sevenperforce

Wouldn't have helped either of the two LOCVs. For all the spectacular fireworks of rocket failures, most are actually fairly benign. Midair RUDs tend to be rapid deflagrations, not detonations, since the fuel-oxidizer mixture disperses far more rapidly than it can combust. When Proton-M (2013) and Antares hit the ground, of course, things got much more energetic. But that is why you need dedicated escape engines. Ultimately, both STS LOCVs resulted from fairly predictable problems. Strap-on booster failures happen. A large vehicle with a huge thermal-tile re-entry surface may well suffer a burn-through or other tile failure. But in both Challenger and Columbia, the actual problem was that the crew had no lifeboat. The cabin could not re-enter or land without the rest of the orbiter. There was no escape route. I'm more concerned about the 100th flight than the first flight. I really would like to see abort modes tested. That is all. Chutes, dammit, chutes! A gorram shame.

If your earliest abort mode was deemed too risky to even test, maybe you need a different abort mode. Not to divert discussion to SpaceX, given that this thread was born from that thread, but that's one thing that still bothers me a bit about the BFR design. The lack of a main-engine-independent abort mode doesn't seem wise even now, in a vehicle with ridiculously reliable engines, far better computer control, and multi-engine-out capability. How much moreso in the STS? STS failures were not a matter of if, but of when, and we lost two crews as a (predictable) result of it. Yet for the capabilities we thought we needed, it's true that there simply was no other way to do it at the time. Now, perhaps, we could talk about building a partially-reusable high-volume-cargo-capable crew vehicle with independent abort modes and independent re-entry modes that would make LOC virtually impossible, but that simply wasn't possible back then.

Outta likes. The Shuttle was dangerous as all hell. That's the one thing that stands out to me.

Was Energia ever test-fired?

SPACE CAAAAAMP I believe Elon stated their existing facilities can narrowly handle 9m tooling.

In order to perform cradle landings (which I think are a Musk design element which may in fact survive, given the enormity of strain on landing legs for a SHLV first stage), the BFR test prototype will need better translation authority in the final moments of landing. You cannot use gimbal for reliable translational control on landing, not when required accuracy is a matter of inches. This means RCS thruster banks on both the top and bottom of a test vehicle, so the main engines will likely be gimbal-locked during final landing approach and use only thrusters for attitude control and translation. You don't want a repeat of the Bulgariasat incident. The thrusters are intended to be hot methane+gox engines fed from the main ullage tanks, so that integrated design will need to be completed before full-up testing can commence. I anticipate the same fixed-leg approach as the Grasshopper, but with translation tests to maneuver those legs themselves into a cradle.

Even single-Raptor Grasshopper-style cradle landing tests would qualify as progress toward BFR.

And as Elon pointed out, the hold-down clamps are a touch important for the static fire. Otherwise you end up launching early. Re BFR: I see no indication at all of SSTO tests. The only reason for BFR speculation was the size of one of the new cranes there.

There you go.

No refueling for the entire tour. No staging, docking, splitting apart, or otherwise doing what you (and I) are so fond of. That's the point of the challenge: to create a vehicle capable of making sorties to a series of different worlds without any new resources before returning home to refuel.

While this is veering dangerously political, I would weigh in with the view that no matter how pacifist my tendencies generally are, I am happy with any and all missile defense systems.

Just a touch too large to fit inside the fairing, I believe.

The optics package for the megawatt laser on the 747YAL, which was made by Northrop Grumman, is small enough to fit inside a SpaceX fairing. A modern megawatt-class ICBM-buster would be perfect for DPRK deterrence.

I think some of the interest/curiosity is just because it's puzzling to imagine what, exactly, would have been classified enough for this amount of secrecy.

I think you owe me a new spot on the leaderboard...

Really quite unprecedented. And still, we have absolutely no indication of a failure. This may be off-topic...but what about an orbital hypersonic kill vehicle as a backup ICBM interceptor? The DoD likely anticipated DPRK's eventual fielding of a nuclear-capable ICBM well before the Zuma contract was first purchased by NG, and NG would be precisely the right contractor for creating something like this. A minimum-energy ballistic trajectory from the DPRK to the Continental US goes QUITE high, potentially enough time for a vehicle in a reverse Molinya orbit to adjust its trajectory to intercept during the re-entry phase, particularly if it had a good hypersonic glide ratio and plenty of crossrange ability. Or it could be an orbital anti-ICBM laser station. A Molinya orbit over DPRK would have line-of-sight to deliver a scorching laser blast to any ICBM, from boost phase right up to re-entry, and it would happen entirely outside of the atmosphere, making laser attenuation a thing of the past. Both of these would be more than hush-hush enough to make the X-37B seem unclassified by comparison. EDIT: In support of the latter possibility, Northrop Grumman DID supply the laser for the Boeing YAL-1.

Subcooled propellants are time-sensitive. Falcon 9s fuel load sequence is based on handling subcooled prop with specific timing; if the propellant warms or boils off, validation is out the window. In order to launch three Falcon 9s simultaneously, SpaceX has to fuel them simultaneously.

This was my first time at Jool:

It would be the first time for me to do a proper landing on Tylo and the other Joolian moons. I've done one or two Laythe missions but no Laythe returns.

That incident is what made me think of it.

Mun/Minmus can be done at the end, or anywhere in between, if you like. Sorry; by part mods I mean mods that affect flight. Modded engines, modded tanks, modded structures, etc. Parts that merely enable informational/piloting mods are fine.

Jeb left a sandwich on his go-cart, and a pigeon was snacking on the crumbs and accidentally pecked through a LOX loading line.

Still psyched.

If I use a launch system (lander/ISRU kid with dedicated orbital tug station), can I still get the SSTO bonus for launching the lander by itself?

Rocket science has all the intricacies, systematic dependencies, and precision of a professional pit crew, albeit without quite so much haste. So take any racing pit crew and tell them "okay, now instead of doing one car at a time, we're going to bolt three race cars in tandem, and you can change the tires and refuel all of them at once."