Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > Canadian Space program

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-30-2012, 01:19 PM   #1
+ TRES VERBO DICTUM +
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Vincine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Adirondack Mts.
Posts: 3,270
Liked 1616 Times on 844 Posts
Likes Given: 1305

Default Canadian Space program

Canadian teens with $400 launch the first Legonaut into space:

http://dvice.com/archives/2012/01/canadian-teens.php

Scroll down for the 3:26 minute video. Enjoy

__________________
"Sometimes I pretend to be normal, but it's boring and I go back to being me."
"You might as well be yourself, people won’t like you anyway."
Vincine is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 01-30-2012, 02:19 PM   #2
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6559 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

They can put several pounds of stuff into space for $400, but it cost several thousand dollars for us to just put 1 pound into space? NASA sucks at money management.

__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 02:21 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9199 Times on 5056 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

Hell yeah they do. Look at their zero gravity pen vs the russian's pencil.

__________________
trip286 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 04:32 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 4,715
Liked 1038 Times on 613 Posts
Likes Given: 319

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trip286 View Post
Hell yeah they do. Look at their zero gravity pen vs the russian's pencil.
You mean this one?
__________________

"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson

Yunus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 10:52 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
tCan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wake, NC
Posts: 1,128
Liked 112 Times on 78 Posts
Likes Given: 85

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker View Post
They can put several pounds of stuff into space for $400, but it cost several thousand dollars for us to just put 1 pound into space? NASA sucks at money management.
Not to get all punny, but it would take an astronomical amount of helium to accomplish this for shuttle craft. And then you need to get it into orbit without a major failure of your buoyancy device.

Assuming a 3 pound load, these boys imparted 346,000 joules of energy on their pay load.

To get that same three pound load into orbit would require an additional 41,400,000 joules of energy to sustain orbit and another 20,000,000 joules to achieve orbit if rocketry were to be used to launch. That's about 175 times more energy than these boys were able to take advantage of.

I know these units are technically not accurate, but I just wanted to illustrate a point.
__________________
[Remington 870 12GA][Stoeger Model 3500 12GA][Savage 116 .30-06][Savage Model 10 Bull Barrel .223][Marlin 336SS .30-30][Marlin 39A .22][Marlin Model 60 22LR][Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm][Ruger MkIII 22LR]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Terry V Ohio Commentary

Last edited by tCan; 01-30-2012 at 10:55 PM.
tCan is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 10:58 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6559 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tCan View Post
Not to get all punny, but it would take an astronomical amount of helium to accomplish this for shuttle craft. And then you need to get it into orbit without a major failure of your buoyancy device.

Assuming a 3 pound load, these boys imparted 346,000 joules of energy on their pay load.

To get that same three pound load into orbit would require an additional 41,400,000 joules of energy to sustain orbit and another 20,000,000 joules to achieve orbit if rocketry were to be used to launch. That's about 175 times more energy than these boys were able to take advantage of.

I know these units are technically not accurate, but I just wanted to illustrate a point.
Yeah, it would take a lot of helium, but if you look at what private companies spend to put something into space, you'll see that NASA still spends several more times more money to put the same thing into space.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 11:11 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MrWray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 6,371
Liked 998 Times on 597 Posts
Likes Given: 16

Default

You would think that as much money that is spent on space R&D,there would be commercial space travel and vacation resorts by now :-)

__________________

Semper paratus.....virtute et armis

MrWray is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 11:35 PM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
tCan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wake, NC
Posts: 1,128
Liked 112 Times on 78 Posts
Likes Given: 85

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWray View Post
You would think that as much money that is spent on space R&D,there would be commercial space travel and vacation resorts by now :-)
The technology is there. It's the money that isn't. The whole point of my previous post was to illustrate the sheer magnitude of energy required to put even a small amount of matter into orbit. Do you think energy is becoming cheaper and more abundant? No! It's the other way around.

I don't have the stats, but I would venture to guess that once in orbit, space craft are able to sustain a small crew for a month using well less than 5% of the energy it took to get into space in the first place.
__________________
[Remington 870 12GA][Stoeger Model 3500 12GA][Savage 116 .30-06][Savage Model 10 Bull Barrel .223][Marlin 336SS .30-30][Marlin 39A .22][Marlin Model 60 22LR][Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm][Ruger MkIII 22LR]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Terry V Ohio Commentary
tCan is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2012, 02:06 AM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 4,715
Liked 1038 Times on 613 Posts
Likes Given: 319

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWray View Post
You would think that as much money that is spent on space R&D,there would be commercial space travel and vacation resorts by now :-)
Just vote for Gingrich... twice....

/His support of NASA is something I actually like about the guy.

NASA may cost more but they also do it first and have a pretty outstanding safety record considering the number of people/objects they have sent into space safely. Keep in mind they were do things that have NEVER been done and thought to be impossible by many.
__________________

"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson

Yunus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Canadian gun magazines? kaido The Club House 0 11-29-2011 08:46 AM
MOA is not a Canadian cow! canebrake General Rifle Discussion 0 09-08-2011 04:19 PM
Help me with a Canadian debate themyst Legal and Activism 30 10-13-2010 01:07 AM
How much space? Ubergopher Ammunition & Reloading 10 06-04-2009 06:02 PM
New Canadian site CanGuy The Club House 1 02-24-2009 02:37 PM