YNM

In the case of a Mars hab the load paths are closer to what you have on the ISS, ie. mostly pressure load from within the structure rather than self-gravity like on Earth buildings or external pressure like in a sub. Most of the stress you'd see are tensile ring stresses rather than compression stress. And as long as there aren't quakes on Mars the same magnitude that there are on Earth then the strengths and redundancy required are actually very low (PGA from earthquakes can exceed the 0.38g Mars gravitation so consider that an earthquake-resistant building can support itself being cantilevered from a vertical wall on Mars gravity). Probably the only cataclysmic event that could happen are either sudden depressurization, sudden overpressurization from the inside (say, if there was a conflagration and explosion inside) or overpressurization from the outside (say, the lander exploded or small meteorite impact) which are usually one-peak non-oscillating loads, which doesn't need as much redundancy and ductility as proper cyclic loads like earthquake loads back on Earth.

... alright, I guess the image you put there was with the lighting on on the inside ?

So... a waste of a full set of SRBs ?

idk but for "windows" I want more than merely natural lighting. Plus you can use light pipes or something instead where it can be filled with water or just made out of clear acrylic.

idk, over here most of those are in malls, other times it's just simply a view of where I am. Here it's very lush so what you tend to see is just dense trees anyway, either that or dense houses but that's more on the housing areas. From where I live on the second floor your view is houses with trees sticking out here and there. Hmm... EPCOT ? (as Walt Disney envisioned it) That's just natural lighting. That being said, even if outside views might prove difficult, I think natural lighting on Mars, even if it's somewhat dim, would be appreciable compared to continuous artificial lighting, even if it's not as bright as here on Earth... Maybe we could incorporate something like this light tube thing ? It's basically bottle filled with water.

Yeah, honestly I'd only check windows if I want to see what it's like outside too.

And that would limit the FoV further. With windows size isn't all of it. FoV matters. I have a small room, with a small window, but since I'm so close to it the FoV is larger.

That's an FoV of 45 degrees. You said you want a grazing incident angle only, which I'm sure 45 degrees isn't 'grazing'.

Really depends on how much FoV do you want left, though. If it's just a slit then you'd be better off with artificial display or something.

Maybe more to do with the BE-4 engines themselves ? I imagine they're not risking more out of their own pocket here. Put the engines on Vulcan, see how they perform, do the final adjustments on NG when they know it's a good engine.

Yeah... The angles between the lines are in no way regular (what would be needed for a solid body) nor the relative angles to each satellite from the center body origin (for the less strict rule of projection). I guess this is actually also true for the case of something like LISA/eLISA orbit plus an opposite satellite (since the distance to the three satellite from the opposite end will shrink and grow, and so does the relative angles from the opposite satellite). Although the Draim Tetrahedron is more effective (overall-angle wise from a point on the surface) than what OP had known for longer, it's still not a regular tetrahedron the way it's wanted in the first post nor the later supposition of a projection of a smaller tetrahedron. The logical mathematical proof itself hasn't quite been hashed out anywhere here of why it's not possible, though. We've only said that it's not possible from simulation or from limited examples.

It is not in any measure, shape or form regular, however, whether by projection from a hypothetical smaller tetrahedron or by pure geometry alone. I've posted on the whole thing much earlier, incl. a video of someone making it in KSP and a much older thread of the orbital parameters needed for the tetrahedron.

I think this is where you'd run into problems I suppose. There's a limit to how close can you pull them closer in and still have a valid 'orbit' for the center of the triangle. One of the Draim Constellation, specifically the one that consists of 3 satellites and provides coverage for one hemisphere, does make for perfect triangle; however the center of the triangle doesn't make a valid orbit that'd be possible to replicate with one that follows newtonian gravitation.

idk, in that one Asterix comic they used it to fly them all the way from Gaul to India so unless it can fly all that long on a whim it's not quite functionally the same.

I have a feeling that what you're actually doing there is much more akin to LISA/eLISA. If you put a satellite on the opposite of the fixed triangle I guess you can provide coverage for a whole planet if you put them far out enough, but I suppose it's not the most efficient way.

Pringles doesn't even meet the FDA standard for a potato chip (actual guidance) and it's still selling well as what people want for "potato chips". Whatever name you want to call it, that's up to whatever loophole exists in the books. For one, spacecrafts are treated the same as aircrafts and ships. Is a lunar lander, while landed and stationary, a "spacecraft" ? What about a lunar rover ? Hab cylinders for a lunar habitation ? Whole assembled lunar habitation ? Who knows... it'll be up to for when someone actually act on it legally.

On soundcloud as well at that ! Waiting for the first remix

idk, this was Calgary on the February 8th : 'Average low' in February is only -11.4 degrees C by from wiki. This seems like it's already way lower than that. Meanwhile record high (36.5 deg C) came in only two years ago in the summer. Seems like a pretty good idea, earthen insulations don't have problems with fire either, only complication is that they're pretty heavy but if we can get them to stick together it can be a structural(ish) dried stucco instead.

In some cases, ie. when the source are geological in nature, the answer is "yes", but when the source aren't geological, the answer is "no". Weather and climate related disasters falls on the second part. There are already calls that perhaps not even the 100-year floodplain using available data (which are often inadequate in places where there weren't people before and where the technology isn't as good in the past) is enough for future planning, perhaps a 500-year or even 1000-year using current data is needed just to match the upcoming trends. The same planning arguably should go with water availability (river baseflow) to deal with droughts but it remains to be seen as dealing with not enough water usually went to justify more elaborate way to secure them (either taking from river basins further away or just straight up from the sea). ASCE has also raised the requirement for wind resistance for certain utilization risk categories from 1700-year winds to 3000-year winds (previously only reserved for the most important of buildings ie. schools and emergency buildings), but alongside this they've published a revised wind map that reduces the wind strength in a few places. Arguably this might be more due to the previously lower category is now regarded as being as important in events of a disaster for things like temporary shelter etc. rather than a real increase of the maximum sustained wind speed (3 sec) due to increased rate of storms. Although arguably if we had less people we might've caused less damage that later went and haunt us.

Might also be disasters, ie. floods, which means you have to spend the money moving everyone or build things so it doesn't flood in the area (but it's not the best way out). There're also the storms. In reverse you get droughts like the water shortages in CA. Within the next few hundred years, sure. Beyond that, who knows. Although like I said it's not really the 'living on Mars' necessarily, it can be other things like how to conserve resources etc. which might come back down here. (or maybe lunar outpost is more than enough really.)

Yep, they did.

Do you know that your standard building is designed to not collapse in a once-in-a-2500-year earthquake event ? And most residential use buildings are designed against 300-year winds ? And 100-year floodplains exists for a reason ? With climate and weather the events are going to happen even more frequently in the future. You need to prepare for them sooner or later. And I'm not saying to send them off to another planet. I'm just saying that at some point the requirement to live here on Earth might be about the same as living on Mars. Whether the technology developed to be able to live in such conditions would be developed here on Earth hastily or whether we'll adapt them from our Mars initiatives, we'll see about that in the future.

I'm not sure if you've heard both of Texas freezing off in winter, or that there are island nations that are just sinking off. It's not making the weather more mild - it's making the weather more extreme, you get extra cold winters and extra hot summers. 'Soon' it'll all be like that spot in Siberia where it hits -70 deg C in winter while in summer it goes off to 40 deg C. And at that point in time you'd need some place to live that'd shield us completely from outside conditions I suppose, about as good to be able to be used on Mars...

Yeah I thought the YT upload was going to be for the full-res unedited video. I guess once it's downlinked... ?