Calvin19

The upcoming SLS seems to be an acceptable replacement, with the ability to deliver up to 129,000 kg to Low Earth Orbit vs. 119,000 kg for the Saturn V. I thought the SLS funding was being redistributed to commercial developments? Just what I heard, I have nothing to back that up. regardless of the fact that Earth orbit rendezvous will be the backbone of any interplanetary flight, big(er) rockets are needed. The Saturn V is old, even if it is the coolest rocket ever made. Modern integration of that monster might be just as expensive as developing newer awesome. Delta IV Heavy, Falcon Heavy and other proposed heavies would probably also be ideal candidates.

Awesome. 100% agree I disagree with that, It sounds dangerously close to "they lost the blueprints for the Saturn V" and other truther BS. The same organizations you say are "forgetting" how to land a man on the moon are the ones that designed the rocket sky crane that is autonomously landing a CAR on MARS. There has been lots of long term/long distance manned spaceflight experiments done since the early 70s. The scientists and explorers are working with what limiting funding they have. "Our curiosity will force us to go there ourselves, because in the final analysis, only Man can evaluate the Moon in terms understandable to other men."-Grissom

I find it funny that you think that is a lot of money.

Had a roomba a few years ago. Works pretty well for maintaining an already clean floor, as long as no big spills are made. Needs a lot of emptying/cleaning itself though.

depends entirely on the time of flight and true heading of the shot ...and latitude. indeed ...AND altitude as well as inclination, as well as decelerations from air of the projectile. But by far these are the lesser factors of all mentioned thus far.

depends entirely on the time of flight and true heading of the shot

That canopy was heli-ing, not "spinning" in the sense we are discussing here. still not good. -HUGE- difference.

"To presume that your one-in-64-million chance thing is a miracle is to significantly underestimate the total number of... things... that there are." -Tim Minchin

I would guess no. I would actually guess nobody has ever done that for the purposes of canopy flight. There might a jumper or two (probably more) who are either involved in aircraft aerobatics and military avaiation, so they might have experience/training with that, but not for skydiving purposes. In order to build and sustain those types of Gs, a canopy pilot would need to turn so fast for so long that they would become dizzy, lose a ton of altitude, and possibly spin themselves into line twists, and I don't see anyone doing that intentionally. A malfunction that would spin you fast enough to require the HIC manuver would need to be cutaway before it would become a factor. Again, and spin of that speed would eat altitude, so a mal like that needs to go so you can open a reserve before impact. Also, very high G loads like that have been known to cause hard pulls due to problems with the 3-ring or cutaway cable, so you want to pull the handle before the Gs have enough time to screw up your gear. Another factor to this is that the HIC manuver is generally done by the pilot, the same pilot who is aware of the Gs before they begin to build. A pilot can begin the HIC manuver an instant before hauling back on the stick, putting them 'ahead' of the Gs. I think non-pilots in those types of planes have a much harder time as they don't know the G load is coming until after it begins. Canopy pilots would have to begin the HIC manuver before each deployment in order to be ready in case there is a high-G malfunction. The problem with that is that it will probably cause more malfunctions than it will help because you're better off being relaxed when you deploy a canopy, as opposed to all tensed up with your legs. I agree with all that. Good post. I never was a fan of high Gs flying airplanes. Four is about as high as I want to go. My Citabria red lined at +5/-2 and anywhere near that she burned so much energy it's not worth the stress. I was always more a map of the earth guy than an acro guy anyway. And you are talking about the grunt? I have never heard of the HIC maneuver. I have done that on every canopy I have ever owned, paragliders and parachutes. I do it all the time on the JVX I fly now. The only times I jump that thing is high pulls. We do tandem spirals topskin-topskin for 8000' at a time. burning 6000'/min. It feels like 10gs, but it's probably only about 2.5gs. A few canopies I have spiraled and spun to the point of accelerated stall. (high speed/accelerated spin). It does not transfer well to malfunctions, but I have found that it helps a lot to pull up your legs and "sit" in a parachute harness. This tenses your legs, (part of the grunt) and do everything you can to maintain the CORRECT weight shift input. A spinning canopy will try to give you the OPPOSITE weight shift than you want to stop the spin. The reason it would not transfer to mals skydiving is usually the lines are so spun up you cannot control the weight shift input, and usually I assume it would happen so fast that you cannot get the correct move in before it sets in. but as soon as you can, fight it. The best way to do that is force the risers by pushing the opposite riser up and forcing the leg strap and lift web down on the correct side.

Because It seems that it's been a lot easier to just avoid getting into a spin. I don't think the wingsuit needs any more drag.

In their website is reads "skim the surface and up into the endless blue" and they list a "service ceiling" of 3km. I doubt they would put this much work in a ground effect machine. Besides, the design is not on par with what a ground effect machine would look like. They already removed their original design specs from their website. Like I said, I am amazed it was able to plane. I would no longer be surprised if it flew after they put a bigger motor on. But I still say it will not be the "everyman" machine they want it to be.

I was correct. no where near enough power. and it looks like they were coming up on 50km/hr and no where near getting off the water. But hell, the thing -might- be able to pinch off a hop if they can glue a bigger motor on and unstick it. Then there is the pretty serious control issue. Thing looks like it has zero stability. I am amazed they got it to plane on its own power. Even if it is under expert control, there is a roll margin of less than 5 degrees before the wings hit the water. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aV8pNmvjf8

Agreed. If they could get washing machine to fly, someone would argue on behalf of its superior flight characteristics.

changed it so it makes a little more sense. We are all using the same arguments everyone has always been using. again. IE- "if you don' lik it you can git-out" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

ditto

Word.

Depends largely in the person. G loc is just the point of loss of consciousness. It could be instant or take minutes to happen. A person can GLOC on a navigator 290 if it is spinning for long enough. In a hanging harness, I would assume the maximum even a very healthy and fit expert pilot could take is not more than about four or five Gs for a long period of time. (in a hanging harness). In a reclined and ideal position, WITH a G suit even the best pilots in the world cannot take ~9gs for more than a couple seconds. I know I black out at about five Gs in about two seconds in the airplane I owned a few years ago, and that was in a seated position and prepared for it. I have had only a few spinning malfunctions, on a stiletto 120 I had bad line twists and a bad spin. I cut away. I have had a few twister openings on JVXs, but nothing I could not get out of. I have also done a lot of high-g controlled spinning maneuvers. Keeping your head in the game is the biggest part of it. Of course, on lighter loaded parachute openings, "GLOC" is pretty much never an issue and should not be a worry.

That is something I would say. But you are still crazy. Everything in life is better with rockets.

Done that a lot in a bunch of different airplanes, even taken off and landed in the same place without turning. (yeah, flown backwards relative to ground) It's pretty easy to figure out, assuming there is a wind gradient, a wind of 20kts on the ground could easily be 60 or 70kts 1000' up. The slow speed fly by wire will allow on that thing might be 120kts with no load. its a couple hundred feet long so it looks like it is at walking speed.

seconded

Seriously? Jesus fucking christ, you're a skydiver and you believe in fucking chemtrail-conspiracy BS. Maybe the OP is trolling? really the only nice theory I can offer on the reason for posting that. maybe the vaccines worked? too far?

It also caused the 2011 Tohoku earthquake.

The fluoride in your brain came from your drinking water and receives the mind control signal from your microwave oven that gets its signal from HAARP reflecting off the barium in the chemtrails.