PB666

He's an attention seeker, flat-earth insanity is just a prop. We could get Elon to strap him on non-expendible F9 1 stage and he can see for himself, lol. (Space suit not included).

Replace it with this Flight ceiling of cessna is 13,500 ft. But you can do the same on any window of 777 (generally 45,000 feet) over the northern pacific en route to Narita international. YOu don't need a paper, the surface of the Earth is clearly curved over the ocean.

SO 5 km = 16,400 feet. He could achieve the same effect by hiking up to pikes peak.

Beware the link, it tried to download several scripts onto my computer my ad-blocker picked up on and blocked. He needed to convert some of this speed into lift which would have slowed him down. I think the 20g hit was due to an inappropriately size parachute, he probably needed a motorcycle shock absorber on the nose cone.

Just a few notes, This reactor is 1/2 the scale of the Wendelstein 7-A (which is a test reactor), and makes broad assumptions. That fusion will someday work, that it will work on smaller scales and if not that we could launch a 500t fusion reactor into orbit and then craft the rest of the power plant around it. 1. To initiate a stellenator requires more battery power than I have provided. 2. The assumption is that about 1/4th of the volume is metal and the average density is of aluminum.(the magnets are made of heavy metal so. . . ) 3. The side branches can be made much more efficiently with carbon fiber single piece backbone. 4. Core I brought to orbit with a double up of the russian Soyuz-5 using asparagas and 1 extra booster on stage one. Its 200t of payload to orbit. The xenon can be fueled in orbit. 5. Core design is a tug, active payload is ore. 6. The drives are based of 35 kW but on a larger scale, each drive has six subdrives and each subdrive pulls about 523 kw of power. Therefore the assumption is power is fed in multiple kv feeds from the reactor to drive along high voltage lines. This allows some scalability in the ISP, but the default ISP is 9000 sec. (89,000 m/s). This allows for a power kick during the last oberth manuever at earth of 4 times higher acceleration. 7. Each blue triangle is generating 9.49 N of thrust over a surface of 0.2 m^2 this is roughly 15 times the output per surface area of the HiPEP thruster. (Just to let you know that I am not exaggerating the area required). 8. Obviously a fusion reactor would need tons of radiators, and this vessel has none. For steam generated power the radiators are essential, there is no mass provided for turbine or power handling. 9. Xenon or argon is immaterial the assumption is that Argon tanks made of carbon fiber would reduce the mass required for storage and storage can be provided in the branch carbon fiber construct. This post is provided to basically tell that fusion reactors are not the cure-all to space problems. Solar panels may still be superior in space where they can be used and small scale fission reactors where they cannot be.

Alot of those wires exist for legacy reasons. POwerSpec sells a PSU that has modularized cables, you can select the ones you don't want to use. Although the last power supply I bought from them failed the system board 5V sleep voltage and was exchanged (talk about a sorry arsed reason for not working) .. . .I open all the panels on the case and stuff the unused cables behind a infrequently opened panel. If you are good at electrical you can cut them and wire nut them. Its annoying though cause you never know when you might need an old legacy connection. Its kind of like RS232 (been around since like 1960) on the mobo, you almost never need the connection, but when you do it really sucks not to have it.

Technically speaking if you were on Jupiter you could carry oxygen instead of fuel and run off of hydrogen in the jovian atmosphere. Instead of a piston propelled aircraft you would use a jet turbine capable of producing three times the thrust then vector some of that down to stay aloft longer. Of course a cessna flying on Mars could have and would need a larger wing area to reduce the stall speed. There is no such thing as a 'generic' stall speed. What they mean is a level-flight stall speed. A stall occurs when your angle attack exceeds the maximum allowed and maintain bernolli's lift, this is about 15 degrees above the direction of motion. This can occur at any speed even Mach Speed (especially at higher altitudes). This means that for an airplane lift continues to increase to about 12' AoA and then life flattens out and then suddenly falls. As lift falls drag markedly increases. For level flight the slower you go the more AoA you need to maintain level flight (and the more drag you produce) however once you reach a speed in which AoA is about 12 you should not further lower speed. You can do some fun things with stalls though, on flight simulator I pulled a 777 into a stall about 15 miles from runway at 45,000 feet (rather easy to do at that altitude because you are in coffins corner) and began tossing out flaps spoilers and gear, then dove the nose down to take advantage of the drag that the stall created holding the nose ever so slightly above the stall angle of attack, when you get close to the glide slope you remove the spoilers and roll the nose down below the horizon and add landing thrust. Of course if it was real life the 777 would have flipped over, because there is not enough laminar air flow over the flight control surfaces to maintain stable flight.

You have to remember that SSME and like engines have many sensors on the motor and the fuel pressurization system that can be used to discontinue flight progression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine#Incidents These are not outboard motors, you can get a tow back into port if you run out of fuel before reaching orbit.

http://start.att.net/news/read/category/news/article/business_insider-scientists_were_wrong_about_discovering_water_on_m-newscred2

Those are because of the turbocharger, I believe So in kerbal you have a rocket motor that generates force and sometimes electricity (though not all rockets generate electricity) and some have the ability to be started several times. We could draw out an SSME, one of the most complicated rocket engines ever to be built, or basically simplify the model. So here goes Oxidizer Reductant Control Step 1 pressurize the tanks 1. Reductant tank pressurization 2. Oxidizer tank pressurization Step 2 Heat the reductant if neccesary Step 3 Mix some rated oxidant and all rated reductant together Step 4 ignite Step 5 pass over turbocharger turbines 1. Reactor/turbocharger assembly has a shaft a. the shaft breaches the assembly at both ends b. at one end there may be a generator c. it could also be tied into fuel circulation . . . . Step 6 feed the partially burnt mixture into the main engine combustion chamber with the rest of rated O2 Step 7 using a gated bleed off run some of the fuel over a generator (if not done in step 5). There may be a variety of needs for control. So lets see if we can figure out the piping. Electrical 1. For any rocket that has a generator you have wires. The engines get very hot so the wires need to be protect from the heat of the engine. 2. For any rocket that can be throttled you have wires to control the throttling mechanism. 3. For any rocket that can be restarted multiple time you have a reignition wiring. (remember that a resting fuel in space/micro gravity has no shape in a tank, so that the fuel may have to be staged long enough to generate momentum of the fuel) 4. All rockets should have some sort of mechanism for shutting down when one of the fuels is found to be empty. 5. Every valve needs some sort of actuator mechanism Hydrolic. The hydrolic fluid pump either needs to be run by the electrical system or off the turbocharger Control. Turbopumps create pressures and the pressures need to be controlled and governed during flight, this can be done by forking the pressure down a regulatory line to another part of the pump, engine or other pump. Some of these pressures could be fed though the turbopump but it may be easier if you have multiport (just like on a car were the vacuum lines are piped off a bus to various parts of the engine) just to use one of the outlets and a pipe, then all you have to do is drill a hole, thread the hole, screw in an inlet connector and run a high pressure aluminum line (such as the type used for power steering pump on a car). There may be various needs for lubricant. At the core of the lubrication is the turbocharger (turbopump). The turbocharger is in a very 'corrosive' environment. At the end of the turbocharger there is a bearing, the bearing needs to be kept cool (below the seizing temperature) and lubricated (just like the valve stem in a cars engine). http://www.k-makris.gr/RocketTechnology/TurboPumps/turbopumps_for_liquid_rocket_eng.htm When the turbocharger preburner outlet pressure and appropriate oxygen added exceed the oxygen inlet pressure, then an oxygen turbopump needs to be added otherwise the engine will be oxygen starved and thrust will be lost. To deal with this situation a separate turbo pump needs to be added, and this may require precise regulation between the turbochargers for the reductant and for the oxidant. I should point out that SSME has both low pressure and high pressure turbopumps for each fuel. " If water were pumped through the SSMEs instead of fuel, the three engines could drain an average family-sized swimming pool in 25 seconds. "- https://californiasciencecenter.org/exhibits/air-space/space-shuttle-endeavour/space-shuttle-main-engine-ssme https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/engine-rocket-space-shuttle-main-ssme notice how the tubing is focused on the turbopumps. Going from one part of the turbo pump to the other. Edit: I should point out that you can have a light weight engine like the RL10b-2 that gets 465.2 ISP using hydrolox. Notice that the RL10 does not have all the fancy tubing. So the maximum diameter of the outlet is 2.13 meters (A=3.56 meters) and has a 110 kn. (30,780 N per meter squared). The engine has a low weight but has a thrust to weight ratio of 40:1 The SSME has a lower ISP (452, some power lost in the charging) but look at the difference in thrust 2,279 kN over 2.4 meters (A = 4.52; 504,000 N per meter squared). All though the lines and turbopumps add considerably to the weight (RL10B-2 weighs 266 kg and the SSME weighs 3500 kg) but produces a higher, 53.79, TWR. This all comes from the complicated turbo-pumping systems Even if the engine had a lower ISP for hydrolox fuels these are still desirable engines to have, its really the demands of gaining 7400 m/s of horizontal velocity in a few hundred seconds requires an engine that can haul out the thrust.

Except they did not have Mars reentry and landing worked out.

Wow, I find that amazing, ESA was actually trying to do imaginative stuff in 2004.

When lightning strikes the air around the discharge explodes, that is what you should hear, but unless you are very close thats probably no what you actually hear. Light travels relatively close to the speed of light in a vacuum. You don't live and breath in a vacuum and in a thunderstorm there is alot of stuff going on in the atmosphere. So that unless you are on the clean side of a storm looking into it the light you see is going to be scattered. The higher the wavelength the more likely it is to be scattered. With sound there is interference, as the highest frequency of sound travels though the atmosphere it gets interfered with, the highest wavelengths get cancelled first and the lower wavelengths bounce off of structures in the atmosphere and rumble. If you are far enough away you may not hear the initial strike. This is because the earth is curved and there is alot of interference close to the ground and the sound you hear are bouncing off of very large structures (the rumble). The high frequency sounds have been interfered with and absorbed by structures close to the strike. C = speed of light, " Its exact value is 299,792,458 metres per second ' wikipedia. It is the free-form field propagation speed in our universe. Any field that is not bound will propagate at this speed. This includes the Higg's field, gravitational field, and light. Light never changes speed in a vacuum. If you travel toward light you always will measure light at that speed. However the light will be more energetic. But unlike matter where KE = 1/2 mv2 , light energy = hv. As you speed up the frequency increases and as you move the other direction it decreases (red shifts). C is essential to the fundamental speed of the universe. If we set C = 1 unit, h = 2 pi unit, and the gravitational constant, it is possible to derive a unit of length and time (known as quantum length and time) which describe the smallest possible times and and length of things in the universe. E = hv where v = C/g (g = wavelength) E = hc/g from de Broglie hypothesis we get the momentum (p) of a photon as being g = h/p planks constant in circular system can be used to define angular momentum (w, Radians per sec) as h = h/2pi. The energy of a photon can be describe more basically as E = hw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units If you could imagine some future time when humans come into contact with other aliens (assumming they don't destroy us) if they adopted plancks units as did we, then upon that meeting we would share the same system of measurement even if the two peoples never met.

Gravity losses are the imaginary enemy, its a little kitty cat standing in front of the mirror that makes it look big. On the grand scale the couple minutes it takes to get to cleaner air and pass Mach speed thats the problem. If the air did not exist the Saturn V could have launched at 2g thrust turned quickly to 45' pitch and had an acceleration of 0.414g in the vertical and 1.414g in the horizontal. The reason that space craft launch strait up from earth is plain and simple, climb to get out of the thick air and turn into the thin air and finish turning when there is no air. That why any discussion of a catapult are essentially useless unless you have find a significantly high enough launch point. IF we had to we could build rockets that accelerated at 10g and you could turn within a few seconds so that 98% of the thrust is applied toward circularization, but as long as air exist all those g-forces become dynamic stress, heat and drag. Oddly almost everyone who has played the game long enough to land on the mun and takeoff with the same engines knows they can turn to a shallow angle moments after take off using a little bit more than theoretical dV required to make orbit. Imagine making munar orbit if 50 km mountains surrounded the landing site on the mun. That's how you should think of the atmosphere on Earth, a big obstructive mountain that delays the application of circularization dV. Here is how it looks. At equator the earth is traveling 450 m/s and 7824 m/s is required to make orbit. If you had a 10g rocket you would need to apply 7374 dV over 75.16 seconds. This IIRC requires a lead of 37.5 seconds. 37.5 x 9.81 = 367.85. Thus you would If the rocket could accelerate at 10g then 9g would be allowed to accelerate 4.087 sec and gravity losses would only be 40 m/s. So that 1500 to 2500 dV lost getting stuff to orbit, thats pretty much all due to drag and averting excess drag. And yet knowing these some players still think that venus is a good place to build a colony, how in the devil would you ever leave a venusian colony (only one way off, and its a 'hell' of a fall).

It must be metric weight. 40 Mg * 0.00981 N/g = 390,000; 77 Mg * 0.00981 N/g =760,000 N (rounded to precision).

what, ton feet, who uses ton-feet as a thrust measurement (excluding backwards US government workers).

Still low, I tried it with 6 RL10b-2s and was barely able to make orbit. RL10b-2 is 110kN. So each thruster needs to be something like 300kN

And 40-80 tons (RD-0150) of thrust is too low to be useful for pushing heavies into space. http://thespacereview.com/article/3321/2 These things are a wish list, they don't appear to be real. Someone just drew in what they thought would impress the powers-that-be. The rockets themselves are 2033ish.

Anyway I used RS-68A. Instead of 5 boosters used 6 asparagas 2, 2, 2, 1. 160 T to orbit. RS68A made all the difference in the second stage. They are wasting DV if they don't use something like the 68A in the core of stage I.

RL-10 lacks adequate thrust to boost second stage.

No, but i as hoping there was an actual engine associated with a predicted PLtO.

Imagine how many space fantasies begin with If funding starts now will be ready in 10 years. We have an example, funding on the fusion reactor began in the 1960s, there is still no fusion reactor. The problem is this, don't build a track, find the highest suitable mountain, don't levitate use wheels and/or teflon. Find a pre-existing structure. Lest say you rail launched from 10000 feet under ground (at sea level) mount everest at 29,000 feet. Lets say you accelerated at 10 meters per second at a 30 degree angle. So 29,000 + 10000 = 38000 feet = 11582 meters. Now lets say that prior to launch the tube was evacuated, so no air resistance the only constraint is the structural 2g limit. That means acceleration is limited to 20 meters per second. So lets do the math, tube at 30' means that the hypotenuse is twice the height or 23164 meters. The net acceleration is 14.7 a. 23164 = 0.5 * 14.7 * T^2, T = 56 seconds. 56 * 14.7 = 823.4 m/s (Mach 2.5). The Concorde aircraft typically broke Mach speed at 25,000 feet and cruise at mach 2 between FL 580 and 620. The SR71 black bird flew at Mach 3 between FL750 and FL800. Thus the air craft is going relatively fast for an altitude of 30,000 feet. In addition a typical space craft at this altitude would have a angle of attack very close to its direction of motion. This craft at 30' would have to have a thrust of at least 2g to maintain vertical velocity even as its angle of attack falls to the horizon (horizontal velocity would increase where as vertical velocity would remain constant or rise slowly causing the surface apparent angle to fall). Such a craft would have to begin steering vertically to prevent loosing most of its thrust as drag force created by a low pitch and low gain of altitude with thrust. It needs to be mentioned that aircraft do not steer well over Mach 1 so steering the aircraft up after leaving the tube is problematic, and winging it up is limited by the shape of the tube. Most of the gain you obtained from the tube could be gained by efficiencies by simply launching from the top of mount Everest and making a somewhat more rapid gravity turn (and the more space suitable engines one can use at the low atmospheric pressure)>

Hasn't been used since 1988.

What are they using as second stage, I saw earlier today on the site a hydrolox setup but its gone now, i dont think the russians have a SSME type hydrolox thruster. I tried to get 110 into orbit, the closest I could get was 70 kT.

Wow I see what you mean, growth of crops in fake not realy soil soil. Who ate the cookies?