With Biden blowing $93 billion on a bad weekend in Afghanistan, and several $trillion more I don't even think about how much it costs the country to spend money on space exploration. It's like being worried about a puddle during a tsunami.

TexAgs91 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I really have a hard time caring if an asteroid is ruined.

---

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not.

I don't care if an asteroid is ruined either. My point is that government sucks at everything. Why would we give them the role to mine asteroids? They would spend 100X of taxpayer money compared to the private sector. Let private individuals take the risk and reap the rewards. They will spend a fraction of the money, and it will be their own money, rather than all of ours.

---

It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. As I said, space exploration is a legitimate expense for governments for strategic reasons. I know I'll never get anywhere with you on this so there's no point in arguing it. But that doesn't stop private companies from doing the same thing. If they are so successful at doing it, I think it would make it less of a priority for governments to do it.

---

It doesn't have to be an either/or thing, but it SHOULD be. Government should do stuff its good at and the private sector should do the things its good at. We shouldn't have government get into mining "just because".

If it strategically CRUCIAL that we mine the crap out of asteroids, then the LAST thing we should want is for government to have anything to do with that, since government sucks at these things. We should let people who are best at it. And by allowing those people reap the full reward for such a venture is the best way to entice those best people to do it.

aTmAg said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I really have a hard time caring if an asteroid is ruined.

---

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not.

I don't care if an asteroid is ruined either. My point is that government sucks at everything. Why would we give them the role to mine asteroids? They would spend 100X of taxpayer money compared to the private sector. Let private individuals take the risk and reap the rewards. They will spend a fraction of the money, and it will be their own money, rather than all of ours.

---

It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. As I said, space exploration is a legitimate expense for governments for strategic reasons. I know I'll never get anywhere with you on this so there's no point in arguing it. But that doesn't stop private companies from doing the same thing. If they are so successful at doing it, I think it would make it less of a priority for governments to do it.

---

It doesn't have to be an either/or thing, but it SHOULD be. Government should do stuff its good at and the private sector should do the things its good at. We shouldn't have government get into mining "just because".

If it strategically CRUCIAL that we mine the crap out of asteroids, then the LAST thing we should want is for government to have anything to do with that, since government sucks at these things. We should let people who are best at it. And by allowing those people reap the full reward for such a venture is the best way to entice those best people to do it.

---

I smile at the thought that some day a space company incorporates in a space geography as a tax shelter and kicks off a tax less economy which uses resources as currency…

It will also be a boon for me to eliminate dropped calls during my commute in rural Texas! Super well done to the team and thank you!

— Gwynne Shotwell (@Gwynne_Shotwell) January 10, 2024

Semper Supra!

Apparently I'm a moron who doesn't know how to post the ****ter so I'll just leave this link here.

https://today.tamu.edu/2024/01/10/engineering-leads-collaboration-for-in-space-operations-technologies/

PJYoung said:

---

It will also be a boon for me to eliminate dropped calls during my commute in rural Texas! Super well done to the team and thank you!

— Gwynne Shotwell (@Gwynne_Shotwell) January 10, 2024

---

I think everyone on this thread has seen this coming but this will be a revolutionary game changer.

New Chinese rocket launch. Tons of debris flying around in lift off.

Orienspace Technology (Shandong) Co., Ltd (Orienspace for short) is a commercial aerospace enterprise in China founded in 2020. The company designs and manufactures Gravity Series launch vehicles and Force Series rocket engines. Gravity-1 made its maiden flight on January 11, 2024, and it is able to carry a 6.5 ton payload to LEO or 4.2 tons to SSO, allowing for deploying large-scale satellite constellations; Gravity-2 will be a recoverable medium-lift rocket targeting a payload mass of 15 tons to LEO, to support large-sized satellite constellation deployment and satellite launches to higher orbits such as MEO and LTO.[1]

Drone view of Gravity-1 Y1's liftoff.
The Kerbal style solid rocket worked.
The newly built ship for sea launch worked.
Congratulations 🎉https://t.co/Y339kPmrrT https://t.co/QKW8dDoZx1 pic.twitter.com/GU1jbbann2

— China 'N Asia Spaceflight 🚀𝕏 🛰️ (@CNSpaceflight) January 11, 2024

Jock 07 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

It will also be a boon for me to eliminate dropped calls during my commute in rural Texas! Super well done to the team and thank you!

— Gwynne Shotwell (@Gwynne_Shotwell) January 10, 2024

---

I think everyone on this thread has seen this coming but this will be a revolutionary game changer.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, right now only T-Mobile is in board with it? Hopefully AT&T and Verizon smart up and get involved as well.

Odds that the ship made it back to port?

If it "lands" it will be at a nice soft 5600 mph.

#PeregrineMissionOne may "land" on the Moon after all. Unfortunately it will be a crash landing.

Extrapolating trajectory data from JPL-Horizons shows the Earth flyby will put it on a collision course with the Moon. pic.twitter.com/ZFaLnl8Lvj

— Tony Dunn (@tony873004) January 11, 2024

I'm sure that will be a successful landing.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

It will also be a boon for me to eliminate dropped calls during my commute in rural Texas! Super well done to the team and thank you!

— Gwynne Shotwell (@Gwynne_Shotwell) January 10, 2024

---

I think everyone on this thread has seen this coming but this will be a revolutionary game changer.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, right now only T-Mobile is in board with it? Hopefully AT&T and Verizon smart up and get involved as well.

---

Not sure but they'll all soon be forced to adopt the tech or be left behind.

Jock 07 said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

It will also be a boon for me to eliminate dropped calls during my commute in rural Texas! Super well done to the team and thank you!

— Gwynne Shotwell (@Gwynne_Shotwell) January 10, 2024

---

I think everyone on this thread has seen this coming but this will be a revolutionary game changer.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, right now only T-Mobile is in board with it? Hopefully AT&T and Verizon smart up and get involved as well.

---

Not sure but they'll all soon be forced to adopt the tech or be left behind.

---

I remain convinced there are a lot of misnomers about the starlink-to-phone tech. I think it is probably good for emergency texts/location, but unlikely to provide regular service/data connectivity for things people use their iPhones for otherwise. The signal gain/strength issue from an omnidirectional antenna to a satellite are massive, especially for the silliness people use their phones for. Not all radio data links are equal, basically, and the latency would also pose problems for 'conversational' discussions even if voice links could be established to LEO.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/rocket-report-a-chinese-launch-you-must-see-vulcans-stunning-debut/

Quote:

---

. . .
Self-eating rocket engine passes test. Auto****e engines, in which the rocket effectively consumes itself, were first proposed and patented in 1938. However, it took until 2018 before engineers designed and fired one in a controlled manner. Nearly five years on, and more progress is being made: more energetic liquid propellants can be used, and the fuselage can be fed into the rocket without buckling, The Register reports.

Eat your way to space ... A prototype, dubbed Ouroborous-3, generated 100 newtons of thrust at the MachLab facility at Machrihanish Airbase in Scotland. A video of the test shows the rocket in action, demonstrating the fuselage being consumed while the rocket is throttled and pulsed. It's possible that a suborbital flight using this kind of engine could take place as early as 2027. (submitted by EllPeaTea)
. . .

---

Sweet name for the prototype rocket.

Edit - Not the censored part.

I had never heard of this technology. It looked like a giant gluestick getting consumed.

This is a wild ride for the gluestick!

That failure at the end seems like it could be a problem lol.

In rocket parlance in parts of the ME and SE Asia that's considered a polite belch after finishing your meal.

X-59 Reveal by NASA...

In 2023, SpaceX completed 96 successful missions, safely flew 12 more astronauts to orbit, launched two flight tests of Starship, and more than doubled the number of people around the world connected by @Starlink.

Watch @elonmusk deliver a company update: pic.twitter.com/7zeTlQLgp9

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) January 12, 2024

Was not aware they were building a second launch tower in Boca Chica.

Malachi Constant said:

---

This is a wild ride for the gluestick!

---

What is this?

hph6203 said:

---

Was not aware they were building a second launch tower in Boca Chica.

---

Bringing the one over from the Cape by barge.

will25u said:

---

In 2023, SpaceX completed 96 successful missions, safely flew 12 more astronauts to orbit, launched two flight tests of Starship, and more than doubled the number of people around the world connected by @Starlink.

Watch @elonmusk deliver a company update: pic.twitter.com/7zeTlQLgp9

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) January 12, 2024

---

That's quite a year. I wish it didn't cut off the questions.

If I had to use this as a starting point:

Stage from LEO, use Starship / New Glenn for cargo

Land humans in the MAV and have the rover come to them not the other way around

Ditch NEP and opposition class (if allowed)

Rendezvous with commercial crew capsules https://t.co/zrTVxC6ZoV

— Ken Kirtland IV (@KenKirtland17) January 13, 2024

Landmark dark energy study complicates our view of the universe.https://t.co/EzcCl3kZZW

— Jazz Shaw (@JazzShaw) January 13, 2024

Some highlights on the Starship side of the All Hands.

Flight 2 Ship 25 EOM:

"So Flight 2 actually almost made it to orbit. In fact, ironically, if it had a payload, it would have made it to orbit, because the reason that it actually didn't quite make it to orbit was we vented… https://t.co/NKNyWwZzqZ pic.twitter.com/evnxhFcTcm

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) January 12, 2024

So, starship will definitely get taller (more propellant/payload). I still think it's interesting the 1st stage for starship goes only to a much lower altitude for separation vs. F9. There has to be a lot of room to 'play with the numbers' there.

I love that Buzz still loves this stuff so much;

A friendly heads up, @NASA is going to unveil the new @NASAAero X-59 #QUEST quiet supersonic aircraft in full livery to the public today. I’m excited to see this bird rolled out of the hanger…but more importantly, I can’t wait to see it fly! pic.twitter.com/RQUk1FajCU

— Dr. Buzz Aldrin (@TheRealBuzz) January 12, 2024

Quote:

---

"So Flight 2 actually almost made it to orbit. In fact, ironically, if it had a payload, it would have made it to orbit, because the reason that it actually didn't quite make it to orbit was we vented the liquid oxygen, and the liquid oxygen ultimately led to fire and an explosion. Because we wanted to vent the liquid oxygen because we normally wouldn't have that liquid oxygen if we had a payload.

"So ironically, if it had a payload, it would have reached orbit. And so I think we've got a really good shot of reaching orbit with flight three and then a rapid cadence to achieve full and rapid reusability."

---

I'm confused about this. It was a suborbital flight. How would it have been able to achieve orbit? Or did he mean it _could have_ reached orbit? I think it could have reached orbit regardless of whether it had a payload or not if they were able to manage the liquid oxygen venting better.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Quote:

---

"So Flight 2 actually almost made it to orbit. In fact, ironically, if it had a payload, it would have made it to orbit, because the reason that it actually didn't quite make it to orbit was we vented the liquid oxygen, and the liquid oxygen ultimately led to fire and an explosion. Because we wanted to vent the liquid oxygen because we normally wouldn't have that liquid oxygen if we had a payload.

"So ironically, if it had a payload, it would have reached orbit. And so I think we've got a really good shot of reaching orbit with flight three and then a rapid cadence to achieve full and rapid reusability."

---

I'm confused about this. It was a suborbital flight. How would it have been able to achieve orbit? Or did he mean it _could have_ reached orbit? I think it could have reached orbit regardless of whether it had a payload or not if they were able to manage the liquid oxygen venting better.

---

I think it's a little hand wavey but they're indicating they almost reached their final suborbital but still almost orbital trajectory. They are saying they could have launched payload to orbit in those conditions.

NASA's Crewed Mars Mission Architecture (Current Plan)

This infographic describes NASA's mission plan in detail from first launch to final touchdown back on Earth. (You may need to zoom in to read everything)

NASA plans to update this mission profile in "a few weeks". pic.twitter.com/SKRhhDvwyP

— Ken Kirtland IV (@KenKirtland17) January 12, 2024

NASA is dreaming if they think they can get to Mars with SLS. By the time we get to the point of going to Mars, Starship will be fully operational

NASA:

TexAgs91 said:

---

Quote:

---

"So Flight 2 actually almost made it to orbit. In fact, ironically, if it had a payload, it would have made it to orbit, because the reason that it actually didn't quite make it to orbit was we vented the liquid oxygen, and the liquid oxygen ultimately led to fire and an explosion. Because we wanted to vent the liquid oxygen because we normally wouldn't have that liquid oxygen if we had a payload.

"So ironically, if it had a payload, it would have reached orbit. And so I think we've got a really good shot of reaching orbit with flight three and then a rapid cadence to achieve full and rapid reusability."

---

I'm confused about this. It was a suborbital flight. How would it have been able to achieve orbit? Or did he mean it _could have_ reached orbit? I think it could have reached orbit regardless of whether it had a payload or not if they were able to manage the liquid oxygen venting better.

---

It was a suborbital flight, but if it had had a payload and been an orbital flight everything would have been fine. The cause of the issue was the suborbital flight profile and extra O2 they had for it instead of what will eventually be a normal payload, since venting that O2 is what ultimately caused the fire and explosion.

Yes, or to put it another way, they kept it in a suborbital flight profile (or rather designed the mission around that) such that in case anything happened it wouldn't wind up in an uncontrolled orbital pattern for...multiple orbits.

Adding a dummy payload mass for purposes of minimizing this vent for stage 2 would have had the added negative impact of increasing the time spent at/around the launch tower. They (also) couldn't 'under-fill' the vehicle designed for a 100+ton LEO capacity of propellant or it would have changed the v-max etc. profiles drastically so they had to vent the fuel in stage 2 but that then wound up causing the...loss of vehicle.

Anyway, that's my understanding.

nortex97 said:

---

Yes, or to put it another way, they kept it in a suborbital flight profile (or rather designed the mission around that) such that in case anything happened it wouldn't wind up in an uncontrolled orbital pattern for...multiple orbits.

Adding a dummy payload mass for purposes of minimizing this vent for stage 2 would have had the added negative impact of increasing the time spent at/around the launch tower. They (also) couldn't 'under-fill' the vehicle designed for a 100+ton LEO capacity of propellant or it would have changed the v-max etc. profiles drastically so they had to vent the fuel in stage 2 but that then wound up causing the...loss of vehicle.

Anyway, that's my understanding.

---

Trying to take short cuts cost them once again.

bmks270 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Yes, or to put it another way, they kept it in a suborbital flight profile (or rather designed the mission around that) such that in case anything happened it wouldn't wind up in an uncontrolled orbital pattern for...multiple orbits.

Adding a dummy payload mass for purposes of minimizing this vent for stage 2 would have had the added negative impact of increasing the time spent at/around the launch tower. They (also) couldn't 'under-fill' the vehicle designed for a 100+ton LEO capacity of propellant or it would have changed the v-max etc. profiles drastically so they had to vent the fuel in stage 2 but that then wound up causing the...loss of vehicle.

Anyway, that's my understanding.

---

Trying to take short cuts cost them once again.

---

This is monday morning quarterbacking. You don't plan on adding a dummy payload so that you don't light up your liquid O2 venting, when you don't even know that's going to be an issue.