kerbiloid

Some states allow guns, other don't. Why distract the driver's attention with the road signs?

It's a shame to say, but still can't get, what that all is about briefly? Some professor, fond of ET, wants to establish a volunteer sky guard with low-end professional telescopes to watch if some interstellar objects (afaik, we know just one or two to the moment) are actually derelict craft or invasion fleet to seed another life by using our (or delivered) 3d printers, and some secret billionaire send him money? What's criminal if he got money? What's the intrigue? P.S. The idiom of "sharp cookie" I understood, they are as smart as the browser.

I didn't see this timeline. Ok, three hours later the pressure-fed self-igniting thruster system with presumably malfunctioning valve had unexpectedly ignited, starting burning out the fuel remains from the operational tank pair. What does it change, if it ignited not on contact, but with a delay? It's malfunctioning, as it was stated, and it's out fuel and can repeat that. Maybe a sudden hit during the hatch operations made a damaged valve open, maybe an engine sensor send a wrong signal on that hit, maybe these events are not related at all. If you pay attention to my posts in the Russian Launches thread, the RCS thrusters are fed from the only pair of tanks, while others are unavailable for them, and Roscosmos stated that they blew with helium the fuel system to remove the fuel remains. The "failsafe" is just a technobabble magic word from ideal word. No technical system can be "failsafe", it can be only enough redundant to: "Continue flight if any one system failed, safely aboty the flight if two system failed", as it's usually stated in docs. The type 77 modules just prove their redundancy in these terms. Nauka continued the flight, reached the destination, stayed operational (except the system that are unnecessary after the flight), and the issues appeared during the flight were fixed remotely, by internal systems, with no external invasion. Challenger. Columbia. Apollo-13. Failsafe? Or as failsafe as reasonably possible? Or the key switch was engaged (the most probably, but the (as already stated)) damaged fuel system was open, and the hypergolic fuel continued passing from the hight-pressure tank to a low-thrust thruster. It's a normal operation implemented in the docking adaptor construction since dinosaurs. The Buran-Mir APAS-89 adaptor, laying in the base of the IDSS standard used in all American ships was designed to detach it with pyrofasteners in case if Buran can't undock. So, check all American docking ports for that feature. Nauka doesn't use exactly APAS, but it still could be detached in case of emergency. So what? It would escape radially, as it's attached this way. All American cargo ships are 10-15 t heavy chunks of metal floating in several meters from ISS between the panels and modules in a hope that Canadarm will grab them, rather than push. As we can see, it didn't send unpredicted commands. It either didn't send them at all, or was happy with one thruster on. It was piloted manually, all systems were intact. Just the pilot was tired and the view obstructed. Nauka approached automatically, then was corrected manually, then docked automatically. How at all the Virgin Galactic test plane relates to the Nauka with her 1980s tech, using the systems flying for decades? Soyuz-10 fied long before Kurs, it used Igla. But this module family was happily docking with both Igla and Kurs. Also, why at all talk about the approaching system, which just provides the guidance computer with coordinates and velocities, and the performance happened after docking. Soyuz-10 had the guidance system not even closely similar to the Almaz family. A minor but unexpected failure with only possible dramatic result of jettisonning Nauka and saying bye to it. I just trying to demonstrate the relativity of the "failsafe" term. There were no failsafe designs in space. Almost all flights had their issues, from minor to lethal, and only system redundancy saved them. I believe, their agreement/disagreement means nothing until they have assembled something of Mir level. To the moment we can see only mockups and 3d models. A tiny think inside the trunk, taken and plugged by Canadarm. The same about the Bishop Airlock. Cute little things. There are several such modules delivered by just a Progress (Pirs RIP, Rassvet, Poisk). And I mean the full-sized ones, of 4 m diameter. Yes. It's not failsafe, and killed 14 people. But 2/3 of human flights were performed by this not perfect design, and it many times docked to Mir and ISS. Any critical failure, and ISS would be squashed, but that was a risk. I have a strange feeling that Boeing will catch cold walking SpaceX and Bigelow to museum. According to wiki, Of 916 German F-104 292 (30%) were lost in crashes, 116 pilots were killed. Also, the Canadian F-104 lost 46% in crashes. So, the numbers look shuttlish. And except the lunar transfer and the lunar ascent this "failsafe" was implemented by engine redundancy, when a failed engine could be replaced with another one. And this is exactly what happened in the Nauka flight. And Nauka just used RCS to reach ISS instead of main engines. What is "failsafe state" when a fuel valve is probably broken and inoperational? No plane is failsafe while it's fueled. Also, Nauka could not dump the fuel before docking, because probably it would dump all fuel. If this make the plane rotate by 1.5 turns in three hours, it is not a failure, it's a notice for technicians to check what's skewed. The human reaction time is same. Nothing special happened. It's a technics, and things happen from time to time. If American modules were self-propelled or the cargo ships were docking instead off berthing, we would probably had a lot of other cases to amaze, Nauka is not something from Armageddon with Bruce Willis (Mir finally was, lol). The real list of issues unlikely will be published, and if it was, it would require a detailed technical description of the module to explain what is where, and nobody will do this. Some version enough good for public will be stated, but it's absolutely no guarantee that it will have any relation to real events. Because the audience doesn't care (and 95% probably is not aware of the event at all), and engineers will have no desire to get into details after the investigation. So, the only things which really matter are: 1) Will it repeat with Nauka? = No, because its tanks are anyway empty. 2) Will it repeat with Nauka-like module? = No, it was the last in its family. 3) Could it cause drama? = Unlikely, because Nauka would be just jettissonned and fly away, then burn in atmosphere several months later. 4) What was wrong with Nauka on ground? = A lot of, but this doesn't matter anymore. 5) Can something happen because Roscosmos is not enough good? = It happened even with perfect NASA and shuttles. 6) Will another Russian module delivery be same spectacular? = No, just another 3 m module was going to be delivered. So, it's an endless story how should something be made perfectly in a world where a rocket with 2% chances to explode is considered reliable.

Banned for catsploitation.

I guess, the ground scenes are filmed long ago. Then Nauka provided them with natural SFX (why, do you all think, all this performance took place?) Now they'll film the zero-G scenes to make nervously smoking at doors not only Cruise, but also Bullock (her SFX was just a 3d). And by the end of the year there could be the movie. Exactly, when the film-about-film finishes on TV. Alas, unlikely there will be toys and souvenirs, like a toy Nauka with water thrusters.

They could. Thus, she should.

Still 0 launches. N-1 was also a product. 4 launches. Much more a product than Starship and SLS, lol.

Atlas, Delta, andTitan also aren't.

To the moment, both Starship and SLS are same good. Together with Sea Dragon and Convair Nexus.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https://tass.ru/kultura/12088217 The TV viewers will be able to watch all phases of preparation to the movie filming, on Sundays from September. In March the Channel One started filiming the process, from the actress casting. The plot of the "Challenge" is about a specialist girl who must prepare in a month to the flight to ISS to perform an important mission assigned by Roscosmos. The rookies will be training to do the space things, withstand the overloads, and survive on the planet (Earth?) surface after landing. The technologies and training practices of Roscosmos will be shown.

How could it be a lightsail, when it's a twin of the spear-like probe from Aniara which they were catching to scratch out the fuel? They probably loose such things from time to time, and they are passing through the Solar System at hyperbolic speed. The Pratchett's Unseen University is a documentary.

"The second phase of the experiments is devoted to raising of quail population in orbit". That's a purpose for that inflatable shed we already forgot of. It can be a henhouse.

No. My whole argument is "the best of the best aviation engineers tried do to that, and look how it worked" The elementary physics says the same. A simple cylinder is a harsh way to aerobrake from both aerodynamics and thermodynamics pov.

The "new materials" argument doesn't work here, as as it was stated earlier (not by me) they replaced the 12 m composite with old style 9 m steel. With 10 m round cargo bay? And 20 wide booster? Probably, they thought, no.

Do you think the shuttle developers would not make it a simple cylinder if it worked? Do you doubt that "they know better than you?" (as I always hear here). As they had to make the shuttle shuttlish, they were forced to complicate this this way.

It has to pass through the atmosphere from 8 km/s, btw, not just land vertically. No. "It began working when become the shuttle."

Anything like a gliding?

They are asymmetric cylinders with internal spatial support structure and the nadir surface combined together with wing into a lifting body, and ogive nose. With fins, rudder, and elevons. The starship mockup is a cylinder with ogive nose, with winglets. The capsules are just capsules.

Starship is a cylindric envelope aerobraking with the side surface, using winglets to stay stable, overturning to land vertically on engines on the exact landing point. Capsules are conical bodies aerobraking axially (mostly), having no need in everything other due to chutes. The only thing to compare is Shuttle/Buran. Aerodynamics.

It was 90 in = 2.3 m in diameter, and unlike the Mercury it was already a lifting body. Its shape was much easier to aerobrake than a cylinder perpendicular to flow, and it landed by chutes, and used no winglets. Apollo capsule was 3.5 m in dianeter. All of them are smaller, stronger, and have simpler shape. Their aerodynamics is rather primitive, compared to Starship.

Of an empty mockup, not of a fully loaded glider. Currently they have a 30-engine wannabe-1st-stage and a cylinder-with-winglets wannabe-2nd-stage. None of them ever flew seriously.

(The answers merged in the previous post by the forum) And absolutely different picture of stresses for absolutely different envelope size and shape. What's the difference between a parachute and Boeing-747? They both fly.

Conical capsules (except Mercury) are lifting bodies themselves. Spherical (Vostok/Voskhod) and Merucry aren't, but they are just first several attempts, and they were 2 m in diameter. A glider with aerodynamics of real shuttle. Where is the Starship gliding test? Shuttle was designed keeping in mind the ability, but this was not critical for its flight. They changed nothing except the adaptor.

Atlantis 7 times docked to Mir and 12 to ISS, so it had a variant of APAS-95.

It had lifting body and wings, and fin. A real spaceship performing a real flight, just from plane. Shuttle knew how to dock, because it was designed to dock to the Skylab, using Apollo docking adaptor. It never had a doubt if dock with tail or with wing. Its adaptor was just not implemented in metal. And it didn't affect its ability to perform a spaceflight.