lrd.Helmet

I'm excited for not having to mod in clouds, visuals, sounds, engine effects.

Whether it's easier or not doesn't mean the science is bad. Saying the science of interstellar is bad is just wrong, of course in a movie some things get stretched or a bit illogical for sake of telling a story. And you can dislike the story all you want, but the science isn't bad. It has the most accurate rendering of a black hole for crying out loud. There have been done scientific studies using it's simulation. Just because some of you don't like the story, the soundtrack of just want to be contrarian, doesn't mean the science is wrong.

Pluto ain't a planet

I would assume that you yourself are also reflecting the ping from the remote emitter. So you'd be painting yourself as well. pov of "attacking" sub: 1st ping: active emitter 2nd ping: reflection of defending sub 1st ping gives direction of emitter, 2nd ping gives direction of defending sub. I would think that people smarter than me can do some magical math and calculate the location of both objects.

probably not. I don't think your gpu can handle it. 400 series aren't even supported by Nvidia anymore.

That doesn't seem like such a great idea.

A2: Without WW2 there would probably be no European Union, so I'd think there would be less cooperation. However war costs a lot of money and lives, so you would have more to spend on research and development and you'd probably haven't killed off a large group of smart people. I wouldn't know which of these would have more of an impact on progress. However because no ww2 there is no east vs west Europe so probably no need to have the space race, so probably no people on the moon. Satelites and stuff would be developed eventually because there is a specific use for them. I'm not a historian or anything so take my analysis with a grain of salt.

Yes it is. Many years ago I read a Dutch science magazine with a picture of a ballistic missile reentry test. I'll send them a message to see if they still have the article somewhere. If I remember correctly it was 6 or 7 parallel lines coming through the clouds and smacking the ground somewhere. edit: Found it!

According to http://allaboutalgae.com/faq/ Some species of micro-algae can double in size in 24hrs. So I would assume you'd need 1kg of the stuff.

these pictures made me wonder. You can see all those filaments and "clouds" and stuff, but that's just because it's so far away. If you were to be in one you couldn't actually see it right? Is it possible that we ourselves are in something that looks amazing from a distance or are we in just a very ordinary arm of the milky way where nothing really happens?

I might just be stupid, but if you never intend to go to low LEO and thus never exceed the 14t limit then the 30t capability doesn't matter. Apparently the heaviest payload was the Chandra x-ray observatory, at around 22,7t. During STS-93. So I stand corrected.

Yeah, but If you build something with enough dV to get 15t to a 400km orbit, because for whatever reason that's what you need it for. Then you get 30t to 200km. For example, falcon 9 was designed to bring x amount of cargo to LEO, thanks to the design of the rocket the first stage has enough dV to be an SSTO (a useless one, but still). It wasn't designed to be one and it wasn't a design requirement, but it was a consequence of other design decisions. It would be interesting to know what the original performance specification was for the shuttle.

For a trip to the ISS it could bring around 15 t. So I guess they had the capability to bring more to LEO, but they never intended to use it for that.

I think your biggest hurdle would be escaping earths atmosphere. Nowadays we use brute force to get up there and non combusting rocket engines don't provide enough power. Maybe a rail gun to accelerate you spaceship and yeet it into orbit?

and this:

Depends on how you pour it in. A container with water and alcohol would slowly dissolve the alcohol into the water at the boundary layer, this would be a fairly slow process as the only point of contact is in that contact layer. However, if you poured the water in like you normally would you'd also agitate the liquids quite a bit. This would greatly impact the time it takes to fully dissolve the alcohol. The same would be true for stirring. If you're talking about mixing water into scotch, I'm not really sure they would mix by themselves. Scotch will actually float on top of water due to the difference in density.

As far as I know, Gravity is the folding (bending) of spacetime. So; neither? Mass bends spacetime and that gives you gravity.

From 50meters up the horizon is about 25km away. And circles don't really stack nicely, however I don't really know how much you'd need to overlap them.

Most large airliners use their inner spoilers/speedbrakes/airbrakes on their wings to roll at higher speeds. The regular ailerons are pretty far away from the center of mass and therefore have a large momentarm, by using the spoilers this distance is greatly reduced and as such the forces are as well. Using the spoilers also reduces yaw effects (you'd normally have when using ailerons) when the rudder authority is reduced due to high speeds

You don't really want to abort with big srb's nearby. Parachutes don't do well with burning chunks of srb fuel flying around, even the regular srm exhaust is filled with burning stuff and chances are that during an abort the booster stage experiences a critical failure due to aerodynamic stresses and other new forces. So unless you have a soft landing system capable of soft landing your capsule, your chances of survival are pretty slim (better than zero though, so yeah).

I want to thank you for that article, but I'm not sure I'm actually happy I got to see these slides...

They should hire a graphic designer to unify these schematics. Typography is all over the place and in general it looks very cluttered.

I don't think you should be able to look at the core of the planet through a prop in real life. Something is happening in the graphics department in that picture.

There is a lot of words in that article and it basically says: "we did something, but we won't give you any data or a way to verify what we said is actually true." Why does BO keep winning contracts while they haven't even shown they can get something to orbit? I mean, all those engine tests, suborbital hops and drawings of rockets are basically useless when you haven't even shown your capability to get to space?

Why are they always green? I know it has something to do with their composition, but they can't all be made of the same material, right?