Ultimate Steve

On mobile, picture weird, but we were in the area so we paid a visit to the old mk2!

Hopefully not something requiring a restart, but the SN1 tank has partially buckled.

The SN1 section is being lifted again!

Update, they put the part of SN1 back down, they may try again later

Unrelated to the most recent launch, but right now they are stacking two large pieces of SN1.

I recall seeing something like that pop off on an earlier launch. Don't remember which one though.

CRS-16 was a RTLS landing, so they will have ground video. Likely no other cameras for this mission besides something on a support vessel. Onboard video depends on if they maintained a data link to the booster or if it is intact enough to recover the storage. Update - the rocket landed softly next to the ship

Despite the altered trajectory, we still don't get full video of the deploy.

Wait when was that?

Landing failure.

Niiice! I might have to get back into this! The main things stopping me are a lack of free time and the fact that my internet is not good enough for livestreaming, sadly, so there is a bit of editing burden. Congratulations on taking the record! I did have one 6:something run but I didn't upload it because I didn't want to go through the effort, but IIRC it was closer to 7 hours than 6 hours so you likely have the record, and definitely have the official record. I might need to get back into this sometime!

It's unlikely and it would inconvenience a lot of other people but I kinda hope its postponed until the 20th or 21st because I will be down in Florida at that time. That's quite a long time for it to be delayed, though. I don't think there are any other launches that could be in that timeframe.

Sn1 hardware update, a bit more has likely been done in the last few hours since this was made. On the nsf thread they say that they may try mating one of the tanks within a few hours.

Summary: 25bn overall up ~2.5bn from last year 3.4bn for human lander systems 700m for lunar surface activities Some more for Mars stuff Delays Block 1B as it is "not needed to support lunar landings" No funding for STEM engagement No funding for WFIRST A few Earth science missions are cancelled Proposes launching Europa Clipper on a commercial launch vehicle instead of SLS, saving 1.5 billion dollars (their words not mine). A bunch of other stuff but these are much of the major things Remember, it still has to pass through the senate, and IIRC the same cuts were proposed last year and they reversed them so they will likely reverse them again, although this may come at the expense of something else. All in all I think this bill is good, and it is good news for lunar exploration but unfortunately at the expense of Earth science and outreach.

Yeah. My greatest fear for the Artemis/SLS/Orion program is a major failure. If Artemis 1 fails catastrophically, it would mean massive delays if not a cancellation of the program.

Yes, those were pretty much the takeaways with some variance to the ideal based on what the mission goals are. Option bullet point: True, although the stresses on the lander design can be very severe. Option 1: Yes, although I would like to say that Orion probably doesn't need much modification for this, the lowly ELO calculations were done with Orion's current Delta-V, although thermal stress might change. IDK how bad the stationkeeping would be in this orbit, but another option could be to build the Gateway here, avoiding the Delta-V penalty taken to stopover in NRHO, while retaining most of the advantages of Gateway. Will probably need a relay though. Option 2: As you point out below this would kill momentum and is not really a good idea. A better option if getting to LLO is important may be extending just the service module (quite a bit of work but not as much as scrapping Orion and starting fresh, and this option is being proposed IRL I believe), or carrying a small dockable tug module with the fuel to push Orion to LLO as co-manifested cargo on the SLS launch. Not sure if Block 1 can handle this but B1B will almost certainly be able to. There are several existing tugs to choose from, although they would have to be modified for the job (mostly certification, BLEO power and comms (not much of an issue for tugs designed to operate at geostationary altitudes), and adding a docking port), and many of them are Russian, which isn't unfortunate from an engineering perspective but is unfortunate from a political perspective. It would be much less work compared to scrapping Orion but it may not be worth it compared to LELO operations as the hit on the lander is comparatively minor from LELO compared to NRHO. A bonus of going all the way to LLO, specifically the 86 degree inclination frozen lunar orbit would require far lower station-keeping Delta-V than HELO or LELO although more than NRHO, which would be good if we decided to put Gateway in LLO. It would mean more work to get Gateway modules there, but less work for the lander. It would also allow for lander reusability which was one of the main problems with HELO LELO and LLO proposals without a Gateway. Due to lower Delta-V requirements, it would also be easier to do a single stage lander from here than from any other orbit, which, in the far future could be refueled from the surface. This option is, however, not ideal if Gateway is supposed to be an assembly point for Mars vehicles in addition to a place to stage lunar landings. It would be lander optimized but not Mars optimized, although in many respects NRHO is definitely far from Mars optimized too. True, this is a major disadvantage. There is no question that FH could be man-rated, the same for New Glenn, but it would result in a delay of at least a decade. And if we were going to do that, then we would likely scrap Orion in it's current form and rebuild that with a LLO capability, and also scrap SLS altogether in favour of FH and NG. So $Billions in development costs wasted, and throw a lot of people out of work, probably lose a lot of skills and experience. What staff remain will likely be tax-payer funded to achieve the man-rating on the commercial carrier. This would kill the current inertia toward a moon landing this decade, with no certainty it would start up again. Not sure why anyone would want that. If it did take a decade and we decided to redesign Orion, bad things would happen, but I highly doubt it would take a decade or more to man rate FH or NG. If my memory serves me correct, NG is designed to be man rated from the beginning (and BO is probably working on an orbital capsule for NG behind the scenes but we can't be sure) and FH was at least originally intended to carry humans although late into development they decided to drop that capability, mainly because of optimism surrounding Starship, but Musk has said that it is still on the table if needed. https://spacenews.com/spacex-no-longer-planning-crewed-missions-on-falcon-heavy/ If tomorrow they were told they needed to man rate FH I can just about guarantee, unless something very catastrophic happens to SpaceX or the country/world, that it will not take them 10 years. In a world with no major vehicle developments in the next decade, this could very well be the case (although as said above I think the man rating would happen in far less than 10 years), and SLS is currently the optimal vehicle to launch Orion. However, I don't see this decade passing without major launch vehicle advances. Who knows what China is doing, but they have ambitious plans, only partially public, and aim to fly their cross between Orion and Dragon for the first time in the next few months if I remember correctly (although this wouldn't directly help with American efforts besides maybe a political push to remain first in space. Space Race II anyone?). New Armstrong is a complete wild card but could possibly happen. Starship is another huge wild card (although arguably further along than NG in several ways at this point), but even if it completely fails I don't expect SpaceX to sit still for another decade considering all they managed to achieve in the last decade. Just for example, a Raptor based expendable heavy or super heavy launch vehicle even under 9m would be formidable, Musk has mused on the possibility of Falcon Super Heavy (5 cores) in the past, and if they can't figure out upper stage reuse, a Starship but with an expendable upper stage (but a reusable lower stage) would also be fairly formidable. Man rating these concepts is also another huge wild card, especially Starship as currently planned due to it lacking an escape system. In the case where Orion and possibly an upgraded Dragon 2 are the only US BLEO capable vehicles, there are still options to get them BLEO besides the wild-card non man rated SHLVs and SLS. Launching the capsule to LEO on a man rated rocket and then rendezvousing with a transfer tug launched by a non man rated rocket could open up possibilities. This could be something Raptor based or possibly ACES.

The SLS is designed to launch Orion, and it is by far the closest to achieving human rating. The fact is, Orion is a big craft, with room for 6 astronauts, much bigger and heavier than the Apollo return capsules. The intent is to have a craft more versatile for multiple BLEO operations (cislunar, heliocentric and Mars), and ability to return directly from heliocentric orbit to the Earths surface (ie survive >3km/s re-entry speeds). The downside of this is that it is just too big to get to LLO and return to Earth in a single launch with current rockets. A bigger human rated rocket is a decade away at least. I don't understand the obsession with getting Orion to LLO. Why is it necessary? Why not make it standard practice for Orion to enter a highly elliptical orbit, and lunar operations must then be capable of getting to and from the lunar surface from that point? I simply do not see the downside of that, and creating complex a difficult scenarios to achieve Orion LLO are only going to add cost and time. A better question: "Is the Gateway needed?". I would argue, no. There is no reason why each mission could be completed with an ad hoc LOR in highly elliptical orbit. But having a staging point for cargo delivery and a permanent position for advanced comms has some advantages. Here is my RSS simulation of Artemis 3 which assumes LOP-G is in place, and completes a manned lunar landing with two launches (SLS + FHe). I think this is basically what NASA is aiming at. My 3-stage lunar lander meets the spec for HLS, but may be too small in physical dimensions to support 2 astronauts on the surface for 2 weeks. The current HLS proposals seem to be too large and heavy to complete the mission from a single FHe launch. The options are single SLS Cargo launch (bad idea, way too expensive) or better two commercial Falcon Heavy launches with EOR. The idea behind getting Orion to LLO is to reduce the work the lander has to do, as in many scenarios removing work from the lander at the expense of adding work to Orion and/or a transfer stage is worth it. NOTE: I spent waaaay too much time crunching these numbers to make sure, and a lot of them use approximations based on the baseline 24 ton lander mentioned earlier, intended more to show relative increase in mass using a baseline number than actual masses, as masses will vary depending on the mission architecture. I can guarantee you I didn't calculate every scenario and some of what follows is probably wrong. TL;DR: Going to LLO with the SLS-Constellation architecture reduces the total mass needed to TLI by about 5 tons compared to the Gateway architecture, assuming a 26 ton Orion CSM, a 24 ton lander (capable of going to and from LLO) and a 1 ton dry mass stage with X tons of propellant, either directly attached to the lander to increase Delta-V or for braking the whole stack into LLO. Highly Elliptical Lunar Orbit and Lowly Elliptical Lunar Orbits, both using distributed launch (Gateway without Gateway) were also briefly touched on, with HELO performing about the same as SLS-Constellation LLO using an elliptical orbit with the same Delta-V requirements to LLO as Gateway (note, higher elliptical lunar orbits may be possible according to a diagram I found but they get worse the higher you go) and LELO (as low as Orion could go and still make it back) outperformed all the other options, requiring 11 tons less fuel compared to the Gateway architecture. However the gains from both elliptical orbit distributed launch architectures would be at least partially offset by the Delta-V needed for stationkeeping, as these landers would likely be waiting for Orion for a while and very few lunar orbits are stable. Gateway's orbit was chosen for low stationkeeping cost, and SLS-Con gets around this by not waiting for Orion, with the only loiter in orbit done while the surface mission takes place. If using commercial launch vehicles, both ELO rendezvous methods would likely require a multi piece lander, something SLS-Con avoids. Additional note: For Gateway and ELO (specifically HELO) missions I only calculated direct ascent landers. A mission where the transfer vehicle takes the ascent stage of the lander back to Gateway may tip the scales significantly, however that requires a lot more calculation and I already did quite a bit. If that is good enough for you you can skip down to the bold STOP! where I address your other points. The lander already has to do roughly 4km/s, more if you want margin, for the landing and ascent, going to and from elliptical lunar orbit adds I believe over 1km/s total which is a substantial increase in mass due to the rocket equation. Granted, bringing the rather heavy Orion to LLO also brings in a significant fuel cost, but I would tend to believe that being able to fit more science/crew/equipment/life support on the lander would outweigh the negatives. As the Orion CSM already has the fuel to leave LLO and get home, the full stack would need ~850m/s to break into LLO from TLI assuming an Apollo speed transfer. According to this: It is roughly 420m/s each way from TLI to NRO. Not sure if that is different from NRHO but I can't find any other numbers so I'll use the NRO numbers. According to this: It is ~730m/s from NRO to LLO. The 420m/s from TLI to NRO plus the 730m/s from NRO to LLO ends up being 1150m/s, which is 300m/s more than just going directly from TLI to LLO due to the inefficient maneuvers required to reach NRO. Granted that gap will grow slightly smaller when factoring in that we need a polar LLO for many of the Artemis objectives, but most of the work to be on the right trajectory is done in the TLI burn if my information is correct. Granted, if we go with what you said, ditching gateway and doing an elliptical lunar orbit, there is no gap. Warning: Potentially inaccurate napkin math ahead In a gateway style architecture, in addition to the landing itself, the lander would have to do an extra 730m/s both down and up, ~1.5km/s of additional Delta-V over an Apollo style mission. This is in addition to the 420m/s that the lander or lander delivery system needs to have to get from TLI to the gateway in the first place. This cuts into the payload of the launch vehicle. In effect, this means the lander/delivery system needs 1.9km/s more than a standard 4km/s (plus margin), although delivering the lander in multiple pieces may mess with the additional 420m/s. In this scenario, Orion uses just ~840 of its 1300m/s Delta-V budget, plus corrections. In the SLS-Constellation style architecture, the lander needs an Apollo-esque amount of Delta-V (4km/s plus margin) and the Orion needs to use roughly 1km/s of its delta-V stores to both rendezvous in LEO and complete the TEI (return to Earth) burn. The addition, however, is the stage needed to brake into LLO, which needs ~850m/s (although in my first calculation this was just 800m/s with the Orion CSM doing the rest). It will be difficult to do the math without knowing whether a 2 or 3 stage lander is used and the masses of each components, but if we take my lander mass numbers from my original post (not the best comparison, certainly not a particularly fair one, but an easy one), which is 24 tons, the full stack would be 50 tons, and 15 tons of excess propellant and a 1 ton dry mass stage would be needed to brake into LLO. If we assume the same lander mass but add 1.5km/s to it as in the gateway style architecture, assuming a 1 ton dry mass stage you would also need 15 tons of propellant, exactly the same amount of extra mass, until we factor in the extra 420m/s required to reach gateway in the first place, in which case the needed fuel mass jumps up to 21 tons. Note: These numbers all assume 320s isp. Note: This assumes just taking 24 tons and adding Delta-V to it, which doesn't accurately account for staging but also gives a generous mass ratio for the transfer stage. It should be accurate enough for napkin math. The mass numbers are kind of arbirtrary, but the point is to illustrate that in a Gateway architecture, especially where the lander is delivered by commercial launch vehicles which have fairly limited TLI mass capability, more of the lander mass budget would have to go towards the extra Delta-V requirements Gateway poses rather than towards useful payload to the lunar surface. Alternatively more assembly missions could be done to assemble the lander, but this does add cost and complexity, although by some arguments not much. As far as using an Elliptical orbit instead of NRO as you alluded to above, this is where things could get interesting. I'm going to briefly touch on highly ELOs like you said and lowly ELOs. In both, however, the 300 extra m/s required to stop over at Gateway is eliminated. In a highly elliptical lunar orbit, which I'm going to assume roughly equates to NRO in terms of Delta-V from LLO to that orbit, the benchmark lander would need 15t of propellant. The chart above says that the requirements are actually more, but I suspect that's for extremely elliptical orbit rather than just a highly elliptical orbit. This puts it on par with SLS-Con. As for using a low Elliptical orbit, specifically as low as possible, this can also take a significant amount of Delta-V away from the lander's requirement, although it would still need to be delivered on a separate launch. Assuming Orion is using its full 1300m/s on just LOI and TEI, that is 650m/s each way, leaving Orion in an elliptical orbit just 200m/s from LLO. Starting from there, this makes the lander requirements 4.4km/s plus margin (200m/s from LLO both ways), but including the 650m/s needed to reach that orbit from TLI, the lander and delivery system needs 5.05km/s of Delta-V, 1.05km/s above the standard 4km/s. Assuming that same 24 ton lander (as a benchmark), this just needs 10 tons of fuel mass (assuming 1t dry transfer stage) which is lower than the 15 and 21 ton numbers of the above approaches. However, due to the limitations of commercial LVs this would still have to be assembled in multiple pieces in order to have decent capabilities. There are a lot of ways the elliptical orbit method can be tweaked as there are many different elliptical orbits. I will not attempt to model any more. Note: Elliptical lunar orbits tend to be more unstable than both LLO and NRO and need noticeable amounts of Delta-V for stationkeeping. The above data suggests that a lowly ELO is better than a highly ELO when using distributed launch, at least up to the point of using most of Orion's fuel, as it reduces the Delta-V requirements for the lander. Even with a separate lander launch you would want your starting orbit to be as low as possible (at a point where Orion could still leave, of course) as the lander/delivery system would only have to go down to that elliptical orbit once, but from there would have to go both down to and up from the moon. From a mass/Delta-V standpoint Lowly ELO is actually looking to be the superior option here, beating out SLS-Con by 5 tons and Gateway by 11 tons (using the benchmark lander). However as pointed out above, SLS-Con has the advantages of not needing assembly in lunar orbit. SLS-Con would also use less in stationkeeping than Lowly ELO as LELO is more unstable, and the lander would likely be parked there for months before Orion could arrive. LELO does also have the advantage of not needing SLS Block 2, however, a very important advantage as the biggest prerequisite for my plan was skipping straight to Block 2. Summary to your first point "Why bother with LLO:" It reduces lander Delta-V requirements by a substantial amount over a Gateway based architecture, allowing for more lander mass to be dedicated to surface payload. However, it was discovered that for some architectures Lowly Elliptical Lunar Orbit is advantageous over Highly Elliptical Lunar Orbit, NRO, and LLO. Stop! Okay, now for the other points. Addressing Gateway you make good points as to why it is not needed but may be good to have. I would additionally like to add that with a lunar station of some kind launched (not necessarily in NRO), it becomes more politically feasible to continue any lunar program as many politicians wouldn't want to abandon that infrastructure. It also adds more options for international cooperation, further helping the likelihood of the program to continue. As you correctly assert, SLS is the only rocket that has been designed to launch Orion and is the only one theoretically capable of launching Orion that is planned to be man-rated. However, Orion has already been launched once on a rocket that it wasn't specifically designed for, although admittedly it wasn't crew rated. The same thing could be done with Falcon Heavy, except Falcon Heavy would likely be much easier to man rate than Delta IV Heavy, as its component cores are extremely similar to F9 cores that are crew rated, and at one point man crew rating FH was on the table. While it isn't exactly ideal, it is within the realm of possibility. Considering the cost of the overall mission including a Block 2 SLS, this is very minor, but the Falcon Heavy could be partially reusable in this scenario. I'm not sure if the margin is great enough for side booster RTLS but it is almost certainly enough for double ASDS landing (center core expended in both cases). Your video is interesting and provides a good look into how something like this could work. I must ask you, however, what is the mass of that lander (minus the transfer stage), as a 2 man lander much lighter than the 16 ton Apollo LEM may prove difficult, and is NRO modeled properly with the Delta-V requirements that tend to be above that of ELO (chart above) (possibly only for LOI, and not for descent/ascent)? The additional delta-v can make or break missions like these.

Thought experiment: Constellation esque architecture using SLS, Orion, and a commercial LV. First, this requires that the development had gone straight to Block 2. The idea is that SLS launches the lander and a bunch of residuals in the EUS to LEO, where Orion, launched to LEO on a commercial launch vehicle such as Delta IV Heavy or Falcon Heavy (the problem here is that neither are man rated and FH would have been impossible to accurately predict back when the SLS program started) would launch the Orion CSM to LEO where it would dock with the stack and be sent to TLI. The lander or a dedicated stage performs the LOI burn (if lander, altair style) and then the mission proceeds Apollo style from there. Napkin math is being difficult, but assuming EUS has a dry mass of 15 tons with 460s isp, and Block 2 can get 130t to orbit plus its 15 ton dry mass. Say we have a 24 ton lander and a 16 ton insertion stage (15t prop) lofted to LEO, that's 40 tons of payload, leaving us with about 90 tons of residuals totalling 130t to LEO. The actual number should be more due to the reduced launch mass from not actually having 130 tons of payload, but I don't know how to do that math so I'll stay on the conservative side. Once the 26t Orion CSM docks to it the whole thing will mass 26+40+15 (Orion+lander stack+EUS dry mass) = 81 tons dry and 171 tons wet. Assuming a 460isp engine (~rl10) that gives us about 3.37km/s of Delta-V, enough to do TLI with some margin for boiloff due to rendezvous, or perhaps extra lander/payload/etc mass. LOI is roughly 850m/s. Apollo was a bit more because it went faster but the minimum is less. Our stack is now the 26t Orion capsule plus the 24 ton lander, plus the 1 ton dry insertion stage and 15 tons of propellant. That gives us 51 tons dry and 66 tons wet. Assuming about 320 seconds of specific impulse (high end hypergolic engine) on the insertion stage engine, this gives us 800m/s. The last 50m/s can likely be provided by the Orion CSM as because all it has to do is the initial rendezvous and the return to Earth burn, likely leaving it with excess Delta-V for the mission at hand. It can potentially do more of the work if necessary, leaving less fuel mass and more lander mass. Now in LLO we have the 26 ton CSM (slightly less because it used some fuel) and the 24 ton lander. This is definitely not Altair level (46t) but it is quite a step up from Apollo (16.4t). So now we are placing Orion in a role it was better designed for, we don't have to man rate SLS, we don't have to bother with a lander with enough Delta-V to reach NRHO, we don't have to bother with a multi-piece lander assembled at Gateway, and we don't have to bother with Gateway at all. It would have been hard to plan from the beginning, however, mostly due to the requirement of a launch vehicle for Orion to LEO, as crew can't launch on Delta IV heavy without significant modifications and Falcon Heavy would have been impossible to predict back then. Plus, FH isn't crew rated although I believe SpaceX have said that it could be. I suppose a design could have been made to fill the role of Ares I, possibly as a commercial competition, although when the SLS program started it was far from certain that any commercial company could build a 26t to LEO vehicle. Maybe modifying the Delta IV Heavy would have been easier. Switching now also isn't quite advisable, for political reasons, the fact that FH may take a while to man rate, the fact that the new Orion SM may not take well to negative acceleration (although from the beginning this could have been accounted for especially if the original SM design, designed for this, was used and I guess it could be modified for it now) and probably a few other reasons I haven't thought about.

Glad to see that this is getting more traction! IMO Orion's underpowered service module is one of the worst and most limiting things about the current architecture. If this passes that would be a very good thing, as the lander budget would be very good to say the least. I also hope that we don't get that pushback to 2028, as that would invalidate a lot of the current momentum. I don't want to get too political, but I also don't want the next President to mess with the plans too much. That has happened way too many times and it feels like we are actually on the path to something now.

This begs the question, is China building a Starship-esque rocket somewhere? From what we've see, construction of at least the initial prototypes can be done reasonable cheaply. I would not be surprised if they had a facility out in the middle of nowhere cranking out steel rings right now given how quickly China seems to be moving in the spaceflight industry as of late.

I have a feeling this series is going to be way too unrealistic by KSP standards, with the superfast interstellar travel, teleportation and yet chemical rockets being used. I think it needs more consistency. It definitely does need more consistency as the storyline changed direction a few times throughout the multi-year writing process. Lots of stuff was tacked on over the years. There is an abundance of stuff that needs to be fixed, and in many aspects the story is very messy. This will be fixed in the revision if I ever get there. I would like to point out, however, that almost all of the chemical propulsion shown is either for the human test, purposely obsolete but a bit more advanced than human technology, to create an interesting challenge, or is used on legacy spacecraft. As for the many differing propulsion methods with varying levels of effectiveness found throughout the galaxy, much of this technology was developed independently by different species, at the time with no knowledge of each other. Replacing existing infrastructure would be very expensive, meaning a lot of different legacy systems would likely be employed around the galaxy due to the huge obstacle that would be upgrading... For instance, Kerbin isn't going to switch from using antimatter as a high density energy storage medium (mainly for high power applications like spacecraft) to something superior any time soon because it would require transitioning their extremely expensive infrastructure from antimatter to something else. A real world example would be the world's railroads having many different gauges. A word about teleportation, it is incredibly expensive financially and energy wise, used only for top ranking officials and incredibly important matters like creating dramatic effect for a species acceptance test. Daily transportation via teleport would be akin to daily transport by private jet. Thanks for bringing this to my attention again, I'll add some of this stuff to my list of things to clarify in the revision.

https://spacenews.com/rocket-nears-spaceport-for-chinese-space-station-test-launch/ The Long March 5B rocket is a version of LM5 without a second stage, designed for primarily LEO launches. The first test launch will be sometime in the coming months, scheduled for April, and it will carry China's prototype next generation space capsule (which resembles Dragon 1 with a pretty hefty service module) into LEO where it will fire its engines to reach 8,000km and test high speed re-entry. It should be able to carry up to 6 crew, or 3 crew and 500kg of cargo. The next LM5 will launch a spacecraft to Mars. The next LM5 will launch Chang'e 5. The next LM5, a LM5B will launch Tianhe, which has likely been delayed to early 2021. The American counterpart to this would roughly be Orion's EFT-1. If things continue as they are now, China may give NASA a run for their money.

It kinda looks a bit like an early Atlas.

Not without ignore max temp. I don't think anyone's done a Kerbol ascent vehicle, period. The dynamics of Kebrol's hot atmosphere are also not very well understood.

Here is the new save! https://drive.google.com/open?id=16rr0eUleJ5uZ9HH7B9CvkJ_Q26y7nNbc I present to you, Ultimate Steve's Escape Pod/Crew Transfer Vehicle! It is designed to safely return a crew of 10 to Kerbin in the event of an emergency, or through normal crew rotation. Again if you didn't see, the save is at the beginning of the post.