Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Next
11
To be honest, I don't think there will be enough storage required to significantly reduce the radiation load.
No one needs 1000+ tonnes of storage for their own purposes, do they?

So? There's no rule that says it has to be 100% supplies.

Whatever mass there is will reduce the shielding mass, which is a win. Essentially this reduces the effective cost of your inventory storage.
13
Chinese Launchers / Re: China to have new rockets
« Last post by FutureSpaceTourist on Today at 11:16 am »
twitter.com/aj_fi/status/1596476295000514561

Quote
The 6th academy of CASC on Nov. 26 conducted a first restart test firing of a 130-ton thrust kerosene-liquid oxygen, designed for new-generation of reusable launch vehicles. mp.weixin.qq.com/s/vQih7kgxiiF3…

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/aj_fi/status/1596494811556626432

Quote
This is the reusable version of the YF-100 initially developed for use on the Long March 5 boosters and Long March 6 and 7 first stages.
14
.Sure, mass can absorb radiation, but some types of mass are better than others, and some are actually worse - like aluminum.

Also, where you are warehousing foodstuff, supplies, replacement parts, etc., may not be near where people hang out, so the radiation protection from the mass is not realized.
...The solution is that you don't mess it up in the ways you describe. I thought all those considerations went without saying, but I guess now they've been said.  ;)

Quote
Turn that frown upside-down, and turn those "objections" into design constraints.

Yeah, except sometimes you end up laying so many constraints that you can never achieve anything worthwhile.

Sometimes sure, but you think that is actually occurring in this case? Or is this comment merely hypothetical?

I've been studying the various designs that have been proposed for rotating space stations, including my own design, and I'm not seeing where your original comment was actually an unrealized solution. In other words, you seemed to be proposing to store all local inventory of foodstuff, supplies, replacement parts, etc., in such a way that it was always inline with GCR and radiation coming from our Sun.

No, no need.

  • Once you're shielded against GCR, you're auto-Magically shielded against the (much lower energy) solar particles.

  • SEP doesn't come from a single neat direction anyway, it actually comes in a "cone" with about a 90° frustum angle.

So it's nothing elaborate, just "surround yourself with (ideally graded-Z) mass."


As someone that has managed inventory systems

Surely we can all understand that the design goals and cost assumptions for terrestrial vs. space systems are very different.

What challenges specifically do you imagine?
15
Update..

Orbital Launch no.164 of 2022

#SpaceX's #CRS26 mission to the ISS carries #iROSA, essential supplies, #ElaNA49 Cubesats and science experiments for the #Expedition68 crew, on Dragon-2 C211-1 spacecraft/ #Falcon9 B1076 launch vehicle at the LC-39A

https://twitter.com/nkknspace/status/1596447180814184448
16
Meanwhile for the current Chinese human orbital launcher, looks like there will be snow on the ground when Shenzhou 15 launches on November 29:

https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1596411354667417600
17
15t crew module, 7t deployable payload

That's gonna look really weird with a giant almost-entirely-empty space ship.


Besides the bad optics, the shockingly small dry-mass-to-useful-payload ratio suggests strongly that it will be more efficient (as measured by launch mass per payload mass) to send more payload per vehicle.



To illustrate what I mean, take the extreme example: if only 1% of your landed mass were payload, then you could double your payload for only a ~1% increase in launch mass.
18
Yes, going by brochures, you might be correct.

Nah, if you go by the brochures then it's far worse.

Those dump trucks and coal rollers are highly visible, but they're an insignificant fraction of total vehicle emissions.
Wrong, and this is a misunderstanding of statistics and math.

“Hey, 75% of diesel vehicles meet emissions standards!” Doesn’t mean diesel emissions aren’t a problem when that 25%, or even 5%, may be emitting literally orders of magnitude more particulates than the clean ones.

Not only did I not make anything like that claim, but none of those are the real numbers I presume?

What does any of that prove, then?

It’d be a viable point if I were arguing against the idea that any particular diesel vehicle likely wouldn’t be that bad, but I’m not. It only takes a handful of such vehicles to poop in the pool to ruin it for the tunnel.

The point, as a reminder, was that TBC tunnels will still require cleaning to remove tire and road wear particles.

This seems to be undeniable.
Perhaps they will be required (I disagree that it’s already undeniable… you have yet to establish that)

Okay.


They'll still require cleaning,
or they'll get increasingly dirty over time.


Happy?


 
the graph of microplastics doesn’t say one way or another as it misses diesel particulates entirely

I thought "100% the microplastic generation in the world is a lot, and so is 60%" was too obvious to state outright, but here we are.


we can’t use best-case passenger diesel vehicles as the baseline for whether or not that’s the dominant problem with conventional tunnels.

We're not dealing with "conventional tunnels" though, as the "reduced ventilation" crowd continually reminds us. So we couldn't follow that mental shortcut anyway.
19
Think the Boring Co. needs regular cleaning of rubber tire residues from the tunnel roadbed and interior surface. Likely with robotic streetsweeper and vacuum machine combination on a Tesla chassis. Maybe minor maintenance task like light fixture renewal could be done by Teslabots riding with the tunnel cleaning robot.

I don't think removing tyre residue needs to be done regularly. Build up on roads is pretty slow, and they never get cleaned.

That's only true because roads are exposed to the open environment, so most of the particulate pollution simply "leaks out" into the surrounding environment.
20
So how about taking the R-40A of the Shuttle for whatever warehouse they are stored into (like Orion OMS-E on Artemis I)

The original intention for development the BERTA engine was an engine for the Vega as a replacement for the now used Ukrainian engine. (10 years ago, or so)
Because this obviously cannot be regulated politically, the ASTRIS kick stage was invented as a new use for BERTA.
After Hera is rebooked to the Falcon 9, there will be no more mission for ASTRIS, first off.
And if the Falcon 9 Hera can launch without a kick stage, the Ariane 6 could have done it too.
 :(
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1