Talk-Polywell.org

Also, as a minor point, as I understand, there will be no "Block 6 Falcon 9". They have capped the program at Block 5. There may be some 5.1, or 5.1.1 stuff, however, I am pretty darn sure that they came out and said end of the design train for Falcon. Absolutely no disagreement there; block 6 was ...

You missed my point: Given: Keys to BFR being cheaper than F9 = 1) Full re-usability 2) High volume of launches 3) Re-usability without refurb across 100x launches ...and given: Stated goals of block 5 = 1) Full re-usability 2) High volume of launches 3) Re-usability without refurb across 10x launch...

A new attempt to validate/disprove EMDrive and Mach Effect has been attempted. Initial results published here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters In a nutshell: Previous promising EMDrive results are attribut...

Less ground crew and far less expensive fuel. Also, 100 minimum launches before refitting means the not10x R&D cost is spread over far more flights. Fuel cost is only a little higher for far more capacity. Ground crew cost is far lower. R&D $$$ to be amortized per flight is far lower. Total cost to...

Per above info, they are aiming for F9 2nd stage reusability. If they can achieve that, not sure how BFR could possibly be cheaper to launch.

Per: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/8ii206/elon_musk_quotes_today_prior_to_block_v_first/ SpaceX on track to double their 2017 launch rate. Source Arguably version 6 of Falcon 9. There will be minor changes here and there but no major block changes going forward. Source 1 | Source 2 ...

Payload is not boring! I'm praying this launch, more than any others, goes off without a hitch!

I found the 8¢/kWh target disheartening. Nevermind gas, even wind/solar + storage is going to be beating that before TAE would have any potential to have something to market.

As I wait to wait today's launch of CRS-14, I am wondering why they are not recovering the recycle flights to pick apart for use stresses of multiple flights. It would seem to be a potential wealth of knowledge they could carry forward regarding engineering and material costs. I was thinking the sa...

I haven't listened yet, but saw this was posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtcrb-Q4QQc

Skipjack wrote:Another boring launch. That is now number 50...

I was just noticing they have 5 (!) lined up for April. Looks like they're trying hard to have the next 50 done in a year.

I can't help but be extremely impressed by the 300 ms confinement time that PPPL achieved with their relatively tiny FRC, which is employing a rotating magnetic field to stabilize it. That is a lot longer than the 12 ms achieved by TAE. It was my understanding that the only thing limiting longer co...

Oh, guess I just needed to read Slipjack’s link: 50M. I have to say TAE’s plan for a net power machine by 2020 is the most tangible hope to date I’ve had for fusion. Almost enough to make me start thinking this is actually happening...

I know Norman is not supposed to get them to PB11, but are there any more specific goals for Norman besides “hotter”? I think I recall a couple years ago 100M being mentioned, but I don’t recall reading any specific number since then.

And twice as hot, so far (20 million C). Are they still aiming for about 100 million C on Norman?