kerbiloid

Yes, who is. Why do the "ice cream" and "eye scream" sound similar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approach_and_Landing_Tests Anything but a hopping mockup ever doing this?

Granted. You eat it, and it stays inside. I wish they cross a coconut with a cucumber to get a coconumber.

A wallet. Which model of the Tesla car was owned by Tesla?

= exactly 0 flight tests, and exactly 0 atmospheric flight tests (unlike the shuttle) To the moment, and still keeps taking. Until it flies, it's not finalized. They even don't know which side to dock. I more "worry", how many times it will be landed.

When I say that a group of lobbyists are pushing the SpaceX against the lobbyists of ULA, and that's the only reason of SpaceX success, they say, I'm wrong.

While the shuttle has flown for 135(?) times. SpaceX and Kerbi&Friends have exactly same number of successful Starship flights. I believe in Shuttle engineers. They prove they knew betteer.

Hours? Iirc. it started right after the docking. ? They started checking the hatch by hours later after the RCS racing was complete. ? The guidance system exists there always, because the computer. The approachment system (Kurs) is used for approaching. It provides the guidance system with coordinates and velocities. Again, what hours? The thrusters started/kept thrusting right after the docking and finished after burning the rest of the fuel from the only available tank pair. It was stated that it has fuel only for one docking attempt, and it happened. Hours later it was happily docked, they were blowing the fuel system from the fuel remains and checking the hatch to open. Exactly this case demonstrates that the system is very failsafe. They had delivered the ship with malfunctioned propulsion/fuel system and successfully docked it on the first (and the only) attempt. So, its systems were enough redundant to bypass the malfunction and complete the mission. The backup mode of propulsion (by RCS, so by 1/4 of fuel) had enough delta-V to perform the flight program rather than abort. And on the docking, when the RCS got out of controlfor some reason, the remains of the fuel were enough small to stop it in minutes. Even if the fuel remains were greater, they would just jettison the whole module from the docking port and loose it, that's all. And that's on the 20+ year old module, after the propulsion system, produced by another manufacturer, was replaced in situ. So, if there is a failsafe system, that's it. The "safe state" sounds good in theory, but any example of when it happened irl? The lost and the almost lost spaceships I can remember, the "frozen" ones I can't. All previous self-propelled modules of that family happily docked to Salyuts, Mir, ISS. The Soyuz-based modules as well. The only reason why the American ones had no trouble were the same several shuttles, using same system every time and having a crew of 7 engineers onboard, and requing a billion of dollars on every interflight servicing, and Canadarm. No shuttles - no new Western modules, and we don't know how would it go if they were self-propelled and docking instead of berthing. (The same about the cargo ships, who disable the engines before docking and put the hopes on the Canadarm). Right now, the Boeing has delayed the CST-100 launch again, due to technical issues. 40% of Shuttles were lost in flight accidents, it's almost the infamous F-104 record. The Apollo-13 returned alive only due to presence of 3 engineers onboard and a hundred on Earth, and everything they did was anything but a failsafe design. So, can't remember any failsafe design in the area where chances to loose the crew are still > 1:100. It is safe while the flight stays controllable in failsafe margins. It did, as we can see. Nothing but RCS racing happened, nothing but additional fuel was lost. Theoretically, a passenger airplane engine should not burn or get switched off. Practically, if this happens not very often, and the plane can cut the fuel, drop the fuel, and safely land, it's a failsafe design. That's exactly what happened, and the runway was the mission objective. We should stop the passenger flights because the planes do the same from time to time, so they are not failsafe. Even if so (though we don't have any evidence of that), what does it change? This world is not ideal, and technical issues happen. The "software" unlikely changed very much since 1980s (like the shuttle software, too), and happily worked about ten times with the modules of same system, and this never happened when the propulsion system was intact. Maybe the propulsion system sensors had a malfunction, maybe something other. The purpose of the "failsafe" design is to keep the flight controllable at at least one system malfuncction, and we just saw this in practice. Upd. The last five meters they worked with TORU. https://www.zarya.info/Diaries/blog/tracks.php?event=Nauka and ISS

Every time when a SpaceX design flips 180°, it's stated that "SpaceX knows better! That's the best way indeed!" The obvious fact that the "indeed"'s totally contradict each other and look like anything but an existing plan, doesn't matter. Where are those two starships docked by ends? They told me that it is the obviously best way to do. How long is it till turning the 2nd stage into a shuttle and stopping showing off?

I.e. "not done" → "done", that's all Both use Kurs, so unlikely they were able to put two versions of Kurs at once, having the single set of antennas who vary from Kurs to Kurs version. So, looks like they have same Kurs for all needs, and it's the last available one. It didn't need the propellant after docking.

General plan.

After the hard docking contacts had sent the hard contact signal, why Kurs should keep working? Soyuz docks to another end of Nauka. And as Nauka has been launched to receive the modern Soyuzes, this means that it's equipped with the modern version of Kurs. And that's what makes to think that a control system is innocent. Otherwise they could just take out the ignition electrics, making the RCS stop . So for me it looks like if the damaged (as we had heard on launch day) fuel valve stayed opened, and the fuel was unstoppably feeding the pressure-fed RCS through it until the remains got spent.

Every time when somebody falls to provide them with a fresh portion of fertilizer. Why do they think that in Matrix they said "No spoon!" ? Maybe it was "Know spoon!" The subtitles may be wrong.

It will never be known to anybody except several dedicated specialists. Kurs (its various generations) is working (usually - as advertised) for 40 years. Not necesssary the Kurs is related at all, as that happened after hard docking, when Kurs is never more needed. Kurs is an approaching system, after all. The approaching and docking were ideal. The invalid RCS engine could restart on its own, or the attitude control system could decide to control the attitude. If the latter, probably they could just switch it off. So, maybe an engine, attached to the presumably damaged fuelling block. The only known problem with Kurs in this flight is that they had received the "antenna extended" signal not from the first attempt. Was it not extended, or was it just lack of signal, who knows.

They should just officially declare a saboteur everyone getting closer than 10 m 30 ft to the railway outside of official pedestrian passageways, and let AI self-defend on its own.

Should SpX check the roofs for snipers once again? This time in sqrt(6400*0.12*2) ~= 40 km radius, as the target rocket is higher?

A nospoon. A nother nospoon. Three nospoons. *** If there is no spoon, how do they no what's a spoon?

And what is even more important, for the case of Flat Earth.

If they have a biolab, they can run a cockroach racing. *** A jump diving from 30 m height, through the opened hatches into a wet towel symbolizing the water pool.

Granted. It's postponed till 2025 to add bugs to fix in future. I wish KSP-2 was released right now.

Banned because your cat is manipulating you.

Granted. Now you need a ladle to extract it from ground. I wish Mark Watney had realized from the very beginning that when he has a water regenerator there is no need to avoid the bath and be dirty like pig.