• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

297 Excellent

About Steel

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. Not a chance. Even without the boosters an Ariane 6 would likely have a fully loaded mass somewhere around 300,000/400,000 kg, or 3,000,000/4,000,000 N. The main engine can produce around 1,350,000 N of thrust, so you get a thrust-to-weight ratio below 0.5.
  2. I mean technically it's a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, but it's close enough
  3. This sort of thing is one of the most widely performed experiments in optics. A similar idea is the basis of the interferometer [1], which is an instrument which is widely used to make incredibly precise measurements of various things (this is what was used in the recent LIGO detections of gravitational waves [2]). In fact the Michelson-Morley experiment [3] (which, again, is along similar lines, looking at the difference between the speed of light beams that travel along different paths) was one of the first experiments to support the fact that the speed of light is the same in all directions and reference frames. As far as I'm aware, no-one has published any inconsistencies in the the speed of light in the 150 or so years people have been messing around with light beams and mirrors.
  4. Well he's an engineer with no formal physics training and his theory is entirely conceptual with no mathematical basis, so I'm going to say it's unlikely that it would stand up to any rigorous examination.
  5. I'm just going to start out by saying I disagree completely and wholeheartedly with everything you just said. I'm then going to quickly apply the "don't feed the troll" mantra and move past this post. If anyone wants to have a debate about this with @Arugela, make a new thread, let's not derail this thread. Back on topic: I believe some WIMP hypotheses have them being able to interact weakly via the electroweak interaction, which is how they can coalesce into clumps. My guess would be that the other interaction still dominates over gravitational waves (especially at short range), purely because even a weak electroweak interaction is many orders for magnitude stronger than a gravitational one.
  6. It would make sense if that was how it was set up, but unfortunately that's not the case! The pedal is for the jet engine, the rocket is just a switch on the steering wheel.
  7. Nope, they are in fact a brake and an accelerator pedal [1]
  8. This is true, so long as the CoM and CoD are in the correct place so that the vehicle is aerodynamically stable with a heatshield deployed. You'd have to have an inflatable heatshield that was pretty large to achieve this I'd imagine (something like this perhaps)
  9. I'd forgotten about the HIAD tests! I think it was just the chute, the actually inflatable bit was fine I think
  10. Two things: 1) Inflatable heatshields (to the best of my knowledge) have never actually been tested in flight. 2) If anything, an inflatable heatshield makes thing less stable, because it's essentially like deploying a giant parachute and so makes the spacecraft want to flip around.
  11. As other have said above, essentially zero. There are roughly 400 geosynchronous satellites in orbit [1]. If they are spread (roughly) evenly around that orbit, there's approximately 650 km between each one.
  12. Well it's not guaranteed, it could (although it's extraordinarily unlikely) be a massive disaster that never gets certified at all.
  13. But since the spacecraft already had onboard oxygen tanks for the fuel cells and such, that's still an additional tank. Also personal oxygen tanks are not a great idea, there's more chance of something going wrong (assuming you have more than one astronaut), plus you have to carry an oxygen tank with you at all times which gets a little unwieldy (also as I said before, the spacecraft tend to carry oxygen anyway) It is partly, but Soyuz has used a mixed gas atmosphere the whole time and been fine. In general if you have a cabin decompression and you're not properly suited up you're pretty much dead anyway, so the bends isn't so much of a problem. EDIT: To be honest, there's no real reason why American spacecraft couldn't be have been designed to have mixed gas atmosphere (see Soyuz), it's just that the Americans didn't really see having a pure oxygen atmosphere as a big problem until the Apollo 1 fire. By that point adding the extra mass and putting the program on hold to re-engineer plumbing e.t.c in order to convert Apollo to mixed gas was a big enough deal to stop them doing it (they wanted to reach the moon within 3 years at that point after all!)
  14. I believe it was partly a weight-saving measure. To have a mixed-gas atmosphere you'd need an additional set of tanks and plumbing for nitrogen as well as oxygen, along with an additional control system to maintain the correct mixtures and pressures.
  15. Doesn't really satisfy the OP's idea for a saucer-type spacecraft though