magnemoe

Like the V-22 so nothing new I say, why not go for an tail sitter on a drone, fixed wings for cruise performance, propellers above and below wings for takeoff and landing. Benefit of the V-22 is that is can take off with far more than its VTOL landing load from an air strip. but its burned so much fuel it can land unload and fly back.

Yes, rocket engines are hungry. It burns even more LOX. This is the main problem with cross-feed and drop tanks, you have an flow usually only seen in hydro plants. Yes some large water handling systems might handle many ton's second but here pressure is low and bubbles and cavitation is not an issue.

Jet engines bleed air trough the turbine blades to cool them, my idea was to do this with hydrogen. And yes early jet engines just lasted some hours And jet engines are more complex in many ways as you are burning air not pure oxygen, air pressure variations and as you say environmental factors including noise, also orders of magnitude longer flight times. I'm sure its lots of engines on long distance flight who has burned for longer in an single flight than shuttle or falcon 9 engines has burned totally but jet engine then does this the next day

The rotating lower jaw one was amphibious and used by intelligent dinosaur to cut down trees and make planks. Flintstone was pretty accurate outside the humans and the pointless cars. They had everything from fast cabs to +100 ton trains pulled by the huge dinosaurs. They was expanding out of current day Mexico. They did not have an space program

Second one is just pretending, but this is nor folding, just flexible. Once we stole an plastic banner and carried on our head because it was raining, we was obviously drunk, it was flexible but not folding like an umbrella.

LEO and later the moon works better, shorter travel time and an luxury hotel both paces would be viable down the line. Multi year trips then you can not talk normally on the phone has issues if you need to be connected. Yes some people will pay for it but it would not bankroll the operation like orbital and moon hotels. You then attach the research to the hotels as its cheaper anyway, And you get to run on water on a pool on the moon.

Yes jet engines run lean on 20% oxygen in the atmosphere. Rocket engines uses lox and fuel, mixed together, great care has to be taken to not melt the chamber. Putting an turbine in there is idiotic hard. All turbo pumps is inefficient by design as you can not run them like rocket engines as you melt the turbine and this is just to power the pumps. Now you could have the inefficient burned mix feed into the engine chamber, eliminating the loss if you can handle the higher pressure. Obviously if you could run an turbo pump as an rocket engine you could just use it as an smaller rocket engine at the side who would be much easier but still very hard as none has done it. Now you might pull this off on an smaller hydrolox turbo pump, burn it oxygen rich, use LH2 to cool the turbine by pumping it trough blades for cooling, then an second chamber before the nozzle and exhaust is fuel rich. You can use this for roll control and does not get usual open cycle losses even if open cycle. Its not something SpaceX would make.

This, it's probably easier to see on an rapid rotating airless body. Now one weird effect in KSP is that if you shoot an rocket straight up say 10 km it will come down west of launch point. This is probably simply that Up in orbital view counter the rotation.

Get it but we docked for half an century now and has it ever been issues outside the pre Apollo learning experiences and the Mir crash? Having to move back and retry is like an turnaround on landing. Has any mission failed to dock? Outside of launch fails and starliner who did not reach correct orbit?

You might want to use Orion as it will return from moon orbit Moonship will stay in lunar orbit. But you launch it on an cheaper platform than SLS. I would also not use an full size starship for the Moonship at least not all the length of the crew compartment if crew is only 4-7 people. 2 full decks in addition to the cargo hold would give all private cabins and have space for an lab and a workshop.

Now Musk is correct in making us an multi planetary species, the problem is that this is ++100 year in the future, its not something he can do, making mining on the moon and asteroids to expand the starling fleet makes more sense today. If we had an second planet with life who we was a bit unlucky with, becoming an multi planetary species would be much easier. This let you bypass lots of the late filters. Now Homo sapiens will go extinct as the Neanderthal did, you want radical life extension and other obvious fixes. If you can not get them you want them for your kids. If it require an species change its not an problem. The n you uplift cats, dogs and bears because you could.

Was in Morocco some years ago, solar hot water systems was everywhere from out rental apartment to farms. Morocco is unlikely to run out of sun.

Now its an argument of lowering trust rater than shutting down engines later on. But rocket engines burn for short time compared to jet engines who might burn over half the time daily for years. Who is true for passenger planes but not for fighter jets, they are much more highly stressed and need more maintenance.

I agree, that was a bit weird, rather have an elevator and couple of cranes to get people up as an backup. Use the ball suits as an backup if the backup suits failed. And with an deck or two you will have workshops who likely fix failed suits or equipment. Primary purpose of space is damage control we divided it up into living quarters until we need damage control.

If they had concrete they would used it lots of places like the Romans did. If you find use of concrete in ancient Egypt its probably Roman one, remember Cleopatra lived closer to our time than the construction of the pyramids. The interior blocks are pretty rough cuts, only the top and bottom needed to be flat for stability. The outer layer would likely to be stone anyway, this was common in Rome and today for prestige buildings.

I assume this require an second Starship who is going to and from Mars but stays in orbit but is the crew quarters during trip to and from Mars. I like the design, You could use more cargo Starships for stuff like an large rover, more living space and beginning building the infrastructure for ISRU for later missions. This would be hard to pull off with robots.

Yes also think VHS was larger on rental videos. Remember you could also rent the player who was smart as it extend customer base to people not having an player. But saw the fun in Betamax vs VHS being politic or religion

Dropping flares makes sense, I assume this was the float planes on cruisers who have low payload, but you could drop flares farther out than the 5" guns could. And getting into 40 mm range is wild.

https://imgur.com/gallery/x1zrbUi Its an battery powered compressor taped to the wheel.

Art would be the obvious place to look, but it does not show it's folding. But its pretty simple to make and probably more sturdy than an fixed one in wind. head with 6-12 flexible mountings, equal number of spines. and ring to hold them out and an locking pin to keep ring in place, turn upside down to open insert pin.

Its lots of reconstruction of ancient sites, sometime just to protect them from weather but more important prestige and make them better tourist destination, this has happened for hundreds of years now.

Issue is that even at WW 1 naval combat took place at so long range its not cinematic anymore because of rangefinders and fire control tables who was analogue fire control computers. But then you got planes doing dog fighting and attack runs in WW 2 or star wars. Remember starting seeing WW 2 clips of the Pacific and it looked just like Star Wars, it was obvious the other way around But wonder if both ship artillery and planes was used the same time anytime against ships outside of battle of Samar. Perhaps at Guadalcanal? Now for coastal operations this was standard but you usually used one of them I imagine.

Today you don't dump fuel unless its an emergency forcing you to land like engine out, can not retract landing gear and your circle or get an fine. During an air force practice an B 52 pulled in front of line because an engine out, F 16 pilots was not impressed.

I agree its very unlikely.

Back before WW 1 volley fire at extreme range as out to 2000 meter was an thing, this is why you can see rifles with sights with settings for this extreme range. I assume this was mostly for harassments and making the area unsafe and it would be more effective on an large group of enemies.