Jump to content

Shpaget

Members
  • Posts

    1,789
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shpaget

  1. Usually I would agree, but nations have poured billions into this exact problem.
  2. The fact that it doesn't exist, along side the cost of current suits, should tell you that it's not possible with current tech.
  3. Helicopter blades are constrained by the speed of sound. You don't want the tips to be faster, since a lot of aerodynamics bresk down above Mach 1.
  4. Color of the exhaust is related to its temperature, not the amount of thrust. Take a look at Space Shuttle. SRBs have much higher thrust than SSMEs.
  5. Not quite the same thing. Examples you provide boil down to "We don't have enough fuel to do x". OP proposal to explicitly state and specify the ISP of 300 s is "Our car has a fuel economy of x mpg, therefore we need to go faster to reach our destination." which is not only non sequitur, but also ISP 300 s is not something that will provide "lots of thrust from small amounts of fuel combusting" (again, unrelated things, not to mention that a rocket with that kind of ISP absolutely will need a lot of fuel to reach orbit, physics breaking magical grav nullification or not).
  6. Then just have it. Skip the details and have a ship that can do multiple orbital launches and landings, with interplanetary (or interstellar) travel inbetween occasional refuelling. You don't need to provide the blueprints for the engines. Just have them do whatever you want them to do that is needed for the story. If you later realize they're OP, have a malfunction in the gefufen oscilator, or the antagonist discovers a way to track your ship, or there is an administrative delay because one of the crew decided to transport the Blomulaxian pentaworm which is, obviously, not allowed. Noone cares about ISP in scifi.
  7. That's like saying that you can pour more water out of a bucket if you pour faster. ISP is the measure of how efficient the rocket engine is at using the reaction mass. If you lock it in, then the efficiency is fixed. This is the rocket equation: Neither the thrust, nor the briefness of the pulses is anywhere to be seen.
  8. 300 ISP is 300 ISP. Burning your fuel faster, doesn't male it more efficient.
  9. $50. That's what it would have cost them to hire a native english speaker.
  10. Intuitively, yes, they do look a bit small. They say "65+" passengers. I count 33 windows, so two seats per row? I've been inside Concorde, and that thing is tiny and cramped inside. This can't be much larger, can it? Net zero carbon? What, the food cart tray?
  11. That's a waste of resources. You'd still need to use the rockets to boost the orbit of your tractor beam installation. Also, ablating your hull to achieve propulsion, when rocket tech is available is just ridiculous.
  12. You would need to hit the back side of the target for this to work even hypothetically. How do you do that? What is this magnetic gas?
  13. I strongly suspect that mats alone won't get you far, and sooner rather than later you'll need a hypersonic wind tunnel.
  14. To be fair, and joking aside, for ice you should add heat of fusion, which is additional ~330 kJ/kg.
  15. Possibly someone explained to him just how impossible it is to organize a worldwide lottery. Maybe he's reading these forums.
  16. For all you stamp collecting aficionados, USPS, about to start selling JWST stamps. https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2022/0726ma-usps-celebrates-james-webb-space-telescope.htm
  17. Magnets can't produce thrust. If you suppose that they can, for purposes of scifi, then just suppose that whatever lifting engine installed on your vessel is adequately sized and engineered, or not, depending on the story you want to tell.
  18. Didn't F1 nozzle size cause quite a few head itches to the engineers, because of the size?
  19. A proposal, if I may. Cars with restaurant trains. Flexibility of a car to not be restricted to a rail network, but all the luxuries and comfort of a train. Plus, since it's a restaurant train, and not a car, it's necessarily bigger, and bigger is better.
  20. Getting there is one thing, but refueling a Superheavy in a middle of nowhere, somewhere in the middle eastern desert is not going to happen. Obviously SSTOTWR (single stage to orbit twice without refueling) is just fantasy.
  21. Why? Anybody who knows anything about rockets will immediately realize that forcing the single stagedness is wasting potential and sacrificing payload.
  22. If the balloon can carry the spacecraft, the you don't need the convoluted throw and catch rinse and repeat Rube Goldberg contraption. Just winch it. Also, nobody cares about SSTO. It has been explained over and over. Seriously.
×
×
  • Create New...