PB666

What at all does this have to do with SpaceX

Climate change will be real when people finally get that they will have to pay even if they do nothing to stop it. On the bright side, if you live in Yellow knife warmer summers. But what exactly does climate change have to do with 'where in the world is Carmen Sandiego Tiangong-1'

I turned off my device, then never turned it back on again.

It really doesnt matter, when the thrust is P/30MW instead of a P/300MW it roughly means that the drive is ten times less useless than a photon drive. Since the are no 30MW power supplies in space to tap into, and the frictional,force exceeds the force that could be imparted using power from solar panels . . . . . .roughly two useless curiousities.

If he wants to do it properly, he needs a flight followance. ATC often informs and provides services in the flight. Most often they will be warning you about restricted airspace. Here's an airspace map of Poland. http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/faq/content/documents/nm/best-practices/bp-pansa-class-g-fua.pdf In addition Poland spontaneously closes the airspace within 20 km of the Eastern Border.

ITs hard, really hard to do it well.

It would appear that that one has an Non-directional beacon. In most populated areas you would not be allowed to fly with out a traffic radio. ICAO adopted classifications In most European countries you are at population densities were the traffic controllers should be able to contact you. In addition if you read the NOTAM for most airports there is a VFR radio frequency assigned from intertraffic landing and take off coordination.

You have to mod a piece of plating, I actually have white plate, (2 x 2 meters) which in theory you set the maximum tolerable temperature to some ungodly high thing like 4000'C. You have to set the heat conductivity to some low value. Most of the radiation will be reflected, that which is not reflected is converted to heat and the heat is radiated back along an semi-spherical vectors toward the sun. The carbon composite is strong but it does not conduct heat well, its like wall insulation. Under that you probably have a set of 4 standouts (small section of carbon compsite pipe) that attach to the underside. The underside of the probes core might have copper coolant lines carrying a coolant to radiator panels that are never exposed to the sun, these would transfer re-radiated heat to space via convection. Of course at a few million miles from the sun you have the problem of plasma, which doesn't really care about direction and not only very hot, but is charged like crazy with power, millions of volts at that distance. Would not be pleasant for unshielded electronics. And of course we cannot forget that with the plasma comes HCR (GCR would now be trivial).

They are going to use Martian water to put out the lights, first.

My gut feeling is that fueling spacecraft from ISRU is more than 50 years in the future, either moon or mars. I think we are being way optimistic here, we don't even have an active presence on the moon, And I would think you wouldn't want to waste very valuable moon water on a extremely costly thing like trying to reach lunar orbit. If they can just find a way to keep hydrogen that they get to the moon stable, that would be a huge leap right there. For example a budget way to get hydrogen to LEO (SpaceX can do that, if they prioritize a PL fuel transport system) . . .they may even opt to use hydrolox themselves on their second stage. And then some sort of shipper than can ship it to the moon or some DSG That would be a huge step forward right there. The methane deal on mars, you have to have water to make hydrogen, and water is in short supply, at least in the near term.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/this-spacecraft-will-get-closer-to-our-sun-than-any-before-it-without-melting/

La grange points make sense if your intent is to circulate ships between LEO and Lx (x = 1 or 2) and circulate ships between Lx and other points in the solar system. The dV advantage of burning all the way to your destination is overriding other strategies in most cases, but if the circulator is ION driven, then in makes sense to burn to L2 and back with a conventional and perishable fuel like H2/O2. Probably if you just use the H2/O2 as a final boost out of LEO from an ION drive, its going to work out better. But you have to keep the cryogenics fresh until the ION drive has prepared the last kick out. There are two basic strategies for Mars, getting humans there and getting supplies there, provided an adequate intial orbit ION drive can negotiate the supply run by themselves but Humans require special condsideration. L2 is just to far to be useful for human transfers and the DSG is probably a good place to store fuels for transfer. Again the point made above, what is NASA going to use this for . . . . . .IDK.

They could dabble in SLS range, SLS achieves the higher PL to TMI because they are using some of the most expensive first and second stage engines out there, not of them will be recycled and boosters that were designed to be recycles but will essentially be trashed. There is room on the F9 core to add two more boosters, and stagger the separation of the two pairs so that essentially the core shuts down sooner and runs at minimal thrust until the second pair is separated. But even that is troubled by the fact that the second stage is nowhere near as efficient at EUS. I think from an economic point of view, unless they are getting a honey-deal like ULA, there would be no competitive reason to go that direction. Before I say impossible, I would sure like to see what the Block 5 FH telemetry looks like.

He had a hefty headwind. But I have actually seen videos of a cub land vertically in high wind at an airport. (well not vertically it was kindof bobbing forward and backward).

The cub and super-cub is generally a very forgiving and intuitive aircraft. The original model was 40 horsepower, and when it was created it did not have the cooling problems that other contemporary aircraft engines had. A glorified lawnmower engine. In addition most cub owners knew how to repair their craft if it had problems and generally carried tools that allowed it to be repaired. Because it travels so slowly you almost don't need an altimeter (look down you see were the ground is), you need an airspeed indicator, but pulling out of stalls is like super easy. (one reason that it was the primary craft to train US pilots during WWII). You almost never hear of a cub crashing because of engine failure or out of gas because there is generally somewhere with a spot of land long enough and wide enough for a cub to put down in a very rough landing (as a consequence there are alot of old cubs running around, durability in a crisis). At 40 mph you probably would survive a crash, if not bruised pretty heavily. Lets say you are too high on your approach to the dirt road down a cow pasture you intend to land on. Basically make a circle and loose some altitude, some would try the serpentine approach. The turn radius for a cub is like 300 feet, the turn radius for a heavy flying at maximum altitide is 8 nautical miles. Because of its extremely low approach speed and tight turning radius cubs have been extensively used in the Alaskan bush. It has several other advantages. Because it uses gasoline the gas doesn't freeze (which can happen with turboprops in very cold weather that Alaska occasionally has). To understand why you want low approach speed, imagine that your craft is traveling downward at say a meter per second, and you are traveling across terrain that is not flat. If you manage to touch down on a slight downhill you won't feel it, but at a slight uphill, what it feels like in addition to your verticle speed your vertical speed + Sin(slope)*your horizontal speed. So if it is sloping at 10' up, even if for only a foot, when you hit it its going to feel like 3.17 meter per sec in a cub and 4.25 meters per second in a cessna, but the energy is 80% greater in a 172. The problem in the bush is you have to take off with the same gear you land with, there are no repair shops, so you kinda don't want to bust up your gear on landing. The disadvantages is that its not really an IFR craft. IN the vintage craft, youll notice there are no radios, pilots who fly IFR mean (I fly roads). Even when it was originally built there were non-directional beacons, but these craft are really designed to use the terrain for navigation which means not to good at night or bad weather. Pretty much any cub that's flying currently will have a traffic radio and some sort of additional radionavigation added, the addons are often worth many times more than the original craft. The cub is a marvel of minimalism, the least required technology for the most effective product. But the minimalist cub will be restricted from many airspaces until essential radionavigation intruments are added. There is another old equivilent of a cub, the DC3. Its a twin engine version that can hual cargo, it shares many advantages of simplicity. Most people will never need a cub or a DC3, but when you need one, there are generally no other suitable replacements. There is nothing really pleasant about flying in either, except when considering the alternative.

This is known, I actually took Falcon Heavies flight apart and broke it into pieces, added different fuels etc. Falcon Actually needs a much more efficient second stage to compete with SLS. The second stage engine is heavy and gets 3400 Ve . The proposed 4 RL10C-x that are going to end up on the EUS are supposed to be in the 420 ish range, not great for RL10 but good considering they power density and weight for a expansion cycle cryogenic (They could theoretically replace all 4 with and RS25E and have power to boot). In fact, I found it 'strained' just to get 63t into LEO using his setup (although I did not test this with block 5). This is what Ellison was talking about last month, FH does great compared to DeltaIV heavy until it gets about half the dV to orbit, then its competitiveness starts to wane, by the time in reaches TLI values most of the advantage is lost. Musk seems to be flexible with the second stage, he could contract to the Russians for a Second stage full cryogenic engine and get those number up. I think the reason they wouldn't is that the Merlin 1-D-vacuum is cheap and fast to make, and since no-one is recycling the second stage he doesn't want to go there. Musk is willing to step up the cost on anything, as long as the customer demands it and is willing to pay, but right now he has --> 150 flights to take care of so that resources will be going into turnover. What he could do is contract with a third party to build a circulator for LEO to DSG that is cryogenic and just ship cryogenic fuels to the circulator (complete with its own H2 recycling pump). In this situation 1. Falcon heavy carries a circulator with enough mono to run its control systems in Orbit. 2. Falcon heavies carry sufficient oxygen to the circulator. 3. Falcon heavy finally brings payload and liquid hydrogen to the circulator. 4. Once full the circulator goes to DSG, dumps it PL and returns to LEO (and alternative is that it uses Solar panels and ION drive to return it to LEO). The business he is engaged in is volume, to be successful he has to put a reusable uniform factor rocket into space with PL and then land successful. Repetition here is where the profit is, and there is very little repetition in servicing NASA's DSG. How much money Musk spends on FH evolution really depends on interest, if by the end of the year there are a dozen scheduled flights, the may relook at the second stage, but so far FH has a luke-warm response (since the FH launch only 2 more contracts have been added so . . . ).

too late, you already did. Busik has a dozen of different small sat power. Small sats are easy to power, solar panels are flat, the smaller the sat the easier it is for solar panels to power them.

You need to taxi toward the gate and then request clearance to taxi. If you are going to fly iIFR you need to be at some reference point. Normally its a gate. You file the flight plan at the gate, then they will pass you off to ground clearance, once you get to the runway's apron they will hand you to the tower, then you request clearance to take off. From there you wait until you are cleared to take off. For VFR you probably will have a VFR runway, many US airports do not allow VFR, so choose a smaller airport, tune into local traffic and use traffic and visuals to determine when to take off. In general if the runway has ILS navigation frequency then its for IFR. Also pay attention to you airspace VFR may be allowed only at certain altitudes and forbidden innsome airspaces.

Noone plays Russian roulette with antique Russian revelovers.

They are probably saving them for known expendibles.

Too late for further testing.

I do agree, the game needs a deployable stock hinge with a node on the flip that can be used to attach and deploy stuff.

If it falls on my house its mine.

It might be too complicated for rl.

Concrete is stronger than you think if cured properly, it just doesn't handle twisting and pulling forces for any length of time. As it gets older it becomes harder (for about 50 years) and as such it looses all elasticity. If you go out to 8 inch non-reinforced concrete and try to bust it up with a 16 lb sledgehammer, its going to win, and you are going to be blistered. On the same token if you hang that concrete over a 2 foot ledge and come back in three or four years chances are it will have cracked or broken off on its own. Concrete is fickle like that. An example of a stable concrete structure. Not sure how versed Romans were in reinforcing