Codraroll

The Ariane rockets also face stiff competition from Falcon 9 and other US rockets, but Europe will still pay for its production, to maintain its own launch capacity. For the same reason, NYX will probably be funded despite competition from the US capsules. Earlier, there was a certain willingness to fall back on Soyuz for that task (as Russia was seen as a relatively European country), but that option is now off the table, making NYX more urgent than its cancelled predecessors.

Let's see ... late 2027, that's four years away. Any space-related promise relating to delivery more than two years in the future, has a roughly 50% chance of not happening at all. But for the remaining 50%, we can apply the rule for the next time window (delivery between six months and two years from now): add 50% to the time elapsed from the present day to the promised delivery. So overall, I'd say a 50% chance of delivery by late 2029. Still better odds than Oryol.

Yup, all of which have - individually, even - raked up the same number of flight hours as Orel.

Doesn't sound like "Standard industry practice" to me, if you find 1 (one) example of somebody doing it, and they are the first to do so.

I think the "System requirement review" is long before any hardware production. They have basically just finalized a list of specifications the design needs to meet, and now they are ready to start designing it. It will probably fly before the Orel, though.

No, you're making that conclusion first, and then trying to find whichever flimsy pieces of evidence or erroneous methodologies you can come up with to defend it. Those pieces of "evidence" have been unmasked as bogus, and the methodologies you try to apply are extremely lacking. This has been shown every single time, by people with way more patience than I have. It includes repeatedly comparing the Raptor to engines, components, or rockets that do not even exist. I suggest to take a step back and review what you're doing here. If neither the data, the background theory, nor the methodology hold any water, why should you try to defend the conclusion time and time again, usually from scratch after the last attempt was torn to pieces?

Click your profile pic in the top right. The menu for "ignored users" should be in the dropdown menu.

I see what you did there ...

The excuse for dumping boosters on houses like this was usually "the civilians are evacuated in advance". But if they are close enough to the crash site to film the stage impacting the ground, would that even count as evacuation? I mean, the booster might just as well have come down where the person with the camera was standing. One would think that the booster could potentially come down anywhere within an area several kilometers across, and it'd be just as likely to be on top of the evacuees' heads as on their houses. Fortunately, it seems they were at least aware it would be coming and had plenty of time to spot it as it fell - potentially enough to make like a tree and get out of there if it was headed for them.

To the great surprise of ... let's see ... no raised hands at all. The one good thing about Hyperloop is that it raised awareness of "gadgetbahns"; those spectacular infrastructure works that promise to revolutionise transport but end up inventing a poorer version of the bus/tram/train/taxi. In the case of Hyperloop, it was a system with the space requirements of a railway system, but the capacity of a bus ... while having to tolerate an environment comparable to a high-altitude air liner. That makes it heckishly expensive, and unable to capitalize on its speed, which would be its biggest advantage if built as intended. Not to mention the risks of some technical failure or other. All that came together to make the decisionmakers say "ain't no way we're paying to build that stuff", which would make it quite clear that the company was doomed to end like it did. But I guess the key people got to claim quite hefty consultancy fees to hang on at the company for a while, so it might have worked out just fine for all involved parties. I wonder what happened to that demonstration capsule they built out of an old aircraft, though.

Shiny on the outside, hollow on the inside. Great analogy.

Finding oneself in a Scooby Doo van in the middle of hostile RPG territory is the culmination of pretty poor life choices all around. Weighing the poor engine down with explosive blocks that limit the vision of the driver will not be the ticket out of there, to put it like that. EDIT: Or probably, it will. Just not in the direction of home. Well, not just in the direction of home.

Aye, plenty of examples there too:

Necessarily, there will also be a pressure wave going back towards the vehicle. Symmetry of forces and all that. I guess it would propagate through the vehicle and give all the rifles in the firing ports a great big smack that might permanently screw up their aim. It seems that some people were asleep during that part of physics class:

Some pictures of a launch from Yangjiang yesterday morning: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202312/06/WS656fbfb3a31090682a5f19e8_1.html I'm no expert on aerodynamics, but this could not possibly be healthy for the payload? No word on whether anything failed, but I wouldn't expect those authorities to admit failure even if the rocket exploded on live national television.

Only because Higgs' editor didn't like swearing. Higgs originally referred to it as "that goddamn particle", which was changed by the editor.

Never mind the tiles. The real treasure buried at the bottom of the sea would be the Superheavy grid fins. Those cost an absolute fortune to manufacture, and may have survived the explosion somewhat intact. They're probably stuck several meters deep in the mud, in mile-deep seas halfway to Florida, though ...

The same number of destroyed engines as 8 Proton flights, regardless of failure or success. And yes, this was a testing and development flight. That runs the risks of losing the hardware somewhat earlier than the best-case scenario (which in this case would also involve losing the hardware), but at least something new is learned and steps are taken to build a new, functional rocket design. You know, development. Functional space agencies do that sometimes.

Wouldn't be a surprise. Pretty much all Russian rocketry since the fall of the Soviet Union are "localized" Soviet designs, in some cases with new stickers.

Yeah, things seem to have played out a lot smoother than the last time. But it would be nice to see confirmation.

Now I want to see pictures of the launch pad. Hope it survived better than last time. The fact that all engines lit up indicates that there wasn't too much of a carnage there, at least.

That last glimpse we got of the Ship might have been its explosion. Wonder why that happened. It might have meant things weren't exactly as nominal as they seemed throughout the launch, separation, and second stage burn.

First stage RUD after separation! Pretty, though!

All engines shining in a pretty pattern like the LEDs in a flashlight. This might go as intended! But edit: My scrub prediction was wrong. I feel a little disappointed in the midst of all the elation

Hold at T-40. What does that mean, again?