• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

341 Excellent

About zolotiyeruki

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It looks like the cost is 3,097 square roots.
  2. Here's my first entry: 774kg to orbit, with >400m/s dV to spare. I should be able to drain some fuel and still make it easily. https://imgur.com/a/OgTLuo8 EDIT: I took out 20kg of fuel from the second stage, and still made it to orbit with 150-ish m/s of dV left. So my entry is now 754 kg.
  3. When I worked for an oil company, I didn't get to do the lifeboat training (my assigned evacuation was a slide/tube thingy), but I did get to do HUET (Helicopter Underwater Egress Training). It was easily the most fun I had at that job. Basically, you: --Strap into a 4-point harness in a training fuselage --Wait for the craft to get dunked --Take a huge, deep breath just as it flips upside down with you still strapped in (because helicopters are top-heavy) --Then wait another seven seconds, under water, upside down, strapped into a seat, to make sure there's no fast-moving debris in the water around the helicopter --Hold on to the seat with one hand while unlatching the harness with the other --Pull yourself to an exit --Open the exit and swim out Smarter Every Day did a decent video on it not too long ago:
  4. I seem to recall in earlier F9 flights, the strongback pulled away from the rocket some time before launch. This time, however, it didn't let go until liftoff. Is it A) me mis-remembering, B) something new, or C) something they've been doing for a while that I haven't noticed?
  5. Yeouch, this 2014 quote from the NASA administrator has...not aged well:
  6. I think erecting a berm between the landing site and the base might be a good option. Although that raises the question of "how do you get a bulldozer to run on the moon?"
  7. A good while back, there was a similar challenge: Unfortunately, my entry in that challenge somehow didn't include a screenshot of the mass at launch, but it *was* under 1t, and had enough dV to get a Mun flyby. I might have to dust off that design and see if I can best Pds314...
  8. So where did the burning debris come from? I'd like to think that "make sure nothing flammable is near your launch pad" would be something on the pre-launch checklist.
  9. Oh, rats. I just got OBS working and had a cheeky little plane that could loop in 4 seconds...but then saw the rule about extra reaction wheels. Bummer. Oh, well, back to the drawing board. EDIT: Alright, I have one that follows the rules and *still* loops in 4 seconds, although it required a lot of tweaking to get perfect. Behold: It's not nearly as fun to fly as the version that had 6 reaction wheels. In fact, it's quite stable, and difficult to get it to do aerobatics. I'll have to upload that video later.
  10. That flare is a whole lot bigger than you'd need as a pilot.
  11. A very large percentage of the failures were "first time to try X." I.e. there have been relatively few "routine" landings that have failed at the point of actual landing. Yeah, its not a statistically huge number to begin with...
  12. I'm imagining an astronaut hanging on the side of the rocket as the ion engine is running, and thinking "would an ion engine have enough gimbal to offset the CoM shift? Would it matter?"
  13. I love how their tests aren't just "let's see if it operates reliably within X parameters," but "let's test it within X parameters, but then also test the limits of Y!" Always pushing the boundaries. For example, "ok, we've landed once. Woohoo! Next time, let's switch to a 1-3-1 landing burn to improve fuel margin!" Or, "Yeah, we could just launch this high-dV payload and expend the center core. But heck, why not try to land it?" Or, "Sure, we've got the highest chamber pressure ever. But let's see what happens when we increase it some more!"
  14. Don't forget the cost and weight of the landing legs and associated systems!