JoeSchmuckatelli

I get that - but you still don't get away from the need to have a 36,000 km long cable ready to go. What I remember from the past discussion was that building out from GEO towards the earth wasn't really a viable option. However this 'leverage from center' thing could do it... I guess. From what I remember, however, is that @kerbiloid pointed out that to succeed the 'cable' needed to be relatively rigid... and yet at that length any structure effectively becomes a cable anyway.... which then defeats the effort. Any harmonics at all will cause the end to whip.

That's kind of the key, here, isn't it. SX showcased an independent effort to develop their own ship - and looks to be moving forward in a way that demonstrates likely success. If they're able to make SS/SH work to do their own (SX) thing... repurposing a single SS (or specifically building a SS to meet contractual requirements) is easy (relatively). Like saying 'a station wagon is great - but I want easier access to the cargo area' and you end up with... The El Camino

Snark. Congress does have to abide by the contract terms... but usually there are exit clauses.

Reading your post... Here's what I envision you are saying: To do this, you need a cable in GeoStationary Orbit that's approximately 69,580 km long, with a large weight in the center - with the length of the cable stretched out 'perpendicular' to the surface at 35,790 km altitude (GSO). Then you simultaneously lift one end and drop the other so that the COM remains at 35,790 km... allowing one end to touch the planet and the 'counterweight' part of the cable to extend into space to a final altitude of 69,580km from mean sea level. Is that correct?

Relevant to the topic of 'showcasing failure to demonstrate why success is amazing': Watch these humanoid robots fall flat on their faces (cnn.com)

Right - and that it might have to extend out from GEO just as the cable was being dropped toward the planet for both weight and leverage; which seems both absurd and impossible.

If not sealed - the scope of the agreed order can be found in the filings. However I remember seeing that the case is, to some degree, under seal. The agreed order will set out the terms. So likely - anything related to the actual work on the lander would be under the stoppage order. I don't think that's going to extend to a prototype 'do everything' rocket - but it would to something like a full-scale mockup, or landing legs or anything directly related to the award/contract.

I explored this on these threads a couple of months ago (*don't know how well the search function works - but you could find many of the excellent responses). I came away with the sense that Space Elevators are a fantasy by people who really don't know how orbital mechanics work. (Even though some really smart guys have tried to figure this out - and may justify it...) AKA just not feasible. EDIT: New Q When using cryogenic fuels, the sides of rockets ice up: I'm presuming via condensation from the air. How thick can this ice get?

But it seems directly related to the case - an agreed order giving BO what they might have gotten a friendly judge to issue (but with less onerous terms), in exchange for an agreement to expedite the process. Having worked in the field - there are many things a clever attorney can do to assist a client who wants to drag something out or delay something until circumstances change (like until they can get their pocket legislator kicked into action or the other guy runs out of money). Thus the agreed order... Each side gets a little of what they want

Nothing for nothing... But hasn't Boeing had some other high profile software problems recently? ... @Beccab I think you are putting the cart before the horse. The E-Astronaut video - which is an unprecedented behind the scenes tour - only happens because SX was forced to learn how to play to the cameras. This - were it not for the uncontrollable outside videos... There is no reason for SX to put out their own. They'd be like every other company in that regard - mostly because they are in the business of building rockets, not entertaining us. But because of the folks I referenced - they adapted... And it's working in their favor. I remember what watching this (and related) industry was like 40 years ago. If you were lucky you would get a glossy, staged photo of a satellite TRW was working on, or a gorgeous cut-away of turbines and rocket engines from Boeing, or Lockheed or an infographic about actuators from Signal - which you could keep and show your friends. You got these from trade shows. You knew most of the big companies' names, some of what they did and kind of liked them. But you did not 'root' for them. (well, unless you held stock). There wasn't anything to watch. Everything was behind closed doors until it was released. Now we get to see quite a bit... And you have fans. That's new.

Why does my microwave have an all-metal interior (and heating coils) but it does not get exciting until I accidentally leave a fork, or some foil in it?

There are quite a few discussions about this in both the BO and SX threads. Enjoy!

Edit - I'll add this - having just read @CatastrophicFailure's post above mine... I think he nails it. Beyond being normally secretive about production... The other companies have publicly showcased less than stellar results. That's hard for any company. What's different about this last year or so is how public this has become... and with some of these companies the public has very little to go on between announcement and demonstration to build good will in this spectator market. Then we get all excited to see something only to get an 'oof.'

@mikegarrison - what I think you are reacting to is the inadvertent PR success and spectacle that SX has become. Were it not for BocaChicaGal and NASASpaceflight et.al.'s ability to capture and transmit so much uncontrolled content - SX would be very typical in hiding what they're doing and offering vague, filtered and PR' d commentary on their progress... Just like everyone else. SX even tried (foolishly) to shut down the feed before they learned to just play for the cameras. And it's this spectacle that is not only entertaining but endearing SX to the wider public. They did not plan this - they stumbled into it. I don't know if anyone could recreate the success - but if you go back to this time last year - I don't think you see such a disconnect between the SX fans and the perception of the other space launch developers. Being able to watch the rocket being built tends to allow people to feel connected to the progress and really root for the success. Seeing the raw steel (instead of a fancily painted craft) silently speaks to it being a test article - and so people are willing to forgive the failures. This latest round of bitterness towards BO is not related to that - the lawsuit is doing them no favors in the PR space... But prior to that BO was guilty of overpromising and underperforming. Even that could be excused to the fickle public by a little humility and communication. We know Rocket Science isn't for wimps.

I think odds are maybe 50/50 of the ship making it through the plasma. From what I've read the hull steel is thicker than most - and we all know about space junk that's survived reentry intact enough to leave a dent in the dirt. If that happens - I'd again give them odds on engine start (presumes it is autonomous / doesn't need a radio command to initiate the landing attempt).. But I'm confident (after reading the stuff about changing the front flaps) that it will splash hard rather than hoover. My hope is that they have some way of filming the end of the reentry (and they share it).

So... Apparently Russia is getting ready to test their nuclear powered cruise missile again. How do these things work? Are they atmosphere limited - or could the technology be upscaled for orbital launches?

Was gonna say - looks like the ship that WOT guy built

Something weird going on in forum - I keep getting random stuff Like that was not supposed to happen. ... Okay - what I wanted to ask... With these changes... Do you scrap 20 and fly a different iteration - or toss the wrong designed but built one at the sky to entertain those who think 420 is hilarious?

Dadgummit tater already replied

I'm gonna get together with @taterand stream the ESA purple neon animated whatever nonsense it is they're putting out during the show. In stereo Because Covid isn't bad enough

@sevenperforce " kind of like saying that if you take all airbags out of cars, you won't have MORE accidents, but you will have more DEADLY accidents" Well stated!

I'm well known to be 'not a math guy' but I'm pretty sure that counts as 'a significant percentage'. That doesn't bode well for rapid reuse

Yeah - but Bezos has lots of land and no little twuttles that might want to nest there. I get it - just spitballing potential concerns based on the environmental review.

Typo or time travel? (From the link) Knowledge gained from the first flight on October 13, 2021 informed a series of critical improvements to further the capabilities of the Navigation Doppler Lidar and the Descent Landing Computer, which would work together to determine a spacecraft’s location and speed as it approaches the surface of the Moon