RuBisCO

My response to the video: weeeeeee!

My 7900 series works great, AA, filters, all work.

Your going to need to cite this for me to even come close to believe it. B]You get 39 kw per kg of hydrogen (or 39Mw by per tonne) Several problems here 1. Your citing Wikipedia, it is a tertiary source at best, please cite what it cites, a secondary or primary research article. 2. I can't find anywhere on the wiki page where it claims a PEM reaches 95% energy conversion efficiency . This study specifically claims even best case energy conversion efficiencies below 80% Question: how do you get to 20 bars to begin with? Now you need to add in the energy lose of producing ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen, cracking it is going to be a loss, ammonia is highly toxic and the ammonia transport infrastructure would need to be greatly enlarged to handle supplying energy to the transportation sector. Yeah sure, decades down the line, meanwhile batteries are here and now. It can't fly on hydrogen, not without adding huge fuel tanks! Have it fly on bio-petroleum made from algae, such a product can already be made into a mix-in or drop-in replacement for JP-4 and JP-8. You can't make a single fuel for everything, least of all hydrogen would not be that universal fuel. Batteries can take up much of the light vehicle market, which is 50-60% of oil usage. For trucks, trains, planes, etc, there are other, better, alternatives. You don't want me pulling out the spread sheets do you, remember what happened last time I pulled the spread sheets on you? The volume of liquid hydrogen and the tanks required for it would simply not fit in a passenger plane without radical re-design, right now fuel can be pumped into the wings and neutral pressure areas, it reduces weight and volume taken up, because more volume equals more aerodynamic resistance. - - - Updated - - - Lithium Ion batteries regularly have charge-discharge efficiency above 90%. Tesla has claimed plug-to-wheel efficiencies of up to 86%. web.archive.org/web/20071011010258/http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php

Yeah, yeah that works nice, I love you.

Yeah they do work with hydrazine, nice. One weird problem is the pod does not have any electrical, but I think that is some other problem with real fuels or Tac life support that is doing that.

Is there a real fuels configuration for this mod? I wonder why I can't get the New Mk 1-2 thrusters working.

Yeah I could attach them via little docking ports, post launch but I don't want to, I asking if there is away to attach them in the VAB. So far the KAS pipes work well, thanks Tex_NL, but I need to do an eva to attach them all.

Well here is a lander, notice how the decent stage has two parts, outer tanks connected to ascent stage engines and tanks, inner tank and engine connect to lander pods. With the KAS pipes when I decouple the the ascent stage, the descent stage stays intact despite 5 decoupling points and thus 5 parts. Is there a way to do this with struts or regular pipes in VAB?

Is there anyway to attach KAS pipes together before a launch?

Oh the KAS pipes work, I need to attach them after launch though.

Is there a way to modify a strut in config such that it won't detach when two part separate via a coupling. Thus allow for multiple vertical couplings without parts flying apart after decoupling?

Elon musk once said it cost half a million dollars to fuel up a Merlin rocket with RP-1, that is maybe 3-4 $ per kg tops. I calculate liquified natural gas cost $0.6 today, so roughly a savings of $0.4 M, even if the launch were to cost 4 million dollars, 1/15 its present cheapest SpaceX cost, that would be only 10% savings.

I did a search initially and did not see that, my bad

Propane would reducing coking as well and still have density as good as RP-1. I just don't see an engine as powerful as Raptor being used on Mars, just saying it is not likely to ever run off martian methane.

What does that got to do with launching off Earth?

Both SpaceX and now ULA want to build a methane-lox fueled rocket system. Why? The advantages of methane above RP-1 (purified kerosene) is 4% higher ISP, cheaper, vaporizes, self-pressurizing and ability (theoretically) to work in a closed cycle. The disadvantage is that it is cryogenic and that it has nearly half the density of RP-1. The density disadvantage is frankly crippling for launching from the ground. Propane would make a better alternative because it can be sub-cooled to LOX temperatures and have nearly RP-1 density, but with 2% greater ISP, it also vaporizes and could be used to self-pressurize and perhaps even operate in a closed cycle. Disadvantages is that it is heavier then air and without odor would be an extreme fire hazard if leaked. Personally I just don't see the reason to leave RP-1, we have decades of experience and practice with it. References: http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Nowicki/SPBI1LF.HTM

AngelLestat, Have you considered hydrogen's extremely low volumetric energy density, the need for extremely high pressure tanks, with or without exotic absorbers, or worse liquid hydrogen. Energy required to compress hydrogen? Also the energy efficiency of electrolysis is at best ~70% and usually in ~50%, fuel cell efficiency is roughly the same. Lithium Ion on the other hand has charge discharge efficiency in the 90%. Batteries are simply more advanced and require less infrastructure then hydrogen, which would require a whole new economy of production of hydrogen, distribution and fuel cell cars, while electrics require only new cars and charging stations and can operate on the existing grid. If charged off-peak electric would not require much enhancement to the electric grid and in fact electric cars spend most of their time parked and the user could sell back electricity and use the car as a grid storage device. Hydrogen is a pipe dream, a distraction.

This works, its not what I wanted but it seems to get the job done, thanks. /thumbs up

I'm trying tweakable everything, sure now can can change decoupling force on couplers and docking ports, but I still have no menu option for throttling rcs thusters.

Huumm... where?

Is there a mod that allow you to adjust your RCS thrusters and reduce their thrust? Also is is there one that can throttle the SAS system too?

Here a nice video of it "working" http://emdrive.com/DMtest188.wmv IMO this is either a total scam or it really works, I think at this point it can't be some kind of experimental error or thermal expansion.

Perhaps, but here from there webpage they are claiming values as high as hundred of newtons per kw for superconducting models. There lowest model there, the CANNAE Room Temp is producing 86 microN at 50 W which I guess is close. http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf sgt_flyer Certainly. At least months of continuous thrust in a vacuum chamber would need to be proven before a space bound flight.

I just notice this, so forgive me, but they more recent claim of 50 micronewtons in hard vacuum using 50 watts, is 1/100 their claimed 0.1 N per 1 Kw... so what went wrong?

This sounds nice, how do I do this?