You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And the design of the rocket seems quite a bit complicated with Side boosters, main boosters and what not. Does not seem like a clean, simple design
Due to the low trajectory, the aerodynamic resistance is higher longer, so they delay separation.Seems like it carries the burned out SRBs for an awfully long time...
From some YouTube inverview, it's that way due to preexisting external raceways and connection points.know its fine and all, but it doesn't hurt my brain any less. I'm pretty sure the layout options are really just a function of some stubborn senior engineer proving a nuanced engineering point to all the marketing people that would prefer something more symmetrical...but even the engineer in me is in Camp Marketing on this one.
Interesting, they are concerned about possible recontact ... Cool, thanks @mongoDue to the low trajectory, the aerodynamic resistance is higher longer, so they delay separation.
This thread:
From some YouTube inverview, it's that way due to preexisting external raceways and connection points.
It's been awhile since I saw it, maybe there was opportunity to improve symmetry during design...From Atlas 2/3?
At a post-launch press conference, senior NASA official Steve Sitch said: "Overall, the spacecraft is doing really well," but he also flagged two anomalies that engineers were now working to understand.
The first was that two out of 12 orbital maneuvering and attitude control (OMAC) thrusters located on Starliner's aft side had initially fired but then shut down, forcing a third to take up their slack.
The second issue was that a device known as a sublimator responsible for cooling the spacecraft was initially slow to get started.
Nice to see the Kerble dude made it to ISS.Hatch opened and ISS crew checked out the capsule interior. Watching the livestream, the video from the interior capsule cameras frequently broke up. But it was good to see people in there. It appears that the inner hatch cover completely detaches and then has to be stowed inside a special protective cover so the edges don’t get damaged.
View attachment 807110
Earlier today I watched Scott Manley’s latest video about Starliner, made just before this mission launched. In the video he compares Starliner to Crew Dragon and while I cannot remember the numbers right now, I think that Starliner has a bit more interior volume. It is significantly wider. However, it’s control panel is fixed, and when the Crew Dragon panel is moved out of the way I suspect its interior would feel more spacious than Starliner.How roomy is it in there compared to dragon?
Answering my own question with this video:How roomy is it in there compared to dragon?
In Scott Manley’s video above, he goes into some good detail. Starliner is actually a bit larger internal volume than Dragon and Boing plans on using the 5th seat during missions as well to hopefully get more revenue. Their instruments don’t move out of the way like they do for Dragon and therefore moving around inside is more cumbersome. The controls are more physical compared to Dragon’s touch screen.Answering my own question with this video:
It doesn't look all that roomy...
I was stunned to learn that from Scott’s video. What a waste.what I found most interesting is that those engines on starliner are actually in a separate module underneath the capsule and are jettisoned before they capsule lands and are lost each time. Dragon’s engines are of course built into the capsule and re-usable.
I was stunned to learn that from Scott’s video. What a waste.
Yet another example of old space failing to understand that full and rapid reusability is essential to make space exploration affordable and our future reality.
No vision, no guts, no glory.