Quote:

---

****ty iPhone picture but this is the first stage right before it landed.

---

The older I get, the more I want experience stuff in person, and leave the camera stuff to professionals.

Glad you got to see it in person.

Anyone else get a real hard bottom pucker when she said "first landing for this booster" and that one leg took its time getting down? Was sure we were about to see what is nowadays pretty rare - an RUD on RTLS

It would actually be amusing to start seeing quirks in specific boosters landing patterns as many time as they'll fly them.


Really no way to know how often it happens though, the landing coverage at sea, now that it's consistent, is pretty slim, and RTLS has become more and more uncommon

International Space Station to crash into the Pacific Ocean in 2031, NASA announces

Quote:

---

NASA said that it plans to retire the International Space Station in 2031 by crashing it into an uninhabited stretch of the Pacific Ocean. Phil McAlister, director of commercial space at NASA Headquarters, said in a press release that the private sector will be taking the lead on the development of future space station projects and that NASA will help ensure a smooth transition.

"The private sector is technically and financially capable of developing and operating commercial low-Earth orbit destinations, with NASA's assistance," he said. "We look forward to sharing our lessons learned and operations experience with the private sector to help them develop safe, reliable, and cost-effective destinations in space."

NASA's aim is to use the commercial ventures to purchase goods and services that the federal space program needs, instead of doing it all on their own. It expects several NASA crewmembers at a time to work aboard commercial space stations by the early 2030s, conducting scientific and medical research in microgravity.

---

Space x about to launch more starlinks

Livestream, 10 minutes till launch...

If things go well, Falcon will launch about once a week on average in 2022, delivering ~2/3 of all Earth payload to orbit

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 3, 2022

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

****ty iPhone picture but this is the first stage right before it landed.

---

The older I get, the more I want experience stuff in person, and leave the camera stuff to professionals.

Glad you got to see it in person.

---

Ha, yup. That's partly why the shots were so ****ty, I was focused on watching the rocket and was just snapping the pictures on the side.

Next Thursday should be a big update on Starship etc.

Yes

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 3, 2022

SLS has been pushed back...again. No new NET date at all.

Thoughtful critique/analysis of Neutron.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

SLS has been pushed back...again. No new NET date at all.

---

Wasn't there a deadline after they stacked that they had to launch? Otherwise they would have to unstack again? If so, are they going to miss that?

aTmAg said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

SLS has been pushed back...again. No new NET date at all.

---

Wasn't there a deadline after they stacked that they had to launch? Otherwise they would have to unstack again? If so, are they going to miss that?

---

The solid rocket boosters (SRBs) have an expiration date, and if I'm not mistaken that has already passed.

aTmAg said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

SLS has been pushed back...again. No new NET date at all.

---

Wasn't there a deadline after they stacked that they had to launch? Otherwise they would have to unstack again? If so, are they going to miss that?

---

Yes, that was based on the assembly dates for the SRB's, and the time was when they started being stacked vertically (layered). However, expectation has/had been that this would be pencil whipped for this spring. No reason to suspect a SRB seal could cause a massive/catastrophic failure, right?

LOL, who knows if SLS will ever take off. It is emblematic to me of all that has been wrong with NASA/congressional appropriations processes since the demise of the Apollo program, appropriately using the SRB components of the subsequent shuttle system. Real leadership/courage is needed by NASA to make the call to terminate the program, simply put, but I have zero confidence in the former Senate SLS booster now running NASA to actually do that, or even permit it as a serious discussion/debate.

Decay said:

---

SLS is incredible for its ability to deliver nothing and still never get cancelled. Every space exploration detractor should focus on that and leave private space flight (OMG space billionaires) alone

---

That's the 21st century government standard.

LOL, tangentially related to Blue Origin, check out Bezos' new sailing yacht, and how much he is detested by the left-wing loons at jalopnik. (Caution, profanity).

https://jalopnik.com/here-s-the-boat-that-won-t-bring-jeff-bezos-s-hair-or-1848481600

nortex97 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

SLS has been pushed back...again. No new NET date at all.

---

Wasn't there a deadline after they stacked that they had to launch? Otherwise they would have to unstack again? If so, are they going to miss that?

---

Yes, that was based on the assembly dates for the SRB's, and the time was when they started being stacked vertically (layered). However, expectation has/had been that this would be pencil whipped for this spring. No reason to suspect a SRB seal could cause a massive/catastrophic failure, right?

LOL, who knows if SLS will ever take off. It is emblematic to me of all that has been wrong with NASA/congressional appropriations processes since the demise of the Apollo program, appropriately using the SRB components of the subsequent shuttle system. Real leadership/courage is needed by NASA to make the call to terminate the program, simply put, but I have zero confidence in the former Senate SLS booster now running NASA to actually do that, or even permit it as a serious discussion/debate.

---

There is no hard "expiration date" on the solid rocket boosters. One year is the longest they are pre-certified to remain in the vertical position. After that, they require inspection and there isn't much reason to think they won't suitable for flight. There are Minutemen missiles that have been in a vertical position for decades that are ready for immediate flight.

TriAg2010 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

SLS has been pushed back...again. No new NET date at all.

---

Wasn't there a deadline after they stacked that they had to launch? Otherwise they would have to unstack again? If so, are they going to miss that?

---

Yes, that was based on the assembly dates for the SRB's, and the time was when they started being stacked vertically (layered). However, expectation has/had been that this would be pencil whipped for this spring. No reason to suspect a SRB seal could cause a massive/catastrophic failure, right?

LOL, who knows if SLS will ever take off. It is emblematic to me of all that has been wrong with NASA/congressional appropriations processes since the demise of the Apollo program, appropriately using the SRB components of the subsequent shuttle system. Real leadership/courage is needed by NASA to make the call to terminate the program, simply put, but I have zero confidence in the former Senate SLS booster now running NASA to actually do that, or even permit it as a serious discussion/debate.

---

There is no hard "expiration date" on the solid rocket boosters. One year is the longest they are pre-certified to remain in the vertical position. After that, they require inspection and there isn't much reason to think they won't suitable for flight. There are Minutemen missiles that have been in a vertical position for decades that are ready for immediate flight.

---

Yeah but you can't be a decade late launching an ICBM

Eh, it may be mega delayed and over budget but Artemis I will launch this year and I'll be eagerly watching.

Honestly it may or may not. We're April at the absolute earliest, and let's face it..... the unforseen setbacks could push thing off for a year or more.

At this point we could have already developed an interstage to do an EOR mission with the FH aunching ICPS and orion, and the crew on a dragon for the same cost as just the delays. ..

TriAg2010 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

SLS has been pushed back...again. No new NET date at all.

---

Wasn't there a deadline after they stacked that they had to launch? Otherwise they would have to unstack again? If so, are they going to miss that?

---

Yes, that was based on the assembly dates for the SRB's, and the time was when they started being stacked vertically (layered). However, expectation has/had been that this would be pencil whipped for this spring. No reason to suspect a SRB seal could cause a massive/catastrophic failure, right?

LOL, who knows if SLS will ever take off. It is emblematic to me of all that has been wrong with NASA/congressional appropriations processes since the demise of the Apollo program, appropriately using the SRB components of the subsequent shuttle system. Real leadership/courage is needed by NASA to make the call to terminate the program, simply put, but I have zero confidence in the former Senate SLS booster now running NASA to actually do that, or even permit it as a serious discussion/debate.

---

There is no hard "expiration date" on the solid rocket boosters. One year is the longest they are pre-certified to remain in the vertical position. After that, they require inspection and there isn't much reason to think they won't suitable for flight. There are Minutemen missiles that have been in a vertical position for decades that are ready for immediate flight.

---

These are not minutemen missiles, and their construction is not the same. The last time these stupid segmented where flown in ignorance and defiance of the actual designers reccomendation, it killed 7 people and blew up a space shuttle. Losing Artemis 1 is going to cost 10s of billions of dollars and set the program back a decade...

nortex97 said:

---

LOL, tangentially related to Blue Origin, check out Bezos' new sailing yacht, and how much he is detested by the left-wing loons at jalopnik. (Caution, profanity).

https://jalopnik.com/here-s-the-boat-that-won-t-bring-jeff-bezos-s-hair-or-1848481600

---

Beats a bunker when shtf.

"how embarrassing"

Yeah okay

bmks270 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

LOL, tangentially related to Blue Origin, check out Bezos' new sailing yacht, and how much he is detested by the left-wing loons at jalopnik. (Caution, profanity).

https://jalopnik.com/here-s-the-boat-that-won-t-bring-jeff-bezos-s-hair-or-1848481600

---

Beats a bunker when shtf.

---

No doubt. I kind of like that he's into his toys and blowing at least part of his fortune as it grows.

I'd be hard pressed to think of anything more nefarious he could do in these parts than set up a charitable foundation.

bmks270 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

LOL, tangentially related to Blue Origin, check out Bezos' new sailing yacht, and how much he is detested by the left-wing loons at jalopnik. (Caution, profanity).

https://jalopnik.com/here-s-the-boat-that-won-t-bring-jeff-bezos-s-hair-or-1848481600

---

Beats a bunker when shtf.

---

Not that I'd ever root for pirates, but…

TriAg2010 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

SLS has been pushed back...again. No new NET date at all.

---

Wasn't there a deadline after they stacked that they had to launch? Otherwise they would have to unstack again? If so, are they going to miss that?

---

Yes, that was based on the assembly dates for the SRB's, and the time was when they started being stacked vertically (layered). However, expectation has/had been that this would be pencil whipped for this spring. No reason to suspect a SRB seal could cause a massive/catastrophic failure, right?

LOL, who knows if SLS will ever take off. It is emblematic to me of all that has been wrong with NASA/congressional appropriations processes since the demise of the Apollo program, appropriately using the SRB components of the subsequent shuttle system. Real leadership/courage is needed by NASA to make the call to terminate the program, simply put, but I have zero confidence in the former Senate SLS booster now running NASA to actually do that, or even permit it as a serious discussion/debate.

---

There is no hard "expiration date" on the solid rocket boosters. One year is the longest they are pre-certified to remain in the vertical position. After that, they require inspection and there isn't much reason to think they won't suitable for flight. There are Minutemen missiles that have been in a vertical position for decades that are ready for immediate flight.

---

Well, it's a lot different than a minuteman though, isn't it? Just as Range Rover could make a vehicle that could traverse remote parts of Africa for 10 years straight reliably with only a wrench and a screwdriver for maintenance, 50 years ago, but my Audi likes to visit a dealership at least annually today, or it threatens to just not do it's job any longer. This thing is using bits that are new and salvaged from stuff 30 years ago, with brand new insulating layers between the steel walls/segments throughout: it's closer to an Audi than the old RR's:





The insulating boundary between the segments is what I understand is the real limit/concern, and further part of that is moving away from an asbestos barrier between the segments of fuel. As usual, Scott Manley did a big video on it, per above. Once assembled, there's no real way to go in and look/inspect how the lining/segment separation components are really holding up. It's not in any way analogous to a smaller ICBM that can sit in a silo for 20 years. The assembly started in January 2021. Further;

Quote:

---

The 2021 January stacking (15th) gives them until Jan 15th 2022 to launch under the current certification.

Supposedly NASA can amend the Certification for up to 6 months.

So technically until July 15th 2022.

---

This will not be an inspection-based extension, but rather a 'please sign off here.' The real engineering/experts said it should be good for 12 months, but if someone else wants to sign off for it as 18 months, go right ahead. I don't doubt some mid-level NASA engineer will do so, but July 15th is probably the final extension one will sign.

Wonder if Northrop Grumman will make the mistake thiekol did and agree to sign off on it. Smartest decision Allan Mcdonald ever made was to refuse to sign the document handed to him by NASA.

It would be interesting to know who does sign off, I agree.

I missed this one last month; Radian space plane. They're gonna need a lot more money, but I hope it works out and happens.

Quote:

---

A new company has entered the commercial space race. Startup Radian Aerospace has emerged from stealth to announce it has secured US$27.5 million in seed funding to develop a single-stage to orbit (SSTO) spaceplane called Radian One, which is designed to lift and land horizontally.

The commercial space field has been growing steadily in recent years, with contractors taking over ferrying crews to the International Space Station, launching huge constellations of satellites into orbit, and even sending private missions and tourists into space. In addition, there are plans to replace the ISS with private space stations and proposals to send private missions to the Moon and Mars.

These private ventures tend to fall into two categories for getting into space. One is to launch payloads atop conventional staged rockets. The second is to use boosters dropped from high-altitude aircraft to deliver small payloads to low-Earth orbit.

Radian Aerospace says that it plans to break this mold by developing a delta-winged spaceplane about the size of a small commercial jet air transport that will launch horizontally using a rocket-powered sled to allow the craft to conserve as much fuel as possible. Once aloft, three rocket engines put the spacecraft into orbit under a low-g ascent, for crewed missions of up to five days, before landing on any 10,000-ft (3,000-m) runway.

---

Also, the Chinese have an 'interesting' concept for a 'commercial' space plane that looks…unlikely to work to me. But at least it's not a copycat this time.

Quote:

---

Although China's Space Transportation company was founded in 2018, it has some very ambitious goals, which include ground tests by 2023 with the first flight in 2024 and a crewed flight in 2025. In addition to that, the company which also goes by the name Beijing Lingkong Tianxing Technology Co., Ltd. also aims for testing a global, or orbital, crewed space vehicle by 2030. The company's official website will greet you with an animated video of the space plane they are currently developing. It shows a plane attached to a delta wing attached with rockets that detach after propelling the rocket to a certain altitude.

The video even shows how passengers will easily be able to board the spaceplane like a traditional aircraft. The spaceplane will have a top speed of 2,671mph, which means it'll complete the journey from London to New York in about an hour. Unlike other spaceplane concepts we've seen thus far, this one will take off and land vertically. Space Transportation had raised $46.3 million for its hypersonic space plane and has announced that it has already started conducting curial tests.

---

⁦Starships for everyone thanks to ⁦@elonmusk⁩ 🇺🇸🤙🏽 pic.twitter.com/geKjAK1Lol

— John Slick Baum (@slickf16) February 5, 2022

4 years ago, today, this Tesla Roadster was launched in space. This Tesla Roadster is currently 376,888,808 km away from Earth. 🤯 @elonmusk pic.twitter.com/FDCY0cHxCQ

— Pranay Pathole (@PPathole) February 6, 2022

Ag_of_08 said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

SLS has been pushed back...again. No new NET date at all.

---

Wasn't there a deadline after they stacked that they had to launch? Otherwise they would have to unstack again? If so, are they going to miss that?

---

Yes, that was based on the assembly dates for the SRB's, and the time was when they started being stacked vertically (layered). However, expectation has/had been that this would be pencil whipped for this spring. No reason to suspect a SRB seal could cause a massive/catastrophic failure, right?

LOL, who knows if SLS will ever take off. It is emblematic to me of all that has been wrong with NASA/congressional appropriations processes since the demise of the Apollo program, appropriately using the SRB components of the subsequent shuttle system. Real leadership/courage is needed by NASA to make the call to terminate the program, simply put, but I have zero confidence in the former Senate SLS booster now running NASA to actually do that, or even permit it as a serious discussion/debate.

---

There is no hard "expiration date" on the solid rocket boosters. One year is the longest they are pre-certified to remain in the vertical position. After that, they require inspection and there isn't much reason to think they won't suitable for flight. There are Minutemen missiles that have been in a vertical position for decades that are ready for immediate flight.

---

These are not minutemen missiles, and their construction is not the same. The last time these stupid segmented where flown in ignorance and defiance of the actual designers reccomendation, it killed 7 people and blew up a space shuttle. Losing Artemis 1 is going to cost 10s of billions of dollars and set the program back a decade...

---

That is remarkably sanctimonious.

nortex97 said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

SLS has been pushed back...again. No new NET date at all.

---

Wasn't there a deadline after they stacked that they had to launch? Otherwise they would have to unstack again? If so, are they going to miss that?

---

Yes, that was based on the assembly dates for the SRB's, and the time was when they started being stacked vertically (layered). However, expectation has/had been that this would be pencil whipped for this spring. No reason to suspect a SRB seal could cause a massive/catastrophic failure, right?

LOL, who knows if SLS will ever take off. It is emblematic to me of all that has been wrong with NASA/congressional appropriations processes since the demise of the Apollo program, appropriately using the SRB components of the subsequent shuttle system. Real leadership/courage is needed by NASA to make the call to terminate the program, simply put, but I have zero confidence in the former Senate SLS booster now running NASA to actually do that, or even permit it as a serious discussion/debate.

---

There is no hard "expiration date" on the solid rocket boosters. One year is the longest they are pre-certified to remain in the vertical position. After that, they require inspection and there isn't much reason to think they won't suitable for flight. There are Minutemen missiles that have been in a vertical position for decades that are ready for immediate flight.

---

Well, it's a lot different than a minuteman though, isn't it? Just as Range Rover could make a vehicle that could traverse remote parts of Africa for 10 years straight reliably with only a wrench and a screwdriver for maintenance, 50 years ago, but my Audi likes to visit a dealership at least annually today, or it threatens to just not do it's job any longer. This thing is using bits that are new and salvaged from stuff 30 years ago, with brand new insulating layers between the steel walls/segments throughout: it's closer to an Audi than the old RR's:





The insulating boundary between the segments is what I understand is the real limit/concern, and further part of that is moving away from an asbestos barrier between the segments of fuel. As usual, Scott Manley did a big video on it, per above. Once assembled, there's no real way to go in and look/inspect how the lining/segment separation components are really holding up. It's not in any way analogous to a smaller ICBM that can sit in a silo for 20 years. The assembly started in January 2021. Further;

Quote:

---

The 2021 January stacking (15th) gives them until Jan 15th 2022 to launch under the current certification.

Supposedly NASA can amend the Certification for up to 6 months.

So technically until July 15th 2022.

---

This will not be an inspection-based extension, but rather a 'please sign off here.' The real engineering/experts said it should be good for 12 months, but if someone else wants to sign off for it as 18 months, go right ahead. I don't doubt some mid-level NASA engineer will do so, but July 15th is probably the final extension one will sign.

---

This is not a pencil whipping exercise. The existing 12 month rating was known and discussed prior to starting the Artemis I stack. NASA was aware they could run up against the 12 months due to program delays and has been collecting data to support an extension:

NASA SLS mgr Honeycutt says they’ve started stacking the solid rocket boosters for the SLS at KSC; going smoothly so far. That starts a 12-month clock when the boosters have to be used, but he says they’re collecting data for possible life extension if needed.

— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) January 12, 2021

An eyes-open, data-driven decision is the total opposite of the Challenger mentality of ignoring data showing danger.

How was this 4 years ago!?!

Ok, what data? There's no real national security reason for secrecy, right?