wumpus

Actually, that method might really work. Not just that it would provide sufficient energy to make the hurricane into something worse (which is presumably the big reason NOAA has a faq about nuking hurricanes), but presumably a broad bombardment of the ocean could spray enough deeper water into the air to cool down the air at sea level. Cut that, and you cut the energy that drives the hurricane. I wouldn't be too surprised if sonic booms are one day used against hurricanes, but I doubt that simply flying supersonic near the thing is worth it. The point is wind shear. It certainly sounds like a sonic boom is made of pure windshear, but it isn't clear that it can maintain such after your plane flies on (what you really need to stop the hurricane). High wind shear interferes with hurricane development, so even if blasting it with sonic booms won't disperse it, building up enough wind shear will prevent it from gaining power. The trick is maintaining wind shear after you have passed through (and I suspect that all the research has been on reducing wind shear). So while I think it might be possible, just flying jets fast willy nilly isn't the answer. Altering temperature or pressure on such a broad scale would require taking advantage of the gravity well, but I suspect that convincing the wind to interfere with the hurricane's development might be remotely possible as well.

Lighting a match/candle in zero g is said to be pretty weird. The flame/plasma is spherical, and after it consumes the immediate air around it, it suffocates (no gravity, no convection and no new oxygen). Then again, lighting a match/candle in 1g is complicated enough (if it requires gravity, you can imagine the interaction of plasma with the chaotic motion of convection. Complicated). Knowing a bit more about rest mass doesn't help with gravity? Gravity is getting fractally weird. Even looking into a small part of it is as weird as the overall nature of our understanding of gravity.

Punchline: "Of these four forces, there's one we don't really understand." "Is it the weak force or the strong--" "It's gravity."" Presumably the known existence of the Higg's boson at least tells us a little more about gravity (I think the Higg's boson helps explain mass). I got about to this level of the four forces (plus Maxwell's equations, but don't ask me to use them now) so can't help you beyond this.

That seems a bit questionable. I rather doubt it is true for Eve (or Venus) and that if it is true on Kerbin (and Earth) that there should exist some TWR that has higher aero losses than an ideal TWR. Cannon to orbit would be the extreme example, a projectile screaming through the atmosphere at mach 20 (or more, should you be trying for escape velocity or solar escape velocity) should have more aero losses than the combined aero and gravity losses of a rocket with TWR between 5-10. Obviously on airless planets increasing TWR is strictly more efficient, but including an atmosphere adds a variable that has to be considered. That said, in KSP you should almost never reduce your SRB thrust (stability and control being the reasons for nearly all exceptions), and often it makes sense to keep your liquid rockets at full blast[during ascent] even though the rocket equation tells you to use them later for more delta-v (assuming you also have SRBs with lower Isp running at the same time). This challenge: (there was a later 1.1.3 challenge as well) implied that launches with a TWR of 2.0 was most efficient to LKO and that adding more "kickers" (the largest SRB and inevitably the first stage in this challenge) didn't make for a more efficient rocket (even though a "kicker" was an efficient means of adding delta-v as well as TWR). If you hear a kerbanaut insisting that TWR of ~1.2 is "most efficient", that probably came from using exclusively liquid rockets (where fuel tanks are cheaper than higher thrust engines). That said, I'd be curious how such a challenge would play out using a mod that gave SRBs the same Isp as mainsails or skippers. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they used a launch TWR of 5-10 and were limited by things like maxQ and control (launch at a steep angle). I just don't think that "cannon launch" will be as efficient (and remember, there have been some work on cannon-based space launches on Earth. It isn't strictly theoretical).

To a simple degree, the aero losses are inversely proportional to the height of the rocket. Also your typical sounding rocket launches with a TWR often over 4 or 5, while Saturn launched at something like 1.15. This means the sounding rocket had almost no gravity losses while the Saturn threw away 5 kg of fuel/oxidizer fighting gravity for every 1kg used for delta-v (at least until a significant amount of stage 1 was burned up and TWR rose above 2). So next to no gravity losses has to be compared to the disadvantages of going through the atmosphere at such a high speed. Finally, I suspect that you get some sort of Oberth effect in really hitting your engines while still in the atmosphere, although I suspect it is entirely eaten up by drag losses. So optimal TWR is complicated. And what works for sounding rockets doesn't always work for orbital and beyond. You would think that you could compute ideal TWR via sounding rockets (for KSP, for example), but it turns out that the values change as you pitch over. So in KSP expect to need mechjeb to either fly the same route every time or recompute an ideal curve based on TWR. Mechjeb wasn't up that that (nor was I ready to hack mechjeb to do it) when I was trying to figure out optimal TWR (I still don't know it, but think you should launch a bit below 2.0).

Early in the thread the F-104 Starfighter (a Kelly Johnson plane) was mentioned. It was famous for being great at speed and height, but less than great at everything else. After that, I suspect that US planes were designed with more balance in mind. I'd expect the MiG-25 to have a similar place for MiG planes: speed and height were ideal, but maneuvering and climb limited a pilot's options. Making a plane out of steel made for a great high-speed plane. I'm less sure about making a great jet fighter.

That's pretty scary, especially if he is coming from the Silicon Valley. The last time I drove around California was in the 1990s (before the tech boom) and I don't recall having problems driving in LA (I mostly was in parts south and flew in and out of the LA airport), but certainly had troubles around the SF-Bay area. Don't ask about the time I had to drive from the Silicon Valley to Petaluma (i.e. straight through SF) when then President Clinton was giving a speech in Oakland. I was a few hours late. I also have to wonder what the fuel economy of self driving cars would be once they are allowed to draft each other. I'd expect freeways to keep open "human driven lanes" (probably protecting the safer automated lanes with jersey barriers) simply because the self-driven cars wouldn't need as many lanes (with near ideal braking and drafting). Every time this comes up I also include a rant about how my father (and his father before him) needed to stop driving around the time he hit 80. The advantage of The Boring Company has over self-driving cars and hyperloop is that most of its problems are technical (and it has Musk driving his geniuses relentlessly). While hyperloop and self-driving cars have significant technical problems, I can't see hyperloop's political problems being solved (in the US, judging by the "one house in the middle of the road" pictures it looks like China has similar issues) and self driving cars hinge on whether the baby boomers are willing to turn driving over to electronic chauffeurs when driving becomes an issue or if the "soccer moms" demand that cars drive their kids around for them. People who frequent bars (and those who drive near closing time) certainly need self driving cars even more, but don't have the political clout to push the issue.

It looks like https://nz.pcpartpicker.com/ has a New Zealand option (I didn't expect that). I'd expect a quick check of the various "build guides" will give you a sense of the difference in price/materials used (be careful: the build guides (https://nz.pcpartpicker.com/guide/) don't appear to be including windows in the build, at these prices you don't want to deal with the hit Linux graphic drivers deliver). [The "gaming, streaming, and editing build left me salivating. But it is a few hundred more (and add at least another hundred for windows) and almost certainly adds *zero* difference to KSP (I suspect a strong Pentium and a 1070 will do that on all but the highest end monitors. Unity isn't exactly pushing things). Most of the difference will be in editing, and I can't begin to say if that matters.]

Because Countdown was already recorded?

I just looked up the wiki and it implied that the motors were aging out and needed to be replaced, and that the replacement program had been funded a year or two ago. Orbital prefers buying the surplus, not the new stock and could presumably get a good deal on them if they really wanted to do such a thing (if it wasn't in the original design, I doubt they can add "more boosters" willy nilly).

That sounds like most of my early 1.0.0 experience (there may have been some issues with Steam only updating *some* of my files). Even a bare Mk1 capsule often couldn't slow itself down enough for parachutes to stop it in time. I'm sure I've killed kerbals worse, but the first time I remember "Jeb's gone" was when I gave him far too much delta-v and lost him on an escape trajectory from Kerbin. He might have been alive, but it would be a long time (and more than a few restarts thanks to a new and improved version) that I could dock with spacecraft, and I'd still think twice before trying to dock with a spacecraft orbiting Kerbol (a multi-decade mission).

Oddly enough, KerbalEDU does have DRM and Squad insisted on it. Apparently the educational market (and the students who could easily copy the game) aren't nearly as trusted as normal KSP players. I'm slightly annoyed that I can't get previous editions by Steam (and thus tend to keep the installs I have), but I suspect that is more up to valve than squad. It is certainly great to have the option of having both windows and linux at the same time.

If they are being replaced, I suspect Orbital can get their hands on plenty. Super Strypi was a NASA project (I think), and they have a reasonable chance to get one. University program? Maybe in Colorado Springs (US Air Force academy), good luck for anyone else. I wonder if a Minotaur-Heavy will come out with a ring of these around the base...

Anti matter: your best bet. If you are that worried about the exhaust velocity, I suspect you haven't worked through the rocket equation and how it applies to relativity (i.e. outrunning your exhaust velocity isn't all that hard, New Horizons did it). If you don't mind your characters making anti-matter, an Orion-type spacecraft is an obvious near-c device. Bussard Ramjets: I think they've been proven not to work, although that likely assumes using the material for fusion. You might get such a beast faster with using antimatter to heat up the hydrogen, but that is likely complication for the sake of complication. Stick to antimatter orions. Light sails: lots of practical problems with this one, but probably easier than making antimatter. The catch is that you likely have a brief window to supply all the power, and your sails have to be virtually *perfectly* reflective. Note that the only way any other engine doesn't have this problem is by doing most of your acceleration well beyond the star system you are leaving (simply because it takes longer to get to speed: check how far away from a star you would be to get to .1c while accelerating at 1g. That's how far your lasers have to focus. Black holes: "Slingshot" maneuvers should really be thought of as "bouncing off". While a black hole might have virtually infinite momentum, I doubt you can use a slingshot to accelerate any faster than it is going. The mass ratio of an existing probe to Jupiter might as well be infinite, but you don't see them accelerating by high multiples, likewise I don't expect that black holes would give any more advantage than Jupiter (unless you happen to find one rotating around another at relativistic speeds (if this is possible the tidal forces would be a major issue), this might make a great "base" and launch facility, but you still need to slow down somehow (assuming you survived the tidal forces). I'd simply stick with the anti-matter. Orion or classic "rocket" design, either will work (presumably a Bussard Ramjet works to supply the matter for antimatter, this does wonders for the rocket equation). Remember, hard SF is called hard for a reason, and part of the reason "the golden age of SF is ten" is because you don't see the errors.

And this capability has been added to how many fighters since? If you want to fire a missile at a target in space, there is no real advantage to having your fighter in space. A missile can get there easier. I read this and immediately thought of classic Pravda propaganda, or perhaps CNN's famous screenshot "18 times the speed of light".

While the upper stages are a fraction of the size, they can thus only deliver a fraction of the payload. So twice the size, 1/256 the payload. I'm guessing you want a raspberry pi and enough radio circuits to manage a sputnik-style "beep" from space. When it doubt, cut down the computer.

Once you go back to first principles, you still have the issue in that it will cost $1Billion to build the rocket. That's an important first principle in itself. The other is the square/cube law. Once you build rockets more than twice what a stratolaunch can carry, the square/cube law can make your rocket more efficient than an "all things being equal" airlaunched rocket. Isp is another critical "first principle". If you are sacrificing Isp (especially in your final stage), you can wipe out all benefits from the first bit of delta-v. PegasusII was originally supposed to have a hydrolox final stage, but that replaced with an "all solid" rocket. All operating Pegasus rockets use solid stages (a non-cyrogenic hydrazine fourth stage is an option). Using cryogenic fuels gives the problem of either sufficiently insulating the oxidizer/fuel tanks or continually topping off the rocket. My understanding was that the x-15 mothership had to carry twice the amount of oxygen as the x-15 to allow it to drop fully fueled (my memory/source might be off on that one, I thought it was due to hydrogen). If you want a hydrox upper stage, you will certainly need to have some means of supplying hydrogen from the mothership and likely oxygen as well (I think somebody else on this forum went into detail about trying mid-air refueling of hydrogen. I think it had to do with a "scoop up atmospheric oxygen" idea. Spacex was originally contracted/expected to design the rocket. It was called a Falcon Air, and have only 4 Merlin engine. It is telling that this idea was scrapped *before* spacex abandoned the idea of parachute recovery, as a powered landing with a lighter booster and the same merlin engine is likely difficult. Spacex would far rather fill falcons with fuel than have more crash. According to the infallible wiki, Falcon air would deliver 6 tons to LEO while Falcon 9 (1.0) delivered 10 tons to LEO and a similar ratio to GTO (although presumably falcon 9 still needs the inclination change after delivery). Best guess is that scaling issues are taking away any benefits from the physics of air launch. One thing that has been ignored so far are launch costs. Spacex will launch a used rocket for $60M (although part of that cost is probably a mad scramble to make *some* profit, spacex appears to still be in "startup mode" and losing money, although being private they need not file the SEC papers that would make that clear). Back in 1990, Orbital would launch a Pegasus for a "base price" of $6M (I suspect that the "base price" was unobtainable/useless, but it does give a negotiation point). If orbital is using launch procedures based on airlines/fedex procedures (who have to cut "launch prices" or airplanes to the bone) vs. using launch procedures designed by NASA which were likely developed for Apollo and only changed to increase safety during the Shuttle era, but never once had to deal with cost issues as the cost of the rocket was so high and the launch cadence wouldn't justify the training/experience needed for cheaper launches. I think I've kept in the back of my mind is that Blue Origin seems to have grabbed up most of the DC-X guys, and they made a point of reducing these costs (with rockets). If Orbital wanted to redesign Pegasus (for either stratolaunch or their L1011), they might be able to make significant gains with replacing steel SRB casings with carbon (or even composite). This was certainly one of the plans for PegasusII, and I doubt that the $6M price tag in 1990 allowed for much use of carbon (although using it in the third stage would go a long way for the lowest price). Considering how Orbital already uses a Pegasus-derived upper set of stages on other rockets, I suspect that they would be much more likely to upgrade the "standard Pegasus" ( or PegasusXL which ever design is on top of minotaurs and similar) to fit a higher payload in the same mass of rocket and thus improve a much broader product array. So my questions are: Can stratolaunch top up cryogenic fuels? Is Rocket Lab (the electron rocket people) interested in air launch? Thanks to the square/cube law, small rockets benefit vastly more for air launches. For those that advertize a "mass to GTO" (rocket lab doesn't), they could likely simply increase this without a redesign with an air launch. Note that I think a L1011/B52 could launch most in this class instead of a Stratolaunch.

Only 30 more stages and 256 times the size needed (for the new first stage). Scale her right up!

My source for quick checks of prices (check yourself before making a purchase, but great for research): https://pcpartpicker.com/ (checked for US prices on 9/3/2017) Cheapest SSD (per byte): a Crucial MX300 2TB monster for $0.250/GB (1TB was $0.257/GB, Samsung sold a strong 512GB for $0.280/GB). If you sort by price/storage be careful of either getting hits that are nothing but more data than you need/can afford or cheap drives with so many corners cut you might feel like using rotating media (leaving out the DRAM is a way to cut costs). Hitachi sells a 3TB drive for $0.0250, thus neatly proving magnemoes point to three digits. Note that while this is a descendent of the infamous "deathstar" drive, virtually all models except that one have had great reliability and this is probably the one to buy compared to its competition. Of course, it is 3.5" so it doesn't connect easily to a notebook. In those cases you are stuck with a SSD internal and possibly an external backup or other overflow deveice. My father has managed to brick a SSD in his ancient notebook (so old that I don't think the SSD really sped it up). I suspect they are susceptable to ESD damage. If you don't have your data backed up (and rotating media is usually the cheapest* way to do that), your data is likely to eventually disappear. * maybe not if it fits on optical, but that has all kinds of problems and should be approached with care.

Where does the Skylab mutiny fall on the big/little scale? I know none of the astronauts flew again. I think a bigger reason was that they really needed Houston's help to run the entire mission. Any procedure that didn't assume constant radio contact was either for behind the moon (or other cases that it is expected) or go straight to abort and return home.

Presumably he asks for stuff and Congress funds the SLS. I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of agencies have conduits between the GS-whatevers (hired during the Apollo program buildup in NASA's case) and congressional staffers. That's pretty much were all the real action happens in both cases. - at NASA the work gets done by contractors, but they officially can't make decisions (but are often rubber stamped by GS types). The Federal Government moved from GS-workers to contractors ages back (a friend has worked that way at NASA since the 1980s), and increased things under the second Bush. Looking at the just when the NASA budget really increased gives a good idea when they were hiring people. Expect some old, cranky, and set in their ways administrators not caring much about directors (for pretty much everybody this century).

Didn't Douglas Adams have a saying about advice for those trying to make it in music (even if they're already in a band with [still unknown] John Lennon and Paul McCartney): "don't". I think it was how he (or one of his characters) having better/followed better advice (i.e. "don't") than what the Beatles had and avoided a music career. A similar thing goes in rocket startups. It is wildly unlikely that the market that they are trying for can possibly justify how stacked the odds are against them. I'm not even certain that XCOR were that adamant about 9,000m/s, they seemed to be advertizing "trips to space" (Alan Shepard style, not orbit). And that was only for the Lynx II, the Lynx I got half as high (more than twice as high as any jet). I remember reading a book (from 2000ish) that includes a quote from someone (probably the CEO) pointing out that if they wanted to be rich they would start anything but a space corp. They started a space corp to go into space. I forgot how much was spent "winning" spaceship 1's prize, but it was several times more than the prize. And I haven't heard of any plans of taking any non-test pilot up in spaceship 2. And that was for a certain payoff (for one team, anyway) without having to compete with companies that have at least paid off the costs of getting into orbit.

Just out of curiosity, were they flying more or less horizontally before they hit 4g? If they were (perfectly horizontal), the total would be ~4.1 (thanks to Pythagoras) while straight up would be 5. I'd expect that even at 3g they weren't all that close to vertical and being squished. Micheal Collins (in his highly recommended book/autobiography) didn't seem to worry to much about such acceleration, but I think he tested fighters for the Air Force.

If you don't hoard data, they already are. If you agree with the old chestnut "the steady state of a hard drive is full" then you are unlikely to give up rotating media. It is still probably better to have a removable rotating hard drive for backups and spillover. Not only should removal prevent user/malware damage, but also the OS from stopping and just having to peek at a drive nobody told it to peek at (and needing to spin it up in the process). Load/save windows are notorious for checking each available drive every time they open. If you really want to hoard data, RAID arrays of 2-3TB drives are probably the way to go (and similar for your backup).

I'd be curious to know how much protein analysis changed biological views, especially in taxonomy. It would give wonderful error bars to bone (and most other data you can get from fossils) analysis. Note that while you can't reconstruct a dinosaur from ancient DNA, I'm sure they can often give a yes/no answer about if they are closer to reptiles or birds. Also don't forget https://www.amnh.org/ for museums in America (I've been to the other two as well and they are on a similar level). Unfortunately I can't say I've been to any on that level on the west coast, even though I'd highly recommend Balboa Park in general (Cincinnati has an astonishingly good natural history museum, but I doubt they really have enough room for paleontology). - note: the Smithsonian dinosaur exhibit is closed for at least a year. That should leave an "ancient oceans", "ancient plants", and "ancient mammals" halls of similar size (although only a single story due to smaller exhibits) for paleontology, but the impressive stuff isn't available.