Jump to content

GoSlash27

Members
  • Posts

    5,797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GoSlash27

  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. I don't ever bother using drogues. Best, -Slashy
  5. 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
  6. I saw "CNN" and said 'nope'. Not going to give them the clicks. Best, -Slashy
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. You got it! I told him it was "base 4 modulo 9" because I thought it was funny. Best, -Slashy
  13. 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
  14. I wonder why they decided to make the engine bell on the LV-T30 look so.... weird. Best, -Slashy
  15. We have Aldis in our town. Not a big deal, just another supermarket. Best, -Slashy
  16. I mean, really... the background gamma radiation is already so high in space, I don't think a reactor would even be noticeable even if you're sitting right next to it. As for Van Allen belts... ionizing radiation consists of 3 things: high speed electrons, low speed neutrons, and high frequency photons. Van Allen belts are the electrons trapped in Earth's magnetosphere. The vast majority of any electrons that managed to escape would simply fly off into nowhere, hit an oxygen molecule and turn it into ozone, or get bottled up by the already existing Van Allen belts. They wouldn't just hang around and start puddling up. Best, -Slashy
  17. Provided to show how unlikely it is that we will eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels at any point in the next several decades. Renewables have been expanding at a prodigious rate, but even so it's just a tiny dent in the overall energy demand. If we intend to get rid of fossil fuels entirely, nuclear is going to have to play a large role in that. Best, -Slashy
  18. SunlitZelkova, As I said in my previous post, the 'potential number of bad things that could happen' have been addressed. We have found ways to prevent them and they are implemented in the design. It is literally impossible for anything like TMI, Chernobyl, or Fukushima to ever happen in modern designs. While management can be blamed for previous failures (aside from Fukushima), the ultimate blame rests with designs that were insufficiently 'fail safe' to tolerate such mismanagement in the first place. Best, -Slashy
  19. Modern American reactors are already as safe as they can be made. The containment vessel is 1m thick reinforced concrete that's impervious to any breach short of a warhead. It uses the water itself as the moderator, so in the event of a leak or localized overheating the reaction will stop. Finally, it uses convection instead of active pumping so there's no danger associated with loss of electrical power. The dry cask storage and transport of the waste is also completely safe. It's fun to watch the films of the torture tests the NTSB put them through. If there's any achilles heel to safety, it's the transfer of spent rods to and storage in the cooling pond. The cooling pond must remain filled with water and some safeguard in place for the possible chemical explosion that could result from overheated rods, such as a natural catastrophe somehow draining the cooling pond. Rakaydos is correct in that the biggest problem is the exorbitant up front cost and long lead time. Also the NIMBY objections by people who don't realize just how safe these designs are. I also concur with K^2; Green renewable energy has made great strides and all, but it is still only a tiny fraction of our energy source and cannot be implemented quickly enough to take over the lion's share of our energy needs on a timescale measured in decades. Best, -Slashy
  20. If you mean for a Hohmann transfer burn with a known desired inclination change, it's simply the hypotenuse of both. sqrt(dv for inclination change^2+dv for Hohmann transfer^2). Best, -Slashy
  21. The way I do it is this: 1) calculate the vis-viva of the transfer 2) find the SMA of the transfer and thus the period, and divide by 2. 3) calculate the mean angular velocity of the source and destination bodies, then redefine the angular momentum of the destination relative to the source. 4) divide the relative angular velocity of the destination by the transfer time. 5) subtract the angular displacement from 180°. My calculator is very simplified and assumes coplanar and circular orbits. It also assumes I'm making an ideally efficient transfer burn. HTHs, -Slashy P.S. @OhioBob has an excellent resource for the math involved in orbital mechanics. It's my go-to source. http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm
  22. That's one thing Mercury has an abundance of; the raw materials to make solar panels and surface solar intensity. Best, -Slashy
  23. I learned a couple new funny words out of sheer boredom; "pnictogens" and "chalcogens". These are elements in the 15th and 16th columns of the periodic table, respectively. Best, -Slashy
  24. From a career perspective, the most overrated place in the Kerbol system is the spaceplane hangar. The most underrated place is Ike. Best, -Slashy
×
×
  • Create New...