You are not logged in.
Why would you convert the microwaves to heat and use it to drive a thermal rocket? Microwaves could be converted directly to electrical power and this can be used to accelerate ions, with a huge gain in specific impulse.
what is it that makes the topic Other Space Advocacy Organisations so attractive to the spammers? Or are we getting targeted by a single bot using many names? if the latter, is there a counterattack method available,
ducked. definitely ducked.
We have a load more bot posts on the Other Space Advocacy topic.
That's really nice. thanks Void!
Next we need to get people with notebooks, cameras, hand microscopes, pieces of tile and little hammers to verify it and improve the details. Not to mention some drilling crews.
Water is going to be a valuable and scarce resource on the Moon, and probably on most other bodies in the Inner Solar system. So you will likely need a device design that will enable capture of the majority of the water. A closeable large bore gun barrel, perhaps.
If using a gun barrel you don't need to put all the water on the projectile as steam could be injected at high pressure to accelerate it. Close the barrel as soon as the projectile passes and recover the steam. How about that?
Sulphur Hexafluoride is a great substance if you want to warm the atmosphere, Void. If your bubble bursts the contents would go towards terraforming. Don't try this at home (earth)!
I do think it would probably be more economical to search the surface of Mars for a source of Fluoride, though.
Just deleted banned 7 users in outer space advocacy I am the new guy posts
There's another bunch of the same sort now on Other Space Advocacy.
Good luck to you both, kbd
Your bubble might be filled with Sulphur Hexafluoride, as well as being made from fluorinated plastics, Void. Two birds with one stone!
Internal pressure X. Meteorites X. Solar radiation X Cabin fever X. What they need is a bigger rocket!
Another factor you will have to consider is the great variability of the Martian atmosphere from place to place and from time to time. A solution that works for a low terminal velocity at ~11mbar and 0-10C (daytime, Hellas) may not work at half the pressure applying at higher elevation, or at night.
Clark. If you look at the causes of death on your graphic you will see that most of them are chronic in nature. Covid19 is observed to be picking off the weakened individuals, the aged and those with chronic conditions, so the virus will increase in its importance as a cause of death at the expense of the figures for other conditions.
The problems of control of critical systems by computer have been addressed by the chemical and pharma industries, among others. The popular solution is redundancy! Use of multiple processors all doing the same job allows for detection of failure and continued operation or safe shutdown. Hardware failure is fairly easy to deal with using this method. Software remains the main source of failures.
Always take a careful view of official stats. Political hacks cannot resist meddling. For instance UK coronavirus death count doesn't include anybody who dies outside of the hospitals - at home or in care homes for the elderly etc. This has been pointed out many times but the stats still haven't caught up. Probably because it would embarrass the powerful.
I wouldn't be so quick to believe what comes and doesn't come out of China. It seems that University and Hospital research results are still subject to political scrutiny before publication. Take your data from places with a better degree of intellectual freedom!
The problem with attaching the driver to the payload (aside from the need to provide a new one for every shot) is that the payload/vehicle becomes more massive. In the case of a military aircraft that means a reduction in fuel/range or armament. In a moon based unit it would mean that you have to decelerate the extra mass to enter earth orbit or reenter the atmosphere. If you discard the driver you still have to provide a new one with every shot and you will need to control the fate of each discarded item to prevent it becoming a bit of a nuisance.
By decelerating and retaining the driver you will increase the complexity of the EML installation a bit, but you will improve its operational effectiveness.
Perhaps a better comparison for 'how to do it' than Greece would be Denmark. It is more developed than Greece, more closely comparable to Northern Italy, France, the UK or the US. In any case it is clear that those countries that moved to restrict transmission early in their outbreak are doing a lot better than comparable countries whose governments dithered and denied.
Anti matter still has mass. The anti is anticharge. So a positron annihilates with an electron and all the mass of both appears as radiation energy according to e=mc2. (neglecting mass of Neutrinos, if they have any).
Any EML that I can imagine will be limited by the nature of its payload. The extreme accelerations proposed would risk quite a bit of damage with sensitive equipment or humans. Also the driver must not be heated so much that it sticks or even melts in the track and additional track must be allowed to decelerate the driver after release of the payload and before it hits the buffers unless you are going to discard it with every launch.
I think we need to develop EMLs for launching payloads from low escape velocity bodies which will not have atmospheres.
Only the upper parts of the Northern hemisphere on Earth are entering spring, Spacenut. That's your part and mine. The poleward parts of the Southern hemisphere are experiencing the arrival of Autumn and the Equatorial parts don't get either spring or autumn.
Same goes for Mars.
It might be more effective to fire big bullets of ice from an asteroid, say, Ceres. To balance the thrust on the asteroid you might have to fire more bullets in the opposite direction otherwise you will change its orbit!.
Test protocol problem then. The lower tank was maybe evacuated with no vacuum relief and valves closed. This would happen by condensing air on the interfacial bulkhead when the upper tank was charged. Note that the boiling point of liquid Nitrogen is a bit lower than that of Oxygen, and what condenses at low pressure is about 70% Oxygen, 30% Nitrogen. So pressure in the tank, if it started at atmospheric could end up about 1/2 atmos by this mechanism alone. Also reducing pressure in the tank is simple contraction of the air by chilling. Pressure is proportional to absolute temperature and as the lower tank cools its pressure falls even without condensation.
For GW
Given the number of engines in the bottom of the starship, I don't see how Musk can avoid using a thrust pad on the lower tank end, so this should be conical.
Skipping the issues with actually shipping huge quantities of water off this planet!
The dome end to cylinder joint stress concentration is minimised, I believe, by using a 2;1 ellipsoid rather than a 1/2 sphere. This makes the gores a bit more complex. I doubt that either would be the right pattern, however, when you need to transmit the enormous thrust from the engines and I would look at a conical bottom, with stiffeners to prevent local buckling, and an additional skirt, for this application. For the upper tanks the thrust will already have been transferred to the wall and the tank pressure will support the ends of the tanks, so here the 2:1 ellipsoid is favourite.