Jump to content

Exploro

Members
  • Posts

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Exploro

  1. If it helps it also goes by the name Northern Cross. It's a fairly large constellation so it's not hard to spot.
  2. It was not an answer to the F-16; not directly anyway. The F-20 was developed during a time when there was trepidation selling top tier warplanes the US operated to allied nations. In otherwords; the DoD did not wish to sell F-16's to our allies. Instead it would offer systems like F-20 to allies and foriegn customers. Of course by the time the Reagan administration DoD rules became lax; allowing General Dynamics to deal directly with foreign customer but strangely keeping Northrop tied the rules set by the previous administration. This ultimately hamstringed...and doomed the F-20 program. Stealth geometry and RAM development no longer being further developed or refined? Gee the fact that the F-22, F-35, and subsequent 5th generation warplanes have vastly more streamlined airframes compared to the first generation of LO platforms prove otherwise. In fact in the case of the Raptor and Lightning shaping accounts for most of those planes RCS reduction. To be able to achieve significant reduction of RCS all the while allowing designers to bestow exceptional aerodynamic performance onto this generation of LO planes suggest considerable advancement in radar LO techniques over the last 30 years. As for RAM I will point out that present 5th generation fleet the US operated need no specialized environmentally controlled hangars, can have the RAM serviced out on an ramp, and allow these planes to operate in weather conditions previous generations of LO planes would struggle to operate within or had to avoid altogether highlights the continued advancement to make the material easier to apply and be more durable in harsh conditions. I've read about the use of lower frequency radar as a means to counter RCS reduction. However my recollection has been that such systems only alert defenders to the presences of an LO plane operating in vicinity. These type of LF radars are not used in the fire control radars of ground based anti-aircraft missiles nor any adversary aircraft. F-35 is optimized in those bands and thus still difficult to attack. The defenders may have a general direction to go; but they still would not see it nor be able to attack. All the while the F-35 would be tracking the defenders long before the defenders could get in range (a range still degraded by the F-35 tiny RCS) and maneuver around them or into an advantagous position to shoot down the defenders (It should be noted that the F-35 having such a superb view of the battlespace; knowing where the adversaries are to allow the pilot to manuever into a position of advantage is the definition of OODA concept I might add). See here for more detailed explaination on the limits of LF Radar EW Systems. And such facilities are suceptible to to jamming and being attack themselves (mobile types are more survivable but still large pieces of equipment). The F-35 has built-in jamming capabilites and in the case of an US/Allied operation additional dedicated jamming assets would further degrade such LF systems. If LO tech were a fad or selling point then why has the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, and others pursued their own indeginous LO programs over the last 20 years or so? For the same reason the US has; LO offers survivability. To make my point. Are you aware the F-22 has been operating over the skies of Syria in support of Coalition operations against ISIS? Now you might ask for why? Surely ISIS has no air force to speak of and have limited anti-aircraft weaponry. So then why have some of the most advanced American warplanes operating there? The presence of the Raptors is not to counter any threat that ISIS might pose to Coalition aircraft but rather to ensure Coalition airpower is protected against threats posed by the Syrian military and those of the Russians. Presently Syria operates advanced Russian-built missile systems designed to kill the previous generation of Western tactical aircraft (types like the F-16 or F-18). Further after the shootdown of a Russian fighter that crossed into Turkish airspace last summer Russia deployed more of these systems themselves. Thus that leaves the F-22 the only effective countermeasure that can deal with threat should Syria or Russia decide to attack Coalition aircraft. The same goes for LO warships. As you know modern naval combat involves engaging well over the horizon using primarily radar guided missiles. Thus having radar signation reduction measure on one's ship helps to degrade the means that would likely be used to kill you improves survivability. Hanging all the stores in the world on external pylons are useless if your non-LO plane will not survive attempting to penetrate an adversaries air defenses on with capabilities on par with systems I previously mentioned being used in Syria by Syrian and Russian forces. That is why the F-35 was developed. The previous generation of warplanes are quickly becoming tactically anacronistic. While you might lose the ability to mount external store at least a force of F-35 will be able to survive to make it to their objectives, destroy them, and exit safely in such contested environment.
  3. Point of fact...NASA was critized for the lack of safety testing due to poor funding and shrinking staff necessary to get such task accomplished. CAIB cite that as a contributing factor to the Columbia disaster. In fact NASA never tested whether the RCC panels or any other component of the Shuttle's thermal protection system could withstand damage sustained by debris shedding until after the loss Columbia during the post-disaster investigation. In fact it was surprising to me that the most obvious solution to the bipod ramp shedding issue was never pursued until after Columbia's destruction...the elimination of the ramps altogther! And yet for years NASA never pursued eliminating the shedding issue; simply considering such events as "normal" (Another contributing factor per the CAIB report).
  4. Are you insinuating SpaceX was using a Helium loading procedure that significantly deviated from that used in all previous launches?
  5. Cassini obviously has a better imaging system compared to JunoCam as photographic data of high resolution was an important aspect of Cassini's survey of the Saturnian system (especially in the early years).Surveying moons are not the focus of the Juno mission. As such having imagers with equivalent to Cassini or of Galileo is not necessary. According to the wiki article on JunoCam; it's resolution of 15 km/px at periapsis would be superior to Hubble's 119 km/px from it's vantage point above Earth.
  6. As I was sitting with friends and my brothers waiting for the cities fireworks to begin I happened to sight Jupiter in the western sky. My thoughts were of what it would look like seeing the planet Jupiter from the perspective of Juno at the moment. It was still over 24 hours away from orbital insertion at the time but I could image the gas gaint dominating the field of view as the spacecraft drew closer. It's going to be a treat to see new close up imagery of Jupiter from Juno in the coming weeks,
  7. As some may have already pointed out by now the question is poorly thought out. There is no denying SpaceX has been making great strives in developing more efficient and semi-reusable launch systems. What is more it has succeeded in flying a reliable launcher at prices that beat it's competition. That said however to say that this success translates to the launch provider is somehow "better" than NASA is a flawed premise. There is no doubting that NASA is a complex buearcratic organization with a somewhat deserved reputation of being too accomodating to contractors and hampered by mismanagement and a lack of vision in recent years. That said the fact that NASA has been utilizing the services of companies like SpaceX to cut cost and allow the organization to refocus from LEO operations to deep space exploration indicates the agency is trying to overcome the problems that has been a blight to them for decades SpaceX; while demonstrating it can offer lower cost access to space, has not demonstrated it is "better" at space exploration. NASA has over 50 years of experience of surveying the solar system; all eight major planets, Vesta, Ceres, Pluto, several asteriods and comets. NASA is presently charting the boundaries between Solar and Instellar Space via the Voyager spacecraft And obviously it has conducted significant surveys of the Cosmos with combination or ground based and space based sensory platforms. SpaceX has not conducted any type of scientific investigation of its own In fact much of the R&D information the company has used to develop the Falcon 9 series of launchers, the original Dragon, and Dargon V2, is from NASA. SpaceX has benefited from using NASA owned testing facilities. Needless to say SpaceX might not be where it is today had it not been for the existence of NASA. To paraphrase "Lost in Space: The Fall of NASA and the Dream of a New Space Age" Private venture and government agencies need each other to succeed in the quest of developing and exploring space. The present commercial servicing missions to the ISS was one of things Klerkx was hopeful would happen. It would represent the start of allowing NASA to get back to being the powerhouse it was during the height of the Apollo program and give entities like SpaceX the ability to develope space with latitudes unheard of during the shuttle program.
  8. Spacecraft structures need not be limited to metal alloys. I recall that in one case; the X-33, a traditional metal fuel tank was to be replaced with one made of composite material. While unsuccessful in that project; Northrop Grumman succeeded in perfecting the technique to manufacture such a tank in the early 2000's. What is more is that composite materials can be naturally manufactured. Consider that spiders produce a silks that; pound for pound, are stronger than steel. It is also superior in performance compared to the next best man-made material; Kevlar. This material is produced at benign temperatures and without the use of toxic chemicals. It's conceivable that if we can replicate the manufacture of spider silk that it could be used in the production of composite structures.
  9. 1.) Just because we require sensitive electrical systems to make space travel possible does not necessarily mean another sufficiently intelligent race would too. 2.) Consider the electric eel of Earth can generate bio-electricity. It obviously does not short itself out nor harm it's neighbors; unless it chooses to do so in pursuit of prey or in self-defense. Therefore it is possible to generate and conduct electricity via non-mechanical means within an aquatic environment.
  10. Assuming a hypothetical sentient aquatic creature lives at depth shallow enough to see the light from the local star they'd have to have recognized that the source of that light is above the fluids surface. They may not initially recognize the existence of outer space in the same sense as we do; but at least it be the idea that sets in motion the pondering of exploration as the stars and wanderings of the planets did for our species thousands of years ago.
  11. PM article suggest there is not much difference in terms of mass for inflatables versus rigid types when dealing with small volume modules. The mass advantage becomes favorable for inflatables as the volume of a module increases.
  12. Environmental Visual Enhancements (E.V.E). For my build at least it was causing problems. The removal of E.V.E and it's components addressed the game crashes.
  13. I FIXED MY KSP BUILD! For weeks I've been trying to diagnose the cause for frequent crashes. I've pinned the cause to the visual enhancement mod I had installed. The crashes ceased once the mod was removed.
  14. I missed it. Morning errands and work prevented me from observing the transit. Fortunately for those in my region who were interested in making observation the weather finally cleared out yesterday and it was mostly clear skies throughout the day. Protojeb; I'm unfamiliar with the viewing technique? Do you look through the tiny aperture a closed fist makes or use your closed hand as an impromptu pin hole projector?
  15. I recall seeing a reply many years ago in one such video. What you hear is not the original measurements taken by the PWS instruments during the Voyager fly-bys of Jupiter and Saturn. These are heavily manipulated to sound more musical to you and I. The actual PWS recordings are much more mundane.
  16. Orion Nebula is visible to the naked eye. To my eye the nebula looks like a faint star halfway between the belt of Orion and the stars Saiph and Rigel. Also the Pleiades cluster is easily visible to spot near the Taurus constellation; is appears as a fuzzy blue cloud with five dim blue stars.
  17. I think the "Emergency Mode" is the "Thruster-Controlled Safe Mode" as discussed in "Spacecraft Hybrid Control At NASA: A Look Back, Current Initiatives, & Some Future Considerations" pg 17.
  18. Hazarding a guess; Kepler consumes more fuel to keep it's gaze fixed in a particular orientation while in this mode.
  19. Sadly that probably won't be long. Interestingly only one platform was in the right position to make optical observations of the impact events as they occurred. The impacts occurred on Jupiter's farside. Earth based telescopes and the HST were thus unable to see the impacts take place; seeing only the impact plumes and the resulting pockmarks. Ulysses spacecraft was in the right place; but apparently it's studies focused on gathering data of radio emissions during the comet fragments collisions with the Gas Giant. Only Galileo; enroute to Jupiter, was in the right place to image some of the fragments collisions as they occurred.
  20. Granted that the intention of this lucky astronomer was not to catch an impact upon Jupiter. But intentional observations of impact events would not be insignificant. It was the observations of the immediate aftermath of the Shoemaker Levy 9 impact events of July 1995 that we got data on the chemicals the comet impacts threw out into the Jovian atmosphere. According to a Space.com article by Elizabeth Howell the HST detected Sulfurous compounds and Ammonia. These observations provided information on the chemical composition of the Jovian atmosphere; something that was still not well understood at the time (and perhaps still an area of significant interest today). In fact the wiki page on the impact event states some of the Sulfur compounds had not been identified as constituents of Jupiter's atmosphere until after the impact plumes were examined.
  21. The signals the survey sought need not be intended for us to be detected. We've been inadvertently filling the space around us with our radio communications out to nearly 100 light years in all directions; we can agree most of these broadcasts are not intended as messages for any neighboring civilization. But any civilization within that sphere would undoubtedly detect these transmission if they point a receiver towards the direction of the Sun. With that in mind supposing an advanced civilization existed around Tabby's Star 1480 years or so ago used such powerful optical-based communications and were only chatting with each other using these means; some of these photons would continue traveling out into space till they reached our instruments. Thus these errant and long traveled signals would still show up on SETI's VERITAS survey during the period of the survey.
  22. By burning the hypothetical gas giant would be capable of fusing hydrogen isotopes like a brown dwarf as other have described. We are not talking about a planetary conflagration.
  23. To my eye Jupiter is always white in hue.
×
×
  • Create New...