.50calBMG

Members
  • Content Count

    155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

139 Excellent

3 Followers

About .50calBMG

  • Rank
    The smartest dumb guy or dumbest smart guy you will ever meet

Recent Profile Visitors

3,779 profile views
  1. Sorry if this has been asked before, but is there a way to re-enable the G limiter for PVG?
  2. But starship doesn't fly that way. It falls like a skydiver. It doesn't have the proper control surfaces to fly like that. The only time it will be flying somewhat nose first is on re-entry, but still at such a high AOA that the lift coming from the body is a secondary side effect from coming into the atmosphere at an angle, which will happen to basically any shape moving that quickly.
  3. You would think. The way it's being stated though makes it seem like Boeing is still going to be losing money even with the extra funding. They said they needed it just to compete with SpaceX
  4. I believe the current MVac can throttle, but not quite as deeply as the SL versions, ~40% IIRC.
  5. Presumably it starts sooner because IIRC Falcon Heavy has a TWR of close to 2 at liftoff, and it is going faster through a denser part of the atmosphere.
  6. @tater finally beat you to something
  7. Also probably doesn't have the inside pressurized like it would be in vacuum. It won't be as bad as the first EVA suits, but it will still probably have some effect on mobility
  8. I was able to notice the difference going from a 2.5x to a 3.2x scale when I first started playing, and that's not even close to the amount that you want to change it, so I would bet that every single person would notice it. As someone who plays exclusively RSS with RO, I physically cannot play the stock system anymore because it's too small.
  9. Yeah, I would have posted much sooner, but every time I went to do so, tater got there a few minutes before me with basically the same points. It has been pretty civil though, you paying attention, rest of the world? Not that hard.
  10. @ZooNamedGames Thank you for not misinterpreting that as an attack and for providing a logical explanation instead of the "do as he says, but not as he does" excuse. I am well aware that it's politics that is currently drowning SLS, but I try to stay as far from politics as possible because nothing ever ends well after bringing it up. I am also not in the "Elon is God emperor of humanity" camp either. There are definitely faults with every program. For example, SpaceX is essentially building a MiG-21 as a test platform for something more akin to... Well... A space shuttle, and I am amazed they haven't had more problems than they have.
  11. I'm not upset by it, I just don't understand it. However, there is factual evidence supporting the fact that SLS has been mismanaged, is over budget, is years behind schedule, and sucking money from other, more promising programs while starship hasn't cost a thing to any other NASA project. Also, just because I called it "old and archaic" doesn't mean I hate it. Soyuz will never ceases to amaze me that not only is it still flying, but that it meets all the requirements set for it to this day (and that it looks so good doing it). I only call SLS that because there is literally not a single new piece of technology on it.
  12. @Dale Christopher That made me smile after an 11 hour workday with no lunch. Have a... Wait, they sill haven't gotten likes working yet... Have something that you didn't have before and is up to you to interpret. Just remember it was from me. And here's that video that basically furthers my points further. Thanks mister "fly safe" man https://youtu.be/z49eVQ6LxIE
  13. I think SLS will be forced to fly a few times only because so much has been wasted spent on its development that it sort of has to. Look at the backlash on constellation when it got axed after the Ares 1x flew. I think starship is going to be better in every meaningful way than SLS except for payload volume to orbit, but only if the EUS gets built, which at this point seems unlikely. Even though the payload mass has shrunk vs the original 12m version, it's still twice what the block 1 SLS can do, and for a fraction of the cost. You are vehemently defending an outdated, over-budget, and arguably useless (B1) rocket that is in and of itself an old, almost archaic design against something on the bleeding edge of technology and vastly more capable, while not only being more affordable to launch, but cheaper and faster to develope. So what if the design changes a few times before it gets finalized. SLS isn't the same now as the original proposal. @ZooNamedGames I don't mean this as a post to attack you by any means, but more because I don't understand your viewpoint. I don't get why you feel the need to attack SpaceX just because it isn't SLS. What's the point of attacking SpaceX when they are not even really competing against SLS, or even NASA?
  14. Been a while since I've wanted to like something this much
  15. As someone on "team anything but SLS", Orion could be launched on New Glenn and have nearly the same capabilities as an SLS block 1 launch for a fraction of the cost, and use the same architecture that's already in place. The only way SLS is useful if if you cancel block 1 and go straight to 1B or 2, and even that is stretching the word useful because its so prohibitively costly and has such an anemic launch rate.