Jump to content

magnemoe

Members
  • Content Count

    10,041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,580 Excellent

2 Followers

About magnemoe

  • Rank
    Flight Director

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The engine is a unit who is installed. You can design them to be faster to swap out. And it make sense making it an line unit who is designed to be swapped if something is wrong. rather than trying to fix it then installed.
  2. Breaktrough starshot thought about bouncing the beam back and forth multiple times between the laser and the sender mirror and the probe. I think this would work much better with an much larger as in hundreds of kilogram and up rather than the <1 gram probes at 50.000 g to reach 0.1 c
  3. Only really needed for large supersonic jets who few new has been build as in any after the B1? Fighter jets probably has enough TWR to not need them. You also has the option to take off with less fuel and top up in the air.
  4. So starship style landing legs? Should work as with all the engines it will have an low center of mass. No catching it by the fins is well down the line, they are just now crowd sourcing how to do it
  5. An star destroyer is around 1.5 km long. ISS is 100 meter so it will be very visible from the ground in low earth orbit but still smaller than the moon I think, Some thing 10 km long would be much larger than the moon. Had been fun with an shot or image of this seen from earth.
  6. All rockets uses pressurization for strength, not at the level as the old atlas upper stages as they can stand empty without issues. However they definitively need the added strength during max q and you get this strengthening for free. As for the centaur, I guess the stiffeners are to support the payload on top before fueling. Now I'm a bit surprised starship don't have any stiffening at all with its huge volume and thin walls. The nose has stiffing because of max q and the skirt who need to hold the weight of the fully fueled ship. The tanks will be pressurized during decent to
  7. Yes note that internal gravity is always is the same direction and the same strength even if in deep space or under trust. Not sure how the sublight drive work but it would make sense if it used gravity too and could then probably move the entire ship and the crew as one as in no felt acceleration. If not they would need to first cancel out the g force from the trust and then add the artificial gravity. If this system failed while the trust was still running down would now be backward and you would get up to some speed in the huge rooms and long corridors. Its the old spaceships are
  8. This, now you can redirect charged particles with an magnetic field. Highly radioactive places in the solar system like the van alien belt and the stronger radiation belt of Jupiter consist mostly of charged particles. An superconductor might let you make an strong enough magnetic shield. This is easier on an ship than an spacesuit but doing eva around the ship you would still be protected. Yes space also have gamma and x rays but this is no danger during normal eva trips but might be an issue if you do hours of eva every day as work.
  9. Street legality issues and a lack of need I guess also diminishing return. An serious off road car is seriously capable. For something larger I guess 3-4 axles are better. For military use you want an low profile.
  10. Not really an problem to get close to an station or other things to dock to, you always do an orbit or two before it anyway. You need secondary engines anyway for fine tuning trajectory. Nor is braking, yes you are fireing in the direction you are going but you are not driving into an radioactive cloud, every part of the bomb will go much faster than you after it blows up. Agree 100%, we just need fusion power first Yes its plenty of fusion engine designs, many who are pretty practical, the problem is that they require lots of power to run. In short they are electical eng
  11. Interesting idea: Now I don't think you could do the entire compression for an start shot easy and you have variable yield nuclear bombs. However it would be very nice for an warship. Then under attack you would both want to evade and fire with rail guns and lasers both who draw lots of power. Under intense combat you would also tend to run open loop cooling, in short you dump water after you heated it. For civilian use however I don't see much use on an standard orion, on mini-mag it might be relevant again as unlike orion this uses lots of power running its drive and you will burn
  12. In KSP I tend to do one orbit and dock, launch and set an circulation burn, adjust this for intercept. At kerbin I tend to launch early and raise Ap up to 90-100 km because the 80 km orbit of stations and the 70 km atmosphere. On other bodies I launch late and simply let don't raise Pe to circulation to get the intercept. Then an adjustment burn and an velocity matching one closest to the station. Now this will not work RL, however real launches are far more accurate and Soyuz just do a few orbits. Aproaching ISS also take time as you have to go slow and indirect so you don't cras
  13. Kind of like this I guess. Elon trolls people who responds with ideas he can use. No this is not engineered in any way at best they done some sort of feasibility study who show its possible.
  14. I say +50 flights, a lot depending on how fast they move forward with launches. For one the catch system will be an major construction itself and nothing they will start building before they have two orbital pads or more. Also a bit depending on there they will launch to, building this at the KSC will be hard because of existing infrastructure there and hard to launch while its under construction.
  15. Its from Tesla stock. Now I say it overvalued, the self driving AI might be the most valuable part down the line as its very hard to get right unlike electric drive systems. However stock value is not about the long term value of the company, its about expected short term changes and how an investor can profit. Obviously Amazon, Microsoft or Google has way more revenue but as they are large they don't shift much, more so for older and more diverse companies.
×
×
  • Create New...