Nibb31

It would be possible, and much easier than booster recovery because you can make them reenter much closer to a helicopter base. The USAF performed mid-air recovery of reconnaissance drones over Vietnam in the 60's. The Firebee drones weighed a little below a ton. You'd still need a really big helicopter because the Dragon is about 4-tons empty.

Not a bit. They look exactly the same as the Atlas V boosters, and they probably are. In fact, it is pretty much an upgraded Atlas V. It uses the same boosters and upper stage as Atlas, and it probably has a lot of commonality in the core design and avionics. Atlas V Vulcan

Max range and max load on a helicopter are mutually exclusive. You have to pick one or the other. Oh, and the whole point of Vulcan was to stop using Russian engines (and to paint stars and stripes on the mockups). If they have to use a Russian helicopter to pick up their new American engines, they'll be kinda missing the point

A CH-47 might be a bit small for grabbing a 10 ton object from the sky. Also, it lacks range and would need to be operated from a ship, which adds to the cost. Plane recovery was routine in the days of Corona capsules, so the agility and responsiveness must be adequate. The other option is to design a drone helicopter purpose-built for the task, but that wouldn't be cheap either. Still, as spectactular as it is, I'm willing to bet that the "SMART recovery" concept is going to gradually vanish away over time, like flyback boosters and SpaceX's upper stage recovery did. It's a cool concept on paper, but a bit too impractical and probably not worth it when you start doing the real engineering.

This also avoids flyback manoeuvers and allows for an optimal launch trajectory, whereas SpaceX has to compromise its launch trajectory to facilitate the flyback trajectory. On the other hand, the refurbishing will be more complex with the connection to the tanks, the ballute and chute repacking (it will probably be expendable), and you need a heavy-duty aircraft (Chinook or C130) on hand to pick up the engines in-flight, which isn't typically cheap to operate (unless the USAF takes care of it, but I don't see why they should). Even though the engines are the most expensive part of the rocket, ULA's recovery process seems much more expensive than SpaceX's and they recover less equipment, so the economics are not clear-cut yet. - - - Updated - - - I agree, mid-air retrieval on this scale has never been done, although there was a crazy plan in the 60's to build a giant helicopter to recover Saturn V first stages. I think a C-130 might be more capable. It's also easier to operate for civilian operations than a CH-47.

Which is basically what I said. It rules out orbital and lunar weapon installations but allows *suborbital* ICBMs that are not stationed or placed in orbit. The term "orbit" isn't defined, but its meaning is pretty clear and widely accepted.

I think the wording of the treaty is something like "no weapons can be *stationed* in outer space", which rules out orbital or lunar weapon platforms but allows for ICBMs that only pass through space.

It looks like a sound design, which is expected from an experienced player like this. There are several unproven technologies here though, so there is a certain risk with the project: inflatable ballutes, detachable engines, and the entire BE engine. The in-flight recovery by helicopter or airplane has been tried and tested since the 50's. I'm not sure it has been done with something as heavy as two engines though. I wonder if they will require the USAF to be on stand-by for the recovery ops or if they will charter their own chopper. I like the 6-booster arrangement, which probably allows 0, 2 and 4 booster arrangements too, and maybe growth for an 8 booster configuration. I also like the single fairing arrangement, which protects the Centaur/ACES and also saves money on the interstage. I'm thinking that it might also offer additional structural support for the balloon tank. Don't like the name. It sounds like it was chosen to please the trekkies, which is an annoying trend. Also, Vulcain is the name of the Ariane 5 engine.

Orbital rings have been theorized for ages. I think Tesla was the first to suggest the idea. Since then, they have been proven to be unstable. A theoretical orbital ring would either break up under gravitational forces or fall to the ground like a hula-hoop.

Saturated and inverted. The process is explained in the link.

What I see is too many compression artifacts to see much detail. Chances are the "tracks or rifts" you are seeing (I'm not seeing anything of the sort) are simply due to the compression algorithm and the poor resolution.

Your definition is overly complicated and allows two craft to be occupying the same point in space, though one would be violating airspace and the other wouldn't, just because they have different velocities. For a legal definition, that's too ambiguous. It should be about location, not speed. Anything flying below 100 km ASL is territorial airspace. Anything above it is in international outer space. Clear-cut and easy to understand. It should be just like maritime law. Anything within 12 nautical miles is in territorial waters. Anything beyond is in international waters.

Why assume that UFO = alien? It is just as likely to be leprechauns, ghosts, time travellers, or a divine manifestation. It is however much more likely that it was something man-made or a physical manifestation that was simply misunderstood by the observers. At any rate, before going into debunking the whole story, I'd like to see it from some reputable source. There is so much crap out there on the internet, especially on UFO sites, that you can't assume that a story actually happened.

The must important component of an generation ship will be the suspension-of-disbelief generator.

What's with the necro-posting just to post a one-liner like that? There's nothing we "deserve". We are humans. We are hunter-gatherers. We follow the bison and we settle where there are resources. We migrate when it increases our comfort and safety and provides a better life for our children. Those are universal values that have always governed everything humans have done for thousands of years. Going to space does nothing to increase our comfort or safety or to provide a better life. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There are no space bison. In the future, there might be a point where space travel becomes relevant, but for now, it's just exploration and science.

I've never found a Linux that didn't require going into the console from time to time. You'll find that when you look for instructions in the internet, you'll typically get line commands that will fix your problem with a copy paste, which ends up actually being more helpful than the instructions you get on Windows help forums. The reason I haven't switched to linux is that most of my software doesn't run on it. If I have to run everything in Wine or a VM, it kinda misses the point.

If survival is possible, then it's not the end of the World. And what options of leaving the Earth are there exactly if the world ends tomorrow.

If it's the end of the World, then there no survival on Earth, by definition. If there is a hypothesis where people survive, then it isn't the end of the World. And since there is no practical way to leave the Earth today, then it's a bit of a moot question, isn't it?

No because the FMS would compensate the CG to maintain the orders it was given. Nobody was holding the stick. These planes are flown by computers, not by the stick.

You are talking about Edwin Hubble (1889-1953), not the Hubble Space Telescope. Doesn't the ISS make history ? People make history. Both HST and ISS are just tools for us to use.

As far as professional training simulators go, I don't think an Oculus Rift provides the same experience as a real cockpit, with real seats, real instruments, real switches, and real person sitting in the seat next to you.

SSTO means single stage to orbit. SSTO does not mean reusable. SSTO does not mean spaceplane. SSTO does not even mean retrievable You can have a all combinations of single-stage/multi-stage, reusable/non-reusable, retrievable/non-retrievable, and spaceplane/capsule/lifting body/whatever... SSTO alone is pointless. If your requirements are efficiency and low cost, then there are many different ways to achieve them.

Maybe he didn't want the passengers to notice or alarms to go off. The flight recorder indicated that he changed the glide slope several times during the descent. You don't fly an airbus with the stick anyway most of the time. It's more like flying KSP with Mechjeb: you enter flight levels and glide slopes into the flight control system.

I think we've provided plenty of proof and first-hand experience. But you are just repeating the same arguments over and over again without listening. It's pretty clear at this point that you just want to have the last word, which is a bit childish. So I guess I'll let you have it after this. There's only so much repeating the same arguments one can do. Alright. What you are saying is that maybe airships might work in a futuristic utopia with different economics, different transportation needs, different infrastructures, and different politics. I guess you're right there. Unfortunately, there is a real world that we live in and any new proposal has to embrace the reality of it. You keep on saying that, but that doesn't make it true. We've already explained "101 times" that when you are going to handle thousands of tons of cargo, you *need* infrastructure. You can't load and unload dozens of trucks in a field without ruining the field and getting bogged down. Except for some niche requirements, nobody needs to deliver or pick up thousands of tons of cargo in the middle of nowhere. Freight has to go from a point A to a point B, and at least one of those points (usually both) must be a logistic hub, a factory, a warehouse, or a triage-distribution facility. Those sites are going to need tarmac and wide areas for storage and/or loading trucks. You also need hangars for maintenance and protecting the airship. Large airship hangars are an engineering problem by itself, and they are not cheap. You can't just wave them away. Aeroscraft lost its prototype to a collapsed hangar and the airship must be parked in a hangar when it's not in use because the envelope is relatively fragile. Who needs to deliver or pick up thousands of tons of cargo in that canyon? Why would you want to do that? There is zero demand for building cities in the middle of nowhere with no roads. *sigh* There are no facilities that can handle a half-kilometer airship anywhere near existing logistic hubs, industrial areas, or major cities, nor is there free space to build such facilities in those places. A 570m airship would be useless because it would have nowhere useful to land. Delay is when a shipment is late. A shipment can takes 30 days and still be on time. There are actually more delays when the freight is sent over a fast transport system. For example, a plane has more chances of arriving late than cargo ship, because it's harder to catch up the delay. On the other hand, there is a much larger capital cost on stock and storage. Companies don't want stock. They want JIT delivery, which means that smaller volumes are usually better for them. Getting a 250 ton shipment in 2 days instead of 25 tons every 2 weeks is useless if it's just going to sit in a warehouse with a storage and inventory cost. No, it's a reality check. When you think everyone around you is crazy, it's usually time to go see a doctor. Only 5 suppliers for a factory? You have never worked in a factory have you? I know what a knock-down kit is. It's typically used as a way to avoid import taxes by putting an "Assembled in Argentina" sticker on a product where all the components are made elsewhere. It has it's uses as a tax evasion technique or as a way to start up a new factory, but it's not a rational manufacturing process. You will want to source from local suppliers as soon as you can. Such kits are not typically time-sensitive, so they are shipped using the cheapest method available, so they won't be paying a premium (even a small one) for fast delivery. But even then, your knock-down kit has to be packaged somewhere, from parts that are delivered by various contractors. Just replace "product" with "kit" and the problem is exactly the same. Who cares how the energy is produced? What matter are the economics. And an airship can't go anywhere either (for "101 times"). If it's going anywhere near a logistic hub, it needs a regular landing and loading facility much larger than a train station. It also needs to avoid power lines and aircraft traffic. Look at a map of Paris or London, for example, and try to find a landing and unloading area for a 1000-meter airship with thousands of tons of freight per year at less than 30 km from the city center. Good luck. European cities don't have room for airship landing sites and 1km-long airship hangars. When a new airport is planned in Europe, it's typically 50 to 100 km from the city center. Europe also has a dense rail system, large port facilities, and decent roads. Your airship couldn't compete in Europe and would be a complete failure. Yes, but the railroads already exist. There is no need to build new infrastructure, only to expand existing capacity and only when necessary. That's the price for underground lines on small sections in urban centers. But those are places where an airship can't go at all, so I don't really see your point. It depends on the volume of freight. It's more efficient to use a truck than a train (or an airship) if you are only delivering a 10 ton shipment over 20km. It will be more efficient to use a cargo ship to cross the Atlantic. Trains, railways, and stations already exist. Roads too. Airships, hangars, and landing fields near industrial areas and urban centers don't. Again, you are denying reality and handwaving away the real investment cost to set up an airship transport infrastructure. Of course they have a limit. There is always a size limit to anything we build. There are structural limits (You can't built a 10km high skyscraper because it couldn't support it's own weight) and practical limits (You can't build a 500m wide aircraft because there are no airports where it could land) and economical limits (You can't build a 20km long oil tanker because it would cost more than building a pipeline). You would reach those limits on an airship too. Those limits are dictated by the price of materials, structural strength, hangar size, landing area size and also economical demand. The actual demand for regular transport of heavy freight to empty 1km-wide fields in the middle of nowhere is extremely limited. That was for a subscale prototype that can barely lift itself. SpaceShipOne was developed for half that price, and that was for two aircraft. And you could buy a whole fleet of container ships for $50 million. We have already recognized 101 times that airships do have benefits in some small niches (oversize loads in remote locations for civil engineering and military customers). But they are not likely to ever be competitive for general freight transport.

How do you know that? How do you know that reentry with a space shuttle would be ok? How do you even know that pregnancy and birth in zero-g would be ok either? It's just such an extremely unlikely (and unethical) experiment that it's really weird to bring that up in a thread about space shuttles.