kerbiloid

What will we do with a drunken Kerbal? What will we do with a drunken Kerbal? What will we do with a drunken Kerbal? Early in the morning!

And that's while they were cut. Unlike ICBM/SLBM they were not a force, but were requiring too much money.

Their statements are nice, if they are truth. Though this means that they have to dismiss the rocket due to a single part malfunction. But no, the keyword is "unless the telemetry and other data suggest a problem" And you can't know from their words, how often it happens. Every flight? Every ten flights? I hardly can imagine how an engine can pass a defectoscopy check without the engine bunch disassembly. How can you explain, why do they use twenty rockets at once, instead of spending them one by one? My explanation is simple: most of the rockets are partially disassembled for servicing, and it takes months. Any industrial product has a pre-calculated amount of rounds/cycles/whatever. That's how they calculate the part thickness and select the materials Why do they not just wash and refuel Falcons and launch them next day? So, twenty Falcons fly every week every rocket? There is no business case to build more rockets than you actually need for the moment. They take money even if just stay on ground. All designs which have been designed as reusables. Engines, return vehicles, etc. As well as the engines of Shuttle and Energy. This just allows to pre-calculate the whole system lifespan. And as SH has 33 engines, this is exactly what makes it even more depending on check and repair. Remember, what are you telling about the ejection seats on cargo planes. Here are 33 rocket engines instead. It's a powerpoint to the moment. I did. Does SH has more? The Starship has not exploded just in one flight of (six?), and even with just the vernier engines. Just a demo hopper surving 20% of flights with 3 engines of 33, and never getting close to 8 km/s.

N1 was. And has flown four times. Just spent more money than Nexus and SeaDragon together, and gave the NK-33 engines for Antares. Who knows, maybe the Raptors have same path. [snip] Maybe, but originally I just noticed that nobody will ruin the existing SRB technological chain, so the SLS usage is inevitable, and other rockets can be only an addition to it. That's exactly this thread topic. The question is time, and no money can buy it. If US starts needing an ICBM/SLBM mass production (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike), nobody will allow a pause. It will stay a non-stop process, like it was since (Which is also could be said about the 140 t capable Saturn V. Its production had started in early 1960s. Then stopped, and now they are trying to build a 70+ t SLS and are happy when SpaceX talks about the 100+ t SH). The SRB will be in production not because they are better, but because they let the show keep going unstppably. The equipment should stay intact and serviced, the personnel should stay trained, the material support should be on rails. So, they need a purpose. Not so much purposes for a huge SRB except the heavy rockets. The tactical ones are a bad example for the obvious reason. It's much easier to make a small SRB than a large one. *** The space always was just an side applied purpose of military industry. Nobody spends so much money just for peace. If there were no ICBM, there would be no billion dollar satellites. Nobody would just even build them. Think not just like space enthusiasts. They never played role in space history, and when they did, things got even worse. Unlike ICBM/SLBM, the six wooden frigates of President Washington were being built in hundred amounts everywhere and anyway were nothing compared to the British fleet. The continental army was not dismissed.

Nobody knows how does the brain function beyond a pure physiology and the most destructive malfunctions. How does a butterfly learn to fly? And it doesn't have a real brain, Do the twins joined with heads "hear" the thoughts of each other? Afair, they do (one gives answers) on what another is watching), though at the same time they are two different personalities. What if make such cyber twin without a personality, but with reloadable memory?

Yes, but read about the immediate aftermath of the vampire lifestyle, hidden from us by Holy Wood. Though the diapers can be gothic black, too.

We should not forget Nexus and SeaDragon. They have performed exactly same amount of flights as Starship did to the date, but are much more capable.

If they don't reassemble them (idk why are you sure), then they depend on the hardware deprecation process even more. In this case they have rely on the pre-calculated flight number while the accumulated deformations do not affect the rocket reliability beyond the appropriate risk. That nonsense was being applied to the crew-rated Shuttles, which were partially disassembled between the flights and even exchanging with their propulsion systems. Let alone their SRB which were a set of refillable sections, and the on last flight one of them was using a skirt from the first flight. Engines aren't welded to the tanks. And they need a check, too. The business is when a vehicle doesn't wait several months between flights. Plane sat, plane ate, plane flew away. The several month long interval isn't applied without a reason. And the only reason is the interflight servicing. This inspection lasts for several hours between the passenger check-ins. After several thousands of flights. Not between several of them. No, by this logic the interval is set exactly by the calculated amount of rounds before the accumulated deformations can decrease the part reliability and make the flight unsafe. And it's not just a check, it's check and repair, with replacement of the parts which became unreliable. And this analysis is based on...what exactly? On zero flights performed. Falcon has more than zero. So, unlike Falcon, SH/SS hasn't proven its ability to perform more than zero flights. I'm assuming this is some kind of heuristic... It's based on the fact that still no Falcon has flown more than ten times, the fact that almost all known rocket designs set ten rounds as the desired value, the fact that the Shuttle engines performed up to 9 flights each (and the Energy's RD-0120 was certified for 10 as well), and the fact that the Shuttles reusability costed 0.5 .. 1 bln USD per flight and needed the partial reassembly. Also on the ratio of the green and orange bands after just a atmospheric hop at 2 km/s speed. Nothing has proven its ability to lift 150 t in reusable version. Actually, yet even 0 t in any version. As I have shown in the SpX thread, unlikely its reusable version capability is greater than 60 t, but this doesn't matter at this point, before they have flown at least once. Let it do that at least once for the beginning. 200 t is even better. Or 500. Why not declare more?

The omeletes are banned until your lunch dinner food session.

Granted. You are a modern locomotive and stopped smoking. I wish the batteries were more capable.

Cleehoo!!!

And not once. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-wheeler

Sta-. *** The table looks rather strong.

"We" need not a preloaded knowledge, but a loadable/unloadable knowledge modules for various situations, possessing the body and doing the work with your understanding of what happens here in whole. Why study a neurosurgery just to cure a colleague head damage in wild nature once per life, when you can load, do, and unload? Why study the shooting or martial arts, when they can be temporarily loaded, and then unloaded (when the road is clear and you can quickly run away after loading the runner plugin) ? Why learn playing cards on piano, or on guitar, or on any other flat top musical tool, when it's required just from time to time? The loadable content is much more handy.

Yes, with a bat badge on it.

There is nothing magical in the hardware depreciation. Any hardware is designed for a known presumed number of rounds, and the most affected parts are tested on ground. Any plane has a prototype to torture until death. So, they can gather data if the rocket can survive 5 flights or 15, but not 10 or 100.

Other programs? What do you mean "other programs"?

Without NASA is the craft lifespan unlimited? Or its reliability is decreasing every flight and requires a part replacement, making it cheaper to replace the whole rocket by the tens flight?

Granted. You hear the Rigelian Invasion Fleet March from the sky, I wish the modern games were as interactive as DukeNukem 3d was.

Not yet. What's the difference between the 10th and the 11th flights?

Repenvy is a friend of Renesmee. Bladed.

(Trying to combine the cookie with the tsunami and the name of the nuke plant from above, faced linguistic troubles, so...) Big Wave Cookie. Wavookie.

Hill Of No Sense

Banned for not joining both proletarians and contraletarians into omniletarians.

To make you ask for an antidote in the name of Crassus. Waiter! Are you sure that this rotten fish sauce is an authentic Ancient Roman dish? Now I understand that Spartacus.