Jump to content

PakledHostage

Members
  • Posts

    2,142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PakledHostage

  1. A long time ago (but not in a galaxy far away), there was a massive forum glitch that took down the whole KSP forum for about 3 weeks. In the process of restoring it, about 6 months of forum history (as well as everyone's rep count) was lost. But I remember seeing that image of the napkin sketch too... Maybe that post got lost in that great forum purge? (I recently went looking for the Chelyabinsk meteor impact thread, but couldn't find it; I think it too was a victim.)
  2. That sounds about as wishful as my hoping in 1986 that Santa Claus would bring me a G.I. Joe aircraft carrier for Christmas... didn't happen then and ain't gonna happen now.
  3. Maybe this forum will be like Milton Waddums in Office Space and, by some glitch, it'll be forgotten about and thereby remain online?...
  4. That may be how the kilometer was originally defined, but the ratio you give is no longer correct. A nautical mile is now defined as a derived SI unit equalling exactly 1852 metres. The circumference of a perfect sphere where 1 minute of arc is 1 NM would therefore be 40003.2 km.
  5. Arguably, the biggest advances are learning how to live and stay healthy in zero G. A trip to Mars is a 3+ year long mission, round trip. That's longer than anyone's stay aboard the ISS. Simply saying "Hold my beer" and going for it probably isn't the best way to ensure a successful extended mission like that. When it finally happens, the ISS program will have contributed to the success of the first manned mission to Mars.
  6. Since we're being silly, why not a scaled up version of the M.O.O.S.E?
  7. Bringing a piece down in order to study the effects of a couple decades of exposure to the space environment (e.g. thermal cycles, micro-meteorites, etc) isn't a bad idea. If we want to go to Mars, we're going to have to be able to build spacecraft that are resilient to that environment for years without external assistance. That is yet to be done. (This idea has precedent. The older 737 classics were given a hard service life limit after studies of the lap joints revealed irreparable microscopic damage. The studies were done on sections of airframe cut out of aircraft that had been in service for decades.)
  8. "Working Together" was the catchphrase and design program philosophy associated with the 777 development in the early '90s. The first 777 aircraft was christened that as a result. Allan Mulallay is credited with coming up with the philosophy in his role as the Boeing 777 program's director of engineering (and later the program's lead as vice-president and general manager). The "Working Together" program resulted in Boeing working closely with airlines and regulators when they developed the 777.
  9. Yes, that's what I was referencing when I called it that in that video. I guess it is a fairly obvious reference, but I did use it already 11 years ago.
  10. Just as an aside: Watching EveryDayAstronaut's interview with Elon Musk yesterday where he mentions the "Pez" satellite deployment system, did they get that name from my "Figaro" KSP GNSS mod? I made this video 11 years ago: Would be kind of cool if that was the case.
  11. @farmerben, I think Darth is referring to the plug being pulled on KSP2 development. Presumably funding to keep these forums running is tied to somebody's revenues from selling KSP so I too am concerned that, one day, I'll go to check what's new on here and find it's been shut down. But all good things do eventually come to an end. And it has been a good community to participate in. I have been a member since 2011, in the early days of KSP1. I've learned a lot in that time. A stand-out memory is when the Chelyabinsk meteor happened. News of the event was posted on here within seconds of it happening. Over the ensuing hours, information trickled in about how significant it was. By the morning my time, the media was hauling experts from the local planetarium out of bed for interviews and I already knew, listening to the interviews, that those experts were wrong. This forum had it's finger right on the pulse. It was amazing.
  12. There are 5 overseas administrative regions, of which French Guyana is one. According to Wikipedia: Also, I recall that the American justification for funding the Russian space program was to keep the people involved in that program employed in peaceful pursuits after the fall of the Soviet Union, rather than having them all scatter to work for other enemy weapons programs.
  13. This does seem odd. Something is missing from the story.
  14. Those grid fins did seem to be working really hard yesterday morning. I briefly tensed up thinking it was going to lose control again. It recovered, but I wonder how close it was to failure? You'd think they'll want to be able to stay more in the middle of the "controlabilty corridor" before they try a catch?
  15. I was thinking the same thing. I had never heard of either SX300 Inconel or SX300 stainless steel. I assume that they are both proprietary SpaceX alloys, judging by the "SX" prefix. According to the Wikipedia article where SX300 Inconel is mentioned, that alloy is used in SpaceX engines. I guess it is possible that they have a SX300 stainless alloy that shares a name with their Inconel alloy... despite the confusing nomenclature, it would make some sense under these circumstances.
  16. I speculated about Inconel 718, not because I was confusing it with any stainless steel alloy, but because it is extremely strong at high temperatures. I didn't realize that SX300 is also a nickel alloy. Odd that they repeatedly refer to Starship being made out of stainless steel, and even Elon refers to the alloy as SX300 stainless steel in his tweet. As @mikegarrison points out, nickel alloys aren't steel (stainless or otherwise).
  17. Interesting that he mentions "SX300" stainless steel. I assume that's a proprietary SpaceX variant of a 300 series stainless steel? I wonder how that alloy stacks up against something like Inconel 718?
  18. Sure. But that doesn't explain why Starship's re-entry seemed so much longer and with less deceleration than shuttle's, since they both use tiles. The tiles work to insulate as well as radiate. Longer exposure means more heat manages to permeate that insulation. As I wrote above, I wonder to what degree the re-entry was nominal?
  19. So I did a rough (very rough) integration of the speed vs. time plot on the previous page by counting squares. From first plasma to splash down is about 5300 km. That seems long? My knowledge of Space Shuttle re-entry comes from playing Orbiter, but the Shuttle re-entered over a shorter distance than that by on the order of 1000+ km. Could that have been a factor in the various burn throughs? (As EveryDayAstronaut pointed out, it looked from the glow like something outside the camera's field of view was on fire on Starship before the landing burn started.) The longer exposure to that re-entry plasma would have given more time for heat to permeate the structure. As @Minmus Taster pointed out in a post a few pages back, it spent a long time at 68 km altitude and the deceleration wasn't as aggressive as I'd have expected? Was the re-entry trajectory nominal?
  20. It wasn't a straw man, it was hyperbole. You asked: I was trying to point out that there's more to it than that. Inspiration took some civilians to orbit and let them float around for a couple of days. It's a big leap from there to doing on-orbit repairs while on EVA. To suggest otherwise is to overestimate competencies or underestimate difficulties (i.e. Dunning-Kruger effect).
  21. So what are you suggesting? Send up some gum chewing, cap on backwards guys named Chad because the computer can fly now? Sure, some tourists have gone to orbit, but they only did so after extensive training and (to my knowledge) none of them has done an EVA, let alone done on orbit repair work. This sounds like a Dunning-Kruger effect case study in the making.
  22. CSI Space has an interesting new video about the interstage ring, and the plan to jettison it on IFT-4:
  23. @SunlitZelkova Thanks for the succinct and and knowledgeable response.
×
×
  • Create New...