Jump to content

Lukaszenko

Members
  • Posts

    357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lukaszenko

  1. I don't think it would make sense to report it in absolute. Imagine for example, if it failed at 1 bar, absolute
  2. Could Super Heavy make orbit with no usable payload? If so, launch it anyway and you end up with something even better. Subtract the fins and legs, and maybe replace a couple engines with vac variants to optimise. You can then take the whole RTLS concept to the next level, where the launch site is low-Earth orbit. I wonder how fast that could get you to Mars?
  3. It did cross my mind, but it can't be that hard to shield 3 cm^3. Besides, since the first sentence of this discussion is "about how humans would survive on long-term space voyage", we'll be using dna storage in one way or another whether we like it or not.
  4. Why not? All sources I checked say that "215 petabytes of data in a single gram of DNA" is 85% of the theoretical limit. Where did you find 455 exabytes ?
  5. "DNA Fountain" method can store 215 petabytes of data in a single gram of DNA. So, looking at the density of DNA, you could easily fit an exabyte into < 3 cm^3.
  6. That has a bit of an ominous quality to it
  7. If that's the case, then maybe there IS a good reason for it after all. They'll probably need all the energy they can get.
  8. I don't think it's fair to count destructive tests during the R&D phase as "failures". Even after the first successes there's a grey zone. Perhaps when they stopped referring to it as "experimental landing" and simply "landing" would be a good starting point to count failures/ successes.
  9. Yeah, they didn't even bother to do the countdown this time.
  10. Given how much effort they put into their PR, I'm guessing that they DO care. Maybe those people aren't directly their customers, but they have an influence on the people who are.
  11. Probably, I didn't realize that they made ropes out of the stuff. Makes sense though.
  12. Based on this link, I estimate a kevlar cable would weigh about 5 kg/m for a 450 ton BFS at 1g. I don't know how much you want, maybe 100 m? So that's 500 kg, and that's probably waaaay over-engineered.
  13. Yeah, maybe, but it's tall and ladders aren't the safest things. But indeed, it will be on Mars anyway. Perhaps I overanalyzed. Still, if there is a big open common area, having space in 3d would be, well, more space.
  14. There's that, but there's also the sudden need for stairs and things like that. I don't know how much space that would take, but I imagine it's a lot.
  15. An elegant idea. Unfortunately, a big drawback with it, or pretty much any artificial gravity idea, it that it would drastically reduce the amount of usable space you have.
  16. Same article states that they've already deorbited a large number of the old-school versions of the satellites. RIP Iridium flares
  17. I'm guessing that the boat is cheaper than the fairing (half).
  18. If the cost-to-orbit is so cheap, maybe it's no big deal to simply add a super-cheap propulsion, like a compressed air tank with a de Laval nozzle, for example. I wonder how much delta v you could get out of something like that.
  19. Yeah, it looks like they got confirmation of booster destruction, but immediately after a "but don't say anything!!"...and then you can kind of see them backpedal and try to hide their emotions. As for the free ride on the Falcon, would have been a perfect opportunity to test that Cannae drive and put the whole thing to bed. Most of the arguments against doing just that seemed to be of the "putting it in space is too expensive" variety.
  20. It would make a good first payload for the BFR
  21. Apparently there's also unknown and large risks when lighting up and firing 27 engines simultaneously as opposed to one, or only 9. Resonances, vibrations, whotf knows what else. If you ask me, if one works then you just add 26 more exactly the same. Should be mundane. Good thing they're not asking me
×
×
  • Create New...