Minmus Taster

Noice

I apologize, I assumed that it was a metaphor. I don't follow news related to Tesla. On that note I love the patch, I'm assuming the launch is classified?

Edit: in light of an important clarification I'd like to apologize. I didn't make the connection with the Tesla incidents and assumed it was a metaphor. That's my bad.

Edit: see my next post for an explanation, there was a misunderstanding.

I'm not really into discussing these sorts of subjects online so forgive me for my ignorance; THIS IS AN ISSUE?

Before this whole thing is deleted I would like to point out for all involved that questions like these make the entire conversation pointless regardless of where you fall. You've effectively conceded that not only is your opponents opinion rooted in delusion and not worthy of consideration, but that you aren't even sure what you're arguing for anymore or what you're opposing, you're winning a chess game by smashing the board. And as far as justifiable goes, as long as were doing this again, I think raising an eyebrow at a major political figure's "pendant salute" shouldn't be considered as "FUD" as I so often hear in this thread.

2031 feels like the safer option, call me a pessimist but those first landings in 2026 (if they can get ships to Mars in the first place that window) are going to be "iffy". That being said if plans are becoming more concrete NASA should consider a CLPS like deal with SpaceX; lets stick some payloads on your ships and worst case scenario is oh well, better luck next time.

Fair has nothing to do with it, can't hurt a planets feelings, only peoples. This is merely a matter of arbitrary classification.

Or we could differentiate major and minor satellites, we already do to an extent but we could create an updated definition similar to how we changed the criteria for planets vs. dwarf planets. I don't see why a satellite needs to be spherical to be considered a moon, that would exclude Phobos and Deimos along with several larger objects, like Proteus or Phoebe. Perhaps major moons could be the ones which dominate the space around a planet (such as the Galilean moons) vs objects which are dominated.

The image is not accurate of course, I think Titan is also in an odd orbit.

Holy s**t!

I found this theory in the comments of TheSpaceEngineers's S34 failure animation, personally I think it's promising, thoughts anyone? If the issue does in fact lie in the downcomers can they been reenforced? Or would changing the design in exchange for lower Raptor 3 performance actually be beneficial for the engines survival.

The original design had that feature (or lack thereof) as well, I don't get it either.

I'm excited by the concept but skeptical about the execution, private companies have had mixed success with lunar landings, so our solution here is to task one with something several times harder and with no do-overs?

To be fair Saturn V wasn't reusable and was designed almost 60 years ago but they raise a good point, what exactly is the benefit of those downcomers though? They seem like they take up space and can easily fracture under strain.

That's certainly something worth pondering but I doubt it. It's not like you could just slap a bomb onto the things side, it would need to be something more subtle, maybe a disgruntled worker quietly creating defects? I'd imagine that you wouldn't be able to get away with even that for long though, the possibility of sabotage has surely been thought of before (I wouldn't be surprised if people started claiming sabotage regardless of whether there's evidence for it, divisive times and all that stuff). Although you'd think a saboteur with a political motivation would make their manifesto known at some point, clearly they would be intelligent enough to know that their current actions are barely putting a dent in such a large company. Ultimately it's still just speculation though, get back to us on the 6th failed launch.