Jump to content

MaverickSawyer

Members
  • Posts

    3,130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MaverickSawyer

  1. Here is another report on the 747 cruise missile carrier proposal: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371 But yeah, great for war, not so great for smallsat launches.
  2. Depends on how you establish their price... From my understanding, they're simply modifying the existing SSMEs for the mission and throwing them away. So, they're cheaper than new-build engines... but in terms of the amount of money sunk into the hardware over the years, they're stupidly expensive.
  3. Apparently it was test stand plumbing that caused the leak, not the engine. Still... Not very encouraging. They're going to wear out the engines before SLS flies at this rate.
  4. I will admit, that did run through my mind as I typed my previous post.
  5. Well, back to the knife, and plenty of progress now... as well as a LOT of FOD being generated and ejected from the area.
  6. They're finally on station and starting the cut. Aaand they have to swap to scissors. o.O Whoa... those are scissors? Looks like some rather stout tin snips if you ask me...
  7. So, if one were to set up an orbital brick making operation, asteroids would be a better source of feedstock. Huh.
  8. Yeah... I suspect that the traffic there is simply a fact of nature, like water flowing downhill or the sun being bright. It'll never change. Also, the mess that is the 405-167 interchange... Yeah, that is an absolute disaster, even after the new flying on/off ramps are done. They have GOT to fix the short merge on northbound 167... But I'm not holding my breath on that one. Back on topic, though... I'm with the gang that's of the "That's pretty, but when exactly are you going to build this?" opinion. Great on paper, but sadly lacking in the hardware department.
  9. Hmmm... Interesting concept, but unless someone can come up with a way of detecting it, I'd wager this will likely remain the domain of theoretical physicists. And just because it bears out in a computer model doesn't mean it is actually real.
  10. Most nuclear power plants are located next to a large body of water to act as a thermal sink. Some are near oceans, and some are on lakes or rivers. And Re: Fukushima Daiichi... The plant would likely have been fine had the backup generator halls not flooded due to a reluctance from upper management to acknowledge reports from geologists and seismologists that the tsunami threat at the plant's location was significantly worse than originally thought. I.E. management overriding the people who know what they're doing and talking about and causing chaos in the process. Seems to be a distressingly common issue these days. Yep, that's the one. Went back and found the article that first introduced me to this wonderful beast of a machine now that I'm home and in front of my computer: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24906/russia-uses-these-crazy-antique-jet-engine-equipped-trucks-to-blast-away-chemical-agents
  11. They use a similar vehicle for chemical warfare decontamination, don't they?
  12. Given that the last time they flew a similar manifest of three Rodniks, there was an apparent hitchhiker, I'd say yeah, we've got us another "orbital inspector". Make of that what you wish...
  13. Fuel efficiency by reducing drag losses? I think it's more of a holdover from the days of the "soup atmosphere" Kerbin.
  14. That's the kicker... They're not cheap to fly, due to the fuel-thirsty engines they use: P&W JT12 turbojets. Unless... Hmm. Those aren't the same style of nacelle... could it have been reengined?
  15. Exactly. Until they freeze the design, I'm not even bothering to pay attention to the latest idea Elon has had. Hopefully, they opt to make something that's actually possible, instead of blindly chasing Elon's latest notion.
  16. Honestly, SLS is a pork project they're scrambling to find missions for, just to justify the existence of the SLS. There's NOTHING it can do that other rockets can't do for cheaper and faster, even if it does take them multiple launches and some docking/orbital assembly to perform it. I mean, how fast can you turn around a couple of Falcon 9 first stages? About as fast as it takes to build a single SLS core stage tank section, right? And that's not even counting flight rates... just out of Florida alone, SpaceX can run, what, 8 or 9 missions a year? Versus 1 for SLS if you're lucky. Plus, SLS is completely disposable, which doesn't help matters any. I'll lay my predictions down now: SLS will never reach Block II, or even IB. It'll fly exactly ONE mission, and then it'll be scrapped and replaced with some new shuttle-derived booster that will then also make one flight... in another decade.
  17. Oh, that I knew about, but that's something that is internal and doesn't have to change between "versions". Or, it could simply be a test article for proof of concept work. I guess, since people are going to be like that, I'll have to clarify what I mean by "hardware": Something ready to commit to production.
  18. At this point, I refuse to acknowledge any "updates" to BFR until I see hardware.
  19. To answer the question posed in the OP: Never.
  20. They could care less about the actual jobs. They only care about not giving people a reason to vote against them.
  21. Well, at least SOMEONE has a functional brain.
  22. Huh. Chase bird is a Sabreliner. There aren't many of those around...
×
×
  • Create New...