AngelLestat

Members
  • Content Count

    2,059
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

312 Excellent

1 Follower

About AngelLestat

  • Rank
    Energy Consultant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Incredible that Bridenstine have choose Spacex to start to complaint about delays instead of all the other NASA projects. In his defense, he is on NASA since the end of 2017, so not much to blame him, but still... bad play. Hearing that make my day. I would like to know the ignition choice for those thrusters, sparks or laser ignition? I read in a paper than laser ignition could be 99.98% accurate and 5 to 10 ms in delay. I wish as you have said, that the main tanks could refill the pressure vessels for the control thrusters, it does not seem complicate, just a bit of electrical heat and stop in the desired pressure. I would avoid the thermal cycle to generate power, PV is always cheaper, weight efficient and less problematic, that particular thermal cycle does not seem very efficient either. In any case they can include a fuel cell as backup. Because they need to land on earth, you get flow separation at sea level with such big bell, additionally the engine gimbals should be more powerful to move such heavy bell. Besides, once they are in orbit, they can use just the vacuum engines, they dont lost ISP. Well, those where my 2 cents on the presentation. I cant wait for the upcoming months, it would be epic.
  2. Yeah, is hard for me to understand the point of those who like the lego approach in comparison to the liberty and performance of simplerockets. What if you want to include a new fuel type? you need 30 more tank parts? This also mean more development work for each new thing developers wants to include or parameters they want to change, in a procedural approach you just change an equation, in a lego approach you need to change the parameters of each individual part. I know that many people agree with you, but personally, I can't stand it. I like to design and test things with full liberty, it makes me feel good to design something that "maybe" it could have work in the real world, at least in concept. it was the main reason why stop playing KSP years ago, even with mods trying to approach the procedural method. Relax, something tells me that they would keep the Lego approach
  3. I only hope a good builder method without the need to deal with several hundreds of parts. That should be the main concern in a building game. Why we need like 30 tank shapes and not even that is enough because it limits a lot our creativity and possibilities? Why we need different wing parts? or decouplers, or aerodynamic cones, etc. Without a procedural part approach means: 1-wasting time searching a part between hundreds and would not be the right thing we need. 2-extra memory requirement (performing issues) to deal with all possible parts, one texture and object file for each one instead scaling or changing texture. 3-It limits our creativity and possibilities 4-Our creations look uglier, like frankenstein. So I wish they try for KSP2 an approach more similar to simplerockets 2. Procedural tanks and shapes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhLlrS4-1wU Procedural Engines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71jG9LLmObg Procedural landing gears https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wct2x00pBeI Some examples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVm8J03PpYc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQcvZVmtnug Without at least scale, texture and shape selection for parts, I would not bother to waste a minute of my time in the next KSP2.
  4. If they don't implement a more procedural part approach like simplerockets 2, I would not even try it. I hate the hundreds of parts that limits your creativity, increase your search time, creations that look uglier and unrealistic and crash your PC from lack of memory. What is the point to have 30 tanks shapes?? or many wing shapes? That was the main reason I stop playing KSP.
  5. It does not matter how shinny they made this new version... If they don't implement a more procedural part approach like simplerockets 2, I would not even try it. I hate the hundreds of parts that limits your creativity, increase your search time, creations that look uglier and unrealistic and crash your PC from lack of memory. What is the point to have 30 tanks shapes?? or many wing shapes? The only thing I ask is to solve that core error from the first version which was the key reason I stop playing KSP.
  6. Also.. moon is not good for refuel and go.. because you waste almost the same dv to leave the moon than to leave low orbit, so a captured ice asteroid in low orbit would be way more usefull in that matter.
  7. Hi everyone, it has been a long time since the last time I check your comments, I saw the news today and I imagine that you might have a good discussion going on here, after reading all your comments I decided to jump on to talk of some details that may not have being mentioned yet. For start, I really like way more this new design that the last, way more realistic and practical as many of you mention. I imagine what it can done a vehicle like this for the space business or exploration. How cheaper could have been the JWTelescope if would not need to be folded between other things. Of course, they still need a big design, not because mars require it.. because it could not be fully reusable if does not reach to that minimum size. For example the heatshield mass which depend on the surface but it becomes negligible to respect the volume (amount of fuel), but it seems that even considering that, they are way on margin with respect to mars reentry (that animation is the thing that I enjoy most), we also have to take into account that it returns almost empty, otherwise the volume/surface ratio "density" would be an issue instead a benefit. I like the idea to change all efforts to this vehicle instead continue developing the falcon9, although this will remain operational for a long time. One things that was kinda crazy was the idea to use this vehicle as a faster transport between cities on earth. Like many of you mention.. even if they manage to solve the launch and reentry vibrations, I doubt they can solve the g-forces in a confort way for normal people, but it may be an audience in search of adrenaline. There is a bigger issue with this idea.. sonic boom and sound pollution like we can see in this video: The sonic boom is originated way far above, maybe at 5 km of height, so is not an issue of the cameraman proximity, so the launch facility should be way far from any city, and if it take you at least 1 hour to reach the launch site and 1 hour in destination, then the 35min of travel lost meaning. But I guess this vehicle does not depend on this local application to achieve profits. PD: I like how they solve the docking and refuel system between other things. Also.. it would be a second stage variant to sent expendable missions to the outer planets or venus?
  8. I guess these are 2 or 3 different pictures merged in one... I cant imagine other way to do it.
  9. I dont see the damage in the first picture.. the white and black points follow a pattern which means is not natural damage. About the second picture yeah, is clear that it had a rough trip, but just seems superficial. We know that after reentry, it ignite and land. The fire test will clear up some doubts.
  10. English is not my main language, but I guess he is saying that the max damage than a recovery booster could receive was under these circumstances, so if this booster works in the firing tests, it means than the other are more than ok. So he is not confirming that this booster wouldl be disqualify. Maybe it will be, but he is not saying that.
  11. I guess a tug should be light, low thrust with high isp. If they are manned, the thrust should be much higher than today ion engines but no so much like many merlin engines. So even if you adapt these second stages to fulfill this role, I don't see much benefits vs launch a special tug to fulfil that purpose. Yeah, you save the deorbit fuel that can be used in solar panels but does not seems enough. But I give you a point for the idea.
  12. I guess when we think in energy, we should always had in mind its source and the cost, for example: Source SUN (Fusion) 1-Solar (electromagnetic) 2-Wind (kinetic) 3-Hydropower (gravity potential) 4-Sea Waves or currents (kinetic) 5-Fossil fuels (chemical storage) Source Moon´s gravity. 1-Tidal power (kinetic) Source Geothermal (50 to 90 % Radioactive decay, rest remaining heat from earth creation and a small % of tidal heat) 1-Geothermal Energy Source Nuclear (hard to classify) 1- RTG 2- Fission 3- Fusion (future) Then to exploit those we always have a cost associated, for example we can travel around the world with "solar impulse 2 plane" in something that we might call "perpetual motion" (of course is not), but it require a lot of money, based on the amount of work needed (that is also related to energy). I never try to defeat thermodynamics, but there are times when you don't know exactly if the extra efficiency you looking to achieve is against some rule or not. This is an energy scheme that I wanted to exploit (the image is not complete): The goal: try to improve the efficiency of wind energy with chemical storage and other energy sources. 1- Extra heat energy from black smokers to improve the efficiency of electrolysis (above 100% measured from the electrical input) 2- Extra efficiency in work with high pressure electrolysis (this is only related to limitations of our current electrolysis tech methods, not due physics rules, gravity is a conservative field) 3- Don't waste the gravity potential that we can get rising the hydrogen. 4- Extra energy from waves that you need to absorb to reduce the movement of your floating base. 5- Instead normal wind turbines, remplace them with high altitude kites (kitegen style), which it will increase the capacity factor and reduce floating structure. 6- Make the kite rope conductive using CNT so you can harvester the atmosphere electrostatic and lightnings, which can all help to increase the voltage and heat to produce extra hydrogen. 7- Extra fishing and co2 capture due the amount of nutrients you can get rising all that cold water with the option C. The bigger problem is the maintenance cost, I guess there is no material that can resist all that for so long. Also the cost to purify water, in case you don't want to separate and mine all extra elements from the water, but if you use a black smoker in the first place, mine those minerals has total sense.
  13. I guess your idea was something similar to exploit the change of buoyancy you get when you compress the lifting gas, but that energy of course is the same you get from the potential energy gain. But is not about the atmosphere pressure gradient.. is about density (they are related, but buoyancy is all about density) http://www.hp-gramatke.net/pmm_physics/english/page0550.htm
  14. I think that by the end of 2014 could be completed the first track (city to city), with 6 years of development and 2 or 3 for construction. I dont know much about all different approaches, but this seems fit for its purpose very nice and cheap enough (not sure why other companies did not took advantage of eddy currents way before): They can even solve the curve accelerations issues just adding more aluminum in that side of the curve (so acceleration for the passengers always point down), the cost of aluminum is important, but no so much compared to the tube or other kind of alternatives. It does not seem like a source, also not sure what are the similarities with hyperloop.. more details please.
  15. what about the merlin engine from spacex? Or is included in other mod? I will like many engines to be included so I dont need to install a huge mod like KW rocketry or Nova.