Codraroll

In completely unrelated news, might it be time to take the bit in brackets out of this thread title? It's not like the thread is that new anymore (two years and a month) and nobody would confuse it for the old thread anyway since that one seems to be lost.

The problem with using funny names arises when a tragedy occurs. It would suck to hear that three astronauts had been killed in a fire aboard a capsule named something corny like I'd like to buy that for a dollar. Or can you imagine a newscaster trying to solemnly break the news of a fire costing 25 lives aboard the expedition vessel Boaty McBoatface? People still talk about the tragic loss of the Edmund Fitzgerald, would they remember the lives lost as much if the ship had been named Chewbacca? Funny names are fine for unmanned probes or service vessels, but once you risk tying the fate of people to the vessel, something that can be said in a somber tone is to be preferred. Just in case.

Have you never had that issue before? When it comes to updating, the typical computer is like a six-month old baby who needs to pee. When it wants to, it does, and no force in Heaven or Hell can stop it. Doesn't matter if you're having an important presentation, the deadline is coming up to submit your thesis, or you're about to launch a rocket into space. Nobody can predict when an update will come, but when it comes, you can't stop it.

Looks like the tape is used to fasten a sensor cord or something. The engine looks as if it's mounted on a test stand.

You're new to the Internet, aren't you?

I can imagine it now, somewhere in the spacecraft there's a bathtub-sized chest filled to the brim with micro SD cards, each carefully labelled with a small letter code, maybe colour coded too. Strapped to its side, a phone book-sized index detailing what is found on each card. Finding the right card for what you want to watch would be like finding a particular piece of LEGO in a chock-full ball pit.

Why even use a second craft? Couldn't a buoy on a long line with a reel attached to the barge do approximately the same job?

Coming to this forum to try to convince people that the moon landing happened is sort of like walking into a pet store to try to convince the staff there that cats exist. You're kicking in very open doors.

Rocket launches to the moon isn't exactly something you can do in secret. Even in the early 70's.

Up to 100 %, depending on your definition of "something".

Whoever lands next on the Moon, I think it will ultimately be China who makes them go there. If the Chinese economy was to dip, or social unrest began to stir, announcing a Moon landing would be a very useful thing to re-ignite some national pride and faith in the Chinese government. A reminder of national grandeur for the population to rally behind. Unlike the various American players, China actually has a reason to launch a Moon program. Sure, NASA and co. would probably like the PR, but they're in no hurry and the benefits aren't quite justifying the costs. But China would use it to divert attention from really pressing matters, they could feasibly be put in a situation where they "need" to land on the Moon. The US government would probably take it as a challenge, though, and get the private companies stirring to get there first. So they could probably win another Moon race, but they wouldn't be the ones to initiate it.

I guess an 1:i rate is what currently is on the table.

Given a landing on Venus, a crash is just the quickest way to arrive at the final fate of the craft. It's not like it would be in any better shape a year or so after a soft landing.

Call it no more than a gut-feeling, but I suspect that going really simple would be the most useful way to start orbital commercial operations. Not building another ISS analogue, but another Salyut analogue. A rather tiny thing, launched in one piece, manned by a crew of 1-2, taking in 1-2 visitors at a time (with a duration of visits of around a week), deorbit after a couple of years. It'd save the hassle of designing for longevity and orbital construction. And limiting the service life of the station from the start would also make the concept very flexible in the long term, as the design could be adjusted significantly according to lessons learned and/or the requirements of the upcoming "season". And if, by chance, bigger launch vehicles become available, the thing could be scaled up some time later in the program's life. Another advantage is that it would build and maintain knowledge on how to construct space stations from scratch, as that would essentially have to be done continuously. As soon as station 1 is launched, you start planning station 2. If Starship becomes available, you design station 3 for that one, using the knowledge gained from operating the first two stations. If there's no Starship, well, you've already got a working concept based on another launcher. The problem, of course, is cost (isn't it always?). But in terms of technical feasibility, starting small and expendable seems like the way to go. Much easier than trying to design the "perfect" long-term station on your first try, while basing the entire program's architecture on a lot of uncertainties whose outcomes will only materialize years in the future.

The chutes won't deploy if the velocity is zero, though. That means you'd have to do the braking maneuver at a pretty high altitude, and use chutes to carry you the last leg to the ground anyway. And even if the propulsion system worked perfectly, you'd still be screwed if the chutes were faulty, as dropping like a brick from a height of half a kilometer is just as deadly as dropping like a brick from space. Drogue chutes could achieve the same braking without having to lug lots of propellant around.

"Next up: Somebody closes a door! Follow the story on all channels!"

Still, the fact that it, baring any unforeseen disasters, will count is worth getting excited over. It's literally two flights away from entering the exclusive club. I mean, so was probably Buran, but people got pretty excited for that one too.

So it seems at first, but consider that the hatch has to go somewhere no matter how it's built. It takes up a certain volume that needs to be stowed. And it probably gets less in the way if it's in the capsule than in the docking adapter. Also, what a strange feeling it must be for the ISS crew to have another spacecraft docked. Imagine being locked inside your house for months, and most of its rooms have no windows. Then suddenly one day the house has an entirely new room that wasn't there before and that will shortly disappear again. Sounds like the premise of a kids' fantasy novel! I also think the Dragon capsule would be a somewhat neat place to hang out. Compared to the rest of the ISS, it must feel so tidy, without all the stuff on all the walls (and on ISS, every surface is a wall, with something attached to seemingly every square centimeter of it). It has nice, reclined seats you can pretend to sit in. It even has windows, which is a rarity on the ISS. A place to rest your mind.

If I recall correctly, explosions that happen with with a subsonic expansion of the explosion front are called deflagrations. This would include most liquid explosions. If the explosion front is supersonic, the term "detonation" is used instead. Both of them would be classed as explosions, however.

With all the delays, inefficiencies and general deterioration of the Russian space program, what do you think it will be like in ten years' time? There doesn't seem to be money for anything, what little there is is either spent inefficiently (see: Vostochny) or just embezzled (see again: Vostochny), the hardware is getting more and more out of date, new hardware is stuck in perpetual development delays (Angara, Federation) and overseas competitors are putting the finishing touches on rockets and capsules that makes anything Russia fields completely obsolete. Will the Russian space program manage to pull itself together and perform on a level similar to what the US is doing, will it continue mostly like today with old (but functional) R-7/Soyuz designs, or will it scale down, i.e. "temporarily" stop its manned spaceflight program?

Unless there's a lot of sulphur in the exhaust for some reason, it won't smell like farts, at least.

The change of plans meant they weren't going to stay in space for long anyway. Might as well turn back early to avoid traffic on the return leg of the journey.

It was an unscheduled rapid disassembly of the rocket, which led to an impromptu test of the LES. Unfortunately, it happened to shorten the mission somewhat, skipping the "go to ISS" stage between "send astronauts to space" and "take astronauts back to Earth".

Any details on why he is sacked?

Shooting a beam of light at an object from many light-years away in a universe that has faster-than-light travel is also problematic in itself. When Obi-Wan and Rey saw that beam of light travelling across the sky, they would have had ample time to do something about it... after taking a vacation, finding Luke, chatting up about life on desert planets, doing a bachelor's degree, and learning to play the grand piano. The beam from Starkiller Base obviously travels slower than light (as its movement is visible across the sky), and if the galaxy is thousands of light-years across, it would take centuries for it to reach its targets. Obi-Wan and Rey could go on their merry adventures for a long while before hopping to the galactic capital in an afternoon (in Revenge of the Sith it is mentioned that Anakin goes from Coruscant to the Outer Rim in half a day), then warning them that a killer beam is threatening to destroy their planet in a barely shorter time frame than climate change. Maybe their grandkids should evacuate, or something.