IDNeon
-
Posts
101 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by IDNeon
-
-
Just now, beecee said:
Facts tell a different story from your rather fanciful hopes and dreams. We followed all manned US space shots in every detail from Shepard and Glenn, through to Apollo 11, including the near tragedy of Apollo 13. The USSR never did that and Russia would still not do it under any circumstances
The US picks and chooses what it makes public just as the USSR did and Russia does now.
US chose to make Astronauts fairly public but there are STS missions that are highly classified and we know next to nothing about.
The US keeps somethings public to distract from other things.
Russia likes to brag about its undersea capabilities while the US bragged about its space capabilities.
The US is extremely tight lipped on its submarine capabilities and especially Sonar abilities.
Russia is pretty brazen with the same capabilities even showing off its new types of towed sonar arrays.
Arguably what happens under the ocean is more important than space.
There's not a lot more to be gained geopolitically from space.
There's a lot at stake in the oceans.
0 -
5 hours ago, MigL said:
Good way to confuse yourself and others.
All information is limited to c , and, other than relic ( unchanging ) space-time curvature, cannot affect you any faster than the light reaching you.
'Actual' position is non-sensical, it is like saying "Where is it, now", and we know that there is no 'now' for everyone and every place.Well the reason this is interesting to me is because we can see apparent structure in the universe, particularly in galaxies.
Assume you see a structure that is a straight line crossing the center of a galaxy.
Given the previously stated parameters we would have to say that the apparent structure is an illusion caused by the speed of light.
The structure would be curved as previously described.
If space time itself isn't rotating around the same gravity well.
0 -
1 minute ago, exchemist said:
This is a silly question.
Not silly.
I'm having trouble figuring out if a diver needs to experience a compression time when exiting a pressure hull or if once the chamber is flooded they are good to go.
Essentially I'm trying to figure out if a chamber must be first pressurized by gas to equalize ambient pressure outside pressure hull or can that stage be disregarded as it is for a torpedo.
A torpedo isn't sensitive to forces in the same way a gas filled meat-sack is.
So...I can't assume that what works for a torpedo tube works for a diver.
But it makes sense that it would work except a bit of discomfort when the water pressure goes from 1atm to ambient pressure at depth.
So can you suggest which method must be followed to exit a pressure hull?
Slow compression with gas then flood tube? Or just flood tube as only step?
0 -
Russia made a great leap forward in space technology, when launching satellites from submerged submarines.
I think the most important application for this would be to direct SLBMs more accurately.
0 -
10 minutes ago, beecee said:
Other then of course that the USSR was renowned in operating under a veil of secrecy, as does Russia to a lesser extent probably
Nothing the US doesn't also do.
Cynicism can only get one so far.
0 -
I was quoting what was the official Soviet/Russian report that stood from 1968 to 2003 that an air vent was accidentally left open and Gagarin blacked out.
I didn't care enough (until now) to look up the declassified (as of 2003) report and subsequent computer analysis. So now the official report is that his plane was knocked down by backwash.
Testimony attests to this.
I see no reason to doubt it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/21594-yuri-gagarin-death-cause-revealed.html
Russian Times source:
http://rt.com/news/gagarin-death-truth-revealed-674/
Computer modeling shows Gagarins jet was flipped over by a heavier jet's back wash.
I don't know about it entering a spin. Only Wikipedia says that.
0 -
9 minutes ago, beecee said:
no one is denying that new technology will be needed to achieve a manned landing. We all have told you that
I'm not denying that either.
What I've said over and over is that SpaceX has gotten NO CLOSER to doing any of that.
China hasn't either but at least they are working with Liquid Hydrogen.
SpaceX isn't even doing that.
Quite literally SpaceX has gone BACKWARDS in terms of space technology.
Landing a rocket is not impressive. It does NOTHING to get us closer to solving the dV budget problem
9 minutes ago, beecee said:who is at least trying something, achieving much success and with a vision.
What the hell is Musk trying? What's his stupid vision?
Musk is a crackpot.
If space travel were WW2 then Musk is the guy burning down airforce bases testing fire-bat bombs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb
Thank God Winston Churchill wasn't a cultist convinced that if only we build more bat bombs we will defeat the Nazis.
RESULTS MATTER.
Got that?
America is in a "post-results" Era.
Any crackpot idiot with money can convince people they are successful because they are rich.
That's the decayed moral fiber of American society.
I hope you to repeat after me.
R-E-S-U-L-T-S M-A-T-T-E-R.
So I'll ask again.
Why did SpaceX lie about being the biggest rocket since SaturnV?
0 -
On 3/1/2021 at 6:25 AM, Area54 said:
Perhaps we will have a better understanding once we've had astronauts spend a year or so on the moon
Oof.
Microgravity is devastating.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15887469/
Less gravity just means this detriment occurs more slowly.
The question is how much 1g is required per day to maintain bone density and ligament strength at the attachment. As well as heart conditioning?
Since heart conditioning deteriorates despite exercising....it's unlikely there is anyway around detrimental loss of conditioning due to less gravity.
Need centrifuges to keep conditioning. Just for how long must it be applied?
Maybe use them during administrative work
0 -
Just now, beecee said:
Why? They won't...that's as clear as anything could be
They have better rockets and less budgetary constraints. Why would they NOT win?
They also aren't wasting money on relanding rockets on launch pads just to save a few dollars.
Saving a few dollars might make sense in a profit motivated industry that is knee capped by limited demand.
But China doesn't care about those things and neither does Mars. Mars has no demand and no profit to be gained by going there.
0 -
On 4/9/2021 at 2:36 PM, beecee said:
7 years later, he was killed in a crash of a Mig jet aircraft along with another Soviet air force personal named Vladimir Seryogin in what has been claimed to be mysterious circumstances
It's quite well understood that his plane crashed due to valves being left open that should have been closed.
0 -
Just now, beecee said:
Not really concerned about whether China cares about profit or not. *shrug*
You should be concerned if you don't want them to win the next space race.
Just now, beecee said:Ummm, I'm quoting articles. Why can't you recognise that fact? You proceed under many false assumptions, and an obvious agenda.
Wtf?
Your articles are flat out LYING.
Is 6.78million bigger than 3.4million?
1 minute ago, beecee said:Still doesn't mean they will get to Mars before you know who
If their rockets are more powerful than SpaceX's then yes it does mean precisely that.
2 minutes ago, beecee said:That's nice, and they have my support
Sounds very naive of you. Like you have no understanding of geopolitics and why things matter.
-2 -
Why does SpaceX lie about everything?
Here is an example:
Quoteextract:
SpaceX grabbed heaps of attention in February of 2018 when it launched Falcon Heavy, the most powerful rocket launched from the US since the Saturn V that sent astronauts to the moon.
This is a flat out lie.
Falcon Heavy total thrust is 3.4million lbs sealevel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
Space Shuttle total thrust was 6.78million lbs sea level.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle
And the lies don't stop there.
Will someone please tell me why SpaceX lies?
SpaceX's biggest rocket is almost 1/3rd the thrust needed to match SaturnV.
SaturnV came it at a whopping 9.2million lbs total thrust.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
SpaceX isn't close to getting anyone to the moon.
0 -
China isn't going for gimmicks.
They are going for the Gold.
They are using Hydrogen while Musk is pushing for Methane begging to cut costs anywhere he can to look profitable which he isn't.
China doesn't care about profit.
China's Long March 5B out performs anything SpaceX has.
I can give a rat's butt if the rocket can land on a dime. Can it do the job? Right now China's LM5B does the job more than SpaceX's Falcon Heavy.
9 minutes ago, beecee said:the most powerful rocket launched from the US since the Saturn V
This also is a bunch of lies.
The Orbiter was more powerful than Falcon Heavy.
The Orbiter had 6.78million pounds of thrust sea level.
Falcon Heavy has only 3.4million pounds of thrust sea level.
Seriously.
Why are you a liar?
-1 -
1 minute ago, beecee said:
As I say, Elon Musk, and Space-X will contiue to receive all the support NASA and the general public can give them
Hahaha it'll lose that support instantly when it:
1) fails to achieve its assigned mission. So far all it does is Mail deliveries (satellites to orbit and basic LEO capsule missions)
2) kills people
3 minutes ago, beecee said:The first stage of the Falcon 9 blasted off, sent its payload on the way to orbit and then dove back down through the atmosphere to land safely on the Atlantic-based droneship "Of Course I Still Love You."
This to me is really sad.
Why do we need THIS capability? It serves no purpose.
It will get no one any closer to the Moon or Mars.
Oh that's why he did it. Because he can't actually get to the Moon or Mars. When you can't do something useful. Do something flashy.
Do you not understand why re-landing a booster rocket is meaningless? It is a waste of money to invent it.
0 -
1 minute ago, beecee said:
Proved it?
I already proved it.
So Musk DID NOT invent reusable rockets. Got something else he's supposedly done?
He didn't even invent using rockets to land. Already did that too.
1 minute ago, beecee said:Nonsense
Really? So SpaceX isn't legally liable for incidents?
Soyuz is a remarkable capsule. Its shape allows for bank, drag and lift. So it can actually fly surprisingly well for being a capsule. Dragon capsule can't do that.
0 -
1 minute ago, beecee said:
Again, I'll leave you to your agenda, because it doesn't, nor will it affect ever the reality of what NASA and Space-X, and Roscomos, and the ESA and the Chinese are working towards...not to mention other nations like India for example
I haven't said anything about what China or NASA or ESA have accomplished.
Rather just what SpaceX hasn't accomplished.
0 -
Just now, beecee said:
Doesn't compare with the Space-X controlled landings vertically, on land, or at sea on a barge and you know this.
Other way around.
Ocean drops are better. Less expensive, leaves out unnecessary complication of already complicated systems.
SpaceX is destined to blow-up astronauts and be sued into oblivion. Mark my words.
0 -
Just now, iNow said:
I really couldn’t care less. I never said this, so it’s moot.
Not all my responses are to you. In fact almost none of them are.
0 -
The other problem is capsules are relatively easy. We've been doing them for 60 years.
What's difficult is a reusable mission capable spacecraft that can both carry payload and work with payload.
The Orbiter was the pinnacle of space flight and so far Musk isn't close to achieving anything like that.
1 minute ago, iNow said:How does one literally support their claim that they are not trolling? Genuinely curious, because it appears you’re now merely arguing in bad faith and attempting to twist the meaning of my actual comment… the one you even quoted
Because I claim Musk has done nothing new. Then prove it.
0 -
5 minutes ago, beecee said:
with chances of not finding or sinking
I mean...we launch space craft across the solar system. You'd think we can keep track of some water landings.
Just now, beecee said:SpaceX launches 4 astronauts to ISS on recycled rocket and capsule
You mean the Orbiter? Each of those flew dozens of missions.
6 minutes ago, beecee said:Why don't you come clean and tell us what agenda you have and why you are so obviously[to anyone] have this beef with Musk?
Because Musk has done NOTHING but convince you he has done something.
It's pathetic.
He's done nothing new. Nothing that has progressed space flight.
China's Long March 5B is a superior rocket to Falcon Heavy and...
Most critically...
It uses Hydrogen.
I can't stress enough how important mastering Hydrogen is for future space flight.
0 -
5 minutes ago, beecee said:
No airports on Mars.
But we already have retro-rocket landings on other planets.
Did the LM not exist?
5 minutes ago, beecee said:Anyone not hindered by some hidden agenda
We already accomplished this with the LM. Why do it on Earth other than stupid wasteful gimmickery?
0 -
22 minutes ago, iNow said:
Available evidence contradicts your claim
Baseless assertion considering I have literally supported my claims.
So is Musk the first to reuse a rocket or is Rockwell's Orbiter?
See it's confusing to say that SpaceX did something first when someone else did it 40 years ago
0 -
1 hour ago, MigL said:
Are you saying theis class doesn't have any problems, contrary to reported news
What reported news? Propaganda? English speaking news?
Russia is pushing the envelope on a lot of things the US isn't. I'd imagine the Kirov class does this as well.
The US lost an entire Landing Ship sitting in Port.
What was that all about?
Problems exist. They aren't existential.
The two mothballed were earlier hulls completed decades ago. The current Kirovs were never completed and therefore are newer so hence not mothballed?
0 -
1 hour ago, iNow said:
You’re also grossly off topic
How? The rocket engine needs to fire in 0g environment and has no operation for ullage.
That's specifically on topic
0
SpaceX lied.
in Engineering
Posted
Why did SpaceX lie about this?
This is a serious lie.
Falcon Heavy only has 3.4million lbs of thrust.
Orbiter had 6.78mil lbs of thrust.
What is the purpose of this lie?
SpaceX also lies about:
1) being first to have reusable rockets. All of Orbiter was reusable except a single fuel tank.
2) being first to have a reusable spacecraft. Orbiter was reusable.
SpaceX also claims achievement in areas that are not achievements.
1) using Methane fuel. This goes backwards from Hydrogen technology.
2) being able to land a rocket. Apollo landed rockets on the Moon just fine. Earth rockets just fall into the sea to recover them.
I think #2 is particularly a problem. SpaceX is trying to appear relevant while not achieving anything of substance.
Falcon Heavy cannot get anyone close to the moon. It's unable to provide enough dV by 4x. Its 1/4th too small.
Other facts, SpaceX hasn't lowered cost of spaceflight significantly.
Hasn't changed the dV budget.
Hasn't built anything actually new.
So back to the original question.
Why did SpaceX lie?