TheDestroyer111

Members
  • Content count

    348
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

97 Excellent

1 Follower

About TheDestroyer111

  • Rank
    Replica builder

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Enable
  1. TheDestroyer111

    Elon Musk and the NTSB

    Anyone knowing other transportation contrivations safer than a car would be appreciated
  2. TheDestroyer111

    Supersonic RC-Plane does is possible?

    Space rockets are basically supersonic rc drones This is a target drone converted F-16 (the QF-16), I do not know if it ever flew supersonic operationally but it definitely can still do that: If you mean amateur aircraft without rocket propulsion, the fastest speed according to Guinness World Records is still corresponding to the end-of-ww2/superprop speeds: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-remote-controlled-jet-powered-model-aircraft-(rc)
  3. TheDestroyer111

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    [insert politician saying "wrong" meme here] In my definition, half-size screws have half area. ofc I totally agree that 1 screw is harder to cavitate due to blade tip speed E: Thing is, cavitation is not so much dependent on screw area as on tip speed, that has a tendency to create low pressure spots... This just got me a crazy idea... what if you fitted your sub with a huge screw to maximise area relative to tip speed... like wider than your boat
  4. TheDestroyer111

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    Then, those long and sleek competitive rowing boats have been officially tagged as REBELS and a reward shall be set up for capturing one alive and bringing it to the police station of Earthrace or average sail racing dinghies! ikr thats prob the reason 99% time, but it's always that stupid little 1% that leads to eureka Is there any known watercraft guru on this forum? //EDIT: If it's proportional, then two half-size screws are equivalent to one full-size )))))
  5. TheDestroyer111

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    Sorry, there is no single project name other than some weird abbrevations/codes or general descriptions like "Soviet moonshot". Soviets/Russians, unlike USA, don't give official nicknames to unfinished projects and even if some military/space technology becomes operational, they often keep the older, less creative name or abbrevation. That's how we ended up with a large number of Kosmos xyz spacecraft (or almost-spacecraft). My question: Why do most boats and ships (except submarines) have a totally blunt stern? Isn't the ideal hydrodynamic shape a teardrop, ie more rounded front and finer back, just like submarines?
  6. TheDestroyer111

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    sadness for f9 flight 20
  7. TheDestroyer111

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    At least this week will not be boring as we'll be able to make wild speculations of what Zuma could be. Although now we can be 99% sure that it's not a second stage landing test flying without a real payload
  8. TheDestroyer111

    Don't Click This

    I'm CONFUSED, this must be nonsense even to a SCIENTIST
  9. TheDestroyer111

    Let's try guess what Developers add in KSP 1.4

    yeeeeeees
  10. TheDestroyer111

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    Maybe except for this If FH can't launch something in fully reusable mode and it isn't some weird air force payload that needs to be launched here and now, BFR would be used rather than an even partially expendable FH - expending the core stage would not be 25% cost increase but rather something like 1000% once they reuse all stages of Falcon Heavy. They could also have the FH core land on an ASDS to maximise first stage deltaV.
  11. TheDestroyer111

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    Well, at IAC 2017 Musk said something about keeping some F9's and FH's in stock for things smaller than BFR should be used for... If only I remembered where I read it up that SpaceX is currently planning to start soft-landing the second stages next year... According to Elon Musk this will change also //edit lol ninjad
  12. TheDestroyer111

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    Falcon 9 is also projected to be fully reusable, so if they don't get into a large amount of technical issues related to the F9's kerosene fuel that don't exist with methane, F9 will be cheaper per launch -> better for smallsats.
  13. TheDestroyer111

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    I wonder how you want to ISRU RP-1 for Merlin or NTO/MMH for SuperDraco while on Mars. There is no oil for kerosene, so you would have to synthesise some bigger hydrocarbons out of methane, and for NTO/MMH there is not much nitrogen in the Martian atmosphere. And if you want to go for LEO, fully reusable F9/FH should IMO be enough to dominate the medium-lift market while BFR handles bigger launches. After all, there must be a reason why SpaceX does it their way, right? BTW the BFR design is still not final, and they could just substract one more meter from the rocket's diameter and use their 1000 kN subscale development engines