Bill Phil

Members
  • Content count

    4120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1156 Excellent

2 Followers

About Bill Phil

  • Rank
    Some Engineer Guy

Profile Information

  • Location The Planet Gunsmoke
  1. It took them 8 years to get the a single orbiter up. In that 8 years they had more than one space station with the Soyuz/Proton launchers. Hell, they launched the first module of Mir before Buran went up... It was taking too long, and the only benefit was down mass capability, and that's an awful lot of money just for down mass. Skylab was ONE space station, and it couldn't even be resupplied. It was only occupied for 171 days, out of 2249 days in orbit. Salyut 6, by comparison, was occupied for 683 days out of 1764 days in orbit. It was also designed to be resupplied. Salyut 6 is notable because it could be resupplied, crews could hand over the station, and it helped establish many different techniques for long term station operations. Skylab may have been more advanced with its scientific instruments, but it was barely occupied and was using left over Apollo hardware. Salyut 6 was purpose built. We're not comparing two fighter aircraft here. Neither are we comparing the Shuttle to Soyuz. We're comparing two methods of station building. One uses small capsules for crew and supplies, and a larger launcher for individual modules. The other does it all in one spacecraft, with the added ability of bringing stuff down from space. This ability, however, is the only advantage offered by a spaceplane like the Shuttle. And it wasn't used very often. The Soyuz could carry a full crew of the stations it serviced. And you wouldn't need a Shuttle sized vehicle to carry 7 people up, either. The Soyuz wasn't designed to carry heavy cargo, for good reason. If all you're going to do is send crew, why waste a huge rocket? That's inefficient. So, they had two rockets for their station programs. Proton, which does the heavy lifting, and Soyuz, which brings up the crew, and Progress, which flies on the same rocket as Soyuz, would resupply the stations. The Soyuz designs serviced 9 space stations. The Shuttle? Only two. And one of those it barely did anything to actually service (Mir). I'd say the Soyuz-Progress-Proton system was far more effective and successful at maintaining/building stations. They even used this system for the beginning of the ISS, and still use Soyuz and Progress. Cost is the trump card. Why make one vehicle that can do it all when you already have two that can do almost the exact same thing? The only thing you lack is down mass capability. But that's much too large a cost just for that. They already had a system which was in use. The issue with the Shuttle, by and large, wasn't how badly designed it was or its cost. It was that it A: had to launch with crew, and B: only had a payload in the 20 tonne range, while being over a hundred tonnes itself. What they needed was a payload only variant. No orbiter. No crew. Just a hundred tonnes of payload. The Shuttle's only benefit over a capsule system that uses other rockets for bigger payloads is down-mass. But that shouldn't be the only thing you can do with what amounts to a Saturn V. It shouldn't be the only payload. That's all the Shuttle was, payload. It could carry other payloads with it, but those were far less massive. The Buran was better in a couple of ways: it could fly unmanned, did not use solid rockets, and it wasn't the only Energia payload. The Soyuz is much better in at least one category: It has a launch escape system.
  2. The Soviets wondered why the Americans were building a spaceplane. So they built Buran. It was actually better than the Shuttle in some ways. But they realized that its cost is much higher than its benefit, and never pursued it further. Not to mention that they were building and operating space stations while the US was developing the Shuttle, most notably Salyut 6.
  3. I enjoyed it a lot. But then it was removed from Netflix. So I'll have to do something else to watch it.
  4. Brutal Doom. That and Doom itself. Not the new one, although I'm sure I'd enjoy it. The original Doom is just really easy to mod... Also, Black Mesa Source is pretty fun, but it keeps crashing in the beginning of Questionable Ethics.
  5. Yeah. The Centaur is a favorite of mine. One of the few things that the US has used since the 60s. The Delta II beats it out in terms of length, but it's basically retired.
  6. Prograde is shorter. That's enough for me.
  7. Not really. It has no real consequence in day to day life, at least for now. Once people start living there, then it'll start to be more "important" in the public perception. People can memorize things they think are important. They're adress, kids names, phone number (maybe not...?), politicians, the town/city they live in, the names of corporations, streets, other towns nearby, tv shows, friends names, youtubers, books, authors, actors, movies, video games, and so on. It's just not important to memorize a boat load, or less, of astronomical objects, for now.
  8. Well, a basic premise might be okay. Nothing specific, of course. But, if it takes place in space, you'll likely want someone who's very skilled with modeling spaceships. If it's underwater, you'll want someone who's very skilled with marine life, and so on. And you'll probably want a decent writer, unless it's an arcade-ish game, because so few games have writers.
  9. I'm referring to the pressure shock within the compound bombed, which caused more damage than the actual explosion. At least from what I've heard.
  10. I've heard that it was mainly for the pressure wave.
  11. Galactic circumference. The Great Attractor
  12. Russell's Teapot. It has no real consequence if it was true... Then Occam's Razor. Simplest explanation. It wasn't. Not proof, but you're not going to get any with a questions such as that. Generally, real science is something that can be disproved. A single eclipse was capable of disproving one of Einstein's theories/hypotheses. It must be disprovable.
  13. Golf has managed to be played for a long time. Same with Football, of the normal kind and the American variety. Video games would likely be present, of course. Chess is very old, so are many other games... I think they'll continue for a while. Basically everything we do now, and have done for decades, if not centuries. Plays/movies, for example. Maybe some new stuff could be involved, like how plays evolved into movies (plays still exist, of course). It really just depends on the technology you have.
  14. Laniakea Supercluster Solar irradiance Atmosphere International Space Station
  15. Processing the perchlorates and the other problematic compounds would be a herculean task all on its own, let alone terraforming. Terraforming is a very slow process, and one that requires a lot more than a single organization's efforts. SpaceX won't do it. Neither will NASA, ESA, or Sierra Nevada. It's too long. Those companies might go bankrupt or die off hundreds, or thousands, of years before Mars gets a breathable atmosphere. There are faster options than terraforming, of course. Besides, Mars isn't that good of a candidate. It's only advantage is that heating things up is easier than cooling things down. Otherwise, Venus would be far more ideal. The drought in California is heavily improving, actually. The worst any area is getting is severe drought, and that's just a tiny sliver of California now. Most of it is in the clear. Of course, that doesn't mean that we did that.