sh1pman

I have a brilliant idea to improve these designs. Fuel tanks should be removed completely to reduce drag.

Yeah, I think we can expect a static fire, engine swap, another static fire, some more checks, etc. My bet is 2 weeks from now.

Not betting, but expect a RUD (80% chance). The other 20% is either a delayed RUD (like SN10) or a good landing.

My contacts at SpaceX are saying something very similar. AFTS terminated the vehicle due to vehicle moving out of the allowed corridor for relight and landing. AFTS triggered several hundreds of feet above ground level. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53270.msg2213559#msg2213559

Yes, it’s a successful test of the flight termination system.

As a published chemist, have to agree. Well, not that my degree matters much in this case, but I guess a background in science gives an instinctive idea of what’s plausible and what’s total BS. Extraordinary claims have to be backed by extraordinary evidence, which would be something like sending a smallsat to the Moon using nothing but emdrive. But if I were a grant reviewer, I wouldn’t give any public money to such a project.

Mars base can happen this decade. But that’s Elon time. Won’t be surprised if it slips to 2030s...

Good static fire. Wen hop?

March of The Siberian Riflemen. Thanks @SOXBLOX!

Well, at least he is the most hilarious Director that Roscosmos has ever had.

Putin during his next press conference: "We need to build a giant, super powerful railgun on the Moon. To defend against the asteroids, of course!"

The simulation runs into performance issues due to lots of flying dust particles that need to be calculated, rendered and reflected by shiny objects.

Rogozin thanks NASA for the policy of dumping.

That’s one way to achieve rapid reuse!

What if they needed to abort after lighting the SRBs? Can’t just shut them down. Did the Shuttle have launch clamps that could hold it on the pad with burning SRBs?