AngelLestat

That is why they have a trunk, to put all bags, then I guess they are allow it to travel with a hand bag.. to put your notebook, papers, toothbrush or make up for girls. They already have the LED screens to watch a movie or series in the way up, but I dint see the bathroom yet, if it does not have a door, then I will never fly there. Seriously speaking, how they move things from the trunk to the ISS? Also not sure if spacex will design a special space suit for dragon 2 or it will use NASA spacesuits. i would not surprise if the first happens, Elon always try to move ahead and leave the old tech behind. 2 days ago he was in the stephen colbert show, the interview is funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LaXSXjMxWM

only lacks a stewardess to match the luxury. Dragonv2 = first class soyuz= as stowaways

This might hit hard in the Solar cell field. They made a semitransparent perovskite solar cells with graphene electrodes, this double the efficiency reached before by semetransparent solar cells, it also reduce the cost by half. May be this the first graphene base product to be sold at large scale? It can absorb light from both sides, it will be cheap to produce due the materials used and by the reason it can be manufacture in rolls with vapor deposition. Taking into account that is semetransparent, flexible and light weight (plus cheap), it will be no hard to find it uses. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150908103652.htm Something that I am not sure how to understand is this: "The power conversion efficiencies (PCEs) of this novel invention are around 12% when they are illuminated from Fluorine-doped Tin Oxide bottom electrodes (FTO) or the graphene top electrodes, compared with 7% of conventional semitransparent solar cells. " When is illuminated from flourine?? The production cost might be low as $0.05 by watt, which give us $50 by kw, and $5000 by megawatt (production cost, once the factories are ready for this).

Nice, I dont saw it the first time I saw the video. It happens too fast.

The only thing clear that I have from that study is: "we still dont have any clue" We are far to know how magnetic fields act and form in stars, then knowing the interaction between 2 (very close) stars it makes everything a lot more complex, besides not all stars are equal, for an equal size we might see very different magnetic behaviors. Then in case there is a force that slow down both stars, they said long term... in cosmology that usually means billions of years, and only in very close systems. So I guess this is more a guest or assumption from something that they still not understand.

I hope nobody died, not sure how populated the area was.

A missing link can be called when you need a bit more of evidence to relate some species with other in a timeframe. But this was used for religion as an excuse to reject evolution, which is funny, because we already found hundreds of "misssing links". you may have bones from 5 millions hominid, then bones from 1 millions back homind, after some time you find a 4 millions back homind, then a 3 millions back homind, then a 3.5 millions back homind ("the missing link" between 4 and 3), and then the process continues. Is not even sure where we can called a different species or not, because we dont know if the 4 billions "specimen found" would be able to procreate a not sterile child" with a 3 billion specimen found. So they may still count as the same species. We were able to procreate with the neanderthals after all.

Yeah that was my point.

This thing can do it, not sure how less would be the rotation by scaling up, to avoid high G on the pilot. But remember that you also have your body weight to help in the balance, we could not handle a real bike if we were a fixed weight. So always keep that in mind, in this case, this vehicle has a dynamic weight controled by our brain to help in the balance. Not with the 2 in board parachutes deploy, in the video they also show how to keep it straight with 2 engines, and the extra parachutes can help in that matter. But even if you have low chances.. what are the odds to have 2 engines failure? We are also assuming that is hybrid and a lot of other things. A normal full tank of gasoline will give us 30 or 40 min of fly (depending the passagers weight), if we get ride of the ICE engine and we use pure battery, our range decrease to 10 or 15 min. But the ICE engine setup also needs a battery, so provide only 2 min of range with battery it does not change much the weight ratio. If that happens is because the system is not well designed. A 747 may have several circuits and CPUs failures and it will keep working fine. But if you want to find the exact parameters to something crash, you will find it in any vehicle as your autogyro. We are in the self machine learning age, you make a software simulation, and you train your algoritm there, then you do it with the right scale prototype in a safe place with nets to avoid damage, after a year of test, it will learn the best way to solve all kind of failures. It does not have more inputs and outputs than this: They also sell this new neural networks chips that consume miliwatts, and they can recoignize places or help with the quadcopter handle. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/193532-darpas-new-autonomous-quadcopter-is-powered-by-a-brain-like-neuromorphic-chip With that mentality dont go out from your house, you can trip over and hit your head with something hard and die. The thing you said can only happen flying in a forest, in that case you are flying low enoght to survive. The rotors has security nets to avoid big objects to fall into. Helicopters, airplanes, autogyros.. None of them are very good flying in adverse wind conditions or with stalls. This is not the case for quadcopters. So yeah, they all have pros and cons. But I guess we said enoght to allow this technology a chance dont you think? Regulations will handle that this thing do not go out until all safety concern are prove it. The problem with the static line, that your parachute go out from your backpack in a forced thin line until reach the cord range, and then the wind needs to inflate the parachute using a very small area from that thin line. This is used to jump from airplanes, because if your parachute inflate too fast (at airplane speed) it may tear apart or produce high G forces on you. There are other methods to push the parachute from your backpack without reducing the area that helps in the inflation. But as I said, my idea of inflated blooms can solve that. But according to you that is a lot more ineficient from the energy perspective.But looks cool.

We know that is not a trully spoon, just a particular shape made by erosion and different layer materials. But the resemble is amazing. Looks 3d printing, more taking into account that seems to float due how thin is its joint. I remember all the older formation ilusions found on mars, like the "Face", but they was not even close and its natural formation origin was too obvious.

I know, but not 10% of survival for 50 mts as you said.. maybe that value is for normal parachutes that are not designed for that work. Lets imagine that we are at 75 mts a) 1 electric engine failure: it keeps flying with 3 engines, your body helps to balance until reach the ground. 2 electric mirror engines failure: It keeps flying with 2 engines, activate the 2 parachutes which give you more time to the deployment, it goes down with the 2 engines and 2 parachutes. c) generator engine failure: it goes down with the 2 min battery d) out of control (turn over): activate each parachute depending the tilt angle at each precise time, the parachute in your back can be frequency signal activated. Static line deployment is not so fast either, there are parachutes which open faster without that. There are some options, a) the engines turn them straight again, if that is not working the vehicle parachutes activate first, then short moments after your parachute activates, the first parachutes will give you enoght separation for your main parachute. By the way.. why it will deflate? Ok, sorry, I dint read "positive relative to the airflow" in the first question.

is a shame that after hours and hours you still dont get it. This thing can go wherever it wants, and unload-load cargo wherever it wants. Of course if the surface is kinda flat helps. The process is a lot faster. - - - Updated - - - There is also a 250 tons version and a 500 tons versions, but the first to come out will be the 66 tons of course.

I already did a topic about this here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/114457-Towards-the-most-efficient-freight-vehicle They already left the prototype step, now the commercial design began. They are hiring. But someone should try to prove than hydrogen airships can be very safe with a not flamable envelope, only then these vehicles will become super cost efficient.

In the nasa picture we can see the shadow of the vehicle, enoght to give us a sense of scale, is how I said in the begining, it has the same scale than a woden spoon used to cook. http://img1.foodservicewarehouse.com/Prd/1900SQ/ThunderGroup_WDSP018.jpg In the other side of the picture we can see another spoon formation but more wider.

We are having a racional discussion or your are in fully negative mode? Because you are not even taking the time to read. I said: Of course this means nothing. We need to use physsics and calculations about the minimun height that a parachute can slow you enoght to survive It does not matter how much experience we have, if you said that you need 200 mts to survive and we can see a lot of cases of people surviving at 50 mts then where is the point? My dad really did skydiving with figures in the sky with the old parachutes, and I just use a paragliding with my uncle. Again, that is the exact thing I am saying here: The bike can be software prepare to fly at very low altitude or high altitude, reducing to the minimun the amount of time you spend between, then it can choose depending the failure, the most correct way to save you, using engines or parachute. at what you answer was: Meaning that you dond read. Nobody is so fool to claim that you will be save at low altitude deployment, because if someone dies they can denounce the company who made the parachute. And not real site or important source will mention the possibility either. Because someone can try it and if goes wrong they will said, ohh I read it here.. This is not a good source, but well: http://askville.amazon.com/minimum-height-parachute-open-properly-land-safely-floor-building/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=259642 Some records: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/KristinaArthurs.shtml This parachute is very small, so it needs lower deployment time, but what if we can reduce the deployment (inflation) time? http://www.altusuas.com/#!parachute/c1kfn So the answer for a emergency parachute is how to eject/launch the parachute and how to inflate the canopy once is ejected fast enoght? There are many ballistic parachutes who solve the first issue. But I guess I need to help to solve the second. If we have a cilinder with compress air below, is enoght to shoot the parachute out and fast, then at the moment it start to go out, a second small pressure vessel in the top of the parachute inflate blooms that go out from the canopy center to the edges (cords support), this force the parachute to instant deploy instead wait that the wind do the job. This also prevents air currents folding the parachute when is not fully inflated. With this system it will be almost possible to have the same deploy time watched in the video for the small scale parachute. depending how well designed it is. Fully Mechanical activation (or user activation) is not a good idea either. I said that for the aerodynamic shape of the blade, even if you have negative AoA, you produce lift by the aerodynamic shape... not due drag. And all this is the same thing I said with the first commnet, if you understand a different thing not sure why we need to continue with this discussion, helicopters with negative pitch can also glide.. that is the main point. Ok, then this thing after some years proving if is safe enoght, will be able to fly over cities high enoght.. Also how many helicopters we see landing in the middle of cities or in top of buildings?

It does not seem the case

Ok you are right, ducted fans are more efficiency than not ducted fans for the same blade size.. I remember this fact just now. my dad also practiced skydiving and I did a bit of paragliding.Of course this means nothing. We need to use physsics and calculations about the minimun height that a parachute can slow you enoght to survive, special parachutes designed for base jumping can slow you down in 30m, of course this may not be the case depending the wind, the deployment conditions, etc. There was people who jump from that high without damage. But this is not about to have an equipment that guarantee you safety falling from those heights, this is not a recreational thing to do. This may be an extra measure to save your life when you dont have any other option. So is that or nothing. You choose. The bike can be software prepare to fly at very low altitude or high altitude, reducing to the minimun the amount of time you spend between, then it can choose depending the failure, the most correct way to save you, using engines or parachute. RC helicopters use negative collective pith to glide towards ground increasing the rotor speed, which is extra energy that can be used to slow the descent before touch ground. Yeah I mean that. It would not fly over the city without improvements and a lot of testing, proving if these thing can be safe enoght as an helicopter (which they can fly over cities), it needs also become a lot more popular. What is PR? It looks like a good idea. Why you focus in that? if you are faling and the main rotor can not help you, you will use everything you can. This is not something you will do for fun. The same that nobody crash with their cars on purpose to see if the airbag is enoght to save them.

With the amount of people working in the SLS? 1 year tops. China wants to Build the World's Tallest Building in 90 Days, similar high than burj khalifa but bigger. Lets take the jetfighter case, you know that many of those projects are an excuse than senates or politicians has to collect bribes from the companies selected, and these companies put few people to work and takes longer time to complete the project as an excuse to the amount of money they charge. This happen in everywhere, here in Argentina is very common with all the public works where always the same 3 companies (who owners are figurehead from the same politicians) compete. If you ask someone if they want a robot in mars or their streets fix, of course they will choose their streets.But if you said.. Our country needs to be the first again to show everybody else what are we capable, we need to be the first to put a foot in mars. Everybody will be agree. Is not about exploration, is about pride and inspiration. Nasa never had a plan, they go to senate and said.. this is tricky, here we have a lot of risk, we still do not know how to do this.. etc. That is not a plan. I hear one time in a documentary that if NASA goes with a good plan to the congress about how to send people (not robots) to mars, they will get the full support. As a said.. a reasonable cost.. That is not reasonable, that is an insult. again.. somebody here does not have any clue the amount of money that 1 billion represent and how much you can do with that (or somebody else can do with that). Zubrin said that the amount of money that nasa had to go the moon with the apollo program, was similar (if we compare it with the GDP) to the today budget that NASA has. Today ask NASA to do something, is drop the 80% of the money to the trash.

is hard to explain, for one side mars gravity is lower, so such projections may be more common than on earth. If there was other kind of materials as a wooden stick in mars, it will be easy to explain. The scale seems similar to a wooden spoon used to cocking. Of course I think it has a natural explanation, but the shape is one of the most particular from the others we saw so far.

I dont think that is true. People support helps a lot, manned missions to other planets is the kind of goal that almost everybody supports. The problem that Nasa never even bother to have a plan of how to do it. If nasa goes to the Congress and said.. this is our plan to go to mars, we need "a reasonable amount of money to do it", the congress will said yes. I know that there are still many obstacles for a manned mission to mars, things that Zubrin forgot to mention. But there are all solveable if you are prepared to take some risks. The mission needs to use ISRU and all the tools it can to reduce the overall cost. That is being realistic. No to say: "mmm... but isru may add some risk, also artificial gravity and things that dont have at least 30 years of testing". This kind of mentality is the responsable to do nothing.

To those who saw the zubrin video. He mention many thing that I am tired to mention. There are people who call themself as "realist" (just because they dont have much clue, so if NASA do it in a particular way it must be for a reason), so if NASA said that SLS needs to cost 20 billions and take 13 years to make which is a similar rocket than saturn V from 1965, then people think: "well.. space is expensive, so that is the reason" This reminds me a method used in India to keep an elephant in place without build a super wall (as they should), from the moment they are little, they are tied with a rope to a pole nailed in the ground, at that age they dont have the strenght needed to remove the pole, they grow up knowing that and when they are adult do not even try. And this is what the new NASA policy (vs the old one) seed in the new generation "dont try because it can not be done". Nasa today makes things just to spend money instead set a goal and find the most cost efficient way to achieve it. That is why Elon Musk can do things at 1/10 of the cost in less time than Nasa (as zubrin said). As zubrin said: "1 billion is a lot of money in the real word", due this, people already lost the yardstick about what can be the real space cost. THe ones who vote "Things will go as planned" ask themself why so many vote for "Nasa is dead" If after Orion capsule (who was build it without a goal, it has nothing new and they already spent several billions), James Webb Telescope, SLS (with its 4.5 billions by launch) and many other programs which was cancelled, the real question is why they think "all go as planned".

It had been good to show this video in my Singularity topic, there are many people who commit the same mistake of ignore the consequences of technology due how last predictions failed. My posture is: Ok.. it will happen, and maybe we can not do nothing to stop it, but lets not be so naive in our last steps as human beings.

OF course you will not build it tomorrow !! And launch it the next week. We really need to clarify that? I dont think so, I said that if we started now with the design and is in capable hands as Elon Musk, then you can do it in 6 or 7 years. What it starts now is the design, you dont need to wait for new tech or theories to do it. You dint read me? I said every kind of missions, maybe for mars you need 80 tons, but for a not manned mission to Titan you need just 5 tons, that will be like a 25% less dry mass. Normal missions to Titan may take a lot of years, you may do this one at 1/10 of the time or less (because you are in constant acceleration) The claims that the engine works? That it has that amout of ISP? The step to provide and design the power energy will not depend on them, they already did the engine. So they said, now is up to you to improve the power generation in space. They are being very proffesional and carefull with all their claims and words. So not sure why you trash them? Also they are not saying that you can not go mars with chemical rockets or nuclear thermal, they just are saying that if you care about the radiation doze and trip times to mars, then the only tech with the potential to solve that is vasirm (for now) Again you are making wrong assumptions, forget about the reactor weight, you need to think in the overall density of the whole ship. The reactor is just a 3% or 10 % (depending the design) of the ship mass. And to have sense it needs to be below to 4kg/kw. If you have a particular concern about some part of the ship that might be impossible to solve or meet the requirements, then said it. If you dont.. then is possible, and only depends on the will of goverments to do it. People tend to forget the apollo missions, what they accomplish and in what year, that compared to this was even harder. THe new NASA policy and way to do things, infect the minds of many thinking that now things are impossible to do.

Not sure in the case of ducted fans, they tend to be very efficient. Yeah that is what I wanted to said when I mention hybrid.But something hard to imagine would be 4 gasoline motors. If later the the fuel cell tech highly improve in density and cost, it will be perfect for this. Parachutes are useless under 50 mts. First these are explosive parachutes, there are parachutes that are especially designed to fast opening. But as K2 said, you may have other methods to land if the computer detect that you are at low altitude. A parachute at low altitude may not save you, but it may reduce your speed to half, enoght to surive. It would not generate lift by drag.. but it will generate lift by the aerodynamic blade shape. Maybe the tail rotor as it spins very close to the lift blades, it may produce at air current which makes the main blades to spin. You should not forget that laws also involve, if this thing show to be safe enoght, it can have a certificate as exception. Some time back, I was discussing in this forum about combine airships with quadcopters to manage all mail in the cities, but people told me that it was impossible, that the FAA rules will never alow it, I said that rules will follow the needs always that it will be prove it safe enoght. Only 3 months later, the FAA change their rules to alow and give certifacates to commercial use of auto piloted drones in cities. Yeah the battery does not need to be big, just enoght to support 2 minutes of flight. You also have your same weight as a way to balance. So 3 rotors can work.

Ok, first I want to finish with this autorotation discussion. You are right about that mostly all real helicopters does not have negative collective pitch and is not needed to have autorotation. Also many autogyro, or stunt helicopters or almost all RC helicopters has negative collective pitch as we see in this picture: And is used to improve the autorotation, as we can see in all these links: http://www.com-pany.com/MasTechAutos.pdf "While there are many variables that produce optimum results during an auto, such as the amount of negative pitch. I recommend that you initially set your pitch at 2-3 degrees negative at full low stick. As you enter the descent, hold the throttle at full low position all the way down, right through the flare. Ideally at a later time you will increase the negative thereby offering you greater flexibility during the descent." "Immediately after the flare, the landing is performed by moving the pitch from negative to positive pitch. At this time whatever forward speed that remains afte the flare, must be halted prior to the actual touch down. Keep in mind that if you executed the entry, descent and flare correctly you should have plenty of rotor speed for the collective to stop the machine and perform the landing." http://www.helibuf.com/autorotation.htm "The helicopter for are example will have the normal pitch settings at a -2 degrees to a +8 degrees and will hover at + 5 degrees of pitch. For the most part the helicopter will do autorotation's at a -4 degrees to a +8 degrees. You need the extra negative pitch so that on a decent you can keep the blades spinning. This -4 degrees is just an initial starting point, we will adjust the pitch later, but this will keep you out of trouble at first." But as this rudimentery video test show, we can have autorotation with 0 pitch or a bit positive as you show, but it higly depends on the RPM, if your rotor is not spining faster or you delay a bit to lower the pitch (in a engine failure), then is possible that you would not be able to start autorotation without negative collective pitch. That is why (I guess) in the wikipedia was mention (now is gone XD) that new helicopters should have as safety measure able to do negative pitch. (I dont remember the exact words" Yeah I see it. But the most important is the outer area of the blades (higher distance to the rotor), because that part is the one that produce almost all the lift and drag. So even a bit negative angle in that position, may have a great influence. It said page not found. heh, lets see if it last. You checked the source [5] before change it? Maybe he had proves about that, but yeah, is not the general case. Yeah but I was not talking about body pitch, neither my links. No, I saw the manuals and pictures you show about aerodynamics. The resultant force seems to have a tiny tiny component forward which may keep the blades rotating, now not sure if this can be achieve it at any body pitch (angle of descent).