Meecrob

Members
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About Meecrob

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "320x240? You mean 3200x2400 right? And why are there only 4 colours?"
  2. Even if the rings could be rigidly tethered, I'm not sure a rocket could withstand being pummeled by hypersonic shockwaves each time it passes through a ring.
  3. I think this test is as much about performance of Crew Dragon as it is Public Relations. I used to work at a certain aircraft manufacturer who was developing a jet. The manufacturer received tax breaks to set up shop in a certain district, and also received government grants towards this specific test program. They set up a day for the Politician who spearheaded the grants and tax breaks to see the aircraft do an engine run in front of all the news cameras, then give a speech about how their tax breaks are helping industry. Long story short, the plane didn't start, politician looked extremely awkward, voting public saw their tax dollars going to a static display. Within a year of that incident, the whole program was wound down. Some people say it was the economy or the plane should have had x,y and z features. The truth most likely is: Don't embarrass the hand that feeds on live national television.
  4. Evidently humans invent it sometime before the year 3000
  5. Elon didn't "promise" anything. He said "I have an aggressive schedule that is likely to slip, but if all goes well, it'll launch NET____" Falcon Heavy exists, just like he said it would and DearMoon is still in the works. Crap guys...you had to wait for the next ice age for Nasa to change anything, but SpaceX delays for 3 seconds and you are all calling them out.
  6. Its because the mechanics know the engineering types like yourself will make them change it another 10 times before the first test. I'm just ribbing you, @mikegarrison, I'm curious too. At least the entire thing isn't day-glo orange with FTI so we can see the plumbing.
  7. I think what makes SpaceX seem so far ahead is that they are stating they will do things, then they actually do them. No other company seems to be able to do that in a timescale under a human generation. And still everyone makes fun of ElonTimeTM.
  8. It might add a bit of realism to Career Mode if the EVA jetpack wasn't available to start with and had to be unlocked. For example, when you upgrade the building to unlock the ability to EVA, you would only unlock the ability to leave the capsule with a tether. In the tech tree, there could be a new branch of EVA accessories, such as grab handles, ladders (more varied than KSP 1), tether anchors, robotic work platforms (think a robotic arm you can attach an engineer to for performing repairs ) and a variety of jetpacks. The jetpacks can follow a Mk 1,2,3 style system like the other parts with MK 1 being a glorified can of compressed air that shoots in 6 axes with low thrust and little fuel, up to MK 3 with its "get out and push"/"screw a Minmus lander, I have a jetpack" OP-ness. Inventory item weight could modify jetpack performance (I.E. you can carry anything you want on Gilly, but even the most powerful jetpack would only let you carry 1 or 2 items on Duna). With regards to free monoprop refills, maybe it could be subtracted from the ship's monoprop resource, and if you do not have monoprop on board, tiny single use drop tanks of monoprop specifically for jetpacks could be purchased and carried as an inventory item. If Kerbal Experience is going to be in KSP 2, perhaps pilots could gain the ability to use a jetpack at a lower experience level than the scientists/engineers? Or to go the other way, maybe instead of unlocking via tech tree, the jetpacks could be unlocked corresponding to experience level?
  9. Haha, of course you are right, @mikegarrison. However, aren't some APU's on transport category aircraft unable to start their APU in flight? And if I'm remembering that correctly, is it a design choice by the manufacturer, or a limit of the APU?
  10. Another thing to keep in mind with the 1 engine vs 2 engine debate is accessories that are run off the engine. With one engine you only have one main (non-backup/non-redundant) source for electricity, hydraulics and bleed air.
  11. In this case, size/mass does not matter. Physics is pretty cool that way. If I push 1kg with 1N of force, it will accelerate at 1m/s2. If I push 2kg with 2N of force, it will accelerate at 1m/s2. If I push 1,000,000kg with 1,000,000N, it will accelerate at 1m/s2. I have never actually done any of these examples myself, but I know the answer with certainty because it is a physical law. It MUST be true. For example, Japan has many skyscrapers that are designed to be earthquake-resistant, yet also has many small structures that are completely destroyed by earthquakes. The size/mass of the building has nothing to do with earthquake-resistance. All that matters is that over a certain acceleration, structural integrity is compromised. Now lets say you have a hypothetical spaceship that accelerates at the same rate that a typical earthquake does. You could radially attach that skyscraper to your ship, and it would withstand the ship's acceleration, no problem, but if you attached the small structure not designed to be earthquake-resistant, it would fail under the ship's acceleration. I would propose that we are not scaling up at all. It may be easier to look at it as a ratio or fraction. Let Apollo mass (Saturn V + LM + Service Module, etc.) be x and the thrust it required to perform its mission be y. We can say that x/y = Successful Moon Landing. Now lets say we want to send 10x the mass of Apollo on the exact same mission. All other things being equal (Earth escape, TLI, Lunar capture, etc Delta-V), we would deduce that in order to send 10x to "Successful Moon Landing", we require 10y, thus 10x/10y = Successful Moon Landing. But 10x/10y = x/y. The numbers (mass, thrust) may change, but their ratio to eachother is the same and therefore the forces applied are also the same. Both Apollo and "10x Apollo" would have the exact same Delta-V, Thrust to Weight, burn times, orbital period, etc. Haha, touche
  12. By the above logic, it was "irresponsible" to pursue anything larger than ancient Chinese black powder rockets.
  13. I tried a few water rockets before I got into proper model rockets. I found a truck tire valve stem that fits standard bottles perfectly with the persuasion of the claw end of a hammer. Also, use 500mL pop bottles with a basic nosecone. Water bottle walls are thinner, and 2 litre pop bottles have horrible drag (or whatever the technical term for the ratio of wetted area vs weight is - imagine throwing a balloon). We aimed for distance, since we couldn't measure altitude reliably well, and could get them to go around 100-150 feet from the "launchpad". Play around with the amount of water you add. Around 50/50 water/air by volume is a good starting point.
  14. A picture is worth 1000 words, as they say. Prop cross-section: https://images.app.goo.gl/zP5DWJqjExyDzmGdA Wing cross section: https://images.app.goo.gl/uTZeLTXgxxRX81AC8 As an aside, one of the reasons the Wright Brothers were so successful is because they were the first to realize that you can get flight-viable thrust to weight ratios out of the turn-of-the-century internal combustion engines if they used small wings as the propellers, as opposed to flat paddles. Edited to add: Perhaps this discussion would benefit from refraining from using the word "lift". All airfoils, when moved in a certain way through a fluid such as air produce "thrust" (which can be further broken down into mass*acceleration). We call this thrust "lift" if it is acting to oppose gravity, but it acts the exact same way, with the same force, no matter which direction it is acting.