KocLobster Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 How does something this massive exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rho_Cassiopeiae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 33 minutes ago, KocLobster said: How does something this massive exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rho_Cassiopeiae It's off the main sequence, and probably formed in an area with lots of gas and very low metallicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p1t1o Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 12 hours ago, fredinno said: 15 hours ago, p1t1o said: Is anyone imagining stoopidly impractical ways to use a volcano to launch things into space now? Are you Jebadiah Kerman? I'll take that as high compliment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, DerekL1963 said: Which means you were miles and miles from the railhead at Brownsville. So, where you walked or slept the night or whatever is essentially meaningless. Here in the 21st century, we have the ability to build roads. Right, in Ecaudor as well as Boca chica. But a point to be made is that about 25 miles north of boca chica, a road laid on two high stack of granite (6x6x6ft) cubes was washed out in more than a dozen places by a single storm, and yet its still acceptable as a launch site. Does Space X have a really bad Idea, or can you engineer a launch site in just about any remote location? BTW, look at the road, on one side South bay, on the other side a salt Marsh . . .judging by my walk a couple of decades ago the salt marsh is growing (sea-level rise, and since the rio grande has been dammed up the replacement of subsidence has not been happening. The rail head in brownsville ship channel but the proper yard is up in harlingen. The red line is about 12 to 15 miles, that is new track that would have to be laid, part of which is in the port of Brownsville. In addition you have the potential of a diversion off the Brownsville ship channel (BSC) and you can see the intercoastal cannal a couple of miles up the channel as it winds through port isabel and then through the laguna madre, the other branch silts over. The blue lined channel I drew to the south does not exist, it would have to be dug to 2 fathoms in the middle of a wildlife protection area on the edge of a State park. The rail line past the narrows between southbay and the riogrande is basically unstable land. You would not expect it to survive a severe storm. The channel is preferable this is Rio grande sediment, it comes pretty much from New Mexico and West Texas and is dense packed sandy silt, pretty good compaction, you would want to use this silt to build up your facility between the google marker and the termini of the canal and the rail lines. This would be the only way to avoid the effects of severe storms on command and control. Elevations here are a meter. Edited March 22, 2016 by PB666 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 4 hours ago, PB666 said: The rail head in brownsville ship channel but the proper yard is up in harlingen. The red line is about 12 to 15 miles, that is new track that would have to be laid, part of which is in the port of Brownsville. Nobody is talking about laying new rails or cutting new channels but you. The point is, Boca Chica is not nearly as isolated as Chimborazo, not by a very long shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 A few posts have been removed. Debate is fine, but please don't resort to any kind of personal attack. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) Ive been trying to wrap my head around heat and solar panels in space as of late. The whole 250f in the light and -250 in the shade. How does a solar panel such as on the ISS deal with this temperature variation and what does it do to their efficiency? Is there a sort of equilibrium made somewhere? I know the ISS uses liquid ammonia in a coolant loop, but these loops don't run through the solar panels. Edited March 26, 2016 by Motokid600 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Motokid600 said: Ive been trying to wrap my head around heat and solar panels in space as of late. The whole 250f in the light and -250 in the shade. How does a solar panel such as on the ISS deal with this temperature variation and what does it do to their efficiency? Is there a sort of equilibrium made somewhere? I know the ISS uses liquid ammonia in a coolant loop, but these loops don't run through the solar panels. No, the solar panels use ammonia for cooling. http://www.space.com/21059-space-station-cooling-system-explained-infographic.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 18 minutes ago, fredinno said: No, the solar panels use ammonia for cooling. http://www.space.com/21059-space-station-cooling-system-explained-infographic.html How is it the panels stay cool if the loop doesnt travel through the panel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 47 minutes ago, Motokid600 said: How is it the panels stay cool if the loop doesnt travel through the panel? They do travel through the panels. The panels and the rest of the ISS have separate cooling systems and radiators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, fredinno said: They do travel through the panels. The panels and the rest of the ISS have separate cooling systems and radiators. Oh I see. I couldn't find any information showing the loops going through the panels and I figured because they had to once bbe folded up and deployed they didn't have any active cooling. However where does most of the heat energy go? Solar panels only absorb roughly 20% of the incoming radiation and turn it too electricity. I can't imagine the cooling loop can deal with the remaining 60% less all the generated electricity would be used keeping the panels cool. So is it radiated off the panels themselves on the opposite cool side? I just can't wrap my head around how they keep the panels under 250f. Edited March 26, 2016 by Motokid600 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Findthepin1 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Why is argon's atomic weight higher than potassium's even though argon is a gas and potassium is a solid at STP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 6 hours ago, Motokid600 said: Oh I see. I couldn't find any information showing the loops going through the panels and I figured because they had to once bbe folded up and deployed they didn't have any active cooling. However where does most of the heat energy go? Solar panels only absorb roughly 20% of the incoming radiation and turn it too electricity. I can't imagine the cooling loop can deal with the remaining 60% less all the generated electricity would be used keeping the panels cool. So is it radiated off the panels themselves on the opposite cool side? I just can't wrap my head around how they keep the panels under 250f. The Solar panels have their own set of dedicated radiators on the ISS to get rid of waste heat. 2 hours ago, WinkAllKerb'' said: ( this make me ask, wut the heaven this thread is hell stickied ? dare i ask dare i ask for the loss ? ) it's stickied so that people don't have to make a new thread every time for their mundane science questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peadar1987 Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 On 25/03/2016 at 9:02 PM, Findthepin1 said: Why is argon's atomic weight higher than potassium's even though argon is a gas and potassium is a solid at STP? Because Potassium atoms have a single loosely-bound electron in their highest energy level, which is a relatively unstable configuration, meaning potassim atoms form metallic bonds with each other. Argon has a full highest energy level, which means it is generally perfectly happy floating around in monatomic form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) How long would a human survive if it were suddenly placed in Titan's atmosphere like it is today, and in 2 slightly different scenarios, what if the temperature rose to negative 60 c, and what would it be like when the Sun goes all Red giant on us (In both, how long would a human survive)? Also, I need to get this out of my system, but Robert Zubrin friended me on Facebook Edited March 30, 2016 by Spaceception Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainDreamer Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 5 hours ago, Spaceception said: How long would a human survive if it were suddenly placed in Titan's atmosphere like it is today, and in 2 slightly different scenarios, what if the temperature rose to negative 60 c, and what would it be like when the Sun goes all Red giant on us (In both, how long would a human survive)? Also, I need to get this out of my system, but Robert Zubrin friended me on Facebook Naked human? Not very long either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 http://www.transweb.org/faq/q3.shtml Quote After five to ten minutes of not breathing, you are likely to develop serious and possibly irreversible brain damage. The one exception is when a younger person stops breathing and also becomes very cold at the same time. This can occur when a child is suddenly plunged into very cold water and drowns. In this situation, survival after more than 30 minutes has been known to occur. So, there you have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) Just now, RainDreamer said: Naked human? Not very long either way. They don't have to be naked, just to the point of what they'd be wearing right now regular clothes, no Oxygen mask, also "Not very long either way" Is a very vague answer, I know that, what I'm wondering is what exactly would happen if they were placed in those environments. Edited March 30, 2016 by Spaceception Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainDreamer Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Just now, Spaceception said: They don't have to be naked, just to the point of what they'd be wearing right now regular clothes, no Oxygen mask, also "Not very long either way" Is a very vague answer. Well, it certainly not long enough to make any scientific experiment or living there permanently as a colonist, either way. I guess it is similar to asking how long people live when exposed to the vacuum of space, so I will try to make a better guess: A few minutes at best, due to lack of oxygen, although the extreme cold might put them to sort of suspended stasis, like what fredino quoted, but even then it wouldn't be very long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Why wasn't Sea Dragon ever built? It would have a very cheap price per kg and could lift the entire ISS into space in one launch. I would assume the research costs were too high or the materials strong enough to withstand such massive construction were not available at the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerbonautInTraining Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 5 hours ago, Veeltch said: Why wasn't Sea Dragon ever built? It would have a very cheap price per kg and could lift the entire ISS into space in one launch. I would assume the research costs were too high or the materials strong enough to withstand such massive construction were not available at the time? Sadly this is one case where you have to ask why as opposed to why not. Why would you ever need to launch 550 tons into orbit all at once? Only thing I can think of is the transfer stage for a huge Mars mission. Like, really huge. You could send at least 300 tons to Mars if you used an NTR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainDreamer Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I heard that some satellite computers are capable of functioning with just a few volts of electricity. Is this true? Can we go lower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, KerbonautInTraining said: Sadly this is one case where you have to ask why as opposed to why not. Why would you ever need to launch 550 tons into orbit all at once? Only thing I can think of is the transfer stage for a huge Mars mission. Like, really huge. You could send at least 300 tons to Mars if you used an NTR. $600 per 1kg that's why. You could basically send a whole base or a lot of different satellites destined to a few planets at once. Also massive solar sails, lasers that could be put in low sun orbit and used to propel interstellar probes and missions, solar-powered plants beaming power back to earth, new research stations and many more. Edited March 31, 2016 by Veeltch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerbonautInTraining Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, Veeltch said: $600 per 1kg that's why. You could basically send a whole base or a lot of different satellites destined to a few planets at once. Ok, but what if it goes kablooey? You just lost tons of satellites or an entire space station. I'm totally just grasping for evidence now, feel free to ignore me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 minute ago, KerbonautInTraining said: Ok, but what if it goes kablooey? You just lost tons of satellites or an entire space station. You could ask the same question about any other rocket ever launched. What if Soyuz goes kablooey? What if Falcon goes kablooey? We could sit and think about all those rockets that could go kablooey and never really go anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.