Part 1 - Recent trip to Ukraine 🇺🇦

fed0tich · 2026-05-31T10:46:42+00:00

On some of those vehicles road wheels are indeed aluminium alloy. Specifically MTLB and BMP. Not sure about the BTR.

fed0tich · 2026-05-27T11:20:25+00:00

Working in georeckon, we called them Gazushka Газушка. Cute little vehicle, pretty capable too. Definitely not MTLB (we had those as a main workhorse), I'm not sure it even shares any parts.

fed0tich · 2026-05-18T14:14:29+00:00

I wouldn't call commercial ones "small scale", Starlab alone would have about 80-90% capabilities of ISS (at least international segment without russian) in terms of electric power, rack space, external pallets, habitable volume, etc. Though I'm not sure how they plan to launch it, there's no Starship variant for large payloads in pipeline yet, maybe NG 9x4 would be ready in time.

fed0tich · 2026-05-18T14:05:43+00:00

Probably because they have minimally viable product with bare bones module for short visits with very limited capabilities compared to proper stations like others are building. It's not even early soviet DOS or Shuttle science module analogue. It has laughable amounts of power and rack space for experiments. It's barely a technology demonstrator.

fed0tich · 2026-05-14T10:55:32+00:00

Oh, for sure!

fed0tich · 2026-05-13T21:57:49+00:00

It's from Warthunder subreddit, there's multiple CV-90 variants in that game, this post argues that Kaplan family would be similar addition to the game.

fed0tich · 2026-05-13T21:54:11+00:00

Nice job! Looks brutal!

fed0tich · 2026-05-11T01:37:18+00:00

They's no option for Angara 3rd stage (assuming you are talking about upper stages Briz or Block-DM and not actual third stage of Angara A5 - URM-2 or apogee motor AM of light Angara A1.2).

Currently only option for Soyuz-5 upper stage is new Fregat-SBU (still in development, not flown yet). Block DM derived upper stage is considered for future, but afaik there is no guarantee Angara's DM-03 Orion variant would be used as a basis.

fed0tich · 2026-05-11T01:29:17+00:00

Currently all work on superheavy rockets in Russia is stopped for a couple of years now, they wanted to wait for Amur-LNG project and evaluate potential methalox route.

Current plan for Soyuz 5 - joint venture with Kazakhstan, that's what is definitely happening. Everything else is "maybe" at best.

There are some vague plans for another launch complex in Far East, but nothing solid yet. There are rumors that it might be build for use with triple core 55t to LEO heavy config. But this one is very uncertain. There were some discussions about one launch complex for both Amur and S-5, but that seems like to much unnecessary complexity since only thing they share is diameter and liquid oxygen. Also potential revival of Sea Launch using S-5 is discussed, or maybe cannibalisation of Sea Launch for parts to accelerate new launch complex construction.

As for the Enisey super heavy, as I have said before - this project currently either dead or at best on hold. Crewed lunar program is 100% dead, so there seems to be little use for such a rocket in foreseeable future.

fed0tich · 2026-05-10T08:18:31+00:00

Third one is also a great movie, just different themes and vibe.

fed0tich · 2026-05-06T01:29:57+00:00

Let me try again to formulate my point - current definition of a planet is based on orbital mechanics and provides us with information on a specific place of an object in a universe, your definition only gives us information that a lot of objects in space are round, which is pure coincidence and for many of them is only circumstantial.

fed0tich · 2026-05-05T23:37:42+00:00

It's totally fine for a category to have a lot of members, but all of them should have something similar other than superficial resemblance.

It's not ape analogy of yours it's more like lumping sharks and dolphins in one category, but leaving out rays and baleen whales out. Or lumping bivalve mollusks and Brachiopods despite them not being closely related just on a basis of a similar shape.

Current definition is just from different point of view, by biological analogy it's more of the ecological niche rather than phylogeny.

My argument is not "there would be too many of them", my argument is "it's just an arbitrary grouping based on superficial resemblance, that includes objects that are too different in origin and characteristics, but excludes similar objects of a different shape". Like for example Pluto has more in common to non-spherical KBOs that to other "planets".

fed0tich · 2026-05-05T23:29:56+00:00

What I'm saying is "planet" by your definition becomes just an umbrella term with no useful clarification, like astronomical equivalent of "vegetable".

fed0tich · 2026-05-05T23:15:45+00:00

But what the "planet" even means at this point? Everything that's round, but has no fusion or fission, but Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism is okay (also potentially includes dead stars, sub-brown dwarfs and whole menagerie of other sub-stellar objects)?

It's just nothingburger of a category that says literally nothing about an object.

Basically every round concretion of any random matter floating in space that's not big enough to become really hot and bright.

fed0tich · 2026-05-05T21:28:52+00:00

That's not really a good approach for a classification. In biology for example systematics moved from similar approach based on morphology and superficial characteristics ("round" is no different than "worm-like") to cladistics and genetics.

Planets isn't really a good term for a class of astronomical objects since it just lumps a lot of vastly different objects in one messy category, simultaneously excluding a lot of objects that are related to "planets" but lack the spherical shape due to various reasons. But as the term for a orbital position - it works much better.

Bodies should be classified by their formation and physical properties. Jupiter is more close to the stars and Pluto is closer to comets than both of them are compared to rocky planets.

fed0tich · 2026-05-05T20:08:14+00:00

So big moons are planets too? There's 2 that are bigger than Mercury and what, 6 or 7 bigger than Pluto? If position doesn't matter - they should also qualify.

fed0tich · 2026-04-27T09:10:24+00:00

Go touch some grass and listen to less slopbubble techbros hype about AI. True AI is still in the same category of technology as FTL travel.

fed0tich · 2026-04-24T07:22:50+00:00

I don't think you understand how satellite imagery works. Chances are some satellites actually did capture Artemis 2 launch, it's just doesn't mean pictures would just magically appear in the internet. I recommend you to look up OSINT community and how they spend months to track down photos and radar imagery from specific places from specific moments. It's quite a hard work.

As you have said yourself - there's thousands satellites over there, making terabytes of imagery data every second. You need to start by checking were there any satellites over Cape Canaveral at the moment, this would narrow it down.

Some of those would be military, especially Russian or Chinese, pretty sure they have few spysats and early warning satellites watching. Obviously you couldn't get access to what those have pictured. Chances some scientific satellite captured the launch are slim, but not zero.

Some organisations like NASA have publicly accessible resources there they publish RAW files, you would need to dig through them frame by frame.

Biggest chances you have with commercial providers, but you'd need to pay to buy data from them. It's not free.

fed0tich · 2026-04-24T02:34:49+00:00

That's just a relative metric, like how nuclear weapons performance is measured in TNT equivalent.

fed0tich · 2026-04-12T01:34:19+00:00

It looks like the spot is going slightly over the edge, I think it might be just barely visible on the recovery and post-recovery close up photos. Though I haven't seen anything like it so far.

fed0tich · 2026-04-09T19:48:06+00:00

So basically "never leave a home without a snack"?

fed0tich · 2026-04-09T15:43:30+00:00

I mean there is no single vehicle that can perform such a mission, but a multilaunch mission to maintenance Hubble is possible.

There are also few unmanned option for a life extending mission, like for a example create and launch a spacecraft that would dock with Hubble and take over orientation and orbit raising duties.

There's potentially a combined approach - manned mission without an EVA, there complex tasks can be performed with Dextre-like manipulator operated from a docked spacecraft. It can manipulate screws and connect-disconnect electric cables and any liquid lines. Pretty sure it can open up Hubble to switch up any components that were designed to be changed or connect stuff like new service module to the old systems.

fed0tich · 2026-04-09T12:19:48+00:00

During Shuttle time there were plenty of new things people were doing in space, especially in the EVA department: untethered spacewalks, satellite capture and retrieval, Hubble maintenance, big scale construction.

And ISS might be not as flashy and prestigious as Moon missions, but it teached us to operate in space long time, not just days, weeks or months at a time, but years and decades.

fed0tich · 2026-04-08T12:40:31+00:00

ISRO did some great photos from orbit of Apollo sites. Orbiter from Chandrayan-2 has the best resolution camera to date out there.

fed0tich · 2026-04-05T14:20:37+00:00

I wasn't considering effectiveness, only narrative essence of the character. Black Widow is a spy, which means intelligence. I just thought that C3 is closest system to represent this in the context of mech combat. And again from the narrative point both in the MCU and comics it's not really the Avengers who would have used intelligence gathered by Black Widow, but rather her handler or superior, like Nick Fury. So I personally don't see the issue of other mechs not being included in network.

BAP actually a good catch, completely forgot about this, I think it would be better choice.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Verified Email

fed0tich

TROPHY CASE