Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
Tomorrow-R1 (weather radar)
2020-EX-ST-2022
85kg, built by Astro Digital with Corvus-XL bus

Tomorrow-R2 on this flight
2
Tomorrow-R1 (weather radar)
2020-EX-ST-2022
85kg, built by Astro Digital with Corvus-XL bus


3
Quote
P5012/22 NOTAMN
Q) RJJJ/QXXXX/IV/NBO/E/000/999/2210N12247E045
A) RJJJ B) 2212090637 C) 2212090800
E) DUE TO AN AEROSPACE FLIGHT ACTIVITY, THE FLIGHT SAFETY OF THE
AIRCRAFT IN FOLLOWING AREAS MAY BE AFFECTED ON DEC 09, 2022.
DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

AREA1: FM 0637 TO 0748(UTC)
2246N12315E-2214N12243E-2211N12311E-2246N12315E
VERTICAL ALTITUDE: SFC-UNL

AREA2: FM 0642 TO 0800(UTC)
2245N12314E-2150N12220E-2135N12218E-2130N12305E-2245N12314E
VERTICAL ALTITUDE: SFC-UNL

RMK/ATC WILL NOT CLEAR IFR FLT THRU THIS AREA FOR THE FLIGHT SAFETY
F) SFC G) UNL

Q3118/22 NOTAMN
Q) RJJJ/QARCH/IV/BO/E/000/999/3310N14118E999
A) RJJJ B) 2212090607 C) 2212090800
E) ALTN RTE ARE ESTABLISHED DUE TO AN AEROSPACE FLIGHT ACTIVITY.
1.FLT PLANNED RTE IS REQ TO BE FILED AS FLW
    B462      : BTN MEVIN AND MAGMA
    ALTN RTE  : FOR NEB TFC
                N884(LEBIX-ALBAX)
                A582(BISIG-SAKON) (NON RNP10)
                FOR SWB TFC
                A582(SAKON-BISIG)
2.SEE NOTAM RJAAYNYX P5012/22 (DOM RJJJ 8102/22)
F) SFC G)UNL
Quote
A6920/22 NOTAMN
Q) RCAA/QXXXX/IV/BO/E/000/999/2216N12247E050
A) RCAA B) 2212090637 C) 2212090748
E) AIRSPACE BLOCKED DUE TO AEROSPACE FLIGHT ACTIVITY:
1.AFFECTED RTE:
  G581/Q13/J5 TRANSITION SUSPENDED,
  G581 BTN IGURU AND HCN
  Q13 BTN IGURU AND PICHU
  J5 TRANSITION BTN GUMBO AND HCN
2.AREA AS FLW:
GEO:
213500N 1221800E
230200N 1222900E
225700N 1231600E
213000N 1230500E
213500N 1221800E
F) SFC G) UN

A6921/22 NOTAMN
Q) RCAA/QXXXX/IV/BO/E/000/999/2257N12253E050
A) RCAA B) 2212090642 C) 2212090800
E) AIRSPACE BLOCKED DUE TO AEROSPACE FLIGHT ACTIVITY:
1.AFFECTED RTE:
  G581/Q13/J5 TRANSITION SUSPENDED,
  G581 BTN IGURU AND HCN
  Q13 BTN IGURU AND PICHU
  J5 TRANSITION BTN GUMBO AND HCN
2.AREA AS FLW:
GEO:
221600N 1222400E
234300N 1223400E
233800N 1232200E
221100N 1231100E
221600N 1222400E
F) SFC G) UNL

A6922/22 NOTAMN
Q) RCAA/QARLT/IV/NBO/E/000/999/2502N12039E298
A) RCAA B) 2212090535 C) 2212090800
E) 1.ROUTE RESTRICTIONS ARE AS FLW:
  J5 TRANSITION BTN GUMBO AND HCN,
  AWY Q13 BTN IGURU AND PICHU,
  AWY G581 BTN IGURU AND HCN,
2.THE SUGGESTED BLOCKED TIME AT EACH POINT OF BDRY FOR INBD TFC
  VIA AEROSPACE FLIGHT ACTIVITY AREA AS FLW:
  ELATO, ENVAR AND KAPLI:0535-0740Z
  IGURU:0605-0800Z
  GUMBO:0615-0800Z
RMK:REF NOTAM A6920/22-A6921/22.
Those NOTAMs also updated.
4
Blue Origin / Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Last post by meekGee on Today at 02:22 am »
I pity the blue employees, that site is an embarrassing train wreck. NOTHING about the mission, not even a vague image of the lander. Nothing talking about the cool things they are gonna do. Zip, zilch, nada. Its 100% how many states and contractors will get money from it. 100% designed to woo corrupt congress critters.

Blue has learned nothing. Their new bid will be exactly like the last one. Designed for maximal profit, and if they lose there will be temper tantrums and law suits.
But hey they pay well!
5
We make Earth arbitrarily expensive with zoning laws and other such regulations. It's not legal to build duplexes in most places in my city, for instance. This is in spite of the fact that we ought to basically have eliminated all poverty by now, given mechanized food production, industrial everything, etc. We just make regulations to put legal housing out of reach of those who are poor, sort of half-compensating by providing assistance with suffocating red tape.

The cheap solution to this problem is still terrestrial. It's called the third world developing world.

I don't think Zoning Havens is the "killer app" space is looking for.
6
You can scoff at exponential growth all you like, the Sun still puts out 3.8 x 10e26 W and we only use the smallest of the tiniest of the most millimetric fraction of that.

Linear thinking. 3% annual compound growth will take care of that real quick! A few centuries at most. Space is not a viable way to "escape." We must still tame the Exponential Growth Monster.

Here's the kid from 7/11, in his own words:

Quote from: Beff Jezos[/quote
When I was in high school I wrote, “The earth is finite, and if the world economy and population are to keep expanding, space is the only way to go.” I still believe this.

...

We have an ever-increasing demand for energy. And even in the face of increasing efficiency, we will be using more and more energy. That 3 percent compound growth rate already assumes great efficiency gains in the future. What happens when unlimited demand meets finite resources? The answer is incredibly simple: rationing. That’s the path we would find ourselves on, and that path would lead, for the first time, to your grandchildren and their grandchildren having worse lives than you. That’s a bad path.
We must have a future of dynamism for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. We cannot let them fall prey to stasis and rationing

Growth must not be stopped at all cost. Therefore space.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

This is a separate problem from the "it's extremely expensive to live in space" problem, by the way.
You've created a whole fantasy world of what goes on in my mind from a single sentence, bravo.  And insulted me be citing Bezos as a reference. Geez.  Of course there is no escape.  Any long term exponential growth ends with a pink mass of humanity growing at the speed of light.  I've read my Asimov and done my calculations.

There are any number of equilibrium states between that pink blob and today.  A number of futures with no humans at all, some very dark futures and some very bright ones.  There is a possibility of the Singularity, of the Simulation of any number of interesting and terrible things.
Some of those future hold large rotating space stations.  Those ones interest me.  Others, not so much.

These days, I'm rather on the punctuated equilibrium side of things, in a mathematical sense.
7
and in fact the supposition for this thread is that humanity will eventually do that.
No it isn't.

You can't just relabel your wish a "supposition" and get-out-of-rationality-free.  ::)

If you don't think there could ever be a "realistic" near-term, rotating space station, then why do you post here?

I want to believe. I'm just not willing to compromise my rationality by inflating my desire into a logical premise, a foregone future history whose inevitability Must Not Be Questioned.


We have to actually solve the problems of space colony economics. Plugging your ears and wishing the problems away (and trying to silence anyone who brings them up) doesn't advance the cause of space colonization, it hurts it.

Be better.TM

Do the Dew.®

Which is why the rotating space station I'm designing is assumed to be used for workers that are far from Earth, but need a place with artificial gravity to recuperate from the zero-G work they are doing.
Nothing in that scenario explains why your "company" is choosing a costly design (torus) over a cheaper design (barbell).

I wasn't answering that question, hence why you didn't see me answer that question...  ;)

But since you asked, I'm not choosing either.  :D

This ought to be good...  ???
8
There are some fundamental problems that require rigid science and engineering studies to solve, or at least to provide options. Whether a station should have a non-rotating hub is one of those, and I plan to have a counter-rotating hub (non-rotating to the visiting vehicle) because I think that solves more problems than it creates.

Please tell me what problem a counter-rotating hub solves.

I think requiring visiting vehicles to spin at the same rate as the station in order to dock is problematic. I also think it is problematic to have large vehicles docking with rotating space stations, so my plan is to have all visiting vehicles dock at a zero-G transit station, and all crew and cargo is transported to the rotating space station on smaller local vehicles that dock with a counter-rotating platform that grabs the vehicle, then de-spins so that all of that mass is rotating at the same speed, and the vehicle can then be docked to the station for transferring the crew and cargo. And while the rotating platform adds complication, it removes lots of other complication, including for visiting vehicles.

Quote
In my design, I state that the station axis should be 90° to plane of orbit. This will minimize precession and make visiting spacecraft docking easy. I.E. near zero wobble. And if it was also 90° to earth-moon orbital planes very close to zero wobble.

About four years ago I realized that tilting my rotating space station 90 degrees, so that it looks like it is rolling round the orbit of the sun, would simplify some issues. Complicate some too, but seemed like overall like a good idea, and it eliminates the need for changing the orientation of the station in relationship to the sun.

But I don't see how this orientation changes how visiting vehicles dock in the same place on the station, regardless the orientation to the orbit of the sun.

And I don't see how the orientation of the station with regards to the orbit of the sun affects whether the station acquires a wobble.
9
Any thoughts on the current claim that the next Orion won't be ready as planned for any launch in 2024?
...

When the Orion is ready for its next flight is not related to the SLS, and how the Orion schedule affects the next Artemis launch is Artemis related, not SLS.

Hmmm, exactly what other missions will the SLS be accomplishing within the next five years, then? Yes, the specific discussion of launch dates is more relevant to Artemis project, but the only payload for SLS in near term is Orion. I suggest that for a launch service with a single purpose at this time and for the near future, the availability of your payload is relevant to the discussion.
As a specific example, Falcon Heavy was ready to launch, but the payloads kept slipping, so it did not launch for three years starting in 2019. At least with FH, The launch crews still had work to do launching F9. If the same happens to SLS, the hard-won lessons learned from the Artemis 1 launch campaign will begin to fade, people will change jobs or retire, etc.

Thus, the details of a slip are not relevant to this thread, but the effects of a slip are relevant.

Artemis II isn't scheduled to launch until 2024 but the CS-2 will begin assembly at KSC Spring of next year.  While yes the launch cadence is measured in year(s) the activity surrounding those launches are not.

10
We make Earth arbitrarily expensive with zoning laws and other such regulations. It's not legal to build duplexes in most places in my city, for instance. This is in spite of the fact that we ought to basically have eliminated all poverty by now, given mechanized food production, industrial everything, etc. We just make regulations to put legal housing out of reach of those who are poor, sort of half-compensating by providing assistance with suffocating red tape.

Living in space will be harder. Will have to sleep in a little bunk like a submarine (this is against zoning regulations on Earth, but obviously we won't have the luxury of those kind of zoning regulations in space) and eat Soylent or whatever. But it's not impossible to do this.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0