DDE

The whole reaction just stinks so much I'm inclined to buy the official Chinese version wholesale.

Oh dear, India isn't alone with utterly unoriginal rocket names.

Ha-ha, documents furnace goes brrrr https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39537/the-air-force-needs-to-reverse-engineer-parts-of-its-own-stealth-bomber

When you haven't even counted the lost at Dunkirk so you make stuff up

Yeah, the media attention has been going on for a while. From what I understand, because methane in the EU comes primarily from farming (at least, under the existing inventory rules) and farming isn't covered under "cap and trade", EU has a far less sophisticated and comprehensive approach to methane.

Well, probably yes, but it wouldn't be easy. Helium is favored because it's immune to neutron activation, but it would consistently pick up the molten fuel and deposit it down the cooling tract. Unless you physically separate the two, which would incur an efficiency loss. I find it quite notable that neither Afrikantov nor Hydropress/Dolezhal are giving molten salts the time of day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ5iHFSdAU4&t=1h06m49s

Yet more arrests around Vostichnyi, this time for a kickback as recent as last year. https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5040349 Contractor who reported the kickback is already in jail on a different charge. OprahWinfrey.jpg

"So, Dune's coming out, and we must something together. We urgently need a hose from a vacuum. Put some whiskers inside as teeth, and slap some plasticine on it." PrAcTiCaL eFfEcTs

A confounding factor is the cost of shipping in fossil fuel. It's the reason the US military and Russian towns in the Arctic are looking at miniature nuclear that wouldn't make sense in a more on-the-grid locale.

It's a gratuitous combination. FOBS was considered because the US had a geographically constrained early warning (and hence antimissile) network. Russia has a more comprehensive, denser network, and China AFAIK is only making baby steps towards one. https://russianforces.org/blog/2018/09/evolution_of_the_russian_early.shtml FOBS is designed to exploit such weaknesses, whereas HGVs, frankly, are best used in a head-on breach of such a missile shield. Combining the two has limited utility. Similarly, it seems HGVs cost payload mass that could go into more nukes. I guess it's the major rationale for the GBSD, which doesn't really have to deal with missile defense; depressed trajectories enabled by HGVs can be emulated by forward-deployed SSBNs with nu-Tridents.

No.

You're not entirely wrong. Similar questions were raised when assessing orbital placement for M-X Peacekeeper. However, you are wrong because you start with a false premise: FOBS isn't about staying in orbit, it's about using an orbital trajectory to achieve range beyond that of a ballistic missile, and thus approach the target from an unexpected angle not covered by extant missile defences.

Well, considering how many Saudis self-reported as atheists, a capital crime, in a mere 'cold call' survey, you may encounter surprising consequences. Behold! A foreign agent. https://www.levada.ru/2020/02/27/istochniki-novostej-i-doverie-smi/ "Merely" 52% trust the TV, which is particularly state-dominated.

To be fair, way back when the US decided internally that FOBS isn't treaty-violating. Also, dibs.

More importantly, it's unusual to test a deterrent capability in a way that goes (at least initially) unnoticed by the people you're trying to deter. Let's keep an eye out for the official Chinese reaction.

And now for a stunning reversal!

Frankly, this sounds like a crock of excrements, "anonymous sauces" likely mixing hydrosonics and FOBS for scaremongering galore. Some sort of a skipping arrangement is possible, but calling is hypersonic is... hype. Are we sure it's not a misinterpreted unammmed shuttle crash? A fair question: where's the entire US early warning network at? I know SSAS needs a full orbit to come up with TLIs, but you'd think the entire flight track would be visible on IR. Anyway,

OK, so we're looking at Rocketlabs Rutherford engine. You're getting close enough. You're badly missing an injector and an ignition system. The blue thing is the hydraulic actuator for the gimbal, it's not strictly necessary and you need a source of hydraulic fluid (e.g. the fuel). Then you've got a myriad of sensors; I've actually chatted with those guys in an AMA and they told that full propellant utilization and mixture ratio control are a big reason why they use electric motors. I'm also gonna guess that you need to cool the motors as well. Don't have a flow diagram for that engine handy, though. What I've learnt from 700 pages of Sutton is that engines are getting simpper and simpler. The staged combustion cycle isn't without its flaws, and we've seen the abandonment of separate fuels for the gas generator (e.g. peroxide on R-7/Soyuz), of separate lubricant tanks and lubricant pumps, of gearcases between GGs and pumps, of solid-propellant start-up cartridges and separate engine start-up turbines.

I think I've just found a newsbite from a year ago that is of exceptional importance. https://www.rbc.ru/newspaper/2020/10/05/5f75be959a79477fa895076e Apparently until the 2021 budget Roscosmos had to pass on every penny from NASA and commercial flyers directly into the federal budget. This is the first year when they're allowed to hang onto that money. That's really different from all the "Roscosmos only existed thanks to NASA seat fares" rhetoric I keep hearing. The corporation was also supposed to brace for a significant budget cut in 2022. Dunno what it looks like in the actual 2022 budget developed this year, though.

A simplistic explanation is that Soyuz-2.1b and Soyuz-2.1v can be launched from Plesetsk, which is all-military. I'm also not sure if military QA is carried out on all production at Progress and Khrunichev/Polyot by default, therefore requiring a Space Troops index (GUKOS took over indexing space hardware from GRAU long ago... each branch actually had its own index system and authority). Using several years of active posting on r/space as a more representative sample, I believe that the intersection between "militarists" (military buffs?) and "space fans" is fairly rare. This is perhaps best indicated by how many people believe the Outer Space Treaty bans all weapons in space, or that the US ASAT missile was the first ASAT. I believe that there are several clusters of knowledge (e.g. classic Earth-based warfare centered on guns and tanks, planetology and exoplanetology, and current or near-future spaceflight with realistic physics) that most people have trouble integrating. Heck, it's rare for "militarists" to have a comprehensive interest outside a particular domain (air, land, sea) or era. This sounds a bit self-gratifying, but I am well aware I know only "a little bit of everything" and just don't feel like diving deep into the quantitative nitty-gritty.

https://www-kommersant-ru.translate.goog/doc/3821890?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=nui I don't think we should broach the topic any further. All I can say is that I've trained Yandex to pepper me with truly fascinating Kommersant History articles like this one.

Well, to be fair, until this or Nudol aren't confirmed to be road-mobile (and the one claim of spotting Nudol TELs "in the wild" at Plesetsk has been withdrawn as tanker truck) they'd constitute a part of the Soviet treaty allowance for a single emplaced ABM array. Russia's still sort of complies with the treaty, since A-235 will still be centered around Moscow, and the various tactical ABM systems like the S-300V (and therefore the S-500) don't count. Dedicated counterspace use of these exoatmospheric ABMs isn't immediately obvious. Could be they're just concerned with silo vulnerability - one of the 53T6 batteries can be seen from the parking lot of a hardware store and is surrounded by dachas on all other sides, that's not exactly good physical security, let alone opsec.