Shpaget

No, that wouldn't work. You can't cheat the law of conservation of momentum. Precession would screw you over.

This: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLuI118nhzc[/url]

In a slightly different orbit. Fastest compound bows shoot at about 100 m/s. By contrast, average speed of ISS is about 7600 m/s.

Having another shuttle sitting on a launchpad, ready to launch at the same time as Challenger would expose it to the same cold temperature that Challenger was exposed to and brought down by. Having another shuttle ready to launch to save Columbia crew... same thing. What if foam insulation again did some damage? Now you have two shuttles stranded. Is the solution to have a third one in standby? Where do you draw the line? How many safety feature would you say are enough? Every system has multiple layers of safety mechanisms, in this case there was a chain of failure. No. The problem was not the lack of safety features. The problem is the too proud management and lack of proper interorganisational communication. Columbia crew could have been saved if NASA management accepted the help from DoD. Then there was the attitude that, if there was significant damage, the crew was doomed anyway, since they could not be saved in time anyway.

Model rockets eject their parachutes from a mostly intact rocket (even if it's a multistage rocket, the final stage is still aerodynamically stable and wants to fly nose first). The timing for the parachute ejections is most commonly done by delayed fuse in the motor itself, and more sophisticated devices are employed only on larger rockets. This timing is not ideal, because engine manufacturers can't know how your rocket will perform, so they take a guess. Ideally the parachute would deploy at apoapsis, but this blind guess makes it unlikely to happen then. More advanced hobby rockets use apoapsis detector mechanisms to deploy the chute more accurately, and the jerking is less pronounced. For KSP, don't put the parachutes on the SRB, put them on the pod, as high as possible.

[quote name='r4pt0r']This is now on my watch list. I LOVE AWFUL MOVIES. "Birdemic" was great, as was "Rubber".[/QUOTE] Do you go on IMDB and sort by best rated, only in the wrong order? [quote name='Thunder_86']She'd freaking freeze instantly and probably explode because of the vacuum[/QUOTE] Neither happens when a human is exposed to vacuum.

I'd rather be dead than suffer for eternity, but I'd rather be alive and healthy and watch the world fall apart around me than dead, as long as I can kill myself whenever I want. Not because I'm afraid of dieing, I am just too curious about how the future will turn out. Ever watched [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/"]The Man from Earth[/URL]?

[quote name='JebKerboom']For instance, AFAIK there is no Star Trek, Star Wars or pretty much any hard sci-fi ship that opts for centrifuges over some magical artificial gravity solution. [/QUOTE] Are you calling ST and SW hard SF? Star Wars is not even science fiction, let alone [I]hard[/I]. In any case; 2001: A Space Odyssey, Rendez-vous with Rama, Ender's Game, Babylon 5, Orphans of the Sky, Ringworld. Heck, even Halo and Moonraker.

Ultraviolet? Simple to administer and flood entire ship, harmless to almost every part of the ship, cheap, portable... It requires extended exposure though, so it's not an OP plot ruining deus ex machina.

I'm trying to find data on the mass of dust and particle entering the atmosphere and I'm getting various numbers, about 40 000 80 000 tons per year. By contrast, the mass of atmosphere is about 5 x 10^15 tons, so, even if you include billions of years of dust accumulation, the difference is still orders of magnitude.

If no other requirements are present, usually you would pick the one that offers the easiest calculation.

This one time when power went out, I went downstairs and talked to the family members. Turns out they're quite nice people.

[quote name='Flymetothemun']...[/QUOTE] GoFundMe page says Port Orange, Florida. [quote name='pxi']You might not be surprised...[/QUOTE] Not terribly.

Sure. If you don't drown first.

I understand that is the cost to fix this particular car, but the total amount is still significant. For what you are asking, to restore your 15yo car, you can buy a [I]very[/I] good used smaller one. Selling the Ram would probably cover it easily. Let's be honest here. You don't need a 6L V8 to go to school. A bicycle will do just fine on a dry day and there is probably some public transportation too. If you can't afford to maintain such an expensive car, you really should not have it. Seriously, that's a life lesson you should have already learned. Yeah, maybe somebody will donate you couple of hundred dollars, or you might somehow even meet the 7k goal, but what happens in couple of years when you need to service something else? You'll ask for charity again? Don't live above you income.

That's quite a bit to ask for, isn't it?

Still not stock? /sadface

That's what settings are for. You can easily disable those notifications.

I'm a member of one forum running on XenForo and find that feature extremely useful, especially when I don't visit for a while.

It looks like it's about to snap in half. Voyager, on the other hand, is sleek. Borg ships look like starships should look like.

TOS is obsolete by modern TV standards. "Martial arts" are hilariously bad, CGI is distractingly crude etc. I've never had an urge to watch it. DS9 is just slow to start, Sisko is boring, Odo somehow manages to be both an OP ex machina and useless, that Bajoran chick is annoying, the Sisko kid as well. I like TNG, Patrick Steward is awesome and there's plenty of Borg action. The ship design is ugly though. The new Enterprise is slow, I never managed to watch it entirely. Which leaves us with Voyager, by far my favorite. I like pretty much everything about it except the last few episodes, which seem like the producers were given the notice that the show is being canceled and had to abruptly bring it to an end. It also has, by far, the prettiest ship.

I already did that.

If you are referring to this part then tell my why is this assist burning fuel when traveling at a set speed?

Guys, you don't need to explain what Newtonian means, I know that, and I can see in the trailer that it is not Newtonian. https://youtu.be/TJqkiNAuBrw?t=2m40s From 2:40 onward the ship is continually burning with the huge aft thrusters but there is no noticeable acceleration. The roll is mostly ok, with small thrusters firing, but from 2:52 to 2:55 we clearly see the left roll being stopped without thrusters. Pitching up and vector change at 3:20 and later don't look feasible with those small thrusters. Motions look like that of an aircraft, not spacecraft.

I remember some interview which said that the shuttle model was not ready when the sequence was scheduled to be filmed, so somebody just said something along the lines of "Hey, it's future, let's just make them appear magically on the planet."