Neil1993

15 years might be a bit optimistic - - - Updated - - - It would be possible to use a hydraulic chair (see below) to simulate the motion. The problem with this, however, isn't so much the computing power required to simulate the flight accurately (which is substantial) but the fact that you have to pay the aircraft manufacturer to use their flight model, almost like you're paying royalties for showing a movie. This can cost between 3 to 4 million dollars per simulator! As well, the point of having a full cockpit is because a lot of simulator training is based on knowing how to operate the 1000 or so switches and buttons in crisis situations. I don't see how you can really do this wearing an oculus rift (yet), which can't give you the feel for flicking the switches. Agreed. Luckily, this is only a temporary internship. Also, see below: Perhaps, but that's a discussion for another day.

The problem about certification isn't the cost, it's getting the authorities to agree to it. Certification is mainly what my job deals with, and I can say that the amount that would have to change to allow oculus rift-like devices to be used for one-to-one training is absolutely immense. So much of the current regulations are geared towards simulators like the one shown above and these regulations can just take so long to change. If changing a tolerance from 1% to 2% is a big ordeal. That must be an awfully big garage

They can cost between 10 and 20 million dollars each, depending on the aircraft and various other options. I know the company I work for has also built the simulator to train astronauts in the use of the Canada arm. No Sometimes seriously, though. The main problem with using anything other than what's being used right now for aircraft training is the regulations. You need to get that stuff approved by the authorities ...and we all know how long that can take.

I agree. Also, you can't perform the cockpit fire drills where you have to put on the oxygen mask if you're wearing an oculus rift.

I had an interesting conversation the other day. I'm currently working at a company that builds flight simulators. Not little dinky ones like Microsoft Flight Simulator with a joystick either. These are Full Flight Simulators, built and programmed to such quality that an hour flying one of these counts as an hour of actual flight time in a real aircraft (I've gotten at least 20 hours in the last few weeks ). I put a picture of one at the end of this post. However, someone I know recently claimed that these devices would soon be obsolete. He quoted the oculus rift, small hydraulic platforms and recent advances in simulated tactile technology as reasons why full-flight simulators would soon be replaced. I would like to hear your opinions. Here's a full-flight (this wasn't built by the company I work for):

If we could make planes with a low cross-section like the SR-71 in KSP, we might not need so much thrust

Not necessarily. The GE90 can produce up to 513 KN of thrust while a Basic KSP engine can only produce 150 KN

Still much better than the real life counterparts. When last I started a 737 engine, it took nearly 20 steps! APU on, bleeds in the correct configuration, fuel cutoff, hydraulics, fuel pumps, etc. There's just so many things to go through. A KSP engine just needs an intake, some fuel, and someone to throttle up and hit the ignition. Also, KSP jet engines don't require constant maintenance, but I doubt most KSP engines ever survive long enough for that to matter.

After taking what I've seen here into consideration, here's what I'm thinking for a fully tweaked personal organization system: - A planner, with one page as a daily planner (by the hour) and the adjacent page being simply ruled. events and work time can be scheduled on the planner page and tasks can be put on the ruled page - Should tasks or appointments arrive during the week, they'll be recorded on the ruled page. If they're for the same week, they can be scheduled immediately - At the end of each week, 1 or 2 hours should be allocated to: ---- review the work accomplished ---- log how the time was used and how much was wasted ---- take tasks and appointments that were accumulated during the week and schedule them in the future ---- review other projects and schedule work and appointments from said projects That's just a rough idea. If anyone has any ideas for improvements, feel free to voice your criticism

I've already trying to do something similar at home. One of the main problems with this is that it isn't so good for the very small things like returning phone class and emails, practising speeches, or going down to the supermarket. I can use that to schedule the big tasks but it kinda leaves out the little things which might also be needed. I'm really trying to develop a method which can combine all of the madness.

Something like that sounds like it would be more my style. I already set aside about an hour each week for trying to schedule everything (set aside, but not always used, unfortunately). If I can get into the habit of constantly using the agenda, maybe something like this would work well for me: http://www.amazon.ca/Blueline-NotePro-Undated-Planner-9-25x7-25-Inch/dp/B001B0EZ7W/ref=sr_1_4?s=office&ie=UTF8&qid=1427227814&sr=1-4&keywords=agenda

Thanks for the suggestion! I have already kinds done that. I have a nice silver pen that had been given to me for my graduation from high school and one of those Moleskine agendas. If I were to elaborate on the problem a little, the Moleskine agenda has seven slots for each day of the week on one page, and a lined page for notes adjacent. I've found that this doesn't provide the detail I require. Furthermore, The university society insists on doing everything through google calendars, which is great for meetings and events, but dismally bad for task management (unless there's an app out there that patches that). I'm also dislike using my phone for scheduling, since it is also a google device with the google calendar. As well, it just doesn't feel as good as having a physical agenda. I know that a phone can back up my schedule in the cloud in case it's lost, but this is more of a personal preference kind of thing.

Hullo, right now, I'm starting to get a little (very) overworked. I currently have a full-time job (40 hrs per week) and I'm doing work for a University society which involves design work, team management, speaking at conferences and other events and communicating with outside companies (another 40-50 hrs a week). The job organizes itself since everything is automatically put on Outlook, but not the other stuff. My current method of organizing myself is writing stuff down in a little agenda. This hasn't been working very well, however. I find that there isn't any room for simultaneously allocating time, listing tasks with required hours and putting down meetings quickly. As well, there is also the problem of being motivated enough to use it all the time. If its in my bag downstairs and I'm on my computer upstairs, I'll be too lazy to go get it. Does anyone have anything that has worked really well for them?

You know you're a n00b when you can't help your crewed Mun missions from being one-way

This would make it vastly superior to the T-Rex. It would be more capable of greeting others of its kind with a firm but friendly handshake

Interstellar Innovations

Wasn't there a Russian Proton rocket that had a similar issue about a year ago...? XD

From the engineering projects I've done, these kinds of "getting it backwards" issues usually result from a lack of proper quality control and documentation. This can be caused by either a general lack of experience or, more likely, a very rushed schedule. I recently saw my friends' fire-fighting quad-copter attempt to fly upside-down because they installed the gyro the wrong way up and this was for a university project where they were most definitely pressed for time.

When I last visited MIT, someone showed me a concept for printable solar panels. They were flexible an laid out on some kind of plastic. I'm not sure how efficient they were, though. The efficiency is the big key. Super efficient panels, like those used in space, are expensive. An array smaller than 300 cm^2 could cost you 8000 dollars.

|Velocity|'s reply was correct. Methane can be created without the presence of living organisms. Oil, however, contains Alkanes, naphthenes, aromatic hydrocarbons and asphaltenes. Most of these can only be produced through biological processes followed by anaerobic decomposition (thank you to Wikipedia). Titan has none of these complex compounds in its atmosphere or on its surface (well, excluding basic hydrocarbons, of course). The fact is, there's a huge difference between liquid methane and oil.

The simulation would be better if we did it with the Stayputnik and FAR

If he was using standard rocketry methods, he would have calculated stability using the Barrowman Method or something similar. As for your theory about the low pressure behind the rocket, I agree that it might be the cause, but I still want to verify with some simple computer models. Unfortunately, I've been really busy at work and haven't had a chance to experiment yet.

hmmmm..... I may have to throw this in a CFD program when I get home... But I think I might have a theory...

The position of the center of pressure and center of gravity! The center of pressure is probably aft of the center of gravity. This means that the angle of attack will tend to correct itself, rather than increase, when the rocket receives an angular displacement. The field under the ball was probably what pushed the center of pressure far back enough

I don't see why not. Those are both materials you are allowed