Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,837 Excellent

1 Follower

About mikegarrison

  • Rank
    IRL Aero Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't understand what you are asking. Any spacecraft in freefall, I guess.
  2. I agree with this viewpoint. (Especially because I haven't built any craft that use this yet.)
  3. The shuttle was a spectacular vehicle for building a space station with, but surely we have learned from the ISS and could build a new one if we wanted to, without the shuttle.
  4. Either you misinstalled something or you are using some mod that is misconfigured. All I can say is that all my pods are in the proper places, but the only mods I have installed that add pods are the Near Future mods.
  5. You're talking about 8000m peaks as if all climbing is the same. You might as well suggest that wingwalking is the same level of risk as flying commercial. Or that going to Mars is the same level of risk as riding a New Shepard.
  6. Mountain climbing and space travel actually have very few similarities, as far as I can tell. (I have climbed mountains. I have not travelled in space.) One thing that is perhaps relevant here is that climbers are generally very much in control of their risk. This is unlike being a passenger in a plane, and more like being the pilot of the plane.
  7. 1) The main advantage (claimed, anyway) is that one is not restricted to a fixed launch site. A secondary advantage (claimed, anyway) is that you don't have to design the first-stage nozzle to work at full sea level pressure. 2) ALCMs are airbreathing. In fact, all cruise missiles are, although surface launched and sub-launched cruise missiles require a rocket stage to initially accelerate them. The Williams F107 turbofan is particularly favored for US cruise missiles. (Side note: when I worked at an engine company I was told by some old-timers that our company had bid for tha
  8. That makes no sense. Commercial companies sell everything from corn flakes to satellites to governments. That doesn't mean they aren't commercial companies. ULA is clearly a commercial, for-profit, privately owned company. The simple answer here is that the claim was wrong. Here, look at this list of Atlas V launches. The first five launches are for commercial comsats. That predates ULA, of course, but it also shows that Lockheed Martin, a private commercial company, was launching private commercial payloads into orbit in 2002. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V#Atlas_V_launc
  9. This whole program is a textbook example of why you need to define a mission first, then design and build a vehicle. It doesn't work as well when you do it the other way around and try to design a mission around a vehicle you are already locked into.
  10. According to Google, there are (or rather were in 2017) 1.1 billion car trips per day in the US. I believe that this includes, for example, driving to Starbucks, then to the office, working there, then to a pizza place, and then home as four trips, even though conceptually it could be argued they are two trips or even one round trip. (It's more usual to compare accident rates per passenger-mile or passenger-km rather than trips.)
  11. If there were only a 99% chance of avoiding injury in a car trip, there would be 11,000,000 injury accidents in the US every day. 99% is completely unacceptable.
  12. Several capsules intended for ground parachute landings use either airbags (Boeing Starliner) or SRBs (Soyuz, New Shepard, presumably the Chines Soyuz clone) to cushion the landing forces, but this is not the same thing as a propulsive landing. Those capsules will land survivably without that -- but there may be more force than desired upon impact. There's no other choice on the moon.
  13. ULA is certainly a commercial company. As was, also, Sea Launch. And Orbital Sciences (which later got bought by Northrop Grumman.) I'm sure there are a few more, too. The history of commercial space providers is longer than some people seem to think it was.
  14. Yes -- "supposed to". They are a long way from doing that. They do have a few parts of the puzzle. They now have a crewed space capsule, so they know how to do that. And they have a crew-rated rocket, so they know how to do that. But they have still never crew-rated a propulsive landing system. With a crew-rated Starship they would need for the ship to be considered safe enough to be its own escape system from a failed booster. (That was always pretty iffy for Shuttle/SLS.) A bigger hurdle is that Starship has absolutely no backup for propulsive landing. That has to work or everybody
  15. 2024 was obviously chosen because of the Presidential election cycle. That's no longer relevant, at least not in the same way it was when the goal was announced.
  • Create New...