Cuky

It is not about going to the Moon, that has already been done half a century ago. It is about going to the Moon again and again and again and staying there and doing work or going for q nice spa day under the starry sky. And that won't happen if we just do what Apollo did.

According to Wikipedia it had one partial failure in 100 launches. And that is still as many lunches in 22 years as Falcon does in like 13-14 months I just hooe that this failure won't cause too long of a delay for them

But there is an elephant in the room: how do you fit astronauts in Boeing suits inside SpaceX seats and even more, how do you connect them to life support because I don't think umbilical found in Crew Dragon would be able to connect anywhere on Boeing suit.

I thinknhe is referring to troubkes around KSP2 and if this forum will survive all that. I myself really hooe it does. I don't post here often, but I do visit muktiple times a day for spaceflightand science news mostly.

So far I haven't seen them taking just any willing person from the street to the program. All of them are highly educated and some have engineering experience. Before 1st manned Skylab mission 2 of 3 crew members were never in space before and no one of them 3 did any repair work on space station. But engineers worked out the plan for how to fix the problems with station, wrote down the procedures and designed parts and tools and then got the crew into training to practice for what they have to do. I really don't see any reason why civilian crew couldn't be trained in 1-3 months to perform repair work on a satellite in orbit. Or do people really think that hey would just hop on board Dragon and yolo it without any training?

We might say they did a full duration test stand disassembly fire?

Yes, and unlike some other companies and agencies that take decades to design stuff before they are reasonably sure that it will work Spacex will try it and if it works they'll keep it and perfect the design and procedures and if it doesn't then they'll do something else. Same with F9 landings. Everyone laughed at them, told the media that it wasn't possible. Then SpaceX got close, made some modifications. Again got close and did some changes to the design. And after the few attempts they made it. Then they had few mishaps, but with experience they perfected it to the point that booster recovery is now almost a given. Also "SpaceX needa a true chief engineer"... I guess they lucked to success without one then?

If Dreamchaser proves to be capable of rapid reuse and then they combine it with a reusable launcher then we will finally get what Shuttle was supposed to be - a rapidly reusable human acces to space. Eventually working in tandem with Starship and New Glenn as heavy cargo launchers we could. finally have what was envisioned in 70s before all the compromises came into Shuttle program to accomodate different interests from those footing the bill. Better late than never I guess

If test parameters are "Start all 6 engines, keep them on for 10s and then shut down and have no problems during all of that" and they burn for those 10s that means that full duration of the test was performed. How is that so hard to grasp for so many static fires and pages of this thread is beyond me really. All engines are tested before they get to be mounted on SH or SS and what those static burns are are basically checks to see that all the plumbing, wiring etc. was done correctly. Same as F9, they raise it vertical on launch pad, test fire for few seconds to see that everything is in spec and prepare for launch.

they could, but that beats the goal of rapid reuse. Parachutes need to either be repacked after landing which takes quite a bit of time. Since it would probably include removing them from the vehicle to repack they could switch them up for already pre-packed ones. But that again adds complexity and failure mode to the vehicle. On the other hand it could include some that are used higher up and then jettisoned. But then they have failed in making a fully reusable vehicle since they throw parachutes away. As for bruteforcing the landing, I guess they are searching for limits of control so that they can design the system that can precisely place the booster in a place for chopsticks to catch it.

Great, more competition = more pushing for developing needed technologies = faster progress. But on the other side, Boeing can't reliably get astronauts into LEO, yet they think of being first to Mars

My feeling is that mishap isn't because of braking up during re-entry but rather because of problems they had with controling both the booater and the ship. I may be wtong but I understood that goal of this flight was to get to orbital speed, test control of booater when returning, show that they cen transfer fuel internaly on the ship, test the control of a ship a d re-enter the atmosphere with hipefully not breaking up. Both booster and shio had problems with control and mishap investigation will probably look into reasons behind that.

As a launch vehicle it is undoubtedly outdated. As a tool to keep jobs for people and votes for politicians it is not good, it is brilliant.

Whilst I agree with most of your post this is the part that I don't. Whilst yes, with some different design choices, they could have done what they did in Apollo that wouldn't make much sense tbh. Back then the goal was to get to the Moon and return back and do it before Soviets do it. Now the goal is not to just go to the Moon and come back, the goal is to go to the Moon, stay there for longer period of time and when the crew comes back different crew can take over from where they left. It is not about going to the Moon, it is about staying on the moon. And Apollo, or any vehicle/program designed as a modern version of Apollo wouldn't be able to pull that off. Also, if I am not mistaken Orion itself is one big confused spacecraft which can't decide what it wants to be. It was designed to fly astronauts to the Moon, but also as a transportation to the ISS and possibly other stations. I think I have also seen some plans to use it for Mars missions as well where astronauts would get into LEO on Orion, dock with big Mars vessel in which they would be for the duration of the flight. Orion would stay as a life boat and go to the Mars and back and then return crew to the Earth once they come back. And as fighter planes have shown, trying to make one design to be at the top of the game in many different aspects results in a compromised design that is good enough at everything but is mastering nothing and is usually much more expensive.

This is the first launch since they started streaming exclusively on X that I did not forget to watch. Launch went well as usual, recovery as well. But I am super disappointed by the stream. When they were on YouTube it was always nice and crisp in full screen no matter where I was watching (smartphone, 1440p PC monitor or 4K TV). On X it looked as if the stream was in 480p or 720p at max and it really felt as a step back in comparison to my previous experiences.

I may be wrong but they aren't doing full flight full thrust static fires for Falcon 9 either.

You are comparing still in development rocket engine with the one that has been in developing and flying (not competely without a glitch) since 1960s. Merlin engines as well didn't work flawlessly but soacex improved on design until it got to the point that they are now where they more often scrub the launch or loose a booster due to bad weather for recovery than because of. technical issues. I guess this SpaceX program has the same opposition as it was for when they were choosen for crew transport to ISS... it is best left to do for big government contractors because there is not place for a private company to develop the tools and know how. I think most still can't wrap their heads around someone willing to spend money building stuff and testing until failure i stead of running simulations for years without any tangible hardware to be seen. And that is then more fueled by smears against Elon that mainstream media is pushing around

Lately I am actively browsing only through the Science sub so that is where I have noticed it. A bit of briwsing that I did through KSP 1 and 2 modding sub didn't have any problems, but it was too small of a sample to really make a good judgement on it

I have a problem on. mobile where the page loads, but pics and links (nost notably X) don't. Then after few seconds the whole page just goes blank white and I have to refresh. On PC I haven't had anny issues. Both on my PC and Android I use the latest available version of Firefox

Christmas eve LES test went (totally not) as planned so instead we informed the media about the big fireworks we've had at Kerbal Space Center

Sadly no. Even starlink today I just happened to be outside at the time they were passing above. The problem I have is that it mostly passes far out of sight and is only visible for few seconds so I don't even try. But now that you asked me I went to check and on December 20th it should pass above just 100-150km north from where I am located and should be visible for around 5 minutes so I might go looking for it if I don't forget

A bit under 3h ago was the first time that I have seen Starlink satellites passing above my island and those weren't as bright as I actually expected. If they didn't move in a perfect line one after the other one could easily mistake them for a star or a plane. But it was nice finally experiencing seeing something man made with my naked eyes in the night sky

I didn't know they launched for 250 times already, let alone landed that many times. Just wow!