kerbiloid

Floor 2896: The de-partment is going on. A heap of de-parted parts. P.S. Hey, next poster, don't forget about "Hey, llok! Nwe fllor!"

There was a thread about it, and I had written: The engine exhaust speed ~= 3.5 km/s. Lunar orbital velocity ~= 1.6 km/s (To throw stones in orbit). Lunar escape velocity ~= 2.3 km/s (To throw stones outside of the Moon at all). Moon orbital velocity ~= 1 km/s To reach LEO, or the Earth surface, or LEO in opposite to the satellites direction = 2.3 + 1 = 3.3 km/s Moon escape velocity ~= 1.4 km/s To leave the Earth Hill sphere = 2.3 + 1.4 - 1 ~2.7 km/s Mars transfer insertion velocity ~= 3 km/s To reach Mars ~= 2.3 + 3 ~= 2.3 + 1.4 - 1 + 3 ~= 5.7 km/s All of that (but the latter) is < 3.5 km/s of the exhaust speed. As the jets in any case should be directed towards the lunar surface, they will anyway cause a shot of stone shrapnel which will: pread around all the Moon; partially reach LEO (including opposte orbits, where they can hit ISS at 15 km/s speed); partially start orbiting Earth to fall back on the Moon a little later at random place; partially even reach Mars and hit Mars, Phobos, and Deimos. So, any landing on regolith is dangerous for everything around the lander itself, and you can just either decrease ISP below 1.5 km/s (and thus, spend more fuel), or land only on a solid plarform to be first prepared. Also, even if the jet is tilted from the lander, there are rocks around, so the shrapnel will be ricochetting from the rocks into the lander. So, you have to provide the landing zone with a landing platform without regolith. Either concrete, or metal, But wait... Isn't the spoiler text exactly that what should be done very first?

Very optimistically. You aren't in already existing financial relations (inheritance, right for aliments, etc) with a stranger, and it's harder to say "no" if a family member asks for something, because other part of family can be disappointed.

They are made of various steels, from really rustless to the cheapest carbon-rich, chromeless, non-austenite from (skips showing with a finger on globus) which start rusting just not immediately after lunch. P.S. A magnet will not stick to a rustless one, but this is just to sort out the obviously non-rustless.

Corrected this for you. By the current rate of development, the Moon will be reached by foot, via the paper bridge built from ground to there. ("Elon time" joke is needed here.) Because no visible profit is expectable, but the funds are required. Maybe, the fusion will change the game rules. But it will happen decades later, and many infantile fantasies of "green world right now" and "cancellation of everything you don't like" will evaporate much sooner. So, we don't know, who exactly "they" will develop what. The demography is... specific... everywhere, and the median age in the overpopulated less developed countries together with coming water/food crysis is what will change the political landscape much sooner than the Moon base will get built or fusion reactors will be implemented. ORLY? 1980? The fact that R-7 was derived from V-2 A-4 doesn't mean that the tech is still same like in 1940s. And we can recall that only three countries have this obsolete tech. Maybe ESA could, too, if put efforts. But it doesn't look like they are going to. Windmills are more important. And why are you sure that the Western space plans will stay untouched in the current economical situation? Never. Until others start doing that, making China spend money, too. Because to the date any lunar station project is a foam bubble castle with no prototype on ground and no clear ideas about profit. Did Nova fly? Sea Dragon? Nexus? "Twenty" other versions of Apollo? DynaSoar? DC? Ares? Constellation? Spaceship? CST-100? Orion? SLS? Intermediate projects exist to develop parts for later ones. Not to enter politics, but why do you think that US/EU will need Russia less than China could? To the date, somebody created AUKUS focusing at the Australia region. If US Navy has to sneak into Bering Sea past Chinese sea bases along the rented Russian Pacific coast, like now they have to do in South China Sea, won't all lunar base money be spent on Frisco, Seattle, and Ancoridge sea fortresses instead of the Moon? So, I believe that after a period of turbulence, all will be good in NASA/Roscosmos cooperation. It also has less ballast and more developed technologies. Indeed, just 1/9 of terrestrial land instead of former 1/7. Others have grown.... Not less than USSR. Late 1990s-early 2000s tech level is available on its own. And the 1980s mentioned by you are not a problem at all. But we can hope that the Western partners will find a way to support it with modern technologies like they were doing non-stop since 1940s. (Here comes the list of cancelled and slowly crawling Western projects of the same period). It seems so not the first century... (Think, why do the cosmonauts watch exactly "White Sun of Desert" before launch.) While others are looking swell... Than it was in Cold War when all developed Western countries were standing in row to cooperate, and China was in open confrontation, and USSR was spending a lot of money on the less developed countries support... If the space and rockets were depending on "national pride", von Braun would stay a "clown with Max & Moritz rockets" till 1970s, instead of being hired by militaries and get money to build something big. The space is military-driven, and the Hubble is an overturned spysat. Most part of engineering in any field is dull and not interesting, and enthusiasm has nothing to do there, only hard working. I don't think there's any way I could respond to this while staying within the forum rules. Not unexpectedly.

Floor 2893: Self-rruption department, without co-.

Just one of them, Vostok/Voskhod. It was derived from design of cabin of the stratospheric balloon (which were ancested en mass from the Auguste Piccard cabin). As it was an unstable technology, they used it as a shape for the first return vehicle with cabin inside, to simplify the heat exchange and aerodynamics calculations, and to minimize the total mass, Later it stayed in use for the Vostok-class crewless returnable satellites. *** Also it was later used as a base for the orbital service module of Soyuz, because it was familiar and proven. Then for the lunar lander cabin as well. *** The small crewless crafts have a spehrical command pod to protect the old-style and thus not vacuum-proof electronics. *** Other command modules are conical or sphericonical, like everyone's else.

Banned because I was sure, it's English. Just misspelled a little. zu /tsu/ = /tu/ to (zu) be- /be/ = (to make it) get /tu mejk it get/ frei /fraj/ = free, but the Deutsch like to misspell "ee" as "ei". I just was thinking that Fry is misspelled Frei. en /en/ = /ing/ ing, obvious gerund. So, "zu befreien" = "(to make / for making) [it] get free" If it's not obvious, I even don't know how to explain...

A rustless steel is viscous, and can be used for forging. But the spoons can be made of various sorts of steel. Apply a concentrated solution of copper sulfate and natrium chloride for a couple of days (put the spoon into it or put a wet tampon on the metal). If it's a proper kind of rustless steel, the metal will stay clean. Otherwise there will be a colored spot of corroded metal.

So, no citharodes here... And hurdy-gurdy players.

He's from South. Red Hot Hilly Peppers

Jeb's: "Oh!"

Space troopers land. Ultramarine Science Hill

Both of them because both have dowloaded it.

The cookie was broken by shaking, and turned into crumbs. Crumbookie.

The franchise hides the real author name.

"Here, kittie, kittie, kittie!"

"Well, let's give a try to our Martian potatoes." P.S. Oops, wrong thread... Isn't it the "Famous Last Words"?

Floor 2891: Anti-corruption department.

Banned zu befreien.

1. La Manche. 2. The Channel.

Bad people in their place sharpen even plastic teethbrushes without forging. Let alone the sharpened cigarette filters.

Focusing on military needs, freezing the non-immediate scientific ones. It was in better shape than in 200+ other countries, except just one or two. Can't remember a ESA crewed ship name... Since 1940s... Agreed, both SLS/Orion and SS/SH are swallowing money without chewing, and still both are far from flying. CST also isn't trying its best. On the other hand, several generations of 3d designers and music composers had a chance to gather some food in their trashcans and are happy with that. Orion really costs a billion of dollars? Indeed? An aluminium barrel with some electrics inside costs like a sea cruise liner? 1. As we can see, both lunar programmes currently are competing in design and funding, rather than in capturing the Moon rocks. 2. Any lunar programme won't be a thing until the fusion tech comes into game. So, still about a decade or two till real lunar flights. 3. When one party can't, another party doesn't need to hurry. The slower is the Russian lunar programme, the more safety protocols the American developers and bureaucrates can sell "to be sure in the flight success". China, in turn, already has monopoly on rare-earth mining, so it doesn't need a lunar base except for picture, while others don't have theirs. 4. It's much cheaper to prevent someone's lunar monopoly than establish your own. Because it needs tens of superheavy ship launches to build a base, but just a football-sized sleeping lunar "probe" to cancel. So, the competition is not symmetric, and even NK can establish a flight-free zone on the Moon after some humble efforts and small money. Take Luna-16, replace electronics, add a solar panel, and replace the return probe with something bringing light and warmth to lunar home, hide it on the Moon, and you may stop arguing which NASA lunar base design is better. There are a lot of Herbert's Dune fans on this forum, and they should recall "the actual owner of a thing is he who can destroy it". Not that I'm agreed, but that's their favorite book, not mine. So, the Moon "colonization" will anyway be international, with participation of all countries who can destroy another one's outpost. And it will be cheaper to share your tech and knowledge to prevent somebody other's mislanding on top of your base. It doesn't even need to compete in price. The total programme cost is important. Though, we can see literally nothing but slogans about the Crew Dragon economic efficiency, and we can see literally everything about the SLS/Orion one. China has a Soyuz-like ship. The main trouble is the absence of need, as we can see on the example of Orion, CST, Dragon tourists. Wow! The second civilian tourist crew! Dragon rulez! Can you bring a more bright evidence that the Dragon-class ship usage is a useless luxury rather than an actual necessity. A whole ship of human ballast instead of specialists to solve the practical problems. Wow! Axiom will build a space hotel! Axiom rulez! Can you bring a more bright evidence that they don't need a new orbital station except for nothing? Anything of that comparable to Shuttle even remotely? Such technical degradation, so quickly they forgot they were riding real spaceplanes a decade ago... So, currently Soyuz is absolutely in trend, and a decade or two later there will be another tech to build a post-Soyuz. It was too small always. So, just the funding source value has been redistributed, and it happened not yesterday. And as the Roscosmos is not the biggest player on the market, the biggests ones should worry more. If the sky is too small for Roscosmos, what to say about SpaceX vs ULA and ESA? Just several years ago (since 2010) it was "Help us, Obi Van Roscosmos, you are our only hope!" And that's after 135 flights of Shuttle, which was a real space cruiser comparing to the puny Dragon lifeboat. Can you guarantee this won't repeat a decade later, after the First Muskovite Space Race and the First OneStarlinkWeb Battle? It could shut anyway if they could due to their own rocket, and don't bet your money that they will not unshut once the situation cools a little, and everyone's in the world pants get back dry. Or once the Green World Fighters will have sent the ESA after the nuclear plants and coal energetics, because other buisiness brings more profit the rockets damage the ozone layer. It's a serpentarium Europe, after all. The EU was invented to help them to not bite each other cooperate and live in peace. You snooze, you lose, n'est-ce pas, mein lieber Freund, oh la la? Of course, if you are AUKUS British Empire 2.0, you may stop worrying about money and not sell your crops and meat to the Soviet Union like Canada and Australia were doing since 1960s, for the money paid by the Western Germany for Soviet natural gas pumped via the pipes bought in the same Western Germany in spite of strict American sanctions), while the Soviet submarines were propelled by propellers made by the metal-cutting machines bought in Japan and Norway for same German money in spite of same American sanctions, too. While the Soviet pure scientific spacecrafts were traditionally equipped with a pack of French scientific tools. And that's exactly during the hot phase of the Cold War, with Zapad'81 vs Able Archer'83, KAL 007, Reagan's "I just declared the Empire of Evil out-of-law, the bombardnent starts in five minutes.", and so on. Brief version: the rich part of the Europe is not closed forever for years. The poor part wouldn't buy the spacecrafts anyway. made by bureaucracy over its actual cost. Don't forget that the nominal GDP of developed countries consists also of servicing activity (barbershops, oral hygiene consulting,tourist entertainment, etc.) which is actually costs counted as incomes. Because they don't form new material values, they are just invented "jobs" to keep the crowd of excessive people indoors and busy by throwing money on the street from the incomes of really profitable sectors of economics. Like the efforts spent on this forum don't turn into real spaceflights. You don't need a special human to bring your food from the bar to the table two meters away, but even a lousy diner hires them just because others do. And others do so because TV sitcoms tell them it's normal for a respectable restaurant, and it's normal for a respectable (white/blue)collar rat-in-the-wheel to make somebody socially lower bring him/her food from the bar to feel high. Once TV starts saying that it's normal to stand in a queue, and the waiters are a useless luxury, the waiters would disappear. The same about barbershops, beer bicycles, and many other important parts of GDP totals. So, the GDP argument is not directly applicable here. Richer countries have more false GDP states. The Soviet Union was buying food since 1962s from its enemies. The post-Soviet Russia (and Ukraine) bring up 30% of global food export, and that's while their agriculture is treated as very ineffective. With total population of 140+40 = 180, of 286 mln in the late USSR. They buy a lot of seed from former-Monsanto (curretly bought by Bayer), etc.? 1. A lot, but not everything. In Soviet times even nothing. 2. Bayer doesn't need the Eastern plowlands to sell the seeds? Well, well... (Of course, the German words written in hieroglyphs would look weird... And "ordinateur personnel" in Arabian letters.) The Soviet Union had a very heavy ballast of ideological (almost religious) constraints on its economics. The post-Soviet countrues have none, it's only a question of their choice which economical model to use. The USSR space was on a shoestring budget since 1950s. "What a horror! The Russian space is now just 3rd, not 2nd!"

The piano and guitar makers should think about it. Why use all that solfeggio voodoo instead of just write the notes in length units. Especially since the string lines actually make the music noise sound by the string free length. (A problem could be with drums, as they mostly depend on the hit force. But this also can be easily solved. For drums they can use the jump height amplitude (in Metric or in British) of a standard tennis ball, if hit it with standard ping-pong racket with same force as you hit the drum).