• Content Count

  • 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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. I guess these are 2 or 3 different pictures merged in one... I cant imagine other way to do it.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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)
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. As I explain in the past, there is a better economic strategic behind price reduction
  14. Are you ok? seriously I am asking.. because most of your answers are absolutely not related to the quotes. Is scary.. something is wrong there. Your other answers just avoid, ignore, forget and lack of any trace of logic or reason (totally needed to have smart and profitable discussion), which at this point, the remaining esteem that I had of you was evaporated. well, let's conclude this discussion and possible future discussions because I don't see the point if these ends being incoherent.
  15. Ok.. is time you start to recognize your errors because all the things that I correct you, were ignored, so this mean you are not learning from your mistakes. 0.1 atm = 10% earth atmosphere, mars atmosphere = 0.6% earth atmosphere. So this pressure is 17 times higher than mars. The boiling point of water at 35 degrees is half of that. Why you are posting something that I said? I was the one who said that a wobbling will generate heat and a possible magnetic field due tidal heating... But as I said before, in the earth case is radioactive decay the main source of heating. Much of the heat is created by decay of naturally radioactive elements. An estimated 45 to 90 percent of the heat escaping from the Earth originates from radioactive decay of elements mainly located in the mantle.[4][8][9] ?? you dont need highly eccentric orbits.. the orbit period may have few days, also you can have a perfect eccentric orbit with tidal lock like Io and still generates a lot of tidal heating due the other jupiter moons. So a natural sattelite, other planets, etc.. everything can provide tidal heating. As I said before.. try to spent more time finding circumstances where it works instead pointing the only special case where that could not work. Ok.. this is BS? I expect an apology then: "the violent flaring period of a red dwarf's lifecyle is estimated to only last roughly the first 1.2 billion years of its existence." Earth has 4.5 billions years. lol.. excuse me.. you was trying to convince us that tidal lock planet could start to rotate again due your volatile theory, you also want to prove that there is no chance of life in other type of planets that are slightly different than earth. Meanwhile I saying that it may be different conditions were life as we know it could develop. What claim is more crazy? more taking into account that I prove with reason and logic all the points that I made, but I correct many points you made. haha.. the only hype here is your posture. The earth would have 30 degrees less if did not have a greenhouse effect, if you add the venus albedo due sulfate aerosols or stratus clouds at high altitude the earth would receive 40% less sunlight, so you need to reduce that temperature way more.. so the habitable zone means nothing. Haha.. Now the only way you have to reject my arguments is asking me for direct evidence which you know our technology can not provide yet. Bravo well done!