• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2251 Excellent

1 Follower

About Nibb31

  • Rank
    Flight Director
  1. Nose cones and fairings are expensive. A rounded nose cone might be marginally better, but will use more material and could be heavier, more expensive and harder to produce than a simple cone. In engineering, there is no single best design. Engineering is about meeting requirements, and each R&D team has different requirements. Therefore, an actual design is always a matter of compromise and defining priorities: performance, cost, schedule, pick two. This is why different engineering teams figure out different solutions depending on their different requirements, and some rockets are cones and others are ogives.
  2. If it's for PR, it's instrumentalising a child, which is bad and counter-productive. If it's for science, then it's unethical and illegal, which is bad. When there is no reason to do something, then don't do it. Doing something "because you can" is stupid.
  3. In reality, you don't go straight up and suddenly turn. Converting vertical speed into horizontal speed is a waste of energy. Real rockets start their gravity turn as soon as they clear the launchpad.
  4. Ignorance is bliss. Extreme environments are hard and dangerous, and they always will be. Sorry to burst your bubble. Even for something as simple as opening a hatch, there are many things that can go wrong. Sure, you could do it quicker, but what if there is a pressure differential and the hatch slams into someone's nose? What if there has been a hydrazine leak inside the Dragon? What if the seal between the two vehicles leaks? The ISS has cost a significant percentage of several countries' GDP. The cost of astronaut man-hours is high and that time is best spent on producing science. However, time spent on dealing with unplanned contingencies, especially when the risk is life-threatening, is much more expensive and disruptive than time spent dealing with planned procedures. Cutting corners often costs much more than following procedures.
  5. It seems like the OP has his terminology wrong. He seems to be talking about atmospheric reentry, not orbital insertion. He also seems to be talking about camouflage, not stealth.
  6. As you can see, it doesn't simply burn retrograde. It reverts the horizontal vector but maintains the vertical component.
  7. I don't find this very different from the ITS.
  8. NASA expedition on a SpaceX rocket.
  9. Delusional people can still be physiologically fit.
  10. As well as hardware acquisition and R&D.
  11. Remember Newton's hypothetical cannonball shot from a hypothetical mountain above the atmosphere ? Remember that to reach orbit, you need to go fast. A and B don't go fast enough so they fall to Earth. Achieving orbit is about falling and missing the ground, so if you fire a cannonball fast enough it falls beyond the Earth (C and D). If you shoot it even faster, it escapes (E). Now, because the Earth is much much bigger than Kerbin, although the gravity is the same, you need to shoot your cannonball much further to go beyond the horizon, which means it has to go much faster.
  12. Do you think the only cost of running an airline is kerosene or that the only cost of running Google is their electricity bill ?
  13. Maybe I'm missing something, but when I assemble the LM this way (from bottom to top) DM engine, DM, AM engine, AM, I get a huge gap between the AM and the DM (and the AM cabin doesn't clear the SPS engine bell). I need to lower the AM engine so that it clips into the DM for it to look right, but this of course makes separation wonky.
  14. Guidance and attitude control throughout the descent are even more critical. Parachutes will always keep the capsule upright, whereas Dragon needs to be pointing in the right direction before it can fire its engines. All engines need to be working properly in order to maintain attitude and to control de descent rate and trajectory. It's much more complicated than parachutes and it is very different from an F9 landing. But as I said, technical problems can be solved with good engineering. That's the easy part. The hard part is proving on paper that the solution is going to work with 99.99% reliability instead of only 99.9%.