Quote from: Prober on 10/03/2012 09:09 pm1) aerospace knockoffs (jets) are wide in the news..its being done2) no (you need to watch the movie)4) PWR and most quick designs use 3D printing.Wrong again.1. They are not knockoffs. Just as Buran is not knockoff of the shuttle. 2. Doesn't matter, you are still wrong3. Not applicable here
1) aerospace knockoffs (jets) are wide in the news..its being done2) no (you need to watch the movie)4) PWR and most quick designs use 3D printing.
Quote from: Jim on 10/04/2012 01:46 amQuote from: Prober on 10/03/2012 09:09 pm1) aerospace knockoffs (jets) are wide in the news..its being done2) no (you need to watch the movie)4) PWR and most quick designs use 3D printing.Wrong again.1. They are not knockoffs. Just as Buran is not knockoff of the shuttle. 2. Doesn't matter, you are still wrong3. Not applicable here -10 LMAO Jim you sure gave me a good laugh.
So they took an old design that wasn't found to be worthwhile back then and believe to gain something from that 45 years later. Now THAT sounds like a plan....If any of that holds true it pretty much means we are working hard to get to a technological level of 40 years ago now. However, somehow I really don't believe that.
Quote from: Prober on 10/04/2012 03:25 amQuote from: Jim on 10/04/2012 01:46 amQuote from: Prober on 10/03/2012 09:09 pm1) aerospace knockoffs (jets) are wide in the news..its being done2) no (you need to watch the movie)4) PWR and most quick designs use 3D printing.Wrong again.1. They are not knockoffs. Just as Buran is not knockoff of the shuttle. 2. Doesn't matter, you are still wrong3. Not applicable here -10 LMAO Jim you sure gave me a good laugh.Every time somebody laughs in a mocking manner on the Internet as if it is some kind of reasonable response, I lose faith in humanity.
Quote from: pippin on 10/04/2012 03:34 amSo they took an old design that wasn't found to be worthwhile back then and believe to gain something from that 45 years later. Now THAT sounds like a plan....If any of that holds true it pretty much means we are working hard to get to a technological level of 40 years ago now. However, somehow I really don't believe that. can you say soyuz? sides why reinvent the wheel
Guess my points are going mostly over most reader’s heads.
Quote from: Prober on 10/05/2012 03:03 pmGuess my points are going mostly over most readers heads.The point which you have not answered, which both Jorge and Jim made, was irrespective of how you reverse engineer Gemini, or how cheap that process may be, the design will not work at ISS pressure.Even if you kept the Gemini mold line, you would have to essentially redesign the shell, the systems, just about everything. You would have to do what SNC are doing in converting HL-20 into Dream Chaser. It will not be cheap. The claim in the video that they could launch an Eclipse spacecraft in Q4 2013 is just not credible.
Guess my points are going mostly over most readers heads.
Interesting concept....Know how cheap it would be to manufacture this! Only issue might be the 2012 NASA standards?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26262.15
If you want a "knock-off" of Gemini, there is one flying today, called "Yantar" or also "Kobalt".I have always felt that there was an application for this to fly small crews into space. The "nose" of the spacecraft currently holds a camera, but I believe that this camera could be replaced with a docking adapter. If you want a cheap 2 person spacecraft, this is probably a good model.
Yantar/Kobalt is a product of the Samara facility. I am not aware of any comparable development from Yushnoye in Dneprpetrovsk in the Ukraine.