Nothalogh
-
Posts
1,287 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Nothalogh
-
-
24 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:
I don’t really believe this 2 days per rocket engine stuff. Either they have magically reduced engine mania factoring time from years to hours or they have a sweat shop pumping these things out.
Posts like this give me a hearty chuckle.
Either this was a woefully inadequate attempt at concern trolling, or there are people here who still cannot grasp the scale of the game SpaceX is playing.
-
2 hours ago, Beccab said:
Looks like the air force is trying to invest into starship point-to-point capability, making at least a test flight to an "austere site" in 2022.
The name "starship" is not explicitly said, but "the current multi billion commercial investment to develop the largest rocket ever, and with full reusability [...] to deliver cargo anywhere on Earth in less than one hour, with a 100-ton capability" doesn't leave many doubts
Obviously they're talking about SLS
-
9 hours ago, sh1pman said:
Schrödinger‘s orbit.
It exists in superposition of both orbit and not, until the kinetic heating starts
-
7 hours ago, magnemoe said:
unless your point was to break earth crust or something.
If you know how the Orion propulsion pulse modules worked, that's more likely than you might think.
-
4 minutes ago, sh1pman said:
Musk wants to terraform it somehow. Not sure what I like more: an Earth-like gardenworld or a 40k Mechanicus forgeworld. The latter is probably more useful.
Only the latter gets you a fleet of generation ships.
-
12 hours ago, magnemoe said:
Problem with an Mars colony is that it makes no economic sense.
Not from an earth centric point of view.
Mars is economically necessary if large scale orbital assembly of heavy inter/intra-stellar spacecraft is to be on the menu.
The reason being is that Mars is the goldilocks planet for that endeavor, it has the following unique characteristics.
- Shallow gravity well for ease of transit throughout solar system
- Atmo for braking
- Gravity for ore separation and smelting
- It's already a dead world, so stripmining it and turning it into a WH40K forgeworld won't hurt anybody's feelings
-
14 hours ago, tater said:
they think people are kerbals
Interactions with some lead one to entertain that possibility.
-
5 hours ago, wumpus said:
Even NASA/DoD would have a hard time getting Congress to let them have a contract like that with ULA (or similar). They'd then have to divide the launch capability between all sorts of competing departments, each demanding their hands held in different ways and having a whole slew of MIL-STD (or NASA/FAA) requirements to fill. Maybe ROSCOSMOS or a Chinese company could get such a contract, but I doubt it.
So not only does the for-profit business not work that way in launching the spacecraft, nobody for-profit or not is willing to pay them just to "lift tonnage". Oddly enough, the DoD paid ULA a billion dollars a year to "launch nothing". You'd think that asking them to launch 10 "10 ton space-pods" (or some sort of space shipping container) would be a better deal. But the pork must flow.
If I recall correctly, Saturn originated as an ARPA project, and upon being showed the proposal, the DOD response was "A giant booster, LOLWUT? We want ICBMs".
-
36 minutes ago, tater said:
Yeah, this is exactly right, Starlink is obviously driving their launch cadence.
But making something speculatively is an interesting idea. ULA came up with a few really excellent plans for a "cislunar economy," for example. Admittedly the customer would mostly be the US government, but ULA could be launching those things now with a "build it and they will come" mentality. Had they done so before Artemis, maybe NASA would already be buying ULA cislunar missions. By only thinking in terms of innovation when it is paid for ahead of time, ULA can never be in the position SpaceX is, busily launching their own stuff.
This is all fine and good, but the real metric is tonnage of payload, on orbit, per year.
That is the only thing that truly matters, not who it was for, or whether it was paid for by card or by check. -
1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said:
But SpaceX does mostly commercial launches while the others are contractors for space agencies and militaries. So hopefully spacex launched more than them. A fair comparison would be between SpaceX and Rocketlab.
No, what matters is tonnage to orbit
-
5 hours ago, magnemoe said:
Getting some fire suppression like co2 under the skirt sounds smart.
Just install it as standard and trigger on touchdown for now.LOL, just like the old Ford Crown Vic police cars
-
On 5/1/2021 at 5:04 PM, sevenperforce said:
but below New York
Sadly
-
12 hours ago, tater said:
Yeah, that's absurd, Starliner will fly, there's no if.
The one thing that gets me with the whole Starliner thing is that Boeing convinced NASA to pay them an additional $287.2M for additional crew missions (within their contract anyway) because it looked like SpaceX was falling behind.
When you maximize your bluff skill
-
On 5/3/2021 at 5:23 AM, Hannu2 said:
Starliner achieves never any milestones in manned or unmanned operation
Not true, it flew sideways into orbit
-
1 minute ago, mikegarrison said:
Really? You think the US government is going to have spent all this money and effort to develop two alternate crew transport providers and then decide they are only going to use one of them?
The trajectory of Boeing, at this point, is not promising.
-
19 hours ago, tater said:
SpaceX told them they earned 68 million miles for their frequent flyer plan.
Only the in atmo miles count.
10 hours ago, mikegarrison said:if there end up being both Boeing and SpaceX capsules
Big "IF", at this point
-
1 hour ago, RealKerbal3x said:
Imma just steal this if you don't mind
Neuron rich exhaust
-
17 hours ago, sevenperforce said:
I am now imagining an entire technical manual written in redditspeak
-
On 4/22/2021 at 1:00 AM, Spacescifi said:
if you pulse every two seconds
The number I've always seen is twice per second
-
On 3/31/2021 at 6:55 PM, RCgothic said:
May be due to avionics
LOL, was that not the original issue?
Just what have they been doing these past months?
-
6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
lifting bodies with flat bottoms
Those were chosen specifically for their LD ratio at super and subsonic speeds, due to the aforementioned requirement of cross range capability with full payload.
-
3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
Why did the shuttle have a lifting body bottom?
USAF requirement of 1000 mile cross range capability, required for RTLS after less than one orbit in a polar inclination.
3 hours ago, RCgothic said:Bricks do fly if they're going fast enough.
Shuttle was proof of that.
-
17 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:
LOL.
High Speed Interment
-
9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
Is this mirror dome a trap for what should appear in the portal?
Yes, WH40K taught me all about Daemon Engines
Off-planet manufacturing (split from SpaceX)
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Make all the rails and screws anyway