kerbiloid

Is somebody saying this is a problem? This is the asymptote. And if you have a 50 t glider for crew of 40, and several tens tonnes of expendables, either this escape is the ship itself (without an additional capsule inside) with expendable trunk for the cargo, or you face all same problems as listed above and have to build a 150 t glider around the 50 t glider, or make one reusable 150 t glider without any escape pod. Soyuz-18-1 and lost Progress not so long ago had problems with 3rd stage. This ship carries several tens not most useless people, btw, and is designed to fly regularly,. Every time when a spaceship with 1..7 people was lost, flights were stopped for several years. ? Any capsule can return if service module still can deorbit it in any way. it will be at least 1 tonne/person, as all of them. And probably even heavier because large capsule can't rotate as fast as small one (stresses are several times greater) and has to be more soft and gentle, so needs additional fuel. Like an airbus vs cessna. Orbital speed is ~20 near-ground Mach. At 3 Mach the heatshield has finished its mission. Apollo, Gemini, Mercury were to be splashed. But every of them had an option do be grounded, though not so softly. Escape capsule should work all the flight, otherwise it is not an escape capsule. What if after getting into orbit the ship has problems and has to return asap rather than getting to a station? Or what if it has reached 6500 km/s speed, has problems with booster, and has to perform a suborbital flight to a random point in Eurasia like ICBM?

This cannot be. It's private and commercial, the first of its name. P.S. Sounds like the music from Mars series trailer was inspired by Terminator theme, while this one — by Rains of Castamere.

which in turn is the lifting body

Normally. A 2..3 m wide capsule with 2..3 special humans inside. An escape capsule lands where it wants. And don't forget, it will return another 40 humans (mostly not acrobats, but weak nerds) from orbit. Or the same ones if docking has failed. That's not a problem when you have one layer of astronauts in a small capsule. If it overturns, they just roll over head, nothing dramatic. But a 10 m roller with several layers of people inside would land more carefully. The capsule itself will be still a cone-cylnider, not a saucer. So, this changes nothing in mass/area sense. Unmanaged reentry of Soyuz/Vostok caused 8..10 g, and this thing would cause > 10 g. Poor nerds, poor heatshield. A minute of history

If it has 2 ft thick walls. But then it could hardly land. To land ~50 t capsule? There would be enough big chutes, and any side speed would overturn the capsule like Soyuz (because it needs D2/Soyuz shape to fit the rocket proportions) But while Soyuz passengers overturn from 2 m height, so nothing special, a 10 m wide capsule would throw its upper passengers from 3..4-storey building height. So, no chutes, only rocket landing. And you have to keep the fuel until the landing, so you have to escape a 50 t capsule full of fuel. Not very sure if cargo shielding is a good protection. LES should be there and have its own fuel. But OK, the capsule has happily escaped. It reenters and performs aerobraking. Mass/area is (square-cube) several times less than Soyuz or Dragon have. So it needs a thicker heatshield below the engine section. The heatshield is probably ~10 m in diameter. Add 20 tonnes more. And unless you have a lifting body, overloads are sigificantly greater than Soyuz/D2 would have. (mass/area, square-cube) But it's not so simple to make a lifting body keeping D2 proportions because... mass/area, square-cube. 50 t capsule would be much flatter. OK, aerobrake is finished, heatshield is separated. Your (established? equilibrium?) velocity is greater than D2 or Soyuz has - by the same reason, square/cube, mass/area. Not ~150..200. m/s, but ~250..300 m/s. So, more fuel needed. As this is an escape capsule, not just a reentry one, you land on a random place, not on a flat and clear landing pad. So, it has to perform a several kilometers side maneuvre to avoid landing onto a roof or falling into a river. 10 km / 0.25 km/s = 40 s to do this. So, you need 200 m/s more of delta-V. (100 * 40 = 4 km, and take it twice because of inertia and one time more because you have to stop the side movement). Now you have a dilemma: you have to ignite the engines at enough high altitude to have some time to switch on the reserve set of engines if something went wrong. But you have to ignite them at as low altitude as possible to save fuel. So, you have to ignite them somewhere at 1..2 km and spend additional fuel on lowering. As you are landing onto a random place you can't know your altitude so accurately that you could stop right on the ground. You have to stop lowering at several meters altitude, zeroize h and v speeds, align your capsule and keep hovering slowly lowering. Say, 10 s of hovering = 10 * 9.81 = 100 m/s of delta-V more. So, we can say that a massive capsule either would keep much greater amount of fuel than D2 would (if it were a real vessel rather than an abort test mockup) and carry strong people. Also it would be a flying fuel tank with minimum survavibility. So, the only way to avoid this madness is to have a lifting body with greater area/mass which can glide as shuttle with no engines. So, this means - no capsule at all. Glider with high redundancy of systems. And small auxiliary turbojets to reach the shore of an ocean. (Which it turn means kerosene as main fuel and probably (for orbital needs, not for turbojets) HTP as oxidizer/RCS monoprop)

How will you land it?

Problems are: 1. Have enough powerful LES (weights up to 1/3 of the escaping mass) 2. Landing several dozen tonnes. Chutes are unlikely applicable, while rocket engines and fuel have some mass and must be ignited close to the ground, so if something went wrong there would be twin set of them. Which again means mass. 3. Heatshield. Mass. 4. If overturns on ground, the upper ones should hold their eyes with hands (joking) due to huge turn radius. So, anyway the capsule has to pe a lifting body equipped with engines. I.e. what they usually call a plane itself.

I'm afraid any vessel with >6..8 passengers has no another abort option except trying to land the whole ship.

Lifting 40 crew on another vehicle?

Why 15? 29. (wrong quote corrected)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness

Will BFS have it?

Just KFC. Anything from it.

I hope, it's all right with his projector.

Nine, nine... Let's have a look. Maybe, merge it with Emperor's saga? SW likes emperors. But no, too obvious... Wait. Continue a prequel devoted to Han Solo? Unlikely. Too many revivals. Chewbacca. His young days. Or maybe that is his future? Let's put it aside for the moment. Rey. A warrior girl with a big stick, knows kunfu, and has superforces. Maybe, maybe... Wow. Look. Sooo... Chewbacca again. OK, we can't just ignore this. Let's merge both settings and tell more about Chewbacca, his not so simple life behind the Star Wars. Maybe repeat an ice planet? But no, AT-AT winter attack already was in ep. V. And at last. Jackpot. That's a short hop from the galaxy far-far away right to the Earth. Also this explains a lot about , and all what you want to know about the Force and Superforce.

Fizzix looks at things much easier. Typical hardness tests. Dent size — decides.

They call it Range Safety. https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a3232/4262479/ https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2648/space-shuttle-range-safety-system-why-is-there-a-caution-light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety

In ptractice the hardness is measured by dissecting/piercing a sample with a tool of "standard" hardness (steel or diamond). If we can presume that such tool would be smashed itself against the dense pack of neutrons, then we can say that neutronium is harder than such tool.

And if we take two non-charged metal slabs and put them enough close to each other, we'll get Casimir Effect.

62. "cause this thread still doesn't have Bayeux Tapestry... 63. ... but if post here a 30 000 pixels wide picture, this would lock this thread anyway;, at least for mobile users.

3.141592652.71828183

Ok, then this one. if (! isNotEqual(a, b) != false) ...

Which violates another programming rule: "no magic constants". And anyway doesn't work with two variables. P.S. Similar problem: stupid compiler doesn't understand that if (a = b) ... is not an error, it's a laconism. You assign b to a and check if it's not zero. P.P.S. Infinite loops usually caused browser hanging but yet didn't put down a whole system on my side.

60. Sooner or later it anyway will break forum rules.