Jump to content

monophonic

Members
  • Content Count

    615
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

509 Excellent

About monophonic

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Awesome! And genuinely scary. But in a good way, 1990 scary, not 2020 scary. Thank you!
  2. Hey, the goal is to break off a piece and collect it for processing. There is a still better technology for doing exactly that, one that doesn't involve imparting any impulse on the mining vessel nor shooting the broken off pieces in unpredictable directions at inconvenient velocities. Circular saws. Just cut off the piece you want, you can even have it attached to whatever means you use to move it into the refinery systems ahead of time. No need to waste dV chasing after runaway bits. Except if your asteroid is a loose pile of rubble like Bennu, shovels.
  3. Most tanks use tungsten rods to kill other tanks anyway. Some have used uranium rods, but that has been somewhat disapproved of. Of course dropping them from orbit is less polluting that using crude chemical reactions to accelerate the rods. Just don't ask about how the rods got into orbit in the first place.
  4. Indeed, I mean, have we even got any purported pictures of NGAD let alone official confirmed imagery of any sort? All I have seen on that is one interview saying that it happened and did fly as the model predicted, but...
  5. That's just under 2 years completely under wrap. A-12 first flew in April 1962 and YF-12 was publicly announced in February 1964. I'll give you that they kept the original Oxcart variant a secret a lot longer, but that was only plausible because the other variants existed and were publicly known about.
  6. It's really hard to chooce between A9/A10/A11, UR-700 and Sea Dragon. They all share the same feeling of trying to push technology a little bit too much, yet still don't look like they couldn't have worked had they been built. For actually built rockets, I dunno, most rockets feel like all the others to me. Like, that one is different color or a little bit different shape but they all get the job done. Maybe I have some fondness to the Shuttle and Ariane 5, mainly because they were the main contenders for mentions in the medias when I grew up.
  7. Yes. Yes it really is called that. Well, very close anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Naval_Air_Force
  8. Thoughts on one of the older ways of rocketry: composite tanks inside a metal hull? How about a definitely counter-intuitive variant: metal hull-tank walls with composite bulkheads?
  9. The opposite does not follow either. If profit culture wasn't so prevalent no-one would have ever been fired for raising concerns about safety issues. Yet that has happened repeatedly. People can do extraordinarily stupid things if they are pushed for results. I wouldn't believe anyone would have done such a thing again after SK751, but am certain that I do not know it. NASA can't leave astronauts lives hanging on beliefs and thinkings, they have to do better than that. They need to know. Of course political pressure has been mentioned, but all that means is even weaker arguments
  10. Yes, they share the same corporate leadership. Ergo they potentially share corporate culture including corporate safety culture. Therefore potential safety concerns at Boeing's aviation side can be a reason to do an audit of the safety culture at their space side. You are right in that NASA does not have to concern themselves with actually inspecting the aviation side. As long as things are known to be fine in the space side of Boeing, it would not matter for Commercial Crew if 737s were dropping like flies... Plus FAA will be doing a number on the aviation side anyway if the allegat
  11. Wait? Three pages about Musk and safety in general? But no-one has mentioned even in passing that the other company under scrutiny has recently been implicated in omitting safety critical information from the operating manuals of a flagship product? And that has possibly contributed in a loss of passenger lives event? Of course the investigation is still very much ongoing so the officials cannot openly mention it - just as they cannot openly mention the other one's substance use habits. Just reminds us that there are more than one side in a coin.
  12. Decoys are physical things, although they do belong under the broader concept of jamming. What you have been describing is better categorized into deceptive jamming techniques. Have you considered how your technique behaves in non-trivial acoustic environments e.g. surface duct or bottom bounce conditions? And especially when some emitters are in a different region from others? (a quick reference of sound paths for those who want one: http://www.oc.nps.edu/~bird/oc2930/acoustics/summary.html )
  13. "The constantly-changing acronym" would fit in the Culture names theme SpaceX has had going with the barges pretty well. I like that! Because when they do... third reich.
  14. These guys might be interested in cheaper bricks. Most 3D printing building systems seem to extrude concrete like materials though.
×
×
  • Create New...