Mad Rocket Scientist

DSG and the MADV's - Smooth Moon

Wow, looks like it's better than the poodle in every case, and better than the NERV in a surprising number of cases. How does it compare to the terrier?

Ah, I understand what you're trying to do. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Changes to your sig are retroactively applied to all of your existing posts if you just want to add something to all of your old posts.

Looks like you have a few options, but none with great titles: They seem to either to be very old, or have not great titles. You may just want to start a new one.

I just finished reading the post, very impressive work. I don't yet know enough calculus to follow the derivation, but the results are very satisfying, and align with my intuition and the common sense advice on the forums. It's super interesting how the idea of using more expensive engines only when going very far shows up in the graphs. Where does the NERV cross the poodle's line at 0.8 TWR? And does it cross it faster at 0.2 TWR? I'd be most interested in 0.8 TWR or thereabouts, but I wonder how it would look at 1.2 TWR or higher. I agree, but I was surprised to see how well balanced the vector was for cost. (Only justifiable for reusable first stages)

Not very often. Sometimes I'm on the RO IRC. Other than that, there was the time the entire forum used it during the software migration. That was crazy.

Is that a F1 first stage?

One of those badly translated Star Wars copies? Time to get really obscure: A version of that is used in both a song (#2 on the UK singles chart) and a movie (finished #7 at the box office).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=44715.0;attach=1511827;image Cape Canaveral F9 sonic boom map overlaid on Vandenberg, courtesy of NSF. I can't believe I'm probably going to have to miss seeing this in person.

This looks like an excellent post. It might take me a while to read it though. Are you using making history? I'd be curious to see whether the wolfhound is balanced in terms of cost.

Mr. Steven was not actually SpaceX's pick. Just normal crazy boat naming.

https://xkcd.com/1489/ Alt-text: "Of these four forces, there's one we don't really understand." "Is it the weak force or the strong--" "It's gravity." Although we can say, with 100% accuracy, that we describe the phenomenon that makes things fall down as gravity. So gravity does exist, as much as anything does, but there aren't any guarantees about our models for it being accurate, or describing some kind of deeper truth.

I remember back in the days when we only had... Oh wait, you remember those days too.

Some iffy aerodynamics going on there. "Unfortunately for Bono's design, it was crafted with the assumption that Martian surface air pressure was 8% of Terra. We now know that it is less than 1%" Ah, there we go. It still looks cool though. Maybe it would work in KSP.

The new game looks interesting, I don't think I'll like it as much as KSP, but I'll probably get it when it comes to PC.

This is one of the best ways to get started with part modding, from start to finish.

Sorry.

The entire experience reminds me a bit of a zachtronics game. Any recommendations for good projects to try to write? I made a program that completes that square, and I'm currently working on a program that can do simple factoring on polynomials with synthetic division and the quadratic formula, which I'm this close to making work.

While that is undeniably true, I feel like this is often taken as an excuse to let roads become more and more congested, and just waiting for public transport to be better, rather than trying to improve public transport. I've read essays that essentially suggested waiting for the roads to become so terribly crowded that you have to use public transport. To be perfectly clear, this is better for the planet and for us than just expanding road networks endlessly, I would like a solution that was better than both. I don't think this is a good idea for two reasons: First, it makes people resentful of public transit, and makes them consider it an inferior solution that is used out of necessity rather than choice, and second, it ignores the very real benefits car travel has, specifically the ability to get directly from one point to another, over an arbitrary distance. Ideally you could take car trips for long distance trips where other public transport doesn't directly go, and that use relies on a network of uncongested roads, which isn't a possibility if they are considered the best way to get around in cities. Of course just adding more lanes isn't the solution. I mostly appreciate that the Boring Co. is trying to make something better, or at least different. To change public opinion from: "Cars are better, but they're too slow, I'll have to take public transport instead" to "Public transport is better." If you assume that whatever the best way of getting around is will be filled up to capacity, the Boring Co. also offers a solution which can, at least in theory, have capacity exceed demand.

I'm here to complain about programming the TI-84+ It uses a version of BASIC called TI-BASIC. This version is unique to TI-84/83's, all of texas instrument's other calculators use slightly different versions. It relies heavily on keys which don't exist on normal keyboards. Ending parentheses and quotes are not required, and are skipped on almost all examples of TI BASIC on the internet. Except in certain cases: "A lone If without an accompanying Then, but only when the condition is false (If with a true condition is unchanged)." It has 27 number variables, and 6 string variables. Period. It has an unlimited number of lists and matrices though. Any statements made in the program without any other action will be stored in the ANS variable, which is special and can store any data type. To save space most code examples use this heavily, in very confusing ways. The command to turn a decimal into a fraction only works in certain places, and is inferior at finding fractions compared to user made algorithms. :If A :If B //Executes if A is false or B is true Obviously. Luckily I'm just doing this for fun, I'd hate to need to write something in this language.

Congrats to JAXA!

It sure leaves in a hurry. Also, trajectory tracking in google earth.

Great video simulating the lunar flyby trajectory: Wildly underrated channel too.

The new landing profile looks like it might reduce landing DV for a RTLS abort. I wonder whether BFS could survive a splashdown. I'll run the numbers sometime, but I suspect that the BFS is TWR limited for aborts.