Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

364 Excellent

About NASAFanboy

  • Rank
    Senior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It was named after a Roman god of death, which I think the dog was named after, IIRC.
  2. Oh. my. god Bob look at his rocket So many boosters It looks like one of Wernher's designs Who understands Wernher He only builds it so he can overcompensate I mean the rocket. It just has so many boosters. I can't believe it's not exploding. I mean, it's going to explode Look, it has no struts I LIKE BIG BOOSTERS AND I CANNOT LIE YOU OTHER KERBONAUTS CANT DENY THAT WHEN A ROCKET LAUNCHES WITH ASPARAGUS STAGE AND LOTS OF ORANGE JUMBO TANKS YOU GET SPRUNG WANNA PULL UP TOUGH CAUSE YOU NOTICED IT HAD LOTS OF FUEL IN ITS NONEXPLODING TANKS I'M HOOKED AND I WANT TO RIDE IT ONTO ORBIT JEBEDIAH TR
  3. REVIVAL OF AN RHOMAION: PART ONE "Empires don't die. They are merely go into hibernation" - Anonymous PROLOGUE: THE DEFEAT AT JULITOLIA Strategos Carian Kamninos of Konstantineyye was horrendously lost. The local guides hadn't been as much of a help as he expected, and the vast expanse of desert and sandstone cliffs in the Julitolian proviences of the Rhomaion Empire didn't really help with navigation at all. Behind him marched 10,000 soldiers of the finest Kerbal infantry that could be mustered from the massive Rhomaion military. It was magic; with a flick of the wrist, he could sep
  4. Even so, you cannot simply "brute force" an extremely complicated spacecraft using technologies that we still haven't discovered after years of research in a mere four years. Building bunkers deep under would save mouth more people and be cheaper and easier to produce, allowing to to save perhaps the entire human population in four years.
  5. Check your history. I don't think that throwing out Liberty Ships based off a design that the shipyards had been using for decades and can really match up as to what we are doing. WW2 industrial capacity used pre-existing technology that had been worked on for a decade already (B-17 flew in the 1930's, B-29 was proposed in 1938 as a serious project for the USAF, not just some atomic researchers far-out fantasy); we only have four years. Orion hasn't been completed; the most we have are some theoretical blueprints and some data from a tests of a half-finished prototype that wasn't even fully
  6. I thought he mean't changing the lunar trajectory to make Pallas miss (Thus the whole debris field and new crater, nuclear warheads). Unless the Moon was already going to interfere and make Pallas hit, we have nil chance of making it do that if it doesn't. The Moon is pretty large; we have the largest Planet:Moon mass ratio in the entire solar system and sometimes are called a "dual planet system" by some astronomers. Have fun with that.
  7. It would be easier to use a screwdriver to deflect the asteroid than the Moon. At best we'll put a new debris field around the Earth and change the lunar inclination by a miniscule bit, at worst we'll look stupid to future historians (if any) and any watching aliens (if any) and have wasted our resources. It took ten years for America to go to the Moon, and that was with a pretty big budget and the threat of Soviet nuclear moonbases. While I'm certain we can get to the Moon earlier today, you're talking about refurbishing a design that has not been tested for fifty years and then building
  8. Two scientists walk into a bar, and one says "I would like some H2O". The bartender asks the other scientist "And what would you like"? The bartender says "Ok", and walks away. The scientist looks at his friend and asks "Why didn't you just say water?" The other scientist looks at the ground, angry his assassination attempt has failed.
  9. Although this is true, it is mostly just a fringe minority in some technologically backward areas in First World Nations. Not everyone cares about them, they don't need to be pleased. Politicans don't accuse each other of being shape-shifting alien lizards while on the campaign trail, and whether or not 9/11 is a hoax isn't a huge subject for debate in American households everywhere (Unless a certain family member is such a crackpot). But radio talk shows. Especially radio talk shows, will attempt to destroy humanity. The United States Congress declared war on the Japanese Empire only a d
  10. Send them to the moon, have them dig their own graves next to the landing site, and follow with summary execution and improvement of gene pool. Execution through decompression is preferred, although using a recoiless rifle is also accepted. Before execution, have them write a letter of apology to all the trees that have worked to produce oxygen that they breathed.
  11. I'm an optimist, so I will say 2035. Realistically, it could probably happen in that timeframe. I'm not going to discuss why we are sending a human to Mars instead of robots or the scientifically ramifications, since flags and footprints are apparently more useful to the US Congress than actual science; I'm not going to protest that. For those who ask, the SLS/Orion is getting the funding that is being asked for; not only that, but Congress is asking for more money than the budget requests are allocating these projects in both Houses and political parties, and even passed a bill to prevent a
  12. If in more than fifty years, send some people to space and keep others on the ground, in protected shelters. If in four years, then take out the shovels and hunker down. Load genetic matieral into these vaults or into satellites whose orbit will decay and bring the matieral back into the atmosphere in little capsules. Try to deflect it with the remaining rockets and nuclear arsenal of humanity; we won't be using them anyway if it hits, might as well do something about it. Space is not a valid option in a mere four years; it takes years to design and build it itself, nevermind prepare and te
  13. You mean in 10,000 years, when all of humanity is dead from nuclear war or a dies are or a asteroid? I'd rather not wait. To believe that we will run out of water is ridiculous; we'd nuke each other first
  14. Because this vision of space combat sastifies the fantasies of scifi-geeks. Otherwise in a serious note, no reason to do much beyond on enemy satellites ASAT missiles that are fired from fighter jets in the atmosphere, which also has the same capability. The USAF ASAT missile is fired from a F-15, so we do have that capability.
  15. I believe that missiles and lasers would be the weapons that would be used in space. A craft modeled off the X-20 Dynasoar could approach a enemy satellite for a extremely close rendezvous, open a cargo door, release a missile, then retreat out of the way as the missile used monopropellant to adjust its trajectory to a collision course and fires it's motor.
  • Create New...