11 comments posted · 8 followers · following 0
6 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Huma... · 0 replies · 0 points
It is doubtful, yes.
> Maybe several hundred years from now.
Way too long estimate, unless you assume technological progress wil halt for hundreds of years.
You have funny word for "payment for services".
> Take away all his subsidies and his enterprises will collapse.
Anyone's enterprise will collapse if people stop pay for whatever enterprise provide.
7 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Laun... · 0 replies · +1 points
Checking literally everything is not done by anyone (including ULA) and for good reason. You don't know what you are talking about.
> Or they could have overdesigned the strut, increasing its weight (and, therefore, its ability to carry the design load even when at the worst-on-worst of manufacturing variation and random launch load.
They DID overdesigned strut. No overdesigning will save you with sufficiently shitty manufacturing. You don't know what you are talking about.
> and it came out that they'd verified a newly-designed critical structural component by analysis alone
Strawman upon strawman. In SpaceX's case it was not new thing (same struts were in service on previous launches), nor verified by analysis alone. You don't know what you are talking about.
7 years ago @ Broodhollow - Cold Down There · 0 replies · +1 points
7 years ago @ Broodhollow - Happiness, Health and ... · 0 replies · +1 points
But now we came to "now" part of story... until another twist.
8 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Reac... · 0 replies · 0 points
This is how I read your words - and many other posters here (like E.P. Grondine).
8 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Revi... · 0 replies · +4 points
He seems to pretend to not know about observational bias. We can detect planets that are easy to detect. As you can guess, planets that are easy to detect are very unlike Earth. Only now we are on verge of capabilities to detect planets similiar in any way to Earth.
Rest of his claims can be thrown out as based on this wrong assumption.
8 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Fixi... · 0 replies · +2 points
8 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: A ne... · 1 reply · +4 points
You could not be more wrong than that. Cost of fuel for current LVs are almost noise (few hundred thousand $ versus few tens or few hundred milions $ for entire launch).
9 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Comm... · 0 replies · 0 points
9 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Achi... · 1 reply · +2 points
I read it as goalpost moving. In at least two places of original post sentences like " if the ban against using a nuclear rocket to reach LEO is overturned" strongly suggest using nuclear rocket from ground to LEO all way.
"that would begin operation above 150,000 feet"
One could wonder, how exactly you want to get rocket with said reactor to this place. Surely not that horrible and obsolete chemical proplusion?
If one gain so much by throwing away chemical proplusion, then surely all or almost all gains are lost, if you have to bring up there reactor (2nd/3rd stage, I guess) with chemical proplusion anyway.
"So it's not a bomb but a reactor that would emit its radiation into an area already bombarded with radiation from the sun and cosmos."
Something tells me that radiation originating from nuclear reactor is slightly different than cosmic radiation.
Conclusion: sorry, it does not add up. In your place, I would wait for fusion power (not any time soon, sadly).