Jump to content

ThatGuyWithALongUsername

Members
  • Content Count

    1,062
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ThatGuyWithALongUsername

  1. 2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

    I am guessing it is a rough way of saying "don't mess it up".

    Nah, nothing here suggests that they plan on testing SN2 to destruction. He just means that SN1 exposed a flaw and they are going to quickly put together the corresponding parts of SN2 in order to make sure they've fixed that flaw since.

    I didn't mean to suggest that they were going to test it to destruction, I thought he meant SN2 was going to do the tests it was going to do before it blew up- pressurization, Raptor static fire, etc. There was already some speculation on SN1 not flying the 20km hop because of Elon's tweets and minimal equipment being mounted on the outside of the tank (where it would be easier to service but hard to move inside for flight). I'm guessing that "stripping to a bare minimum" means the same thing they did for SN1, but that doesn't mean it's supposed to blow up.

     

    And, yes, obviously it would test the thrust structure welds (as well as the tank autopressurization and Raptor firing, probably?)

  2. 12 minutes ago, Dale Christopher said:

    Hmmmm... so it was a failure of the welds fixing the engine mount to the tank?

    I... I guess? What the heck does "don't shuck the puck" mean?!

     

    But yeah, I'm *guessing* that's what he meant, and this as also suggests that SN2 isn't going to fly- it's just going to do what SN1 was doing with pressure tests.

     

    So... I'm guessing after SN2, if it succeeds, they'll start building SN3, and THAT will do the 20km hop. Hopefully in only a few months, they can certainly build one that quickly by now.

     

    Of course, it's getting a bit repetitive saying each vehicle is supposed to do a 20km hop, and then it blows up

  3. 4 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

    So they did decide to use that nose cone for SN2 after all. It's pretty amazing how quickly they are built.

    There's a question mark-- I think these diagrams just try to show speculation as well, even if it's contested. Though it's kind of odd that the header tank isn't filled in...

     

    Also, as for construction, I would assume a single, very tall ring per tank would be best to minimize welds, but it might not actually make as much sense as it seems- first, it makes it a lot harder to transport the larger sheets of metal. You need a larger, custom machine to roll them up. I don't know about this, but I could see how thermal expansion could be a problem, too, or at least harder to predict.

    And, lastly, it doesn't get rid of any of the welds that have actually failed so far. Those are where the domes are attached. So it doesn't really solve the problem. I think they just need better, higher quality, smooth, automated welds protected from wind.

  4. 18 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

    I very much doubt the glaciers have too much to do with crater preservation, although crater visibility is another question entirely. Remember, these glaciers are 2.5 million years old and only exist intermittently. The rock is >2.5 billion years old and exists permanently, as do any craters that have formed in it in the last 2.5 billion years. Obviously there were other ice ages besides the present day one (though they were pretty different than the present day one), but continents were in different positions then anyway. Looking up the age of clearwater west to be 286 million years ago, I found that Quebec was basically tropical at that point. I can't imagine ice sheets during the early Permian anywhere, let alone in Quebec, which was entirely withing 17 degrees of the equator.
     

    Yeah, I was wrong lol. Guess it's just because it's really old crust, then?

  5. 9 hours ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

    Love this kind of thing- I've even tried looking them up and marking them on Google Earth in my spare time. Eventually, after enough boredom, it should have all visually identifiable craters on Earth.

    I didn't bring that up just to sound like a smug idiot, I said this so I could show this map!- the red circles all mark visible, exposed, confirmed impact craters

    Took me a while because this thread motivated me to just go ahead and finish all of Canada. Even the parts not visible in this screenshot. Yep. Right now.

    (I may need help)

    j59HVK8.png

    I am not a geologist, but I'm guessing the reason there are so many here is that they've been preserved under ice sheets. Sure, they eroded basically the entire landscape, but I guess big enough depressions were fine- and sediments covering them weren't as much of a problem because the glaciers were transporting sediments away from those areas? Idk, again I don't know what I'm talking about here

    (EDIT: I told you I don't know what I'm talking about lol)

     

    And no, the giant thing off the Hudson Bay is probably not an impact crater, though apparently that's debated?

  6. "Odds" nothing. Quite a few of those are actually confirmed impact craters!

    It's always interesting to be able to see these on Earth, a good reminder that Earth is just another planet. Love this kind of thing- I've even tried looking them up and marking them on Google Earth in my spare time. Eventually, after enough boredom, it should have all visually identifiable craters on Earth.

     

    Most interestingly, the double lakes are BOTH confirmed craters, BUT evidence shows that they're from different time periods. Their proximity is merely a coincidence, as opposed to an asteroid breaking up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearwater_Lakes

     

    Here, have this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_in_North_America

  7. 1 hour ago, Khesperus said:

    Somebody started a petition to change its name to Minmus.

    oh YES let's do this

     

    2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

    @Dirkidirk Oh! I thought it was bigger, Im must have mis-remembered something else.

    ***edit***

    Could......

    ......could we land it?

    As @magnemoe suggested, I bet Starship could do it- sadly, it will be long gone by the time Starship is flying. Hopefully we'll get another one of these eventually- this isn't the first, after all. Maybe then we can land it.

    47 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

    How long is it supposed to hang around? Long enough for someone to send a probe to it? Preferably with a Klaw, a honkin' big xenon tank, and a bunch of ion engines?

    I think the article said until around April, so... sadly, no.

  8. 18 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

    ?

    2020 shows 30 F9 launches from LC-40

    It's easy to mix up the lines on tables like that, without colors to help read straight across...

    Og, you're right, I'm just blind I guess lol

     

    Well, that's one mystery solved. Now what are those 3 FH missions? (That one air force mission is one of them, ViaSat may be another?)

    9 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

    So FH looks more and more like a conventional launch vehicle, and by 'conventional' I mean 'pricey'. I do realize that reusability reduces cost significantly and they wouldn't be investing in all that integration infrastructure if it didn't bring SpaceX revenue. I just hope Starship is operational soon-ish.

    I still don't get why everyone thinks it will not fly ('wording' is kind of a bad reason to think so, especially since that info was pulled from Elon's tweets!). The fact that only the tank was transported for now most likely means that lighter things are just easier to transport. They might still finish it if the static fire goes well.

    Yeah,  that's a fairly likely possibility, but I'm still not sure TBH...

×
×
  • Create New...