61–70 of 104 posts
I can't easily link to it because it's still live streaming but at 4:10 in they seem to be debugging a local internet/HTML error on their iPads. Next level debugging in production.
Related, I wonder if there's going to be a postmortem on this mission on the UI, because from the brief scenes when its shown updating or being clicked on, it looks to have a responsiveness on the order of half a second .
What happens in the event of a parachute failure? Would they be in a position where they could fire up the Super Dracos for a propulsive landing?
There are four parachutes. It's designed to support at least a single-chute failure, I don't know about multiple chute outages. As for propulsive landing - the latest I can see[1] is that while the craft is technically capable of propulsive landing, it's not approved by NASA, even for emergencies. So it's likely that these options are not even available for the crew, and they wouldn't have trained on how to use it/ac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that you could capture a satellite and return it was part of the mission requirements for the original shuttle design. If it was a 'friendly' or 'unfriendly' satellite was left unspecified. It was also limited by the Shuttle's OMS in terms of delta-v so the orbits from which a satellite could be retrieved was constrained.
Unfriendly satellite can blow up or cause fire inside of shuttle, so it's bad idea to capture enemy satellites. It's like sending billion-worth mine capturer behind enemy lines, which can be destroyed with AK.
If I was a military satellite designer, heaven forbid, I'd definitely include that in a world that included the possibility of stealing satellites. The capability, quietly communicated between the powers, would be enough to ensure that the satellite would never be stolen. And therefore, the billion-dollar kidnapping capability becoming useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfriendly satellite can blow up or cause fire inside of shuttle, so it's bad idea to capture enemy satellites. It's like sending billion-worth mine capturer behind enemy lines, which can be destroyed with AK.
Don't see why you're downvoted for posting this. Certainly, satellites designed before the Space Shuttle would have to be very paranoidly designed to include a self-destruct mechanism, but it only takes a couple kilograms of explosives to strongly disincentivize kidnapping it. If I was a military satellite designer, heaven forbid, I'd definitely include that in a world that included the possibility of stealing satell…
Not yet, not until re-entry. It's arguably the most dangerous part of the missions since launching on Falcon 9 has happened many times before. Both Soyuz and the Space Shuttle had fatal accidents on re-entry.
I don’t believe SpaceX has ever not tried and succeeded to return a Dragon sent to ISS back to Earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Related, I wonder if there's going to be a postmortem on this mission on the UI, because from the brief scenes when its shown updating or being clicked on, it looks to have a responsiveness on the order of half a second .
Think it’s Electron. Doesn’t surprise me. I wouldn’t want to take slack into space with me.
It was probably just a cached/saved website saved to the home screen. I'm not a rocket scientist, but as a web developer, I would rely upon that for anything earth-bound, let alone in Space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong, but I think it's cool how much safer the generic capsule design is than something like the Shuttle. Really the Shuttle got a whole lot wrong—heat-intolerant aluminum structure and critical, sensitive machinery directly beneath a layer of tiles so fragile you can crush them in your hands (IIRC). SpaceX's Starship will probably be a lot more tolerant to defects in the heat shield because of the relati…
The Shuttle was built to bring down soviet spy satellites and spacecraft, so in that regard, it was the best design made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are four parachutes. It's designed to support at least a single-chute failure, I don't know about multiple chute outages. As for propulsive landing - the latest I can see[1] is that while the craft is technically capable of propulsive landing, it's not approved by NASA, even for emergencies. So it's likely that these options are not even available for the crew, and they wouldn't have trained on how to use it/ac…
Not even for emergencies? Does that mean that it is officially not there, but in the unlikely unlikely event it can be used, or that it really isn't there anymore and the capsule would just drop dead on the ground?