Jump to content

ThatGuyWithALongUsername

Members
  • Content Count

    1,062
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ThatGuyWithALongUsername

  1. I've heard that they aren't going to try to recover this one, just see if it can survive reentry.
  2. Oof. "December" with no specific date is basically rocket-speak for "early next year." Especially in November.
  3. Oh, I don't think that's true. That implies there would be a competition at all. May as well give my opinion here- Starship is designed to be so much more capable than SLS ever was. THAT BEING SAID, I still think SLS is worth it- we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket. And SLS is designed specifically to be a very safe basket, without dangerous innovation (maybe some expensive padding inside the basket as an analogy?). SLS should NOT be cancelled until SS proves itself, IMO- yes, SS is better and far more sustainable, but SLS makes sure that we get back to the moon even if SS
  4. A purpose-built SpaceDrone (TM) would be a pretty neat idea, actually... I've thought about this idea before. Some kind of cubesat that has an HD camera and can follow a programmed camera path in 0g. The trick might be propulsion- if you want really cool video, you need more thrust (and very precise thrust control) than usual on a cubesats. Cold gas thrusters may work fine, but they'll be firing for longer than usual if you want a nice curve. And as for it running into things, that could help it quickly cancel out velocity if it heads towards something it isn't supposed to. With al
  5. Well, it helps a bit that they've been launching less over the last few years... (Not that much, though. Hopefully this means that they are cracking down on quality control problems, but... their budget only allows for so much)
  6. What the heck is going on with the countdown?! That wasn't just me, right?
  7. Read the description, it's the same as the original Starship Update, complete with September 28th date. I think someone accidentally clicked a button somewhere...
  8. Oh, I don't think that's going to happen. I think the funny names aren't going anywhere, no matter how big they get- it's kind of Rocket Lab tradition now.
  9. First proper, fully 100% operational Starlink sats, 1st (4th flight or 3rd reuse) of a first stage, 1st fairing reuse ever... coming back from the launch drought in style, I see!
  10. In a shock to absolutely no one, Elon's Twitter absence lasted all of... 3 days. This tweet tells us that there are more parachute tests- the parachute test shown was NOT the final Mk3 parachute test, but the first of 10 multi-chute tests. I guess the 12 before it were single-chute tests.
  11. So... according to Boeing, it wasn't a parachute failure because the parachute never deployed in the first place in order to fail... ???
  12. So... pad abort test is successful, proving that the abort system works, but they might have to do a few more parachute tests... This means *another* delay, doesn't it? Like, even if neither team has launched their crewed mission yet, you would think we would at least have a clear leader (in terms of who's going first) and a remote idea of launch times by now. I mean, they've had years.
  13. I am having an unreasonable amount of trouble just trying to trim the mediocre (but fairly high-res, at least at the beginning) video I got of the launch. I mean, it shouldn't be hard- generic windows applications are giving me errors and even Adobe Premiere has decided to start crashing constantly, which it's never done before. But, sunrise!
  14. Don't expect great footage from me (Although I at least have an actual camera, this is just a phone camera through a small telescope)
  15. A bit of a late update, but it will remain horizontal until it goes vertical again sometime overnight. And then... launch. And... I'll be there. (Only the second launch I've ever seen in person, and the first one was a while ago. I'm getting pretty excited!) ... (PLEASE don't scrub)
  16. Again, "instability" refers to stability when flying like a plane. It is not flying, it is falling at terminal velocity. The f;laps aren't supposed to generate any lift. If this was a airplane,that would be bad. This is not an airplane. The most "unstable" configuration is the most stable for these purposes. I'm gonna have to agree on this, I don't think they'll ever get quite *that* good (safer than other vehicles, maybe, but not airliner-safe). However, SpaceX certainly doens't think this, or else they wouldn't be talking about P2P. Aircraft can't always surviv
  17. Remember, it's a skydiver, not a plane. Think of the flaps more like VTOL engines, just using drag instead of thrust. You'd want the center of mass and drag to be pretty close in that instance.
  18. That's what I was wondering- but they'll probably take this a bit slower than last time, and maybe there's still time to put the canards on before stacking? Really odd- they also need the actuators and everything.
  19. Woah there, it's just a webcomic. It's perfectly fine to try random concepts like this in KSP, I've done it before even. I'm just saying there's a *lot* of stuff KSP doesn't simulate, even with RSS/RO, so don't take it fr granted- which you're not.
  20. Problem here is that most of these don't last very long. Can't do much with these if the only last a couple microseconds at best. Still think there's more to mess with here though... there's no way we're anywhere close to trying all combinations of subatomic particles to say that nothing will work, right? Of course, we are insanely far off from being able to make any useful, stable particles from this, much less produce it in mass quantities, but there's no reason to say it couldn't be done sometime in the distant, distant future. at least, I think so, I'm not gonna pretend to unders
×
×
  • Create New...