Saying that the SRBs were "reused" stretches the term to it's breaking point. It would be more accurate to say that many parts of the SRBs were recycled.
Fly that puppy again!
---------- Post added at 14:42 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------
Second stage has reached orbit, waiting on transfer window to GTO. Congrats to SpaceX on a successful launch and a historic milestone.
Take a look at the Apollo LM's interior arrangement some time. The only thing between the astronauts and the APS along with it's associated hypergolic propellant lines (aside from their space suits) is some canvas netting.
Not only this, but North American Rockwell engineers had also expressed concerns about recurring leaks in AS-204's cooling system and the potential for shorts but it was felt by NASA that the time required to solve the issue would present an unacceptable delay to a project that was already far...
In regards to Challenger I would append that to say "driven almost entirely schedule pressures" with a bit left over for "by rights the Shuttle shouldn't have been 'man rated' in the first place". Ditto Apollo 1, and arguably Columbia. Point being that NASA has a long history of allowing...
Well the first falcon heavy flight article has already been built and was scheduled to fly in the spring of 2017 before the AMOS-6 mishap. First flight of FH before the end of the year doesn't seem like all that much of a stretch.
And frankly, given their history, I'd place more trust in...
...and even then, Insectoids don't seem like a particularly efficient body type for a high-temp high-press environment, flying ones with the necessary greater surface area (wings) seem even less so.
If there is life on Venus it is almost certainly some sort of airborne chemosynthetic "floater"...
Assuimg a shared origin point, you will need 3 vectors. the two vectors you're measuring "A" and "B" and the "H" which is the normal vector of the plane you want to project them on.
Assuming H has a magnitude of 1. Get the dot product of A and H and then subtract H * dot product from A to get...
I experimented with rotating the spacecraft along with the camera to correct for off axis movements but it wrought havoc with things like docking-ports and touchdown points.
I don't think a simple plugin module would cut it. As I said above, the API as written does not allow you to define camera rotations in anything other than the local X and Y axes. I've submitted "Ability to define camera rotation matrices" as a feature request but I suspect that it's a ways down...
Unfortunately VR using the basic Orbiter API is impossible due to the fact that orbiter does not allow you to define camera rotation axes. As such, tilting your head would break the sim.
If you did implement VR it would have to be through a dedicated graphics client that uses it's own camera...