If I assume the air pressure of 1% of earth means that the density is also 1% then: p=0.1225 kg/m3.
Then I get a terminal velocity of 82 m/s (or approx 300 km/u), if you drop down flat.
You're off by an order of magnitude on that atmospheric density. Terminal velocity is going to be three times that high.
Assuming it is, I guess it is time for self destucting time locked crypto,
Thats not possible to do for a number of reasons, primarily because one of the first things theyll do is image your computer.
What about this part?
maybe a password backed key on a usb device with self desctruct countdown
If the decryption key is stored on a USB key with a battery and RTC, it can wipe itself if you have not entered the password after a certain period of time. It can be tamper resistant and wipe itself if you attempt to open it. Now obviously nothing is 100% secure, but you get to the point where it basically becomes bomb disposal.
I'm not sure what trajectory second stages would have to take
Just to clarify, I'm talking about the first stage and boosters. The second stage takes the payload all the way to orbit, so you could land it anywhere you wanted, once they design a version capable of surviving re-entry.
but it I doubt it's going to take off from Boca Chica and land at Canaveral
Canaveral is too far north for a low inclination orbit anyway, and would result in an unnecessary land overflight.
if only because then they would have to have two sites be clear. Sure, they could set up a new site in Florida, but they would have to go through all the regulatory bullshit again to set up a new site.
Understand, I'm not talking about a launch site. I'm only talking about a landing site. The first stage landing would be nearly empty, and would be immediately lowered onto a ship, and taken back to the manufacturing facility for refurbishment. The regulatory bullshit around a simple landing site would be much lower.
And they would still need good weather at two sites, not just one.
If they intend to recover the first stage, they need good weather at the landing site anyway, where ever that may be. For a typical Falcon 9, the first stage will fly back and land at the launch site. For a Falcon Heavy, the boosters will fly back to the launch site, but the first stage will continue on for another three minutes, putting it well past the fly back point. Either you land somewhere downrange, or you splash down in the water. Splashdowns result in much more expensive refurbishment.
and their current enthusiast-gamer-nutjob CPU is specced at 220 watts.
I'll admit, the AMD FX was the only line I didn't check before posting. Their next closest chips are only 140W, and they've only got a couple at that. Most are 115W or lower. I didn't even know the AM3 socket was capable of 220W.
You people seem to forget we're dealing with chips that have features counted in individual atoms. 1V across three atoms may work, 1.1V across three atoms arcs over.
Luckily we're still dealing with features hundreds of atoms across, and not just three...
The toasty end of boring desktop CPUs is somewhere north of 200watts already
Well... somewhere south of 100W, anyway, and even high end workstation/server chips are under 150W.
That's one of the reasons they're trying to get a launch center at Boca Chica in the southern tip of Texas.
I expect far and away the biggest reason is for recovery of the first stage of the Heavy. That's worth tens of millions of dollars per launch. Reducing facility crowding is just a bonus point.
They're planning on cross-feeding the center stage off the boosters. The boosters would drop off after around two minutes, and fly back to Boca Chica. The center stage would drop off three minutes later and continue on to a site in western Florida, or maybe a platform anchored off the shelf.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
