Nibb31

I have never really understood the fascination of the Japanese for anthropomorphic robots. Most of them just look creepy and because they are designed with form before function, they are less efficient at actual tasks than if they were designed with function over form, like most machines are. If it's just for human interaction, why the need for complicated hardware when you can render a rather expressive 3D face on a LCD panel? For example, a robot designed for microgravity has no need for legs or cute looking feet. If it's going to be mobile, the wire is only going to get in the way and it doesn't look like it has any way of moving around. No prehensile hands to grab handles or perform tasks. If it's going to be fixed in position and only used "to talk to astronauts", then there is no need for any flight hardware at all, because they could just upload the software to one of the laptops. It just looks like a publicity stunt aimed at the Japanese public, and a pretty big waste of astronaut time (and therefore money).

It's much heavier and more complex than wheels. Extra complexity and lack of redundancy are undesirable on something that nobody is going to be able to repair. If an actuator breaks on one of the legs, it can't move any more, and might even fall down and break some of the valuable equipment. If a wheel motor fails on Curiosity, there are several redundancy modes where the wheel can be disabled and the rover maintains mobility.

It really needs to be taken over by BAe or EADS. It's simply too large of a project for 4 blokes in a shed.

No, you can't. The Antares actually uses stockpiled NK-33 from the Soviet era, not new production items. Also, it might work in some cases for small parts, but not always. NASA had to completely redesign the J-2X to bring it back into production. It is basically an new engine. That is wrong. As proven above. Nobody brings back a 30 year old design without completely redesigning it. When VW wanted to relaunch the Beetle, they didn't use their 30 year old plans, because it wouldn't have made sense. They redesigned it from scratch using modern techniques. Just because something has been done before doesn't mean it can't be done better. Innovation doesn't always lie in being the "first" to do something. Innovation is mainly about learning and improving, which is not always spectacular, but sometimes there is more profit in doing something others have done faster, better, and cheaper, than being the first to do it. You might see Shenzhou as a copy of Soyuz, but it's also a larger, more modern, more modular, and more capable design. There is some real innovation in there, and just because it looks like Soyuz doesn't mean it's just a copy. In that respect, you could say that a Toyota Prius is just a copy of a Ford Escort, because it shares the same general configuration, although it is much more advanced. Those were different times. You really can't compare with today's environment. Still, China will have gone from a first manned flight in 1999 to a permanent human presence in space in 2020. That's still a pretty good record. It took the Russians 25 years to get from Gagarin to Mir, (and it took NASA nearly 40 years to do the same). And they are doing it for much cheaper. That is some serious innovation.

Having the blueprints of a rocket doesn't mean you can put it back into production 30 or 50 years later. Technology, manufacturing techniques, facilities, materials, electronics, everything evolves... Some of the materials that made the Saturn V are no longer available. Some of the chemicals have been banned and replaced with new stuff with different properties. Strategic suppliers have disappeared. Some welding techniques are no longer available and have been replaced by CNC machining. Some parts of the rocket were off-the-shelf parts that are no longer available. You would have to study and redesign just about every part of the rocket, at which point you might as well design a new whole new vehicle. Which is basically what NASA is doing. In the end, China has a modern operational manned spacecraft and an actual space program. They are going slow, but they have a roadmap and their milestones are funded. In the meantime, NASA is stuck with the ISS. In 2020, China will have its own space station. At the same time, the ISS will be reaching its end-of-life. NASA will have Orion and SLS (if it isn't cancelled), with 2 planned circumlunar flights, and no money to do anything else. Russia might have its PPTS/PTK and will be starting serious work on OPSEK. They might be going slow, but looking at where they were 10 years ago, that is huge progress.

The article doesn't say that Skylon will be funded. It says the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned it in a report. It's nice that Reaction Engines gets some official recognition, but what they really need is money. In this budgetary environment, I would take any promises of funding with a pinch of salt until the numbers are actually lined up in the budget.

This is the worst advice ever. If you are running out of fuel before reaching orbital speed, the typical mistake is often because your TWR is too low: you are not going fast enough, so you burn for too long, which wastes fuel. Adding more fuel just makes the problem worse. Your rocket will go even slower and you waste even more fuel just to lift that extra fuel. The answer is to add more engines or to carry less fuel to make the rocket lighter. This will get you out of the atmosphere faster, so you burn for shorter time, which actually saves fuel. As with many space-related things, this is counter-intuitive, but it works.

That is just as stupid as saying that Orion and SLS are not innovations compared to Apollo and Saturn. At least China has an operational manned spacecraft and a funded roadmap for the next decade. That is more than any other country at the moment.

Why would that be a good idea ? AFAIK, it doesn't have any power problems. Its biggest issue is budget overrun and technical complexity. Your proposal would only increase cost, delay, complexity, failure modes, and weight.

Not enough thrust ? Build a grid with 2000 of these suckers and get moving !

Actually, many of the Russian nuclear tests (including the infamous Tsar Bomba) took place in Novaya Zemlya, which is north of the Arctic circle and only 1800 km from the North Pole. Operation Starfish Prime Those were crazy times!

Yes, you're right. Tiangong-2 is just to test the core module that will be used for Tiangong-3, which should end up being the modular station.

That space station looks a lot like the early ISS, yes. It's probably just a cheap illustration. Tiangong-2 will be made of larger modules: - A core module similar to the Mir Core (or Zvezda), but slightly larger, with a 5-port node on one end. - Two lab modules. - The Tiangong-1 design will be reused and repurposed as a supply vehicle for Tiangong-2. One of the great things about the Shenzhou spacecraft (compared to Soyuz) is that its orbital module is independent and the Shenzhou can fly without it. This means they can be left on the station for extra storage or to serve as mini-labs.

There is no API for creating new solar systems in mods yet.

Mods don't work in the demo.

"Pushing a button" assumes that systems are functional, which they wouldn't be. Electronic components would overheat and fail in a matter of seconds. Rubber and plastic would outgas and become brittle and lose their sealing properties. Lubricants and other fluids would freeze or sublimate. Hydraulic systems would leak and fail. The cabin would probably rupture due to the pressure differential. The escaping fluids would make the whole thing tumble out of control, knocking anyone inside unconscious, assuming their blood isn't boiling and their lungs aren't collapsing already. Space is a very inhospitable place. NASA makes it look easy, but it's hard to comprehend how hard it is to keep everything working up there. Using an airliner as a spacecraft is akin to using a motorcycle as submarine.

Of course, none of the seals or hydraulics or electrics are rated for vacuum, so the whole thing would be dead after a couple of minutes. It has no RCS, so it would just tumble uncontrollably. And of course, there is no way of bringing it back home. It's not even bad sci-fi. It's drivel.

Just add the mechjeb line to any existing pod. It's really no big deal.

Cabin pressure would be the least of your problems, I think. The whole airframe would rip itself as soon as it hits Mach 1.

It takes less than 5 minutes to do that yourself.

The decouplers just have to be in the same staging group. The order inside the staging group doesn't matter, everything will be fired at the same time.

You would lose consciousness in a matter of seconds. After that, it doesn't really matter, because you'll be dead. Wikipedia says this: Note that the effects are pretty much the same when an aircraft decompresses at high altitude. There have been several aircraft and space accidents involving decompression, incapacitating the crew.

Are you going to make a CST-100 to go on top of the Atlas V ?

If you can land a man-rated crew ascent vehicle on the surface, why would you want to bring a Dragon along for the ride?

The LK is 3 parts. Is it really that difficult to build yourself? For the Proton, there are craft files for the Mir, just remove the Mir components and replace with whatever payload you need. Again, the Proton itself is less than 10 parts.