Technical Ben

Members
  • Content Count

    2,114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

321 Excellent

About Technical Ben

  • Rank
    Capsule Communicator

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Elon gets distracted and pulls a train network with a jetpack and totally forgets about rockets.
  2. Just leave it in orbit, and use tanks to refuel/plug in... it's a tug. (Rendezvous with low orbit, then use it to boost up to the ISS and/or the moon. XD )
  3. It matters if I want to use Falcon 9s as my "shuttles" for planetary landings (disposable/reuse stages) for my Sci-fi. Elon is doing me no favours if I cannot predict the results... my sci-fi will all be wrong if I they go and build different craft after all this. XD I estimated shuttle designs (skylon) and small rockets (falcon 9 style). Now he's gone and done a massive thing (witch would be single stage to orbit on anything Mars or smaller, and in my Sci-fi, I'd not expect any earth like planets to be worth it, as terraforming would take thousands of years, so the smaller planets become more desirable for smaller gravity wells). Also, with multiple and quick turnarounds, they could launch a second, and transfer crew. The only reason this was not done for the shuttle was timescales and prohibitive costs. If costs and timescales come down, any faults are eaten up in the profit margin (and SpaceX survives or goes bankrupt on it), where as for "all or nothing" scientific expeditions, risks are kinda different.
  4. I got the reference too... wait, there's a second season? Or are you from the world that has 2 seasons. XD
  5. what actual.... ffffff.... WHY? OK, scary freaky creepy stuff on SpaceX? They gone right out my good books. Confirmed evil mastermind about to kill everyone!
  6. I would assume that is just built on the same chassis to match the in game Cyberpunk as some sort of in game advertising? The design, not "real life". Though might give away the structural design for the truck. No wait... did I wake up in the wrong universe again? Or is this one the one where Elon does go insane and makes Tesla trucks with Sharks with lasers on their heads for taking over the world? Oh well, 24h till I get another chance to jump back to the "good" universe, where KSP was never made in Unity in the first place...
  7. I logged in 20 mins after launch to see... I missed the live launch. I'm wondering, if these get to shoebox size (or a bit bigger, solar/antenna depending), what are the de-orbit/kessler situations for them? Is it like the sea, where the particles hang around for ages, polluting, or would it disperse quickly? Would we end up with launch windows in a similar way aircraft do (though for aircraft it's for the runway safety, but for orbit it would be to find the gaps in starlink to get through safe ).
  8. Hahahahaha. Just got to the episode in Space Brothers where they talk about destructive testing (pushing to the limits) and how the media/top brass don't always understand it. Topical.
  9. Just drop a forklift on the first landing. You ever seen the self stowing forklifts on the back of trucks? They use their own lifts to deploy, then use the lift to get the rest of the "cargo".
  10. Yeah... Not always the best writing moments IMO. The ship I posted above has no weapons, as IMO in space any weapon that hits the target is a MAD (mutually assured destruction). If you don't hit the target, then yeah, it's okish. Simple defences against debris/asteroids etc, but no attack weapons on civilian craft except some possible small fire stuff (like cruise ships currently have to put off pirates ). Today most air/sea combat is pretty much get into range, obliterate anything near it? If it's in range, it's pretty much scrap?
  11. If a "base" it would be permanent, in which case no specialist hardware needed inbuilt to the craft. You would just use a cargo delivery to give you a crain/inflated/rope drop system, OR dig a hole/build up regolith vertical, and not horizontal (use the top for solar, lower for living quarters).
  12. The drive is not really the problem. The Fuel/size/rocket ratio is. Yeah, most of my hard sci-fi designs really play with the limits of physics, but I at least try to aim for something like a 30% fuel to mass ratio or fuel space to cargo space ratio. Then hope for fusion/metallic hydrogen. (And even then, only the "hero" ship or main focus ship is the "rule of cool" breaking of most physics, all the others would have to follow reality, to show how real space flight works IMO... teach people, don't just "tickle their ears". But most scifi, sadly even the Expanse, leave ZERO space to actually put a fuel tank. :facepalm: Yeah, aircraft have fuel in the wings, but even a Tie Fighter/Xwing has wings so thin, their fuel would need to be quantumly compressed. PS, I really should do this for my design (It's had a bit of modification since then): It's suppose to be able to take off from Mars sized planets (Earth would be too much of a "drag" and to much gravity). Though to do that, you'd need to swap at least one of the cargo bays for a fuel bay. This is the labelled version (with older "wings")@
  13. First attempt. Prototype. Not for production use. Test bed. Learning experience. Do we need to spell it out?
  14. Yeah. It's sad but true. If the economy can stretch to tourists flying around the moon, it may stretch to tourists staying on the moon. Governments may sponsor "bases" for governmental reasons (shows of strength). But physically or economically, there is nothing in space we would pay for. Asteroids for materials gets around the cost of land/mining rights. But if the cost is there, places could drop the price of mining rights, and then SpaceX would lose all those launches/asteroid returns. An economy is a strange thing, and you cannot second guess it. The Sproose Goose never really "flew", and even the big double decker aircraft are being retired at times. Sometimes it works out (international air flight) sometimes it does not (channel Hovercraft ferries ).