remember that movie. seems like there was a scene where they let the air out of something to propel them for some reason. and then i seem to remember a scene where she woke up after crashing to earth. did they get back without burning up something?

[rule34]

Most skydivers jump off a plane flying 3.8 km above the ground. But imagine jumping off something even higher, like the International Space Station.

Unless you have a supersuit like Tony Stark, it's not gonna end well. But let's pretend Iron Man lends you one.

Ok, ready? 3 … 2 … 1 … Jump! Wait … what?

That's right, you wouldn't fall straight down. In fact, it'll take you at least 2.5 years before you reach the surface. So what's going on?

Height isn't the main reason your fall takes so long. In fact, if you fell like a normal skydiver, it would only take about 2 hours.

But the thing is, you don't fall straight down. You fall into orbit. The reason is speed. You see, the ISS might be called a station, but it's hardly stationary. It's actually moving 12 times faster than a jet fighter.

If you shot anything at that speed on Earth, by the time it was about to hit the ground, it would miss! In the same way, the ISS isn't floating in space, it's falling towards Earth and missing!

And when you jump off the ISS, you're initially moving at that same speed. So you end up in orbit, too — at least for a while.

Now, even though it's so high up, the ISS is pushing through a very thin atmosphere. And that friction slows it down. So the station fires engines to maintain speed and keep from crashing into the Earth.

But sadly your supersuit doesn't come with engines strapped to your feet. This has two consequences:

First, it means you can't maneuver and have to hope that any of those 13,000 chunks of space debris don't impale you. Second, without rockets to maintain your speed, you'll slow down and spiral toward Earth.

But it won't be quick. The Chinese space station Tiangong 1, for example, about 2 years to fall out of orbit. On the ISS, you're higher up, so you'll take roughly 2.5 years. But once you strike the atmosphere, your long wait is over. And it's go time.

As you re-enter, you have one goal: slow down. You're traveling at hypersonic speeds. So, if you deployed a parachute now, it'll shred to pieces.

And that's not the only problem. Falling through the atmosphere at such break-neck speeds generates a lot of pressure on your suit — at least 8Gs of force — that's 8 times the gravity you feel at sea level.

And if you're falling feet first, that'll push the blood away from your brain and toward your feet. So you'll probably pass out unless you're one of those fighter pilots who train to withstand up to 5Gs.

Now, if you don't pass out, you may worry about the freezing temperatures up here. But, it turns out, your suit's more likely to melt than freeze. You know how you can warm your hands by rubbing them together?

Now imagine your supersuit rubbing against air molecules in the atmosphere at least 6 times the speed of sound. You'll heat up to about 1,650 ºC — hot enough to melt iron!

In fact, the heat is so intense, it strips electrons from their atoms forming a pink plasma around you that will ultimately destroy suit.

If that's not enough of a problem, the drag will rip off your limbs. But thankfully, Tony Stark has your back, and somehow, your supersuit holds with you intact.

At 41 km up you've now reached the world record for highest skydive. In 2014, Alan Eustace wore a pressurized space suit as he rode a balloon up to this height. He broke the sound barrier on his way down before deploying his parachute and landed about 15 minutes after the drop.

But you'll be falling much faster than Eustace — about 3 times the speed of sound. So, in reality, you're not going to slow down enough to safely deploy your chute. That's where Iron Man can help us one last time. By 1 km up you've reached the territory of ordinary skydivers who don't need fancy suits to survive.

And at this point, your parachute can do its thing. And it's finally time to land softly.

Whew, what a ride!

[Animal]

i have read that stuff. that's why i asked how you first slow yourself from 17,000 mph to 0 mph (or the speed of the earth's rotation, whichever it needs to be) as soon as you step off ISS.

[megman]

If the purpose is to get the people to the station, they aren't putting more fuel on to get them back when there is a way to do it without.

Well, i'm just saying that almost burning up to death on re-entry along with the shuttle that blew up doing it, if a few gallons of fuel might lead to a different approach, then that's all i'm sayin'.

Your plan means they leave all the vehicles in space just to send people back alone.

its not a plan. i'm just asking if its possible. if you had to, could you get a man from the space station to the earth without him burning up?

You watched the movie "Gravity" didn't you....

was that with jodie foster? man, i barely remember that movie. seems like there was a scene where they let the air out of something to propel them for some reason. and then i seem to remember a scene where she woke up after crashing to earth. did they get back without burning up something?

Something like that. I'd have to rewatch it myself to clarify the details.

[Reservoir Dog]

Well, i'm just saying that almost burning up to death on re-entry along with the shuttle that blew up doing it, if a few gallons of fuel might lead to a different approach, then that's all i'm sayin'.

Your plan means they leave all the vehicles in space just to send people back alone.

its not a plan. i'm just asking if its possible. if you had to, could you get a man from the space station to the earth without him burning up?

You watched the movie "Gravity" didn't you....

was that with jodie foster? man, i barely remember that movie. seems like there was a scene where they let the air out of something to propel them for some reason. and then i seem to remember a scene where she woke up after crashing to earth. did they get back without burning up something?

Something like that. I'd have to rewatch it myself to clarify the details.

I think that was Sandra Bullock. I could be wrong.

[megman]

Your plan means they leave all the vehicles in space just to send people back alone.

its not a plan. i'm just asking if its possible. if you had to, could you get a man from the space station to the earth without him burning up?

You watched the movie "Gravity" didn't you....

was that with jodie foster? man, i barely remember that movie. seems like there was a scene where they let the air out of something to propel them for some reason. and then i seem to remember a scene where she woke up after crashing to earth. did they get back without burning up something?

Something like that. I'd have to rewatch it myself to clarify the details.

I think that was Sandra Bullock. I could be wrong.

Twas. With Clooney.

[CaptQuint]

Jodie was in Contact

[Reservoir Dog]

Jodie was in Contact

??? I have nothing on my voicemail.

[CentralTexasCrude]

1. You need enough fuel to stop the mass of the astronauts, their equipment, the rocket, and the fuel.

2. All of that requires even bigger rockets and more fuel to get into orbit.

Yeah, but i'm talking about just an astronaut in their space walking suit. How much fuel would a small hand held rocket booster require to get enough thrust in space to slow an astronaut from 17,000 mph to the speed of the earth's rotation? I would assume you would want to match the earth's rotation if the point is to float down to earth without burning up.

You know, like a leaf blower.

If the purpose is to get the people to the station, they aren't putting more fuel on to get them back when there is a way to do it without.

Well, i'm just saying that almost burning up to death on re-entry along with the shuttle that blew up doing it, if a few gallons of fuel might lead to a different approach, then that's all i'm sayin'.

Your plan means they leave all the vehicles in space just to send people back alone.

its not a plan. i'm just asking if its possible. if you had to, could you get a man from the space station to the earth without him burning up?

It's called a "Space Elevator"- A lot of technical problems to overcome first- 1st proposed by a Russian scientist back in the 1890's- Google

A space elevator is a proposed type of planet-to-space transportation system.[1] The main component would be a cable (also called a tether) anchored to the surface and extending into space. The design would permit vehicles to travel along the cable from a planetary surface, such as the Earth's, directly into space or orbit, without the use of large rockets. An Earth-based space elevator would consist of a cable with one end attached to the surface near the equator and the other end in space beyond geostationary orbit (35,786 km altitude). The competing forces of gravity, which is stronger at the lower end of the cable, and the outward/upward centrifugal force, which is stronger at the upper end, would result in the cable being held up and kept stationary over a single position on Earth. With the tether deployed, climbers could repeatedly climb the tether to space by mechanical means, releasing their cargo to orbit. Climbers could also descend the tether to return cargo to the surface from orbit.[2]
The concept of a tower reaching geosynchronous orbit was first published in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.[3] His proposal was for a free-standing tower reaching from the surface of Earth to the height of geostationary orbit. Like all buildings, Tsiolkovsky's structure would be under compression, supporting its weight from below. Since 1959, most ideas for space elevators have focused on purely tensile structures, with the weight of the system held up from above by centrifugal forces. In the tensile concepts, a space tether reaches from a large mass (the counterweight) beyond geostationary orbit to the ground. This structure is held in tension between Earth and the counterweight like an upside-down plumb bob. The cable thickness is adjusted based on tension; it has its maximum at a geostationary orbit and the minimum on the ground.

Available materials are not strong enough to make a space elevator practical.

[CaptQuint]