.50calBMG

Didn't see this posted yet, C-bass does it again. Even though I am an admittedly harsh critic of SLS, I must admit it is a bit awesome finally seeing it put together.

Spacescifi threads... Always the same titles

Don't know why you needed that extra word at the end, could have stopped at the ellipsis. Blue made some good power points back when I was in high school 7 years ago, but so did virgin, and virgin doesn't parade around acting like they are the best and sueing people if they say otherwise... Or was that the Russians?

You can't call something safer and more reliable if the thing you are comparing it to has never been tried before. And before it gets said that starship has crashed more times than it landed successfully, so did falcon 9 until it didn't, so did airplanes before they didn't. As for leaving the Earth's SOI, that's literally what it is being built to do. Just because it hasn't done it yet doesn't mean it never will. Any plane that gets built sits a bit before it flies for the first time, but it always ends up doing exactly that.

As for something realistic (or at least as realistic as this thread can be), and now that JWST is basically ready, I'd love another cassini style mission around Saturn, but with a longer stay for the lander, or multiple landers on Titan. Otherwise, the Apollo applications program had some pretty cool ideas.

Well, Gamma is certainly one of the prettier SSTOs I've seen. Guess I know what I'm doing when I get off work today.

Flip and burn from the falcon heavy side boosters when they have an RTLS landing. All that complex choreography between them and the core, plus the exhaust plume interaction afterward.

I agree with this, dragon doesn't do anything to get to orbit, just like Starliner, it just seems to actually do its job correctly when it gets there.

I understand it is oft-2, but the actual flight test was so long ago it may as well have not happened, and this one is failing before it even gets off the ground. They are somehow making the capsule perform worse the second time. Besides, the first one was such a spectacular failure that I'm frankly amazed it landed in one piece. The only other time it flew before that, it didn't, so I'm amazed they didn't do more integrated ground testing to fix these issues before they got mounted to the rocket. Iirc, they not only had the issues with the clock, star trackers, TDRS connections, and ground station connections, but they also had multiple thrusters that outright failed. And before the SpaceX fanboy accusations come through, yes, I am aware of the dragon failures, the falcon 9 failures, and starship failures. I am not turning a blind eye to those. CRS-7 and whatever sat blew up during the pad tests should never have happened, but it is irksome to me that SpaceX gets vilified for trying something new that no human has ever done before and having a mishap, while other companies can do nothing but repeat old designs and be given different, often preferential treatment when something goes wrong. Also, I don't really count oft-1 as a flight test any more than anyone says any of the starship hop tests weren't flight tests. Oft-1 made orbit, sure, but it was so close to orbit when it started you could get away with calling that an accident, and it had nothing to do with getting there, Atlas did all the heavy lifting. If people can move goalposts against SpaceX, then we can move them against Boeing as well.

The prerequisite for a flight test is that it actually flies first...

Yes, those were all military, and they were all cryo. Anyway, before this gets any more off topic... Starliner no workey again

I never said anything about fuel, but Soyuz is cryo too. Zenit was designed from the boosters on Energia, which was a military project.

Don't forget the military heritage Soyuz and Zenit have, though. As far as rockets go, they are built like tanks. If you have a rocket that can launch from Baikonur and Kourou with minimal modification, you have a good rocket. Soyuz can launch in just about any kind of weather and be fine.

But all the extra money they got to test parts individually and qualify before flight (and be ready before Dragon), was used for QC. It's very reminiscent of the N1 now that I think about it. They pass the tests on the ground, but once the pieces are integrated, they fail spectacularly.

At least Boeing can't duplicate the SpaceX failure. Can't have a post flight failure if you can't fly.

It was a test outside the normal operational parameters that ended in failure. Starliner breaks before they can even test it.

Wow, a test to destruction ended in destruction, who could have guessed? They have since redesigned the propulsion system, and flown how many operational missions? Meanwhile, Boeing stretched the definition of success on their pad abort when one of the engines cut off early and a parachute fell off. Then they called OFT-1 a success because it landed in one piece, and now they can't even launch a second flight that shouldn't have even been needed because of something that frankly should have been caught by now. There's something to be said about goalposts being moved and such, but Boeing is moving their goalposts in the opposite direction. They managed to go from a "mostly good" pad abort, to a failed orbital mission, to can't even launch.

You would think that after failing their first flight, Boeing would have gone over every line of code on that thing with a fine tooth comb. It's pretty amazing.

That's not ideal. It's a shame too, the electron was such an interesting little rocket.

Just had a dream a few nights ago that reminded me of this thread. Actually thought of this thread in the dream, so I guess I'm on this forum too much. I had my phone and was trying to text someone. I was interacting with it more or less normally, but kept making mistakes like the calibration was off on the touch screen. I would try and type in an e and an a would come up. I would have to make three or four attempts before I got the right letter, but it only happened once every few sentences. Finally I just said screw it and then the dream changed. That usually is what ends up happening to me whenever I do something like that, but if I try something more complex like fly a jet or something (I play a decent amount of DCS World), I have no issues.

Can't stay somewhere you've never been.

The Zenit has been a pretty reliable launcher AFAIK, so nothing really wrong with modernizing it a la Soyuz. Then again, claiming it as a next generation rocket seems a bit dubious. Kinda like saying Iran's Saeqeh is a completely new plane. Everyone knows they are lying, but its good for PR.

Wow, that's incredibly bad.

Currently operational: Falcon heavy, because "holy flying f___!" Retired: Delta II & III, something about the boosters just made them both look awesome. Also Titan IV, most elegant looking monster rocket ever made. Planned: SS+SH, because absolutely groundbreaking.

He said he would go to Mars iirc, just not on the first flight. Also, NS has been flying for what feels like 6 years now? It's been proven to be safe. That said, even with that head start I think a full stack SS+SH will have more flights by the end of the year than NS.