PakledHostage
-
Posts
2,090 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by PakledHostage
-
-
34 minutes ago, TheSaint said:
I was thinking about that. They took 11 years to build the replacement for the Oakland Bay Bridge up in Northern California, not including the time it took for them to actually decide which bridge to build. Good luck, Baltimore.
This is why we won't have fusion power plants before 2040 or Mars colonies either. 2040 is 16 years from now. Evidently it takes that long to build large scale examples of established technology like bridges or subway lines, let alone cutting edge stuff.
-
I do think you will see the people responsible for infrastructure (like bridge and power line support towers) that are potentially vulnerable to collisions by ships to take a serious look at it. They'll at least do enough to cover their butts in case something happens on their watch... They'll commission an engineering study, write a report, seek government funding for the improvements recommended in the engineering study, they'll be denied the necessary funding, then they'll place the report and funding denial documents in a safe place to be pulled out if there's ever a problem.
-
Casual Navigation has already done a video on this. He tries to stick to the known facts. (His videos are always of high quality.)
-
I just think there's a lot of jumping to conclusions going on here. The TSB supposedly hasn't even gotten on-site yet, because rescue crews are still looking for the missing road workers. It seems in poor taste to wag fingers now already. But that's just my opinion. As you were.
-
Just now, tater said:
Why did the ship lose power in the first place?
The engines were built by Boeing... Seriously people.
-
3 hours ago, DDE said:
It might be much cheaper to solve the awful quality of mechant mariners these days than build indestructible bridges. Usually it's one licensed captain from Eastern Europe (in this case Sergei, 52, Ukrainian national) and a crew of a dozen barely literate hirelings from the boondocks of South-East Asia, all underpaid.
I don't think that's fair. The New York Times says that the ship lost power and radioed (presumably to VTS or the Coast Guard) with sufficient lead time to get the bridge closed to traffic. That's why there are *only* 6 people missing. Question might equally be asked why the ship wasn't accompanied by a tug? What were the regulatory requirements for that? And did they have a pilot on board? I suspect that they did.
-
5 hours ago, Superfluous J said:
Near it, yes.
You can do that from orbit, too. If you use a circular orbit, it's relatively easy to figure out how many seconds after sunset or sunrise you need to wait before doing your ejection burn, so that your escape trajectory out of Kerbin's SOI is parallel with Kerbin's orbital velocity vector. I once used that technique to set up a flyby of Duna with a return to Kerbin on a single orbit.
Edit: I also used it to achieve a gravity assist off the Mun, to reach Duna with minimal delta-V. I reached Duna from LKO using about 80 m/s less than the minimum predicted by the delta-v charts. I had to carefully time my burn to flyby the Mun and have it bend my trajectory just right to reach Duna. I recall that was complicated to set up, although they had at least added maneuver nodes to the game by then so I had that tool available to help make it work.
-
Yeah, the 2017 eclipse was my second (the first was the preceding eclipse in that same saros series). I observed it from northwest of Ontario, Oregon. It was severe clear, and I was focused on my camera when it started (and my daughter when it ended), so I didn't notice it coming or going. The first time, on the other hand, there were big towering cumulus out to the horizon, presenting a big white canvas upon which to paint the shadow. The advance and retreat was very obvious.
-
24 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:
when
the clouds ruin the dayTotality happens.I have seen totality in two eclipses. The first, there was a lot of cumulus around, the second was CAVU. The clouds gave a really cool effect to the first one that wasn't present on the second. As the moon's shadow swept over the towering cumulus that were dozens of miles off in the distance, you could see the beginning and end of totality coming. The shadow moves at on the order of 3000 km/hr (more towards the beginning and end of the path of totality), and you get a real primal sense of dread seeing a shadow that big and fast sweep over you. It added another level of awesome to an already awesome experience.
-
I considered Texas and Mexico, but for better or worse, I'm heading to the northeast corner of the continent (e.g. Maine, Quebec, New Brunswick). Wishing everyone clear skies.
-
I once drove from Whichita to LA. We only crossed the Texas panhandle, but it was a long drive in total. But road trips are almost always good adventures. Enjoy.
Fredericksburg was my first choice of destinations to see it. The western periphery of the path of totality just west of there has the highest probability of clear skies. Supposedly cloud from the Gulf of Mexico often obscures skies as far west as the centreline of the path of totality, but it gets drier west of the centreline. So, even though you're shortening the length of totality by being west of centre, you've got a better chance of seeing it.
-
19 minutes ago, tater said:
That or drive longer and leave Sunday.
Optimistic? After all, there's the lament of travelers through Texas "The Sun has riz, the Sun has set, and here we is in Texas yet"
-
I see that one group is going to launch a balloon and live stream the video from aboard it:
https://www.youtube.com/live/8Ebop4PzFgM?
(Note: I got a message saying that the video settings prevent it from being embedded when I pasted it.)
-
1 hour ago, tater said:
They're probably lying, because by lying about Starship capabilities they make huge amounts of money. Somehow. For reasons. It adds to the money their colony of underpants gnomes is stockpiling
It's 4 O'clock somewhere? Or what is this? Some jargon I don't understand?
-
Me neither. They're two different things (Oberth effect and vis-viva). @kerbiloid makes a good point with reference to the vis-viva equation, but it neglects the reality that we don't have infinite thrust to instantaneously make orbital adjustments and that there's an atmosphere. Somewhere there's an optimal solution. I am very skeptical that going straight up is it.
-
Sorry if I have ruffled feathers. Maybe I will just "get my own coat", so to speak. Bye.
-
16 minutes ago, darthgently said:
I disagree. The vis viva solutions merely change continuously given the thrust vector. They are still there
Sure, but how are you going to use them in some useful way? That's like saying your orbit changes continuously given the thrust vector. We know that to be true. But how is it relevant to answering what's more efficient: launching straight up, or using a gravity turn to reach an altitude from which we can either burn directly into an escape trajectory, or where we can park temporarily before doing so?
-
13 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
There is no angle in the [vis-viva] formula.
The vis-viva formula only applies when the only force acting on the object is gravity. It's irrelevant when the vehicle is under acceleration due to rocket thrust or atmosphericdrag, such as is being discussed here.
-
High TWR has the effect of mitigating gravity drag, but intuitively I still think doing the escape burn from a 70 km periapsis is going to be more efficient than going straight up (even with high TWR) for the reason I gave before about Oberth effect.
-
Because Kerbin's atmosphere is so thick, and it ends at ~70 km altitude, it stands to reason that maximum efficiency will be achieved by doing the escape burn from a 70 km apoapsis. Probably after following a launch profile similar to those in this challenge (minimum delta-V to LKO)
-
37 minutes ago, tomf said:
So it seems clear that the gravity losses for burning directly up are pretty substantial.
That's the Oberth effect. In both cases, you're ending up in a hyperbolic escape trajectory, but one has it's pariapsis near Kerbin's center (i.e. below the planet's surface) while the other has its periapsis near the orbital altitude that you're ejecting from.
In the burn straight up case, you're doing your burn well past the periapsis point, where the vehicle's speed is much lower than at periapsis. The other case has you doing your escape burn from very near the resulting hyperbolic orbit's periapsis point, where you're moving much faster, and therefore achieve a more efficient burn.
-
7 hours ago, AckSed said:
Helion is developing its reactor that uses field-reversed confinement with magneto-hydrodynamic pickup, and iterating on engineered prototypes with realistic expectations, which is a huge win. I think it's the closest to true fusion right now. But it and its banks of capacitors are the size of a building.
Helion has managed to secure itself a lot of positive press coverage, but this "not so fast!" video by ImprobableMatter is relevant:
-
8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
The Boeing glasses are stronger than they seem.
Boeing doesn't make the windows. Companies like PPG make them.
-
39 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:
Apparently not a MAX, but an Alaska 737, also in the Portland area, arrived with at the airport cracked windshield.
This is getting ridiculous. It isn't uncommon for them to crack. This shouldn't be news. It's usually just the outer pane that cracks, often due to a problem with the anti-ice heating system. The structural pane is in the middle, protected by polymer and glass layers. And even if the structural pane breaks (e.g. due to a bird strike), the polymer layers can sustain the pressurization loads. Nobody freaks out when someone's minivan window cracks... they stop and get it fixed. That's all that would have happened here, just like the other dozens of times it happens around the world in any given year.
Francise scott key bridge. Could it be remade immune to damage?
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
It's not necessarily a write off anyway. The visible damage is above the water line and I haven't heard anything in the news about it taking on water.
I do recall reading years ago, however, that the value of the cargo on one of those ships can exceed a billion dollars. The cargo on Dali is presumably just tied up for a bit until they can get it off her and onto another ship, though.