Nibb31

I can usually live with a limited breakage of the laws of physics, as long as the breakage is consistent with the fictional universe and the plot is interesting enough to take your mind off of the inaccuracies. For example, there is noise in space in Star Wars. What I do have trouble with is totally illogical or out-of-character behavior from the protagonists for no apparent reason (as in The Last Jedi), or a totally illogical plot device (like the mirror universe in Star Trek Discovery).

You keep on asking the same questions over and over again. Obsessive behavior is not a sane behavior for becoming a pilot, so that doesn't really bode well. A good pilot is going to require communication skills, concentration, strong decision-making and full awareness of reality and understanding what's happening around him. Many aspies struggle with those skills. We don't know (or want to know) the details of your condition, but Asperger's Syndrome covers a wide spectrum of aspergers. Folks on an internet forum will not be able to answer your question. Questions like this will best be answered by your local authorities and your doctor. So don't ask us, ask them. If they do say no, then don't take it as a failure. You can achieve a great career in aviation or aerospace without being a pilot or an astronaut. After all, Von Braun, Chris Kraft, Burt Rutan, or Korolev never went to space, yet they are more famous than most astronauts.

It is nowhere near Skylab, Mir, or even Salyut. Folks have to remember that Tiangong-1 isn't much bigger than most upper stages. It's basically a Chinese version of Progress. There are upper stage reentry events after every single orbital launch, pretty much once or twice every week, so all the hype here is really unjustified.

They lost contact with the station. It is extremely difficult to dock with an uncontrolled, tumbling object. The Russians managed to do it with Salyut-7, but it was an extremely risky mission with low chances of success (and considerable chances of losing the crew). It was the height of the Cold War, and Russia could not afford to lose soft-power points by losing their station while NASA was having a lot of success with the early Space Shuttle flights. Additionally, the Russians were scared to death that this new-fangled Space Shuttle thing could be used to capture and bring back Salyut-7, revealing the secrets of glorious Soviet engineering to the West. That would have been a stupid (politically reckless, highly dangerous, and probably impossible) mission for the Shuttle, but somehow the Russians were convinced that it was a credible threat. For the Russians, it was a matter of national pride and the political motivation for the mission outweighed the difficulty and risk of cosmonaut lives. For Tiangong-1, the situation was different: The station had already completed its mission so there was nothing to save. China didn''t have any spare Shenzhou spacecraft sitting around. Nobody was going to steal Tiangong-1 and there wasn't much technology worth stealing anyway. The political gain of saving Tiangong-1 was inexistant The cost of developing RV and docking procedures and training a crew were high. The risk of failure was high. So really, it never made sense to send a rescue mission to save Tiangong-1.

X-Plane is not free. You can get Flightgear, which is free, open-source, and will probably run better on your PC.

We have already explained why any predictions as to where it will reenter are pure guesswork. As long as no one can predict the exact time when it will come down then nobody can say where it will come down, since the two are obviously linked. And the exact time can only be pinpointed a few hours beforehand. Currently, we have a plus or minus 3 day window, which means that it can fall down anywhere during 96 full orbits of the Earth. So basically any location between 42.7°N and 42.7°S has exactly the same chance as Oregon to be hit by a space station.

The re-entry site is unpredictable. An orbit takes about 90 minutes, which means it flies completely around the world 16 times per day. You can only predict the impact area when you have a precise re-entry date down to a few minutes, which simply isn't possible yet. At this stage we don't even know which week it will come down since the margin is plus or minus 3 days. You only get to predict the actual date a few days before, and the actual time (along with an approximate impact area) a few hours before it comes down. So at this stage, the estimated re-entry site is anywhere between 42.7°N and 42°7 S. That's it.

I just suggested Solus https://solus-project.com/

You know this from exactly one data point.

Waiting for new technologies means that you can wait forever. It takes decades for a new technology to go from TRL 1 to TRL8 or 9. It's like never buying a new phone or a new car because next year's model will always be better.

If we are going back to the Moon for more than flag and footprints, we are going to need a reusable lander, which is either: Refuelable Uses expendable replaceable tanks Or uses expendable replaceable descent-ascent stage If you are not building some sort of reusable infrastructure, then there really isn't much point in going back to the Moon. In all cases, for simplicity's sake, you need a single ascent-descent stage, which means a throttlable engine capable in the 50kN range with 4500 dV.

I've been using Solus Budgie for a couple of weeks and it's a keeper. It's very slick, polished, fast and stable. Compared to Ubuntu or Mint, the software repo is curated, which means that there is much less junk available, but on the other hand, whatever is there is properly compiled for the platform, fits the desktop environment perfectly, and the packages are more recent. It's quality over quantity and I haven't yet not found something I need.

Texas is the launch site. No way are they getting FAA authorization for ferry flights over inhabited areas. Certainly not before the vehicle is properly certified with hundreds of flight hours.

Roc is already taken by Stratolaunch. I agree that it should be a bird of prey, like Merlin, Falcon, Kestrel, Raptor, etc... "Harrier" would be good, as it's a big bird and a nod to the vertically landing jump jet. Also rimes with "carrier". My favorite is "Lammergeier", just to troll most people who won't be able to spell it properly. It's also big and ugly, which fits pretty well.

Why are you necroposting ? Didn't you get the answer the first time ? They don't have a manned launcher because they don't need or want a manned spacecraft. There's no point in human-rating the launcher if you're not going to launch humans on it.

Where you are. Which does not necessarily apply to the OP. Also, a privately owned parking lot is not necessarily considered as private property when it comes to road regulations and insurance. What applies to where you are may be very different to where someone else is.

NO. DO NOT DO THIS. Driving without a license, even on a parking lot, is highly illegal and, depending on the laws of your country, could put you in more trouble than it's worth. The laws in some countries can blacklist you from getting a license if you get caught driving without one. Seriously, this discussion is highly dependent on national laws and regulations. Any advice given by people in other countries from you is going to be irrelevant and probably misleading.

Teslas are extremely expensive in Europe and are huge by European standards, which makes them impractical for most purposes. It would be a pain to drive and park one in a European city and the fast charging stations are too rare to make long journeys practical.

Any comparison in US$ is worthless. Europe has huge taxes on fuel. Also diesel vehicles are competitive in Europe, so if you are interested in running cost, that is what you have to compare with. The cost of running an electric vehicle is also going to depend on national purchase subsidies, road tax exemption, lower insurance, and so on... Therefore, comparing costs on an international forum is unlikely to provide any info that is relevant to you. You have to do your homework comparing costs in your country. I really wish there was more choice in terms of electric vehicles. Currently, in Europe, you have the choice between the Nissan Leaf, the Opel Ampera (Chevy Volt), and the Renault Zoe. And all of those cars are ugly and not something I would want to drive. There is the BMW i3 and of course Tesla, but they are insanely overpriced. The Tesla really isn't suited to European roads anyway. That's not a lot of choice. One thing that is worrying about electric vehicles is the resell cost, which is an important part of the cost of ownership. There isn't much of a second hand market yet, because the batteries represent a good proportion of the cost of the car and a significant risk to buyers. That's why I think Renault's solution of renting the batteries on a subscription basis has merit. It removes the risk of owning and buying batteries. When they stop holding charge, you just bring them in and replace them. Last time I looked, the cost of renting the batteries and charging was comparable to the fuel cost of a diesel vehicle, and cheaper than a petrol/gas car. That is in France, with our huge fuel prices.

The reason to avoid this thing is operational cost. An aircraft that flies only once or twice a month is an aircraft that is going to lose money. Airplanes are expensive, so it is essential to maximize their operational time. Most aircraft, from commercial airliners to fighter jets to small tourism aircraft spend most of their time either flying or in maintenance. 300 million is about the price of an Airbus A380. So Stratolaunch is not that expensive for a large custom-built aircraft. The main difference is that an A380 will spent 80% of its time flying commercial passengers and recouping its cost, and 20% in maintenance. It probably amortized its ownership cost over something like 10 years. Stratolaunch on the other hand (like Pegasus before it) will spend most of its operational life in the hangar. A plane sitting on the tarmac is a plane that's losing money. If it flies 50 times less than an A380, it means that each hour of flight will cost 50 times more and the cost of operating it will rapidly become prohibitive, meaning that it will be much less competitive than simply designing a slightly larger first stage for your rocket.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to land on Europa, and how much dV you need to carry ?

I just watched Geostorm. It had so much bad science in it, I wouldn't know where to start. It was really bad.

Given the size, weight, and the fact that it carries a fully loaded rocket, it can only take off from a very limited number of airfields. The safety requirements for carrying a rocket pretty much rule out any civilian airport.

I'm not saying you can't go to space. I'm saying that the chances of joining the ESA astronaut corps are slim even for people that are highly qualified. Being an aspie doesn't make it easier. You are young, so there are chances that space tourism will be a thing during your lifetime.