top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 183 points 5 months ago (1 child)

I always thought it looked cooler with the orange tank anyway

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Cooler with white, but heavier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 103 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Orange makes it go faster. Not the fastest color but it's up there.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [+] 30 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 29 points 5 months ago (4 children)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 62 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] [S] 169 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Back when NASA was flinging things into space for the first time, the tolerances that were even possible were extremely tight. Every pound mattered (every pound still matters, but because we have other things to do once we get to space nowadays, plus every pound is expensive).

    600 pounds of white paint for the fuel tank was considered unnecessary, once the engineering team figured that it didn't actually protect the special foam covering of the fuel tank anyway. Thus the distinctive orange color!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 106 points 5 months ago* (10 children)

    For all the people in the world except the ones from Liberia, Myanmar and the United States, 600 freedom units = ~272 kg

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 52 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    High end bicycle equipment has weight specs in grams.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    It's always hillarious to me to see boomers on expensive bikes that aim to save every gram while they could save 20kg on themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    If you are trying to lose weight, you should be using the worst, heaviest bike possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago

    Well, not if you still want to have some fun while doing so.

    But I agree, that a regular bike should suffice and you don't need to worry about optimizing gear weight if you're not competing for anything and just ride it for your own well-being.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Well, not necessarily. A bike that's got a full carbon frame also absorbs shock and vibration from the road better. This means you can ride longer distances without getting fatigued in places like your wrists or ass. Longer rides = more exercise.

    But once you have a carbon frame, chasing grams on other components gets to be a bit silly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I've yet to ride a carbon frame for any amount of real distance, so idk how good they actually are.

    But having a less harsh ride can also be archived by not using the thinnest pizza cutter tires at 10 bar. Especially if we care about time ridden and not avg. speed.

    And it's going to be slightly harder to get the same speed out of comfy tires, so that's also more exercise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    But, why ? You drink a bit more water that day and it’s void.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 39 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    I'm too dumb for maths because I have dyscalculia, but i am always amazed by the engineering crowd on how they could improve efficiency by finding and tweaking just the little things.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Its simple rocket math. Every lb of weight must consume fuel.

    Si.pky. 1 lb of weight needs 1 lb of fuel to escape orbit. But the fuel has weight also. So the effective fuel you need to lift the rocket and payload is exponential.

    The harder stuff is orbital mechanics. Getting things into orbit is easy. Having thwm go where you want is the hard part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)
    • Artemis tanks were 10m wide and 30m tall.
    • Cylinder surface Area = (2.pi.r^2^) * (2.pi.r.h) ^[curved area plus top and bottom circles]
      • 2 * pi * 5 * 30 ~ 1100m^2^ to paint
    • Paint paints about 10m^2^ per Litre paint
    • Need 1100 / 10 = 110 Litres of paint
    • 1L of paint weighs about 2kg
    • 110 Litres of paint weighs about 220kg
  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Fun fact: Columbia, pictured with the white tank, was the heaviest shuttle and was not modified to have the airlock necessary to dock with the ISS because the performance losses compared to the other shuttles made it difficult to use for ISS operations.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 19 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    The real question is why the default color is orange and not white or gray.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 18 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    SIX HUNDRED EL BEES? HOLY FUCK THAT'S A LOTTA PAINT.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Remove all the tanks and shit on the bottom to really save weight and just let the shuttle fly? It's not rocket science.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 11 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    "Lower the inertial mass." -- Miles O'Brien, Star Trek Deep Space Nine, Season 1, Episode 1.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Though isn't that decreasing the aerodynamics and increasing the friction?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›