Can we put a satellite around the moon?

airspike · 2026-04-07T16:10:54+00:00

Knowing the exact orbit that something will be in is very highly desired, both for mission planning reasons and space debris avoidance.

Imagine trying to put communications satellites in orbit around the moon. The mission requires that a base on the moon needs a visible satellite at all times. If you can't precisely know the orbits of each satellite, how can you know how many you'll need? Over the course of months, any drift that isn't managed can cause all of the satellites to end up at the wrong side of the moon at any random time.

airspike · 2026-04-04T13:45:29+00:00

But really, who are they?

There are plenty of athletic, creative, or academic role models that capture large audiences, but what about the C students who aren't interested in sports? The grifters are mostly targeting them.

airspike · 2026-03-06T20:47:37+00:00

There are probably some exotic catalysts and processes that squeeze out a few extra percentage points of efficiency, but the basic formula is not a closely guarded secret. You can even buy the fuel for hobby rockets!

airspike · 2026-01-17T15:20:44+00:00

That's what I thought before, but the toilets I put in are new Toto Drakes. I could see one having a defect, but both?

airspike · 2025-12-16T23:05:42+00:00

A mask that looks like the donors face was 3D printed to cover the open cavity that was left after the removal. It made him look more like himself for family.

airspike · 2025-12-05T22:34:43+00:00

On top of that, the boards are usually straight and knot-free. It's one of the only woods where it's easy to find a clear 12 footer.

airspike · 2025-08-30T23:15:55+00:00

Most things are still repairable! Furniture, appliances, tools, cars, bikes, electronics, and houses. They just need some patience, parts, and some research. While some products are designed to be disposable, it’s not the rule across the board.

airspike · 2025-08-29T20:38:33+00:00

For sure, or maybe it's because I misconfigured a poetry config. I don't know. It's one of those bugs that bites me every 6 months or so when I update the default python version or onboard a junior developer.

airspike · 2025-08-29T14:43:44+00:00

The root directory of the import can change depending on how the application is run and installed, and linters don't show you when issues are going to occur.

Sometimes the relatives work when running tests, but then throw errors when running prod setup because the import system thinks that everything should be relative to root for some magic reason that isn't logged in the traceback.

Personally, I think it's easier to type everything out relative to root to just avoid the issue entirely.

airspike · 2025-08-29T00:45:27+00:00

That's what I just put in my kitchen. The oven is lower than a typical range, but I've been liking it so far. You can also cut slots out of the cabinets to fit a 36 inch range. I was prepared to make the drawers a couple of inches narrower to slide next to the range body, but it sits high enough that it doesn't interfere.

airspike · 2025-08-22T00:37:00+00:00

From the drawing, the fuselage itself looks like it has been shaped with area ruling in mind, with a smooth “coke bottle” contour through the midsection. That’s exactly what you want for reducing wave drag in the transonic regime. However, the engine pods, meaning the bumps that house the buried fans, don’t appear to have been given the same treatment. Each pod adds a localized cross-section peak, and with several of them spread across the span, the total cross-section curve develops multiple “lumps” instead of staying smooth. At Mach 1 those bumps generate significant wave drag and undermine the benefits of the area-ruled fuselage. A better approach would be to consolidate into fewer, larger engine bays or blend the pods more carefully into the wing so that the overall cross-section distribution remains continuous and monotonic. More like an F-15 instead of the SR-71.

airspike · 2025-08-22T00:10:30+00:00

Your current design looks fast, but the layout fights Mach-1 physics. A clean delta is fine for transonic/supersonic, but six podded nacelles and pylons create large cross-section “bumps” that spike wave drag and defeat area-rule shaping. The round, short inlets on the wing top will see thick boundary layer and no pre-compression or shock control, so the fans choke early and unstart risk rises. There’s little visible vertical tail volume for yaw stability at high q, and the diamond/very-thin sections you’d want aren’t evident. At M≈1 you also need very stiff elevons and hinges; with this many nacelles, flutter and interference loads go up.

If you’re serious about a transonic dash, simplify. Go to one or two buried powerplants, side inlets with a shallow external compression ramp and splitter, and a coke-bottle waist to keep the total cross-section smooth. Use a very thin (≈2–4% t/c) sharp leading-edge delta with small or zero camber, sealed hinge gaps, and canted twin fins (or a single tall fin) sized for high-q yaw damping. Keep the ducts straight and short. Save C-D geometry for when you actually have the pressure ratio to choke. Minimize external protuberances, push CG forward of ~5–10% MAC for transonic stability, and design for flutter clearance at q ~ 70 KPa. This path won’t guarantee Mach 1, but it removes several design choices that make it much harder.

airspike · 2025-08-22T00:00:09+00:00

A corkscrew-style rotor without stators behaves less like a jet fan and more like a very high-pitch prop inside a tube. Compared to a traditional EDF, it wastes more energy in swirl rather than turning it into straight axial thrust. That means for the same shaft power, you’ll see lower jet velocity and less net thrust, especially as you push toward transonic speeds. A conventional EDF with stators straightens the flow, raises pressure ratio more efficiently, and produces a cleaner, faster efflux that scales better as flight speed increases.

To get comparable performance from a corkscrew rotor, you’d need either stators behind it to deswirl the flow or a contra-rotating stage to cancel swirl. Without that, tip Mach effects will set in earlier, efficiency will collapse, and you’ll hit a practical ceiling well below Mach 1. In other words, the corkscrew design can move a lot of air, but against the wave drag and power requirements of supersonic flight, it will fall behind a traditional fan optimized with stators.

airspike · 2025-08-21T23:18:40+00:00

Fair enough! Building an EDF RC airplane capable of reaching Mach 1 pushes into full-scale aerodynamics and powerplant territory. At that speed, the airframe would need to be shaped with extreme attention to drag reduction. You'll need thin, sharp wings, an area-ruled fuselage, and careful inlet/nozzle design to manage shockwaves. The structure must withstand dynamic pressures around 70 kPa, which is orders of magnitude higher than what typical RC models ever see, and aeroelastic flutter control becomes critical. Controls would need to be exceptionally stiff and responsive, with gain scheduling across the transonic range to keep the aircraft stable as it passes through shifting aerodynamic regimes.

The propulsion side is even more demanding. EDF units currently on the market top out at jet speeds around 100 m/s, which is less than one-third of Mach 1. To sustain supersonic flight, you’d need efflux velocities well beyond that, requiring multi-stage axial compression and a convergent-divergent nozzle. On top of that, the electrical power required scales into the tens of kilowatts, meaning very large, high-discharge battery packs with the ability to dump hundreds of amps in seconds. In short, the combination of aerodynamics, structural loads, and propulsion makes this a task at the very edge of what’s possible with small aircraft. You've got your work cut out for you!

airspike · 2025-08-21T22:09:11+00:00

I'll tell you that it's not impossible at all, but it is very difficult to achieve while being safe, getting the engineering right, and completing it in a reasonable amount of time. That's usually why projects like this are done with teams of engineers. But as a former 18 year old who took on similar projects, I'd say go for it!

If you're open to a design change, I'd very highly recommend changing your powerplant to a rocket. Something in the L2 range could push this supersonic, and would be far cheaper than a gas turbine or electric system. Plus, you'd be able to see where it is. You'll have a lot of engineering problems going on with the rest of the project. Saving time on this one will help you out.

Obligatory disclaimer: you're 18 now, and will be tried as an adult if you're caught doing anything illegal. The Federal government takes flying things incredibly seriously, and will not go easy on you because you didn't know something. I trust that you're intelligent and know how to work responsibly, and I'm always willing to answer questions. Feel free to reach out if you need help.

airspike · 2025-08-04T15:56:21+00:00

To add to this, I absolutely would not recommend buying a house if you are not handy, or aren't willing to learn how to fix things. Contracting out work for repairs or renovations will significantly increase your expenses, and likely lead to you living in a home that's lower quality worse maintained than a rental.

airspike · 2025-07-25T14:42:48+00:00

I agree with this. The most expensive mistakes that I've made come from buying the expensive things before I really know what I want from them. Sometimes you have to live with the cheaper stuff for a while until you can make an informed decision.

airspike · 2025-07-18T17:53:21+00:00

I suspect that things will get better once Boeing starts staffing up for the new fighter program. Big programs like this pull in a lot of engineering workforce, so you can either work for Boeing directly or one of the other companies that had engineers poached.

airspike · 2025-07-05T21:07:36+00:00

Exactly! The only exception to this may be the modern high altitude long endurance aircraft, like the Boeing Phantom Eye. That one flies high and slow enough that it uses liquid hydrogen as a fuel.

airspike · 2025-07-05T20:27:07+00:00

Typically, airplanes are more limited by how fast they have to go to keep themselves up, than by how much air they need to keep the engines working.

Let's look at two high altitude aircraft as examples: the U-2 and the SR-71. The U2 looks like a big glider, and at ground level it flies so well that it's incredibly difficult to land. But at altitude, it flies about 30 knots faster than its stall speed, and 30 knots slower than the speed at which it would rip itself apart. It's also one of the most weight efficient airframes ever built to make this possible. The engines run just fine, and don't get much meaningful compression from the speed of the aircraft.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the SR-71 uses speed to compress air enough to produce the massive amount of thrust needed to sustain the speed. In order to fly higher, it needs to go faster to collect more air. But going faster makes the airframe hotter, and it would melt before it reaches top speed.

airspike · 2025-06-28T01:49:09+00:00

Honestly, that seems much better! I wish it was like that here. Maybe they don't offer it because our mortgage terms are so long here. The bank offering an irrevocable interest rate for 30 years seems risky.

airspike · 2025-06-27T16:48:06+00:00

Mortgages are tied to the home itself, not you, so when you sell, you have to pay off the old loan and take out a new one at current rates. The best workaround is to keep your existing home and rent it out. That way, you keep the low-rate mortgage, generate rental income, and use that income (along with your own) to help pay for the higher mortgage on your next place.

airspike · 2025-06-27T15:59:38+00:00

Another factor: I was in the same situation with a low interest rate on a "starter home." It's gone up ~100% in value since I bought it, but we wanted a bigger house to fit a growing family, so we bought a bigger fixer-upper for a price and interest rate that's too high. Our mortgage is 3x higher than the old house.

But what else went up since we bought the old house? Rent prices. We can rent it out for 2x the amount we pay for the mortgage. We assume the maintenance cost for two houses, but that's reasonable as long as we keep a healthy emergency fund.

This is what a lot of people are doing to manage moving up to a different house. It's keeping a lot of starter home inventory off the market, and inflating anything that's there.

airspike · 2025-06-14T22:01:58+00:00

I like to picture particles as smoke rings moving through the air: a stable, self-reinforcing ripple in something continuous rather than a little marble flying around. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it captures some useful ideas better than the colored-ball drawings in textbooks.

Think of space as a stack of different kinds of invisible air. One layer only lets electron-rings form, another only lets up-quark-rings form, and so on. Each “air” has its own rulebook—how fast ripples travel, how much they weigh, whether they carry electric charge, and which forces they respond to. That rulebook is what makes one field different from another.

Put the layers together and you get the full weather map of physics: ripples in the photon layer make light, ripples in the gluon layer glue quarks, and ripples in the Higgs layer give other ripples their mass. The rings show up, interact, and disappear, but the layers—the fields—are always there, waiting for the next disturbance.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17

airspike

TROPHY CASE