Jump to content

Rakaydos

Members
  • Posts

    2,522
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rakaydos

  1. 28 minutes ago, Lewie said:

     We went around a bend, the shrubbery cleared...and across the wetlands I could see Phobos+Deimos. Heh...At this point I was pretty much screaming ‘GUYS! THAT’S PHOBOS AND DEIMOS! THOSE SUCKERS ARE GONNA BE FLOATING LAUNCH PLATFOOOORMS!!!’ 

    Excited, to say the least.

     

    not to dull your enthusiasm, but those weren't phobos and deimos.

    Deimos may be in the port of brownsville being worked over by a dozen cranes, but Phobos isnt even in Texas right now- it's in Pascagulla, Mississipi, because there was an open berth with the facilities needed for the refit.

  2. So with a few minor changes, I was able to get my high-science rocket into orbit, and bring it back to kerbin.

    ...And now all the tourists want orbital flights or they wont give me completion bonuses. Lady, you arnt paying me enough to do a 2 seater to orbit at my tech level. I barely made it with a 1 seater.

    So, slow death by funds shortage incoming. I did get crew reports from landing in the desert, and a science from orbiting, and I managed two ladder rider flights (Shores and grassland), but had a high casualty rate. 37.8 science, with desert expiriments, mountian science, and island airfield science still available, but next time, I need to get them before achieving orbit.

  3. New NCD run. This time, I was able to get within a half hour's jog of the cove on my first toursit suborbit flight- I've got the required trajectory on my standard Bezos flight figured out.

    In addition to the usual, I'm skipping wings AND advanced engines, and trying to save up for the probe core and science Jr. I managed to get space high science by accepting I was going to be throwing away practically the whole rocket- I made sure I had plenty of funds to recover afterwards.

    Currently have 30.9 science, and am missing mountian science, island airflield microbiome, and all the ladder rider space-above science, of which Shores, Water, and Grassland should be easy, and highlands and mountians may be possible. also, if I need it I can get another science or two from cleaning up the last bits of mystery goo from the entire KSC and surrounding biomes.

    My space-high disposable also might be able to reach the Desert biome. If it can reach orbit, that's another science too.

  4. 2 hours ago, RyanRising said:

    Heard rumours that the grid fins won’t fold down for ascent, but will stay in that extended position the whole flight. I hope the guy who told me that just had bad info, cause that is properly cursed. I know passive stability isn’t even a consideration on modern-day rockets, and on Starship especially would be a lost cause, but picture the whole stack flying up with the grid fins out and tell me that doesn’t just look wrong.

    There is some speculation on NSF that the grid fins being installed right now are nonfunctional props for the full-stack photo-op, because there's no visible articulation, not even as a control surface.

  5. 22 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

    I don't know whether you're joking or serious...

    Anyway, if we go the nuclear route, is it better from a cost perspective to have a few large centralized plants, or many smaller ones? It seems like transporting fuel and waste to and from a lot of different plants would be kinda expensive.

    Mass production of small modular reactors is the way to go. Unfortunately, that has to get pass the hurdle of not just reactor design, but reactor-factory design and all the regulatory hurdles of applying buisness concepts to something that should not proliferate.

  6. 4 minutes ago, MKI said:

    Speaking of Radioactivity, has any country seriously re-considered re-implementing (or already has) nuclear power? I know it was more of the rage a few decades ago, but idk where it sits now. Last I checked nuclear isn't really renewable, but it can be clean when done correctly and provide a solid bridge for renewable power in the mean time, and for a long time at that.

     

    Until 10 years from now we get the fusion ;D

    The biggest problem with fission is that it takes literal decades to build a new plant, once you figure all the paperwork to make sure  you're not building on a fault line or volcano and the walls will be thick enough not to irradiate the workers and you have a solid plan for dealing with the waste, ect ect. All rational concerns when dealing with a potential Chernobyl, but in the time and money it takes to build one, you'd get more out of building renewables.

  7. 28 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

    Given that Texas and the coast of anywhere can be quite windy - and that stacking SS20 is likely to require cm precision (if not mm) - how big of a launch window /authority do they need to not only get the two ships mated, but also launch on a relatively stale day? 

    "The average hourly wind speed in Galveston is essentially constant during November, remaining within 0.2 miles per hour of 11.7 miles per hour throughout.

    For reference, on December 25, the windiest day of the year, the daily average wind speed is 12.2 miles per hour, while on August 15, the calmest day of the year, the daily average wind speed is 8.4 miles per hour.".  https://weatherspark.com/m/9621/11/Average-Weather-in-November-in-Galveston-Texas-United-States

    See reference above - what is the scrub wind speed for stacking / launch? 

     

    This may be a factor in the idea to use the catching arms for stacking instead of a crane- more positive control of the upper stage, so less affected by the wind during stacking. 

  8. 38 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

    And this process slows down as temperature rises (according to an 80s vintage textbook I read), which is a possible reason why Venus found itself in a runaway greenhouse while Earth did not. 

    Another threat of melting Greenlandic ice sheets is that the fresh water can slow and possibly stop the Gulf Stream, making Europe much colder 

    I dont remember the gulf stream as a threat from greenland, but I know that there's an atlantic current that involves cold water from near greenland passing under the surface current in a figure 8, and that if that loop stalls out europe is going to get much colder and south america is getting much hotter.

  9. 39 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

    So, another question. Are there times in Earth's history when CO2 levels were higher than today? Because if there are, it means there is some mechanism that can remove the CO2, even at higher averages.

    20 years ago, the answer would have been yes. 

    (the data doesnt include the last 5 years, but "https://xkcd.com/1732/" has some good historical data presentation for global temperatures)

    The problem is that there IS mechanisms to remove CO2, and we're overloading them by putting tens of thousands of years of carbon sequestered underground, and putting it all into the air in just the last 200 years. Several of those mechanisims are starting to break under the strain, such that they arnt even doing their normal CO2 removal anymore.

    Edit: CO2 may be "plant food", but it's starting to look more like the monty python "wafer thin mint" sketch.

  10. 4 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

    As I said earlier, I genuinely don't think it's possible to be too alarmist about the effects.

    I mean, noone here is making comparisons to Noah's ark- there just isnt enough ice on the planet to make that fable real. But there are folks who make that connection and repeat it.

  11. 27 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

    @Rakaydos is salt a greenhouse gas?

    And about the 'source'... I don't understand what you are asking.  If we have a power plant and its exhaust is a source of CO2 emissions, if we then scrub the exhaust of CO2... What about the source? 

    Kerbolid claimed that "Now they tend to return into process as much carbon dioxide as they can," and that green products are a capitalist conspiracy. I'm trying to work my way through that claim.

    Such carbon capture setups are an extra expense, and would be avoided if the plant operators thought they could get away with it.

  12. 25 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

    The CO2 is captured by, say, the diethanolamine, then this gets into the regeneration column and splits into CO2 and original diethanolamine.

    The latter returns into the deoxidizing column, the CO2 gets collected as liquid, and then used for any need, say to produce methanol.

    It's a trivial, widely used process.

    Nothing in your source suggests diethanolamine is used for carbon capture. Ethanyl Oxide is not Carbon Dioxide.

  13. 6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

    Source what? Read a detailed description of any industrial process, starting from ammonia synthesis or gas refinery.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethanolamine

    Basically, "аминовая очистка",  somewhat like "amine purification" in English.

    (not "purification of amines", but "purification by amines")

    Used for decades everywhere.

    And that's just an old tech. Obviously, now they can provide much better purifiers.

    so, NOT CO2 cracking. Soot recapture, yes, but not CO2.

    CO2 continues to be released and, while it's not as bad of a greenouse gas as Methane, it also sticks around basically forever, adding up over time, while the heat trapped by the CO2 ALSO adds up over time.

  14. 47 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

    sevenperforce,

     Thanks, but no thanks. I have told you I don't know how many times and different ways now that I'm not trying to convince you of anything. More importantly, I'm very keenly interested in not fighting with you about it, since you're clearly emotionally invested in your belief.

     If you want to go digging down that particular rabbit hole, then you will. If you don't you won't. At the very least, you may be able to find somebody willing to show you... but it won't be me and it won't be on this forum.

    Best,

    -Slashy

    you've triggered "someone is wrong on the internet" and you're not backing down, despite overwelming evidence.

    But you are clearly invested in your "the moon landings climate records were faked" delusion, and we arnt going to convince you otherwise. So we should all drop the subject, and return to the topic of... sea level rise. (and the moons wobble affecting it)

     

  15. 30 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

     

    That said, if the planet is warming, which it certainly seems to be, it seems logically sound that the total ice cover on land would decrease overall (there could be specific regions where it gets thicker), and sea level rise is thus expected.

     

    Instead the ice is getting less dense as it melts from the inside.

  16. Jeb was tragically lost to  a soft landing in the mountians, after leaving the ship to attemp to aquire "flying at mountian" science. Unfortunately, he didnt pack a personal parachute.

    Val was able to pick up the spare, after getting Highland science, by running a marathon up hill (though the snow in the heat of summer, ect) to reach the edge of the mountian biome next door.

    2 kerbonauts down. 1 pilot, 0 scientists remaining. 7.6/45 science to unlock probe cores  and science Jrs.

×
×
  • Create New...