linkxsc

Members
  • Content Count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Excellent

About linkxsc

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Heres my question. We have 2 datapoints on this. 1g and 0g. For earth and space stations repsectively. Is this still a problem at .3g or .1g? Everyone loves their centrifuges big, but do we really need 1g to counteract this problem? Or could we manage with just .1g, to mitigate the problem completly... wouldnt help with the bone and muscle problems, but we have workout regemins for that. All i see is more reason for a long term moon base for testing.
  2. Hardly a real problem. The majority of current cases are people with poor diets, be they college students who eat nothing but ramen for weeks, or others who avoid fruit and vegetables. Assuming a good starting supply of biomass, and good recycling of excrement, you shouldnt run into problems. Also worse comes to worst, ship a couple dozen bottles of a multivatimin can keep scurvy at bay for a long time (something that will probably be sent along anyway).
  3. It aint gloriius but it works. Course I get dirty looks from people when I tell them that I went to school for 2 years to learn about hot water flowing through a pipe.
  4. What about giant battery operated humanoid robots to do the terrestrial work on low gravity bodies?
  5. I still stand by... why try for Mars when we could go for the moon first? Its a vastly shorter distance away. It would be a great place to test a lot of lowG equipment. If anything does go wrong, aid and recovery can be sent in a timely manner. We can easily throw a few satellites around the moon for a GPS system. A lot more easily than we could for Mars. Communications for control of machinery could be done from earth during the early setup phases, or from an orbital station, testing out the station design and longevity for future stations to operate at Mars. A base on the far side of the moon offers suprisingly good opportunities for a large radio telescope without interferance from earth in general. Moon can be mined just as well as Mars, with aluminum being much easier to work with than pure iron. Any Martian base would need supplies of carbon shipped in for steel production. Also corrosion. Aluminum and iron can both be used in hybrid rockets, so both colonies can produce a fuel to get into space. But the moon's lower gravity makes it much easier. Other misc reasons.
  6. Short answer no. Long answer, exoskeletons and powered armor could be a thing. (I plan to design on here in the coming months. Not powerful, no picking up cars, but able to support the wearers weight and add some strength) As far as the couple people whove referred to mechs/giant robots... i have a lot to say on that topic, and will be making a thread in the near future.
  7. You're not breaking them up though. And antisatellite missiles seem more practical.
  8. Who said anything about destructive? Most laser concepts rely on heating the surface of the targe enough so tiny bits vaporize and thrust the object retrograde. This actually wouldnt require that powerful of a laser. And definitely not anything that could penetrate the atmosphere and damage things.
  9. Personally im for the laser idea. The satellite or station would be a tad on the expensive side. But it can sit in 1 orbit. And at various points engage in the slowing of debris traveling in significantly different orbits whenevr they get close or in LOS. Course if you tell people this they get visions of the death star and freak out. Much like microwave power for satellites and probes.
  10. Wow I am honestly impressed that they have done that already.
  11. Well the shape of the craft is futureistic. And though it might be lacking in lift. Isnt wholly an impossible design. Descriptions tied to it however. Much more believeable than any nuclear aircraft. Would a a nuchlear powered container ship or something.
  12. I'ma just latch onto your pointing out of Japanese here for a minute. Alpha would end up like you say as Arufa or alufa. I highly doubt that would be "difficult" for any Japanese person to say, nor for anyone else to have trouble understanding, especially if they're training for their pilots exam or some such. The biggest problem with saying alpha would be the l/r mix as I've heard many Japanese speakers pronounce the syllable as both an R or an L, and even jump between the 2 depending on proceeding or following sounds. Also Japanese is probably 1 of the easiest to pronounce languages in the world, and assuming its spelled phonetically in hirigana/katakana and you know/understand them, it should be 0 problem for anyone in the west to read and pronounce at least "alright". If anything, more mispronunciations of Japanese for westerners come from when you try to interject your own language's rules into the sounding of the word while reading roumaji. This is why most good JP textbooks avoid roumaji at all costs and instead try and teach you using hirigana wherever possible, as you'll have correct pronunciation from there. Also a better choice of "problem word" would be Bravo. As V is a strange sound in several languages, being pronounced as a "b" in Spainish that I know of, Eastern European languages like to give it a "w" sound. For Japanese, you'd probably end up with Burawo, burabo, or some such as I don't know off the top of my head if there is a "V" sound in that language. Though "volvo" is borubo ボルボ . And typing "vo" of bravo in katakana gets me ヴォ u"a(" indicates different pronunciation for u's character) But it doesnt stop the fact that if I were on a radio and suddenly heard "arufa, burabo" I'd still understand it as alpha bravo because of how distinct the sounds are. And thats the point, even if you took the "words" and had them pronounced by someone who doesn't even speak "english" they should be distinct enough that they can be understood. Delta, foxtrot, golf, oscar, quebec, and victor also seem "iffy" by comparison, but would all be distinctly understandable if you were expecting nato phonetic.
  13. [quote name=michaelhester07;2251640 Nuclear power would work out best in locations where solar becomes impractical or prohibitively expensive' date=' like a Lunar equator base. In such a base there would be no sun for 15 days out of a month. We'd try to put a base on the poles so we can use solar power but a resource we need might not be on the poles. Dont forget though. Assuming that you had a solar microwave system around earth, it would be quite a bit cheaper (materials wise, and lifting stuff wise) to microwave beam the power to your moonbase.