AngelLestat

Members
  • Content count

    2057
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

311 Excellent

1 Follower

About AngelLestat

  • Rank
    Energy Consultant
  1. I guess these are 2 or 3 different pictures merged in one... I cant imagine other way to do it.
  2. I dont see the damage in the first picture.. the white and black points follow a pattern which means is not natural damage. About the second picture yeah, is clear that it had a rough trip, but just seems superficial. We know that after reentry, it ignite and land. The fire test will clear up some doubts.
  3. English is not my main language, but I guess he is saying that the max damage than a recovery booster could receive was under these circumstances, so if this booster works in the firing tests, it means than the other are more than ok. So he is not confirming that this booster wouldl be disqualify. Maybe it will be, but he is not saying that.
  4. I guess a tug should be light, low thrust with high isp. If they are manned, the thrust should be much higher than today ion engines but no so much like many merlin engines. So even if you adapt these second stages to fulfill this role, I don't see much benefits vs launch a special tug to fulfil that purpose. Yeah, you save the deorbit fuel that can be used in solar panels but does not seems enough. But I give you a point for the idea.
  5. I guess when we think in energy, we should always had in mind its source and the cost, for example: Source SUN (Fusion) 1-Solar (electromagnetic) 2-Wind (kinetic) 3-Hydropower (gravity potential) 4-Sea Waves or currents (kinetic) 5-Fossil fuels (chemical storage) Source Moon´s gravity. 1-Tidal power (kinetic) Source Geothermal (50 to 90 % Radioactive decay, rest remaining heat from earth creation and a small % of tidal heat) 1-Geothermal Energy Source Nuclear (hard to classify) 1- RTG 2- Fission 3- Fusion (future) Then to exploit those we always have a cost associated, for example we can travel around the world with "solar impulse 2 plane" in something that we might call "perpetual motion" (of course is not), but it require a lot of money, based on the amount of work needed (that is also related to energy). I never try to defeat thermodynamics, but there are times when you don't know exactly if the extra efficiency you looking to achieve is against some rule or not. This is an energy scheme that I wanted to exploit (the image is not complete): The goal: try to improve the efficiency of wind energy with chemical storage and other energy sources. 1- Extra heat energy from black smokers to improve the efficiency of electrolysis (above 100% measured from the electrical input) 2- Extra efficiency in work with high pressure electrolysis (this is only related to limitations of our current electrolysis tech methods, not due physics rules, gravity is a conservative field) 3- Don't waste the gravity potential that we can get rising the hydrogen. 4- Extra energy from waves that you need to absorb to reduce the movement of your floating base. 5- Instead normal wind turbines, remplace them with high altitude kites (kitegen style), which it will increase the capacity factor and reduce floating structure. 6- Make the kite rope conductive using CNT so you can harvester the atmosphere electrostatic and lightnings, which can all help to increase the voltage and heat to produce extra hydrogen. 7- Extra fishing and co2 capture due the amount of nutrients you can get rising all that cold water with the option C. The bigger problem is the maintenance cost, I guess there is no material that can resist all that for so long. Also the cost to purify water, in case you don't want to separate and mine all extra elements from the water, but if you use a black smoker in the first place, mine those minerals has total sense.
  6. I guess your idea was something similar to exploit the change of buoyancy you get when you compress the lifting gas, but that energy of course is the same you get from the potential energy gain. But is not about the atmosphere pressure gradient.. is about density (they are related, but buoyancy is all about density) http://www.hp-gramatke.net/pmm_physics/english/page0550.htm
  7. I think that by the end of 2014 could be completed the first track (city to city), with 6 years of development and 2 or 3 for construction. I dont know much about all different approaches, but this seems fit for its purpose very nice and cheap enough (not sure why other companies did not took advantage of eddy currents way before): They can even solve the curve accelerations issues just adding more aluminum in that side of the curve (so acceleration for the passengers always point down), the cost of aluminum is important, but no so much compared to the tube or other kind of alternatives. It does not seem like a source, also not sure what are the similarities with hyperloop.. more details please.
  8. what about the merlin engine from spacex? Or is included in other mod? I will like many engines to be included so I dont need to install a huge mod like KW rocketry or Nova.
  9. As I explain in the past, there is a better economic strategic behind price reduction
  10. Are you ok? seriously I am asking.. because most of your answers are absolutely not related to the quotes. Is scary.. something is wrong there. Your other answers just avoid, ignore, forget and lack of any trace of logic or reason (totally needed to have smart and profitable discussion), which at this point, the remaining esteem that I had of you was evaporated. well, let's conclude this discussion and possible future discussions because I don't see the point if these ends being incoherent.
  11. Ok.. is time you start to recognize your errors because all the things that I correct you, were ignored, so this mean you are not learning from your mistakes. 0.1 atm = 10% earth atmosphere, mars atmosphere = 0.6% earth atmosphere. So this pressure is 17 times higher than mars. The boiling point of water at 35 degrees is half of that. Why you are posting something that I said? I was the one who said that a wobbling will generate heat and a possible magnetic field due tidal heating... But as I said before, in the earth case is radioactive decay the main source of heating. Much of the heat is created by decay of naturally radioactive elements. An estimated 45 to 90 percent of the heat escaping from the Earth originates from radioactive decay of elements mainly located in the mantle.[4][8][9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient ?? you dont need highly eccentric orbits.. the orbit period may have few days, also you can have a perfect eccentric orbit with tidal lock like Io and still generates a lot of tidal heating due the other jupiter moons. So a natural sattelite, other planets, etc.. everything can provide tidal heating. As I said before.. try to spent more time finding circumstances where it works instead pointing the only special case where that could not work. Ok.. this is BS? I expect an apology then: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems "the violent flaring period of a red dwarf's lifecyle is estimated to only last roughly the first 1.2 billion years of its existence." Earth has 4.5 billions years. lol.. excuse me.. you was trying to convince us that tidal lock planet could start to rotate again due your volatile theory, you also want to prove that there is no chance of life in other type of planets that are slightly different than earth. Meanwhile I saying that it may be different conditions were life as we know it could develop. What claim is more crazy? more taking into account that I prove with reason and logic all the points that I made, but I correct many points you made. haha.. the only hype here is your posture. The earth would have 30 degrees less if did not have a greenhouse effect, if you add the venus albedo due sulfate aerosols or stratus clouds at high altitude the earth would receive 40% less sunlight, so you need to reduce that temperature way more.. so the habitable zone means nothing. Haha.. Now the only way you have to reject my arguments is asking me for direct evidence which you know our technology can not provide yet. Bravo well done!
  12. well I could not see it for the hour, but OMG, we can see how spacex are perfected themselves in matter of weeks... How much we need to wait to see the same thing in other companies? I guess track the progress of spacex never will become boring, their are always pushing their limits and tech all the time.
  13. what I treasure most is the truth.. I don't like to maintain a wrong idea; or worst, spread it. the benefit of having many engines is that you reduce manufacture cost due quantity.. is also easier to design different launchers or stages changing the numbers of engines and in case one or two fails, you can still achieve your goal. ---------------------------------------------------------- Well, only 1:45 hrs left to launch... but I need to go to sleep, work tomorrow
  14. I didn't mention venus in my last reply.. so not sure what are you talking about. I said 0.1 atm.. which is different than 0.01 atm, time to use glasses 1-you dont really need planet rotation to produce a magnetic field, it helps due coriolis effect (but this is secundary). Magnetic fields are mostly created due heat convection, heat due radiative decay (mostly from the internal core where most heavy elements are) is transferred to the melted conductive layer (which it moves super slowly), this conductive layer gets cooled due higher layers which eventually release that heat in the planet surface. This produce a magnetic field which induce and helps to maintain this dynamo effect. In addition a tidal locking planet rotates at the same period of its orbit, and if we are talking about a red or brown dwarf then that rotation is fast, more talking into account that you can be closer than normal planets and still have a good template zone in the planet. If your planet is not totally tidal lock (this mean that it has a wobble), then you get tidal heating which can increase the magnetic field. 2- only when the red star is in its infancy, after some billions its flare tendency is highly reduced. 3- This is not the same than your reason 2? even if it flares, there are many reasons why life could go on: 1) Life can evolve to survive that 2) you have always half of the planet shielded (or life under water) 3) you can have a strong magnetic field or you can have a thick atmosphere. Last.. no sure why you mention so much red dwarf.. a tidal locking planet can also be in a normal star like the sun. This depend on many parameters.. its gravity, its magnetic field, the amount of atmosphere (maybe is a good thing for some planets), or the case that the planet orbit moved or was captured later on. Another factor.. the closer a planet is from its star, less frequent and stronger are their flares. (because is harder to hit it) not sure if normal solar wind has a major effect than solar flares, but well if venus would have a magnetic field this could be a different story.. about how venus lose it, all points to its lack of convective heat flow, that it seems is caused due its greenhouse and mostly its apparent lack of tectonic plates (which account for the 60% of heat lost in earth). drawing the "habitable zone".. and the size of that habitable zone was defined by the most closed-minded scientists, who think that earth atmosphere is the only kind of atmosphere in the universe. The atmosphere together with other parameters is the most important feature to decide the environment condition and temperature that the planet has. You can have a planet at jupiter distance and still support life as we know it. my chemistry level is super basic. But venus is losing atmosphere all the time, but it is in certain equilibrium because comets, volcanism and space dust restore the water levels. You know.. you are taking the anthropological approach.. like earth center of the universe, in which everything on earth is a perfect combination of causes that if one fails, then life would not be possible. This perspective is always searching the pretext to prove that something cant work, this blind the researcher who usually ignore all the other possibilities with new parameters in which all those issues are solved in a different way. I remember your first comments in the forum, they were less accurate in many ways.. now I read you in most of the cosmology or high end physics topics and I can not follow you of how much you improve. So now you understand most of the basic physics rules.. why instead search the conditions in which something will fail.. you don't try to imagine the special conditions in which something could work, for this you need to embrace your creativity and push your abilities without limiting your self. Start now.. tell me what parameters and conditions you will give to a tidal locking celestial body in a red dwarf system which periapsis is enough to heat the earth surface at 100c, it should sustain life as we know it. That question gives you enough room to play with many possibilities. PD: By the way.. from the whole quote you did from my comment, your answer was cero related XD I guess you was answering an old comment mine but you quote the new one.
  15. ok, it is true, Facon Heavy center core is more robust than the other two, it does not give much detail but spacex will limit production to 2 types of cores. "Falcon Heavy is two different cores — the inner core and the two side sticks,” Shotwell said. “The new Falcon 9 will basically be a Falcon Heavy side booster. So we’re building [only two different] cores to make sure we don’t have a bunch of configurations around the factory so we can streamline operations and hit a launch cadence of one or two a month from every launch site we have." http://spacenews.com/spacex-aims-to-debut-new-version-of-falcon-9-this-summer/ Well I was wrong on one single core to rule them all. Yeah, due lox density 1200kg/m3 and taking into account that the stage is 44 m tall, (lets rise the fuel 30 meters) at 4g it will be close to 15 bar (with 0 flow), so we need more than that. I guess the tank pressure is much higher, but still not sure what we gain lifting the oxidant or fuel to the center core tank, if we can just feed the bottom connection before distribute that fuel to the engines. In fact you dont even need different helium tanks, because those helium tanks are designed to keep the pressure constant even when the tanks are empty, the only that changes is that you need to release that helium 50% faster. We can even let the center core tanks valves open with the center helium tank close, and you will consume the fuel of the other 2 boosters, but I think it will be more simple with the center core valve closed.