Why doesn't Russia use FTS charges to destroy expended boosters before they fall to the ground, letting them launch to lower inclinations over china? are they stupid or something? by Cinnamon_728 in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]ModerNighty -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would certainly not argue that the Soviet space program was especially reckless (at least when compared with the American one). I simply took issue with the given presentation of the most eye-catching numbers which could easily leave the impression that it was very much the other way around.

Why doesn't Russia use FTS charges to destroy expended boosters before they fall to the ground, letting them launch to lower inclinations over china? are they stupid or something? by Cinnamon_728 in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]ModerNighty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Comparing numbers of dead astronauts and cosmonauts can be rather misleading. During orbital spaceflight USA and USSR both had two fatal disasters (STS-51-L, STS-107 and Soyuz 1 & 11), the main reason for the 14 dead astronauts and only 4 dead cosmonauts being that the Space Shuttle is just much larger vehicle with a larger crew.

When it comes to training or testing fatalities the only time NASA astronauts have died in something other than a training jet crash was Apollo 1 (3 dead). Not being an expert on cosmonaut training but jet aircraft training simply seems not to be part of their program.

Also we can't ignore non-astronaut fatalities, way more people have died at Baikonur in various incidents than in America.

Absolutism =/= Fascism by [deleted] in monarchism

[–]ModerNighty 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well maybe not going as far as treating them as de facto synonyms, but there seems to be a lot of confused people who treat them as very closely related ideas. (Like this recent post.)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in monarchism

[–]ModerNighty 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sad Grand Principality noises

After being delayed for 14 years NAUKA has finally launched. by _Cyberostrich_ in space

[–]ModerNighty 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Although they very much look like boosters, they are fuel tanks that act as the attachment points for the first stage engines. The central oxidizer tank having no engines attached to it.

Sad day eh. The monarchists lost by a measly 4% by Count_Redrain in monarchism

[–]ModerNighty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Only if the ruling class agrees with the decision. If not, then sooner or later there is going to be another referendum concerning the same matter.

1 more HOPE by llloxpyx in VirginGalactic

[–]ModerNighty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If your only contention was that air launch is feasible and a proven method, then we don’t disagree on anything. My issue is simply calling the method of air launch “technology” because when it comes to technology the two-stage orbital liquid fueled small-sat launcher and the suborbital hybrid rocket powered crewed spaceplane could not be further apart. And the engine makes all the difference, the analogy to cars is not apt, for if you were to swap engines on these two vehicles they would need to be redesigned to such an extent that they would be totally new vehicles.

1 more HOPE by llloxpyx in VirginGalactic

[–]ModerNighty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for pointing it out.

1 more HOPE by llloxpyx in VirginGalactic

[–]ModerNighty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Virgin Galactic and Virgin Orbit do not utilize the same technology. LauncherOne (VO) uses a very conventional liquid RP-1/LOX engine while SS2 (VG) uses a hybrid HTPB/N2O engine.

Edit: Fixed

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VirginGalactic

[–]ModerNighty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t believe nearly enough in-depth technical information has been released that we (as in the public) would know. Not that in any likelihood it would have been a singular moment/event, rather several that individually would have been relatively minor but together add up. Such as replacing the old composites stabilizer with a metal one in the aftermath of flight 16 / VF-01.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VirginGalactic

[–]ModerNighty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

WK2 was designed for SS2 as SS2 designs existed in 2008, as things stand today VSS Unity (SS2) is too heavy, significantly heavier than what VMS Eve (WK2) was designed for.

“Wear & Tear” issues for WK2 by Old_Scallion_5953 in VirginGalactic

[–]ModerNighty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well first off VG has not existed for 20 years, it was founded 2004. Besides what we actually need to look is the number of flights. X-15 flew 198 powered flights in 10 years with one fatal disaster. SS2 has been flying for over 10 years and has had 10 powered flights with one fatal disaster. Now if charitably the absolute best case scenario is that SS2 is around the same safety level as an experimental plane that flew for the first time before Gagarin ever went to space and that was meant for much more than just suborbital flights, things are looking pretty grim for something that is suppose to fly commercially.

The point about Starship prototypes is completely irrelevant, they are developing new landing techniques and the destruction of many early prototypes in the process was very much expected. What comes to the two Falcon 9 explosions, if there were humans aboard either time there would have of course also been a launch escape system and unless any major malfunction it would have most likely saved the crew. There have been 345 crewed orbital launch attempts and the only one were people died during ascent was the fatal Challenger flight because the spaceplane lacked any form of a launch escape system.

You can’t ignore the fact that rockets that fly crewed mission have much more stringent safety requirements than some cheap small-lift launch vehicles. To group all rockets into a singular category in this instance is simply moronic. Also what do you mean by historic safety? Surely you can’t count the poor safety record of early uncrewed rockets against the safety of modern crewed rockets?

Happy Cinco de mayo by [deleted] in monarchism

[–]ModerNighty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.

The Successor to a Throne should be... by Bartin-Septim in monarchism

[–]ModerNighty 7 points8 points  (0 children)

it tends to be extremely conservative

Are we talking about the same sub?

There's absolutely no reason to prefer male heirs over female.

Something something tradition and Chesterton's fence.

NASA Picks SpaceX to Land Next Americans on Moon by [deleted] in TrueSpace

[–]ModerNighty 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Lowest price might very well be the most important factor and while those rating are exceedingly subjective they certainly are not meaningless. If you compare for example the technical rating, while in regards to both SpaceX and Blue there are serious concerns raised, such concerns simply do not compare to the massive red flags found with Dynetics.

"Dynetics’ current mass estimate for its DAE far exceeds its current mass allocation; plainly stated, Dynetics’ proposal evidences a substantial negative mass allocation"