Bill Phil

Make a gmail real quick.

The Martian came somewhat close. Only real issue is the strength of the dust storms. Of course there were production issues and inconsistencies between scenes, but that isn’t anything good editing can’t fix.

Well, the first Death Star destroyed one planet that was somewhat closeby. Starkiller Base destroyed multiple planets from many lightyears away, which would take more energy. Still, a whole star is definitely far fetched. I think it would’ve been more interesting if the Republic’s corruption was shown. Maybe a Republic faction is building their own Death Star or something, all in the name of the greater good.

Gee, I don't know... Derived the rocket equation for fun? Derived the Pythagorean Theorem for fun? Calculated Jupiter's mass for fun? Calculated the Sun's mass for fun? Read scientific and engineering papers for fun? Not sure what those would count for though.

Isn’t that what orbiting is?

The nuclear aircraft program was cancelled since ICBMs and submarines could do the same job, and much better too. But if that wasn’t the case later generations of these robots could’ve improved the design and its capability significantly. It was really just a prototype.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Maglifter_Mankins.pdf This idea enables an SSTO using conventional rocket engines. Even so it does require a departure from tried and true launch systems.

This might be interesting.

Yeah. But with this I would argue it’s more of a cultural difference. Kerbal culture hasn’t really been addressed as far as I know. Randomly saluting could be normal to their culture, just something Kerbals do. Heck, the only buildings on their planet are space program related. It’s fairly clear that they’re quite different from us. We’re not entirely aware of the entirety of that difference. For one, I was referring to airplanes. For another, you can find as many cases as you want of pilots acting out, but in general they don’t scream when everything is going perfectly fine, especially if they’re experienced. I was also referring to screaming in terror, not spouting expletives. Even screaming in anger is not really relevant to what I’m referring to.

Kerbals aren’t people, at least not human people. As such the random actions of an alien species could be entirely different. Do pilots scream while flying airplanes? No. Some Kerbals do, however, so we know they do things humans don’t do. So why is it a problem if they randomly salute? A button would be cool though. The Apollo astronauts saluted the US flag when planting it on the Moon, so a salute of sorts would have precedent in space exploration.

I can’t speak for the workplace, but I can help with how to get into the industry. UAH in Huntsville, Alabama is a great university that happens to be in an area with lots of aerospace firms, and of course NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (the main launch vehicle development area, afaik) itself. Great intenship opportunities are in the area as well. There’s also pretty good networking opportunities down here as well. Plus you get to see a Saturn V pretty often. Standing upright. It’s not a real rocket, but man is it awesome to behold.

But we can still fill the gap

I guess the rap from “Roll the Bones” by Rush?

Could you elaborate?

Look up “out of autoclave.”

It’s Federal Law. And laws are meaningless if not enforced. I’m under the impression that the purpose of Commerical Crew has little to do with money. Rather, it seems like its purpose is to develop a launch capability that is not dependent on Russia, at least not as much, and to be less sensitive to catastrophe - Starliner failing may not ground Dragon, unlike the Space Shuttle fleet. Saving a little money would be a bonus, but that likely isn’t the purpose.

Well, it was only made illegal in the first place for very... well, for reasons that are generally looked down upon these days. Not only that, but due to its illegal status actual research on how dangerous it can be is impossible - at least nearly so. Due to that we have no idea how dangerous it is. But most things point to it being no dangerous than say, cigarette smoking, at least in terms of bodily harm... And there are other ways of ingesting it besides smoking. And there are plenty of unsafe activities that are perfectly legal. Heck, some are downright necessary for society to function in the modern world. Things like driving a car. (Let's not take this topic any further) On topic: Musk shouldn't have done that. Regardless of the legality of it in a given state, it's illegal on the Federal level, and that means that agencies and organizations of the Federal Government, such as NASA and the military, have to deal with it. I also think a general safety investigation should be done regardless, to keep the companies in check. I know from NASA engineers that SpaceX is pushing their hardware a bit much. Haven't heard much about Boeing, but it's good to make sure. Especially when astronauts are involved.

Maybe. I was thinking that the low gravity of Titan could allow the plane to carry more science equipment, and the thicker atmosphere means less velocity is needed for an equal amount of lift. I’m not sure about specifics, but Mars’s atmosphere may not be dense enough. I’m not well versed in ion engine planes though.

Could be useful in space exploration. I mean, thermocouples aren’t efficient either but they’re used all the time. No moving parts would be a great thing for, say... a plane on Titan.

That reminds me of a Stargate SG-1 episode where a teenage version of the team is shown. It’s pretty funny. Another bit was a joke about Farscape.

Yeah but the thrust and ISP are enormously high. Good luck lifting an orange tank or two with a poodle.

The Wolfhound is so OP that you can use it on a launcher stage. Just gotta get above the thickest part of the atmosphere and the thrust and ISP are great.

What’s the weight in kgf?

Not altogether relevant. Sure it’s a metric of comparison, but the majority of the cost of just about every mission is the actual spacecraft itself. That and potentially operation costs, depending on various factors. If a cheaper launcher was desirable, it would already exist. As it stands the launch costs aren’t significant for most space uses. The market just isn’t really there. At least for now. I mean, a cheaper launch is nice and all, but that’s really only going to save a few tens of millions in most cases, maybe a couple hundred million. But if it’s a billion plus dollar mission, that could easily be within the margins of the budget. And so long as launch cost is marginal lower launch costs won’t do much. It could just make the launch even more marginal in terms of cost. Something like Starlink, while crazy, may have a greater effect on the space launch market than anything else. Launching thousands of satellites of a few hundred kilograms is no small feat. That pretty much entails mass production of spacecraft, which could lead to cheaper spacecraft, which could increase launch demand. This is all a maybe, though.

Maybe they meant the 19th?