Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1,061 Excellent


Profile Information

  • Location
    Pacific Northwest
  • Interests
    Guinea pigs, VVS, space exploration, USSR

Recent Profile Visitors

1,279 profile views
  1. To be fair though this isn’t necessarily “NASA” as the group of scientists and engineers we know and love so much as it is concept artists with a huge free hand and their overseer PR officials who don’t care as long as it trends. They regularly get exhaust wrong for launches, also images of exhaust during Mars EDL in graphics is incorrect on their part too. I’m sure others have their own fair share of errors they have seen. But the people who review it are probably PR people, not actual engineers, so it passes. That doesn’t mean that “NASA” (the actual science people) consider a majority of asteroids to look that way in their personal view. I bet that those depictions come from fantastical pre-detailed space exploration (i.e. the age of telescopes and Mars canals, instead of probes and disappointing Venusian and Martian atmospheric pressure readings) that have simply remained in pop culture since then despite new discoveries, just as how films nowadays often depict Mars as having fantastic mesas and valleys despite the majority of it being something of a flat plain. When people eventually visit an asteroid and/or Mars those depictions will become more realistic, just as landing on the Moon in ‘69 made the equally grandiose and absurd lunar mesas and valleys go away (although the actual Moon, and thus Mars and asteroids, is/are spectacular in its/their own right, and those fantastical depictions are still nice as pure art so nothing is/will be lost ).
  2. What is weather usually like in November at KSC? I’m curious about the likelihood of another scrub. Last time they tried to launch an SHLV in November (not counting Shuttle), it got struck by lightning twice. No Alan Bean onboard to save it this time around though.
  3. Johns Hopkins APL released a graphic containing some of the results of the simulations of the impact.
  4. They appear to have fixed the leak, but for all we know the stress from another rollback and rollout will cause another leak.
  5. As of when I made that post, it was December 31st, 1969 for me. EDIT- Nope, still 12-31-69. Guess it is a time zone thing and you are probably correct.
  6. Fun fact? Creepy fact? The oldest threads in this section of the forum are from 1969, or at least that is how it appears on mobile to me right now.
  7. It sounds like this could be countered in certain situations. If a PL-15/R-37/AIM-260 is being fired at max range against a bomber doing conventional strike stuff in protected airspace, it would work. But in a deep penetration mission likely to be undertaken in a nuclear war, there isn’t much stopping the fighters from getting up close and personal and flying and firing outside of the gun arcs. What @sevenperforce said, but also a company can only charge so much for ad space as people will watch. The profitability of the Olympics is primarily driven by ad revenue because millions watch it, but if only a few thousand people watch a launch being live streamed and maybe a couple important executive people, the ad space isn’t worth anything. They may barely break even as a result of the extra work involved in painting the rocket, combined with the low viewership.
  8. Was there ever a concrete assembly plan for Space Station Freedom? Based on what few documents I could find in the NASA NTRS and astronautix, I managed to put together a schedule of roughly 16 flights in total not including the dockyard for the LTV, but also including the ESA and NASDA/JAXA modules (which were not taken into consideration in the NASA documents). This seems low considering 27~ Shuttle missions were flown for the ISS. Was SSF just tiny in comparison or am I missing something? The configuration I am using is the SEI one.
  9. Reading comments from both sides, I feel like this isn’t a problem with a magical fix. Both drivers and pedestrians just need to be more careful, urban planning and revising speed laws alone won’t eliminate traffic accidents.
  10. I think this was what he meant, not using it against aircraft. On a separate note, assuming a large portion of a nation’s air defences are knocked out by ICBMs and SLBMs, the small number of surviving fighters resorting to guns isn’t too far fetched. Reading anecdotes from B-52 gunners, it seems like the existing detection arcs on their fire control radars (and presumably the Tu-95’s too) make an acquisition impossible against SAMs, and thus a missile fired from below by a fighter would not be trackable either. Even if the radar was extensively redesigned to cover a wider arc all around, the existing gun mounts would require another redesign to have more depression, another factor mentioned by B-52 gunners is that the tail gun wouldn’t depress low enough to target a SAM. Of course another option would be to reinstate belly and dorsal guns, which the Tu-95MS does not have and the B-52 never had. But then there would be another two CIWS mounts, with radars and all, with their weight. If the aircraft is flying at low altitude, the radars may have a hard time picking up the small AAMs. If the aircraft fly high, they will probably get salvoed by the long range SAM that is targeting it, which a single CIWS alone might not be able to handle. I’m not sure what fighters would carry in an air defence role, but if they have their max load out of some 6x or so AAMs they could launch a large salvo too. I would say no. 3x heavy CIWS mounts and a new constraint on the flight profile does not seem like a lot, when more ECM equipment and stand off cruise missiles could be fitted instead. I think only deep penetration missions (like trying to strike in a continental sized nation’s territory in a nuclear war) would require such a system anyways. The sorts of missions flown by bombers under normal circumstances (launching conventional ALCMs) would be flown within friendly airspace. It would not be worth it for a nuclear war scenario when ECM equipment and more room for ALCMs would be more useful in conventional scenarios. I have seen opinions that bombers aren’t even a key part of nuclear war strategy nowadays anyways, and exist for a pure psychological deterrence purposes (although of course they still have their aforementioned conventional role).
  11. Is it known what Musk’s ICBM based Mars architecture was supposed to look like? Or was this merely an idea in his head that never got beyond the words “use retired ICBMs to get to Mars” before he found out he couldn’t buy them and decided to do SpaceX?
  12. So the ROS would sit derelict for two more years?
  13. Well, it is only “reused” to a certain extent. tater put it best in a post awhile back. It may as well be an entirely new rocket. I think it is really, really, dumb they didn’t just go with something akin Shuttle-C, which would have used identical ground infrastructure to the Shuttle. A different vehicle would have to be used for crew, although I think DIRECT showed that a side slung Orion would have been possible.
  14. It’s not that there are problems, it’s that there are problems after a 5-6 year delay. SLS was supposed to launch in 2016 or 2017, then in 2018, then in 2021, now it has nearly been a year since then.
  15. Why is the year of choice for Roscosmos 2028 instead of 2030 so it can be disposed of in one go? I’m not sure about costs, but so long as a serious technical danger doesn’t arise, from a practicality POV it seems like it would be easier to extend the ROS life for just two more years instead of trying to separate them. Or would splitting the station be easier than I think?
  • Create New...