Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lukaszenko

  1. Jesus...of course. I forgot that you can always just, well, fire backwards. I guess with age my brain is getting tunnel vision.
  2. I'm obviously thinking of an extreme (although probably not even the most extreme) case, where something's orbit is exactly opposite of yours. I'm also guessing you're better off shooting something coming directly at you than something going in the same direction, if you want the resulting ejected plasma to slow the debris down.
  3. Yeah but in your example the target and and the projectile are both "on rails". Still, the more I think about it the more I'm starting to realize that yeah, it should be possible. The motions of the debris and the ISS are pretty predictable and understood, and these crazy telescopes can apparently see the debris....
  4. Yeah I get that a laser cutter in a machine shop can be precise, but surely the MANY orders of magnitude increase in distance and even more orders of magnitude increase in speed has some effect on the precision?
  5. They can really aim and hold a laser at something 100 km way, moving at 14 km/s?
  6. Doesn't make sense, if just because what did he get for it? It's great to want billions but if nobody pays it then you usually go down with the price or shop around, but at least you get something. What did he get? The satisfaction of taking it to the grave?
  7. You're making it sound like engineer= rockstar or Fortune 500 CEO I'm actually pretty sure quite a few people here are "actual" engineers.
  8. ...which is still as thick as it needs to be to cope with the known and understood stresses + a safety factor, which I understand from what Elon says is actually much higher than normal. I mean yeah it's a challenge to get the best combination of everything, but I doubt is as impossible as some people make it out to be.
  9. I doubt a hull experiences higher stresses than engine parts. Even if it did, you're saying that we can make this that operates at the limits of material capability, but we can't make what amounts to a tube with a couple tanks? I'd even venture to say that a rocket's hull is simpler and experiences similar, if not lower stresses than an airplane's.
  10. Is that true? Jet engines operate at the extreme limits of material capability. You can't get much higher stresses than that. Yet they are considered much more reliable than reciprocating engines. I see no engineering reason why rocket engines can't be the same. Very rarely is it because of outright material failure, and never is the solution "look at and test EVERYTHING, EVERY TIME". Nevertheless, crashes can never be fully eliminated, but this is no reason to make the whole concept of reusable airplanes (and rockets) prohibitively expensive.
  11. What posters are saying, is that this not necessarily be true. If it can be shown that the engines work reliably without this whole process after each flight (much like jet engines), then what reason is there to do it?
  12. Since "space flight" was a spinoff of military technology, it IS a good thing. Without space flight we would still have military rockets and atomic bombs...but without the civil stuff. Even if it was the other way around where space flight led to military applications, it's still a technology and, as others have said, a double edged sword. You can use it nicely or not. That said, why did you get stuck on space flight? Why not question pretty much every other technology out there? If it's because space flight can deliver a weapon of mass destruction, why not question the technology of the actual weapon (nuclear power) instead of shooting the messenger (space flight)? If it's about the amount of damage that can be done, why not focus on chemical technology? or biological? Those can be arguably equally destructive.
  13. I'm not saying you're not screwed, and I'm not saying I know the real distance. I just remember that they used a big ass crane to drop a dude onto concrete or water, and measured the accelerations involved. Water was always softer by a large factor. I recall the accelerations being in the hundreds of gs (so you're screwed either way), but concrete was always much harder, even going off the scale for the higher falls.
  14. Mythbusters tested this, and as I recall it is far from the same as hitting concrete.
  15. Extinct or not, finding signs of life not from earth is a HUGE deal...if not the hugest.
  16. This thread isn't about laughing at people for not knowing about space, it's about laughing at people who THINK they know about space, when they in fact they don't. It's a huge difference, and imo it's valid to laugh or look down at anybody who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about "There's no gravity in space." = you're an idiot, please shut the hell up. "I think there's no gravity in space." = probably reasonable, rational person.
  17. How fast does the belt run in the opposite direction? 1 mph? whatever it takes to try to stop the plane? Or, as I originally saw this riddle worded, the same speed as the plane? Depending on how the conveyor functions can make the answer to the riddle easier or harder to pin down.
  18. This approach doesn't always work, especially when you encounter the truly dumb person: I once got the good ol' "there's no gravity in space" comment. I tried to correct her, but she immediately angered in response because "there's no gravity in space " This short exchange therefore automatically defaulted into an argument. Unfortunatley, she held onto this curious concept where "I never argue, unless I'm 100% sure that I'm correct." The result of this logical loop is, of course, that there's no gravity in space. Complex or mind boggling or whatever, that was a truly stupid space-related comment. Not because of the comment itself, but because of the person that presented it, and the way she approached the possibility of being wrong.
  19. True, point taken. Seems then it shouldn't be so hard to implement reaction wheel saturation into KSP. Make the wheels overpowered, give them extreme performance, make the "bleed off momentum" function automatic, and do whatever else needs to be done to maintain playability, but at least make it be grounded in some sort of accepted theory.
  20. So I understand that in real life, reaction wheels get saturated because of minute outside effects such as magnetic fields, photon pressure, and gravity gradients. Could we just say then that in KSP it's not that the reaction wheels violate conservation of momentum, but that simply these minute magnetic/photon/gravity effects are not modeled? Would nothing be violated then?
  21. Getting captured with proper aerodynamics and heat is more difficult than current stock, but it's also more rewarding and nowhere near impossible, unless you're going really really fast. Just takes a bit more planning and maybe some spare fuel to slow you down (for when you ARE going really really fast ). Also keep in mind that in real life, an aerocapture maneuver has never been performed.
  22. Acceleration in cars/ trains/ boats/ railguns/ planes* is NOT constant with power. Acceleration decreases the faster you go. The only time that acceleration is constant with constant power is with things like rockets that bring their reaction mass with them. This is a special case and it has to do with many things, among them the fact that kinetic energy depends on which frame of reference you use. With a car that pushes against the earth, it makes sense to reference the earth. A rocket pushes essentially against itself, so you can easily jump between frames of reference and come up with apparent paradoxes. Of course with a rocket you can resolve the paradoxes, but as you pointed out it nevertheless is still a problem with the emdrive since it doesn't seem like it pushes against anything.
  23. I think I'd like the performance/ weight of parts to be capped at their sandbox values, but to start out at much lower, perhaps even uselessly so, values. Science would "grow" the parts to their nominal values.
  • Create New...