Starman4308

Members
  • Content Count

    1,489
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,488 Excellent

1 Follower

About Starman4308

  • Rank
    Blind Astronomer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Starman4308

    Space Nuclear Power

    Graveyard orbits are the best option. You don't want to risk spent fuel reentering Earth's atmosphere. By the time an MEO/HEO orbit decays, the fuel will be pretty much safe, with all the short and mid-duration fission products having decayed. And no, it will not create a new radiation belt. A few puny reactors will not noticeably irradiate the enormous volume of mid to upper Earth orbit. Finally, again, this is about a reactor for power generation, not an NTR. You'd need to completely redesign this reactor for propulsion, since I'm pretty sure it's a Stirling generator design, not a liquid loop.
  2. Starman4308

    Ozone oxidiser?

    If I'm recalling Ignition correctly, it was considered, but is just too unstable to deal with for very marginal improvement over standard liquid oxygen.
  3. Starman4308

    NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads

    I recently read an article saying that the Starliner's thrusters have just arrived: am I correct in guessing that these are RCS thrusters for the reentry module, and are mostly intended for attitude control during reentry? http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/aerojet-rocketdyne/cst-100-starliner-reentry-thrusters-delivered/ It's a dozen MR-104J engines, each of which burns hydrazine producing 440N of thrust; small satellites might use such an engine as their main thruster, whereas for Orion, it's attitude-control thrusters. Probably the biggest use during reentry would be to keep the roll aligned for a lifting reentry.
  4. The list of space-related games is almost without end. Freelancer, Starlancer, Surviving Mars, Astroneer, Elite: Dangerous, Orbiter, No Man's Sky, Homeworld, Mass Effect, Rogue System, Children of a Dead Earth, Tharsis, Interplanetary... all sorts of games in all sorts of genres have a space theme to them. You're going to have to clarify.
  5. Starman4308

    Does science should be censored ?

    So long as you work within legal and ethical limits, you can do whatever research you want. Once you're a tenured professor, you can't even be evicted from your university. You're not guaranteed to get funded, and if you use money from another grant, you may find yourself not getting any new grants from that organization, but in theory, you can study whatever you want so long as there are no ethics rules being broken.
  6. Starman4308

    How Do Plane Fly?

    First, what are the issues you're experiencing? The more information, and the more specific information, the easier it is to help you. Second, the two usual culprits when designing your own are: 1) Unstable craft, caused by center-of-pressure (lift and drag) being ahead of center of mass. In this case, add aerodynamic surfaces towards the rear of the craft. 2) Landing gear causing swerving on the runway. Similar thing: enable advanced tweakables, and reduce the friction on forwards gear while increasing friction on rearwards gear.
  7. Starman4308

    Does science should be censored ?

    A few things. First, a bit of nit-picking about this: First, The AI algorithm used to guess whether or not a face corresponds with a homosexual person is a technology, not strictly science. The finding "this AI can identify such" would be the science involved. Second, there's always been at least some responsible censoring in science. Patient data is always scrubbed of names and partially randomized to make it difficult to identify the patient involved. Some scientific papers and presentations released by drug companies are scrubbed of molecular structures if it's to be done before the patent is approved. Third, best guess is their AI would fail pretty spectacularly once applied to "people who don't attend MIT".
  8. Those don't work cleanly with custom tank widths. Though, to some extent, the "dial-a-width" feature is a tad unrealistic, as it's expensive to develop tooling for a given tank diameter.
  9. In addition to the "procedural fairing base", there should be a "procedural interstage fairing": that has a top node of arbitrary height above the center. You hook that up to a central node, either the bare tank bottom or an engine. "Extra Height" specifies the height that the attached fairings should extend above that top node. If you have it attached to the tank's bottom node, usually you can leave this at 0; otherwise, you often have to add extra height equal to the height of the engine. If you're not seeing it in a bit, I'll take a screenshot in the VAB: right now, I'm launching a rocket.
  10. Starman4308

    InSight launching in 2018

    They probably won't need to dogleg. They'll likely launch due-west at the right time of day so that their velocity vector is favorable (and they don't need to have much normal/anti-normal component) when it comes time for the Mars injection burn. Launching into a retrograde orbit means extra delta-V spent getting into orbit, but apparently they did so well keeping the mass low that they can launch from a retrograde parking orbit even with the 401 configuration. EDIT: If they do it even remotely like I do in RSS, they're likely going to be launching in night-time (atypical for transfers outwards) and burning towards Mars on the day side of the planet ~45 minutes later.
  11. On one hand, I'd like to say "This will be the 47'th thread on the same subject, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it"... and point out it's non-trivial to make an effective delta-V calculator. On the other hand, I still disagree with the "vision" of pure trial-and-error gameplay, and think it would be a great addition to have at least a works-most-of-the-time delta-V calculator.
  12. Starman4308

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    I suspect that unless you are either silly rich or forgiven by SpaceX, you'd wind up filing for bankruptcy and having your pay garnished until the day you die. Though really, there's probably a whole convoy to prevent collisions.
  13. Depends, I think. For certain very common orbits, it may be possible to sweep out several satellites without much delta-V. For sun-synchronous, for example, one might be able to clear out a few, deliberately break into a precessing orbit, sweep some more, etc. While final rendezvous would probably be done on chemical engines, I suspect some high delta-V maneuvers could be done on ions, such as the plane changes/precession maneuvers necessary to hit multiple sun-synchronous orbit planes.
  14. Nukes in space don't work that way. Even if they did work the same as in atmosphere, there's simply too much of space to feasibly nuke it. Anyways, the harpoon thingy seems like a decent proposal to deorbit some of the larger defunct satellites in LEO/MEO (I'm a bit fuzzy on where the boundary between low and middle Earth orbit is). There's some stuff that would otherwise stay up there for centuries to millenia, but which need only a touch of delta-V to put into a swiftly-decaying orbit. The smaller stuff hopefully just decays on its own, or is in a high enough orbit that it's unlikely to pose a navigation hazard.
  15. Starman4308

    How to use 5m parts?

    We're arguing past each other here. You're arguing "a 5 meter stack is unnecessary for an EAV", I'm arguing "that argument about drag makes no sense for something big enough to need a 5m stack", and that it might not be the EAV itself: it might be the booster to get that EAV off Kerbin