211–220 of 401 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if we train People choose those paths on their own, not because some human industrial policy plucked them out of middle school and put them on that path.
Nonetheless, if they choose to be an aerospace engineer, they've chosen not to be, for example, a surgeon, or whatever else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they have been doing that. Yes, it's a dumb idea. Yes, the US had something similar happen in the past with Skylab coming down over Australia and killing a cow (we also learned that it's not a particularly good thing to do and are more careful these days). The problem is that the rocket in question has the large 'main' tank go all the way to orbit. Thus they probably can't also include enough propulsion to put i…
There was no incident involving Skylab and a cow. Are you mixing it up with a Cuban owned cow and a different launch almost 20 years before Skylab?
Last week I stood outside my apartment and watched Tiangong fly across the sky[0]. What an incredible time to be alive. [0] https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/
Tiangoon flybys can reaches magnitude -2 now. Bright than most planets. Next bright evening flybys overUS in early December. The ISS, which has five times more modules, reaches magnitude -4 sometimes. Third brightest thing in sky.
> The scale used to indicate magnitude originates in the Hellenistic practice of dividing stars visible to the naked eye into six magnitudes. The brightest stars in the night sky were said to be of first magnitude (m = 1), whereas the faintest were of sixth magnitude (m = 6) [...]
> In 1856, Norman Robert Pogson formalized the system by defining a first magnitude star as a star that is 100 times as bright as a sixth-magnitude star, thereby establishing the logarithmic scale still in use today. This implies that a star of magnitude m is about 2.512 times as bright as a star of magnitude m + 1. This figure, the fifth root of 100, became known as Pogson's Ratio.
Hmmph. I'd prefer a system where higher numbers were brighter, and probably with a different logarithmic base. Oh well.
Does anyone know to what extent China has advanced the state of the Soviet technology that they have (I assume) licensed? I have been to the Russian Star City training facility, Baikonur Cosmodrome and been in the full-size Mir training module and the Chinese station components look very similar. I am sure getting good information is difficult, but perhaps someone here has some more info.
Some of the features I know from the Chinese space station - Solar panels smaller in area than ISS but produces similar amount of power, indicating much more efficient solar panels - Ion thrusters to keep space in orbit - Automated docking of cargo and crew capsule. Semi-automated docking of large station components like the 23ton labs - A robotic arm similar to ISS that walk along the joint points on the station. It…
I should hope so after over a decade. AFAIK they haven't changed the solar panels since the last one was installed in 2009 and the design was probably fixed well before the first one was installed.
> A robotic arm similar to ISS that walk along the joint points on the station. It has expandable attachment system, allowing not only astronauts to attach, but also a smaller more precises robotic arm to attach that can manipulate external experiments
Canada Arm also walks along the ISS too using alternating ends that astronauts can be attached to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, yes. That's accurate. Why would they waste time and their own money researching things when they can just steal it and then give that information to private and public Chinese industries? That is their entire MO. The Chinese are also responsible for $200-600 Billion worth of IP theft against the US every year. They will do whatever it takes to make China #1 and see nothing wrong with doing this. - https://w…
> Why would they waste time and their own money researching things when they can just steal it and then give that information to private and public Chinese industries? Because this way you'll always be behind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's way too broad, because it depends what it is. Surprisingly, it seems to be easier to build a space station than to compete with Boeing and Airbus.
Rocket engines are simpler than jet turbines, actually. It take a lot of material engineering to get something with both performance and economy. As for the rest, it’s just avionics that china hasn’t developed yet, and that really “just” software.
But really, there’s an order of magnitude more engineering that goes into so many facets of rockets and rocket engines. On paper they’re similar, but the stresses and constraints are much, much higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sanctions are pretty irrelevant when China has one of the best hacking groups in the world and every US corporation of relevance is strongly connected to the Internet.
Yeah, because they are only this advanced because they stole US technology. Chinese people can't be as intelligent as american.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was no incident involving Skylab and a cow. Are you mixing it up with a Cuban owned cow and a different launch almost 20 years before Skylab?
Huh, I didn't realize that hadn't been Skylab! Looks like it's a somewhat popular myth arising from some stories about Skylab's reentry mentioning the cow incident.
Edit: They never paid it, and it was $400
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/70708/nasas-unpaid-400-l...
Only rated for 10 years operation. Given how expensive those space stations are, it seems very short.