Codraroll

Still a problem on a conceptual level. Even though the issues with propulsion and docking are now over, they still launched a module without knowing what was wrong with it. If they missed the defects in the propulsion and docking systems, they could also have missed other critical defects in other systems.

If you have the tech to build tractor beams, what the heck do you need Orion drives for? Especially with antimatter again? You seem strangely hung up with using antimatter-based Orion drives despite being told repeatedly how ludicrously impractical it is and that pretty much every other wishlisty science tech makes it obsolete. Also, if you can shape the tractor beams anyway you want, you obviously must shape it like a tractor. Preferably the old type with an open-air seat and a tall exhaust pipe that goes puff-puff-puff.

And that's kinda the problem, isn't it? There are people whose job it is to know the exact condition of the module, and they didn't catch the major problems with propulsion and docking. What else did they not catch? Seeing how this thing behaved after it actually docked, I can't help but wonder when it will start frying the station's electronics, interfering with communications, or just venting air. Obviously the quality assurance team did a terribly poor job and it may still house many lethal dangers.

It might be the cynical part of my brain talking, but I can't help but wonder: if something as basic, yet critical, as a main engine failure passed unseen by QC, is it really wise to hook this thing up to the ISS? What else can be deadly wrong with it that the quality control didn't catch?

Let me just nab a few applicable responses out of the previous couple of threads: That should cover the gist of it. You tend to ask the same type of question over and over, so giving the same type of answer over and over seems only appropriate.

One of my favourites is the quarter, which may be a unit of length, volume, or weight, depending on context. Of course, the quantities described by each definition of a quarter has no relation to each other either. It's either 22.9 centimeters, 12.7 kg, or 242 liters. In other words, I would rather not order spaghetti by the quarters.

Fortunately, the ones that do survive tend to be the ones most compatible with the SI units, though. I mean, the liter is not a SI unit, but it's so easy to convert back and forth it might as well be because it's a multiple of 10 SI units. The same with the examples you mention, they work mostly as a shorthand for common multiples of 10 of other SI units. The whole reason why Imperial is such a royal pain to work with is that it's not linear like that. You've got fifty-seven Godfreys to a Worthington, which itself is two-fifths of a Lengthwise Flagpole and defined using the time it takes an unladen swallow to cross the shadow of a priest at noon on St. Longfellow's Day. Okay, maybe not quite, but there are Imperial units like a fathom (2.02666... yards), a perch (272 1/4 square feet, or 30 1/4 square yards), a fluid ounce (1.73339 cubic inches), or a hundredweight (112 pounds). These units do not scale nicely at all with each other. They are little used for precisely this reason, though, which I believe to be the case with most near-metric units that don't scale well either. But the easy ones have a certain right to life, when they fit so nicely in with the rest.

I think the idea also includes a slowdown of aging so a person can stay in ship-shape for an additional couple dozen decades or so before becoming "a senior citizen". If the body deteriorated after 60 at the current rate, and then just did not stop until the person was 300 years old or something, that would be very bad indeed. But if you could be as healthy at 260 as you currently are at 60 (and consequently, stay as spry as a twenty-something for half a century or more), it would be a lot more appealing. Then you'd still only spend a few decades in retirement, after a working life of two centuries.

Ooh ... since there is "magic" in the question, there's so much fun stuff to wish for. In no particular order and with little regards for the laws of physics or other practicalities: Delay-free communications with unlimited range and bandwidth Safe anti-gravity An universally acceptable algorithm to determine truth Objective morals A harmless cure for stupidity, greed, and malice A universally acceptable system of politics and ethics that people will have no issues adhering to A harmless and comfortable way to restore bodies to perfect health and sanity (preferably with a module about accepting mortality and dying peacefully at an appropriate age, with the appropriate number of living descendants) An infinite resource multiplicator (and a universally acceptable way to use it responsibly) An infallible means of resource distribution that everybody will be fine with Infinite reassurance that it'll be fine in the end A way to come to terms with the overwhelmingness of the universe and the limited means a person has to experience it A toaster that keeps the toast just warm enough not to burn, for long enough that it's still warm when you take the last bite The contact info to magic space Amazon and a limitless gift card I mean, sure, many of those fall within the category of "Haha, that's impossible", but remember, magic.

It's really only the first book that's mandatory. I re-read the entire series last year, and while the first book is as iconic as they come, it all ... uhh, loses the thread a bit from the second one out. Most of the quotable, memorable, and thought-provoking stuff is in the first book, while nobody remembers what goes on in the third or fourth.

I assume you're talking about a spaceship so big and heavy that it needs engines so powerful that they would melt the ground upon landing. But such a ship landing on ground not prepared for it, is like a cargo freighter making land on an unprepared beach. It's not a situation a ship like that will encounter in the first place. Your argument is like saying cargo freighters are unfeasible and should not be built, because you can't just beach them anywhere and sail away undeterred afterwards like you can with a canoe. But thing is, the ship is designed around its required infrastructure. You can have cargo freighters if you have harbours for them. You can have superheavy spaceships landing if you have pads for them. And if you need your ship to land on unprepared ground, you design a ship to land on unprepared ground. It probably will require certain design modifications, unless you just skip all that, do like 95% of all sci-fi, and just handwave it. That's a valid approach to. It's science fiction for a reason. Overall, @sevenperforcegot it. Here's the general answer to all your threads:

But that's not what he said. What he said was that all sci-fi has elements of nonsense. That's yet another variant of the response you get to almost all the threads you're making, and yet you never seem to get it.

"It looks like our rocket is missing a crucial piece of therma-" "It is not a problem until somebody says it's a problem. If that happens, whoever says there is a problem will receive the blame for the problem." "It looks like I was mistaken. There is no problem."

That scenario is pretty unlikely to occur in routine spaceflight. If you're at the point where you need to make an emergency landing on an unprepared surface, your rocket is borked anyway. Just like most airliners are today. The contingency plans depend on a certain level of preparedness and certain procedures in case of emergency, and if those can't be followed or aren't available, you will make a crater. Besides, this whole "landing on unprepared surfaces" things weren't a part of the conditions you initially described. Your threads have a serious tendency to rely on wild assumptions, insane conditions, and flat-out wrong guesses, and when those are picked apart you try to mend them by throwing in even more wild assumptions and insane conditions. It usually never works to support the original conclusion, and yet you keep making more of the same type of threads almost every day with the same mistakes in them. Have you ever considered making an umbrella thread to put all your questions in, rather than flooding the forums with ... whatever this is? But hey, at least I learn a lot from the serious answers from other members with more patience than I have. Kudos to them, I suppose.

Ask the poor researcher who barely managed to secure funding for his further career, to work with the data from the Mars Climate Orbiter ...

Wait, I just realized I'm an idiot. Still playing with Station Science Continued and not the new version of the mod. Curse my sporadic playing of this game and wanting to continue on old save files whenever I pick it back up again.

Is this the "retrograde quarks" experiment? That one has been bugged for me since forever, in exactly the way you describe. Everything works until you recover the vessel, then it stays uncompleted. Kinda annoying, to put it like that.

The "missiles miss but come back to try again" trope really needs to die. For a missile to be capable of doing that, it needs to pack three times as much delta-V into it as it really requires. 1x to go from zero to impact speed, another 1x to cancel out its relative velocity away from the target after the miss, and another 1x to get back to impact speed in the right direction. Plus, you need to outfit the missile (which by its very nature is throwaway) with the capability to flip, reignite, calculate a new approach trajectory, and other costly and complicating features. All to handle the eventuality of the missile missing its target, which, y'know, shouldn't be the eventuality that guides your design. If the missiles are so poor they miss their targets often enough to need to be designed around it, gearing them up for another shot probably won't improve their odds all that much. If the foe can dodge once, they can dodge twice, and missiles aren't known for their excessive reserves of delta-V. They can't keep flipping and retrying forever. And if you make the missiles good enough to usually hit their target on the first try, outfitting them with flip-and-retry capability would involve throwing away a lot of unneeded delta-V and fancy guidance systems. That makes the missiles more expensive and bigger than they need to be. That money and weapons bay space could probably be better used by having two simpler missiles instead of one fancy one. Of course, if multiple-use warp drives are cheap enough that you can keep installing them on what is effectively fireworks, it may be a viable tactic to build a missile that keeps harassing its target until it eventually hits. But one would think an adversary capable of multiple missile dodges would have some way to permanently disable enemy missiles too.

Basically another thread of "I make up some rules, here's why X doesn't work". You seem to make one almost every day. I must admit, I am tired. Do these forums have an "ignore member" function?

Almost, but not quite. The terminology of the old units survived, but the 2x4'' plank is actually 48x98 mm. That is, it is sawed as a 50x100 mm piece and planed down by one millimeter on every surface. That's true for all of the standard lumber dimensions: 23, 48, 73, 98, 148, and 198 mm. It's an even number of millimeters divisible by 25, minus 2. The only exception I can remember from my days working at a hardware store are the 36 mm and 120 mm dimensions, which are used only rarely.

Eh, I guess that would be an option too, if something malfunctioned on the second stage - presumably including the self-destruct mechanism.

Just point out to them that all the days are named after pagan gods, and they may be more inclined to change that position.

If we had known for certain, this thread would mostly consist of posts counting down the hours. I seem to recall Musk saying they aimed for July, but his aim in these regards is famously a bit shaky.

I mean, it would probably be much easier to get hold of one kilogram of cocaine (after all, there exists a supply chain) than one kilogram of Mars soil, so that's not entirely surprising. From a purely economic standpoint, its high cost wouldn't matter much, though. I remember once reading an article (or was it a forum post?) that did the math and found out that even if the Martian surface were scattered with gold bars of the purest quality, we'd still lose money if we tried to go there and take some back to Earth. I think that's even true if the gold bars were on the Moon. Hm, come to think of it, if the Moon had been full of gold bars, the price of gold would probably plummet because of the potential disruption of the market that would happen if anyone were to find a way to to make lunar gold shipping cost-effective.

More or less, yeah. But it'd be a very, very big ICBM.