Brett
79p395 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0
4 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: In t... · 2 replies · +1 points
5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Spac... · 0 replies · +1 points
King's estimate of "twice the mass" is assuming some pretty hefty reactor moderation, which would drastically reduce the fuel mass but increase the shielding and complexity. It would also reduce the reactor's useful lifetime, but you'd still probably get a decade out of it at least. If you want to go with no moderation, you get the long reactor life-time but it has 7-10 times as much mass in fuel.
It becomes less of a problem the bigger and more powerful the reactor is. Not good for a 1 Kilowatt system (although you could probably just use some improved RTG for that), but probably okay for a 10 kW electrical power system and up. More of an issue for spacecraft versus ground installations.
5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Ekip... · 0 replies · 0 points
5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Revi... · 0 replies · +1 points
5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Revi... · 0 replies · +3 points
I really liked it, too. There's a bit of a "less-than-meets-the-eye" twist with Clifford McBride near the end of the movie, and it works extremely well. The only real problem for me is that it wasn't really intense enough in the action sequences to offset the dampening effect of a quiet, emotionally reserved protagonist (both First Man and Gravity did a better job with that).
5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Who ... · 0 replies · +4 points
All that said, it sounds like the worst of it will be in the high latitudes in summer. That would at least leave the major telescope locations in Chile, Hawaii, and La Palma less disturbed except during dusk and dawn (unfortunately also when they need to calibrate their telescopes, but at least they'll have extensive dark skies afterwards).
5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Crew... · 0 replies · +2 points
5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Revi... · 1 reply · +3 points
5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: The ... · 2 replies · +4 points
5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: The ... · 0 replies · +2 points
With the big launchers, I figure that at least two of them will get a cut of the government launches, regardless of whether one is much cheaper than the other (IE if SpaceX actually manages to find enough launches for Starship Super Heavy to get the cost per launch down significantly, meaning basically if its plan for LEO satellite internet constellations works out). The rest won't do so well, except for Ariane 6 - which they're openly saying will probably get the EU launches so they're not wholly dependent on a foreign launch system.