DDE

We never asked Bishop if he'd let it on board, did we?

Better than a private geyser.

Coincidentally or not,

There are some things rank can't buy. For everything else, there's Mastercard.

Minor promotion for the guys I've been perusing a lot.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/21/who-doesnt-read-books-in-america/ ...define "part of a book"?

They're like sausages. They burst.

Chrysler Miltibank - for when you haven't yet unlocked medium tank-sized engines

Three years ago I finally busted an umbrella bought in Seoul in 1989 at the latest. I was born in 1993.

https://thespacereview.com/article/3967/1

The Welbike. That wheel diameter tho

So long as you don't have to fly through Minsk to get there.

Chinese "private" space all over again

With the ridiculous density of marine traffic today, and the apparent ease of at least screwing around with AIS (e.g. warships declaring themselves pleasure craft or switching codes around, including, IIRC the suddenly famous HMS Defender broadcasting the codes of Queen Elizabeth as it passed through the Straits), is it possible to conduct merchant raiding via auxiliary cruisers in times of war (or casual corsairing)? Asking for a friend.

I don't like it. Which is why they kicked me out without giving me the jab. Also, there wasn't a queue at all.

Early Yersenia Pestris was much less virulent. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4644222/ (light reading before getting an S-V booster shot)

Look, the Indians still haven't gotten over that they were conquered by ancient Kazakhs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryanism Give Americans some slack.

It's almost as if a double-breasted tunic is just a double-breasted tunic, and not, in fact, a specific reference to an empire: Come on, the space Brit doesn't even have buttons!

The terminology is wholly inappropriate. This thing can be called a VTVL because of the manner it moves in, or a HLHL because of its orientation throughout said processes. Either way, it satsy V or H in both modes. Sort out the semantics before any further discussion; we're talking past each other. Aircraft-style horizontal landing on airless worlds (i.e. lithobraking against the runway) seems too ridiculous to wrap my head around. Because of that, it seems you use "horizontal landing" to refer to two absolutely different manners of takeoff and landing depending on whether the world is airless or not. Are we still talking about airless worlds? Ramps are an unnecessary wastage of dV when you can just climb upwards.

Oh. Oh no. Something far worse than Flankers has been sneaking into those Air Force posters:

I knew how this was gonna go. You knew how this was gonna go. Why are all those muppets on Twitter pretend there was a possibility of any other outcome?

Light crewed ship (PTK-M, Eaglet?) for the Angara SLV Light [crewed] Lunar landing and ascent ship (LVPK-M) for the Angara SLV Lunar freight landing ship (LGPK) for the Angara SLV KNA-L science package Crewed ship for the SHLV (PTK, Eagle/Oryol) Lunar landing and ascent ship for the SHLV (LVPK) Lunar construction rover (LS) Lunar base habitat module (OM-LB) Lunar base power module (EM-LB) Overall Russian Orbital Station (ROS) design A second ROS design with a free-flying module (ROS-SLM) Airlock module (ShM) to be delivered by a TGKM (Progress-derived tug) and a Soyuz SLV (?) Core module (BB) delivered by Soyuz-5 Transforming (inflatable) module (TM) delivered by another TGKM on a Soyuz Onboard centrifuge of small radius (TsKR), LV not specified Free-flying module (SLM) launched by a Soyuz Laboratory module (LM) launched by an Angara Universal node module (UUM) launched by a TGKM on an Angara (!) Shipyard module (SM) (!) also launched on a TGKM and an Angara Lunar EVA suit (LSk)

Roscosmos has just dropped an RFP for Project PASTORAL-2, a Lunar landing architecture specification. https://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ok504/view/documents.html?regNumber=0995000000221000062 Yay, more slides! I'll follow up with the list of components.

So you mix two very different dichotomies: aerodynamic lift vs all-rocket propulsion at landing, and tailsitters vs bellylanders. Thus your proposed dichotomy is false. The major disadvantage of a no-atmo HTHL, the need for two engines, can be further obviated once space assembly/significant reassembly becomes available: you can always fly like that: