Jump to content

monophonic

Members
  • Posts

    729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

688 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that. What I tried to communicate was that I think the source of the issues is 100% at the management level and cannot be fixed if fixing is not started there. But that has been quite thoroughly discussed since my last visit to this thread, I feel. There used to be a tradition, in our air force, that after a major servicing the chief mechanic who worked on the airframe was on board during the first flight. I don't know whether that is still a thing, although certainly it isn't possible with single seaters like most fighter aircraft are. But that would certainly have provided motivation to do the maintenance properly.
  2. It is starting to look like Boeing's management has been making some very big mistakes, in my eyes. And the system is catching up to them finally, I hope. The MCAS issue certainly wasn't caught before catastrophe. It may have been the "keep your seat belt on at all times" rule that was the last line of defence that prevented fatalities in this case. A bit too close for comfort for me.
  3. Mayhaps. I think among other things Boeing acquired this "open door policy" with McDonnell Douglas. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96
  4. I agree the obvious instinct is to get as far away from the danger as possible. That said it is also common sense to not cut loose the strap keeping you tightly attached to your seat. So whichever instinct wins may vary from person to person. Anyone who was not seated and strapped yet is still inside the plane is likely to flee of course. All I hope is I don't have to find out which instinct would win in me.
  5. Could be just the angle. Zooming in especially the first image it becomes clear the black "plate" behind the nozzle is actually conical in shape, and its rim is clearly some distance off the backplate of the airframe. (Spaceframe?) Parallax from this offset could explain the apparent difference in engine position at these viewing angles. So the planned X-37C? Could probably still happen if a customer is found, but it might be tough competing with the Dream Chaser in the space plane category and CST-100 on the Boeing line up for commercial uses.
  6. This side of the arctic most radio stations have streaming available for free, so you could forget the FM. Any old cell phone + cheap bluetooth speaker can replace the radio set entirely. Assuming of course you can get wifi or cell reception (+ cheap data plan) in the shop. You wouldn't even need to set up any playlists if your favorite stations stream online.
  7. Mine set off the biggest fire crackers they managed to scrounge together and dance around menacingly dressed as cachalots* to scare off the Kraken and bring on a new year of only planned rapid disassemblies. *I wont tempt the forum censor module with the name this marine mammal is usually known as. A famous, although fictional, individual was white.
  8. You are missing the LEO to TLI burn. In your link scenario 2 the first Blok DM send the entire stack from Earth orbit towards the Moon. The second Blok DM eases the stack to low lunar orbit. Finally the Fregat is sufficient to send the remaining vessel back towards home. You could use the information from their mission plan to calculate approximately how much dV they have budgeted for each part of the mission. Then compare that to what you were considering.
  9. Awesome. Sadly said site does not open for me. Not without a VPN at least and I have too much going on to dive into that too. So I could not have found that out by myself.
  10. Maybe someone who shares citizenship with NASA could make a FOIA request for it? Should I be so bold as to suggest they might also release it globally for the rest of us to enjoy? IDK how precisely one has to identify the stuff they request in the USA, but here in my country the information in this thread is sufficient that the officials are required by law to help identify the exact document.
  11. What's changed is not only minute details on the cathedrals themselves but also the surrounding environment. Typical city around a cathedral is now very well lit, meaning the phenomenon may well still exist but is invisible in the flood of light. There are also hundreds of lightning conductors on the surrounding buildings which route their own share of the electric charge in the ground, meaning the charge available to light these fires at any single point is much less. Finally as the phenomenon is now well understood the church decorations have in many places been modified to reduce it. (Mainly to avoid lightning strikes though but the measures are the same.) E.g. sharp points have been rounded or small orbs attached at their tips.
  12. Sufficiently spaced out network of individual habitats and evacuations of threatened ones. I.e. how we manage predictable disasters here on Earth right now. Hurricane heading towards Florida? Evacuate. Volcano getting ready to erupt under Grindavik? Evacuate. Asteroid on course to hit Hellas City? Evacuate. There has been a lot of talk about potential methods to deflect threatening asteroids. The problem is that all the feasible ones have to be implemented a long time before inevitability of impact becomes apparent. That means sufficient funding is unlikely to be allocated in time to be effective. Improving technology will eventually change that, but there is still a long way to go.
  13. (TL;DR: No.) The question of minimum viable population (use this as your search term) doesn't seem to have a single clear cut answer. For a short-ish period, whatever may count as short-is, as little as fifty individuals might suffice. For very long term i.e. from here on out to eternity, the estimates seem to hover around a few thousands. Ten thousand seems like a safe-ish bet. The long term threats are major catastrophies and inbreeding. The population doesn't all have to live in the same physical colony as long as there is sufficient movement between the individual habitats to keep their gene pools effectively combined. Dividing the population to multiple habitats also helps protect against catastrophies, if there are enough survivors even if a meteor strike takes out an entire habitat and its inhabitants. Active measures such as that icelandic "cousing detector app" or even genetic testing can help prevent inbreeding depression (another search term). The testing comes with a hefty can of worms raising questions of moral nature, though. So, assuming everything else is truly equal, the required population numbers are equal. If one type has e.g. better radiation protection, there may be minor differences for shorter periods of isolation. Long term I expect those to disappear into the noise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
  14. I couldn't find it now, but when I played KSP1 a lot I had a spreadsheet to plan my missions. I used dV maps calculated by others and the rocket equation to calculate the dV available in my designs. So rocket equation and those to calculate the dV requirements for transfers should get you far.
  15. So you do advocate the no rush plan after all. Musk, and thus by extension SpaceX (as he is the CEO and majority shareholder) has been quite explicit about skipping all that research and going for the mass emigration phase as soon as they can build enough Starships.
×
×
  • Create New...