PB666

Why shouldn't it? Innovation grapples the imagination of space fans, if you keep innovating fast enough you can keep peoples attention longer, thats good for public funding for space.

Not useless if the payload has its own ion drive.

The green is the middle of the spectral peak for the sun, blue is of higher energy. A nixture of both red adsorbing and blue absorbing pigments allows plants to grow faster. If ultraviolet and blue are removed plants will adapt with more red absorbing pigments, and appear black in red light and blue in white light. The problem is that growth will be slower, because there is about a quarter the energy available, it would be akin to growing typical earth plants on mars. To achieve the same growth rate the planet would have to be twice twice as close to its star, raising the temperature because its still adsorbing all that IR. Its credible. But red stars are also more prone to flaring, and this is a particular problem for close planets. Light is not one thing from an atoms point of view their is nuclear-penetrating rays, ionizing radiation, chemosynthetic radiation, wobble radiation, molecular and structural radiation of higher level assemblages. Once you are below the frequency of the chemosynthetic radiation range, there will be no photosynthesis. Sure there are chemicals that have such a loose hold on their outershell electrons they can do chemistry, but you would have to have some sort of aromatic sink to dump enough of these into that you could do a 2 for one, or 3 for one trade on a single electron high enough to build.

Nope, once the payload is off its only going, i repeat, 1855 m/s, all it has to do is get diwn to about Mach 3, and let drag do the rest.

The crew launch could be first use, followed by reuse for non-crewed missions. Thats actually not a bad idea, have a built in replacement system and have NASA foot the bill. That would remove the fixed cost, lol, all you have is variable cost, get the recycled discount down to 40%.

How high and how fast does delta IV deliver. Falcon-9 launch only delivered to 1855 mps and iirc 30 km up. It lets the second stage do the brunt of dV. The merlin 1d vacuum has an ISP of 348 and on the second stage has a burn time of 397 seconds at 934 kN. The delta IV has 3140 x 3 kn for 242 seconds, and 3140 for 86 seconds, second has 110 kN for 1125 seconds. The 2nd stage has about 3 times the static forcextime capacity as the delta iv heavy. The difference it would appear is that the delta iv tries to get the payload as close to apogee as possible and the second stage circularizes, whereas the falcon launch delivers its stage out of the low performance atmosphere and lands then the second stage drives to apogee and cicularizes.

Not sure what the point of this thread is or even why its is our forum, but i can answer one question, Kerbol exists in the 'toon'iverse.

I have created a new thread here because this specifically does not deal with the reusability issue, not sure it has anything to do with reliability. Plus I will be adding to this. The grey line is derived from the velocity stats on the two videos at 1/12th second intervals. The Orange line is quarter second rolling average. Black line is the trend 0.08 to 4 seconds, 4 to 51.08 seconds (800 kmh), 51.16 second to MaxQ. The yellow line below is the bump and rattle index, that is how much the quarter second average deviated from the half second average. The green line is the surge and puke index, that is how much the 1 second double filter average differed from the trend. Both are in g-forces This is shown to Max Q 1). because they complete data makes it difficult to see the launch trend and 2) because I haven't finished analyzing the data after Max Q to MECO. The last bump before Max Q is pretty characteristic of the post-Max Q data, so I have to do some more filtering and better line fitting after that. So what are the points of the plot, -2 to 0 seconds, TWR increases to 1. 0 to 4 seconds, TWR increases from 1 to 1.25 (acceleration is 2.5 m/s + g) TWR increase is not linear, 1) because launch clamps remove downward force There is an immediate pulse of acceleration of about 0.1g (or greater because-). 2) second stage monitors forces that are buffered by the first stage structure and mass. 4 to 51 seconds, TWR increases from 1.25 to 1.68, acceleration rises according to 2.201 m/s2 + 0.0864t + g therefore extrapolate that TWR (ideal, max, liftoff) was 1.22 at 51 second TWR drops to from 1.68 to 1.48 over a period no greater than 5/12ths of a second. The last moment of normality was at 51:08 seconds, during a quarter second period thrust dropped on average for the quarter second rolling average 1.2a per 1/12th second and stabilized at 51.2 seconds where it remained, the extrapolated drop in engines was 12% (88% thrust on power down). Note that if Falcon-9 had lost one engine, it could have still sustained this thrust at full throttle of remaining engines. 51.1 to Mach 1 (1100 km/h) TWR increases from 1.48 to 1.56, the period is noted for a somewhat smoother ride and less surge and puke. Somewhere after this the accelerations become less predictable. Mach 1 to Max Q - TWR increases from 1.56 to 1.60 and has nearly returned to pre-cut status. After Max Q + 100 kmh (1350 kmh) and at an altitude of about 12500 meters, rockets acceleration begins to slowly increase in rate.

Well and transmitting back would not be a problem at all. . .

Muriatic acid is the common, trade name, for non-fuming forms of hydrochloric acid. You can buy it by that name at hardware stores. It by name, frequently is less concetrated and is at or below technical grade purity compared hydrochloric acid proper. The first is used in industries where the product is used for pickling, such as metals and was so name back inthe 1750s, and typically below 25% (originally extracted from the stomach of animals, typically around pH of 2, 100th molar). The second is used in synthesis or processes that require a higher level. If you want to use highly concentrated 'fuming' HCL, well, just add aluminum shavings and youll get hydrogen gas. Note that i cannot condone this, the last person who did this sent several folks to the school nurse, and its not very environmentally friendly.

In CRS-8 to be exact. Their final stage 1 velocity was 6680 km/h. which is 6680 megometer/hour which is 6680/3.6 meters per second = 1856 meters per second, at apogee it is lower. I have the precise flight numbers I just haven't presented them yet. The numbers do not need to be precise since there is a conversion of kinetic to thermodynamic energy in post staging, but as the vehicle levels out and adds more horizontal velocity to circularize those differences become meaningless because almost all the kinetic energy is in the horizontal vector. I am not sure when it is trajectory that the backburn took place, but its vertical ascent of at least 1000 m/s would have left <1500 m/s of horizontal velocity, given no payload and the fact that most of its velocity came in the last few second of flight, the ISP as at max, it would have required little fuel. I think the primary concern was to establish a trajectory that intercepted the barge, given drag. A lower descent angle means more energy is lost via drag, a higher descent angle means more control with regard to target landings. SRBs are problematic for vertical ascents, because you have the risk of hitting ground targets (which for the most part game we laughably ignore launch pad damage). The 800 kmh means you could add more fuel and use two SRBs that blew off at 800. This could mean higher and faster second stage deliveries, but also barge is going to be further offshore, and back-burn will be more intense.

You could have a solar powered recycling system.

You don't need an electrolyte per say, but your salt bridge needs to be relatively close to the electrode, wide and semipermeable membrane that is impermeable to the solute, but permeable to protons, presumbably a salt. Because of the low conductivity of pure water (18 megaohm), The salt bridge should also have a relatively high buffering capacity. If you add chloride to the device you will get chlorine oxidation, which is dangerous. This particular style replaces the platinum electrode with a carbon polymer, one of these corrosions resistent new age materials we talk about. In this particular design the protons need to flow to the membrane, so either there is a laminar flow in each side of the chamber or the electrodes are fairly close. A high output system will produce alot of bubbles and this will stir the system. Oxygen can be made per say using photosynthesis, essentially you need to feed bicarbonate into the system using something like ammonium carbonate/carbon dioxide (which can be made by essentially trapping the gas from the slow addition of baking soda to muriatic acid, the algae then convert CO2 to O2, in pretty good amounts.

Also generates chlorine gas instead of oxygen

If he makes mars at all on his nickle, I won't complain at all. I am a critic, but some forms of criticism simply show bias and ignorance. There is nothing I have to say about an unmanned attempt at a mars landing, but please pray that they will do a sample return, if not from Mars, get nasa to put up maybe they can do a two land two sample return from the martian Deimos and Charon. Put the darn capsule in HMO or ML1 and have nasa come pick up the sample and return it. By the way traditional companies don't invent light-bulbs or build 707s or 747s, etc, unless they see a potential future demand. Musk is going after future profit and Name value (equivalent to trust), he's going to make this so cheap that every country that wants a space program will want to ride. Launch will become like buying weapons systems from US, french or Russian contractos. The launch vehicle return, most of you have not thought is going to greatly open up the space market and in particular super GSO projects. Once you get to LEO you have half the energy required to leave orbit and most of the 1/SQRT(2) DV, thats the major step, if you can knock the price down to 1/3rd, its a major feat.

Oh boy, I can only see where this conversation is going. But before we get the yardsticks out for the [cough] measuring contest. Shuttle program came to a virtual halt because some hawk could not delay a shuttle launch for warmer weather. And how many supply runs to ISS have recently been botched, even a few by the RSA and their wonderfully perfect rocket program. Defining who measures up these days is not as easy as one might think. Rushing is sometimes more dangerous than delaying. Its a way better to find an error before your main engine lights up than afterwards. As far as focus concerns, trial, trial, trial, barge-failed, land-success, barge-success. That looks a alot like some kind of focus to me.

Some poor alien wondering whether or not to fry the planet earth just got its eye's fried.

Its a goner. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36167064

I'm going to give some actual number about 6650 km/hr is around 1847 meters per second the vertical velocity is only around 1500 m/s they turn more sharply once over 2000 km/hr thus much of that was obtained earlier in the burn. If you burn more its going to be almost all in the horizontal, which means that your horizontal traverse on retro and horizontal error or retro will be much greater. Your barge on the other hand is setting in the Atlantic trying to hold a GPS position. If you come in at a 45 you only really need to kill vectors that create error which is a smaller proportion than if you reenter at a 10 degree angle with 2 or 3 times the horizontal velocity (factor in that the atmosphere pressure at height is not perfectly uniform). Remember the idea that the most efficient place to burn at apogee, they are gaining 1500 m/s how many seconds to reach apoapsis. Considering that w2r at horizontal vector of 1847 is 2-3%% gravity, and at 4km/s is about 25% of gravity, which means your vertical slows down much more slowly you have to burn much later and at a higher altitude, and you have much less control over where you reenter. The fuel reserve also needs there for an engine failure, because they will need more burn time to reach MECO energy and need more fuel for the back-burn. At 4 km/second, if you have an engine loss a barge landing is impossible. If the Stage value is 100 times that of fuel, then you don't care about fuel if you are recycling and can make first stage slightly larger and less efficient. Couple of problems I see in going over the flight data, Max Q comes well after Mach X-over, their payload nose-cone is not ideal, and it appears that boundary collapse is creating alot of turbulence around the plume area. Here is an area of improvement, if they give the nose cone a more Sears-Haack shape, then their Max-Q would come at a lower altitude, but allowing them to turn more quickly and efficiently. Because of the expense of the fairings and nose-cone they are going for non-ideal shapes. Presumably if they can find a way to recycle it make them much more cheaply these they will have better flight dynamics. They could make the first stage smaller and second stage larger, or burn 1st stage higher and more horizontal The economics you need to understand is this. Nose cone (independent of first stage) cost, weight, turnaround cost and time. Fairing (almost independent of first stage) cost, weight, turnaround time cost and time. Stage 1 (can vary in size or height, made slightly wider, slightly more fuel) initial (fixed) cost per unit size, recycling (variable) cost per unit size, fuel cost (variable) and cost per size increase. Stage 2 (can vary in size or height, " ", "" ), cost per unit, fuel cost variable. Stage 3 (payload) variable, but effects nose cone and fairings. Adjustment cost for wider payloads versus economies of scale for larger defined fairings and nose cone. The way the payload is set up the launch and second stage can be more robust, launch phase can carry more fuel, even have one or two more engines. If the rocket is truely recyclable they can go with the expensive but much less turbulent engines, which would allow for a higher max-q (Max-q is the compresssion of thrust and atmosphere on the most weight sensitive part of the rocket, and if you have turbulent thrust then the atmospheric component has to be lower).

No, it quite simple, those engines start out at 1.2 g of six parts , five go to gravity (hoovering), 1 goes to forawrd momentum, this goes up to 800 km/hr about 1.6 g (not factoring in drag) exactly at which they throttle down to about 1.4 g. They are not at a 45 degrees until well above Max Q thus alot of the thrust is wasted. You guys remember what i said about lifting off from a mountain in ecuador, this is the reason, you can really burn up with high g engines at lift off because of the atmosphere, if you start at a higher altitude you can begin to make the turn to horizontal much more quickly. The thrust you burn down you mostly loose, the thrust wou burn sideways is yours to keep. At a high elevation you can accelerate to max q much more quickly, reducing the hoovering time.

Not to really engae here, but for some bacteria carbohydrates, sukfate, nitrate, nitrite can act as oxides for catabolism, some organisms can bypass the mitochondria and use a primative form of metabolism. around a brown drawf photosynthesis is implausible, brown dwarfs do not produce visible light, the em they do produce is not of sufficient enough energy to drive activity on a proximal planet. Without photosynthesis the sulfate in sea water would be a smaller proportion, sulfate, nitrates and carbohydaters are the oxygen donors in anoxic, but these inevitably are driven by photsynthesis, if we release all the carbon stores, they become oxidized and these oxygen donors become rare in the benthic marine environment. Sulfate may still be present but it might be locked up in complex nitrogen carbons. As on mars you will see chlorates. People think that the deep sea is devoid of oxygen, but in reality there is a large amount of oxidized sulfur in the form of sulfate. This does not doom life on non photosynthetic planets,, but the thermodynamic potential for life becomes smaller and in theory life would evolve much more slowly.. A brown dwarf would last a very long time, but i would say that planets orbiting would never have enough surface dynamic energy, the flux, to produce complex life. For themselves to be stable they need to orbit at a distance. Its not a good recipe for life. Innthat cicumstance they would have to be blessed with alot of long lived radioactive species, and be fairly large.

u = Mcentral body * G (6.67 E-11), assume the satellites mass is negligible, if its not you need to use a binary formula (u = (m1 + m2) *G) you cant use planet or star as systems center. v = SQRT(u/r) w2r = u/r2 w = SQRT(u/r^3) period = 2*pi/w = 2 * pi SQRT(r3/u) if a = r then period = 2 * pi SQRT(a3/u) This is the kepler law of planetary motion the period is an 3/2 function of the semimajor axis and an inverse sqrt function of Mcentral body Now lets see how close I got without using a textbook or wikik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion#Third_law But then if this is in wikipedia why do you need to ask here?

http://thetodayevents.com/spacex-just-landed-coveted-83-million-military-contract/

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36162115

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-limits-uniqueness.html