Nibb31

The Bell X-1 was a very primitive supersonic aircraft. At the time, very little was known about supersonic aerodynamics, which explains why it didn't even have swept wings. The Trident aerospike design dates back to the 70s.

They are pitot tubes for airspeed sensors and are commonly used on experimental aircraft and prototypes

For polar launches from Vandenberg, in the Pacific. For eastward launches from KSC, into the Atlantic.

Requirements would depend on the technology. So far, we have to choose between chemical propulsion and electric propulsion, but in the end, the only way to obtain thrust is to throw stuff out the back, which requires an amount of energy proportional to the thrust that you want to get.

Looks legit.

I don't really see the point in anthropomorphic robotics. We need machines that are efficient at specific task. In most cases, the human form-factor is suboptimal. Something like an industrial robot, Canadarm, or Curiosity are better suited for most tasks. The only area where you might need anthrpomophism is when it comes to human interaction, but then it will be hard to avoid the "uncanny valley" effect that actually makes such robots counter-productive. It's probably better to actually steer clear from realistic humanoids with hundreds of "facial expression" servo-motors, and simply display an emoticon on an LCD panel or use a 3D model on a screen.

Pressurized volume is expensive.

The main reason it wasn't adopted was that it wasn't very resistant to small arms fire.

.devlovni si gnitouq nehW ^^^ See, it's doing it again. Grrr So no, it's not usable when quoting is involved. You can't delete quotes. There is no CTRL key or right-click on mobile devices. If you want to reply to a small part of a quote, you have to post the entire quote because you can't delete the split quote. [pins] ...yb delbane ot sah tI .oN No, it has to be enabled by installing a plugin in the forum software. KSP admins have always rejected multiple requests to implement Tapatalk. It's probably not possible to install the Tapatalk plugin on this software anyway. No, it doesn't just save drafts. It saves posts that have been posted before, including old quotes, even if you clicked Quote on another message, forcing you to delete the content before you type a reply and click Quote again. And on a mobile platform you can't delete the quotes, so you're stuck. Yes, but those bugs have existed since the beginning. If the software had been properly evaluated, they wouldn't have chosen this one. The forum software itself actually isn't that bad. Pretty much all the gripes people have are with the editor part. It has so many bugs, it really needs a total rewrite.

How could we have done that by 2100 without better technology. Stupid premise is stupid.

Salvaged wreckage from Challenger. After the investigation the remains were "buried" in an disused missile silo at KSC. The remains of Columbia and Apollo 1 were buried similarly.

How many new threads do you need to create about this ? The issues with the optical and power limitations of small sats haven't changed since last week. The NRO already has lots of expensive satellites to give them global, persistent surveillance.

This forum software is broken in so many ways. My list of bugs that makes it unusable: - The editor does not support mobile usage. Features like moving and deleting quotes rely on CTRL-right-click. Newsflash: there is no CTRL key and no right-click on mobile devices. Duh. - To add to the misery, it doesn't support Tapatalk either, so there is no alternative to the broken web interface. Duh. - Reply to a post with quotes. Come back later and reply again, the same message is stuck there. Deleting it is a whole malarkey that involves logging into a desktop PC and CTRL-Right-clicking, and then you have to requote the new message you were replying to. In general, there is all sorts of weird behavior with quoting and old posts persisting in the editor. - From time to time, dividing quoted text makes one of the quote blocks undeletable for no reason. - Today for some reason, the editor seems to have switched to right-to-left text. taht ekil ,seY I was mad when they changed the software 2 years ago, but we were told they had reported the bugs and that they would be dealt with. Whoever evaluated the software at Squad before buying it screwed up badly. Bugs have been reported but there seems to be no effort to fix them. It's time to move on and replace it with something that works.

Wars don't typically come out of the blue, especially nowadays. It takes months of escalations, UN talks, congressional approvals, and military muscle flexing, before a POTUS orders actual air strikes. You might not know exactly where or when, but when the F-35s are heading your way, you generally know that they're coming.

I have the feeling that in the real world, US stealth technology is overrated. All jet engines blow hot air. If you look at the latest Russian fighter jets, they are all equipped with a big IR sensor pod in front of the cockpit. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-russia-plan-crush-americas-stealth-aircraft-13708

There's barely a need for fighters at all at this point. The next gen will probably be drones.

Just imagine the number of Sopwith Camels you could buy for the cost a single F-35 !

Note that during manned missions, the crew doesn't get to hear or talk to mission control at all. All communications with the crew go through the CapCom officer ("capsule communicator"), who is a fellow astronaut.

We could actually do the same sort of thread for most countries that have any sort of aviation history. The US, Russia, and France all has some very ugly ducklings.

Have you tried listening to some recordings on Youtube ?

Software can extrapolate to enlarge a low resolution image into a high resolution one, but it can't invent detail that wasn't perceived because of a poor sensor.

Imaging relies on optics, and you can't beat the laws of physics when it comes to focal length and aperture. You simply can't fit decent optics into a cubesat. The same is pretty much true for power and antennas. Miniature satellites can only carry limited power, which limits transmission capabilities.

The first one is a Nimrod, which was a maritime surveillance plane based on the old DeHavilland Comet airliner. The other one is an English Electric Lightning, which was actually one of the best interceptors of the 60's. It was just very ugly.

Not ugly enough.

What do you mean strange aesthetics ? French aviation tycoon Marcel Dassault once said "a beautiful plane is a plane that flies well" (and french planes do usually look pretty). On the other hand, the british did give us the Spitfire and (half of) Concorde, which are probably the two most elegant aircraft ever, so that pretty much excuses them of everything else.