Humor Random Comments Thread
- Thread starter Tex
- Start date
Quick_Nick
Passed the Turing Test
Compacted by several trains and then loaded onto one.
The car became so narrow that nearly any turn would cause it to roll over.
The car became so narrow that nearly any turn would cause it to roll over.
Last edited:
mojoey
Bwoah
- Joined
- May 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,623
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 61
Pipcard
mikusingularity
Quick sketches in Inkscape for a 3-person lifting body based on JAXA's LIFLEX. It will have a mass of 9390 kg and a rear docking adapter. What do you think?
(the top is [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=6439"]Delphinus[/ame]; the bottom is the Dream Chaser)
(the top is [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=6439"]Delphinus[/ame]; the bottom is the Dream Chaser)
Last edited:
Pipcard
mikusingularity
I was going to... and then I realized:
- Can a spaceplane like HOPE-X reliably ditch in the water in a hypothetical Pacific abort scenario? Can you imagine it having parachutes? I'm thinking of having a parachute system like Delphinus. HL-20 was going to have emergency parachutes as well.
- Dream Chaser gets advertised as having "no strap-on solid rocket motors", and I want the on-board abort engines to accelerate away from a rocket with completely shut-down engines. So I'm trying to make the vehicle lighter so that it can fly on the M-II without boosters (which would also decrease launch costs).
http://www.rocket.jaxa.jp/fstrc/0b03.html said:
Or I could go with the capsule option, but capsules aren't as "cool" (I admit that I've succumbed to emotional appeals) unless they can do a precise propulsive landing à la Dragon V2. And that hasn't been demonstrated yet, in Orbiter nor in real life.
Last edited:
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
We had a doozy of a day...
Also, meet the #swagmobile
I never though an orbiterperson would care to play gta...
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Pipcard: Forget ditching in the pacific - thats not even an realistic option for airliners. Better go the Shuttle way and let the crew eject or bail-out at low altitude, if needed. Or use a system of parachutes and airbags to stabilize the spacecraft for ditching, which could also work, since the HOPE-X is rather small compared to the Space Shuttle.
mojoey
Bwoah
- Joined
- May 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,623
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 61
We're normal people* too!
*Does not include instances of Urwumpes, Scavs, and on occasion mojoeys. Subject to change at any time, Terms and Conditions apply. Void where Prohibited.
ISProgram
SketchUp Orbinaut
Capsules are NEVER cool. Unless it's a Dragon.
More seriously, and more to the point, if I understand correctly, you propose having two different space plane/lifting body designs in operation in the same time frame (possibly simultaneously) for different purposes (unmanned and manned)...
At which point, it's inefficient. resource-wise AND monetary-wise. I personally don't think a space program could afford a big enough budget (except maybe China) to design two different, sophisticated vehicles, at the same time without cutting something or finding a "valid" reason to get rid of one of those vehicles.
Also, if the HOPE-X is for unmanned logistics, and the LIFLEX is for manned launches, but if so, why not use a robotic LIFLEX for unmanned logistics instead of HOPE-X? (Unless, of course, there is a SEVERE payload capacity deficient, either due to size differences of the payload accommodations or because the vehicle size are radically different.
Also, abort-wise, why not try a RTLS (except if the landing site is a different, far away island), and if that wasn't valid, a "coast" to a emergency landing site (like the Shuttle's TAL abort, only more or less extreme).
@Urwumpe: Why can't you ditch in the Pacific...?
Last edited:
I briefly played GTA IV earlier this year since it was one of the PSN freebies a few months back. It was ok, just not my thing.
I cannot, however, seem to overcome my Call of Duty addiction, even though the game frustrates and infuriates me to no end. :beathead: I can't stop playing.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
@Urwumpe: Why can't you ditch in the Pacific...?
(I like my rrrrolling Rrrrrr
)Simply said, because aircraft are fast and if you impact at high speed on water, water behaves as friendly as a slab of concrete. Now, you will likely think: But aircraft can land on runways, too and runways are made of slabs of concrete.
But the ocean is no flat surface. Even on a very calm day, you have small waves and the usual good weather wave is about one meter high far away from coasts and ports. Even dropping torpedoes from aircraft into normal waves is not easy, despite the torpedo being designed for it.
And then, you also get the problem, that such space planes are no good gliders. Ditching such planes is even under optimal conditions deadly, as NASA tests have shown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9kBOmHlQws
Thinks get really spectacular at the end, but even the calm sea tests have accelerations on impact, which would destroy the real shuttle. Only the one test in which the plane flipped from wave to wave at the end had a small chance of the crew surviving, though there had been a high risk of one of the wings already getting destroyed on the first impact and later impacts only making the Shuttle somersault into destruction.
Last edited:
SolarLiner
It's necessary, TARS.
Some guy who likes to try to make me mad sent me this video:
It's funny how two words can trigger up a flame war on hoax communities ...
Oh, and if you want a good laugh, look at the comments ...
"Those ISS shots are just bad quality CGI, there's no way you could see it since it's non-existent ..."
"Why does her hair go straight up? If it was real she would have tied up her hair"
"Why does these videos never last longer than 4 minutes?"
Ahhhh, hoaxers ...
It's funny how two words can trigger up a flame war on hoax communities ...
Oh, and if you want a good laugh, look at the comments ...
"Those ISS shots are just bad quality CGI, there's no way you could see it since it's non-existent ..."
"Why does her hair go straight up? If it was real she would have tied up her hair"
"Why does these videos never last longer than 4 minutes?"
Ahhhh, hoaxers ...
Quick_Nick
Passed the Turing Test
From Reddit, a dwarven flag for KSP.
Pipcard
mikusingularity
I forgot to tell you that the current plans for my space agency's development* are to use the lifting body for manned flights, and an HTV-like vehicle for unmanned logistics. The HTV-like can also serve as a test station to dock to, like Tiangong-1.Capsules are NEVER cool. Unless it's a Dragon.
More seriously, and more to the point, if I understand correctly, you propose having two different space plane/lifting body designs in operation in the same time frame (possibly simultaneously) for different purposes (unmanned and manned)...
At which point, it's inefficient. resource-wise AND monetary-wise. I personally don't think a space program could afford a big enough budget (except maybe China) to design two different, sophisticated vehicles, at the same time without cutting something or finding a "valid" reason to get rid of one of those vehicles.
Also, if the HOPE-X is for unmanned logistics, and the LIFLEX is for manned launches, but if so, why not use a robotic LIFLEX for unmanned logistics instead of HOPE-X? (Unless, of course, there is a SEVERE payload capacity deficient, either due to size differences of the payload accommodations or because the vehicle size are radically different.
Also, abort-wise, why not try a RTLS (except if the landing site is a different, far away island), and if that wasn't valid, a "coast" to a emergency landing site (like the Shuttle's TAL abort, only more or less extreme).
I was going to use the HOPE-X design for both, but there was a problem: the HTV carries unpressurized cargo, so the HOPE-X-like vehicle would have to be unpressurized and have an optional module for humans and pressurized cargo (even though they would make up most of the planned missions, they would need an optional module), which would add more mass to the vehicle than if you just made the pressurized module part of the fuselage structure. Also, docking adapters would add more mass as well. These elements might add so much mass that the HOPE-X-like would have to launch on the M-II with four solid rocket boosters, with accelerations too high to be comfortable.
The lifting body probably won't have much room for International Standard Payload Racks.
There's lots of ocean in between Negishima and any other land along the launcher's flight path.
*In-universe, the lifting body first launched in the mid-late 90s.
Last edited:
Ghostrider
Donator
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,606
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 78
- Location
- Right behind you - don't look!
Capsules are NEVER cool. Unless it's a Dragon.
Geminis are capsules and they *are* cool. Convertible spacecraft, what more do you want?
Legroom?
MaverickSawyer
Acolyte of the Probe
And headroom, and shoulder space, and... you get the idea. The Gusmobile was a little cramped.
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,814
- Reaction score
- 869
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Earth
- Website
- orbides.org
- Preferred Pronouns
- she/her
On an off-topic note, can someone recognize a short story name for me?
I think it was something by or related to Jack London or Mark Twain.
The story happens around Klondike, in the gold rush days.
Two people buy land on the bad side of the river, and fake concealed gold mining - hide, make quiet noise, do some dynamite explosions, etc. The people in the city see this, and start following them, trying to find where the gold is.
Eventually they agree to share, and a "company" is formed for mining.
All that was a set-up to get the funds out of several people, who frauded the protagonists before (something related to eggs? not sure). These people bought the shares.
After that, there was a big "first and last" announcement to the effect that anyone who does not want their investments being sent to such and such charity can get it back there and there, except for these bad people, who gets nothing back because they made fraud before, and it's justice.
I think it was something by or related to Jack London or Mark Twain.
The story happens around Klondike, in the gold rush days.
Two people buy land on the bad side of the river, and fake concealed gold mining - hide, make quiet noise, do some dynamite explosions, etc. The people in the city see this, and start following them, trying to find where the gold is.
Eventually they agree to share, and a "company" is formed for mining.
All that was a set-up to get the funds out of several people, who frauded the protagonists before (something related to eggs? not sure). These people bought the shares.
After that, there was a big "first and last" announcement to the effect that anyone who does not want their investments being sent to such and such charity can get it back there and there, except for these bad people, who gets nothing back because they made fraud before, and it's justice.
Quick_Nick
Passed the Turing Test
Maybe you're thinking of two different stories at once because this one has eggs, Klondike, and Jack London, but not so much gold.
http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/FaithMen/dozen.html
---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------
The IFLS page on Facebook gets more and more disappointing all the time. It regularly seems like a disservice to science. They have an audience of 17 million people and can't seem to get anything right. And they use as misleading of headlines as any other source.
Just earlier they reported on arctic methane releases. They say 'expedition members report "sniffing methane"' without clarifying that the team used methane "sniffing" robots. Not their noses, obviously! So then the vast majority of comments say "You can't smell methane! These scientists are idiots. Their evidence of global warming is BS". Yes, this particular incident is just poor writing. And yes, internet comments are notoriously dumb. But how do you constantly allow this when you're trying to advocate science to the public? To seventeen million people? It's a disservice to science, in my mind, to hype science and then dish out inaccurate clickbait. The story was posted because a scientist used the F word.
And I feel weird about none of their stories being original. Virtually every paragraph is copied word for word from somewhere else. And in this instance, much of it came from a Vice interview. But of course, the link they provided is broken because it was mistyped by one character. And on the Vice page, the paragraph they took about "sniffing" methane details what is meant in the next sentence. If only IFLS copied the entire paragraph or used original wording/paraphrasing. I swear there is no editing whatsoever for IFLS. They mislead and then never attempt to correct.
All this in addition to the terrible personality of the person who started IFLS. But one would hope that's a separate issue.
I'll stop complaining now and finally Unlike the page after so many months or years it has been... I hope some of those 17 million people still get something of value despite it all.
