In space, no one can hear you pretend to break a guitar.
Vader: "I find your lack of STEM education disturbing."
"The solar panels are generating over 9000 jigga-watts!"
What's great is that this means that there will always be a Darth Vader costume on the ISS, since they leave most personal items they brought up behind when they go. (That's the guitar Hadfield played Space Oddity on, for instance)
what about that nice lady that sewed a quilt in space? did she have to leave her quilt on the ISS?
I would hope so, I've been told its very cold in space, leaving it for the next person seems the polite thing to do.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Russia put out its report of the Soyuz failure and Scott Manley put out a video based on said report. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5boa6wAK0Sc
TL:DW: "non-standard assembly" bent a pin that activates a sensors, so a booster didn't detach properly after a valve that's supposed to open did not open, causing bad times for the 2nd stage.
I think this is relatively good news for future crewed launches on Soyuz since all they have to do is check the pins on currently assembled vehicles. But the phrase "non-standard assembly" is certainly something you want to avoid in rocketry.
Russia put out its report of the Soyuz failure and Scott Manley put out a video based on said report. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5boa6wAK0Sc
TL:DW: "non-standard assembly" bent a pin that activates a sensors, so a booster didn't detach properly after a valve that's supposed to open did not open, causing bad times for the 2nd stage.
i.e. the sensor wasn’t quite straight so they hammered it into place with the handle of a screwdriver
Russia put out its report of the Soyuz failure and Scott Manley put out a video based on said report. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5boa6wAK0Sc
TL:DW: "non-standard assembly" bent a pin that activates a sensors, so a booster didn't detach properly after a valve that's supposed to open did not open, causing bad times for the 2nd stage.
i.e. the sensor wasn’t quite straight so they hammered it into place with the handle of a screwdriver
Which if the case, IMO puts the lie on the leak "sabotage." It suggests a culture of covering up fuckups rather than going through proper quality control, not any specific act of sabotage.
Russia put out its report of the Soyuz failure and Scott Manley put out a video based on said report. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5boa6wAK0Sc
TL:DW: "non-standard assembly" bent a pin that activates a sensors, so a booster didn't detach properly after a valve that's supposed to open did not open, causing bad times for the 2nd stage.
i.e. the sensor wasn’t quite straight so they hammered it into place with the handle of a screwdriver
Which if the case, IMO puts the lie on the leak "sabotage." It suggests a culture of covering up fuckups rather than going through proper quality control, not any specific act of sabotage.
And that idea is scary as a motherfucker.
Is Truth Lies and Orings still regarded well as a book? I remember in high school tech class we watched some VHS speech from, I assume this guy, back in the early 00's. This is what popped up when I tried to Google my memories, but the book is dated 2009 and my class would've been before that.
But I remember the part about the Orings and the cover-up/smear job stuff by NASA after Challenger.
Wondering if my high school tech class teacher was some kinda pre911 truther or if it was real.
i.e. the sensor wasn’t quite straight so they hammered it into place with the handle of a screwdriver
Which wouldn't be the first time engineers decided to save some time by hammermangling a component into a position it wasn't supposed to fit in.
That one super spectacular Proton crash from 2013 involved a sensor which had to be oriented a certain way, was labelled to be installed in a certain way, and which had connectors designed to only fit a certain way. Some dumbass installed it backwards by not caring about the schematics, not caring about the labels, and not caring that it didn't fit anyway - it was pounded into the receptacle with a wrench, and physics ensued upon launch.
Zibblsnrt on
+3
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
there was definitely some controversy and cover up with the challenger disaster behind the scenes
not like mustache twirling or anything, i think it’s normal, though not justifiable, to try and point blame elsewhere or just to minimize fault in these types of incidents
as a hilarious aside i was trying to remember the tv movie that was about the investigation into challenger and the second google result was 1986’s screwball comedy Space Camp
which i believe may be incorrect but i’m just going to assume now is a documentary
There was some effort to cover up that Morton-Thiokol engineers had recommended not launching, because of fears that the exact failure that happened might happen, and were then were pressured into okaying the launch.
Here's the tv movie you're probably thinking of. Focuses on Feynman and his role in the investigation.
I've watched the same film on Amazon Prime--a highly entertaining work, and as far as I've read on the subject, dramatized somewhat but still pretty darn accurate.
Specifically, Morton-Thiokol and NASA being completely aware that the rubber sealing rings were not adequate, and that what happened with the boosters was inevitable so long as there were basically any cold weather launches (sooner or later) was pretty damning. The former in particular was not surprised--then combine that with the strong political desire for the shuttle to demonstrate its worth as the do-all launch vehicle option. But of course it's more complex than that, and it's been a few years since I've seen the film or read on the topic. Still, the political need to ignore the very obvious limitations of the shuttle--some of them of the "this is the most complex machine ever flown" variety--completely separate of the solid rocket boosters was endemic to the program for years.
A lot of our program was tied up in the shuttles. We passed on a chance to extend Skylab and delayed Space Station Freedom out of existence because our whole manned program was pinned to a boondoggle, to the point that when it finally became unsustainable we didn't have a program, we became cosmic hitchhikers. To admit problems with the shuttle was to admit the program itself was broken.
And a lot of the same voices are trying to do that again with the SLS.
Eh, SLS isn't technically broken from inception like STS, it is just insanely expensive for what it is, which is exacerbated by having no effort at re-usability.
Ironically, we'd probably be in a better place overall if something like SLS had been the follow-up to Saturn/Apollo, applying the lessons learned, and we were developing a re-usable vehicle in the late-90s.
Saying STS was broken from the inception might be overstating it a bit. It could have been better that what it ended up being had the program been guided by what was practical. Instead it kept having design requirements dictated by outside agencies and political expedience instead of focusing on making something that was capable and affordable.
It's easy to say that SLS isn't as flawed as the STS program knowing what we know now and looking back. But at least STS had some ambition and vision behind it. Meanwhile SLS is re-using old, well known, proven technology for a safe and reliable launch vehicle but is still somehow ludicrously expensive. STS took risks and tried to push the envelope of what was possible, SLS just looks more and more like a jobs program for NASA's usual line-up of contractors. Even if there are some good ideas and missions planned for the vehicle.
SLS has political baggage that makes it so expensive, it was required to use legacy contracts and even parts from the STS. Rather than being open to new bids from the flurry of new rocket companies springing up at the time or the more since, it was locked into companies that had no incentive to deliver an affordable product, and some of which have seen their reputation go to shit as they burn far more money eternally developing systems for the government than those systems will ever sell for if they were actually finished.
The Falcon Heavy and BFR for example, were developed without bottomless government checkbooks and are being sold to NASA as completed products. They're cheaper and to market faster because companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin have every incentive to do so, while the companies behind the SLS have incentive to go over budget to within an inch of their lives and eventually sell an infinitely expensive product that their pet senators will guarantee a set number of purchases a year.
Hevach on
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Rocket Lab is planning on launching their first fully operational commercial mission, dubbed "It's Business Time" tonight at 10 pm est. Assuming things go to plan of course.
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
*grins* I just jumped over here to post about "It's Business Time", good work Seal!
Excited to see RocketLab and the Electron flying well, they'll serve an important microsat market at a very reasonable price! Universities and labs all over the world will make great use of the Electron I'm sure, as well as the occasional light-weight commercial satellite
No reusability of course, but a brilliantly-engineered and cost-effective rocket that really makes reaching orbit a bit easier for small payloads!
+2
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Stealing from myself in the [chat] thread, an interesting look at the proposed Starlink network and some recent changes that were made to it:
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
For a basic breakdown: The first constellation will be lower, in fewer orbital planes, and with less complex satellites, but still more than able to provide surprisingly competitive internet speeds compared to current fiber networks.
For SpaceX's launch purposes, lower orbits mean they can launch more satellites in a single launch, and fewer orbital planes means they can achieve the whole thing in a) fewer launches and b) less time. Smart on their part.
+3
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Please god let me get off this shitty satellite Internet I'm on and onto the less shitty satellite Internet of the future.
Word of warning - Weather is only ~60% in the forecast due to unfriendly skies in the area today, so mentally prepare for the possibility that this launch may not happen today >_>
Posts
I would hope so, I've been told its very cold in space, leaving it for the next person seems the polite thing to do.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
TL:DW: "non-standard assembly" bent a pin that activates a sensors, so a booster didn't detach properly after a valve that's supposed to open did not open, causing bad times for the 2nd stage.
I think this is relatively good news for future crewed launches on Soyuz since all they have to do is check the pins on currently assembled vehicles. But the phrase "non-standard assembly" is certainly something you want to avoid in rocketry.
i.e. the sensor wasn’t quite straight so they hammered it into place with the handle of a screwdriver
Which if the case, IMO puts the lie on the leak "sabotage." It suggests a culture of covering up fuckups rather than going through proper quality control, not any specific act of sabotage.
And that idea is scary as a motherfucker.
Is Truth Lies and Orings still regarded well as a book? I remember in high school tech class we watched some VHS speech from, I assume this guy, back in the early 00's. This is what popped up when I tried to Google my memories, but the book is dated 2009 and my class would've been before that.
But I remember the part about the Orings and the cover-up/smear job stuff by NASA after Challenger.
Wondering if my high school tech class teacher was some kinda pre911 truther or if it was real.
Edit: this guy. Forgot the video link
Which wouldn't be the first time engineers decided to save some time by hammermangling a component into a position it wasn't supposed to fit in.
That one super spectacular Proton crash from 2013 involved a sensor which had to be oriented a certain way, was labelled to be installed in a certain way, and which had connectors designed to only fit a certain way. Some dumbass installed it backwards by not caring about the schematics, not caring about the labels, and not caring that it didn't fit anyway - it was pounded into the receptacle with a wrench, and physics ensued upon launch.
not like mustache twirling or anything, i think it’s normal, though not justifiable, to try and point blame elsewhere or just to minimize fault in these types of incidents
as a hilarious aside i was trying to remember the tv movie that was about the investigation into challenger and the second google result was 1986’s screwball comedy Space Camp
which i believe may be incorrect but i’m just going to assume now is a documentary
Here's the tv movie you're probably thinking of. Focuses on Feynman and his role in the investigation.
Specifically, Morton-Thiokol and NASA being completely aware that the rubber sealing rings were not adequate, and that what happened with the boosters was inevitable so long as there were basically any cold weather launches (sooner or later) was pretty damning. The former in particular was not surprised--then combine that with the strong political desire for the shuttle to demonstrate its worth as the do-all launch vehicle option. But of course it's more complex than that, and it's been a few years since I've seen the film or read on the topic. Still, the political need to ignore the very obvious limitations of the shuttle--some of them of the "this is the most complex machine ever flown" variety--completely separate of the solid rocket boosters was endemic to the program for years.
Fascinating movie, highly recommend it.
EDIT: Adequate, not accurate. Doh.
And a lot of the same voices are trying to do that again with the SLS.
Ironically, we'd probably be in a better place overall if something like SLS had been the follow-up to Saturn/Apollo, applying the lessons learned, and we were developing a re-usable vehicle in the late-90s.
It's easy to say that SLS isn't as flawed as the STS program knowing what we know now and looking back. But at least STS had some ambition and vision behind it. Meanwhile SLS is re-using old, well known, proven technology for a safe and reliable launch vehicle but is still somehow ludicrously expensive. STS took risks and tried to push the envelope of what was possible, SLS just looks more and more like a jobs program for NASA's usual line-up of contractors. Even if there are some good ideas and missions planned for the vehicle.
The Falcon Heavy and BFR for example, were developed without bottomless government checkbooks and are being sold to NASA as completed products. They're cheaper and to market faster because companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin have every incentive to do so, while the companies behind the SLS have incentive to go over budget to within an inch of their lives and eventually sell an infinitely expensive product that their pet senators will guarantee a set number of purchases a year.
Blue = Earth Science Projects Division
Yellow = Heliophysics Science Division (study of the Sun)
Green = Manned spaceflight
Red = Astrophysics
Orange = Communications
Gray = Lunar Missions
:biggrin:
http://www.rocketlabusa.com/live-stream
Also Juno, NASA's solar powered Jupiter probe, takes some good pictures:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/pia22692.jpg
Excited to see RocketLab and the Electron flying well, they'll serve an important microsat market at a very reasonable price! Universities and labs all over the world will make great use of the Electron I'm sure, as well as the occasional light-weight commercial satellite
No reusability of course, but a brilliantly-engineered and cost-effective rocket that really makes reaching orbit a bit easier for small payloads!
For SpaceX's launch purposes, lower orbits mean they can launch more satellites in a single launch, and fewer orbital planes means they can achieve the whole thing in a) fewer launches and b) less time. Smart on their part.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
They had me at "giant interlocking network of space lasers".
And another one scheduled in 4 days! :surprised:
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
This mentions this launch and four more for a total of 22 for the year. So this should be #18?
Yep, should end up at 21 F9 launches, and the one FH launch of course
I guesstimated 2 a month for 2018, so I'd say they did pretty well this year
If you don't love me at my blurriest, then you don't deserve me at my crispiest.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Launch window is 20:46 - 22:27 UTC (3:46pm - 5:27pm Eastern, 12:46pm - 2:27pm Pacific), to be more precise!
GTO satellite launch! Flight-proven booster! Downrange landing attempt on Of Course I Still Love You! Exclamation marks!
Very nice shots from John Kraus, a young guy in Florida who is quickly becoming The Man when it comes to Space Coast photography
Word of warning - Weather is only ~60% in the forecast due to unfriendly skies in the area today, so mentally prepare for the possibility that this launch may not happen today >_>
Spaceflight!
Also, anyone who dislikes camera lenses in particular. His close-up launch photos are a little rough on his equipment..
This is all true and accurate :biggrin:
Also update from the Cape - GO has been given to proceed toward launch, fuel loading has begun!
Surprisingly in-depth and largely free of propaganda! I enjoyed it! :P