Scotius
-
Posts
5,245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Scotius
-
-
4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:
Have we actually made stuff at 0g?
(I tried to imagine how an asteroid miner could process ore... and outside of centrifuges, couldn't.)
Old article... but yes, astronauts made stuff in microgravity:
-
Wow. Perfect coverage of the landing! It's funny how the barge lost signal, while landing rocket did not
-
RoboDog deployed! It's sniffing around the landing pad.
-
I can't wait to see how landing legs look! If nothing broke there, it will be another huge success.
-
Yup, looks like fire is out!!! SN 15 lives!!!
-
Methane leak? And there's still oxygen in the tank
-
1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:
(I do hope SpaceX manages to land this test flight. I'm not anti-SpaceX. It's just so annoying that many SpaceX fans seem to think anything not SpaceX is bad.)
Because it's not much outside of Dragon flying. Starliner is bogged down in technical problems and delays. Orion is in Limbo, waiting for SLS - and even then her flights will be rare. Blue Origin?
JeffWho the heck knows? Maybe they have a flight article ready to unveil, maybe they don't.It's easier to be a SpaceX fan.
-
Most powerful man on Earth could not keep a secret the fact, he was boinking his secretary\assistant\whatever.
I think it says something about human race
We love gossiping too much to keep any secret for long.
-
Not only Nautilus. Albatross of Robur the Conqueror also uses batteries and electric motors to stay aloft for long periods of time. Did Verne ever mention what exactly powers both?
Maybe zero-point energy?
-
Well, so far highest cost of Starship development lies in destroyed Raptors. Rest by bulk is mostly stainless steel - which is dirt cheap comparable to engines. AND reuseable
Ability to build prototypes practically next to launch pad, and not in a full scale high-tech facility (unlike New Glenn), indicates that the process is not particularly hard and expensive.
-
15 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:
Has there ever been in-orbit refueling of anything on the scale of what's needed?
Progresses semi-regularly top-up fuel tank on ISS (in Zvezda module). Station needs regular orbit-raising boosts, plus there's always the possibility of a collision risk requiring a change of orbit. Generally station needs 7 tons of fuel per year for those tasks.
Not sure if it counts as large scale refueling, but it is being done regularly.
-
13 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
I agree with all of the above.
My point is that they now have a similar OML to the regular starship, which would suggest commonality, but there is none.
I will point out, however, that they still need to actuate in the first place. They can't launch deployed like that -- the aero loads would be impossible.
One possible solution would be... to launch without any legs
Then send another (regular) Spaceship with legs in the cargo hold, do rendez-vous in LEO, plug legs into Lunar Spaceship using spacewalk or a robotic arm and be on your merry way
-
40 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
We've got new legs!
And they look remarkably similar in shape to the ones shown in the most recent #dearMoon renders.
But...but there's no way SpaceX would put a seam in their heat shield! Would they? Could they? And even if they did, surely the heat shield wouldn't contact the ground directly!
I'm convinced that they are just spitballing at this point. Those new legs don't have any actual actuation path.
Lunar. Spaceship.
If it stays in the vacuum, it doesn't need actuated legs - if they can fold out and stay permanently locked in this position it would be perfectly acceptable.
For the same reason, it doesn't actually need a heatshield - though it might actually need better insulation of the hull than just a sheet of stainless steel.
If i would be designing it, i would strip bare every aerodynamic feature i could get away with, and even shave as much weight as possible from structural frames.
It's not like this ship would have to withstand stress of Earth-to-space launch more than once. Lunar landing and launch? Pfftt.
-
Welp. If anyone starts badmouthing this decision, both NASA and SpaceX can rightfully point at the Congress's fist tightly gripping the strings of the purse.
No monies, no multiple Moon manned modules.
Cheap bastiches.
-
4 hours ago, NFUN said:
I dunno about you guys, but I can
Me too
Provided I'm teleported there at night, when - as everyone knows, Sun is turned off
-
Sure you can have a handheld fusion device. You just need to throw it very, very fast
Behold! Relativistic baseball!
-
You sure it's not Bigfoot's footprint?
-
5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
It will create its own continuum, with time and shenanigans.
And Kraken. Because this is how you summon the Kraken.
-
17 minutes ago, KSK said:
I wonder if sublight warp is what Dr Lentz actually has in mind and the writers of the article got a bit muddled?
The article mentions travel times of years to Proxima Centauri, which could easily mean travelling at close to c but not beyond it.
Essentially, traveling at relativistic speed without time dilation affecting the ship?
But doesn't it decouple time from spacetime continuum we live in?
I'm not sure it is positive for the crew. At least from their perspective, time dilation significantly shortens the boring part of the journey
-
So, while trawling the Internet, i found articles about newest (still theoretical, sadly) development in the field of FTL propulsion:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/uog-btw030921.php
In a nutshell: Dr. Eric Lentz from the University of Groeningen (sp?) developed a theoretical model of classic Alcubierre's Warp Drive that does not require negative energy to work!
Even better - it sidesteps the problem of time paradoxes that tend to crop up every time something tries to travel faster than light
Sadly, it still requires exotic shenanigans in the form of "solitons" - but apparently those at least do not break our current understanding of laws of physics. Energy requirements are still rather... steep (100+ masses of Jupiter for decently sized spaceship... *le facepalm*
).
Fortunately, Dr. Lentz says there are plausible ways to significantly cut those requirements to a more realistic size. "Large fission power plant" realistic.
Could it be a real breakthrough?
Or will it remain just a theoretical curiosity, good only for tormenting space nerds with Possibilities?
-
5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
https://www.interfax.ru/world/758192
The actress and the director of the space movie, to be filmed in ISS, will be sent on September, 20.
The MS-18 commander Oleg Novitsky will return to the Earth together with them in October.
Earlier the chief of the cosmonaut team stated that the then-future expedition will be prolonged due to the movie filming.
Both other members of the MS-18 crew will stay on ISS after that.
I will be super, super angry if first real space movie turns out to be unwatchable dreck filled with Bad Science.
My explosion will be visible from LEO.
-
Now that's a beautiful shot
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Moon became a major source of mineral resources in the future. At least as sort of intermediate stage before full blown asteroid mining. It's closer. It has (still) usable gravity. Due to lack of tectonic activity, whatever elements are present should be relatively shallow. And if we dig in the craters, we can be reasonably sure we'll find goodies asteroids brought with them
-
Be prepared for a contact with an anti-masker?
).
X-37B
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
*eyeroll* Every satellite in orbit can be a potential nuke carrier. Every crewed spacecraft too.
Someone is fearmongering hard.