tater

CST-100 now NET 5/21

It reverses into foes when it sees no route to survival... boom (Pinto). He's not rich enough to afford shooting .50 cal full auto the price of the truck is about 40 minutes of shooting at >$4 /rnd.

Use this, instead: (waiting to see who gets it) I get to drive a cybertruck in a few days I think, my friend gets his this week.

Probably need more than an n of 1 to figure out what regions/depths/angles result in the withdrawal of threads.

https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship_ksc SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy Project at Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A Project Updates Proposed Action The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as the lead Federal agency intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of issuing a commercial launch Vehicle Operator License to SpaceX for the Starship-Super Heavy launch vehicle at Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida. SpaceX proposes to construct launch, landing, and other associated infrastructure at and in proximity to LC-39A. The proposal would also include Starship-Super Heavy launches at LC-39A; recoverable Super Heavy booster and Starship landings at LC-39A or on a droneship; and expendable Super Heavy booster and Starship landings in the ocean. SpaceX must obtain a vehicle operator license from FAA for Starship-Super Heavy launch and landing operations. Issuing a vehicle operator license and approving airspace closures is considered a major Federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In consideration of SpaceX’s revised proposal, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and FAA have determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is the appropriate level of NEPA analysis to address the adjusted scope of Starship-Super Heavy at LC-39A. SpaceX will prepare the EIS under the supervision of the FAA which will serve as the lead agency at NASA’s request. While the 2019 EA prepared by NASA provides an analytical baseline, the environmental impacts of these proposed changes to Starship-Super Heavy LC-39A development and operations will be specifically analyzed in this EIS. The EIS will consider the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. The successful completion of the environmental review process does not guarantee that the FAA would issue a Vehicle Operator License. The project must also meet all FAA safety, risk, and indemnification requirements for the appropriate license. The above was updated Friday.

Yeah, I read some of the NASA pages on it, and got the sense broadly, but was interested in ballparking the mass of various useful components (the less useful stuff can always be radiation shielding, I guess ).

I'm looking for %s.

Any current sense of overall composition of Bennu? Was thinking about mining, and the % of useful elements.

Not naked eye for me just now (cleared). Course light pollution for something this faint in town, and with a mountain in the way is an issue.

Cloudy here in NM... maybe it clears later.

Yes and no. Yes, in that ICPS was always stupid and wasteful—in the name of "saving money" for the first uncrewed test flight, use an existing stage that required building a one-off piece of expensive GSE. No in that the math from Constellation was clear—any useful vehicle needed to be able to send 71t to TLI. Minus that, this vehicle was always stupid.

This should have been done ages ago.

I think it's deeply concerning that they don't understand what's causing the spalling.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190001310/downloads/20190001310.pdf Old article about improvements after EFT-1.

?

live

And it is moved an hour later.

Given the lack of airlock/cargo bay/arm, they might need an EMU as well. Course that would have to be in the trunk?

It's like the goons who think this is somehow about making money, or sending rich people to Mars. It's all in service to colonizing Mars. Which again, I'm not against, but not "for," either (min understanding for me would be to first establish that 0.38g is congruent with long term human wellbeing, or it's a nonstarter).