Jaelommiss

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Excellent

About Jaelommiss

  1. If only there were some way that it could lift itself from one place to another. Say, by using its enormous fuel reservoir to power some sort of engine... I know, I know. I'm just being silly. It's a good question.
  2. Quoth Wikipedia regarding Juno I (the vehicle that launched Explorer I) , "The Juno I consisted of a Jupiter-C rocket with a fourth stage mounted on top of the "tub" of the third stage, and fired after third-stage burnout to boost the payload and fourth stage to an orbital velocity of 8 kilometres per second (29,000 km/h; 18,000 mph). The tub along with the fourth stage were set spinning while the rocket was on the launch pad to provide gyroscopic force in lieu of a guidance system that would have required vanes, gimbals, or vernier motors."
  3. Shouldn't you exit the body's surface with the same speed that you entered at? Your path accelerating towards the core should perfectly mirror your path moving away from it barring any other forces being applied to the craft (such as burning engines).
  4. Unless I made a mistake, that much thrust over two seconds would be sufficient to accelerate a 5 tonne male elephant to over 450 m/s.
  5. I'm not sure how much they would actually end up saving. R&D is expensive, opening a new production line is expensive, hiring new employees to work on that line is expensive, renting or building an additional factory (assuming there's not sufficient space in their current facilities) is expensive. Saving 40% of their fairing costs on some flights probably wouldn't recoup the costs that are required up front in a reasonable time frame. The new employees that this would require is an expense that will eat into any savings. More importantly than all of that, designing and implementing a new fairing introduces a potential point of failure in a mature and reliable product.
  6. I know just enough to take wild guesses, but not enough to identify why I'm wrong. If someone could point out where my guess falls apart (I'm loathe to call my spitballing a hypothesis) I'd appreciate it. If a star's orbit was deflected by another star such that it was within a blackhole's Rosche limit, would that explain the appearance of the gas cloud? The subsequent accretion disk could also explain the dramatic rise in luminosity. If a single star is insufficient for this amount of gas and luminosity, how likely would it be that multiple stars would suffer the same fate in such a short time span (my gut feeling is that this is so unlikely as to be almost impossible, but I don't know the numbers for it)? The article mentions that a blackhole of this size could not destroy a larger star from tidal forces, but if a larger star passed so close to the black hole that a portion of it passed within the Schwarschild radius (or close enough that mass was lost) could we see a larger star get disintegrated? This would require such precision that it seems incredibly unlikely, but, again, I don't have any of the numbers on it. The second explanation provided by the article, that a supernova was not obscured by debris, seems more probable than any of my wild imaginings.
  7. They should protect the nozzles with water-proof caps instead of the legs. Also, drink water is less agressive than sea water. You quoted a statement about reusing fairings that went for a swim. The first stage's reusability is in no way dictated by the landing conditions after which a fairing may be reused.
  8. BFR doesn't move itself into orbit around the Earth. It moves Earth into orbit around the BFR. To land it puts Earth back where it's supposed to be. Calling it now. (Top that for insane speculation!)
  9. "Look! You can see the two things both firing their engines!" It's Scott Manley official: stages are henceforth to be referred to as things. Congratulations to SpaceX on successfully shooting their smaller thing into space and successfully recovering their larger thing. I bet their engineers can't wait to get their hands all over it.
  10. Most likely landing pads one through four were planned before the decision was made to cancel landing pad three. Renaming pad four after cancelling pad three would be a waste of time and manpower, plus a possible source of confusion and inefficiency given that landing pad three meant something entirely different in the recent past. It's easier to build landing pad four to completion and then rename it than it would be while it is still an active project, but even then it would serve little purpose. If they were sequential, such as train stations along a single line, then it would make more sense to rename them, but that's not the case. All three pads are independent and the number is just a title for them.
  11. I suspect that increased drag at its current altitude would overcome any potential gains from a solar sail. Might work if you raise its orbit before deploying it, though. Edit: Wikipedia (yeah, I know) says that drag and solar pressure are equivalent at roughly 800km, so we'll need to boost the station higher than that for it to work.
  12. Looks interesting. How much can be tweaked between simulations? Can a user start with more or less asteroids, change the range of masses they start with, their initial velocity, etc? Does it give you the option to automatically save a screenshot periodically (say, every year) so you can run a more populated simulation over several days, then go back and watch it? In any case it looks like the sort of thing I'd spend a few hours playing around with, then leave running overnight to see how much it changes.
  13. Definitely Penguin, if only so that we can get headlines like "astronauts ride four penguins to Mars."
  14. The solution is surprisingly easy. Information, no matter how it is stored, is likely to degrade, be misunderstood, or considered a hoax. I have something far simpler in mind that, so far as I can tell, does not violate any of the initial assumptions.
  15. "It's actually a very tricky question," says Dr Simon O'Toole from the Australian Astronomical Observatory. "A lot of people think it's just taking the highest and lowest points on the planet and finding the average, but it's not that simple. Because there's no sea level on Mars any more, zero altitude is defined as a specific atmospheric pressure of 610.5 Pascals, about six millibars. This value was chosen because it's the triple point of water on Mars, where it can exist as gas, liquid or solid." Courtesy of ABC News. I'm not sure whether it's correct or not, but it sounds plausible and I'd personally believe it unless corrected by an expert.