The most kerbal flat-earther I have yet to see

[Ultimate Steve]

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

Yes.  Hmm... can we come up with a realistic, inexpensive rocket that could send someone to 10,000 feet?

KSP community vs flat earthers... Hmm...

There was a KSP player who started his own aerospace company, actually,  @Tristonwilson12 called Cloud Aerospace. Originally their plan was to develop a small (hybrid or solid, I can't remember) potentially reusable launcher called CloudOne (capable of IIRC 50-150kg to orbit) which would be later followed by CloudOnePlus which used two strap-on boosters. They got as far as almost (or maybe they did) static firing the first stage, but I'm not sure what the result of that was.

They have since changed over to a methalox design called Vapor/Vapour which can get almost a ton into orbit in theory. Reusability has been discussed as well. Last I heard they were going to test an engine for it this month (but that was two months ago so either they aren't saying anything or the schedule has slipped). However, as of a week ago they have bought the land where they are going to build the construction facility for Vapor/Vapour. They are saying a first flight around 2020 (although given the nature of spaceflight it may very well be later). Estimated launch price is below 2 million dollars (probably an optimistic guess but that's just my guess).

If this actually flies with sufficient reliability (and that's a big if, but I'm rooting for them!) then 1000kg gives us significant room to put a space capsule onboard. Mercury massed 1400kg for the heaviest flown model, optimization is possible from there.

[sh1pman]

Can’t he just, uhh, attach a GoPro to his rocket and recover the footage after it lands?

[XB-70A]

18 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Can’t he just, uhh, attach a GoPro to his rocket and recover the footage after it lands?

Indeed, but... it will be FAKE!!!

[sh1pman]

1 minute ago, XB-70A said:

Indeed, but... it will be FAKE!!!

Some sort of live video feed will do the job then.

 

...well, unless they can fake the stream in real time.

[XB-70A]

8 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Some sort of live video feed will do the job then.

 

...well, unless they can fake the stream in real time.

Not a problem, for a deep and real flatard the "Illuminaties" can fake at any time.

[Ultimate Steve]

On 3/27/2018 at 5:49 PM, sh1pman said:

Can’t he just, uhh, attach a GoPro to his rocket and recover the footage after it lands?

Yeah, but the lens will distort the evidence. This is a known problem with every single camera lens known to man, above a certain altitude threshold they are programmed by the government to become fisheye lenses, even privately built lenses. This also happens in telescopes, glasses, and even windows - those high altitude pilots that have claimed to see the curve are only being manipulated by the government.

The only thing that can see the flatness of the Earth is the naked human eye, free from any obstructions. Everyone who has seen the Earth truly has died due to asphyxiation due to no pressurization in the non-windowed cockpit. The Earth is flat, sheeple, wake up!

/s

EDIT: The atmosphere is a lens, too, so we need to remove the atmosphere in order to get a true view.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Ultimate Steve

[Tux1]

Does /s mean sarcasm?

[Cheif Operations Director]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 4:09 PM, XB-70A said:

Indeed, but... it will be FAKE!!!

Yea he will get paid off by those 100% loyal underpaid NASA engineers. ITS A LIE!  

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 4:12 PM, sh1pman said:

Some sort of live video feed will do the job then.

 

...well, unless they can fake the stream in real time.

Oh yea remember during the Falcon Heavy launch they were all up in arms because the payload fairing fell off.

That genius should have used KNO3 + Sugar or zincoshine... steam... goodness

Unless he superheated it its a wonder it even flew.

[DAL59]

50 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

KNO3 + Sugar or zincoshine... steam... goodnes

With the amount of nerds on these forums, we could probably achieve several times the altitude...

How about an autogyro to lift the rocket the first few thousand feet?

[Cheif Operations Director]

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

With the amount of nerds on these forums, we could probably achieve several times the altitude...

How about an autogyro to lift the rocket the first few thousand feet?

Never heard of the autogyro. What is it. I mean 1,000 almost 2,000 feet, my rockets get higher than that and I use Modified aero bodies and Estes rockets. They are not even modified that's much. As trump would say ... SAD.  

Steam... My dog could make a better rocket.

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

With the amount of nerds on these forums, we could probably achieve several times the altitude...

How about an autogyro to lift the rocket the first few thousand feet?

Let's discuss it...

How much is our dry mass for our rocket. With Payload and capsule.

[Ultimate Steve]

1 hour ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Never heard of the autogyro. What is it

 

[Kerbinchaser]

On November 23, 2017 at 1:56 PM, PB666 said:

Replace it with this

Flight ceiling of cessna is 13,500 ft. But you can do the same on any window of 777 (generally 45,000 feet) over the northern pacific en route to Narita international. YOu don't need a paper, the surface of the Earth is clearly curved over the ocean.

That is the flight CEILING. Most private pilots flying Cessnas will cruise at 5000/6500 feet. As for the 777, it almost NEVER goes to FL450, but cruises at 30,000/31,000 feet. 

I think you're confusing real life with KSP. In KSP, you can see the curve even at an incredibly low altitude, but in reality, Earth is MASSIVE. How would you be able to see the curve from that altitude?

 

SR-71s, Concordes, jet fighters, suborbital rockets, THOSE can see the curve. You want to see it for yourself? Go join the AirForce.

[Nikolai]

On 3/29/2018 at 7:31 PM, Tux1 said:

Does /s mean sarcasm?

No.  /s

EDITED TO ADD: That was probably unnecessarily mean-spirited.  Yes, it does.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Nikolai

[DAL59]

3 hours ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

That is the flight CEILING. Most private pilots flying Cessnas will cruise at 5000/6500 feet. As for the 777, it almost NEVER goes to FL450, but cruises at 30,000/31,000 feet. 

I think you're confusing real life with KSP. In KSP, you can see the curve even at an incredibly low altitude, but in reality, Earth is MASSIVE. How would you be able to see the curve from that altitude?

 

You can see it(more like sea it haha) from sea level, if you have a tall ship going over the horizon, the mast will disappear last.  If you look carefully, you can see curvature from not too far up.

[kerbiloid]

On 30.03.2018 at 7:25 AM, Cheif Operations Director said:

Never heard of the autogyro. What is it.

Spoiler

http://madmax.wikia.com/wiki/Gyrocopter

[mikegarrison]

10 hours ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

That is the flight CEILING. Most private pilots flying Cessnas will cruise at 5000/6500 feet. As for the 777, it almost NEVER goes to FL450, but cruises at 30,000/31,000 feet.

This is both right and wrong. The 777 never goes to FL450 because its service ceiling is actually FL430. But as with all airplanes, the maximum altitude it can reach depends on several factors. The cabin service ceiling is 43100 feet, but depending on how heavy it is the engines may not be able to have a positive rate of climb all the way to that altitude. Typically the airplane will climb as high as the engines can supply a reasonable rate of climb, then level off and cruise there until some fuel is burned. Once enough fuel has been burned to go to the next available flight level, the airplane will step climb up. This is repeated, sometimes several times over a cruise. It is not at all uncommon for the airplane to reach FL430 or FL420 by the end of the flight.

And flight levels are reserved for traffic in particular directions, so typically an airplane has to climb in steps of 2000 feet.

[mikegarrison]

An autogyro (aka gyrocopter) is something like a helicopter that is always in autorotation. The forward speed of the autogyro spins the rotors which then act as a rotating wing (like the rotors of a helicopter). When a helicopter is in autorotation, it trades altitude for speed. (This is the equivalent of a fixed wing airplane in an unpowered glide.) But an autogyro has a propeller that provides the forward speed needed to keep the rotors in autorotation.

http://www.copters.com/aero/autorotation.html

[GoSlash27]

IRT all the 'Why didn't he just' questions:

Please keep in mind that Mad Mike Hughes is a stuntman looking to break records. My hat's off to him and I'm glad he survived the trip.

 

Best,
-Slashy

[Mark Kerbin]

On 11/22/2017 at 6:44 AM, NSEP said:

I think i have seen this 3 times on this forum already. Apparently he is sucking the money from Flat Earthers wallets for this project by pretending he himself is one.

I Give Ye... Natural Selection...

[YNM]

On 4/3/2018 at 8:30 AM, mikegarrison said:

Typically the airplane will climb as high as the engines can supply a reasonable rate of climb, then level off and cruise there until some fuel is burned. Once enough fuel has been burned to go to the next available flight level, the airplane will step climb up. This is repeated, sometimes several times over a cruise. It is not at all uncommon for the airplane to reach FL430 or FL420 by the end of the flight.

This is apparently only true for "oceanic" routes. It's much easier and convenient to file a single cruising altitude. (even then AFAIK oceanic routes are prescribed by altitudes and is meant not to change at all for the portion of the day).

The only time they'll want to change cruising altitude is due to weather (shear at higher altitude, clouds and turbulence at lower altitude). I've been on 9-hrs flight and we never changed cruising altitude, even when it's only on the cloud tops (~37000 ft or so).

Edited April 10, 2018 by YNM

[sevenperforce]

Rockets are simply not a very effective way of getting people up high.

Unless, of course, you're trying to get really, really high.

And/or stay there.

[mikegarrison]

3 hours ago, YNM said:

This is apparently only true for "oceanic" routes. It's much easier and convenient to file a single cruising altitude. (even then AFAIK oceanic routes are prescribed by altitudes and is meant not to change at all for the portion of the day).

The only time they'll want to change cruising altitude is due to weather (shear at higher altitude, clouds and turbulence at lower altitude). I've been on 9-hrs flight and we never changed cruising altitude, even when it's only on the cloud tops (~37000 ft or so).

Um ... not so much.

Yes, it is true that sometimes planes don't fly at their best available altitude or speed due to ATC concerns and fitting in with the rest of the traffic. But step climbs certainly happen over non-oceanic routes. What you may not be considering is that on short routes of a few thousand nmi, the plane often has enough climb power to climb directly to the highest available altitude, so no step climb is necessary. Twins also step climb less than quad-engine planes, because twins have more excess power available for their initial climb.

It's not really even any easier to fly at a constant speed or altitude. These days the computers can handle almost all of that. There is a calculation known as the "cost index" which relates the price of fuel to the cost (in labor and maintenance) of a flight hour. When the computer is told to fly to "cost index", it will calculate how fast to fly in order to balance flight time and fuel cost, as well as when it is optimal to climb to the next available altitude. Airlines run with very low profit margins, and so flying to economically optimum conditions is pretty routine. Sometimes they have other considerations, like schedule in case they started late or run into unexpected headwinds, but flying for optimum economics is very important to the airlines. As with any other business, they are trying to make money.

[DAL59]

Can someone make a "Research Round Earth" autogyro?  

[YNM]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

It's not really even any easier to fly at a constant speed or altitude. These days the computers can handle almost all of that.

Yes, I've seen what modern FMCs can do.

But cruising altitudes is more than about economics or physics. It's also about legal. I think it'd be inconvenient if every time you switch centres they'll have to issue altitude adjustments.

Hence why perhaps it's more easier done at sea/ocean crossings where ATCs are "blind" to it. (technically they're not but why bother.)

Perhaps the only "legal"-y acknowledged version of it is Concorde - starts crossing at 45000 ft and ends at 60000 ft, clearance given for the whole maneuver.

Edited April 10, 2018 by YNM

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

Yes, I've seen what modern FMCs can do.

But cruising altitudes is more than about economics or physics. It's also about legal. I think it'd be inconvenient if every time you switch centres they'll have to issue altitude adjustments.

Hence why perhaps it's more easier done at sea/ocean crossings where ATCs are "blind" to it. (technically they're not but why bother.)

Perhaps the only "legal"-y acknowledged version of it is Concorde - starts crossing at 45000 ft and ends at 60000 ft, clearance given for the whole maneuver.

It's not that hard. They just call and ask to climb to the next flight level.

You may be confusing this with "climbing cruise", where the airplane flies at a constant W/delta, and thus as weight decreases, the airplane climbs continuously. Step climbs approximate that but with level segments and then short climbs between them.