SunlitZelkova

Fun fact? Creepy fact? The oldest threads in this section of the forum are from 1969, or at least that is how it appears on mobile to me right now.

It sounds like this could be countered in certain situations. If a PL-15/R-37/AIM-260 is being fired at max range against a bomber doing conventional strike stuff in protected airspace, it would work. But in a deep penetration mission likely to be undertaken in a nuclear war, there isn’t much stopping the fighters from getting up close and personal and flying and firing outside of the gun arcs. What @sevenperforce said, but also a company can only charge so much for ad space as people will watch. The profitability of the Olympics is primarily driven by ad revenue because millions watch it, but if only a few thousand people watch a launch being live streamed and maybe a couple important executive people, the ad space isn’t worth anything. They may barely break even as a result of the extra work involved in painting the rocket, combined with the low viewership.

Was there ever a concrete assembly plan for Space Station Freedom? Based on what few documents I could find in the NASA NTRS and astronautix, I managed to put together a schedule of roughly 16 flights in total not including the dockyard for the LTV, but also including the ESA and NASDA/JAXA modules (which were not taken into consideration in the NASA documents). This seems low considering 27~ Shuttle missions were flown for the ISS. Was SSF just tiny in comparison or am I missing something? The configuration I am using is the SEI one.

Reading comments from both sides, I feel like this isn’t a problem with a magical fix. Both drivers and pedestrians just need to be more careful, urban planning and revising speed laws alone won’t eliminate traffic accidents.

I think this was what he meant, not using it against aircraft. On a separate note, assuming a large portion of a nation’s air defences are knocked out by ICBMs and SLBMs, the small number of surviving fighters resorting to guns isn’t too far fetched. Reading anecdotes from B-52 gunners, it seems like the existing detection arcs on their fire control radars (and presumably the Tu-95’s too) make an acquisition impossible against SAMs, and thus a missile fired from below by a fighter would not be trackable either. Even if the radar was extensively redesigned to cover a wider arc all around, the existing gun mounts would require another redesign to have more depression, another factor mentioned by B-52 gunners is that the tail gun wouldn’t depress low enough to target a SAM. Of course another option would be to reinstate belly and dorsal guns, which the Tu-95MS does not have and the B-52 never had. But then there would be another two CIWS mounts, with radars and all, with their weight. If the aircraft is flying at low altitude, the radars may have a hard time picking up the small AAMs. If the aircraft fly high, they will probably get salvoed by the long range SAM that is targeting it, which a single CIWS alone might not be able to handle. I’m not sure what fighters would carry in an air defence role, but if they have their max load out of some 6x or so AAMs they could launch a large salvo too. I would say no. 3x heavy CIWS mounts and a new constraint on the flight profile does not seem like a lot, when more ECM equipment and stand off cruise missiles could be fitted instead. I think only deep penetration missions (like trying to strike in a continental sized nation’s territory in a nuclear war) would require such a system anyways. The sorts of missions flown by bombers under normal circumstances (launching conventional ALCMs) would be flown within friendly airspace. It would not be worth it for a nuclear war scenario when ECM equipment and more room for ALCMs would be more useful in conventional scenarios. I have seen opinions that bombers aren’t even a key part of nuclear war strategy nowadays anyways, and exist for a pure psychological deterrence purposes (although of course they still have their aforementioned conventional role).

Is it known what Musk’s ICBM based Mars architecture was supposed to look like? Or was this merely an idea in his head that never got beyond the words “use retired ICBMs to get to Mars” before he found out he couldn’t buy them and decided to do SpaceX?

So the ROS would sit derelict for two more years?

Well, it is only “reused” to a certain extent. tater put it best in a post awhile back. It may as well be an entirely new rocket. I think it is really, really, dumb they didn’t just go with something akin Shuttle-C, which would have used identical ground infrastructure to the Shuttle. A different vehicle would have to be used for crew, although I think DIRECT showed that a side slung Orion would have been possible.

It’s not that there are problems, it’s that there are problems after a 5-6 year delay. SLS was supposed to launch in 2016 or 2017, then in 2018, then in 2021, now it has nearly been a year since then.

Why is the year of choice for Roscosmos 2028 instead of 2030 so it can be disposed of in one go? I’m not sure about costs, but so long as a serious technical danger doesn’t arise, from a practicality POV it seems like it would be easier to extend the ROS life for just two more years instead of trying to separate them. Or would splitting the station be easier than I think?

Looks like an Mi-8, not sure which variant.

This has already failed, the railroad tracks are not smooth (none are, suspension on the cars merely gives the illusion they are) and a number of the ground crew probably have tense backs from bending over to get stuff ready over the past weeks.

Note that this may not be enough to avoid an inbreeding depression within a matter of generations.

True, but the R-7 didn’t have the upper stages to lift a sat when it launched Sputnik- only a rather militarily useless ball- and the Americans went bonkers. My issue would be getting the Americans to launch their satellite first. The military and political bureaucracy that kept it down was just as immovable as the things that doomed the N1 program. It seems the author is doing a simple “what if things were like this” rather than “what if this one thing happened how would it change everything” though, in which case it is no issue The former is actually my favored form for alternate history too. Looking forward to further updates!

To cut back on noise, regulate temperature, and make space for stacking inventory. It also leaves room for hanging signs from the ceilings with ads and directions to the other aisles. It supposedly also comes with a bonus psychological effect: if you are in an open space you think more creatively, so instead of being in a tiny hallway-like room you just want to get out of after getting your needed stuff, your mind connects the open ceiling to an open area in your home and starts making connections involving the expensive patio furniture set on display.

I wonder to what extent airships are restricted by wind in comparison with helicopters. Those sound like jobs for something like the S-64 Skycrane rather than a dirigible.

I bet there are reusability proposals lurking in the JAXA files that have not been released online That graphic is slightly inaccurate as the text on the side of the rocket has since been changed from “Nippon” to “Japan”. It would be interesting to know why, I like Nippon better.

“Heavy-lifted launch vehicle”… I can’t tell if it is a wordplay because parts of the vehicle are being assembled (craned/lifted) or if it is Japanglish lol

Fate wanted to throw a party to celebrate the anniversary, and decided to use New Shepard for fireworks. Thank goodness she didn’t have crew available to make a milkshake with!

Very true. I guess the answer depends on what the definition of King is. I have been using the definition of literally “holding the title” and being considered the King by others, as well as actually having the right to sit on the throne. Under this definition Charles would not be King. If he had tried to sit on the throne in the 30 minute time delay period, he would have been stopped by the palace staff and looked upon as deviant by the people. He is not King. But if it is more to the definition you describe, then yes he is King instantly even if he doesn’t have instant access to those things and instant recognition as King by the humans.

I agree that officially (“on paper”) he can be King instantly, but in physical reality, he is not (on Earth, everyone on Mars is aware he is King though). Unless the throne is regarded as something holy, which means it may transcend space and time, and would be OT/against the rules.

This is insane!

I meant full static fire, although as you have also said in prior posts, “vehicle that has fired” (regardless of how many engines) is a category in its own right.

Yes. I recognize that. I am saying that also, Charles is not the King for 30 minutes and Elizabeth is Queen for 30 minutes after death, because Charles and everyone on Earth does not think he is King and they think Elizabeth is Queen. If I don’t know that I am ruler of the galaxy, and everyone on Earth doesn’t know I am ruler of the galaxy, I am not ruler of the galaxy just because some aliens at Tau Ceti have proclaimed me to be the ruler of the galaxy.

Yes. I actually completely forgot about such instances. My general belief remains the same but it definitely needs some reworking.