kerbiloid

@ShuttlePilot! ShuttlePilot — ShuttlePilot?

Interesting, how many dino fans had a trained reptile at home, which can remember anything more complicated than "Knock-knock! - FOOOD!!!". *** (Unrelated.) If take the Batman movies from various epochs, the younger is the movie, the darker is Gotham. Compare the sunny and silly Batman of 1960, the 1980s Catwoman&Penguin Batmans (eternal clouds, rain or night), the Dark Knight (+ real drama), and the Gotham series (+ many real dramas and almost a radioactive acidic rain on the street). Probably, they are now having a rest to prepare for the Batman: Apocalypsis, or Batman: Judgement Day, or Zombatman vs Radioactive Furry Mutants. At least, Batman with "Fat Man".

And still??? Clickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk !!

d ~10%

V = pi D2 h / 4

Banned for neglecting the contraletarians.

Samurai means katana. Japan means nuclear powerplants. Cookie-Katanukie

You have a soup dispenser on the wall. Serve yourself, please. Waiter! Why is the restroom still occupied? Is it a think tank sink?

Another one. The Hills of Love

Granted. You start a project of astral travels. I wish, they join you.

Measuring angles with a thumb is a cheating.

Jeb saw the pale blue dot.

Of course, because motion is life. Is workout a good idea in space?

Be even more if a future lunar base.

As a Starlink carrier. They don't launch a crew by its eighth flight. While a billion expensive sat makes even a new Falcon cost negligible.

Thanks to KSP, all of us can into rocket science. Does it help us?

They wanted something three-wheeled? The Pierson's Puppeteers aren't agreed.

What a morning! It's clickable!

FTFY Did SN15 reach the LEO, or is it just a lowspeed hopper without the SH booster? 2 km/s or 8 km/s? In this case, Blue Origins also can into space. Just an established product, using the existing assemble and launch complex. Finally they made it carry ~3% of launch mass to LEO, originally it was less. Protons and Cyclons have delivered several times more cargo to LEO than Soyuz, just they are not so famous due to secrecy. Finally it got as capable as Proton. So, originally it had a twice worse performance than it could. Proton had originally ~18 t, then reached ~22 t. That's because it was designed properly from the beginning. *** The launch cost is not defined by the rocket cost, A plane has a several ten thousands flights lifespan and it doesn't need a reassembly between the flights to test every part and sort out spent parts. All it needs is a quick watch and refuel. It takes hours. How long does it take between two flights of the same Falcon instance? Isn't this a work of several hundreds of qualified specialists for qualified money? Don't they check and certify every part like if it was just produced? See Shuttle for example. When an uncrewed rocket can be launched ten times, this means that every launch decreases her reliability enough to doubt in the eleventh one (even if it is crewless). In turn, this means that you can make only one or two launches with crewed or valuable cargo, while the rest ones are for easy-come-easy-go payload like Starlinks and Cubesats. So, a reusable rocket makes sense when it : either can fly 100 times with total check every 10th flight or better never; or is to carry payload cheaper than the rocket itself (or the payload is mass-produced), and nobody spends money on the rocket full check; or is so large and complicated, that only ten launches are required, and it's easier than build it every time. SS/SH currently looks not more reliable than Falcon is. Its lifespan unlikely can reach more than several flights, its payload is either not much greater than Falcon Heavy's one, or vice versa is too great to launch cubesats. So, while SS/SH looks more fancy, SLS is supporting the existing industry, the ICBM production, the factory personnel business and qualification, and is probably enough to deliver a half of the Moon expedition to the LOP-G and back without flying circus of elliptic orbit refuelling and so on.

Then you make it proportionally shorter, and it weights fine. And they still need a skirt. So, even Raptors 2 don't fit its diameter. Thus, Raptor 1 looks unable even to lift it, and the diameter looks overoptimistically. The cutouts have a visible gap to prevent the contact of the nozzle and the ring. The nozzles are attached to the combustion chamber, not to the ring. And anyway the cutouts weaken the ring and would not be planned, unless being forced to by the already existing tank design. I believe, the SpaceX engineers know what they do much better than we can estimate their engine quality. Then why call it "problems"? Of course, where the engines are put close to each other, they shade each other, so the cooling area gets decreases twice in the real rocket, rather than on the test stand. Looks like they faced the problem of Raptor 1 overclocking, making it possible to lift this rocket at all. Just a side note https://3dnews-ru.translate.goog/1026699/glavniy-ingener-raketnih-dvigateley-spacex-pokinul-kompaniyu-ilona-maska?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru

All rockets but Falcon have been developed without getting them back. And the smoking remains of a failed rocket is absolutely same for both expendable and reusable rockets to investigate this and update it. While a normally working rocket is happy with the telemetry.

Electronic means Japan. Japan means ninja. Ninja means nunchaku. Nunchakookie.

The cricket bat says: "BANNN!!!"

It works in KSP, why shouldn't irl. https://spacedock.info/mod/1905/Reliant Robin

The plane mod is from 1946, of course in may have some incompatibilities.