Submarines in space

I think even Futurama made fun of this idea with mermaids.

You kinda said it yourself. A sub is designed to withstand hundreds of atm. A space ship needs to withstand somewhere between 0 and 1.

This guy fucks.

No, but we don't have anything to launch a fucking submarine to space in the first place. Falcon heavy can do MAYBE 60-100 tons. A submarine is usually 48,000 tons.

Try closer to a 1000... :D

right, but op is completely bypassing that and assuming we can send it into space. So the question still stands, can a submarine still survive up there if we got it there?

A submarine can stay airtight in space, pretty much everything is hydro-tested, which means filled up with air or water to very high pressures. Since space would be trying to pull (And not very much), this means everything designed to withstand pressure can withstand pressure from pulling because they're tested by pushing from the inside. But that's all it could do.

For example, Beelzebub. Christians and jews have given him the name "LORD OF THE FLIES" in reality that's a lie told and his true title is "LORD OF ALL THAT FLIES". His alias in sumerian legend. Also known as
BAALZEBUB, ENLIL, BEL, "PIR BUB"* BAAL ZEBUL and BEELZEBUTH.

Attached: Beelzebub_26400.gif (300x300, 3K)

what the fuck is your point you brain dead shizoid retard

Yes. It can survive. That's about it. Waaaaay overbuilt for space though. If you can get about a thousand Falcon Heavy rockets, you can launch a submarine to space, assuming it doesn't blow up and burn up in the atmosphere.

My point is that we are not the only race in the universe. jews have hidden ancient knowledge of sumeria and egypt. into believing muh jesus and muh jewish savior.

Attached: 1550303725873.jpg (909x724, 280K)

>It's too heavy!
Bullshit, the ancient Egyptians made the pyramids fly here.

And the story of enki/enlil of sumeria is way older than the jewish stolen story of god vs satan. It's literally copied metaphor for metaphor.

>Roasts crewmembers alive in record time.

Well i volunteer as tribute to be put on that submarine and sent through a black hole

>weight matters in a vacuum

kek

They're extremely, extremely heavy, literally built to be heavy enough to sink in the ocean easily. This means that it will be many times more costly to loft a submarine into orbit around a planet, the more weight you want to get into orbit the more reaction mass you have to expend to get it there. There's also an issue of raw size, submarines are huge pieces of machinery just by sheer volume, that means the launch vehicles to send them to orbit will not only need to have enormous thrust power and reaction mass to lift them off of the ground but also massive size to hold the payload while it gets up into space. If you break the submarine into pieces you still need the same or more in reaction mass for multiple launches, and you'll then have to re-assemble it in space. Now if we had a space elevator or mega-sized rocket those issued would be reduced, however it would also make it much cheaper to build normal spaceships.
Oh definitely, they're air sealed and their thick hull probably offer some significant protection from radiation, probably more so then the currently existing tiny ships and stations built primarily to be as light as safely possible. You might have to change out some seals for ones optimized to continue to operate properly in vacuum and high UV environments, rubber for example doesn't hold up well I don't think. They wouldn't make good spaceships though, even if you replace a sub's fins and propellers with rockets and cold gas RCS systems they'd not get anywhere particularly fast because of their immense (for space vehicles) weight and limited space designated to propellant. Con't in another post.

Attached: d53l2wu-31dd45ef-8ce0-4f45-9dcf-9c39989d9843.jpg (1200x521, 86K)

What do you do with the heat generated from the nuclear reactor? If you've found a way to convert it to mechanical energy more efficiently and not need massive seawater cooled condensers the Navy would like a word with you.

well, i for one fully support the idea of sending the OP into space in a submarine.

Attached: 1521030213978.gif (275x251, 902K)

>Now if we had a space elevator
Thank fuck someone finally agrees with me this is a good idea. I'd honestly rather have a nuclear holocaust happen than give up on the idea of a space elevator. It's so fucking stupid not to invest in one.

But it's not important, In the future things will be vastly different and what is truth will be shown in time. People really think though that the earth is 6k years old lmao,

Another thing a sub lacks that it will need if it wants to stay in space for anything more than a couple hours is a heat rejection system, IE a system which lets a ship deal with the huge amounts of heat it soaks up any time it's in direct sunlight. The temperatures of spaceships and spacesuits in direct sunlight can reach several hundred degrees, and because vacuum is poor at dissipating heat that heat stays bottled up in the object, as a result any spaceship needs a significant array of radiators to keep itself cool. Your sub spaceship's crew would bake to death inside unless a robust heat rejection system were added onto the sub's design.
>What to do with the heat?
A very large array of radiator panels, and a much more efficient reactor design. The navy's favored Pressurized Water Reactor is highly inefficient and heavy, however the Molten Salt Reactor originally designed by the airforce would be much more ideal for space as it is self-regulating, light (comparatively) and efficient compared to it's navy counterpart, as MSRs were build specifically for aerospace applications. The navy uses PWRs because they're familiar, well tested, and of course because the navy had a lot of involvement in inventing them. MSRs by comparison are exotic, built by a competing branch of the military, and very few have been built so very few people know how to design or maintain them.
As space travel becomes more viable and profitable it will become an inevitable necessity.

Attached: nucleartug6.jpg (774x539, 59K)

You fucking moron. In orbit it matters. Getting it up there in the first place matters.

> It's so fucking stupid not to invest in one.
Materials science needs to catch up. We have to figure out how to print a thirty-five thousand kilometer long single strand of carbon nanotubes from space.

Already being done.
Solar Warden.

You need the mass to shield from micrometeorites and the nuclear power source.

It does, weight determines how much reaction mass you have to burn up to get up to certain speeds. How much moving you can do is directly determined by two things, how good (efficient) your propulsion system is and how heavy the stuff attached to that system is. If there are two ships with the same propellant but one weighs twice as much it's only going to be able to get up to half the speed, a sub will weigh many, many times more than a potential space warship with the same internal volume, meaning that with the same amount of reaction mass it will have much more limited ability to go from place to place, and will take longer to do so as well.

Twaron and other para-armarid fibers would be sufficient if not ideal, it's heat resistant and has sufficient tensile strength to hold it's own weight plus a little extra. Nanomaterial tether material would be ideal it's true but not absolutely necessary, after all a space elevator's weight will be enormous, even if it can only support a few % of it's own weight as payload that payload will be many times what any rocket could lift.

user no, no.

>As space travel becomes more viable and profitable it will become an inevitable necessity.
Exactly. The inflation costs of what it costs to send rockets up and taking trips on soyuz vessels alone is going to be what a monthly payment on construction of a space elevator is in the future.
No this is false. I refuse to believe it's only do-able with that kind of material. Portions of it can be constructed without that. Do you really think the foundation and all the supporting structures of that kind of thing is going to be made entirely out of carbon nanotubes?
Fuckin thing is probably just going to get knocked over by a tornado or something anyway.

>built to withstand thousands of psi
>sea level air is 15 psi
>space is 0 psi
really makes you think

Attached: 1543025984081.webm (656x460, 1.92M)

Congratulations for starting the most retarded thread on Jow Forums today

Yes! Jehovah is an alien and still threatens this planet!

Copied is probably the wrong word. It's such a basic concept that it probably arose independently in numerous cultures.

btw, carbon nano tubes is a ridiculous idea. A space elevator is access to space materials. Capturing and havesting resources from there. Even plain iron that survives atmospheric entry has been revered and hoarded as rare items. Steel and iron would practically lose value there is so much of it out there to get. Resources are not contained to what's available on Earth. We'd be able to harvest more materials easier than on Earth in terms of iron and steel. It'd be impractical not to begin constructing it out of what we expect to find in space even if it's a ridiculous amount by current standards since it's going to be more than easily available and plentiful in space.

The physical requirements of a space elevator tether are fucking absurd. Sure you could build the anchor point and counterweight out of mundane things but the cable would absolutely need to be a synthesized material like carbon nanotubes to meet the required tensile/density ratio and breaking length.
And we can't print those a meter long, much thirty five thousand seven hundred and eighty six meters, yet.

>It'd be impractical not to begin constructing it out of what we expect to find in space even if it's a ridiculous amount by current standards since it's going to be more than easily available and plentiful in space.
The issue is still physics. Having iron and nickel from asteroids doesn't change their physical properties to make them feasible.

>No this is false. I refuse to believe it's only do-able with that kind of material. Portions of it can be constructed without that. Do you really think the foundation and all the supporting structures of that kind of thing is going to be made entirely out of carbon nanotubes?
The worse the strength to weight ratio, the more material you need to hold it up, which makes it heavier, which means you need more material etc. etc.
Basically it boils down to the taper ratio - for kevlar its 2.5x10^8, for Carbon Nanotubes its 1.5. Total mass is proportional to the taper ratio, so worse s/w quickly quickly becomes infeasible massive.
What you can do instead with current materials is tethers. Mini space elevators that aren't attached at both ends and take momentum from the counterweight rather than the Earth. They do need to be periodically reboosted or harvest momentum from dropping mass back into the gravity well, but even using solar powered ABEP could potentially result in huge launch cost savings.

Look, there is an entire asteroid belt out there. If you weighed the entirety of it, it'd probably be more material than is available on Earth. It's broken up into bite sized pieces. You could build a mountain of steel out of it that stretches to space. Instead of using a smaller amount that barely just handles anything, you can just throw an endless amount of fucking steel on it.
I get why you think that's efficient, but having it curves the level of resources and changes the entire scale of efficient.
Besides, it's ridiculous to not melt down plastic waste and use the polymer for it.
Yes it does, you just throw more on it. You're talking about a resource that will be fucking infinite. It'd destroy the economy if it wasn't utilized in a mass scale project like that.
>, which means you need more material etc. etc.
Not an issue. That's the entire point of the thing in the first place.

This thread or very close copies of it have been made dozens of times. Always with that same image.
I don't know if it's one dedicated retard, or a sect of them trying to force a meme.

If we built an elevator out of steel, it would need to be >5x wider than the Earth at its widest point. Yes it is an issue.

The reactor could power a hella big hall thruster.

Thank you, I was about to bust out my calculator so I could verbally smack this idiot about the head with the numbers.

The only thing it needs to be 5 times wider than is your moms ass, and that already is out widthening the Earth.

I smell a sitcom.

>flush toilet
>everyone aboard fucking dies

great idea retards

>wanted to build spaceships when I was younger
>star wars pew pew
>studied orbital mechanics on my spare time
>got my degree in mechanical engineering
>studied thermal system design
>talked to NASA employees and military contractors
>became an expert at Children of a Dead Earth
>now that I'm actually older and knowledgeable on the subject I know how stupid my childlike fantasies were
>used to think lasers were 10/10
>look at all my notebooks and sigh

At least these threads are always fun though.

Attached: aGuTkzL.png (1920x1080, 787K)

>What is Delta-V?

Attached: gZFpO.jpg (1792x760, 124K)

Plenty of satellites fall from space. Space isn't a complete vacuum, there's some particles up there so over time the orbit can decay. Also photons do exert force on objects, look up light sailing.

Force*mass = acceleration.
Things that are "heavy" have more mass. An object being in a vacuum has nothing to do with how heavy it is. Things stay in space because they are in constant freefall but are moving so fast perpendicular to the earth the average height above the earth never changes. If it stops moving/slows down its orbit will decay and fall to earth.

The footprint of such an elevator would have to be huge with modern materials. Think a pyramid.

>Sure you could build the anchor point and counterweight out of mundane things but the cable would absolutely need to be a synthesized material like carbon nanotubes
Why not just have several elevators that get off at different floors to get around this problem? Like why does it have to be a single elevator up? Go up a few km, get off, go onto another elevator and continue up.

>Christians and jews have given him the name "LORD OF THE FLIES" in reality that's a lie told and his true title is "LORD OF ALL THAT FLIES"
Yeah I’m sure that wordplay holds up in Sumerian you fucking moron.

Attached: IMG_20190311_143031_871.jpg (640x960, 234K)

Based KSP poster

How are you gonna land it, dumbass

In the fucking ocean you dummy.

>Ayy lmaos built the pyramids
So they just stacked some rocks and didn't leave behind any sort of space-age composite materials, despite being from space? Gets my noggin' joggin'.

Naw, they just mutilate male genitals.

A submarine/spaceship hybrid might be cool. Good for exploring ocean world I guess.

youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0Y
Are we that far from having the ability to start on this?
How is this not whats touted as the Green New Deal?

Attached: 1529352613822.jpg (1099x1000, 182K)

How long are you gonna repost this thread?

Take your fucking medicine.

>but the government(Jews) forbid anyone from going to space

retarded jew poster

Force=mass*acceleration

Dude, stop it. You're in every damn thread.

Attached: BA135527-A006-4202-9114-DF35E52A1276.png (573x509, 173K)

>I'd honestly rather have a nuclear holocaust happen than give up on the idea of a space elevator. It's so fucking stupid not to invest in one.
Sou'd prefer to waste money on a pipe dream than invest in big-dumb-rockets? That seems unwise.
>newscientist.com/article/2093356-carbon-nanotubes-too-weak-to-get-a-space-elevator-off-the-ground/

"For want of an atom, the space elevator failed.

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are famed for being a future wonder material that will enable a swathe of super-strong but light applications from racing bikes to computer components.

But now it seems a single out-of-place atom is enough to cut their strength by more than half. That means one of the more outlandish applications for CNT fibres – a sci-fi space elevator – might never happen."

>Being such a brainlet that you can't engineer spaceships from limestone and granite

you're not wrong about them probably staying airtight in space, but it's everything else that's the problem.

Your thinking about an elevator as a building.
The elevator would two mountains. On in space the other on earth with touching peaks.
If the mountain in space was spinning it would drive the elevator.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should. The problems are not in the building of the space elevator they are in the maintaining of it.

SEMICIRCLES

The first Solar Warden prototype ships were nuclear submarine hulls with antigravity drives strapped onto them.

Attached: wilcock.jpg (943x871, 129K)

Lunar sub drydock when?

I for one look forward to the official launch of the Alliance Space Ship Vorpal Blade

Attached: vorpal_blade_3_0_by_loupy59_dcnl6g2-pre.jpg (1228x651, 85K)

Almost as if the PEOPLE who built them intended them to be built like that.

Thy the actual fuck would aliens need three huge piles of useless technology-free rocks to align with three stars only related to each other via whimsical human subjectivity?

Are you high user?

Attached: SelidSnek.jpg (1024x1015, 123K)

This is what happens when you tell normies they can do anything they put their mind to.

>t. JPL engineer

Attached: 1519921681139.jpg (645x729, 48K)

holy shit you're retarded

Attached: image0.gif (200x150, 1.69M)

A battleship would be better

Attached: 6a06af9847c9238866f4381c1ec2e2f8-730x430.jpg (730x430, 45K)

Its cruel to make fun of retards

Attached: 5434cfde9425ca96af04e2fe16d21eb4.png (235x223, 32K)

Ayy composites were in the Great Pyramid's capstone. That's why it's missing.

Attached: aliens.jpg (720x680, 63K)

A sub weighs like 48000 tons(96000000 pounds)
1 pound costs $10K to get into space.

Putting a sub in orbit would cost approx 9.6 x 10^11 dollars.

flies as in bug and flies as in moving through the air is only something that can be confused if you use the english language.

>That hollow earth entrance in Antarctica at 5:25.
Sly motherfucker.

>>/x/

>weight in space
>not mass in a vacuum

Attached: not logical.jpg (500x398, 75K)

you'd be suprised, the cable woud be 1 metre diameter maxium
vid related
youtube.com/watch?v=dc8_AuzeYKE

>just build something in space factors of ten the size of the ISS bro

Just look up the cost of the ISS. Also look up the cost to put a kilogram of material in space and lookup how much a submarine weighs