kerbiloid

Iirc, the chute landing was also forced by NASA.

So, that's why I'm sure that SLS will have a higher priority anyway, regardless of what's better for space flights. Also, SLS has another significant advantage. Its SRB can be strapped to any other central core. So, it allows to develop a new rocket not from scratch. I reminded NASA requirements. If SpaceX launches people on their own risk, that's their deal.

[snip] If you read my posts, they are first of all about having the ICBM production self-sustainable. [snip] I'm just sure that any military application will be at the very first place.

My post which has started the "discussion". Where do you see SpaceX? Starship? Russians? Angara? R-7? I haven't mentioned any of that in any word. Yes, I'm sure that the US authorities will take care about the military applications first of all, like everyone did. Because ICBM/SLBM are a necessary condition to have the starships, newglenns, and other joy. [snip]

And that's why I believe the lunar mines will be ready long before the lunar miners. Just to prevent claiming too much.

Why, when a used Falcon is as reliable as a new one? The talk is about the reusable stage 1. The expendable stage 2 just spends a reusable engine as expendable every flight. Brilliant words. The SRB production needs the same, and is more important than Martian colonies. about Red Dragon, Colonial Transporter, ISRU methane, one-way Martian trip, and a megaton of other hype nonsense. Currently they have a half-Proton rocket with reusable first stage of unclear efficiency of reusability and a single-use crewed spaceship which can be used several times more as a cargo box. We don't see them messing with other parts, because they let us see them messing with legs. "We repaired the rocket engine just a little, don't bother with it." Do they crawl inside with a wrench and a n Xray-scope? Or the unmount the engines one by one, like it would be normally done? For example the airplane engines hang down from the wings and are available for servicing from 360° without unmounting. (Well, on B-52 probably from 240°, as they are paired). [snip] Russia has performed several times more launches and cargo traffic on other rockets than Soyuz, if you aren't aware of. Soyuz is a "it works, don't repair". Both Angara's URM-1 and URM-2 work, but until ISS has gone and a new orbital station or lunar missions get required, it has not so many objectives to launch it more often. Engines are from 80s, not from 50s, and it's funny that American buy them for kerolox rockets, after having built Saturn. Though, I can't see how can the Russian rockets relate to the topic of which boosters prefer in US. [snip]

"A nuke always hits the GZ".

The tilted thing which exploded in Starships. A part, whose characteristics are matching the requirements allowing it to survive till the next planned check, isn't replaced. A part with characteristics outside of appropriate range, is sorted out and replaced. First of all, these things are called "acoustic defectoscopy". The X-rays are usually applied later, Secondly, I would like to watch how you are checking the engine assembly with X-rays without disassembling it. Not that much place to crawl into with the equipment. Thirdly, most of defects are not defects of the seals where the X-rays can help. Fourthly, it's a heap of metal, when X-ray can show you just a small part of the problems lying outside. I would like to watch how you are applying endoscopes to see invisible defects of the metal structure. If they don't use the trucks for moving cargo, the trucks are excessive. Or they just keep the obsolete trucks, but that's obviously not about Falcons. That doesn't matter. We don't know if Raptors have another pattern. N1 at least took off four times. (Well, two...) All numbers and calculations which aI have provided, have been explained. Nothing like that from the opponents. Why do they not use several boosters for their lifespan, building more instead? Why pauses between the same instance flights? Pictures are nice, but cost nothing. They are not necessarily shot in actual worktime. Especially by such hype-oriented company like SpaceX. Also how does a disassembled rocket look like? Heap of metal? Or just a rocket with one engine temporarily unmounted?

Also they teach to look at the object from side, not in "exploded" by the photocamera focus view.

They teach to look at photo and see what's actually assembled, instead of inventing how to pack circles.

"I should better use MechJeb..."

"Hey, all! Look, it's our ISRU methane plant to return home! Wait... The tank is empty?! What's that?! A hole??? "

Grogu The Frog Eater, a yodeling. Trained by the Mandalorian and Gina Carano.

Mechanical properties of the lunar regolith are similar to wet snow... And there is ice for hockey...

Several releases ago we could just walk him into a hill and leave underground.

"We have just stopped here, not parked."

Also there are other good traditions and practices to be adopted from the sea laws.

Let him fill the flight docs.

"Well, at least we have landed exactly on the centre of the crater. Created by our engines..."

The situation is just undefined. The treaty was developed when both parties got ensured that any extraterrestrial outpost won't become real in observable future, so it just freezes the situation and postpones the practical solution. P.S. My personal guess, they will just apply the terrestrial maritime laws on the lunar seas, and establish 12 miles or so.

Kraken krakers

Gas Giant

A brief summary of the treaty

Here is a billabong aside, named after it. Cowabunga Billabong Cookie. (I just find the word "billabong" funny, and first heard it from the Red Billabong B-movie)

Banned everyone who hasn't brought a one more version.