PB666

No boosters, jet engines and afterburners. The keep a stock of retired aircraft which they ca borrow parts from.

Granted, a giant steps on your roof and flattens it. I wish i had my own observatory in space.

-74 (-)

Yeah those data reporting units may or may not catch the deceleration. For the SX telemetry i caught periods up to about a quarter second where the feed had basically stopped.

You make the assumption that any engine had sufficent oxygen, they might have all been starving when it hit the deck. There is a dception because of the hieght of the rocket and distance. But its not efficient for a rocket to decellerate an then slow the deceleration so far above the ground, the wave heght on a bad day is about 3 meters, ive been oout in squals with 5m waves, if you add another meter variance per tides it means that they where about 10 to 50 meters two high before the switched deceleration modes. Lets say they were 10 meters too high when their engines began failing, and that they were are say 2 meters per second with only 0.75g*m, d = v0t + 0.5at^2 that gives an impact in about 2.2 seconds traveling at 7.5 meters per second.

Yes, the link was talking about current use micro thrusters, The situation with xenon is that you increase the number of plates and voltage, but you have fewr amps. The are 75 to 85% efficient on the application side, so the molecular weight is not a problem since the upper limit on ISP is over 10,000 in that efficiency range. I've already been through this problem with photon thrusters, cannae (based on a utilization of N = 30MW) and all manner of electric power propulsion system, you have an almost linear trade off between exhaust mass and electric power needed. If you want high mass efficiency the you need good electric power and electric power needs production mass and supporting structure. You can make any system mass efficient with enough power, you can forget about the heat limit, because you can create lasers and rf steering systems that isolate plasma from structure. But what you cant do is power these systems at high thrust or achieve high accelerations if you have invested alot in cooling. Ion drives are it below nuclear, but there is about 100 kw power limit per meter square because of waste heat and the time required to radiate that heat, to some degree you can have the gas pick up the waste and have it expelled, but only to a certain degree. When you talk about SEP there is about a three fold limit on the maximum amount power/mass(at 1 au) that can be used, relative to where the best SEP today. In interplanetary space you can utilize these systems and it helps without much loss of optimal burn dynamics because of power use outside of the efficiency burn points. But such systems would rely heavily on batteries and low ISP burns (or chemical thrusters) for insertion or oberth burns. You can justify carrying chemicals and rockets if the ISP on the ion drives are high enough. EP craft are basically designated for probes and space tugs (fuel and supply carriers). Nuclear electric power is a necessity in deep space and since it must be used, it certainly can be used to provide power to 'whatever' electric thruster. But scaling that up is particularly problematic because traditional power conversion on earth is rather mass inefficient in space, an thermocouples are not efficient for either weight or electricty. So the basic problem here is that heat generation requires panel massed cooling structures. So now we are waiting on fusion power as this high electricity per mass density, we don't know how efficient they will be and how much cooling will be required. And unless we can make this so or find something much better then interstellar travel will never be much more than flyby probes.

Looks like the frame eventually crumpled and much fell overboard or was push over board? If what i am seeing is correct , what a mess.

T - 5 minutes, heads up

But microion drives are better for attitude control, and fule can be couple to the primary propulsion system. This syste relies on hydrogen, ion drive can use xenon or even magnesium as propellants requiring less container mass.

-72 (-)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160617104704.htm

Banned for underlining.

-70 (-)

See above.

Lame. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_702 1700 to 3000 kg. From the wiki, and i expect this to satisfy your squirm. On June 1, 2015, it was announced that ABS was so happy with the performance of ABS-3A, even before it reached its operative orbit, that they decided to order a new 702SP, ABS-8, to be launched by late 2017. When launched on a Falcon 9, the total investment was so low that it would be profitable even if they do not find another satellite to pair it for the launch.[19]The failure to renew the charter of the Ex-Im Bank during 2015 meant that it couldn't finance the operation. As such, the order was not finalized, but Boeing and ABS were still in talk for possible options.[20] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSL_1300 Those are the platforms for the latest launch. The second of which The platform for the Eutelsat 117 West B satellite is also the platform for the most powerful broadband satelliete currently in operation. 5500 to 6000 kg mass.

-68 (-)

Promoting unskilled infidelity, cheater.

Banned for depriving lawyers of work.

This has happened to me, the part stays and the strut extends out for mikes.

-66 (-)

Already mentioned months ago, but yeah they would pay you to take the methane off the production platforms in the northern gulf right now. If you created a production platform about 50 miles north east and piped it to the BSC, you could get all the methane to your hearts desire when deepwater drilling starts again in the gulf, right now theres just no liquidity to do it, and peeps would pay to use your platform and give you the gas, only problem is getting it off the platform. You could build an offshore LNG plant, and sell whats left tomEurope for a pretty penny, china also, japan also.

But carry and land them them all on a lv909 Ft combo a panel battery and octo core with a long girder segment covered with rover chairs. launch a large factory in orbit around kerbol.

Hes short on talent How come six and seven is the answer to how to ask a how to ask a queston?

What do think that the WB and WTO have been complaining about for the last 7 years, Europe has not been investing in the types of infrastuctures overall that would help the economy; lots of investment in social programs abd low tech,. But the types of stimulation they need are in high tech factories, high tech computer hardware industries, space science medical technologies, basic science. These are the types of jobs that draft unskilled workers intonthe workforce and afford higher oaying jobs that brong in tax revenue to get them out of the huge debt they have accumulated investing in overvalued realestate. China has been pouring tons of money into these thing and Europe as a whole is heading to become a legacy marketplace. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/07/11/youth-unemployment-eu-11 In so many papers the WB basically says that if you want to deal with the social problems that sporadic immigration brings you need to provide educational incentives into tech industry and promote those industries. The growth of engineering and science oriented in China and India is a magnitude higher than even those non-immigrant groups in centain parts of Europe. This does not spell well for the debt crisis that regions of the EU face. http://www.eib.org/projects/index.htm Basically they are investing about 1/10 th the recommended amount, they are investing in places were the payback will be minimal, and in projects that are legacy in nature, no new innovative projects and few in places were the employment rate would help to push Europe out of its stagnated economic situation and new people arrive every day looking for employment. They are basically practicing supply-side economics in an economy that needs a keynesian boost, not everywhere, but in many isiolated places. Note i am not positing a single party, just mouthpiecing what the world financial organizations have been saying including the EIB.

Still not 700 mil to GSO on a F9-launch costs so as long as F9 can GTO it and the sat can circukarize you are still way better off on an F9.