Jump to content

Jaelommiss

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Excellent

About Jaelommiss

  • Rank
    Curious George

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I know it's massively impractical, but I'm curious how much CH4+O2 a nuclear aircraft carrier (or a cargo ship retrofitted with a reactor) could produce from desalinated seawater and atmospheric CO2. I love the idea of a mobile launch platform that produces its own rocket fuel. If it's used exclusively for refueling launches then it could spend months or years away from port.
  2. Family and I saw it fly overhead a few minutes ago. Went out to watch ISS, didn't think I'd see Endeavor. Saw a dim speck trailing 40? Maybe 60 degrees behind the station. Maybe it was something else, but it looked to be going the same speed and in the same direction. Coolest thing I've ever seen in my life.
  3. The observable universe is a sphere that we are in the center of. The edge of the observable universe is the surface of that sphere. For the edge of the observable universe to be falling into the event horizon of a black hole, the observable universe must be nested inside a black hole. This black hole would have its mass on the outside of its event horizon. I lack the training to definitively state that this is impossible, but I have a hard time believing that the observable universe exists inside an inverted black hole without that assertion coming from a reputable figure in the scientif
  4. Not sure that would work on Mars. Might find better success on the Moon.
  5. 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.
  6. 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."
  7. 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).
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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 shor
  11. 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.
  12. 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!)
  13. "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.
  14. 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 sen
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...