dotnet00

31 ms·

421.
by dotnet00 2y ago
I mean, it makes sense that if you have a crew onboard, you want to make the crew handle the cases when the software thinks something is wrong. Similar to how plane autopilots will disengage for many kinds of faults. If you don't have
422.
by dotnet00 2y ago
It isn't that they removed autonomous undocking. IIRC autonomous docking/undocking were part of the requirements for the commercial crew program. Starliner even did attempt an autonomous docking to the station. The issue is that o
423.
by dotnet00 2y ago
This is not entirely correct, after all, Starliner was attempting to dock autonomously before the thruster issues hit near the station. The software is configured for autonomous undock, but not autonomous fault handling (since if a crew is
424.
by dotnet00 2y ago
They have a lot of sensors on everything, plus they'd be filming from a lot of angles, and the additional benefit of ground testing is that they can look at the debris. You can piece together where the explosion happened based on the c
425.
by dotnet00 2y ago
IIRC they usually keep an extra 3 months worth of supplies available at the station, to allow for delays to resupply missions. A resupply mission also arrived at the station recently, which would have had additional supplies for them. If th
426.
by dotnet00 2y ago
They're being downvoted because they're intentionally misreading what "pressured to perform" means in this context. Both space shuttle disasters occurred because NASA was under pressure to 'perform' in the sens
427.
by dotnet00 2y ago
It's not a particularly advanced capability, and as far as the opponents are concerned, the UK can request imagery from its allies, some of whom do possess imaging satellites capable enough that their exact specifications are a secret.
428.
by dotnet00 2y ago
They can take control over the spacecraft, the issue seems to be that the software is configured to expect crew control to be available. So, say Starliner detects an anomaly at some point, it will disable automatic control and expect crew t
429.
by dotnet00 2y ago
I think for part of your question (why do they specifically say a week), the length isn't all that meaningful. As in, if they want to more time to make a decision, they'll just announce another week's delay. They have weekly
430.
by dotnet00 2y ago
They're running with the theory of it being the teflon seals, but IIRC the problem is that it doesn't explain why the thrusters appeared to be operating relatively normally in a test at the station. The seal deformation should be
431.
by dotnet00 2y ago
As others have mentioned, he hasn't needed to suggest it because that's the official alternative anyway. The next Dragon crew rotation is coming up in September, so the current proposed plan is to only send 2 people up, along with
432.
by dotnet00 2y ago
Feeling pressure to perform to the extent of tryimg to cover up or ignore serious safety issues raised by engineers is how you get people dying live on TV. That is obviously a lot worse than a delay as far as the opinion of the public goes.
433.
by dotnet00 2y ago
I think there are several parts to the cause, there's the issue that 'professional' journalists often act like their job is sacred and their credentials make them superior to 'indie' journalists and other 'comm
434.
by dotnet00 2y ago
>Curious what approach you'd propose in their place? The approach used nowadays, make engines that can be fired (at least on the ground) multiple times. As far as I'm aware, all current generation American rockets can be static
435.
by dotnet00 2y ago
N1 had a bunch of problems, the engines could not be fired several times, so they tested them by producing them in batches, then test firing one from the batch and assuming all engines in the batch were the same as that one. This obviously
436.
by dotnet00 2y ago
It is useful to add that the tradeoff is that the engines are running for far less time than, well, California. It's still an incredible feat of engineering to pull off those kinds of energy densities though.
437.
by dotnet00 2y ago
Raptor is much smaller, F-1 has a diameter of ~3.7m, Raptor has a diameter of ~1.3m, so it's pumping out 1/4th-1/3rd the thrust in 1/8th the area.
438.
by dotnet00 2y ago
Raptor is also a lot smaller. F-1s were intentionally designed as large and high thrust because it'd have been simpler to build, test and control a handful of F-1s at the time, compared to say, 30 smaller but more efficient engines. Th
439.
by dotnet00 2y ago
>early-stage detection, without needing to pay for, or wait for, training a custom ML model This doesn't make much sense though, if you're in a hurry to get something working and don't have the data for training a custom m
440.
by dotnet00 2y ago
That just means the tech moves to 200 years away.
441.
by dotnet00 2y ago
Regarding this specific case, I personally have no idea. I've had many times where I thought a suit wouldn't hold up in court, only to find that there was a sensible legal precedent for it to hold up (at least in terms of "ye
442.
by dotnet00 2y ago
Because the trend on HN is to be reddit-tier absurd and hyperbolic when it comes to the US Supreme Court.
443.
by dotnet00 2y ago
>I predict this appears as real youtube feature soon I highly doubt it. They're going to wait for competitors to implement it and have it for several years before they bother to poorly copy the idea.
444.
by dotnet00 2y ago
Yeah this is very annoying about notifications on my Samsung watch too, probably an android watch issue in general. For me, watch notifications have become just a way to know about particularly important things like email or certain chats.
445.
by dotnet00 2y ago
Most people spending $1k on their phone are either trading in their old phone if they upgrade often, or are upgrading every 2-3 years, which makes the cost not that crazy given how smartphones are often essentially a part of us nowadays wit
446.
by dotnet00 2y ago
As I've mentioned in another post, that leads to questioning one of the most well tested theories in physics, so you need extraordinary evidence to prove it over something as elementary as doppler shift. Like, if it's Earth's
447.
by dotnet00 2y ago
If we can suspect X given Y, but we shouldn't build models on top of the assumption of X, then what are we supposed to do with Y? To me it seems like you're arguing that it was a bad idea to build on the assumption of Newton'
448.
by dotnet00 2y ago
We can create and observe doppler shift by making things move towards/away from us. Thus it is proven that if something is moving away from us, it will produce a redshift. In the absence of evidence that something else is causing the r
449.
by dotnet00 2y ago
FH is already very thin and tall, probably not practical to stick another stage on top even if it could work payload wise. Besides that, SLS and New Glenn are the only ones with comparable lift capacities, SLS is way too expensive for the c
450.
by dotnet00 2y ago
What she means is that the bar for proving that this is an error in physics is much higher than that of proving that it's a measurement error. Like, if you're measuring acceleration due to gravity, and your sensor/calculation

More ›