JoeSchmuckatelli

how much more weight will SS have with all the tiles on it? (also - if they're only on one side, doesn't that make landing a bit more... fraught?)

Note the one guy in uniform completely laid out and asleep. All the rest are either trying to or can't. Been there.

Cool - never ran across this! On the page was a reference to 'Jerk' Is this legit? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics) Note: "Snap, crackle and pop"

The thing I saw was different. It was kind of like those big cargo inserts (name?) that can slide into / out of the fuselage, except it was set up like the interior of a passenger compartment. I'd never seen anything like it before or since, but I was like 'this is head-slappingly obvious... why don't more planes do this?'

I realized as soon as you asked the question that I had goofed; I've actually seen the 'interior insert' modules

I guess the follow on question, is: is there a cheat-sheet or maths-to-knucklehead dictionary out there that I can refer to?

I'm using a little liberty in the use of convertable: C-5 Galaxy and C-141 both have the palletized / bolt in seating. Military planes are known for lacking in amenities. I did get a coke during my MAC flight to Honolulu, though. That was nice.

I've rode on those - they're loud.

Time to confidently expose my ignorance: Do the symbols used in physics have a common understanding, or are they entirely contextual? Example: when reading an article about the cosmological constant, the authors refer to the ^ (lambda) symbol as standing for vacuum energy. Does the use of lambda stand for vacuum energy only in the equations related to the cosmological constant - and something else in another context? I'd like to be able to look at the equations in the articles I read and kind of understand what they're getting at, even if I don't have the math background to do the heavy lifting.

Can I pick it up myself? - I've never been a fan of their delivery options

Gotcha. The actuator portion just looks really pronounced in the image

Is there anything different about the flaps? I can't tell if it is a camera angle /shadow thing or something new

CBS has a nice piece on Artemis. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moon-nasa-efforts-return-60-minutes-2021-03-07/ They don't hold back. Lori Garver in particular calls out the SLS as being driven by the Congress rather than allowing a competitive approach

The risk is some competitor's lobbyist convincing a regulator that 'something needs to be done.' Easiest thing in the world to do if you want to throw a wrench into a competitor's works; get the administration to put on the brakes for no good reason... other than because Sen. Sidekick or Rep. Handmeout has a 'constituent' who isn't getting paid.

Sounds like a Contractor getting a pretty sweet Government approved monopoly.

I'm probably late to this party - but I ran across this plane for the first time today. Super Guppy: The original supertransporter airplane | CNN Travel https://www.foxnews.com/science/what-is-nasas-super-guppy Pretty crazy, and very cool that something like this is possible. The story of how some guy was laughed at, built it anyway and then succeeded is good. It's being replaced by the AB Beluga Airbus Beluga XL - Biggest Planes in the World - Beluga XL Specs (popularmechanics.com) Sidenote: I've seen the AB Beluga in person - they're fun

Not an official answer, but a likely stab in the dark: epilepsy, ever, is likely a disqualifying condition. Does not matter whether you have not had an event in a while, the owners of multi-million dollar air/spacecraft that might crash into a school of children just are not going to risk it. Also - having been through many, many military-level physicals... there's a lot of bureaucratic stuff based on old understandings / preconceptions that make blanket rulings about classes of conditions. I know that well into the 2000's, having ADHD that you have been receiving medical treatment for is largely disqualifying. Although, if you had had it as a child, then gotten off the meds for several years and could prove adequate performance in school, exceptions were made. Aspergers - I don't know about, nor do I know whether Autism was disqualifying... although like everything, was probably something that mild cases could apply for a waiver for. Again, anyone who required some form of treatment or accommodation? Not so much. All of that said - the military is a hugely competitive sphere, and where you have seven candidates for three super sexy technical jobs and six of them are perfect physical specimens, the seventh person showing up with prior medical issues is an easy person to cross off the list. Fair? No. Reasonable and probably smart to do? Sadly yes. Now - in the civilian sphere, there are a lot more opportunities - and the easiest of which is to start your own spaceship company. When you are rich, and the boss... there's not much you can't do. It's when you hope to have someone else pay for stuff, and also pay you that things get competitive

Sounds like when Allied-Signal sold itself to Honeywell and paid for it as well.

Is there a reason that most US rockets I see these days are single stacked, while several other nations add boosters attached to the central stack?

I guess what I'm trying to figure out now is what happens / what the difference is between Redshift and scattering. As I understand it, once redshifted the whole spectra goes towards red, but the breaks (black lines, whatever they are called) maintain the same spacing(?) - which is how they know the source is receding/ expansion is occurring. If that is correct... what happens when a light source hits dust or an atmosphere that scatters part of the total spectra? How does that look?

That was an incredible read. Thank you! Also answered my question above 'spacecraft orbiting mars have detected carbonate molecules in the area. Carbonate molecules are made when carbon dioxide reacts with water and rocks. This is exciting because, on Earth, carbonate molecules that precipitate out of the water in lakes and oceans are known to trap evidence of microbial life. '

Yeah - as I think about it, once they're lighting the rockets, they really don't need some other aerodynamic system trying to compete. Certainly would not help on moon or Mars I strike the question

How much below terminal do the grid fins keep Falcon? Would a pair of pop-out fins perpendicular to the forward fins (even if merely passive) help with the final moments once flipped? Nvm - that would screw with the weight /COM. Rotatable fins?

I would hinge the leading edge, let it pop out 10-20 deg. with a telescoping, shockabsorbing 'leg' inside (= much wider base).

That wins Post of the Day! Or like the recoil on a cannon. I find the skirt acting like an impromptu rocket bell somewhat likely, but don't know enough about whether the thrust puck could have done it. You are thinking that combustion happened higher in the stack?