How much longer will SLS be a cash cow? I don't know the difference in limitations in what SLS can do and Starship can't (once proven); also existing contracts with the SLS already pegged?

Mr President Elect said:

---

How much longer will SLS be a cash cow? I don't know the difference in limitations in what SLS can do and Starship can't (once proven); also existing contracts with the SLS already pegged?

---

I get it, and it is funny, but hell to a casual observer and the way all that stuff is run, it would be totally believable that they would hold onto and continue to milk government funds with it.

Mr President Elect said:

---

I get it, and it is funny, but hell to a casual observer and the way all that stuff is run, it would be totally believable that they would hold onto and continue to milk government funds with it.

---

Yeah, sadly this is true. With a cost-plus contract they have made a mint, and the incentive is without a doubt to keep the gravy train rolling.

Not related to actual landing. Landing went perfect.

NASA Statement on the Crew-8 Astronauts:

“After safely splashing down on Earth as part of NASA’s SpaceX Crew-8 mission Friday, a NASA astronaut experienced a medical issue. NASA astronauts Matthew Dominick, Michael Barratt, and Jeanette Epps, and Roscosmos cosmonaut Alexander…

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) October 25, 2024

Nice sunset static fire;

Gorgeous static fire right before sunset!!

Things are progressing will quickly towards the next launch attempt https://t.co/salHGrq4oX

— Zack Golden (@CSI_Starbase) October 25, 2024

I guess we really were lucky it didn't blow as it was a second away from happening:



The Elon-sourced leaked audio discussion with engineers post mortem is fascinating;

T150 clear in 3:25. Too much time spent killing minions vs elites. Had <3 min potential. pic.twitter.com/oYRqqpVyGe

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 25, 2024

Sounds like the coding/spot welding tolerances and everything else is really…a work in progress. LOL @ this leaking on his gaming feed and he leaves it up.

Some really cool sunset static fire replays from this timestamp. Stuff we haven't been able to see before.

https://www.youtube.com/live/qxLAYSRJTiw?t=11758&si=zjwf5LCg99NkNSPl

3:15:58

Decay said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Decay said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

munch96 said:

---

So his argument is that space exploration is driven by governments, not private industry, because space exploration is not profitable?

---

He is a DEI celebrity-scientist.

Yes, he is a genius in his fields, but they trot him out for BOTH his SME as well as to dare you to talk back at their Holy Black Figurehead.


It is a cheap ploy they use to lessen pushback.

---

What has he contributed to his field? The only thing I know of is being a noisy proponent of demoting Pluto from being a planet. He hasn't made any worthwhile discoveries, deduced any fancy equations, or anything. He's merely this generations celebrity scientist like Carl Sagan, who also did nothing but be a media darling.

---

He got a PhD in 1991. Glancing at wikipedia it mentions he worked on some standard candle research which helps establish how big the visible universe is. That's super foundational and important work in Astronomy so I immediately disagree he has no contributions. Considering he was teaching before that, you're talking almost 40 years of teaching, researching, writing, etc. Plus he seems to have served on many boards, which can range from celebrity rubber stamping but can also be a valuable resource if you are providing insight and guidance.

I think you're oversimplifying a little. He's not a hack like Bill Nye. Weird you bring up Sagan, who was also very accomplished and did legitimate science and helped how we understand the universe.

I do think he's over-embraced his celebrity when he starts going on about things that aren't his wheelhouse. I completely disagree with his take on Elon. He's working backwards from politics to find a reason to disagree with Elon's goals.

edit: I rewatched it and must have just not finished it the first time. He's not disagreeing with Elon at all, he's just being his normal annoying and arguing about semantics. He doesn't feel like it's valid to say SpaceX accomplished anything space-wise since all the accomplishments are engineering-based, and he's saying SpaceX won't initiate a mission to Mars since they'll do it on behalf of NASA. Great, who cares. SpaceX is still the only name in sustainable launch.

---

Astronomy existed long before 1991. Hell the Hubble telescope was launched in 1990. So NDT's research couldn't have been that foundational.

Clearly Bill Nye is more of a hack. But the notion that NDT is a "genius" is clearly untrue. Feynman was a genius. Hawking was a genius. NDT, not so much.

---

Lol what? Anything can be foundational. As in, we need that concept to build on the rest of astronomy.

Even if he's not a singular pioneer, that doesn't mean he's not accomplished. In this example, that work provided a more precise ruler that we use to measure every distance in space. It can even make old data better. In astronomy, since we can only reach a a tiny amount of the billions of things we see in the sky, every new way to measure distance is vital to our understanding.

---

You have a link to the paper?

aTmAg said:

---

Decay said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Decay said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

munch96 said:

---

So his argument is that space exploration is driven by governments, not private industry, because space exploration is not profitable?

---

He is a DEI celebrity-scientist.

Yes, he is a genius in his fields, but they trot him out for BOTH his SME as well as to dare you to talk back at their Holy Black Figurehead.


It is a cheap ploy they use to lessen pushback.

---

What has he contributed to his field? The only thing I know of is being a noisy proponent of demoting Pluto from being a planet. He hasn't made any worthwhile discoveries, deduced any fancy equations, or anything. He's merely this generations celebrity scientist like Carl Sagan, who also did nothing but be a media darling.

---

He got a PhD in 1991. Glancing at wikipedia it mentions he worked on some standard candle research which helps establish how big the visible universe is. That's super foundational and important work in Astronomy so I immediately disagree he has no contributions. Considering he was teaching before that, you're talking almost 40 years of teaching, researching, writing, etc. Plus he seems to have served on many boards, which can range from celebrity rubber stamping but can also be a valuable resource if you are providing insight and guidance.

I think you're oversimplifying a little. He's not a hack like Bill Nye. Weird you bring up Sagan, who was also very accomplished and did legitimate science and helped how we understand the universe.

I do think he's over-embraced his celebrity when he starts going on about things that aren't his wheelhouse. I completely disagree with his take on Elon. He's working backwards from politics to find a reason to disagree with Elon's goals.

edit: I rewatched it and must have just not finished it the first time. He's not disagreeing with Elon at all, he's just being his normal annoying and arguing about semantics. He doesn't feel like it's valid to say SpaceX accomplished anything space-wise since all the accomplishments are engineering-based, and he's saying SpaceX won't initiate a mission to Mars since they'll do it on behalf of NASA. Great, who cares. SpaceX is still the only name in sustainable launch.

---

Astronomy existed long before 1991. Hell the Hubble telescope was launched in 1990. So NDT's research couldn't have been that foundational.

Clearly Bill Nye is more of a hack. But the notion that NDT is a "genius" is clearly untrue. Feynman was a genius. Hawking was a genius. NDT, not so much.

---

Lol what? Anything can be foundational. As in, we need that concept to build on the rest of astronomy.

Even if he's not a singular pioneer, that doesn't mean he's not accomplished. In this example, that work provided a more precise ruler that we use to measure every distance in space. It can even make old data better. In astronomy, since we can only reach a a tiny amount of the billions of things we see in the sky, every new way to measure distance is vital to our understanding.

---

You have a link to the paper?

---

No.

aTmAg said:

---

Decay said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Decay said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

munch96 said:

---

So his argument is that space exploration is driven by governments, not private industry, because space exploration is not profitable?

---

He is a DEI celebrity-scientist.

Yes, he is a genius in his fields, but they trot him out for BOTH his SME as well as to dare you to talk back at their Holy Black Figurehead.


It is a cheap ploy they use to lessen pushback.

---

What has he contributed to his field? The only thing I know of is being a noisy proponent of demoting Pluto from being a planet. He hasn't made any worthwhile discoveries, deduced any fancy equations, or anything. He's merely this generations celebrity scientist like Carl Sagan, who also did nothing but be a media darling.

---

He got a PhD in 1991. Glancing at wikipedia it mentions he worked on some standard candle research which helps establish how big the visible universe is. That's super foundational and important work in Astronomy so I immediately disagree he has no contributions. Considering he was teaching before that, you're talking almost 40 years of teaching, researching, writing, etc. Plus he seems to have served on many boards, which can range from celebrity rubber stamping but can also be a valuable resource if you are providing insight and guidance.

I think you're oversimplifying a little. He's not a hack like Bill Nye. Weird you bring up Sagan, who was also very accomplished and did legitimate science and helped how we understand the universe.

I do think he's over-embraced his celebrity when he starts going on about things that aren't his wheelhouse. I completely disagree with his take on Elon. He's working backwards from politics to find a reason to disagree with Elon's goals.

edit: I rewatched it and must have just not finished it the first time. He's not disagreeing with Elon at all, he's just being his normal annoying and arguing about semantics. He doesn't feel like it's valid to say SpaceX accomplished anything space-wise since all the accomplishments are engineering-based, and he's saying SpaceX won't initiate a mission to Mars since they'll do it on behalf of NASA. Great, who cares. SpaceX is still the only name in sustainable launch.

---

Astronomy existed long before 1991. Hell the Hubble telescope was launched in 1990. So NDT's research couldn't have been that foundational.

Clearly Bill Nye is more of a hack. But the notion that NDT is a "genius" is clearly untrue. Feynman was a genius. Hawking was a genius. NDT, not so much.

---

Lol what? Anything can be foundational. As in, we need that concept to build on the rest of astronomy.

Even if he's not a singular pioneer, that doesn't mean he's not accomplished. In this example, that work provided a more precise ruler that we use to measure every distance in space. It can even make old data better. In astronomy, since we can only reach a a tiny amount of the billions of things we see in the sky, every new way to measure distance is vital to our understanding.

---

You have a link to the paper?

---

If I Link his dissertation are you planning on reading it and explaining it to everyone? Because if you aren't then you are just being obstinate.

NDT is just a hardcore partisan Democrat celebrity, more than scientist at this point, whom I think lives inside their media bubble. Just my two cents, even though I listened to some of his physics takes 10+ years ago. Not surprised he's lashing out at Elon, consequently. He really lost his mind during covid (link is just one example) and to me all 'scientific credibility.' FWIW, he walked back his unforced error of sniping at Musk over SpaceX yesterday.

Anyway, AA doesn't buy Elon's claim to be designing/planning to re-use Starships in an hour or so, picking on them in what is to me a fairly credible critique; regenerative cooling means the outer ring bell nozzles can't cool themselves on landing and can't be quickly prepped for another flight in an hour (including skirt and thrust puck).



Technical demonstrators are going to continue to be the 'pattern' for a long time. Booster load is down to under 50 minutes, but ship load is another 40 minutes, then chill portion (20 minutes), so it could all be cut down to around an hour, but you can't just pump all that into a 'hot' booster.

I heard it takes days to fill the rocket with propellant.

The tanks are big.

nortex97 said:

---

NDT is just a hardcore partisan Democrat celebrity, more than scientist at this point, whom I think lives inside their media bubble. Just my two cents, even though I listened to some of his physics takes 10+ years ago. Not surprised he's lashing out at Elon, consequently. He really lost his mind during covid (link is just one example) and to me all 'scientific credibility.' FWIW, he walked back his unforced error of sniping at Musk over SpaceX yesterday.

Anyway, AA doesn't buy Elon's claim to be designing/planning to re-use Starships in an hour or so, picking on them in what is to me a fairly credible critique; regenerative cooling means the outer ring bell nozzles can't cool themselves on landing and can't be quickly prepped for another flight in an hour (including skirt and thrust puck).



Technical demonstrators are going to continue to be the 'pattern' for a long time. Booster load is down to under 50 minutes, but ship load is another 40 minutes, then chill portion (20 minutes), so it could all be cut down to around an hour, but you can't just pump all that into a 'hot' booster.

---

I don't really think anything they're doing now is in stone. If there's a different approach that speeds up reuse then they'll try it, I have no doubt.

bmks270 said:

---

I heard it takes days to fill the rocket with propellant.

The tanks are big.

---

It takes more than a day to truck the stuff in from Brownsville. They fill the booster and the ship in less than an hour.

Mathguy64 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Decay said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Decay said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

munch96 said:

---

So his argument is that space exploration is driven by governments, not private industry, because space exploration is not profitable?

---

He is a DEI celebrity-scientist.

Yes, he is a genius in his fields, but they trot him out for BOTH his SME as well as to dare you to talk back at their Holy Black Figurehead.


It is a cheap ploy they use to lessen pushback.

---

What has he contributed to his field? The only thing I know of is being a noisy proponent of demoting Pluto from being a planet. He hasn't made any worthwhile discoveries, deduced any fancy equations, or anything. He's merely this generations celebrity scientist like Carl Sagan, who also did nothing but be a media darling.

---

He got a PhD in 1991. Glancing at wikipedia it mentions he worked on some standard candle research which helps establish how big the visible universe is. That's super foundational and important work in Astronomy so I immediately disagree he has no contributions. Considering he was teaching before that, you're talking almost 40 years of teaching, researching, writing, etc. Plus he seems to have served on many boards, which can range from celebrity rubber stamping but can also be a valuable resource if you are providing insight and guidance.

I think you're oversimplifying a little. He's not a hack like Bill Nye. Weird you bring up Sagan, who was also very accomplished and did legitimate science and helped how we understand the universe.

I do think he's over-embraced his celebrity when he starts going on about things that aren't his wheelhouse. I completely disagree with his take on Elon. He's working backwards from politics to find a reason to disagree with Elon's goals.

edit: I rewatched it and must have just not finished it the first time. He's not disagreeing with Elon at all, he's just being his normal annoying and arguing about semantics. He doesn't feel like it's valid to say SpaceX accomplished anything space-wise since all the accomplishments are engineering-based, and he's saying SpaceX won't initiate a mission to Mars since they'll do it on behalf of NASA. Great, who cares. SpaceX is still the only name in sustainable launch.

---

Astronomy existed long before 1991. Hell the Hubble telescope was launched in 1990. So NDT's research couldn't have been that foundational.

Clearly Bill Nye is more of a hack. But the notion that NDT is a "genius" is clearly untrue. Feynman was a genius. Hawking was a genius. NDT, not so much.

---

Lol what? Anything can be foundational. As in, we need that concept to build on the rest of astronomy.

Even if he's not a singular pioneer, that doesn't mean he's not accomplished. In this example, that work provided a more precise ruler that we use to measure every distance in space. It can even make old data better. In astronomy, since we can only reach a a tiny amount of the billions of things we see in the sky, every new way to measure distance is vital to our understanding.

---

You have a link to the paper?

---

If I Link his dissertation are you planning on reading it and explaining it to everyone? Because if you aren't then you are just being obstinate.

---

I wouldn't read it word for word all the way through. But I would certainly skim it.

And as we all know, there are plenty of dissertations that aren't worth a crap.

Mathguy64 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

I heard it takes days to fill the rocket with propellant.

The tanks are big.

---

It takes more than a day to truck the stuff in from Brownsville. They fill the booster and the ship in less than an hour.

---

So a one hour turn around, can be done how many times before more needs to be trucked to the site?

bmks270 said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

I heard it takes days to fill the rocket with propellant.

The tanks are big.

---

It takes more than a day to truck the stuff in from Brownsville. They fill the booster and the ship in less than an hour.

---

So a one day turn around, can be done how many times before more needs to be trucked to the site?

---

Right now it's 48 hours to detank the rockets and fill the tank farm back up.

Speculation is we are probably looking at 10 launches in 2025.

Well done defense!!!

PJYoung said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

I heard it takes days to fill the rocket with propellant.

The tanks are big.

---

It takes more than a day to truck the stuff in from Brownsville. They fill the booster and the ship in less than an hour.

---

So a one day turn around, can be done how many times before more needs to be trucked to the site?

---

Right now it's 48 hours to detank the rockets and fill the tank farm back up.

---

They will start producing their own fuel on site when they need to

Here's a good Starship Primer for those just tuning in and learning about it

Eric Berger has a great piece up about what's next for Starship/spaceX over at arstechnica. Small excerpt (strongly recommend reading it there):

Quote:

---

In-flight Raptor re-light (late 2024, early 2025)

To date, the Starship upper stage of the Super Heavy rocket has yet to fly an orbital trajectory. Instead, the second stage was lost during the first three flights before making a controlled reentry into the Indian Ocean on the fourth and fifth test flights of the vehicle, including the launch earlier this month.
The primary reason Starship has not gone into orbit and made multiple flights around the planet is that SpaceX (and the Federal Aviation Administration) want to be sure the vehicle is brought back to Earth safely and landed in a remote area of an ocean. Starship is very large, and chunks of the vehicle falling onto land, especially populated land, would be catastrophic. To make a controlled reentry, SpaceX must demonstrate the ability to relight the rocket's Raptor engines in space for a precise deorbit burn.

During Starship's third test flight in March 2024, SpaceX initially planned to conduct an in-flight relight of one or more of the Raptor engines, but this attempt was aborted as the vehicle spun out of control. On the last two test flights, SpaceX has not attempted a Raptor test as the engineering teams focused on improving the reentry capabilities of the second stage.

However, SpaceX may try to ignite one or more Raptor engines during the sixth test flight, or shortly thereafter. Successfully doing so would allow the company to begin flying orbital missions with Starship and likely open the way for Starlink launches, possibly as early as the first half of next year. These will be larger Starlink satellites that can only fit within Starship's capacious payload and will provide direct-to-cell Internet capability.

SpaceX has already test-fired the Starship upper stage for this sixth test flight (known as Ship 31), and last week it rolled the Super Heavy first stage (Booster 13) to the launch site for a static fire test. From a hardware and regulatory standpoint, a launch of this test flight in November is very possible.

Return a Starship to terra firma (mid- to late 2025)

On the fifth test flight this month, SpaceX demonstrated the ability to land a Starship upper stage in a targeted area of the Indian Ocean. We know this because the company had a camera on a pre-positioned buoy track the rocket's reentry and then subsequently released the footage.

The ability to precisely land Starship opens up the possibility of bringing a Starship back to land. SpaceX founder Elon Musk has mentioned "catching" a Starship in the first half of 2025, presumably with a tower in South Texas. (The company is not close to completing launch-and-catch towers anywhere else in the world). However, the regulatory issues surrounding the catch of a Starship at the Starbase facility in South Texas are, to put it mildly, interesting.

Unlike the Super Heavy booster, which flies over the Gulf of Mexico and only receives a green light to return to the coastal launch site seconds before a landing attempt, Starship would necessarily fly over Mexico (likely not far from the populous city of Monterrey) and Texas on its track to Starbase. You want to be quite sure big pieces of your spacecraft aren't falling off when returning over land.

---

I hadn't thought about Monterrey as a concern, but makes sense.

nortex97 said:

---

Eric Berger has a great piece up about what's next for Starship/spaceX over at arstechnica. Small excerpt (strongly recommend reading it there):

Quote:

---

In-flight Raptor re-light (late 2024, early 2025)

To date, the Starship upper stage of the Super Heavy rocket has yet to fly an orbital trajectory. Instead, the second stage was lost during the first three flights before making a controlled reentry into the Indian Ocean on the fourth and fifth test flights of the vehicle, including the launch earlier this month.
The primary reason Starship has not gone into orbit and made multiple flights around the planet is that SpaceX (and the Federal Aviation Administration) want to be sure the vehicle is brought back to Earth safely and landed in a remote area of an ocean. Starship is very large, and chunks of the vehicle falling onto land, especially populated land, would be catastrophic. To make a controlled reentry, SpaceX must demonstrate the ability to relight the rocket's Raptor engines in space for a precise deorbit burn.

During Starship's third test flight in March 2024, SpaceX initially planned to conduct an in-flight relight of one or more of the Raptor engines, but this attempt was aborted as the vehicle spun out of control. On the last two test flights, SpaceX has not attempted a Raptor test as the engineering teams focused on improving the reentry capabilities of the second stage.

However, SpaceX may try to ignite one or more Raptor engines during the sixth test flight, or shortly thereafter. Successfully doing so would allow the company to begin flying orbital missions with Starship and likely open the way for Starlink launches, possibly as early as the first half of next year. These will be larger Starlink satellites that can only fit within Starship's capacious payload and will provide direct-to-cell Internet capability.

SpaceX has already test-fired the Starship upper stage for this sixth test flight (known as Ship 31), and last week it rolled the Super Heavy first stage (Booster 13) to the launch site for a static fire test. From a hardware and regulatory standpoint, a launch of this test flight in November is very possible.

Return a Starship to terra firma (mid- to late 2025)

On the fifth test flight this month, SpaceX demonstrated the ability to land a Starship upper stage in a targeted area of the Indian Ocean. We know this because the company had a camera on a pre-positioned buoy track the rocket's reentry and then subsequently released the footage.

The ability to precisely land Starship opens up the possibility of bringing a Starship back to land. SpaceX founder Elon Musk has mentioned "catching" a Starship in the first half of 2025, presumably with a tower in South Texas. (The company is not close to completing launch-and-catch towers anywhere else in the world). However, the regulatory issues surrounding the catch of a Starship at the Starbase facility in South Texas are, to put it mildly, interesting.

Unlike the Super Heavy booster, which flies over the Gulf of Mexico and only receives a green light to return to the coastal launch site seconds before a landing attempt, Starship would necessarily fly over Mexico (likely not far from the populous city of Monterrey) and Texas on its track to Starbase. You want to be quite sure big pieces of your spacecraft aren't falling off when returning over land.

---

I hadn't thought about Monterrey as a concern, but makes sense.

---

Yeah the MSA for Monterrey is over 5 million. Big city!

Starship 33 during cryo testing this evening.

10/29/24 pic.twitter.com/rQcITUMcyG

— Starship Gazer (@StarshipGazer) October 30, 2024

Am I wrong, or is that the first one with a pez dispenser?

All of the ships including ship 24 and 25 which had their doors welded shut have had the full pez dispenser mechanism inside them and could have carried and deployed starlinks.

— Booster 10 (@booster_10) October 25, 2024

Honestly have no clue, nor if this was disclosed publicly. I recall them trying to open the dispenser door in suborbital flight on one of them, but not sure on the mechanism behind it. Looks a lot different in any case, if this is accurate:

S24 and s25 had little short boy pez dispensers. pic.twitter.com/CwHcwpHkKP

— Booster 10 (@booster_10) October 25, 2024

If starlink satellites themselves were around/about Boca Chica I think they'd have been captured on film though, in the past few weeks.

IFT-3 actually tested the payload door in flight if you remember. It opened and closed successfully which was impressive considering how the starship was tumbling at the time. It wasn't exactly smooth but they called it a success.

NEWS: @SpaceX only needs five more Starlink launches to complete the first commercial Direct to Cell (DTC) constellation, according to SpaceX Sr Director of Satellite Engineering Ben Longmier.

Upcoming Starlink launches:
1 → Group 9-10, today
2 → Group 6-77, Sunday https://t.co/pJx2n6VC1f

— ALEX (@ajtourville) October 30, 2024

The ISS should be evacuated IMMEDIATELY, expert warns

Yeah I dunno on the ISS, it seems to just be a matter of time until something pretty bad/tragic happens, imho. It needs to be deorbited asap but a lot of ego's/budgets don't want that to happen. There's nothing really 'critical' we are doing up there daily that is so important, it's just inertia.

BO rolled out New Glenn booster for testing. Nice shot:

Quote:

---

New Glenn's second stage has already been successfully tested, and a test stand that was used as part of the testing at LC-36 is now outside the complex's hangar and not being worked on. This is a possible sign that testing of the second stage is done for now, with the focus being on testing the first stage.

New Glenn's first launch not only depends on hardware readiness and the success of the upcoming tests but also on regulatory approval. A launch license has not yet been issued, and there are some open items. Late November seems to be the earliest that New Glenn could fly, though December or even January may be more realistic.

When New Glenn's first flight does launch, it will not be flying with its originally intended payload. New Glenn's first flight was initially intended to fly the NASA EscaPADE CubeSat mission to Mars. However, NASA decided not to fuel the two satellites for the mission as New Glenn was not going to make the tight launch window this fall.

---

Quote:

---

Although Blue Origin has yet to orbit a spacecraft with its own launcher, it is now the closest the company has ever been to performing this feat. New Glenn and Blue Ring are critical to the company's vision of enabling millions of people to live and work in space, while an operational New Glenn is also key to enabling projects like Blue Moon and Orbital Reef.

The 98-meter tall New Glenn, capable of flying 45,000 kg to low-Earth orbit, is also an element needed for Blue Origin's human lander for the Artemis V mission. Blue Moon MK2 is the company's human lunar lander and is designed to fit within New Glenn's seven-meter fairing.

---

Separate, 'sounds great to me' idea/topic: A 'space coast compact?' WSJ paywall:

Quote:

---

There is another powerful alternative rooted in America's tradition of federalism: the interstate compact. Although the Constitution limits the states' pre-existing sovereignty, the Compact Clause permits them to create legally binding agreements among themselves. Its only limitation is that Congress must authorize any compact that encroaches on federal power or implicates federal concerns. Once the Legislature does so, as the Supreme Court clarified in Cuyler v. Adams (1981), such compacts take on the full force of federal law.

Most interstate compacts originally dealt with issues like state boundaries or water rights. Over time their use expanded to include problems states share but which require a different policy framework than they can pursue alone or via federal action. States have used compacts to create unified occupational-licensing regimes and to coordinate state taxes for multistate entities. Others have helped create well-known institutionssuch as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritywhich regulate interstate and international commerce in a way otherwise reserved for the federal government.

This vehicle is prime for states concerned about threats to American prosperity and sovereignty, including as relates to space development. Gulf Coast states have a particular interest in advancing American commercial spaceflight and stand to lose the most from FAA suffocation. They maintain some of the most important launch sites, training facilities and manufacturing plants, and they have tens of thousands of jobs connected to the space industry.

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida might therefore consider banding together to create a Space Coast Compact. The terms could establish the authorities, structure and governance of a Space Coast Launch Authority with the right to review plans and issue launch permits for aircraft and spacecraft operating in the signatory states. The new authority, an alternate to the FAA, would be accountable to the states' governments, staffed by those who actually want to launch aircraft, and exempt from NEPA and other strictures that uniquely bind federal action.

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

This vehicle is prime for states concerned about threats to American prosperity and sovereignty, including as relates to space development. Gulf Coast states have a particular interest in advancing American commercial spaceflight and stand to lose the most from FAA suffocation. They maintain some of the most important launch sites, training facilities and manufacturing plants, and they have tens of thousands of jobs connected to the space industry.

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida might therefore consider banding together to create a Space Coast Compact. The terms could establish the authorities, structure and governance of a Space Coast Launch Authority with the right to review plans and issue launch permits for aircraft and spacecraft operating in the signatory states. The new authority, an alternate to the FAA, would be accountable to the states' governments, staffed by those who actually want to launch aircraft, and exempt from NEPA and other strictures that uniquely bind federal action.

---

---

This is a fantastic idea. Get the feds and the FAA out of it as much as possible.

ISS Leak getting worse, something is changing over time… do they know the root cause?

One of the Russian modules. Can't find exactly where though, which means lots of places.

aezmvp said:

---

One of the Russian modules. Can't find exactly where though, which means lots of places.

---

Russia actually blamed one of our astronauts of sabotage at one point. Bizarre.

PJYoung said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

One of the Russian modules. Can't find exactly where though, which means lots of places.

---

Russia actually blamed one of our astronauts of sabotage at one point. Bizarre.

---

Wasn't there drill marks or something?