PakledHostage

Why do we need yet another thread on this? The mods just went through and merged the 3 or 4 other Orion launch threads into one... Maybe they like playing "whack-a-mole", but maybe they don't?

It is, but maybe not for the reasons you think. The presence of the engine nacelles and fuselage below the wing both create a restorative rolling moment when the aircraft side slips (i.e. in an uncoordinated turn). It is primarily an air pressure effect rather than a "pendulum" effect. Notice that the high wing aircraft in the photo above has anhedral (wings bend down towards the tips) while the low wing aircraft has dihedral (wings bend up towards the tips)? Dihedral and anhedral, along with wing sweep and the position of the fuselage on the wing all affect yaw-roll coupling. Dihedral is stable while anhedral is unstable. Swept back wings and under-slung fuselages and nacelles are also stable. Too much stability affects maneuverability, so high wing transonic aircraft like the C-5, C-17, AN-225, BAE-146, etc all have anhedral to offset the stabilizing effect of their other necessary design features. Also interesting is that the B747 was originally conceived as a competitor for the C-5 Galaxy. Boeing chose to develop it as a passenger aircraft despite the fact that they lost out against Lockheed. The C-5's high wing makes it a superior freight aircraft to the B747 because the fuselage is lower to the ground. The wing spar on the B747 runs through the fuselage below the main passenger/cargo deck. The engines are also below the wing for aerodynamic reasons. This places the main passenger/cargo deck on the B747 a long way above the ground. The wing spar on the C-5 runs through the top of the fuselage and the high wing gives enough clearance for under-slung engines without the need for long landing gear. As a result, it is practical for the belly dragging C-5 to incorporate loading ramps into its design so that you don't need additional ground support equipment to load/unload the aircraft.

You don't need to be such a [diminutive of Richard] about it. While Nibb may disagree with you, he has been polite in his responses to you.

I know I'm going to raise eyebrows with this one but I'm partial to the good old "Diesel 10". I've always been partial to airliners rather than military aircraft. The 747 is an impressive beast that I would have told you was my favorite when I was a kid, but the DC-10 has since won me over. I like the utility of it. There's a good reason you see so many of them being converted to MD-10 freighters. They are the proverbial "brick szithouse" of modern airliners. Their extensive use of titanium structure wards off fatigue and allows them to continue to safely operate with high cycles. They got a bad rap in the early days but a lot of that was the result of poor maintenance rather than poor design. The MD-10 conversion rejuvenates the systems and avionics. You're going to see them flying long after aircraft of similar vintage are beercanned.

What surprises me is that I thought I read somewhere that Russia is officially a secular country. People are certainly welcome to decorate their space as they see fit. But I am surprised to see so much religious influence in the decorations put up by people who are representing a supposedly secular country. That's all. Q.E.D.

And this ties into my posts from yesterday: You can't extrapolate out from someone's economic argument as to why a project like Skylon is likely to fail and accuse them of just finding excuses not to try, or of believing that no technological progress is possible. Engineers are creative people who dream of new ways to apply science to solving problems. But they have to be practical too. Nobody is going to provide billions of dollars to develop a technological Taj Majal. People who have that kind of money available to invest want to see a return on it. Show me a reasonable business case for something like Skylon and I'll jump right on the band wagon. As Kryten said, a lack of funding is a bigger barrier to Skylon ever succeeding than a lack of creative solutions to technological problems.

Well spotted! I wonder if the crews are allowed to bring up a few decorations for their time aboard? The amount of religious iconography that replaces Gargarin and Korolev is surprising if it is officially sanctioned.

Since there's an underlying theme of pointing out common logical fallacies in this thread, I'll jump in here and point out that this is an example of reductio ad absurdum. These posts are in response to Nibb31, yet Nibb has only pointed out that the development of Skylon is likely to fail because there isn't currently enough demand for launch services to support the cost of its development. He did not say that "technology is at its height and cannot get any better".

I agree. I flew down to Florida once to see a launch of Atlantis. I even paid a bus tour company to take me out onto the part of the causeway on the KSC grounds that you can only access with a special permit (I had a pretty good view of Atlantis standing on the pad from where they dropped us off). Unfortunately the launch was cancelled during the T-9 minute hold. My regret isn't that I didn't get to see that launch. It is that I never tried again. If I had a chance to see a launch today, I'd beg, borrow (but not steal) the best camera equipment that I could get my hands on and then get there early so that I could take it all in. I'm looking forward to seeing what ZooNamedGames comes up with.

That's something of a straw-man argument. While Skylon doesn't need to meet the strict standards of airworthiness that transport category aircraft have to meet (especially if it isn't man rated), it does need to work at speeds and altitudes over 30 times higher than a typical transport category aircraft. The cost of developing Skylon won't be that of certification. It will be the cost of developing the technology required so that it can work at all.

One might suggest that you do the same... Your "business case" has some significant oversights. Things like the cost of materials, facilities, staff, fuel, etc. Some of those are rolled into the development cost but you haven't accounted for them in your operating and production costs. You can't make a "hell of a good business case" if you ignore those costs.

What type of camera/lens are you using to film it? I've never had the opportunity to film a launch, but I understand that they are challenging. The pros make it look easy, but with exhaust that is as bright as the sun, you'll need to deal with a high dynamic range. It probably won't be that big a deal if you're using a wide angle lens (i.e. GoPro or cell phone), but the camera will struggle more as you fill more of the frame. Maybe you're already experienced with this type of filming, but if not, maybe some of us here can offer suggestions on things you might try to get a better result?

Here's a new trailer (for szits and giggles):

I'll just leave this relevant XKCD here:

That is an important point. I don't think I have made it very well myself yet: There are still some really good movies being made. I've seen some recently that were properly brilliant. Everybody's tastes vary so I won't say what they were, but I can assure you that they weren't hyped up blockbusters. They were the hidden gems that you stumble across. (And I say that from the perspective of an engineer; I assure you that I am not a hipster.)

I think that is precisely the problem! A lot of movie producers/studios these days seem to hitch their cart to the special effects horse when making a movie rather than rely on good story telling. This is why I said in another thread recently that I tend to avoid movies that are advertised as having "great special effects". Too often, that is synonymous with "it has a crappy plot".

But "Airplane!" is a cult movie. Like Spinal Tap and even a lot of (gasp!) Monty Python, it isn't actually that funny. What makes these movies funny is how they work into everyday situations. They are ridiculous, but they are classics that have taken on a life of their own.

I created a Lego Ideas account just so that I could count myself in as a supporter. I also liked the Particle Accelerator project, although that one is only fun for the geek cred. The shuttle launch complex is properly impressive. Edit: I just noticed this video of the particle accelerator. It appeals to my warped sense of humor...

I'm old enough that I remember when the first Star Wars (back when it was still called just "Star Wars", rather than "Star Wars Episode IV") was playing in the theaters. Almost... They must have re-released the first one in theaters before Empire Strikes Back came out because that's about the time that I saw it. My parents took me to see it then, but I didn't get to see Empire Strikes back until after I saw Return of the Jedi. They were THE movies of my childhood, so any of the newer episodes had/will have a tough time living up to expectations. That said, I am looking forward to this one. I'll be there on opening weekend. Maybe not dressed up in a costume (as I am sure some will be), but I'll be there.

A quick Google search found this site: Box Office Mojo. There's a lot of red in the %change week over week values. The first weekend seems to have been really big and then it dropped off. I don't know how the drop for Interstellar compares to other films but maybe you can find other sites with your own search? You can't shoehorn people's dislike for "Gravity" into such a narrow category. There would have been a full spectrum of reactions to that movie, from those who loved it to those who hated it. Their reasons were almost certainly equally varied. I really didn't like Gravity because I felt that they were trying too hard to get me to empathize with the character's plights and it came off as cringe inducing rather than moving. Others were moved by the plot. That's fine. Likewise, the physics in Gravity didn't bother me while others went on ad infinitum about some perceived "lack of realism". As for Interstellar, I thought it was better than Gravity and I wasn't bothered by the liberties that they took with the physics to advance the plot. I think they could have made it a better movie by simplifying the plot into something more in line with Mr Shifty's suggestion from earlier in this thread, but they had their reasons. I don't think Interstellar's "sad story" was a handicap. Sad stories don't make for bad movies. Twelve Year's a Slave, American Beauty and No Country for Old Men all won Oscars for best picture and they aren't happy stories. Was Interstellar entertaining? Sure. Do I agree with Bill Nye's assessment? Maybe a bit. Would I go see it again? Probably not. But that's just my opinion. Others are entitled to theirs.

"Offended Dobby!"

I'm confused? Are you a dragon?

I think you need to watch the video again. There is also more footage of the event filmed from the ground if you look for it. Unlike in other areas, this crowd wasn't rioting. They were blocking an intersection in relatively peaceful protest. Other cars are able to find openings and drive through without difficulty. This car comes to a stop before reaching the crowd then rams the people, running several over including the lady who gets dragged under the wheels. It is only then that the crowd (understandably) attacks the car. Nobody shot the driver or pulled him out of his car to curb stomp him. He escapes by ramming the crowd a second time, running over more people. You can say what you want about the second ramming instance, but the first was pretty clearly motivated by rage and lack of regard for others. I will say again that we should remember that the vast majority of protests last summer were non violent. Many of the people who are protesting today are continuing that trend. Unfortunately, a few bad apples (on both sides of the issue, it seems) are trying their best to rile everyone else up and spoil the whole bunch.

A none too subtle, nuanced or complicated display of evil by the driver of this car in Ferguson:

Bill Nye in response to a question from the media about whether or not he liked Interstellar: