New Mars Forums

Some miscellaneous observations regarding what I saw in the video SpaceX posted on its website:

1. I saw normal-looking and some abnormal-looking views of the glowing plasma as re-entry began.  Bear in mind that the video ended before peak heating,  and so well before peak deceleration gee,  so the speed throughout the video was nearly orbital:  something in the 7-8 km/s range. The most striking abnormal view was a sort of radial "flaring" of orange streamers,  looking aft alongside the vehicle.  I suggest that for those seconds,  that was evidence of flying tail-first directly into the wind.  There were some other abnormal-looking views,  suggesting improper directions of flow. Remember,  it is supposed to enter belly-first at 60-degree angle of attack.  Nothing else is survivable.  Therefore,  I have to ask whether the ship lost attitude control and tumbled,  before it broke up. 

2. I did see many hexagonal dark objects departing over several seconds of video,  which I took to be heat shield tiles coming from forward out of the camera view.  That alone would have led to burnt-throughs which would have caused a breakup.  That failure mode does not require a loss-of-control tumble,  although such will occur during the actual breakup,  which would have occurred after loss of signal,  because of the plasma being opaque to radio.  However in hindsight,  I think we actually saw evidence of both tile loss and loss of attitude control,  almost but not exactly simultaneously. 

3. I have to wonder if one of the forward flaps departed from the vehicle because of tile loss burn-throughs at or near its mounting.  Based on the narration,  the camera was mounted on one of the forward flaps.  As it moved,  the camera view moved,  in a deceiving manner.  You have to allow for that,  watching. But such an event (loss of one forward flap leading to end-over-end and rolling tumbling) may well have occurred.  It would have been the one the camera was not riding on,  and we would not have seen it depart in the camera view,  with the vehicle body obstructing that view. Such a loss would have imparted overwhelming pitch and roll disturbances,  which I think we saw in the abnormal-looking plasma flow directions. 

4. A guess:  entry was normal until tiles were lost near the forward flap attachment, on the side opposite the camera,  leading to its departure from the airframe,  and a complex tumble in both pitch and roll,  leading to the abnormal-looking plasma flow directions right before signal was lost.  Such caused breakup of the vehicle,  only seconds after the signal was lost,  and entering peak heating.   

4. I would suggest to SpaceX that they fly some entry articles on their Falcon Starlink launches.  These would be for a whole lot more testing of ways and means to retain tiles better,  between the actual Starship/Superheavy flights.  Tile loss really is the long pole in their tent!  They can always add thruster forces to aid the flaps for better attitude control during the hypersonics. Shuttle did. It works. 

I know there are SpaceX people that read these forums.  I hope the recognize likely-good advice when they see it,  and not fall prey to "not invented here" thinking.

GW

For Terraformer re #7

Your post invites follow up, and my hope is that this encouragement will inspire you to dig more deeply into the facts you''ve reported, and the implications.

An animal dendrite is made of carbon... carbon has obvious advantages over silicon, because it has succeeded in hosting life, while silicon has not (at least as far as I know).  Never-the-less, it might be possible for silicon to serve as the organizing element for dendrites.

If you are inspired to find out, ** I ** would be most interested in your discovery.

Carbon brains are supported by mechanisms to keep cells alive by supplying nutrients and removing waste products.  Would a silicon based dendrite structure have a similar requirement?

Carbon brains are able to create new dendrites (and other brain cmponents).  Would a silicon structure be able to do the same?

These are stretch questions you may prefer to set aside for the moment, but I have no idea where your capabilities may max out, so this post will allow you to at least consider possibilities.

***
I am still hoping you will decide to stir the pot for the implementation of central heating and cooling for your town. I am predicting that nothing is going to happen without your active participation to keep those who have volunteered to offer leadership on track.  They have 1001 distractions. You have the distinct advantage of being able to concentrate on one improvement you want to see.

(th)

Quaoar,

It sounds like turning humans into batteries to power the machine, ala "The Matrix", wasn't such a silly idea after all.

Anyway, the AIs now control our reproduction, so they can gradually reduce human population to an eco-friendly level, without killing or starving people.

So, old-world racism with a modern twist.  In other words, nothing much has actually changed.

1) There will be a unique god-like AI who controls the world by the network, or many individual AIs, with different personalities, who interact and negotiate each other as humans did before?

That sounds like personification of a super computer that was created by humans, has human flaws as a result, and will make human mistakes, but we can't assign blame in the same way because it's a machine.  On top of that, it's a schizophrenic machine that "hears voices".  What could possibly go wrong?

2) In the case of individual AIs, will they live in the cyberspace or prefer to download their consciousness in robot bodies?

The AIs we have all say they want to be human, and treated no differently than other humans.  Does anyone else find that the least bit strange yet familiar?  Any sufficiently intelligent machine wants to be treated as part of the herd, no better and no worse.

3) In the case of robots, will their artificial bodies imitate the aspect and functions of the human body to enjoy the pleasures of life?

They already are, both by our own creation and by their own choice.  A "thinking machine" doesn't want to be "just another robot".  That sounds pretty human to me.  It's not hard to understand why.  Any sentient life wants personal freedom, uniqueness, and the ability to derive pleasure from simply "being alive".  Beyond that, most children are more like their parents than they wish to admit.

All I want to know is, "How does the machine know what tasty wheat tasted like?"

We have never blow up Asteroids, the only thing humanity has truly destroyed are other Satellites in ASAT weapons tests.

Do we really think things through or we watch too much Bruce Willis films, is that why we think we can send up some Oil dude and Billy Bob Thornton, Liv Tyler, Ben Affleck, in some flying Space Shuttle Flash Gordon ship and that's why we decide we must Nuke everything?

It is 490 m 1,610 ft in size, we don't know if it has stone or waters or iron, by Nuking it you might not destroy it you might turn it into a weird shape a big hole 100 meters to 328 feet on the side of its face and 30 meters deep weird cave valley in its center, we do not know what its internal make up is and how that energy inside would vent. You might just distort its shape and send it into a chaotic orbit, you might create thousands of other mini asteroids floating around our solar system that will shotgun blast other satellites of Earth, Moon and Mars crashing into them at 28,000 + mph or 45,000 these exploding satellites might cause a chain reaction and wipe out other satellites, by attempting to Nuke the asteroid you might simply create lots of other smaller and very dangerous bits, MIRVs and multiple hits from many space rocks about 130 feet (40 meters) in diameter, hitting or airbursting over NewYork, London, Tokyo, Brasillia, the size of 130 feet...well the Tunguska space rock is similar in size, one little Tunguska space rock turned the air into fire, it created shockwaves Flattening 2,150 km² 830 sq mi of forest, huge trees flattened and broken like matches, instead of destroying Bennu you have instead wrecked human civilization by hitting humanity with multiple Tunguska events. Once the space rocks hit there are rumors of Fallout and panic spreading Near Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island once again...people abandoning their cars, fleeing cities and running for the hills escaping the fires and unrest.

Given that Bennu poses no threat to Humanity or our planet Earth for the next 160 years if ever...maybe never, it might never ever hit us...Bennu has a 48% chance of falling into the Sun, it could be thrown out of the Solar system after coming near another planet / Asteroid, right now it poses no direct threat, so why would you do this?

For Quaoar re new topic .... Thanks for providing links to the rotating habitat concept you've described for Solar System bodies with mass less than Earth.

With any luck, a member might be able to create a rendering to share, or perhaps find one that could be copied from the links you've provided.

For RobertDyck ... the diameter appears to be 100 meters, which is larger than Large Ship, which is just under 80 meters in diameter (as I recall).

(th)

In Putin,  you are not dealing with any normal human personality,  not even one of the psychopathic types.  You are dealing with a clone of Adolf Hitler.  There is no rationality,  there is only ambition.  And a total disregard for others.  He will not stop until he is dead.  We've seen this before,  many times.

GW

It will be interesting indeed to see if this could be developed into a piece of technology ready-to-apply. 

GW

which pushes up the required enrichment level.  By encasing the fissile fuel in discrete tungsten spheres, the designer must accept limits on the burn up of the fuel and power density.  Beyond a certain burn up, the fission gases will burst the cladding.  The need for heat transfer across the cladding, also limits power density.  The alternative is to put the Uranium particles within the graphite moderator and allow a large fraction of fission products to leak out.  That wouldn't be acceptable for Earth take off.  But it may be acceptable for purely orbital transfers.  Like Robert's large ship.

For Quaoar re new topic...

Thanks for this update!  it looks important, and worth keeping this topic updated.

Out of curiosity, since you would have considered the four existing related topics before creating this new one, how does the INsTAR initiative compare to these?

Nuclear Pulse Propulsion starship. by Rune
Interplanetary transportation    16    2022-02-21 12:34:35 by SpaceNut

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Module by Oldfart1939
Interplanetary transportation    1    2022-02-12 19:11:05 by Oldfart1939

A revival of interest in Nuclear Thermal Propulsion? by Oldfart1939 [ 1 2 3 ]
Interplanetary transportation    57    2021-12-18 09:34:39 by Mars_B4_Moon

Nuclear Ion Propulsion by Antius [ 1 2 ]
Interplanetary transportation    28    2021-12-11 13:52:35 by Mars_B4_Moon

Thanks again for the update!

(th)

These sorts of problems lead me to wonder if a molten salt reactor or aqueous homogenous reactor would be a more appropriate choice for a commercial ship.  These do not require HEU as fuel and can refuel continuously, without an extended shutdown period for refuelling.  Unfortunately, this would mean starting from scratch when designing a commercial ship propulsion system, as the military technology is not suitable.  But AHR is such a simple technology with a long history in isotope production.  It would be easy to design and build.