kunok

Members
  • Content count

    471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kunok

  1. Yeah the little and too generic answer here also doesn't motivate. I will help you, it has been a busy week with too much work, and a 3d printer burning it's own diodes
  2. Where should I post bad translations?, because... lots of the Spanish translations seems like google translate for me, too literal or just weird nonsense (I'm from Spain). Being a Mexican based company I was expecting that you would really have no problems with the Spanish versions, only the typical typos I'm not a grammar guy, but there are things that won't make sense to a person from Spain
  3. We need a "deep space" habitat before doing interplanetary travel. Cislunar space is far outside the magnetosphere, it checks. We need a substitute of the ISS, it also checks It makes a lot of more sense than you think, the part that doesn't make sense is the mars trip, but that hasn't sense anyway with the current budget. I'm sorry to say that any plan for a mars trip is just plain unrealistic without a big increase in budget, the rocket is the smaller of the problems.
  4. First, raptor still doesn't exist yet, so any characteristic of it isn't real. What you are asking is very very complex, but IIRC the most determinant one given a nozzle was the injector type, how good it mixes and spreads both the oxidant and the fuel. My propulsion teacher was a specialist in solid rockets tho, so I may be wrong. That's an engineering question, and yes is already done to some extent, next to the inlet valve you have some regenerative cooling, even if you don't want to. Remember that the mayor focus in automotive industry is to cut cost, to ridiculous extents, this would be very expensive to do properly.
  5. You could change the suborbital capsule in the NS to a second stage with a payload of the same total mass. It won't be in a Falcon9 class but it would be in a Falcon 1 class, but reusable.
  6. I know what tandem is, is just that some of the uses are weird. Tandem may have sense in the case of a seat, even if it's there only one cabin is weird as tandem implies more than one, but it has no sense in something like the inline clamp-o-tron. And for the Spanish layman tandem is only a bike with two seats. Other thing you putted the translation as es-es with means that is the variation from Spain, not the international one neither the mexican one.
  7. What they do with junk when the only option is the dragon? Return it to earth instead of burning in the atmosphere. The interesting part is: how much of the mass that returns to earth is useful? and how much is just junk? Remember that IIRC there wasn't a call about being able to return cargo in the commercial cargo program.
  8. Pss, is more like beyond GEO And yes, basically is what fans expect, to develop a bigger than Apollo program in record time with less resources and forgetting every middle step in the way. BTW I talked the other day with an ablative materials engineer (you will be surprised if you don't know that cork based ablatives are pretty good) and PICAX is an ablative material, is not really a reusable material, nor is proven that could withstand multiples reentries, is this kind of things that make people in industry to have very big doubts in SpaceX claims
  9. No, I'm not talking about local rules, I'm talking about international Spanish rules, (I don't try to be offensive) every mistake I pointed is in any basic translations stile guide. This guides usually tell you how to write in neutral Spanish, to not copy the structure in english and to not use english expressions. A very short but good one, the ubuntu guide https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuSpanishTranslators/Estilo every mistake that I pointed is here Another a lot larger but also better, the one from Microsoft http://download.microsoft.com/download/c/8/0/c80371fa-bc89-46a7-883d-071d59f0c24c/spa-esp-StyleGuide.pdf Also there are lots of things that are just inconsistencies sometimes a part "inline" is translated as " en tandem" (wut?) other times "en linea" Ok, I will try to make a general bug report, suggesting user guides and putting some examples, maybe I get it done tomorrow, but it would be easier if you allowed me to make suggestions in a translation tools like https://crowdin.com/ or whatever you use, it's a problem if I need to open ksp two times one in english another in Spanish because I don't have idea what was supposed to be that word that doesn't make sense. Because is almost everywhere, seriously lots of translations looks like google translate, and you will get bad reviews for the translation... There are also pretty good translations, is not like everything is wrong, that just make it weirder because it feels very incoherent PD: Can I post directly in Spanish in the bug tracker? I will explain myself a lot better
  10. I will try but there is lots of general mistakes to post in the bugtracker, that comes from using english rules instead of the Spanish ones, like capitalizing every word in a title, in Spanish is only the first word is capitalized. Or translating R&D to I&D instead of I+D. I know that this kind of "translations" are pretty common in lationamerica, but feels that I'm reading Spanglish instead of Spanish. There are other that are just plain weird, "fin" translated as "plano de deriva" instead of "aleta" or "alerón" Is out there a reference document or something? I helped before in software translations, I could volunteer (I know there was a calling a couple of weeks ago, but I was pretty busy) @Badie ?
  11. The grasshopper doesn't equal the New Shepard at all, the grasshopper only developed the control landing, the other is a full human grade suborbital rocket. Blue Origin has a reusable from the start design, SpaceX has a cheap and easy to manufacture rocket design upgraded to be reusable. In the mid-long term I think Blue origin will be cheaper, because the lower operations cost. Blue origin has already a proven reused suborbital rocket, they know the caveats, all the logistics needed and what to improve in the next design (it's also said that they hired engineers from the dc-x program, and remember that the dc-x was very focused in reduced maintenance and ground support) and they will probably design the New Glenn with this in mind. The joke is that I don't like neither of them. I didn't claimed that it would have been a successful SSTO, but it would have developed the technologies required to have a better rocket tech, and probably would have ended in a good reusable first stage in the 90's or the 00's. DC-X was more a tech and logistics demonstrator, than a real scale model.
  12. The spaceshuttle was also planned that way, that doesn't mean that will be achievable. Time will say, but I think that Blue origin will be far better than SpaceX in this, and that we wouldn't be discussing any of this if the DC-X were funded in the 90's.
  13. We are derailing but Anyway in the actual topic Do we really know what is done to a future reused stage in SpaceX? How much is reassembled?
  14. That's what I was trying to say. And I think that is very easy to misquote that wording, and I think is very naive to think that easy to misquote wording wasn't done in purpose. Nowadays most people believe that SpaceX had developed the first private orbital rocket ever.
  15. It's also claimed that Falcon1 was the first privately funded rocket rocket to reach orbit, apparently Pegasus never existed. Welcome to the posmodernism
  16. The "idea" is to just land the zeppelin, and the atmosphere above the stratosphere IIRC is not that turbulent.
  17. Somewhat related: What about a "big" telescope in a high altitude blimp? To overcome atmosphere extinction, overcome seeing and be able to see in wavelengths impossible in the surface, without the need to be in orbit and the capability to have maintenance be upgradeable. It maybe is stupid, I'm very tired today.
  18. Clearly he also wants the team fortress 2 market
  19. That was for a defined goal, that is to develop the landing capabilities of the Falcon9. (And it was already proven what grasshopper did) You are basically suggesting to design a new service module, that is exactly one thing that SpaceX has opposed to do. You are really oversimplifying the engineering in that.
  20. Because it's very expensive to design and build the hardware just to test that.
  21. Well now here goes a cynical note about SpaceX loosing their place as the rock star For me not only the ones steering the ship are sailors. The scientists in a boat researching fish or whatever in the ocean are also sailors, the fishers that doesn't nothing in the navigation of the boat, the workers in a cruise, etc.
  22. A tourist in a cruise is not a sailor, the people working in it are, a passenger in a ferry is still just a passenger. Why would be different with the astronauts? If you are working you are an astronaut, if you are making tourism, you are a space tourist, if you are a passenger you are "only" a passenger. PD: At least in Spanish makes sense this way
  23. I think we also need an official distinction between principal moons and moonlets (or other name, that's not the problem). Something like Jupiter has 4 moons and at least 63 moonlets
  24. I'm an engineer I suffer the marketing and commercial department overpromising things. (I don't currently have that kind of job but in the past...) You develop a sixth sense for this kind of things Yeah, that's true, they now have a cargo spacecraft that isn't really that modular, but that's not necessarily a problem, I suppose that have common manufacturing processes with the crew version, look at Progress and Soyuz (in the other hand Roscosmos have plans to change the Progress to something non soyuz based because it could be cheaper...). But that's because the lack of mid/long term technical plans in SpaceX, nothing new. And here you can see how they were overclaiming since at least 2012. The Falcon have extra room, not really the Dragon, and because that they announce they can launch extra secondary payloads capacity so they could claim that the dragon has that cargo capacity. Falcon is pretty overpowered for this cargo.
  25. NASA is the client, is SpaceX who needs to adapt to the NASA cargo not the other way, more when the dragon was designed to meet NASA's needs. Of course is overpromised, and also an unproven claim. And the capacity to return cargo IIRC wasn't a requisite With is also higher that the cygnus. Dragon is a good modular spacecraft, which probably make it worse than any specialized design for any given mission, but very versatile, just not as good like SpaceX marketing claims. You could see how little I like marketing