GoSlash27

Yeah, I agree with all of this. More importantly, an SSTO point to point launcher cannot attain the schedules and ease of use of commercial air travel. It's got to wait for range clearance, needs special checkouts, facilities and procedures that limit not only the points of departure/ arrival, but also hugely increases the time from passenger arrival at one spaceport to departure from another. Paradoxically, this means that it can't match the travel time of mundane airliners from point A to point B, let alone the corporate jets that people who can afford the ticket already have access to. Couple that with the high ticket cost, and you have very low demand. Low demand means that you have a hard time filling your ships with paying passengers, which makes it impossible to operate at a profit. All this put together is why I've always said that point to point rocket travel was never a viable business model. Best, -Slashy

Okay, thanks for the reply. Best, -Slashy

What about the Mk.1 capsule? Best, -Slashy

Actually, it's "literally" referred to as 'bias correction'. I don't think it counts as a 'conspiracy theory' if they openly admit to doing it. Also, a conspiracy theory is more correctly defined as a strongly held belief that is constructed in such a way as to be impossible to disprove. This isn't the case here. Finally, I'm really not interested in discussing this on the 'little green space frog' forum. I'm not like some ardent crusader on this subject and I'll happily agree to disagree. If we could all just drop the snarky one liners and personal attacks, that'd be great. Best, -Slashy

herbal, I was just about to comment on that difference, but I wasn't going to use an inflammatory word like 'distorted'. Yes, for a person that launches like you do, higher t/w is beneficial. For the lazy buggers like myself tho' (and I daresay most players), the higher t/w is actually a hinderance to our efficiency and an even bigger 'ease of use' nuisance. We generally build our rockets to fly themselves after the initial gravity kick while we go grab a beer. We find that our rockets are actually *more* efficient in that profile with lower t/w. So just 2 different perspectives. Best, -Slashy

And I repeat: Lower than that *can* actually have certain benefits, particularly for stages that employ (even partially) SRBs. This is mainly for aero stability issues, but also overspeeding at the end of the boost stage and inherent aerodynamic instability during staging into the sustainer phase. As a pure "efficiency" measure, you are correct in that going much below 1.4 will only hurt you, but if you want cheap you'll probably have SRBs involved and it's probably wise to rein it in a bit. Other than that... it's a 'quality of life' improvement. Best, -Slashy It's not proportional, though. Literally. It's inverse logarithmic. You can saddle the same engine with more payload and get it (and the attendant fuel) up there at a more leisurely pace for less cash. Up to a point... Best, -Slashy

Yes, but as we have already established "dV on orbit" is a useless marker for lifter efficiency. What matters for the end user is cost per tonne (in career), payload fraction, reliability, and ease of use for all cases including career. If you run a hot launcher blazing through the stratosphere, you'll get to orbit with minimum dV expended, but no practical gains for having done it and a launcher that is likely as not to explode or flip on staging and mediocre payload fraction. To be very clear, yes: Launchers that are optimized for minimum dV to orbit *will* benefit from cleaner aerodynamics and higher t/w. Best, -Slashy

Okay.

Yup. And if you download it, you will find that it has been pre- adjusted. "For your convenience", of course. I suppose if you know which model was last applied to each datapoint, you could strip it back off. But better to have the original unedited values. NOAA has that, none of the others do.

No, NOAA is *literally* the only place to get it. the raw data is unavailable from the other agencies. Best, -Slashy It's the same old thing; "somebody is thinking heretical thoughts. This cannot be tolerated". Pay it no mind. I'm not aggravated by it anymore, I just find it tiresome and have better/ less annoying things to do with my time. Best, -Slashy

Most of us do it the same way you do. Just model it as a standardized booster stage. I aim for 30° pitch, 25 km altitude, and around 750 m/sec. That's generally 1,800 m/sec. And you don't want to use a fixed mass and adjust the throttle to get the different t/w ratios. You want to add mass to achieve the t/w ratios. Otherwise *obviously* the higher t/w will perform better. Best, -Slashy

^ Case in point. Now I'm a 'liar' because I googled animated gifs to show you how much of a meme it is. I actually did look into it personally, and spent a lot of time and effort on it. But oh well. Guess I'm just a "liar" then. This sort of behavior is why we can't have nice things. More to the point, this sort of behavior is why I keep trying so hard to not talk about this subject here. By the way, did you check the way back machine/ internet archive to see if those images actually appeared on NOAA's climate page, or did you just look for a reason to declare the images false because some climate change denier used them? You know what? Nevermind, don't care. Again, Peace Out -Slashy

Frankly, I'm used to it. *shrug* People feel passionate about a subject and get triggered, start feeling justified in chucking around ad-homs. The fact remains: Unless they've looked into the data *personally* (which I have), they don't really know if their belief is true or false. All they actually 'know' is that they believe what they've been told. The fact also remains that their 'experts' have consistently failed to make any correct predictions in my entire life and their methods flaunt the basic precepts of scientific method. There's only so many times that brat can falsely cry "wolf" before people will stop taking him seriously. So y'all go ahead and believe whatever you want, I'm not here to change your mind. But as for me *personally*, I'll believe it when I see it. Peace out! -Slashy

@JoeSchmuckatelli The only place you can get the raw data is here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/faq It's a PITA to work with and a big project if you dig into it. Any summary you look at (even from the official sources) is altered, so you have to do the averaging yourself. AFA the yearly summaries showing the data tampering, it's almost a meme at this point. Note: These images were grabbed directly from NOAA. I do it myself every year just for lulz. Best, -Slashy Love the non- biased language. The only term you're missing is 'tin-foil hat' And you're wrong, by the way. I'm *totally* backing down. I have zero investment in this discussion. You folks are smart, you'll figure it out eventually. Best, -Slashy

sevenperforce, Thanks, but no thanks. I have told you I don't know how many times and different ways now that I'm not trying to convince you of anything. More importantly, I'm very keenly interested in not fighting with you about it, since you're clearly emotionally invested in your belief. If you want to go digging down that particular rabbit hole, then you will. If you don't you won't. At the very least, you may be able to find somebody willing to show you... but it won't be me and it won't be on this forum. Best, -Slashy

herbal, Your method has been tried before and has shown similar results to yours. It's a fine method for determining the effects of t/w on rockets that just go straight up, but is not applicable to boosters in a gravity turn. Try it again and follow a gravity turn. Best, -Slashy

Sorry, but you are the one who's mistaken. That data actually *is* altered. You have to actually dig for the unaltered records because they only show the altered version. But if you want to try something fun, try looking for this same data set for each year over the past decade. You will notice the past getting cooler and cooler every year. You know what... There's no point in us arguing about this. It's much easier to fool someone than it is to convince him that he's been fooled. Carry on. -Slashy

I don't think I'm asking for the 'impossible' at all. All I ask that they make one single prediction and have it be correct in order to validate their methods and models. This is a reasonable request for any scientist. I would also like to see them employing a method where they don't alter the historical record to conform with their model, but rather alter their model to correctly predict the future. This behavior is the polar opposite of 'science'. They do that, and I'll start lending them some credence. Best, -Slashy

That would certainly be logically sound... except the planet doesn't seem to be warming at all. It's the exact same problem created by the exact same people; the raw data shows no discernable difference , and the trends only appear when they "correct" (i.e. alter) the data to line up with their models. You're more than welcome to look into it yourself. Or not... I'm not here to convince you of anything or change your mind. I'm just pointing out that they have a 100% perfect track record of bad scientific practice and failed predictions, so I give them no credence. Best, -Slashy

KerikBalm, Yeah, I'm aware of such articles. The problem is they always use models to predict the effect of the forcing, then 'adjust' (alter) the data to fit the projection. This is bad science. Looking at the raw data, it's impossible to discern any trend whatsoever because it's all in the noise floor. These same people have been making these same dire 10 year predictions for the last 40 years, and have yet to make a single correct prediction. Unless and until they manage to accomplish this, I will remain skeptical of anything they claim as 'fact'. This is not to say that anthropogenic climate change isn't occurring, or that the sea levels aren't rising. Just pointing out that these people practice bad science, have zero credibility and lousy track record. I don't hang my hat on anything they say as established fact. Best, -Slashy

Being at a lower altitude, its gravitational attraction to the Earth is slightly greater. Since it has insufficient velocity to maintain a circular orbit, it enters an elliptical orbit with a Pe twice as far from the original craft's center of mass as when it was released. Semi-major axis is reduced, so period is reduced. Best, -Slashy

I distinctly remember having a lucid dream last year where I was texting on a modern desktop with what turned out to be my own subconscious. For those that have lucid dreams, it goes without saying that all details of such dreams are 'distinctly remembered' because they are imprinted as memories as if they actually happened, instead of the more normal evaporating shortly after waking. As is the case with most of my lucid dreams, I first began suspecting that I was dreaming so I looked for a cue to tell me. My normal cues are looking out of windows to see if the scenery matches my expectation or reading text repeatedly to see if it changes. In this case, the text on my computer said gibberish, and when I reread it, it said different gibberish. Aha! This is a dream! So I read it again, and it said "please stop doing that". This started up the text conversation with what turned out to be my own subconscious. I say all that to say this: I don't know how to answer this question. I know I have interacted with a modern computer in my dreams, but that was an abnormal instance and not a detail I'd normally pay attention to. I have no idea how often I use computers/ cell phones in my dreams if ever. Best, -Slashy

Rakaydos, The Cove also has "splashed at Cove" science. Best, -Slashy

Reminder: The Falcon 9 does 20 tonnes to LEO. 22, if I remember correctly. Best, -Slashy

I just set a new personal best for KSP Caveman speedrunning: 2 days, 55 minutes. Best, -Slashy