191–200 of 340 posts
Here is pretty accurate in terms of spacecraft UI docking simulator: https://iss-sim.spacex.com/ Astronauts will be using similar for manual piloting demo before docking.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=iss+sim+speedru...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If one freezes then use the other 3. If they all freeze let the autopilot do it's job.
I find it sort of weird to not have buttons in there: with all the vibrations you would think it's rather difficult to touch the exact control that you want. I guess they considered that...
I see they are using touch screens. What would they do if the screens froze?
I wonder if they are using an already used Falcon 9 or a brand new one? Is there are statistical difference in the reliability of unused vs reused Falcon 9s?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I'll expand. We both have limited information. I assume that the professionals at SpaceX and NASA have prioritized safety and usability, while also introducing a sci-fi vibe. This is a reasonable position. You, however, take a conspiracy theory (the literal definition) angle that SpaceX have reduced the safety and usability of their module in order to look cooler. Do you see why this is not a reasonable positio…
> while also introducing a sci-fi vibe. This is a reasonable position. I think that's my main grumpy objection. May be I am just old. I also found your dismissal as "conspiracy" a low blow. How can I engage in a productive discussion when the other party dismisses your entire proposition as a conspiracy theory - you don't seem to see any issues with that?
Maybe conspiracy theory was too harsh, but I stand by heavily calling you out for hatching this idea with minimal evidence beyond "grumpy objections" to a sci-fi vibe.
I wonder if they are using an already used Falcon 9 or a brand new one? Is there are statistical difference in the reliability of unused vs reused Falcon 9s?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but is manned missions really going to achieve much. I thought there was much differing opinion about the value/lack of value of manned missions among the space community itself.
By the way, NASA style is to avoid using "manned" and use a term like "crewed" or "piloted" instead. The Manned Spaceflight Center is an exception. See https://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html
> The exception to the rule is when referring to the Manned Spaceflight Center (also known as the Manned Spacecraft Center), the predecessor of Johnson Space Center in Houston, or to any other historical program name or official title that included “manned”
Love the new "Space" suits and the touch screen panel inside the capsule. This is going to be amazing. My prayers with the brave astronauts.
Is the touch screen usable during lift-off / landing? I'm thinking gravity (4+g?) and trepidations is making it hard to touch a specific spot. Or, maybe there isn't much to do manually during this phase, and for the little things there are some classic controls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course robotic missions are better for exploration than manned mission. Manned missions costs so much we could do so many more robotic missions for the same cost. People are absolutely not required in space. Can you imagine being wrong on that? That people can and are cheaper than robots for certain important aspects? That accomplished space robot makers would disagree that robots are at least universally cheape…
People are not cheaper in space, by no means. Robotic things can be easily prepared well in advance, on planet Earth, where sitting a bunch of programmers by the computer is much cheaper than training and sending actual bag of mostly water into space. If you are still not convinced, we have sent a robotic missions to almost every larger body in solar system, yet we are excited today we can send two people to LEO. Jus…
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/index.ht...
Would it be cheaper to build a replacement scope and launch it instead?