• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,958 Excellent

About ZooNamedGames

  • Rank
    A Frequent Commenter

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array
  • Skype Array
  • Twitter Array

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

11,683 profile views
  1. I see news reports, but no data behind them.
  2. For those interested- the classes will begin on October 1st.
  3. You only see the test pilots that survive the testing. Back in those days you probably had someone die every week from some issue, but none of it was news worthy because "it's just another death from a test flight". So I don't doubt they've flown worse. Google some of the stuff the USAF has come up with. You'd be surprised what kind of mad contraptions some of them had to operate in the name of experimental flight. Hell there were designs that were so roughly built that one design literally disintegrated around it's pilots in flight- and needed to be refueled after take off due to the spacing in the structure and fuel tanks- and fueled again once it reached altitude. This aircraft I'm referring to is the SR-71. Do I need to mention the lifting body designs built just to experiment with how lifting bodies function? How about the X-29 with it's forward swept wings? A design so unstable that it had redundant flight computers since control was so precise as it was so unstable that a pilot would greatly struggle with it flying. So yeah... the shuttle seems quite sound by comparison. Especially when you don't launch outside of safe parameters (not launching when it's too cold), we only lost Columbia (the same vehicle) due to foam strike which wasn't even present on STS-1- it was paint. Though those chips still pose a threat, it was a different kind of threat. Moreover if there was a launch abort they had ejection seats to escape. Welcome to the diversion and off topic discussion I get on my thread
  4. And the irony is those pilots have flown on vehicles with worse odds. It's the life of a test pilot.
  5. My comment was based largely on the comment I had quoted. See the full comment. Also- Orion isn't docking on Artemis 1 or 2. It only docks on Artemis 3. So it can fly on it's own. Also, you say the Shuttle can't fly on it's own, but from my research, it had autopilot launch sequencing and landing sequencing (first manual landing wasn't until STS-3 iirc). Perhaps in orbit maneuvers would require manual input- but an external addition to the Shuttle flight computer to input a few lines of code to tell it to flip 180 after X number of orbits and fire it's thrusters, then wait a few minutes before entering a command to rotate again- isn't beyond the scope of 1980s hardware. Ground control being a different topic. As the Buran was entirely computer flown except for the final descent.
  6. For that duration it's likely either a recon mission or some form of long duration exposure experiment. Potentially for weapon systems or some scientific development they've got under wraps. Either way- we'll hear about it in 2070 ish.
  7. Really? NASA cannot? What do you think Artemis 1 is? There's only 2 reasons I can imagine you'd say this- Orion is just a boilerplate so not real- or- based on the Shuttle's crewed first flight. At which point there's so many things to point out. 1- Orion may be a boilerplate but if NASA wanted to waste the time and an additional SLS, there's nothing technologically preventing them from making a real 100% crew ready vehicle and launching it without crew. Hell the real thing will be largely computer flown anyway. The only real difference is that the life support won't diminish (which I'm sure will affect the vehicle in other ways). If you're referring to the 1981 Space Shuttle STS-1 flight bare in mind that it was in an era where computers were still large and bulky. Also don't forget that by the time the Buran flew- they had literally had more than 2 dozen Shuttle flights and flight data to go off of. NASA did not. They knew how it would behave during descent but it never had flown beyond the speed of sound, never had to account for functional launch systems, OMS fuel, life support- it was an entirely new beast unlike anything that had flown before. Could they have flown unmanned? Maybe (the launch was autonomous anyway). Anyway, NASA doesn't need to have crews onboard solely for test data. NASA easily could if they need to. It's more a case that NASA knows how this vehicle behaves as they've tested it in every conceivable way, and have a legacy of 60 years of manned spaceflight experience. NASA does know what can go wrong. NASA literally wrote the book that Musk and his cronies will be referring to when looking to potential flight failure modes on the way to and from the moon.
  8. I was talking with some people on my Discord server (link in my signature), and I've decided that I'd like to start teaching aviation! Admittedly this will be a rough job as I am not an educator but I have taken several classes (previously a pilot ground school course and am currently taking a class to become an Aircraft Mechanic). So this is going to be a bit imperfect but I am excited to give this my best shot and teach anyone who wants to know more about flight mechanics and real world aviation. Outside input from those who do fly or work with aircraft is always welcomed. I'm simply posting here so those on this forum interested in joining these classes. I've got a poll going on decided how I will be presenting these lessons, so if you want to vote on how- you can join the discord and the link to the Strawpoll poll is in the #announcements channel. And I'll post any announcements and decisions about it there.
  9. @sh1pman All I can think of is this- KSP is lacks so many elements of real world physics and even on the things it does have, it either does it poorly or does it unreliably. It has some good factors (orbit, burns, etc). But the point here being- don't simulate anything in KSP and make a judgement call for reality.
  10. "Going with a women- there will be a women on this mission" >I wonder if they're pushing something
  11. That sounds like an airline I would want to avoid. That kind of behavior leads to broken communication and trust- things that have been the exact causes for airline disasters in the past as @mikegarrison has pointed out. And one prime example of why that isn’t safe is the Tenerife disaster. But regardless this is somewhat a more personal regard that isn’t really relevant. So let’s return to the topic of the SLS instead so we can avoid potentially making more personal comments than comments on the subject matter itself.
  12. I know several people who have recently been polled (in multiple settings and ages) and most don’t know what SpaceX is. A small portion remembers when you specify it’s two major attributes- ‘Elon Musk’ and or ‘“landable rockets”. Buy in large those surveys showed that NASA is the household identity- not SpaceX (or any other agency for that matter). So yes, the actions of SpaceX does impact the industry since people don’t have the knowledge to know any better to know the difference between NASA and SpaceX. They both launch from the US- bear US flags, are built in the US, etc etc etc. So the people (tax payers) only see the failure, not the successes- and that’s a trait of human psychology.
  13. I had a long rant but I want to keep this succinct and direct as possible so I'll put this in a 10 point format so I can keep things on point to answer your question as to why I'm not pro-SpaceX- SpaceX is a brand new company that has only 20 years of existence. This means they have little economic experience keeping their business and their budgets stable and functional in turbulent economies (2010-2020 has been a rather calm year since we just recovered from the 2000s recession). SpaceX has only one major achievement- landing rocket boosters after deploying payloads. That's it- landing rockets was done in the 1990s and the 2000s through the use of the DC-X rocket. An achievement that will soon fall to Blue Origin once they deploy commercial payloads with New Glenn. SpaceX only has 1.5 actively functional vehicles (3 if you include the only other rocket they built that actually flew payloads, Falcon 1). Those rockets being Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy Core booster- the external two are regular Falcon 9s- so they aren't a new design. However the core is a modification of the Falcon 9 B5- which very much goes against your point of all plans being built which leads to Point 4- SpaceX has made many design promises they've failed to meet- much like NASA. As @Barzon Kerman listed, there's a whole laundry list of things he's said and had knocked down because it doesn't work in reality. The promises made by Musk affect the whole industry. If he makes promises, the public (ie the taxpayers) expect us to meet them. When reality kicks him off his high horse and suddenly we fail to go to Mars as he plans- it makes everyone in the industry look back. Not just SpaceX. It paints us as "too far behind" and "not ready yet" which leads to cuts in budgets for organizations and agencies like NASA which in turns means they no longer have the funds to operate their own space programs or fund new developing companies- like SpaceX once was- which leads to point 6- SpaceX was literally built by NASA. Saying that SpaceX has made all of their achievements on their own through their successes is a massive inaccuracy. SpaceX has only flown because of NASA investments into the development of Falcon 9 reusable rockets. As NASA say the potential for a quick 24h turn-around rocket (which is as impossible as it was with the Shuttle) for cheap- but SpaceX has failed both points and specifically pointing out the flaw with cost leads to problem 7- SpaceX hasn't proven reusable rockets as economical, nor any more efficient than standard expendable rockets. Current pricing of launching on the F9 has not dropped and announcements that those prices are fixed. You could claim they're simply maximizing budget margins- but if that was the case, why would Musk be in such a hurry to develop another rocket system to replace the Falcon 9 rocket family (BFR isn't just for BEO flight- it's intended to completely antiquate the Falcon rocket family). Clearly the Falcon 9 is not cost-efficient and can't even meet a reasonable turn around time. SpaceX does not have guarenteed funding by NASA. So any failures, mistakes or missteps in development means that the entire companies momentum is broken. Falling to entirely rely on the Falcon 9 which as we established isn't economical anyway. Which doesn't help them when (not if) the economy gets into another upset. Which- speaking of funding- SpaceX's founder- Elon Musk has proven that he has trouble keeping some of his ventures afloat with constant faults and issues with another company of his- Tesla. SpaceX is a great company. Their fanboys are not. Constantly claiming on every NASA YouTube video and online thread posting how NASA is "antiquated", "too slow" and "inefficient"- basically stating that only SpaceX and Elon are the means to the future and by extension- destinations like the Moon and Mars. Despite many ignoring and overlooking point 6 and that NASA made SpaceX and SpaceX only gets contract money by doing what they need- and what they need is SpaceX in LEO- not BEO despite that being Musk's current ambition of the week. That's enough for now, I can make more if you want em.