Jump to content

Nightside

Members
  • Content Count

    2,157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,648 Excellent

1 Follower

About Nightside

  • Rank
    Rocketeur

Recent Profile Visitors

8,356 profile views
  1. The closest I've ever come to being squished was a time I stopped for a long yellow light, just before it turned red. A fast semi with trailer had to swerve around my right going at least 40 mph. I think in terms of risk mitigation strategy for an AI, simpler will be better. As in: IF roadway is blocked THEN stop quickly. Even with fast reactions, fancy maneuvers are probably going to get you in a more complicated situation.
  2. Do we know how much that mass simulator weighs?
  3. Yep. But do we expect the CoM to really be that high? What is the expected dry mass and payload these days?
  4. This is a good point. A wider stance certainly gives a better margin of error on horizontal movement that would cause tipping. It would be interesting to know how high the center of mass is at landing. That said, they seem to have mastered cancelling their horizontal velocity (as long as they can also cancel their vertical velocity). If they cannot cancel their vertical velocity then nothing else matters!
  5. Did JB lose a lot of weight since we last saw him? And blonde highlights? He looks like he's getting ready for a vacation.
  6. Civil engineer. Just found out I passed my PE exam today!
  7. Yes, the progress of the rocket is a clear example of the advantages. Ultimately the floor is part of the stand and they built them both. It's not a simple design challenge, in that terrain, it should probable be built on piles. But a stand should be way easier to build than a rocket! Any Texas oil refinery would have structures with similar requirements. So yeah. If the rocket is a failure because the stand failed, I say that makes them look dumb. BUT, that doesn't matter as long as they don't mind looking dumb. (Elon's twitter output clearly shows he doesn't mind looking dumb.)
  8. Not exactly. But it seems to me that if you can build an orbital rocket, you should be able to design a stand for it that doesn't break. Super fast development has much higher risk of failure. If you are willing to accept the risk, you can go really fast, but you might make some dumb mistakes along the way.
  9. Th failed stand seems like a dumb mistake. Then you realize this is the same way they are designing the rocket.
  10. Bonus points for the stiletto. It gives the project it a sexy rocky horror/70s Buck Rogers vibe, rather than the squarish 30s/40s Buck Rogers . How wide are the feet?
  11. ...then you will need some very large worms.
  12. I guess total number of satellites for an initial constellation will be dependent on how high the latitudes of interest are. A modest GPS network might be even more useful than ultra-low latency comms for complex robotic exploration and prospecting missions.
  13. It seems like astronauts on the ISS are often wearing shorts. And almost never knee-high boots.
  14. Considering this this science forum I think you will need to define your terms expand on what you mean by "efficiency", which typically indicates a comparison of two values. What is difference between breeches and pants anyway? Breeches are short and you have to wear knee boots to keep your legs covered? If your metric is crotches covered per square meter of fabric used, then yes breeches might be slightly more efficient. (However, I'm guessing that those breeches ride pretty high up Washington's waist there, so the fabric savings at the ankle may be lost up above.)
×
×
  • Create New...