Shpaget

Examining it after "only" one flight also doesn't tell the whole story. You don't worry about a hammer being worn out after nailing down one nail. The question is no longer can the booster land. The question is how many times can it land without something blowing up. They probably have a list of components that require special attention, perhaps turbopumps and fuel lines, and the list of stuff "not likely to fail any time soon" like the flight computer and grid fins. Some parts may be good enough for 5 cycles, others may not need replacement even after 50. The thing is, such lists are, at this time, just an educated guess. Only time and dozens of launches can provide better data.

Most likely due to simpler FAA approval process. By launching and landing at the same place you only need to reserve one block of an already crowded airspace. Landing on a separate location needs another empty block of airspace. Also, that would require the launch to happen from some place to the west. Which place would that be? Furthermore, once the second stage separates, the low mass of the nearly empty first stage means that the necessary dv requires only a fraction of the fuel compared to what it takes to launch it. The final maneuverer, the one to stop the westward motion, likely requires even less fuel since it can be done using aerodynamics of the booster and the grid fins.

I tried to stay up for the launch, but 2:30 AM on a work day was not gonna happen. So the first think I did when I woke up, I opened up Google and spent a few moment thinking what search query would most likely result with a video, but not contain any spoilers. Congratulations SpaceX! The landing looked perfect. A few observations: The presenters. The rightmost guy, he seemed terrified to be in front of the camera. The middle guy, apparently had to reference Blue Origin and how that was apparently not a real rocket landing since it didn't go fast enough. But the biggest issue I've got is they forgot to put flood lights at LZ-1.

Air traffic controll I worked at has redundant lines, not just power, but telephone lines, internet, radio, radar... Power is run through a giant UPS where batteries are located. They provide a few minutes of power, enough for the diesel generators to power up. Once the generators are running, the facility has enough power for vital functions and can be run for as long as tanker truck keep bringing the fuel.

There is very little chance there will be any propulsion on this sat. Please, visit the forums to get the better picture of what is going on and what the current goal is. http://forums.mossat.org

Space train refusing to chooch?

Privacy Shmrivacy.

You don't understand it because you are overlooking the part about buying and sellng energy when you feel like it. The grid can't operate solely on solar because it would need to be massively oversized to support those periods when you want to buy, making most of that expensive installation useless at times when you want to sell. Check your units and redo your math.

How come no one considers the environmental impact of wind and solar? They are not as green as some would like you to think. I'd even argue that nuclear is far better for the environment than wind turbines.

No it's not. Pretty much all new designs are self regulating.

Not yet. Currently the article is "Harmless", to be expanded in the next issue.

So you take them out one by one until they run out of low value ship and have to resort to usage of bigger ones. Stealth is a very hard thing to do.

Missiles with active radar homing use it for terminal phase, so that leaves little time to react. The one destroyer performing radar services for the fleet is susceptible to the method I described in my original comment. Once destroyed, the fleet has to reassign radar duty to another ship that becomes vulnerable.

How do you know a missile is on the way when your radars are off? Visually? By the time you see it, it's about to hit you anyway. Advance scout could offer some time for the information to reach the guy who turns on the CIWS, but without a radar, they would see it only if it flies right pass them, and if they do use a radar to extend their detecting range, they become a priority target.

While I agree that introduction of a new system takes time, and that reducing radar signature is beneficial, complete radio silence includes shutting down systems such as Phalanx CIWS, which leaves them open to conventional missiles.

Ship stealth is easily countered by changing the guidance system of missiles. Take a satellite / recon plane photo / submarine data / whatever to roughly locate enemy ships, launch the missiles in the general direction of them and when in general area (determined by GPS or even dead reckoning) the missiles turn on their ADF system and the enemy air defense radar suddenly becomes a beacon to guide the missile to it. If the enemy turns the radar off, the missile can still use heat signature of the ship, or even computer vision to reacquire the target.

Phase diagram says it all.

Yeah, figuring out the flight computer is fun.

My most recent launch was inline with stack decouplers, which proved to be effective, but a bit dangerous. When I released the second sat and gunned the Ant engine the satellite slammed into the drifting decoupler left by the previous sat, braking off one solar panel. That's why I'm asking for sugestions.

Remote Tech had this requirement for a while, but with the announced introduction of signal relay system, there will be a need for satellite networks even in stock, so I've been thinking. We still don't know all the details, but we can assume there will be a need to launch multiple satellites, and what better way to do it than to launch them in a cluster with one launch vehicle. What is your preferred way of attaching multiple (3+) small satellites on one rocket? Do you go inline or radial? Do you use cargo bays?

No audio?

I find it interesting that while throughout the computing history, including the electromechanical era, top of the line supercomputers were always pretty much the same size - entire building floor. This one is much smaller.

That's some advanced fiber you've got there. The ones bypassing my house support only 70% of that.

THHGTTG has a lot to say on many subjects. Why did you pick this one? I like the part about the decline of manufacturing, since in the vastness of Universe there is bound to be a planet where native species is exactly the product you need, exemplified by Zem mattresses of Sqornshellous Zeta.

Depends whether the TV reception box thing is on or not. ATM it is on, but when turned off, it goes up to aprox. 6Mb/s down. In any case, I pay for 2, so I can't complain too much. None of the ISPs consider a fiber optic to be profitable in this part of the city, so I'm on copper placed decades ago. Another problem here is that I'm hooked over a powerline adapter, which is bugged, so I have to ping the router constantly, or the adapter throws a hissy fit.