Moonshot Artemis

βhyde

Super Anarchist
8,202
1,788
Beside Myself
This is why it's important to run a level 3 diagnostic the day of the launch. I also recommend recalibrating the phase inhibitor. As for that valve the pro thing to do is install the Manchester gasket upside down. You won't see that in the manual but it actually creates better flow
The reporting I saw seems to indicate the six hydrocoptic marzel vanes were out of alignment. There are going to need those.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,189
9,572
Eastern NC
The reporting I saw seems to indicate the six hydrocoptic marzel vanes were out of alignment. There are going to need those.

The problem is the resublimated thiotomoline forms a residue on the marvel vanes, if they delay the launch those will need a complete chron-synclastic fundibulation, -then- proceed with the realignment.
 

βhyde

Super Anarchist
8,202
1,788
Beside Myself
The problem is the resublimated thiotomoline forms a residue on the marvel vanes, if they delay the launch those will need a complete chron-synclastic fundibulation, -then- proceed with the realignment.
Fuck me. I didn't even think of that. I thought all that was required was to re-ambifacient the lunar wane shaft to prevent unwanted side fumbling. God damn good thing I don't work for NASA. I'd get people killed.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,189
9,572
Eastern NC
The problem is the resublimated thiotomoline forms a residue on the marvel vanes, if they delay the launch those will need a complete chron-synclastic fundibulation, -then- proceed with the realignment.
Fuck me. I didn't even think of that. I thought all that was required was to re-ambifacient the lunar wane shaft to prevent unwanted side fumbling. God damn good thing I don't work for NASA. I'd get people killed.

Not on this flight ;)

Besides, as Raz'r implied, resublimated thiotomoline isn't just a problem on the marzel vanes, it also can form crystals which cause excessive wear on the impeller, which can lead to overheating of the entire hydrocoptic system.
Aside from that, those crystals itch like a mo'fo. After the first time, you'd remember!
 

valis

Super Anarchist
3,782
610
Friday Harbor, WA
Did a little more checking, because who doesn't like orbital mechanic? I don't think there is a place on the moon that gets sunlight 100% of the time. The moon appears to have 1.54 degrees of inclination with respect to the ecliptic plane. I'm trying to picture what that looks like whipping around the sun, but I can't. But what I do know is it ain't straight, and that means there is no spot on the moon that has continuous light. I think...maybe. If God created the heavens and earth, then he really didn't get shit lined up very well. Do not have him tune your mast.

View attachment 537240
Apologies for disrupting the spacecraft maintenance conversation, but given the 1.54 degree obliquity to the ecliptic, and the lunar diameter of 3476 kilometers, that polar peak only needs to be about 630 meters above the spherical surface to be in constant sunlight (other than during a lunar eclipse.)
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,189
9,572
Eastern NC

βhyde

Super Anarchist
8,202
1,788
Beside Myself
Apologies for disrupting the spacecraft maintenance conversation, but given the 1.54 degree obliquity to the ecliptic, and the lunar diameter of 3476 kilometers, that polar peak only needs to be about 630 meters above the spherical surface to be in constant sunlight (other than during a lunar eclipse.)
I'm thinking the Shackleton crater would be a good spot. It's 4.2km deep and I'm thinking the outer rim has got to be at least 1km above the spherical surface with no adjacent obstructing crater shadows. We just line the outer surface of the crater with solar panels and about half the panels will always be in sunlight. Problem solved. The south pole looks a little less promising, but once the Aussies/Kiwis get there, they can figure it out. Not sure why NASA didn't call us.
 

βhyde

Super Anarchist
8,202
1,788
Beside Myself
Has anyone ever mentioned out much fuel could be saved and payload correspondingly increased by launching from the top of Everest instead of Florida??
The difference in g's only −0.027ms−2. That's not going to help much and having a Sherpa lug an Artemis up the mountain is going to somewhat problematic. But, then again, Bezos' launched a giant dildo into space, so anything is possible.

 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,189
9,572
Eastern NC
Has anyone ever mentioned out much fuel could be saved and payload correspondingly increased by launching from the top of Everest instead of Florida??
Hmm, I had to check the latitudes of both Kennedy and Mt. Everest, they're actually about the same. Thanks to BeSafe's video I will not delve into the mechanics of initial velocity and latitude; but it seems very likely to me that the amount of energy needed to lug a huge rocket up to the top of Everest would be greater than the energy saved in propelling it to orbital velocity.
 




Top