Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


4,427 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Sliderule Jockey
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It was recorded in 2019; 2 years ago. Things haven't changed that much. A quick google search shows that today's (2021) installed cost per peak watt is in the range of $2.53 to $3.15. Definitely an improvement, but still not competitive with most energy prices. Best, -Slashy
  2. "I've made a SSTO with 2/3 payload fraction - it can place two fully fuelled copies of itself in LKO. I don't have a link but with a 26.7 ton payload it weighs 40.05 tons at launch, so 13.35 tons of actual plane." This was done previously with no wings. "This is trivial with DLC props. If that's not allowed then it's still possible by just spinning the craft." No, no add- ons. 100% stock. And there's a big difference between 'can be done' and 'has been done'. "I've actually done this. In 1.11 there are still infiniglide glitches (although they were patched in 1.12) and Kraken drives can have as much acceleration as you want." So you concur that things that were previously possible are no longer possible. "I believe "moar ssto" made a craft that could SSTO both Jool and Eve in one mission. Regardless there have been SSTO missions to every body besides Kerbol, which is impossible. " I believe you are mistaken, since it is impossible to land on Jool. You're drifting off the point I was originally making, which is that as the game changes, things that were previously impossible become possible (or even commonplace) and vice- versa. Therefore it's invalid to evaluate previous statements outside the context of the version in which they were made. Best, -Slashy
  3. An interesting lecture on the costs and benefits of solar... Enjoy! -Slashy
  4. Things that spring to mind that I have personally done: -Made orbit on ion engines alone with no staging and no infiniglide. -Made a SSTO spaceplane that could do 3 complete round trips between KSC and LKO without refuelling. -Made a SSTO with greater than 50% payload fraction (could place a fully fueled copy of itself in LKO). -Made a combination infiniglide/ kraken drive craft that could make the round trip between KSC and Eve sea level in less than a week with no fuel expended. -Made a flying car that could SSTO every body in the Kerbol system except for Kerbol, Jool, and Eve. I'm sure there are other currently impossible feats, but it's been years... Best, -Slashy
  5. I saw "CNN" and said 'nope'. Not going to give them the clicks. Best, -Slashy
  6. I disagree. Certainly the design can be blamed, but there was nothing that was incorrectly operated to exacerbate the failure and nothing more that management could've done to avert it. He actually talks about all those points in the video and agrees with you. Best, -Slashy
  7. spacescifi, No, you don't seem to be "aware" of how any of this works. I'm suggesting that you ought to become aware. Best, -Slashy
  8. Yeah... No. An orbit is composed of both potential energy and kinetic energy. Taking an object at Earth's SMA and removing 17 km/sec simply puts it in an elliptical orbit with a perihelion down below Mercury. You can say that a vis-viva from Earth's orbit about the sun to Jupiter's orbit about the sun is about 17 km/ sec and would be more or less correct. But #1 that is a massive amount of delta v and #2 if you do a transfer from orbit of Earth to orbit of Jupiter, the total delta v required is only 6.5 km/sec; a tiny fraction of your original estimate. So not only do you not realize that the combined velocity changes created by the prograde/retrograde burns are what "delta v" actually is, but you have your assertion completely backwards because you haven't accounted for Oberth effect. Best, -Slashy
  9. Spacescifi, You absolutely do *not* recall correctly. I concur with Shpaget's suggestion that you review the subject of "delta v". After that, you'll want to look at the Oberth effect. Best, -Slashy
  10. I agree that the idea of orbital reactors is pretty farfetched and silly, but I also think that placing them underground/ inside mountains just complicates them needlessly and adds cost. They need to be placed in exactly the same sort of locations they occupy today for best results. What I think needs to happen is 1) even more evolution towards robust fail- safe designs and 2) a much better public education process about what the risks aren't. Today's Gen III reactor designs are not vulnerable to human error and mechanical failure like the old 1970s plants. When things go wrong, there is no longer any risk of "fallout" or "explosions". They just plain stop reacting until the problem is fixed. This is as it should be, and this trend needs to carry on into every phase of the process, not just the reactor itself. Best, -Slashy
  11. You got it! I told him it was "base 4 modulo 9" because I thought it was funny. Best, -Slashy
  12. One of my engineers has an equation on his white board 6+4+3=2 He insists that it is a correct statement, and the puzzle is figuring out how it can be true. I have no idea, but have fun with it -Slashy
  13. I wonder why they decided to make the engine bell on the LV-T30 look so.... weird. Best, -Slashy
  • Create New...