PB666

I actually used a trencher, got a big long scar on my leg to prove it, lol. I will take the increased yaw. The only time yaw is really important is on take-off, on landing the engines are down throttled anyway so. That plane was probably designed by an engineer who got drunk in a bar, made a bet with hits engineer friends and then had to prove he could do it.

. See below, your temperature is too low and you are wasting ISP, if you uped it to 3600 you could get 8200 ISP. You would also have a higher mole fraction of H* versus H at that temperature. If you discharged high amounts of electrons into the chaber outlet its potential that you could stabilize more H and get an even higher ISP. You could set the positive charge on the nozzle outlet. Theres a potential ISP of 10,000. The specific question you ask Fuel flow * ISP * 9.806 = F δm/δt = fuel flow in kg/sec.

The formula is virtually useless since no NERVA runs at 5000K or 1H, and your really have no idea for any gas how many free radicals are in the exhaust stream If you want to shorten it is Ve = 6188 SQRT (k/(k-1)* 1/M)) : the reason you want to shorten the equation is the Mole fraction of the exhaust changes its not exact (exept in the case of helium which is 100%) H is distributed between H2 and H, H20 is distributed between H* and OH*. Remember these ions have just traveled through the overheated core of a nuclear reactor we expect alot of free radicals so the T also effect M for every molecule except Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton and Xenon. For H k = 1.41 M = 2 For He k = 1.66 M = 4 For water k = 1.30 M = 18 (which probably more like 10 but . .wikipedia- " When water is heated to well over 2000 °C, a small percentage of it will decompose into OH, monoatomic oxygen, monoatomic hydrogen, O2, and H2. " . ) So for H Ve = 8260 for He Ve = 4901 for water Ve = 3036 - 4000 You could use boron I suppose but as you can see the trend higher elemental mass is not good for ISP. Now to the nitty gritty, well for short, ur f-d, at least if you want to throttle the engine realistically. The ISP is temperature dependent higher temperature means higher ISP. But the engine is damaged by high temperature, so the temperature is a function of heat flux, Some other gases of choice. CO2 is not a gas of choice its M is 44 SQRT is 6.63 so about 1/3rd the ISP of helium. It decomposes at 3500K and 68 ATM to about 20% CO and O2. Neither of which really help CO is extremely stable. Methane at higher temperatures decomposes to 2H2 - and C at 1073 k but carbon polymerizes and forms carbon tubes (not desired). However this can be prevented by discharging large amount of electons into the gas at the chamber outlet. Methane can control temperature since is absorbs heat and turns it into chemical energy, giving a slightly better throttle range, but for the most part when you are running the engine you cannot throttle without slowing the reaction down and waiting for the heat to dissipate. So I imagine that the way they run a nuclear engine is that the trigger the uranium, they wait for heat to climb, then open the throttles until temperature and mass flow equilibrate, before shutdown do the opposite, silence the uranium, wait then back off on fuel flow until its safe. In the equation on nuclear rockets T is preset, I'm sure that its not and since it is not it will be difficult to throttle, at least without some lag. I don't know but I can be pretty sure that throttling and controlling T are not the same as in a chemical rocket.

We really get into off-topic discussion. Although I must admit the OP baited the argument with a poorly phrased question. I always thought many mammals can't see red, particularly nocturnal animals and that is why we use red-lights in displays at zoos. People who are color blind are also poor at seeing red, they see green better than they see red. They taught us this during grad school because they wanted people to avoid putting red in presentations. For example if you have a choice between a black white presentation and white red presentation you choose black white. Red is unavoidable such as in rhodamine is used as a probe, and some people false color their images (but that is discouraged by the Journals).

That is simply avoiding the issue, not dealing with it. You believe what you believe, you asked for critiques, but deep in your heart you really don't want them. I have noticed this behavior in past discussions. But the problem is throwing off the problem as someone else's Mantra won't fix them. Either your currency is in the world of science and engineering or your currency is in the world of myth and fake facts. There is an observation of people here that somehow that if they dream badly enough to want something to happen, that it can somehow happen. This is the problem with Isaac Arthur's work, that somehow all the dreams of science fiction or fantasy could in some distortion of reality become fact. They frequently hinge on one notion . . . if a warp drive becomes a thing someday then. . . .if we get fusion finally working then. . . . . .But frequently the thing they think will solve all the problems is only the beginning of much more severe problems. (And I want to point out that I agree with alot of what Isaac says in his video, but it relies heavily on what people want him to talk about (something they saw in sci-fi) and not really what engineering in science would predict. The proof of any pudding is in the eating. That which will likely work in the future is that which is currently working now that can be improved upon, why would you try an 4-stroke (oxygen breathing) engine in space if they are hard to engineer for the task and we have both sources of electricity and thrust that are magnitudes better suited for space. A simpler version of the logic is why put a screen door on a submarine.

The crux of the problem forks into two areas, the kinetics/thermodynamics and the mass aspects. And I really do not understand why we are still discussing this as if it were a new topic, we have hashed this out to the Nth degree in other threads. Matter Beam seems to be dead-set on ignoring this. You have a heat generator, it can be chemical, it can be nuclear, it could be a black hole it doesn't matter . . switching from nuclear or chemical or black hole does not change this issue. Once you have heat you can use entropy to create energy. So here is the basic solution on land. You build a medium size power generator on land and flow air through it, you may have even evaporative cooling towers to increase the effectiveness. Or you at larrger scale build next to a lake and borrow water from the lake which then radiates the heat over the surface of the lake, again most is passively transfer to the atmosphere that flows out and radiates it to a huge area of space. I have to repeat the obvious how many times? There is no air in space, there is no lakes in space, the radiative mass has to be entirely provided by the ship. You cannot use evaporative cooling towers in space. All heat needs to be radiated by the mass of the ship. So the thermodynamics states that in order to generate power there has to be a energy differential. I start with alot of energy here, it drops in a transfer, and part of the energy is extracted in a different form, electricity, and the rest is radiated. Without a radiator the efficiency is zero, the ship glows until its read hot and there is no electricity generated except in the plasma generated during its unplanned disassembly. So for example, thermocouples create electricity at the rate of k/'K (where K is degree Kelvin and k is the efficiency constant for the thermocouple) if the power plant is 1500 degrees and the radiators surface is 100 degrees, it can generate more heat than if the power plant is 1500 degrees and the radiator is 1300 degrees. At some heat thermocouple wont work at all, you cant have the power plant at 10000 degrees and the radiator at 1300 degrees and expect it to generate more power it just burns up the thermocouples. Right now the very best reactor in space would even with modern technology be about 20% efficient, 25 if we pushed thermocouple technology to the limit. Steam generation is essentially an unproven technology in space for large scale use. But why isn't steam used in space? The kinetics really addresses this problem if you don't have a place to sink heat into rapidly, then why have an translocative-base energy system if you don't have someplace to drop the energy particular if you don't want the mass of the steam system if you don't need it. For example if your reactor is boiling water at 150'C and your radiator is 130'C, your radiator is not going to transfer the heat from steam. But to get the surface temperature of the radiator down to 75'C you might need double the amount of a very heavy radiator. So really good generators need a good heat sink and this enables high energy heat carriers like steam to do much work. But in space steam makes almost no sense. I say almost for one reason. If you had a static station such as one of these circumsolar space colonies or a dyson swarm, steam would come in very handy at moving power at its source over long distances were it can be cooled and condense and return. Remember the above, no air or lakes in space, we have to radiate over large surfaces, if the source, say fusion, is by necessity concentrated in one spot, then we have to move the heat to all the distal mass of the ship. Steam moves very quickly, even under low pressure, and it carries heat very effectively. In this system the failure of system is secondarily contained, you don't lose the water because you simply have a metal transfer plate for the last half inch of travel to the outside of the ship. In that peculiar instance you don't care that the ship is heavy because you are not moving it and its heavy for 100 other reasons related to its function. But for most ships going from one SME isoquant to another, steam makes no sense given the added weight it adds. There are other ways of doing this, you could have a staged system were heat near the reactor is cooled to say 250'C with sodium or some other liquid metal and this transfers to steam across the first thermocouple which is carried to the outside of the ship and drops to say 50'C before being pumped back to the core. The mass issue. The problem with mass is two fold. One is function and other is structure. Lets talk structure, lets assume we have a powerful reactor (choose 1) and we have a radiator of a given size, as the radiator grows in size the amount of structure per unit of radiator falls at the beginning, but then starts to rise and at some point the structural mass would be greater than the radiator. For example the mass of a solar panel on a small space craft is much smaller per KW than the mass of the structure and panels on the ISS. Included are the trusses that hold the radiators, struts and binding trusses. Since the distance of the radiator is a distributive surface the transporter element (Steam, sodium, whatever) would be carried from large diameter to smaller diameter, as Size increase so do the number of sections of large diameter of pipe. For a decent size nuclear reactor this can equal a million gallons of water per minute in native cooling water. So we are talking about a sizable amount of pipe that increases faster then the energy that it is carrying. The heat transfer system does not have to be a liquid you could have the reactor like a brake caliper on two balanced wheels. The reactor could transfer heat to the rolling wheels and as the wheels spin around the heat goes through the thermocouple and radiate, So for example you could have a sun facing side pick up heat from the reactor and then the heat is transferred to the space side over thermocouples which cool it before it reaches the reactor again. Wither it is a sphere, rectangle or disk the surface area grow with the square of radius, which allows more power, but also increases the structural issues to bind it together and to the ship. One benefit of the wheel based system is that if the disk were neutron absorbing metals, you could dump your bad waste on the wheel and allow the waste to generate heat and use the good weight for thrust. Again, this might afford period of just running off of ambient electricity. Since the waste is on the sun side, as long as the neutrons are grabbed it should be of no further effect to the ship. In any case we are talking about huge masses. If we break the mass problem down into radiator weight and use this logic. -Solar panels have intrinsic radiators (except in a Mercurial environment) and the more efficient they get the less radiators they need (which is academic except inside the orbit of Venus) -Nuclear power and chemical power of any kind has the same basic issue, they need radiators that currently are not efficient converters of heat. Given that radiative based systems are generally less efficient at capturing power than solar energy you are almost never going to use nuclear or chemical power to generate electricity when solar power is available 24/7 (I say almost because of the latest Mars rover). As solar becomes more efficient, 40 . . . 50% it becomes harder and harder for nuclear power of any kind to compete. As I previously stated we don't need better nuclear power plants, we need better heat converters, converters that can turn 70% instead of 20% of the heat to electricity. This means, if you could do it, the drop in radiator surface area from 100 units to 37.5 %, for a space ship that alone would increase acceleration by ~11 fold. What this means is that at the low end of efficiency in a electric power system, for each percent of efficiency added you gain 2% in dV and this payback increases efficiency gets past 50%. This is good, but only if someone has a novel idea how to increase efficiency. -Finally if we consider the break even point for a chemical energy or nuclear based electric engine, we look at the amount of fuel that we need to generate the dV, as weight continues to rise due to combined inefficiency and nomimal radiation the amount of dV extracted, the fuel drops and the amount of mass-ejection fuel we need to carry, eventually with a radiative cooled source power system we have a situation where there are no target in our dV range that could be reached, IOW we could neither carry enough fuel to get us anywhere from LEO because we could not leave LEO. When you try to move a nuclear based system bigger is not better, its worse. If you had a tiny reactor, say 10kw which generated 3 kw of power and had one HiPEP on it and you used the ships ION drives and other surfaces to radiate heat, you would have potentially something, but big, the ship is all radiator, forget. Im going to get back to these small HiPEP systems, I have reread the original papers and a found a few key observations that make this maybe a unique drive system. Conclusion My point to Matter Beam is this, what he is advocating is trying like using a pair of pruning sheers to chop down a Sequoia. The systems he advocates are either unsuited for use in space or are not really efficient enough to benefit a scenario where we say . . . we have solar.. . lets abandon it and go nuclear. OF course the flip side of that is if you have no sun, then you also do not abandon nuclear and go solar. In either direction the markets for Solar are likely to remain so indefinitely (unless you see some crazy efficiency appear), the markets for nuclear in space now are likely to remain so (unless you have a type of solar panel that runs of latent engine heat).

But the blog, which he referred to, is not, he asked for critiques. I didn't tell him that his artwork or text was $#!^. If you ask someone who has refereed 1000s of papers for a critique are you then going to say to that person, but don't use any of the skills you developed as a reviewer or journal? If you capsulize what a person on the editorial staff of journal does . . . .its about content, logic, syntax, spelling, symbolism, peer-view (and their authorit), authority, imagery, referencing, style. We don't pick and choose what we want to review, we have to review all. I have even criticized K2, here when the symbolism was inadequate. I expect others to criticize me. The core editors of a publication has to look at a work and decide somewhat subjectively, whether it will benefit the readers of the journal, that's really it in a nutshell. Publishing something puts it as a part of the published sphere forever. And when it is not, like the silencing of heretical gospils or the burning of the library at alexandria, society generally has regrets. Blogs used to be like a diary, more or less like mendels studies of peas, but now they are closer to publications spirit of the process becomes zen of blogging. There is a particular philosophy that I carry with regard to publication which I wish was shared by all scientist. Your best friend is your most hostile critic who is close to you, the closer they are to you and more critical they are, the more, ultimately, they will benefit your work as long, in most cases, that the work is not rejected. I have seen many a time when people clamp their mouths when they saw something they knew was in error. It generally does not benefit the authors, the folks who, in my younger days I clamped my mouth, are no longer in the field and left the field unexpectedly quickly. It was fortunate that my graduate work was in a lab with a very critical and vocal advisor that encouraged critique.

Thats a problem but not the biggest one.

Again you are wrong, you are unfamiliar with publishing standards. So let me make it clear. If a scientist A publishes an image in a journal and scientist B takes the image an republishes several things might happen. 1. The first scientist may see the image or other work and may complain to the publisher (which, until about 6 months ago I would be part of) 2. The publisher and the first scientist may send a letter to the scientist or to the scientist's institutions. I have seen this happen multiple times 3. The publisher may tell the publishing journal to retract or create an erratum that then cites its source. 4. Take the publisher to court (almost never happens because they are happy in general to do 3). This has to do with material that meets a certain standard as educational, his does not, (See 1). As entertainment the rules are a bit more stringent. So for instance if I am slowing slides at a conferance, in general that would be fair-use under just about all circumstances, but citations are desirous. Reasons: restricted audience, material unlikely to be further copied, assumption as educational. Presenting the material in a moderated forum that is closed to the general public that discusses science, that would pretty well follow fair use, and I used to do that, but in a few instances I know people who have gotten in trouble, so its better to point to images and material than to copy and past them. Reasons: Moderators are like educators, there is a mechanism for removal, and its not generally accessed by everyone, So here are situations that warning shots have been fired An item that was in the prepublication state was taken and loaded into the file section of a scientific forum whose membership is open to the general public but files are not, a person working for the magazine was also a member of the forum, after complaining to the moderator the article was removed. This was in an educational forum, there was a non-distribution agreement for premium members who had early-access to the articles, the non-distribution agreement was violated. Different copyrights declarations have different stringencies go for the gnu. In general, unless the forum is very restrictive, don't copy and past large volumes of information. Copying and pasting a tweet is likely not a copyright infringment, the millions of encoded color information in a 1024 x 1024 image is. As a matter of fact after the incidence a letter was posted on the forum and sent to all members stating 'make sure you have permission to copy and distribute articles' . The institution I worked for did the same. Application here: since we don't have a citation for the source we don't know the copyright restrictions on the work. Another incident, a popular book was published online. The educational institution had established a forum for which members could have their own web pages (a very bad idea in my opinion and I insisted that they remove all of my personal info from their pages - this type of behavior is now filtered- after the institutions information servers were hacked - any hacker now had all the information from a single institute to do a near complete identity theft - now they are paying "lifelock" a whole bunch of money to protect the identity of people who have not worked at the institute in two decades) . . . . anyway, a member of the institute who was familiar with page design inserted an electronic "warez" copy of the book on the information server. He sent emails to his friends. . at the institute on how to link the electronic copy. Those friends begin sending the information outside the institute. From the story as it was told to me it took about a week to for the publisher to get a certified letter to the institution telling them to "cease and desist". Yeah, they have the means to do THAT also. Another incident(s). An author has published a work as a minor author with several corresponding authors in Journal X. The author leaves the lab and starts his own lab, continuing the type of work in the first lab. Because his skills in English are not 'technical', he takes the published work, substitutes the differences between the first work with second work and submits the publication to a new journal. The article is summarily rejected because in its manuscript form more that 40% of its content is plagiarized. The author claims that since he was an author that he has the right to use the work, in correspondence with Journal X, the journal faxes him a copy of the original transfer of copyright that he signed. The second Journal (i.e. me) tells him that he can resubmit only after he removes the plagiarization and sends him a copy of fair-use rules. So for example, if I saw Matter Beam publishing information that I knew was published in the journal that I worked for, I might ponder whether I would notify that journal of his blog page depending on the severity of the violation (for example, lack of citations, the number of images from a single source, the cutting and pasting of text information [including information embedded in images] , the resolution of the images). I pretty much know how they would respond, so all it takes is one pair of eyes that knows what they are looking at.

If you get the resolution low enough, mostly the legal guys won't bother you if you cite the source. Again he has two problems. . . he does not cite his source and he is using high resolution, both combined can create problems for him. https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/guide-copyright-fair-use-laws-online-images/ 3. The amount and substantiality used: using only a small piece of the image, using only a small thumbnail/low-resolution version of the image And secondarily if the writing on the image cannot be read, get rid of it. . . if you substantially alter an image its less of a fair use issue. If you only need to show part. And you can find other sources. I should take bets with you folks who tell me I'm wrong. In that spirit . . . . .As I will restate for the last time, if he wants his presentation to be taken seriously he has alot of work to do, as it stands its entertainment so it does not fall under fair use guidelines.

yep, but I wonder how much of that insensitivity is inherited and how much is down throttling of red response. Most smaller animals don't see red at all.

Everything is something else in its origin, As I said it is only superficially baryonic due the events close to the event horizon.

I hope the took a plastic baggy with them .

I don't know about jumping but moment of force application in the Keplerian system was problematic. The force application problem in the R3 is easy like you say, very easy when using unit vectors, I just don't know how to rail it like the Keplerian. Although I must say I still have to make three passes over a time interval to settle at the right position and velocity when two forces are applied at once. But still its just a repetition replacing the old p1 with the new p1. Just to make sure P1 is equilibrated. I can do this in R2. The problem is RSS is that they have rigged the entire system to the tilt axis of the Earth, and although I want to test in the Earth elliptical, eventually I want to model outside of Earth and model along exit inclinations that favor planetary intercepts and so I was lusting after an R3 model. The KE-PE equivalency is nice but the problem is sorting Z and pXY vectos out over long coasts, if I could do it I would not switch out, coasting in Keplarian system is super easy, its just so inaccurate on the jump you don't want to do it more than twice, the problem in this system is that jumping out requires using the Arctan (Arcsin or Arccos) function, which introduces about 3 or 4 digits of error. Not to bad per orbit but terrible per burn moment. Lets get to the specific, the R3 ellipitical has a rotation from systemic Ex which with r and a rotation in Z from plane XY from that defines Pe. Thus all Θ in the set of pXY have a unique r based on l / (1 - e cos (Θ - Θpe)). pY/pX can be defined but not Z and it cannot be derived from the magnitude r because many Z and K * (pY/pX) can define equal magnitudes so the answer is vague in R3 on the jump. Some aspect of directions of P and V have to be carried though the jump. Since the Keplarian angular moment vectors always point in the Z direction Z is locked and tan of pY/pX is always (Θ - Θpe). It seems that what is missing here in R3 is a way to define Z=0 in terms of its pXY relative to Θpe. Shouldn't we be able to define the parameters for the ellipse as iX2/? + jY2/? + kZ2/? = 1 The problem is that I haven't yet found a way to equate pZ to (PXY or δfrom PeΘ). If only I can get an equivilancy going then problem is easily solved. If you put the ship on rails for say 45 degrees ||P|| ||V|| pops out ||Vrad| and ||Vtan|| if you know Θ relative to pE and motion then you know the sign of Vrad and if you know that then Radial velocity component is simply sign(Vrad) * unit vectors of P * ||Vrad|| But you need to position vectors for V and you need the position vectors for Vtan. I am assuming that these are derived from the Angular moment, I assumed this was a scalar, but it seems like you are telling me its a vector quantity. How to derive unit vectors of P and V in the future (or at a future angle) based on last known physics? I think I may have the answer provided I can convert a C centric elliptoid calculation to a f centric format. x(t) = Cx + a cos(t) Ux + b sin(t) Vx y(t) = Cy + a cos(t) Uy + b sin(t) Vy z(t) = Cz + a cos(t) Uz + b sin(t) Vz The problem with this formula is that if C is the center we only know t at Pe and Apo; x, y, and z at (?); ||a|| but not the components<U>, ||b|| same problem, know the magnitude but not the components<V>. So this wont work.

I gave him a chance to think about what he had written, may he would spot his errors, but after the second time I realized he wasn't going to try. I was only trying to help him. I cannot give the material a fair critique because of the way its organized . in the world of manuscripts that a summary reject, you can't send it to referees if its so vague. . . .he asked for critiques. You have to attribute images, the problem is the high resolution images are incontestably copyright infringement if they are not from a gnu resource or with given permission. You can get around this by using a low resolution image. If he seriously wanted me to pay attention to that birds nest of images, the first thing he would present is the clever strategies to radiate heat, because if he cant, all the other stuff is bunk. Another poster and I have already had the discussion in another thread, through two independent efforts to calculate the radiators were came to impossibly sized vessels. I like the idea of fusion, and fusion in space, conceptually I think its great, but the more I studied the problem, the more I came to realize the impossibilities of making it work without an even greater technological effort to improve extraction efficiencies. All he presents is old school land-lubber stuff. On the meta stuff. Yes, walls of text, guilty, but my rambling walls of text are 1/20th the size of this blog and when I use images I generally attribute their source, and if there is math I do try to explain. The forum is not a blog page, its a chat room where people discuss ideas, sometime silly ones. A fixed web page is something that people attach to, like a FYI or sticky page in KSP, or a wike page on wikipedia. The other problem is on the forum is that people frequently simplify an issue to the point that the simplification no longer has function. For example gravity around a black hole, the reason we have space-time is so that we can avoid presenting things like black perimeters in a flawed Newtonian context. In the last month I have probably corrected the gravity misconception 20 . . .30 times. If gravity simply accelerates matter, then it cannot lens light, so why do we use an obsolete terminology in the context of a relativistic phenomena. The other example is that rockets tip over without fairings, that blanket statement completely misrepresents the underlying physics. Both in game and out. If you can stop folks from pushing misconceptions I will stop the walls of texts.

That is a sort of subjective classification. The are black dwarfs that we cannot see that also are not large enough to lens. It not so much what the classes, its the fact that where ever you draw the lines, there is still an excess of unexplained gravity around galaxies. I'm inclined to believe its the underlying physics that is estranged. Oh and if I am not mistaken a black hole technically non-baryonic " The information that is lost includes every quantity that cannot be measured far away from the black hole horizon, including approximately conserved quantum numbers such as the total baryon number and lepton number." And the charge and rotation of a black hole is possible an effect of the surface state, the plasma that circles the black hole can loose its electrons. I think the reason we study black holes is to obtain these answers. If you define a black hole by its outward appearance, it could be described as collectively baryonic, but its outward appearance is not the hole, the hole itself projects no appearance. Therefore if you remove all of these superficial traits what is left is a Einsteinian singularity, that is to say whats inside it is its own universe that is immaterial to our point of view . . . .it could be energy for all we know. . . . and what we see does not have any characteristics of our universe other than commonality with other black holes.

Technically they are not struts

In fairness to the OP, I am not repeating myself, and I have had the same problem working at the journal. You tell someone nicely they need to rewrite and they don't get it. OK so the second time you tell them. You need someone to review your site who is familiar with technical English. Your figures, not 1 but many are not readable. Some figures are unnecessarily oversized, there is alot of discontinuity in the writing style. its difficult to follow. Also are the photo's you use properly attributed to the authors, if not you maybe violating the fair use rule. You can make smaller low resolution version of those images that do not violate the fair use rule. The fair use states that if you copy a part of a work that is a significant part of that work depriving the creator of potential gain from his work then the use is unfair. An example given is a talk by George Bush in an interview, the author ask a number of questions, but the most significant question was only a small portion of the work, a paragraph. A third individual copied that paragraph without permission and attribution. The court found that the copied part was significantly representative of the original article and was in violation of the fair use rule. If you blog is on a site that gains money from advertising then be careful what you post that is attributable to others. Use wiki and follow the gnu. Even with wikipedia, attribute. The problem with a radiator is that it works by keeping steam under pressure, its not a closed system and therefore it would not work in space. The cap is generally set at about 1ATM which is ATM plus 1ATM. In space ATM is 0 so that a radiator would hold water in space but not once it was heated. An automobiles engine has holes in it that water passes, the water has a high heat capacity and so it picks up heat readily and carries it to the radiator. So lets divide the space problem into three solvable problems. The first problem is that the radiator pressurization system is insufficient. Worse the radiator hoses in space would be constituitively under pressure and would age prematurely, the hoses would not radiate much heat and the exterior would also age faster. So that the plumbing on a radiator would need to be entirely replaced. The radiator cap would be replaced, it would need an internal overflow capture with a baffle attached to a pump that could evacuate the baffle, it would have a flow sensor on the overflow line that would shut off the engine but keep the water pump moving when the engine was off. (Not going to discuss the even greater problem with ICE in space) Of course the cap would need to be sealed. The second problem is the solvent to use. The problem with water is that it is volatile. You could replace water with a non-volatile liquid, like mineral oil but its thermal conductivity would fall. Waters structure is stable to heat, oil is not. So if oil is used you would need a reservoir and a feed system. Though as a heat conductor in the engine its will last longer, maybe years. Mineral oil is more viscous than water and so would need more pressure to move, because of its low heat capacity more would be required thus larger holes in the engine for the viscous lower heat capacity oil. The heat exchanger would have to be larger. The bore holes would need to be larger. The radiator is not designed for space, a radiator is an air throughput convective heat transfer device. To put simple the radiator and fan are designed to take air around the heat exchanger move hot air away and bring cold air in. In this way heat is transferred. In space there is no air. A heat sink does the same thing. So now we have to replace the radiator with a much larger surface area that hopefully can pipe itself to the blackness of space. If an engine is inside the car and a radiator is one hundreth the size, in space the radiator is outside the car and one hundred times the size. But you could put thermocouples between water pipes and heat sinks.

Pit vipers are so beautiful, its a shame that have such nasty tempers. We have to remember that pit vipers are largely pokiotherms so their temperature is lower than ours, its advantageous if you are a mammal killer. The other side of that is in order to regulate temperature they have to keep the back of the membrame cooler than the rest of the body in order to 'see' radiation sources. Pit vipers have a membrane buffered from the body by air. I wonder if the reason they strike is that the animals heat on the membrane irritates them, hit the sucker and see if he heats me further. That would explain why they are so ill tempered.

And there are probably genetic variants in humans that can see lower in the IR than everyone else. I don't think that I have ever been in a completely dark room, but I do know that our eyes can see what is not there like showing three different colors on a screen and then switching to light we see the opposite colors in those positions. The problem with seeing infrared is that our bodies emit in the infrared part of the spectrum 37'C = 310K and using Weins law is 9343 nm which is between 5000000nm and 700 nm (actually closer to deep red than to MW radiation). And if our rods could see it, since we are continually exposed to a low level of light our brains would just subtract it out. Rembmer that this lambda is the center of the blackbody profile, its not the shortest wavelength that we produce, that at 1/10th the amplitude you have wavelengths of 2700 at 1/100th you are approaching that limit. where lambda peak is the wavelength. This is Wein's law. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/wien.html To state this in another way our bodies potentially could detect IR hv but there many reasons that it would not and should not. 1. As the threshold lamba of the cones approached our bodies IR shortest wavelength threshold the signal from the body would increase, eventually is would saturate all the receptors and red from other sources would not be visible. We would walk around all the time as if we were blinded by an internal sun. We have to recall that our eyes only let in some of the light that hits them and that the aperture limits the amount of light crossing the retina to about a 10th the flux through the aperature per unit area. The infrared source of the body lies against the rods, it would be like staring into a flashlight. Eventually, in childhood, I think the body would simple mask all red receptors. 2. The light that comes from the back of the retina could not be focused, which means that the brains ability to interpret structure or patterns would not be focused. This could cause problems for the development of a childs visual cortex. 3. The amount of energy in an hv photon of lower frequency does not as readily do the type of chemistry required to create excited states that upon relaxation can interrupt the neurological process.

Its just past S1-S2 sep in the last Vandenberg launch, I would imagine with FH that there is more than enough altitude to dump the fairings and high enough that they don't need to back burn. Sorry . . .I mean back burn quickly, I don't see what the rush would be to back burn since the rocket travel further through the atmosphere and experience more high level deceleration.

That was mentioned in the post, hydraulic thrusters tuned to the force required. If I have problems I set up the side tanks to simply drop, not split away at all. You can drop tanks with almost no force being applied to the core. In my 2kT to LEO builds side-tanks have a hydraulic a spacer, another hydraulic. The first drops the tank and the second blows off into space after the tank is out of the way. Because there is no tank attached to the second the momentum is almost entirely delivered to the aerodynamic spacer that spacer could have a shock absorber in it. Really the only limit to size is the strength and length of the struts. (which a user could mod). As for space X, why don't they release the payload fairings with the Stage 1 separation and with wires real them to the top of stage 1, I know this is not in KSP yet so someone would need to mod it so they could see how it was done. If they used three wires per each they could basically attach real them to the top and use electromagnitism to hold them until landed. If the payload fairings are the biggest cost waste outside of stage 1 and biggest time lag element . . . . . .simple solutions often work.

Thanks, I think. I did mention Falcon heavy, once They also don't have to have 'sepratrons' to push the stages apart. Those are two advantages. The most advantageous in my mind, particularly now with carbon fiber nozzels and the like, engine fitting.

I would make the points that rockets that want to flip over, in my experience have other problems. I have posted pictures here of very large structures (space factories, telescopes launched in the game that I have launched whole into space). Although KSP does not model entirely the aerodynamic forces properly (see other threads) I would point out that when I have had tip-overs there have been problems with the rockets generally that would have been problematic in real life. And . . . . . . . . Take a look as some of the Russian rockets, they don't often use interstage shells. There is a benefit to doing that, you don't need to rescale the fueltank or engine if the engine does not fit under a flush mounted fairing, (and with some of the deep space engines the nozzel diameter to thrust ratio is high-ish. When we talk about fairing we first have to address the question what is Max Q and where does it apply. If the users familiarized themselves with this problem they would have less problem in the game (Vanamonde this is about spaceflight not KSP as I point out some of what people think are game issues are design issues minimizing the consequences of physical forces) Max Q is created by the fact that as a rocket presses to orbit its free-air relative velocity magnitude increases as T*a + T*da/dt where a = acceleration and p = f(dy) and since at the beginning of the flight is were Max Q is experiencedthe Y component unit vector of velocity is close to one. and thus the dy at any point is given by dy = 0.5aT^2 + 0.125(da/dt)T^3 - 0.5gT^2, note that the T^3 component is a function of time, so that you can control MaxQ by controlling time. The equation is flawed however as on approaches 275 m/s the dynamic pressure is follows the above equation, however above 275 the mach effect takes over and just over Mach (varies with temperature) its about 3 times the anticipated pressure. To state the otherwise the boundary layer determines the Area in which pressure is applied. At very low velocities the boundary layer is connected to the surface it is the area around the aircraft where the speed of the air relative to the craft changes most rapidly with distance. Its where air has to accelerate and since air is massive and accelates over distance it creates drag. So lets take an Tractor trailer going down a highway, a pedestrial on the side of the road will feel a moment of air pressure and then the flow of air forward as the truck passes. So a passenger car passing a tractor trailer on the highway gets drawn into the truck as gets close to the front, and then passes into this shock and is pushed away and is released as it finally passes. Behind the truck the a constant power vehicle will speed up. Lets talk about objects on the truck, the mirrors, the horns the roof lights, the top front edge of the trailer all experience increased pressure. As speed increases to Mach speed the pressures vector on all parts will change, obviously, but some will change direction almost to the opposite direction (that's why steering craft at mach speed can be problematic). If you speed the truck up to Mach speed the a small sears-haack shaped car passing the truck would all but experience a vacuum behind the truck and would be sheered by the shock wave as it passed the truck. This is a laymans view of Mach Effect. Getting back to boundary layers, its not simply that pressure increases. If we consider a parts Mass as all the all mass closer in radius to the axis of motion than the boundary layer distance to that axis then the mass of the parts has increased. So you have Pressure and Mass increases and these apply to all parts that have a net + δpressure vector that is pointing into the part. Suffice to say that these vectors are not constant, and in fact can change rapidly passing through the Mach barrier So the next thing that you want to know is were the pressure and mass increases the most and which changes in the direction are beneficial and detrimental to spacecraft. Why are we asking this question, the reason is this. During the vertical portion of flight the spacecrafts gain in acceleration relative to the earths surface is (TWR - 1) * 9.8. As TWR is increases relative to 1 then less of the thrust is wasted hoovering over the launch site. The drag is generally a small fraction of acceleration, so it serves the craft to accelerate as rapidly as possible when drag is low, but relative to an increasing a from a rocket, drag will almost always be lower because altitude is always increasing with speed, and the scale factor is 1/ek so that the faster one goes vertically the faster that pressure drops; were it not for the Mach barrier Q would not be much of a problem. But by the same token we don't really need to get away from the launch site at maximum acceleration when the velocity is already high. The air we need to pass in vertical portion of flight is only about 20 to 30km and 27km / 275 m/s is 100 seconds. But if we discount the 11km needed to get to 275 thats only a minute of flight. dV of most rockets can live with that although somewhat wasteful. If you had a stage at this point that had enough thrust to turn significantly horizontally while still providing net positive acceleration upward, it might be worth the cost (depending on the fragility of the payload). For most rockets as long as the speed stays below 275 you are going to survive if you don't turn to quickly. There is also a difference between the game and RL (actually RSS): that to orbit in the game requires only 3800 dV, in RSS or RL its 9000 to 10,000. As a consequence for any given size payload there is alot more Mass below the payload in RSS than in KSP. And in the game you eventually cannot build higher you have to build that mass out such that it creates a steering effect for the rocket. IOW in any size atmospheric planet that only has 3800 dV need to reach orbit,you can have a similar problem unless you design the rocket to go far beyond the planets orbit (like back to earth). So specifically we want to ask the question what specific areas of the space craft would suffer damage if pressure vectors altered direction along with pressure increases while under 300 m/s or below 30km. The obvious first is the nose of the space craft, the second is the any side tanks, and finally an wind structures like fins. Obviously nose cones have to be durable to support the added mass of air and the pressure on top of that. However if the fairing is fairly large then any parts directly below that are relatively protected up at least to 275 meters per second with an aerodynamic space craft. So that if a tank immediately above and segment is set in slightly from the previous section it should not be affected up to 275 and air should flow laminar-like between separated sections. So from 275 m/s to 320 m/s is the problem area. When the ship approaches mach speed the air coming off the nose's boundary layer separates, flows outward like the tractor trailer but then flows inward. As speed increases that arc's endpoint moves down the rocket and finally passes the engines. The rockets motion (and acceleration translated to motion and then back to areodynamic force) acting with a net radial air motion with a vector that increases rapidly at Mach speed. As the boundaries air-relative speed slows (and looses momentum) the pressure of the atmosphere forces it back to the craft increasing the -radial motion, this creates a momentary net pressure on the craft. If this counter shock waves passes in between two unprotected parts (i.e.) an engine cavity the pressure is not downwards but against both parts. So if that connection requires two parts to constantly press to each other that could create a momentary problem. The amount of momentum that air is going to have depends on the pressure. Once the craft is well above Mach or temperature falls, the bow shock recombines so far behind the craft that is no longer of concern. So that in the equation above V = f(t) + f(t2) of a and altitude is a f(t2) + f(t3) of a. is there a way to arrange a = f(t) such that alt is high and Q is lower. Solutions For spacecraft that want to tilt. Are you using the right drag cube and in RL/KSP does your nose cone have a Sears-Hack shape. If you don't think that it is behaving properly why not change the Max drag coefficient (lower). Sears-Haach shape offer major increases in performance. However you may want to use interstage fairings, those counter shocks hit close home at higher velocities the more aerodynamic the shape. My space factory that was 30M in diameter had forward section shaped like a bullet. Never tried to lift it in RSS but have the DV to do it. A second problem is fishing pole behavior, is the upper stage secure or is it pivoting back and forth. Another problem is segmental flexibility, can you redo the section with fewer vertical joints. Can you increase the torque values in the config (the falcon heavy problem) and also be fair and increase mass. Standouts and struts can transfer torque down the craft to the center of mass. Another problem with tilting craft is having a solid core booster at the center of the craft. These make great power peices, but you cannot control power and, worse, it make the center of mass climb quickly and, see above, the altitude has a 3rd function of time if da/dt is very fast you will break Mach at a dangerously low altitude. if the SFRB burns out after reach Mach, the craft is likely doomed with out adequate steering fins in the second section(and these are exposed to Mach effects also in RL). Its better to boost a core of LFOx and release before MaxQ. To deal with the specified problem, something that happens in the game that might be better controlled in RL (with hydrolics tuned to the craft) is separation angular velocity. Again this can easily be circumvented by having side tanks that are stage to release in pairs while the core is mostly powered. (Space shuttle SFRB like). The gimble needs to be tuned to the first stages inertia, the large the inertia the larger the gimble limit. Who said rocket science was easy. Have side tanks that burn to 275 m/s and then are kicked off slowing acceleration. This is good, but the time spent at mach speed is a problem. But lets say that at 275 you drop the tanks and acceleration = specific (gravity - drag) then the craft is not accelerating relative to earth surface (which lest we not forget is being pushed up at 9.8m/s2) at all, its simply moving and as drag force falls it will go faster. This reverses pretty much all a added in the early flight, and then begins accumulating a again. But the metric is very different. Alt = d + VoTsep + 0.125(da/dt)T3. In KSP make sure that the detachment point is higher on the tank side than lower. Don't use a radial separator that is too powerful. So that this craft will slowly begin to accelerate to MΘ slow down. The performance through mass could be improved by throttling down for a few seconds past 290 and then full thrusting. Another solution is to tilt the craft since horizontal acceleration is not deprecated by gravity, verticle acceleration will slow but horizontal acceleration will speed more rapidly. Thats solution that will both remove mass from the core and slow down. It solves the tilt problem and the cavitation problem. To solve other cavitation problems. Another solution is simply to trottle down and throttle up. A third solution is just to make sure that intersections are reinforced. A forth solution is to varigate the nose cone causing the reformation of the boundary layer to spread out over a wide area. (this increases mass and form drag on the top). Another solution would be to have microwave stations heat the air in front of the space craft increasing the speed of the mach barrier. Microwave generators under the nose cone could cause altenating hot and cold areas over the nose causing them to cross mach speeds a different times (disrupting the shock wave). One could feed air from the nose cone into the intersection and along the form pressurizing the area under the bow shock. This would lower the momentum of the counter shock. And alternative is to simply bleed air off the edge of the cone of the payload fairing and spread it out under the bow shock (this has the advantage of blowing back engine vortexes. The bleed holes could be gated and open up only when speed reaches a certain speed and close once the speed window is passed. This actually benefits the tilt problem also, because once a craft starts to tilt the lack of pressure on the -verticle side of the craft increases the likelihood it will continue to fall. Add a reinforced fairings. The solution in KSP is to create more powerful struts, which is badly needed in the game (apologies to banana). Give me any payload and I can get it into space, right now my limit is 2 kT, I dont care about the shape, it could be like a satellite antenna and I can still get it into space. It need to rest its feet after a long day of walking down the trackway.

look again its already gone.