Jump to content

ThatGuyWithALongUsername

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,062

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ThatGuyWithALongUsername

    The Tsiolkovsky Civilization Scale

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Shpaget said:

    There are no gaps in the periodic table, so any newly discovered element will be well in the region of being so radioactive that it's entirely unusable.

    https://xkcd.com/2214/

     

     

    (Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability. Still radioactive, but perhaps usable, in the same way other radioactive isotopes are used)

    (Or if you want something more hypothetical but also more useful, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent_of_stability)

    The Tsiolkovsky Civilization Scale

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

    This is not possible. Only hydrogen was ever theorized to be metastable, and now we know it isn't. New materials will be some sort of carbon allotrope, and it won't have miraculous properties, either. What will change is the scale at which we could make them. Eventually, it should be possible to make objects out of a single, gigantic carbon molecule. That will, I'd imagine, be the ultimate material. Barring that, amorphous carbon is also really nice, if very hard to make.

    Yeah, I don't think it makes sense to make assumptions like that about things we, by their very definition, haven't discovered yet.

    And to be fair to metallic hydrogen, "know" is a strong word at the moment. Definitely need more research to actually say that, outside of a couple of random, not-yet-reproduced isolated experiments with different results.

    I really like the "make everything out of a single, giant carbon molecule" idea, though. And why limit ourselves to just Carbon? There's a lot of possibilities there.

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by ThatGuyWithALongUsername

    2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

    :cool: eat your heart out, SLS...

    This timeline actually suggests (to me at least) that they're sticking to their original Mars timeline. Think about it- the 2022 landing can test all the fancy cargo deployment things to make sure it all works and then send that same equipment to Mars later that year (of course, there's no CO2 so they can only test fuel depot deployment on the moon, but they can test fuel depot systems on Earth separate from testing their deployment). Next, they work on the crewed version a lot, with 2 years to mature it. They can then test the surface habs and landing with crew on the moon in 2024... all the systems they need before they launch to Mars later that year. If something goes wrong with the cargo and crew to the moon, it's easier to recover and safer for the crew to abort. They might even be able to repeat the mission before sending it to Mars if it just needs a simple fix, and if not then they can catch the problem in time and move the Mars timeline 1 window back.

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Technical Ben said:

    Hahahahaha. Just got to the episode in Space Brothers where they talk about destructive testing (pushing to the limits) and how the media/top brass don't always understand it. Topical.

    Fortunately, in this case the SpaceX "top brass" DEFINITELY understands it. NASA might not, but they don't really have to- SpaceX kinda seems to be doing their own thing without them with Starship.

    The Probe!

    in The Lounge

    Posted

    Has it truly been an entire year since the last post? Have we all forgotten about this? The probe-hailing must continue! this is like the oldest thread in the forum, we can't let it die!

     

    : Hailprobe! :

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, GearsNSuch said:

    Ooh, I like that retro-film look. Classy. 
     

    The KSP thing to do would be to jettison the rovers out of the bay with an explosive decoupler and let ‘em fall to the surface.

    I think that's just a result of taking a picture of a preojector creen, and the render is actually just like the others. But I have to agree... it looks really cool this way. Now I want a higher-res one done like this on purpose! C'mon, SpaceX!

     

    ...and yeah, that would be he KSP way, wouldn't it :P

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by ThatGuyWithALongUsername

    4 hours ago, tater said:

    He was asked about payload, and the questioner said 150t to LEO, and he was not corrected.

    Yeah, this is still the max capability of the rocket (kind of?). It was clarified in this tweet in July:

    and I believe mentioned at the presentation last month in a graphic or something.

     

    I'm much more interested in the "elevator" thing to get cargo to the surface? How does that work? I'm a bit confused? Also, this is a new, 4th "cargo to surface" variant, is it not?

    index.php?action=dlattach;topic=48757.0;

    (Source: dgmckenzie on NSF forum, taken from presentation)

    Firefly Aerospace Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by ThatGuyWithALongUsername

    22 minutes ago, insert_name said:

    Space news said they have switched to single core for beta

    https://spacenews.com/firefly-partners-with-aerojet-rocketdyne-mulls-ar1-engine-for-beta-launch-vehicle/

     

    Woah woah woah WOAH 

    THEY DIDN'T JUST REDESIGN BETA FOR NO REASON

    I JUST READ THE ARTICLE

     

    It didn't *just* say Beta is now single-stick, IT SAID IT'S REUSABLE!

     

    THIS MAKE SO MUCH MORE SENSE NOW maybe I should lay off the caps for a bit BUT STILL

    Firefly Aerospace Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    I thought the Beta was just a triple-core Alpha though? What's wrong with the Reavers? Looking at the payload user's guide, this was clearly the plan before now. Why would they change it? I don't get it at all.

    Besides, "AR-1" isn't a Firefly reference! And they STILL haven't named anything Serenity or something more obvious like that!

    Firefly Aerospace Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    ....what the?

     

    Don't they have their own engine already, though? Wouldn't it just be less money to use the Reavers from the Alpha again, rather than both paying for additional development costs of needlessly changing the engine and paying a probably high upcharge to Aerojet Rocketdyne? I mean, the AR-1 isn't even fully developed, while the Reavers are already being tested in quads- by the time Beta flies, the Reavers should have flown at least once and thus automatically be more reliable.

     

    Seriously, what's the point? Other than some gravy, I guess...

    Sierra Nevada Thread (Dream Chaser, plus!)

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    On 10/15/2019 at 8:32 PM, Mitchz95 said:
    A spaceship without windows? What the hell is the point?? :confused:

    I mean, this is... ok... but only because you wouldn't be missing out on much since you would only be heading to a space station in the same initial orbit after only a few hours at max.

     

    Now, a space station or other long-term habitation without windows would be a true crime. (IIRC Bigelow might even be trying to do this with the B330 at the moment, it's unacceptable!)

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by ThatGuyWithALongUsername

    12 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

    So since it's rideshare (which means mainly cubesats, right?) The payload is probably so light they don't need the barge for landings and can do RTLS at Vandenberg instead.

    They could do that with SAOCOM 1B also, though (that's what they did with SAOCOM 1A), and yet they still changed it to the Cape. So it's not just about the droneship.

    Seriously speculating here, but... maintaining facilities is expensive. Cutting an entire launch site would be a fairly effective cost-saving measure, and maybe there just aren't enough SSO/Polar missions to justify having their own launchpad. Just "Cape Kennedy" and Boca Chica might just be their new plan.

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

    I think there's one planned outta there late this year/early next, and then nothing else until late next year. Maybe Rocket Lab has gobbled up all the SSO payloads?

    That one that was "late this year/early next" was SAOCOM 1B I think, before this change...

    They still have those SSO rideshare missions... but the launch days aren't really clear, and maybe those could be out of the cape now, too?

    Also, yes, SSO, not just a regular polar orbit. Apparently, SAOCOM 1B is SSO, so SSO from the Cape is definitely possible, not just regular polar orbits. Can't seem to find any other info on that though? Is there just an inclination change or something?

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    57 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

    Curiouser and curiouser...

    Good news for South Texas

    2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

    Interesting...

    ...bad news for Vandenberg.

    No seriously, with JRTI and both fairing catchers away from the west coast and launches shifting towards the Cape... do they plan on launching anything else out of Vandenberg at all? Are they trying to phase it out? Just a bit of worried speculation there, that's all- it was always great to see everyone in the LA area go crazy about UFO's whenever a launch happened at the right time.

     

    Hopefully this will look sufficiently different from normal launches that people in Miami will freak out too. It is Florida, after all.

×
×
  • Create New...