avmich

15 ms·

271.
by avmich 2y ago
Yes, the Shuttle was more complex, expensive and dangerous than Soyuz, and yes, those are forms of technical inferiority. But the Shuttle was capable of solo flights for couple of weeks without adverse effects of Soyuz - that is, Shuttle wa
272.
by avmich 2y ago
Surprisingly you don't need to have that large of the pressure in the chamber to get to the sonic speed in the throat - and more than that in the diverging nozzle. E.g. 3 bar pressure in the chamber could be enough for that. French Dia
273.
by avmich 2y ago
Soyuz spacecraft was technologically simpler - yet safer - than Space Shuttle. It can be argued that US had technically superior, but safety-wise inferior access to space capability until 2011, when the last Space Shuttle flight happened, t
274.
by avmich 2y ago
> You can't build a liquid-fueled rocket engine without a pump, can you? You most certainly can, and it was done. Why do you think otherwise? > The liquid will just stay in the tank unless there's something pressurizing it t
275.
by avmich 2y ago
Russia lags far behind the US in producing spaceships for some decades. There are other things necessary for the society to build and maintain companies capable of going to the stars.
276.
by avmich 2y ago
The simplest rocket engine doesn't really have moving parts. It's a chamber where the fuel burns and the nozzle which shapes the exhaust. The moving part is the valve somewhere which turns it on. The more complex rocket engine inc
277.
by avmich 2y ago
We're comparing with jet engines, and those fairly well funded aerospace companies weren't in the league to attempt that kind of complexity.
278.
by avmich 2y ago
Yes.
279.
by avmich 2y ago
> Developing a new commercial aircraft is another example in this category, as is building a cheap, reusable rocket. Cheap rockets can be vastly simpler than turbojet engines. Reusability (I'm talking about reusability of an orbital
280.
by avmich 2y ago
It's easy if you use additional payload available with bigger rockets. Just like invention of the rocket engine enabled all kinds of rockets, the ability of having a lot of payload available for the mission enables all kinds of solutio
281.
by avmich 2y ago
Biggest problems are microgravity, radiation and lack of redundancies of various kinds. All are solvable by adding payloads.
282.
by avmich 2y ago
How do you know he's trying to stop the war and not just looking for personal benefits? His words are worth little.
283.
by avmich 2y ago
Sounds quite fishy :( . Any specific proofs in addition to all what have been said so far? I've checked the links, they don't really prove anything...
284.
by avmich 2y ago
Weird :) .
285.
by avmich 2y ago
But nonexistence of technology isn't a proof of impossibility, or even particular hardness.
286.
by avmich 2y ago
So, since both sides are easy to state but hard to prove, we should conclude that this is an uncertain matter, right?
287.
by avmich 2y ago
Why you need to see an existing tech? It's too easy to dismiss an argument on the grounds that the tech isn't there. I'm exagerrating, but we're talking about real scientific progress here, right?
288.
by avmich 2y ago
The author is a well-known proponent of manned Mars missions. I would disagree with some proposals in the article - to me it looks easier just to use more Starship flights initially than to develop the Starboat early on (and in general the
289.
by avmich 2y ago
The SpaceX failures are almost non-existent comparing to airplane failures on the same level of technology development. Just like today people don't mind flying on a plane, we won't probably mind flying a rocket some day - and jus
290.
by avmich 2y ago
50 at least is not "wildly" off. Somebody could retire at 50, at it would be strange to have money run out by 100 - what if the person would live longer? We can have something earned from the money, but pension money have to be co
291.
by avmich 2y ago
I'm not sure Starliner can't be salvaged. A good analysis of its problems would go a long way towards a weighted, reasoned decision. That is, the technical architecture, the design and implementation decisions should be available
292.
by avmich 2y ago
Why do you think so? Note that I don't propose to fund indefinitely something which can't be made to work effectively (e.g. profitably)
293.
by avmich 2y ago
I don't like to have all the work that went into Starliner to be in vain. Similarly I wouldn't like to have all the work that went into Orion to produce nothing tangible in the short term. We don't really have enough man-rate
294.
by avmich 2y ago
It's important to remember that USA cannot fly men to the Moon. USA had that ability some 50 years ago. Since then companies changed, technologies were replaced, knowledge transformed and people got interested with other things, not to
295.
by avmich 2y ago
My numbers are like this: $10M over 50 years - $200k/yr or $16k/mo House in a rather expensive place - $5k/mo Food, travel, other things and especially projects can eat the rest $11k/mo Which number is w
296.
by avmich 2y ago
You surely want to retire comfortably. You want to do what you want - and spend money along, not some arbitrary amounts but just without thinking too much.
297.
by avmich 2y ago
I don't know. Can you elaborate?
298.
by avmich 2y ago
> 1. The devil doesn't need an advocate, he already has plenty of shills to advocate for him. Yes, but - if you want to review your arguments, it might be still useful. > But in a world where the courts and the cops are on your s
299.
by avmich 2y ago
The position of the devil's advocate is that the procedure is a little undemocratic - it prevents people to express their will, right? - and ought to be bent when it's really needed. Insert whatever justification here the interest
300.
by avmich 2y ago
Right, and it's all rather obvious. The problem is better seen when, if you focus on staying in power, you have to spend all your resources on this goal, and you can't reach any other goal. Republican party in USA currently does r

More ›