tater

Members
  • Content count

    5701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tater

  1. Apollo was not as frail as sls. SLS is a dead man walking, IMO. Unlike Apollo, SLS has never had any mission at all, and it requires 2 a year.
  2. totm

    My kale (growing inside, right now) is big enough to eat... turns out that whichever of us bought the seeds bought a dwarf variety, so that explains why it looks tiny. I see a micro-greens salad in my future.
  3. Modern fission reactor designs are incredibly safe. Even the worst American "disaster" was not a disaster at all, the safety mechanisms in fact worked. You can argue that they should have been even better, but modern designs are in fact much, much better. The problem is that regular people were encouraged to take a part in politicized science/engineering, and making the improved designs became politically impossible. I'd also stick to fission for any discussion of current solutions, since fusion isn't a thing. When someone builds a fusion plant, we can discuss it.
  4. Wow. It's possible to have polite disagreements, and indeed on many subjects, disagreements are of degree, they are not fundamental disagreements about reality. Those are the kinds of civil conversations that it would be nice to have here from time to time. Disagreements that are polite, rational, and don't dive into the sewer. It's not impossible to do, but clearly it's... difficult.
  5. No, it's not bad. Bad reactor designs are bad. If a spacecraft blew up once, killing people, all spacecraft are not bad, just the one that blew up. It's a engineering problem, nothing more. Split atoms, not wood.
  6. An opposite example from current concerns (I'm being as circumspect as possible) is nuclear power. It became a political chew toy with the politics exactly reversed from now. Oddly, it's a real solution to concerns now, and had it not been made toxic by politics decades ago, most of our power would not involve burning anything right now. This is why I think science (and engineering in this case) should be as apolitical as possible, and part of any fight should be to keep it apolitical.
  7. I think this march is in fact counterproductive. It needlessly politicizes science, and given who it will likely bring out along with actual science people, it will conflate the two groups (political activist types, and scientists). I think that is bad political optics for a profession that is broadly trusted by the public. The reality in this particular case is that Presidential budgets pretty much never pass, and public money is by definition political. The more a given science is seen as having a dog in a particular political fight, the more it becomes a chew toy in that fight.
  8. Yeah, my kids really want to go to that. My wife went to the one in Florida when her medical meeting rented it out for a party and said it was pretty cool.
  9. Nice work... here's a pic of something like what you are going for (sorry, tiny): In a few threads I have suggested something that is above ground, then buried. It lands (and can be artificially massive to represent the logistical supplies necessary to construct it), then when deployed, it ends up with a buried look (perhaps with a pull-down for variant textures to match the different worlds). The models for stuff like this would be as you have done, really just the IVAs, and the external model would be the "hill" of piled up regolith, with a visible airlock.
  10. Politicizing science is counterproductive, so I think this is a not great idea. All government spending is by definition political, so if you want your favorite science funded, fund it outside the government, or be prepared for it to be a football from time to time---after all, it's not their money, it's the public's money. Note also that it's about a budget that is meaningless, as Presidential budgets pretty much never get passed. The previous executive didn't get votes for his budget from his own party, for example. They do it every year, and every year Congress does something else. Is the march suggesting what should be cut instead, given the finite revenues of the government? Hint: ~2/3 of spending is "programmatic" and not part of the discretionary budget, so that's where to look for money. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/the-science-march-why-ive-opted-out/ This one shows why politicizing science is maybe not a good idea (his PEW chart on professions ranked by trust is particularly clear to understand): https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/01/31/a-scientist-argues-that-the-march-for-science-is-a-bad-idea/ EDIT: The thread in the science sub-forum was closed, which sort of demonstrates my point. It would seem that a science march would be apolitical, but it cannot be discussed without politics, because this march is all about that. I don't like seeing science as toxic in conversations.
  11. totm

    I meant "you" as in the person with the limes... if it was ME it would be inconsistent, I suppose. Though I also enjoy delicious limeade!
  12. https://disneyland.disney.go.com/guest-services/download-disneyland-mobile-app/ We drove down to legoland one trip, and I remember in returning traffic being thrilled because we were moving at school zone speeds, finally (on the highway, not even in LA quite). My buddy was gonna take us to his shop (special effects) and the 1+ hour drive (from Hawthorne (he lives like one street from where it becomes Manhattan Beach) to Northridge) was just too much for the kids at that point, so we'll do it the next time we are there. Note that the online map says 32 minutes without traffic for that trip, and an hour 10 minutes with moderate traffic. He said that "moderate" traffic is pretty much all the time, and it can be much worse than the 1 hour trip going to work. I have to say, the major benefit of going towards VAFB at some point would be to see part of the coast that is actually pretty. We (my wife and I) surprisingly enjoyed Disney---we expected it to be fun to see the kids enjoy it, but ended up just having fun ourselves, full stop.
  13. My kids are almost 11, and 13. We actually went last spring. Universal will be good, we have talked about going there---this June, lol. My kids are Harry Potter fanatics, and that opened literally the weekend AFTER we left LA last year. Keep an eye on the launch schedule---remember it could very well be at NIGHT, which would make the drive far, far better. You could always take a subset of the family that has some interest . I really like Disneyland at night, and assuming the kids ar more into rides than fireworks, the lines disappear during the fireworks. Get the disneyland app for your phone. It shows waiting times. Getting to the park before the gates open is also a good idea. You can nail a desired ride first thing with almost no wait, sometimes 2. Fullerton station is not far from the park, and there is actually a train in LA. During some crazy traffic, it's actually a time saver, though you are then sans car on the other end---but that's what Uber is for, right? Dunno if it has in-town utility. What we did was go to Disney via an airport shuttle (Grand Californian Hotel), then we rented a car after we were there a couple days. There is a Disney outside shopping mall (loads of food there, too, and a monorail station that you can use to enter the park), and a rental car place is there someplace. Restaurants in the California Adventure side of the park serve alcohol, BTW, unlike Disneyland proper (if you're going to spend a bunch on dinner, it's nice to at least have a glass of wine or a beer). The rapids ride is good, and the Cars ride was actually really awesome.
  14. Our family has been to Disneyland a few times, as it's not that far a flight from New Mexico. Do you have kids? Driving in LA is a complete nightmare, IMO. Don't write off maybe seeing a launch... if there is a chance, it would be a shame to miss it. The train from Fullerton station (a few minutes from Disney) to Santa Barbara is only like 1.5 hours. Nevermind, saw the kids thing now. How old?
  15. Saturday morning musings... The image I posted up thread of the LR-87-7 (aka S-3) on the Titan got me reading up on it. A pretty fascinating engine, actually. The was flown with both hypergolic propellant, as well as kerlox. In addition, a variant was tested (full size) with hydrolox as a concept for what NASA elected to use the J-2 for (as a new design). Had variants from ~650 kN to almost twice that in thrust, too. I have been messing lately with a rescale. I have planets bumped 4X in size, and the distances 6.4X. I am using SSTU parts out of the box. My "replica" Saturn V in SSTU easily makes the Mun, and with a ton of dv to spare (about 1000m/s). I then dropped the stage three tank size a little to make it less OP. Still looks good. Replica R-7/Soyuz easily makes orbit with a couple hundred m/s left over (not counting the SM). I shark the upper stage one tick, so it should be better now (and I never scaled S2 to the real length). Tighter designs like Gemini are much harder. I have TRAILS installed, which wants a 1.875m diameter Titan, and even bumping it up to 2m I can't get the thing to orbit, I need about 4500m/s after gravity and drag losses. Went back to 1.875m, and replaced all the hypergolic engines with Merlins. Got it to orbit. Woot. 4X planets is pretty nice with SSTU and no other changes. Getting Gemini to orbit is actually non-trivial. Mercury Atlas works as well, using that technique I posted up thread to fake a half stage. That Atlas-looking mount could be turned into a half-stage with a hollow collider. The main tank has an upper stage mount (the medium length green cone with helium tanks, etc as greeble). A merlin is stuck to that, and the tank has the interstage node on. I then put a 1.875m decoupler on there, as thin as possible, with hollow collider on. Then I put a double merlin with the atlas looking mount, and adjusted the engine spacing. It was attached to the decoupler. Then, it got a fuel pipe from the main tank to the 2 engines/mount so that they would get fuel. A few times my angle is a little off (not dead-on into the flightpath) and I have the thing take out the center engine. Usually decouples fine though. I waited till the TW looked high, then dumped the half stage (liftoff was at 1.13 TWR for the stack, I shed the 1/2 stage at about 2.7, so that the sustainer would be over 1). The image above is the test, which did not make orbit. I had to make it taller than it should be at the 4X kerbin scale I'm at, but it still made it. I used a petal to be able to fit a retro package on the bottom of the capsule. That assembly I ended up clipping a little so that the decoupler would not float below the heat shield (just moved it till it touched). PS--silver might be nice for a mount option.
  16. totm

    You make a beverage that is inconsistent with forum rules?
  17. Doesn't seem to be a fixed ULA thread. Awesome video is awesome. Regardless of what booster you happen to favor, Centaur is an amazing US.
  18. @Galileo, I will test this out for you tonight, but it won't be for a few hours I think. MacOS, Yosemite on an i7 machine.
  19. Yeah, that thing is awful, I think there's a rivet out of place somewhere .
  20. I assumed this was the case, I just tend to disagree with it, I guess. I addressed it a couple posts up. Is the goal for people to have to do the campaign exactly the same, every single time, or is it to provide a framework where the actual, historical progression makes sense, but other progressions (equally plausible) are possible? I think the latter is better, frankly, but obviously YMMV. So you'd do what you have already done, making sub-types of milestone chains, with some requiring other milestones get hit, to demonstrate testing capabilities before taking the next step. Some are unconnected, though. Going to the Mun, Minmus, or wherever is not really a prerequisite to learning how to do a reentry. Seems like you could have a reentry grouping, with milestones that I suggested (or better ones). I am not aware of how much you can require in missions. Obviously part testing is possible here... since chutes, engines, etc can have a velocity requirement, could you have such a test requirement on a heat shield? Test a heat shield at 2500 m/s or whatever makes sense?
  21. Odd that the Reach Orbit and return requires a munar flyby. Generally, I think the progression paths should be more generic, if this means making more subsets of mission types, so be it. In this case, it seems like the requirement should be to have reached orbit to then be able to test reentry vehicles. That could be a new subset. Uncrewed reentry. First you test recovery from an atmospheric flight (this might be required to test a crew vehicle at all). Then suborbital (karman line then recovery). Then orbital, then perhaps high orbital---is there a way to require a certain velocity?
  22. You should add in a picture of a Walrus aircraft to confuse people.
  23. totm

    I could potentially get my wife some of those wooden boxes, the ceilings in my house are wood, so screwing in some hooks is trivial... The only issue here would be the utter lack of humidity. Either the inside door (glass) is closed, and it's in heat/AC and dry, or the screen door is open (spring and fall most of the time), and it's dry because it's New Mexico outside, lol. It links like sphagnum moss is in there. Sounds like an experiment is in order. @Just Jim, given your climate, you should plant some bananas... I can't believe how well they grow for me inside, if I lived someplace that didn't drop below zero a few times a year I'd put them outside in heartbeat. The one I transplanted pictured up thread I'm actually planning out putting outside for the summer as an experiment to see how quickly it will grow.
  24. You know, I never counted them before. You are right in terms of fatality missions 2/132 vs 2/135. I honestly thought Soyuz had flown more. Wow. On top of that, there were 2 aborts (safe crew!), so the vehicle failure rate is really 2X as high. That said, they have a quite long run of safe flights with the current version.
  25. totm

    I know them here as desert marigold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baileya_(plant)