Jump to content

magnemoe

Members
  • Posts

    10,418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2,781 Excellent

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • About me
    Flight Director

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Why not use wood, its very easy to cut as you want it, its no load or distance to fall. I assumed it would be much more internal structure there walls who would be both structure distributing load and being slosh baffles. We have the outer skin the half circle stiffeners and downward and inner structure. Also its just pipes going off 90 degree, could this cause flow issues like cavitation? Yes this is an very common design as seawater inlets on ships and oil rigs but then at way lower pressure and you can close the bottom valve to stop any leaks.
  2. I assumed they would have an crane on top for stacking starship on superheavy, also to move superheavy from the capture clamps and down on pad or put it on an transporter or perhaps an servicing stand. using the capture clamps for this will complicate them a lot and be much more limited.
  3. Drop one portal down on the surface of Venus, aim the other against alpha centauri, it helps teraforming it as an bonus. Drop some others into the mariana trench and equal number on land feeding an hydro plant who make three gorges dam look like an hobby project. For the rest, well you have an stargate everywhere, now I want one on Venus connected to Mars asap as it help teraform both. Asteroid mining get way easier then you have an rail line to the asteroid.
  4. This, now in sales or other places there performance is easy to measure and is not seriously affected by other factors it works. How do you measure it for engineering? Do you want them to use guesstimates to reach this months performance goals ending in you having to do recalls and rebuild your production line 3 months later? This is why smart management do not want this, you cover why the engineers don't want it.
  5. I guess its an US and NZ workplace culture clash. Also startup company weirdness, trust me I worked for lots of weird companies during the IT bubble. And these kind of stuff is not uncommon in IT, way less so in aerospace I think.
  6. I totally agree, that is why its would only work near the gas fields as you are pumping down water to create an back pressure, however I guess co2 don't work well for this or it would be pretty obvious.
  7. glasses has an larger field of view than monitors unless you have an 50" one , you can also see past the edge of the glasses. Its also the issue that your internal field of view tend to be narrower than it would be if the screen was an window.
  8. This is correct, games however does not know there you are looking so it has to render all of the screen to max resolution. You could technically track the eyes and only render the part you look at in max resolution but this would require some insane frame rates to work as the eyes can move very fast. The benefit of the ultra wide gaming monitors is that they give you an much better field of view who is horrible on an standard monitor.
  9. The source is something you want to remove co2 from say natural gas or exhaust, sometimes natural gas contain too much co2 so you remove it. Now if you do this at the well head you can re inject the co2 into the back pressure wells you made. Make me wonder why they can not do this on the exhaust for zero emission, the main problem with co2 extraction is that to do with the co2 but here you have the back pressure wells. Yes its require an larger system and uses plenty of energy itself but I guess its too much co2 to put into the back pressure wells and you prefer water here.
  10. VR is another beast than normal games as even first person games is much more detached. With VR the image has to match head movements and you notice if this is off just a but. Wonder if it would help to steal from electronic image stabilization. Render an a bit larger image and then show the part who would be visible there you look. Benefit here is that the cropping would be done post render at direction you look at the time eliminating the time to render image, Other effects like firing an gun would still have the standard input lag but that would be more like normal games.
  11. I assumed it was build on site, many of round modules seen on top of ships are not fuel tanks but parts kits. But the VAB itself is build by the colony. As an colony with an VAB need to be able to produce spaceships as its the point of the VAB and spaceships are more complex than the VAB. Do not know how the colony building will work but I guess you start by landing parts to build an small foundation then some hab modules and power. Next step is to extract resources, this can be to fuel rockets or to export. Then perhaps greenhouses for life support? But the big step is part production: it might require various resources and might have layers like an simplified tech tree. First structural elements like foundations and tanks, then more advances stuff like habitation modules, then all but advanced stuff, this reduced the amount of parts you need to land. Last you can build everything and if they uses a system like this its probably also the VAB as limiting the types of ships you can build will be to complext. The orbital shipyard will need to import everything but its has no size limits
  12. Plan is to stack on launch pad, but you have more control and its easier to fix problems you do it at construction site. Assume they also do the first cargo integrations here as in stacks of startlink satellites. Down the line they probably add an starship integration and checkout building close to the pad. As the cargo bay for starship will not be up to cleanroom standards (how to practical do this?) I assume then it start getting used for other launches I guess the satellites will be put in an clean box, stack these boxes on an frame or adapter and put this inside the bay. The high capacity of starship let you get away with plenty of stuff here.
  13. Simply make an larger superheavy would be easier. You could either make an thicker starship or go for an wine bottle design with an tappering as between Saturn 5 second and 3rd stage. The point with 18 meter was mostly to reduce the number of tankers you need to launch. An optimal tanker will move the common dome up and the upper dome well into the curved part of the nose cone so it would be heavier than standard starship,
  14. It make little sense that the fasteners are of different size, unless they hold large tiles who they do not. My guess is image artifacts because of pixels and black spikes on an reflective background also they are spikes. Weirder to me is the empty areas, you have an double one below the 3rd center green from top, another one two greens down and another just below the crane left of the red line. Stuff the camera did not get because the tips was too reflective, I say its most plausible. The top one might be for an lifting lug but I guess they made something smaller for this like an screw in tile in the lug hole.
  15. Thought about it. makes some sense, its common to put secondary payloads on an pedestal who becomes an tower if you mostly carry smaller satellites. With fairings you can deploy in all directions but with starship you need to rotate this tower to release all. This however require an side opening hatch to work easy.
×
×
  • Create New...