AngelLestat

Incredible that Bridenstine have choose Spacex to start to complaint about delays instead of all the other NASA projects. In his defense, he is on NASA since the end of 2017, so not much to blame him, but still... bad play. Hearing that make my day. I would like to know the ignition choice for those thrusters, sparks or laser ignition? I read in a paper than laser ignition could be 99.98% accurate and 5 to 10 ms in delay. I wish as you have said, that the main tanks could refill the pressure vessels for the control thrusters, it does not seem complicate, just a bit of electrical heat and stop in the desired pressure. I would avoid the thermal cycle to generate power, PV is always cheaper, weight efficient and less problematic, that particular thermal cycle does not seem very efficient either. In any case they can include a fuel cell as backup. Because they need to land on earth, you get flow separation at sea level with such big bell, additionally the engine gimbals should be more powerful to move such heavy bell. Besides, once they are in orbit, they can use just the vacuum engines, they dont lost ISP. Well, those where my 2 cents on the presentation. I cant wait for the upcoming months, it would be epic.

Yeah, is hard for me to understand the point of those who like the lego approach in comparison to the liberty and performance of simplerockets. What if you want to include a new fuel type? you need 30 more tank parts? This also mean more development work for each new thing developers wants to include or parameters they want to change, in a procedural approach you just change an equation, in a lego approach you need to change the parameters of each individual part. I know that many people agree with you, but personally, I can't stand it. I like to design and test things with full liberty, it makes me feel good to design something that "maybe" it could have work in the real world, at least in concept. it was the main reason why stop playing KSP years ago, even with mods trying to approach the procedural method. Relax, something tells me that they would keep the Lego approach

I only hope a good builder method without the need to deal with several hundreds of parts. That should be the main concern in a building game. Why we need like 30 tank shapes and not even that is enough because it limits a lot our creativity and possibilities? Why we need different wing parts? or decouplers, or aerodynamic cones, etc. Without a procedural part approach means: 1-wasting time searching a part between hundreds and would not be the right thing we need. 2-extra memory requirement (performing issues) to deal with all possible parts, one texture and object file for each one instead scaling or changing texture. 3-It limits our creativity and possibilities 4-Our creations look uglier, like frankenstein. So I wish they try for KSP2 an approach more similar to simplerockets 2. Procedural tanks and shapes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhLlrS4-1wU Procedural Engines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71jG9LLmObg Procedural landing gears https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wct2x00pBeI Some examples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVm8J03PpYc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQcvZVmtnug Without at least scale, texture and shape selection for parts, I would not bother to waste a minute of my time in the next KSP2.

If they don't implement a more procedural part approach like simplerockets 2, I would not even try it. I hate the hundreds of parts that limits your creativity, increase your search time, creations that look uglier and unrealistic and crash your PC from lack of memory. What is the point to have 30 tanks shapes?? or many wing shapes? That was the main reason I stop playing KSP.

It does not matter how shinny they made this new version... If they don't implement a more procedural part approach like simplerockets 2, I would not even try it. I hate the hundreds of parts that limits your creativity, increase your search time, creations that look uglier and unrealistic and crash your PC from lack of memory. What is the point to have 30 tanks shapes?? or many wing shapes? The only thing I ask is to solve that core error from the first version which was the key reason I stop playing KSP.

Also.. moon is not good for refuel and go.. because you waste almost the same dv to leave the moon than to leave low orbit, so a captured ice asteroid in low orbit would be way more usefull in that matter.

Hi everyone, it has been a long time since the last time I check your comments, I saw the news today and I imagine that you might have a good discussion going on here, after reading all your comments I decided to jump on to talk of some details that may not have being mentioned yet. For start, I really like way more this new design that the last, way more realistic and practical as many of you mention. I imagine what it can done a vehicle like this for the space business or exploration. How cheaper could have been the JWTelescope if would not need to be folded between other things. Of course, they still need a big design, not because mars require it.. because it could not be fully reusable if does not reach to that minimum size. For example the heatshield mass which depend on the surface but it becomes negligible to respect the volume (amount of fuel), but it seems that even considering that, they are way on margin with respect to mars reentry (that animation is the thing that I enjoy most), we also have to take into account that it returns almost empty, otherwise the volume/surface ratio "density" would be an issue instead a benefit. I like the idea to change all efforts to this vehicle instead continue developing the falcon9, although this will remain operational for a long time. One things that was kinda crazy was the idea to use this vehicle as a faster transport between cities on earth. Like many of you mention.. even if they manage to solve the launch and reentry vibrations, I doubt they can solve the g-forces in a confort way for normal people, but it may be an audience in search of adrenaline. There is a bigger issue with this idea.. sonic boom and sound pollution like we can see in this video: The sonic boom is originated way far above, maybe at 5 km of height, so is not an issue of the cameraman proximity, so the launch facility should be way far from any city, and if it take you at least 1 hour to reach the launch site and 1 hour in destination, then the 35min of travel lost meaning. But I guess this vehicle does not depend on this local application to achieve profits. PD: I like how they solve the docking and refuel system between other things. Also.. it would be a second stage variant to sent expendable missions to the outer planets or venus?

I guess these are 2 or 3 different pictures merged in one... I cant imagine other way to do it.

I dont see the damage in the first picture.. the white and black points follow a pattern which means is not natural damage. About the second picture yeah, is clear that it had a rough trip, but just seems superficial. We know that after reentry, it ignite and land. The fire test will clear up some doubts.

English is not my main language, but I guess he is saying that the max damage than a recovery booster could receive was under these circumstances, so if this booster works in the firing tests, it means than the other are more than ok. So he is not confirming that this booster wouldl be disqualify. Maybe it will be, but he is not saying that.

I guess a tug should be light, low thrust with high isp. If they are manned, the thrust should be much higher than today ion engines but no so much like many merlin engines. So even if you adapt these second stages to fulfill this role, I don't see much benefits vs launch a special tug to fulfil that purpose. Yeah, you save the deorbit fuel that can be used in solar panels but does not seems enough. But I give you a point for the idea.

I guess when we think in energy, we should always had in mind its source and the cost, for example: Source SUN (Fusion) 1-Solar (electromagnetic) 2-Wind (kinetic) 3-Hydropower (gravity potential) 4-Sea Waves or currents (kinetic) 5-Fossil fuels (chemical storage) Source Moon´s gravity. 1-Tidal power (kinetic) Source Geothermal (50 to 90 % Radioactive decay, rest remaining heat from earth creation and a small % of tidal heat) 1-Geothermal Energy Source Nuclear (hard to classify) 1- RTG 2- Fission 3- Fusion (future) Then to exploit those we always have a cost associated, for example we can travel around the world with "solar impulse 2 plane" in something that we might call "perpetual motion" (of course is not), but it require a lot of money, based on the amount of work needed (that is also related to energy). I never try to defeat thermodynamics, but there are times when you don't know exactly if the extra efficiency you looking to achieve is against some rule or not. This is an energy scheme that I wanted to exploit (the image is not complete): The goal: try to improve the efficiency of wind energy with chemical storage and other energy sources. 1- Extra heat energy from black smokers to improve the efficiency of electrolysis (above 100% measured from the electrical input) 2- Extra efficiency in work with high pressure electrolysis (this is only related to limitations of our current electrolysis tech methods, not due physics rules, gravity is a conservative field) 3- Don't waste the gravity potential that we can get rising the hydrogen. 4- Extra energy from waves that you need to absorb to reduce the movement of your floating base. 5- Instead normal wind turbines, remplace them with high altitude kites (kitegen style), which it will increase the capacity factor and reduce floating structure. 6- Make the kite rope conductive using CNT so you can harvester the atmosphere electrostatic and lightnings, which can all help to increase the voltage and heat to produce extra hydrogen. 7- Extra fishing and co2 capture due the amount of nutrients you can get rising all that cold water with the option C. The bigger problem is the maintenance cost, I guess there is no material that can resist all that for so long. Also the cost to purify water, in case you don't want to separate and mine all extra elements from the water, but if you use a black smoker in the first place, mine those minerals has total sense.

I guess your idea was something similar to exploit the change of buoyancy you get when you compress the lifting gas, but that energy of course is the same you get from the potential energy gain. But is not about the atmosphere pressure gradient.. is about density (they are related, but buoyancy is all about density) http://www.hp-gramatke.net/pmm_physics/english/page0550.htm

I think that by the end of 2014 could be completed the first track (city to city), with 6 years of development and 2 or 3 for construction. I dont know much about all different approaches, but this seems fit for its purpose very nice and cheap enough (not sure why other companies did not took advantage of eddy currents way before): They can even solve the curve accelerations issues just adding more aluminum in that side of the curve (so acceleration for the passengers always point down), the cost of aluminum is important, but no so much compared to the tube or other kind of alternatives. It does not seem like a source, also not sure what are the similarities with hyperloop.. more details please.

what about the merlin engine from spacex? Or is included in other mod? I will like many engines to be included so I dont need to install a huge mod like KW rocketry or Nova.

As I explain in the past, there is a better economic strategic behind price reduction

Are you ok? seriously I am asking.. because most of your answers are absolutely not related to the quotes. Is scary.. something is wrong there. Your other answers just avoid, ignore, forget and lack of any trace of logic or reason (totally needed to have smart and profitable discussion), which at this point, the remaining esteem that I had of you was evaporated. well, let's conclude this discussion and possible future discussions because I don't see the point if these ends being incoherent.

Ok.. is time you start to recognize your errors because all the things that I correct you, were ignored, so this mean you are not learning from your mistakes. 0.1 atm = 10% earth atmosphere, mars atmosphere = 0.6% earth atmosphere. So this pressure is 17 times higher than mars. The boiling point of water at 35 degrees is half of that. Why you are posting something that I said? I was the one who said that a wobbling will generate heat and a possible magnetic field due tidal heating... But as I said before, in the earth case is radioactive decay the main source of heating. Much of the heat is created by decay of naturally radioactive elements. An estimated 45 to 90 percent of the heat escaping from the Earth originates from radioactive decay of elements mainly located in the mantle.[4][8][9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient ?? you dont need highly eccentric orbits.. the orbit period may have few days, also you can have a perfect eccentric orbit with tidal lock like Io and still generates a lot of tidal heating due the other jupiter moons. So a natural sattelite, other planets, etc.. everything can provide tidal heating. As I said before.. try to spent more time finding circumstances where it works instead pointing the only special case where that could not work. Ok.. this is BS? I expect an apology then: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems "the violent flaring period of a red dwarf's lifecyle is estimated to only last roughly the first 1.2 billion years of its existence." Earth has 4.5 billions years. lol.. excuse me.. you was trying to convince us that tidal lock planet could start to rotate again due your volatile theory, you also want to prove that there is no chance of life in other type of planets that are slightly different than earth. Meanwhile I saying that it may be different conditions were life as we know it could develop. What claim is more crazy? more taking into account that I prove with reason and logic all the points that I made, but I correct many points you made. haha.. the only hype here is your posture. The earth would have 30 degrees less if did not have a greenhouse effect, if you add the venus albedo due sulfate aerosols or stratus clouds at high altitude the earth would receive 40% less sunlight, so you need to reduce that temperature way more.. so the habitable zone means nothing. Haha.. Now the only way you have to reject my arguments is asking me for direct evidence which you know our technology can not provide yet. Bravo well done!

well I could not see it for the hour, but OMG, we can see how spacex are perfected themselves in matter of weeks... How much we need to wait to see the same thing in other companies? I guess track the progress of spacex never will become boring, their are always pushing their limits and tech all the time.

what I treasure most is the truth.. I don't like to maintain a wrong idea; or worst, spread it. the benefit of having many engines is that you reduce manufacture cost due quantity.. is also easier to design different launchers or stages changing the numbers of engines and in case one or two fails, you can still achieve your goal. ---------------------------------------------------------- Well, only 1:45 hrs left to launch... but I need to go to sleep, work tomorrow

I didn't mention venus in my last reply.. so not sure what are you talking about. I said 0.1 atm.. which is different than 0.01 atm, time to use glasses 1-you dont really need planet rotation to produce a magnetic field, it helps due coriolis effect (but this is secundary). Magnetic fields are mostly created due heat convection, heat due radiative decay (mostly from the internal core where most heavy elements are) is transferred to the melted conductive layer (which it moves super slowly), this conductive layer gets cooled due higher layers which eventually release that heat in the planet surface. This produce a magnetic field which induce and helps to maintain this dynamo effect. In addition a tidal locking planet rotates at the same period of its orbit, and if we are talking about a red or brown dwarf then that rotation is fast, more talking into account that you can be closer than normal planets and still have a good template zone in the planet. If your planet is not totally tidal lock (this mean that it has a wobble), then you get tidal heating which can increase the magnetic field. 2- only when the red star is in its infancy, after some billions its flare tendency is highly reduced. 3- This is not the same than your reason 2? even if it flares, there are many reasons why life could go on: 1) Life can evolve to survive that 2) you have always half of the planet shielded (or life under water) 3) you can have a strong magnetic field or you can have a thick atmosphere. Last.. no sure why you mention so much red dwarf.. a tidal locking planet can also be in a normal star like the sun. This depend on many parameters.. its gravity, its magnetic field, the amount of atmosphere (maybe is a good thing for some planets), or the case that the planet orbit moved or was captured later on. Another factor.. the closer a planet is from its star, less frequent and stronger are their flares. (because is harder to hit it) not sure if normal solar wind has a major effect than solar flares, but well if venus would have a magnetic field this could be a different story.. about how venus lose it, all points to its lack of convective heat flow, that it seems is caused due its greenhouse and mostly its apparent lack of tectonic plates (which account for the 60% of heat lost in earth). drawing the "habitable zone".. and the size of that habitable zone was defined by the most closed-minded scientists, who think that earth atmosphere is the only kind of atmosphere in the universe. The atmosphere together with other parameters is the most important feature to decide the environment condition and temperature that the planet has. You can have a planet at jupiter distance and still support life as we know it. my chemistry level is super basic. But venus is losing atmosphere all the time, but it is in certain equilibrium because comets, volcanism and space dust restore the water levels. You know.. you are taking the anthropological approach.. like earth center of the universe, in which everything on earth is a perfect combination of causes that if one fails, then life would not be possible. This perspective is always searching the pretext to prove that something cant work, this blind the researcher who usually ignore all the other possibilities with new parameters in which all those issues are solved in a different way. I remember your first comments in the forum, they were less accurate in many ways.. now I read you in most of the cosmology or high end physics topics and I can not follow you of how much you improve. So now you understand most of the basic physics rules.. why instead search the conditions in which something will fail.. you don't try to imagine the special conditions in which something could work, for this you need to embrace your creativity and push your abilities without limiting your self. Start now.. tell me what parameters and conditions you will give to a tidal locking celestial body in a red dwarf system which periapsis is enough to heat the earth surface at 100c, it should sustain life as we know it. That question gives you enough room to play with many possibilities. PD: By the way.. from the whole quote you did from my comment, your answer was cero related XD I guess you was answering an old comment mine but you quote the new one.

ok, it is true, Facon Heavy center core is more robust than the other two, it does not give much detail but spacex will limit production to 2 types of cores. "Falcon Heavy is two different cores — the inner core and the two side sticks,” Shotwell said. “The new Falcon 9 will basically be a Falcon Heavy side booster. So we’re building [only two different] cores to make sure we don’t have a bunch of configurations around the factory so we can streamline operations and hit a launch cadence of one or two a month from every launch site we have." http://spacenews.com/spacex-aims-to-debut-new-version-of-falcon-9-this-summer/ Well I was wrong on one single core to rule them all. Yeah, due lox density 1200kg/m3 and taking into account that the stage is 44 m tall, (lets rise the fuel 30 meters) at 4g it will be close to 15 bar (with 0 flow), so we need more than that. I guess the tank pressure is much higher, but still not sure what we gain lifting the oxidant or fuel to the center core tank, if we can just feed the bottom connection before distribute that fuel to the engines. In fact you dont even need different helium tanks, because those helium tanks are designed to keep the pressure constant even when the tanks are empty, the only that changes is that you need to release that helium 50% faster. We can even let the center core tanks valves open with the center helium tank close, and you will consume the fuel of the other 2 boosters, but I think it will be more simple with the center core valve closed.

not sure in what exactly certain conditions that might happen, that study only talks about erotion, no sure how tidal locking planets increase rains, and that depends on many other variables. If you have seas in places where it rains.. erotion stop. If you have life, this can also prevent erotion. The evidence you requested: https://astrobites.org/2014/11/07/habitability-still-a-go-on-tidally-locked-terrestrial-exoplanets/ http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/629.full.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems#Tidal_effects They find that atmospheres with 0.1 atm are enough to transfer heat to the dark side without a big difference in temperature, oceans are also great for this, because they can trap a lot more heat to counter their low speed. Clouds can also prevent the heat to leave the dark side. Tidal world planets will be the most common place to find life for many reasons.. 1- we have more chance to discover close planets to small or big stars, these planets had a lot of chance to be tidal lock. 2-even if this planet has places where life is not possible, they had more chance to have a medium range where conditions are ok for life, if your planet rotates then is more possible to have similar temperature in all its places.. this can be the wrong temperature. If you include other factors like magnetic field, planet albedo, co2, water, pressure, you can have many different cases where the gravity and distance to the star will not matter much.

yeah, and they place that on top because it gives more stability to the rocket. really? you hear Elon or someone else in spacex saying that they give up on crossfeed? When they give up in reuse the second stage they say it. I guess the most likely is that they have other priorities now.

PB666, try to not spread in different discussions, because I will be not able to find time to answer. So you change the definition of tidal locked planets then. Ok.. so in your definition a tidal locked planets does not have atmosphere? Or the atmosphere is the one that should be tidal locked? even when is a fluid and that is impossible? no.. that only happens at 130 to 160 km height, at that height the pressure is so low that is harder to call it an atmosphere, so the temperature of few particles up there means nothing to any conclusion you want to reach, the difference start at 130 with few degrees of difference and at 160km you have 70 degrees. But again.. if harder to define temperature and expect this will behave with the models when you have only few particles. No.. Those 17w/m2 is the amount that is absorbed by the ground, the top clouds absorb 146w/m2, the rest 490 is all reflected due sulphuric acid. The real thermal flux that balance venus temperature is the layer at 60 to 100 km, you can see how the wind gradient start to rise by a lot after that point. So not sure why you want to explain with your ground theories. That place is of course hot due the greenhouse effect, but this is not a source of energy that produce work (moving hot fluid from one place to the other). So your theory (and only apply to planets with almost vacuum) said that all planets should start rotation due this effect? so tidal locked planets should not exist? Also the amount of material in on the planet surface is nothing compared to the whole planet mass, the planet shape or different minerals concentrations deep in the planet might have a stronger effect. And if you have a lot of fluids elements, then you have an atmosphere, and that atmosphere will start rotation (in most of the cases). I dont understand your question.. why mercury does not have an atmosphere? what other planets? These winds continue over the night side meanwhile the thermal gradient that produce the pressure gradient continues.. yeah these winds lose heat, so they sink, but lower winds are also losing heat, so they keep their thermal gradient, so you get something like this: You are trying to explain a theory you have including very complex effect that happen in the earth, that are related to also thousands of other variables, which does not help in this discussion. Try to resume and simplify concepts, the science is not above examine a complex system and try to explain it with the first theory.. no.. you need to break that problem in the root of the basic principles, and start to study those principles segregated from all the other variables. So going back to your theory.. a vacuum planet that is tidal locked, receives heat in one of its sides, then water and other elements become gas and travel due pressure gradient to the other side of the planet, so they gather mass there.. so in your theory this is enough to start the rotation until all that mass in the dark side enters receive light due rotation, so then for some reason this increase the rotation momentum because the process is repeated until some gases are lose due solar wind (because the planet does not have magnetic field, or because is not big enough or because is very close to the sun...) But that effect is so complex that we can not even guarantee that it will behave like that. Because depending the conditions and elements may behave different, or maybe all these elements condence in the limit between light and dark, so the rotation does not start because is balance.. i dont know. I made a question and after hundreds of words in your reply, you did not answer the simple question. I ask you details on pressure, distance, gravity, magnetic field, oceans, etc.. and you still dont give me any, because for you all those things are not related. If that happens in a tidal locked planet, wind and oceans may transport heat so efficient that it may counter the whole effect, depends on the case.. In the antartica case, is on the poles and the planet already has a rotation that produce coriolis effects, of course in winter you get more mass in one pole and then is reverse in summer. This proves your theory? noo.. or I will like to hear how this proves your theory. if it will be further from the sun you will have the snowball effect.. that already happen in the earth. but again.. what this has to do with your theory? your second example is also obvious and is not related to what I am asking you.. You have a real problem with your attitude.. I enter here to talk to you, if you want to discuss this with nobody.. be my guess. Oceans move a huge amount of heat, if you have something like laythe at mercury distance, you will have fast ocean currents like a super rotation (similar to the venus picture but with water) that it will keep the dark side at almost the same temperature. Only 5 meters of water absorb more heat that our atmosphere. In fact a normal planet so close without a high albedo would be not able to sustain life if it rotates as the earth.