• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2020 Excellent

About Nibb31

  • Rank
    Flight Director
  1. Have you ever seen a Nimrod MRA4 or a Short 330 ?
  2. I didn't say transporting large volumes of liquid was impossible (there are such things as tanker aircraft). I said a swimming pool is impractical. Thanks for illustrating my point.
  3. A swimming pool is still impractical. It's not so much roll that would cause spillage, but pitch. You can't take off or land without pitching up or down and centrifugal force won't prevent your pool from spilling over. Once the spillage starts, you get a massive transfer of weight that would be catastrophic.
  4. If the whole point of an SSTO is to make space cheap, then using massive amounts of highly toxic, corrosive and violently reactive fuels is not going to help you. Any cost reduction you might get by saving a stage is going to be offset by the costs of producing, handling, and storing propellants.
  5. It required airports to upgrade their runways and boarding facilities. It's the biggest airliner in service. What's not to hype?
  6. Similar requirements produce similar designs.
  7. The entire ITS is supposed to be reusable. It's pretty much the whole point. That simulation doesn't make much sense at all. If the ITS can put 90t into LEO as an SSTO, then there really is no use for the booster at all. You could do the refuel runs without it, you would just need to do more of them, but it would save a huge effort. 90t to LEO as an SSTO is more than the SLS Block I, which is multi-stage. It really doesn't make any sense at all.
  8. Probably as much difference as with the Breguet Deux Ponts, a french-built double-decker that predated the MD12 by several decades.
  9. If it could get 90 tons to LEO as an expendable, then it could probably get at least 20 tons and carry enough propellant to land. I haven't looked into the details, but it sounds fishy to me.
  10. I think that experience with the Shuttle has proven twice that parallel staging isn't a good idea. I mentioned the ITS general configuration, not necessarily the exact vehicle. There are several possible abort options that you could fit into that design, including higher-thrust engines or a separable capsule with a pusher ring.
  11. I'm not sure why it can't be discussed in your original thread. I think that for a fully reusable multiple-stage launcher, the ITS configuration makes the most sense. Although it could be smaller. You would need to combine the F9 upper stage and the Dragon into a single lifting body design
  12. The French Revolution also tried to adopt a metric calendar (12 months, 30 days, 10 days in a week, plus 5 or 6 extra days to catch up), but it was abolished after Napoleon in 1806. They even tried a metric 10-hour day, but that didn't work.
  13. A moving ship is more stable than a landing ship. It doesn't make much of a difference in terms of avionics as long as the rocket and the deck are both at the right place at the right time. Everything is relative anyway.
  14. No they don't. This is what an Earth-centric solar system would look like: From the Earth's point of view, you would see planets accelerating and slowing down and getting bigger and smaller as they follow those weird trajectories. Which, incidentally, is how the Sun-centric model appears to us.
  15. "Universal attraction" is another name for gravity. I'm not sure what an electron or people in the Roman Senate have to do with gravity. So you don't illustrate much. I'm really not sure what you're trying to demonstrate. Science is a method, not a belief system. You can criticize a method, but you have to offer an alternative method. Do you have something more convincing than the scientific method for understanding the laws of the universe? No. It can be explained too. Just because you haven't researched or understood a subject doesn't mean that others haven't. It sure is. I don't think you even understand what science is, therefore trying to discuss epistemology is going to be hard.