Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Find&Fuck Waifus ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

“Why don’t rocket engines melt” review! (Patreon)

Published:
2022-01-10 05:00:36
Imported:
2022-01

Content

Miss me? I know it’s been a whopping day since the last stream and about 5 days since the last video, but it’s already time to watch a new video!!! Please watch this and look for errors! This is a final review of this video “why don’t rocket engines melt” so please only look for errors and don’t worry about general feedback at this point. Thanks everyone !!! Enjoy! https://app.frame.io/r/7200df51-a709-414b-9f10-6c83c52c1266

Files

Frame.io

Comments

Anonymous

@3:33 "It has inherent limitations and viability." Did you mean to say limited viability?

Anonymous

Great stuff!

Anonymous

21 seconds in you say that the 3500K Temp. Is about half as hot as the sun (5800K), when in reality its over 60 percent (60.3 percent).

Anonymous

great video!

Frank Tippin

Still closer to half as hot as opposed to twice as hot (150% vs 200%). Half is being used to denote a "ball-park" amount.

Anonymous

Can you post a YouTube link as well, streaming on this sucks

Anonymous

Tim, about your question of doing the first manned polar orbit mission ... I was stationed at Vandenberg AFB when Challenger happened. NASA had poured billions into Space Launch Complex 6 (originally built for the defunct Manned Orbiting Laboratory program) and Shuttle Enterprise had made its SLC-6 pathfinder fit checks. When NASA stated there weren't enough Shuttles to continue with the Vandenberg spaceport, California central coast real estate tanked overnight. Years later I was commiserating with an aerospace executive in the airline seat next to me who provided a backstory. Apparently astronauts would have gotten such a high dose of radiation crossing the poles multiple times on a typical shuttle mission, they would have accumulated a life-time dose. The military astronauts were supposedly OK with that, but NASA's civilian astronauts who wanted to make space a career balked. Shielding options were unattractive from payload standpoint (Vandenberg's south westerly polar trajectories were already disadvantaged verses KSC's easterly trajectories) and a practical standpoint for usable space inside the cabin space.

Anonymous

NASA in a sense caught a hail-Mary pass out of the disaster by finding a much less embarrassing public excuse for pulling the plug on SLC-6 than having it get out that their astronauts balked at absorbing a life-time radiation dose in one flight. Since our military polar-orbiting satellites are radiation hardened verses low-inclination or geo-sync satellites, it made sense when I heard it. Anyway, something I wanted to pass along when I heard you pop Jared that question.