Jacke

The SOSUS system is very good at locating and identifying sources that put out multiple signals and that have previously been detected. While it would have seemed like a vessel implosion, it would still be a single signal. From what I heard, the USN informed the search agency, Boston US Coast Guard, which it was up to to release that information. They did use the information to narrow the search. It still required finding the wreck to be certain. Just from the publicly released information on Monday, those with a strong submarine knowledge like Sub Brief knew the submersible was almost certainly lost.

But considering some of the passengers were billionaires, I'm sure there'll be lawyers driving a civil suit that will start with getting those releases thrown out due to the incompetence and fatal hubris of Stockton Rush.

From what I know, that wasn't the problem with the 737 MAX. There were 2 problems as I see it. First problem was that Boeing (still in the grips of bad leadership fallout from the McDonnell-Douglas takeover in the 1990's) wanted to push out the 737 MAX without the need to re-certify pilots on a new model. This was crazy. The increased thrust of the new engines changed the balance between thrust, drag, lift, and weight, as well as the pitch moments needed to balance this across the flight envelop. Second problem was certain controls should have been updated but weren't. Like the pitch trim control. This was powered only when the software was active. Which then at times pushed the pitch trim control too far nose down. Turn off the software and the pitch trim had to be adjusted manually. This combination almost certainly led to the crashes. With proper training and pitch trim control, there would have been no need for the software to drive the pitch trim control. Back to this deathtrap submersible. From Sub Brief's video on it, which he researched from public sources, there was a culture of avoiding proper submarine knowledge experts and proper design, safety equipment, and testing of the craft. He also said there was apparently no proper true test depth dive. And that would be dangerous, as carbon fibre doesn't crack but shatters. I've heard from another source that 5in of carbon fibre wasn't enough, which by calculation should have a test depth about 4000m (which was never tested), about the same depth as the wreck of the Titanic; it should have had 7in. And Sub Brief compared it to Apollo 1: apparently no problem atmosphere environment control, just dumping more oxygen into a tube without ability from the inside to escape or even vent. It's another case of rich / billionaire hubris. They think they can set everything the way they want it. The Laws of Physics trumped them.

The Mods just get stuck with cleaning up all the messes that result.

Considering a max Gs over 700, I think you converted your Kerbals into Mystery Goo.

Damn, I'm ancient. I remember this. I also remember at least for me the game was a hella hard.

Said kid can't be a P.E. And they're off to work for Musk. That will be enough to crush anything good and bright within them.

There's also the Oberth effect.

If the performance of the larger nozzle isn't needed, a 1-for-1 exchange with payload mass for the reduced engine mass, as it's on the final stage.

I'd actually like to see relative numbers of the number of ejections out-of-combat versus in-combat. I'd suspect that out-of-combat is greater because these are high-performance aircraft operating much closer to their limits much more often. Combat aircraft designs also have features like near neutral stability even before computer controls were added, now even moreso with it. Of course, the high-performance design and its features are because they fly in combat, so even the out-of-combat failures are due to their role demanding that performance. I've wondered about the real survival chances for the various Shuttle abort modes, even the ejection seats in the first few flights. There was some revision of them in light of more serious analysis later in the Shuttle's life. Especially considering that it's now considered that the Gemini ejection seats may have had a low survival chance as well. Space rocketry and flight are things that aren't quite like anything else we do, although high-performance combat aircraft come close. It will develop as its own thing. There shouldn't be glib talk about becoming just like commercial aircraft flight because that ignores how challenging going to space and performing there is. I think space travel went far beyond being a stunt through the 1970's and 1980's. We have a workable system now with two groups of launch vehicles: Uncrewed LVs for cargo to orbit (and perhaps for a future vehicle, for return) which balance cost versus accepting a failure rate with work to minimize that failure rate. Crewed LVs for human transport which are specialized at greater cost to push that reliability along with launch escape systems and other abort modes to handle when things fail. Beyond LEO missions are similar in design, though more challenging. As an example, the original Mars Direct (with first the uncrewed Earth Return Vehicle followed by the crewed Mars Habitat Unit) had abort modes for failures of the MHU that got it back to Earth. It comes down to the fact that all space rockets and craft are high-performance and push much closer to their limits that common utility craft that operate on Earth. We desire better performance and safety but these will likely only improve over the current best slowly. Each new vehicle design is to a degree experimental and should be revised in light of knowledge from their operation. New LVs and craft for various missions, both evolutionary and revolutionary, should be part of this. One of the big mistakes of the Shuttle was that revised craft with revised handling wasn't developed in the 1990's.

The 787 doesn't need ejection seats because it's not a high-performance combat aircraft. It's the culmination of a century of utility aircraft design that has evolved and improved. It's built reasonably ruggedly so that total airframe failure possibility is miniscule. There are 2 pilots, 2 engines, and other redundancies so that even when having failures, performance degrades slowly. And if both engines fail, the aircraft can still glide and have a chance of landing with minimal injuries. Launch vehicles are all high-performance and the tasks demanded of them push all of them close to their limits. Reliability and performance can't be wished into being but must be designed, tested, and measured to see what is reality. The best LVs still have a major abort rate of around 1%. Failures often lead to rapid and serious performance degradation and aborts. It doesn't matter what is wanted, it's what can be achieved. And new designs of radical departure are test vehicles and not at all likely to be optimal. These are all the problems that the Shuttle had and I would think it was a solid enough lesson not to repeat its mistakes. The rest of your post you nitpick but it comes down to this: Is it realistic engineering and operations? Clean slate doesn't matter because the challenges remain the same. A different approach still has to deal with the same challenges. Use the painful lessons and the basics of the subject matter, plan, prepare, practice, perfect, in war or rocketry. Short-cuts are gambles and need to be limited. Gamble enough at bad odds leads to failure. I've watched this all happen since Gemini 12. Things evolve facing great challenges and demand care, attention, and knowledge of the field to make the right choices. Giving in to hubris in war and rocketry kills.

First, a little personal background that is related to this flight attempt of Starship. I am a veteran of the King's Own Calgary Regiment, which in World War 2 was known as the Calgary Regiment, informally the Calgary Tanks. Which on 19 August 1942 participated in Operation Jubilee, the Dieppe Raid. The only true successes of Operation Jubilee were the 2 flanking landings by Commando forces. The main landing was a failure. The approach and landings had problems and came under effective enemy fire. There was insufficient naval and air bombardment to suppress that fire. From my Regiment, among the landing casualties was the Commanding Officer's tank which sank and he and his crew were lost. Only a few tanks got off the beach but with the other troops far insufficient to achieve any of their objectives. All tanks that were mobile withdrew to cover the evacuation of the surviving troops. Many Canadian soldiers died and many were taken prisoner, especially from the Calgary Tanks. I knew a few of them personally in their later years. At the time there was a lot of controversy over the Dieppe Raid. There still is to some degree over the history. There were claims that valuable lessons were learned. Hog wash. Nothing was learned about amphibious landings and combined arms operations that wasn't already known and demonstrated better later in the same year in other Allied assaults. The lessons were there beforehand to be found. Like many operations of mixed results, there was a lot wrong in the planning, preparations, and forces dedicated as well as the goals considering the challenge of the ground and opposing forces. As for Starship.... Rocket engineering isn't the tech business. Move fast and break things is damn more expensive. There's nearly a century of history lessons that were learned with blood and money and any organization that glibly ignores these lessons will pay for it in more ways than one. The flaws, let's count a few of them. SpaceX and the Starship design. I'm not going to go into details on these, but they are flawed. Just two points: SpaceX has lost a lot of competent staff who've moved on to better jobs. Starship almost certainly can't have a launch escape system retrofitted, so it can't be crew-rated. Because major abort -> lost LV -> lost crew. That was one of the grave mistakes of the Shuttle and should not be repeated. Facility: Too small. Wrong because it encroaches on wildlife areas, an international border, and human habitation. No room for proper test stands and launch pads with proper safety areas for each. It would be hard pressed to fit a pistol range with a backstop berm and its safety template in that area. Insufficient critical engineering design and review of what is a radically different launch vehicle. Lack of testing, especially no full-engine-count full-thrust full-duration burn test of Superheavy. A flight profile that depends on Superheavy and Starship being flung apart by spinning, which has never been done and wasn't tested with any sort of cheaper test vehicle. And which is susceptible to being unable to stage if there are even a small number of failures in Superheavy. Ignorance of warning signs and problem predictions again and again (this one is so common in all engineering and military operations it's painful). An attitude to sweep problems under the rug and claim failures are successes. An attitude that the rules of engineering and the industry don't apply to them because...reasons. Wanting to do something different and improve things doesn't mean ignore the history of engineering (centuries) and rocketry (just under a century).

Don't think they are logistically workable, considering the supplies and support needed.

China is falling behind Japan.

I suggest you edit that post and remove or spoiler all that text. That part of the log is unlikely to useful. Don't bother with the 1.95GB log, create a new one with the issue. You need to provide all the log, because it has a lot of the information needed to troubleshoot the problem, like all mods loaded and any issues with loading the mods. And the root cause of the problem is often not what produces the errors, so the whole log is needed to track events related to the issue. Create a new log where you start the game, go through the same steps to encounter the issue, then exit the game. After that, upload the logs to a file sharing site like Dropbox and share the link to the uploaded log. Also provide the steps you did to encounter the issue.

It's been a while since I played World of Tanks. That means...?

World of Tanks !?! Damn it, man! Not World of Tanks! It's not worth it! Played it for years and it's now bad and getting worse! I at least hope you're playing under Tier 8. Higher is just madness.

How does @HarvesteR pronounce 'Kerbal' ?

Don't blame the communication tool for issues that should be controlled by those in charge of each server. Security, standards, and moderation are vital for any communication tool, like these forums. It's why there's hard-working moderation staff like @Snark. Because there's those who will do all sorts of wrongs if there's not someone who will deal with them. I'm a member of several Discords who have great communities of well-behaved members who discuss many subjects, sometimes quite difficult ones, with a net benefit to all members. Any company that provides a "free" tool has to have some way to financially support that tool's operations. I've not looked at Discord's in detail, but they've certainly avoided quite horrible monetization schemes I've seen elsewhere.

Probably due to the alt key being used extensively in X Window.

Kerbals aren't dead in the same way we become dead. They have an actual Afterlife that we're watching and controlling. A Kerbal Valhǫll / Fólkvangr where Kerbals snack, drink, then go out to launch aircraft and rockets, perhaps die, then rise to do it all again. It's the best explanation I've thought of to understand it all.

I actually had a profound insight a couple of days ago where I went deeper. This explains so much. Why the physics of the Kerbal universe are crazy. Why the Kerbals are Little Green People who can survive indefinitely in space. Even return unharmed after apparently perishing. Because KSP is the Kerbal Afterlife. Who knows what Kerbals looked like before? But they must have been crazy about rockets and space. Because that's all they do now. Over and over again.

Method 1 close to the optimum phase angle means you depart Kerbin at about the right time for an optimum Hohmann transfer orbit (which requires the least delta-V for nearly all cases of interplanetary travel). Using Method 2 means the phase angle could be any value, which means you might have to do a fast transfer which is a lot more delta-V. While a fast transfer to Mun or Minmus isn't that much more delta-V, interplanetary it's a lot more.

Between different groups, I think I used nearly every major audio chat system, Mumble, TeamSpeak, Ventrilo, some of them over several versions. All of them had issues, either setting up, things that would come up during use, or requiring a paid server in one way or another for any chat use. Discord was a game changer: simple to configure, significant limits for the free server, rarely having issues. Everyone I know that used audio chat soon switched to Discord.

I think Discord got established because it made it very easy to have multiplayer audio chat that just worked. It added in text chat and nice additions to that. Since then it's grown. But doing audio chat simply and well was what got Discord adopted by many people.