magnemoe

Saw an YouTube about this

I say visible to UV laser works best, easy to produce and you can run it trough mirrors who don't work for x-rays and above so you can have one laser supporting multiple turrets, not relevant here but very nice on an plane. Still you are just moving an telescope not an gun turret you could even have extended masts As in atmosphere range is not very relevant and assume multiple MW so you cut an hole in the air and you don't want to go to low but if you could make an very efficient IR laser it would make sense.

SpaceX was spectacularly lucky with the Falcon 9 design, having lots of engines, this was pretty rare for liquid fueled engines outside the N1, note that many Soviet engines has multiple nozzles for an turbo pump. They was lucky again as they designed the merlin to be reusable so they could do lots of test burns. Finally they could use the discarded first stages to train for recovery, the cost was just the added hardware for this tests. SpaceX is still the only company who reuses their first stage but this will change soon. But all the others copies falcon 9 first stage, SpaceX just level up first. Now an disposable second stage would make sense if launching starlinks was an priority but its unlikely you would avoid the ship v2 problems. You would probably get more fails as the fuel line design would be the same.

Much larger, more like Starship than falcon 9. Now we don't know how solid its build

And probably an culture thing. Here the driver has problems looking ahead, now adding more carts would improve safety by orders of magnitude like if braking hard. it does not have to be passenger carts.

Now this is very cool, I know lots of the old Apollo ground shots was done with an 30-40 cm telescope on an radar guided mounts for Bofors 40 mm guns. Yes you want to modify it a bit as it was not designed to track supersonic targets leaving and using an transducer as you wanted to track the second stage. Today you could track it by the light I think, simple image processing, probably with an manual override for staging.

in theory you are incorrect. Short plane trips are more dangerous as main danger is takeoff and landing while trains have an pretty constant risk / kilometers traveled. However in practice you are correct as short plane flights mostly exist then its rarely an train option. Yes its some exceptions like inner city airports but you don't use them to an nearby hub, you might use them for an more remote one however.

My guess is that the lines stayed open as the signal cables was cut, but then why did it not close? It might be that closing it because lack of signal during launch is also an failure mode? It also did not look like flight termination system activated, was it turned off? I understand its turned off at some point, it could also be that it did not derivatet enough from light path?

Who is true, but things was going very well at flight 5 and 6, they was able to catch the booster and do soft touchdown with ship after reentry. Had flight 7 went as well as 6 they probably tried to put it up into orbit on flight 8 or 9. Now something I find troubling is how ship started spinning wildly once one vacuum engine went out rater than reducing trust on the other engines and compensating with of the sea level engines.

So they only require one crew and only take up one slot in the scheduling of rail traffic, but an long one US freight trains are seriously long. it also has the benefit that you can divide the train in two easy who make breaking it up easier. You need to adjust power for the locomotives in the center say front is going downhill but center is still uphill

Note that the back superstructure is three stories tall. Also the huge mobile crane behind the harbor crane, I guess the harbor one is not tall enough?

Agree, and you don't wan't to skimp on human safety but an rocket you will not be able to reuse anyway it makes much more sense to make more of it than gold plate it . You want to get it to clear the pad or its an obvious fail. Now It looks like its an construction fail in SS v2

An excellent point of view and i agree with you. Now for planes its also the fact that in many cases also build the tools to build the planes. But UAV even high performance ones like like loyal wingman is significantly cheaper and faster to produce even if an 5th generation fighter plane. Yes it can simply be that the UAV scene is used to working on smaller and cheaper stuff and brings on this culture then making much more advanced stuff. But i would trust people making pretty low performance planes making an fighter jet even if unmanned but this is a bit off topic. Not sure if falcon 9 was an try until it works? Falcon 1 was, and the recovery of falcon 9 was the poster child of this, and that made perfect sense, first stage was waste once separated so lets try to recover it. Have an strong feeling an cooperate or governmental institusjon would not understod this as repeated failure is very bad. While making stuff like Juicero, AI pin or the Skull & Bones and Concord video games who all knew would flop so hard. Or governmental projects like SLS. who made some sense at the start but not now.

Yes, now this would be an mono culture who might be taken out by diseases. Not seeing how it could evolve intelligence in any way. I say you make something like the trees and many creatures on Pandora in the Avatar movies, that feels so created however, someone designed that stuff. You still has to link up continents.

An valid point also 2.4 km/s is lunar escape velocity. On the other hand the moon get plenty of micro metrorite impacts coming in faster and the larger one will kick up fragments to. So yes you can hit stuff on the other side of the moon or in moon orbit but risk is low I say. For nearby stuff it might be an major issue unless you use landing pads. Landing on an grind might work best.

Yes, Uranus is is visible with the naked eye if you have good eyesight. But its very dim and moves slowly so even if described it was seen as an dim star.

Its some sort of weird drider like statue outside our lunch room. Its on a roof in an backyard so it can only been seen from some offices. An serious weird place for an statue, suspect it ended up there after getting rejected from an better position. And not an drider, only 6 legs and some part going down past the hip.

An excellent point, so you need special landing pads or some low powered landing thrushes using cold gas or steam? 2-3, is high 2.3 km/s is moon escape velocity. This will be an increasingly larger problem with more activity on the moon.

That is one solution if you have an landing pad. Also having an wall or putting the landing pad down in an crater would help. For large landers having landing engines high up would help a lot. This would only be used for the last 100 meters an small lander would have to use less efficient engines either slow flow or probably engines who disperse the exhaust fast

It doesn't list the ratio of crashes per flight, but we have a number for miles/kilometres per accident. If we can find the average distance of a flight in those early years, we could make a fairish comparison In 1918 it had been produced over 100.000 planes so it had been millions of landings. I say its also a bit unfair as you had an good chance of surviving an engine out in a WW 1 plane.

Agree, but my thought is that hydrogen only look blue burning is then next to an SRB so shuttle flame looks blue

Yes an 100 year bug. Now its a bit interesting that none thought of arming planes designed to be used in an war, but planes was just 11 years old. Balloons was common for artillery spotting as they was established technology and stay up for hours being tethered and with an phone line down. Planes could do deeper recon like spotting build up of forces in the rear indicating an assault. The first real combat missions of planes was taking out the balloons.

Agree, but Delta heavy also had orange flames It might be an artifact of having the SRB burning next to the hydolox engine making them look blue?

Like peeing on an electric fence I think it would work pretty well. Now this would require grounding so I don't see how it worked with the drone but an conductive liquid would likely short of at least the cheaper ones.

Prefer rockets as they has an chance to become vaporware during launch