SunlitZelkova

Considering Boeing is part of ULA I’d be skeptical. Vulcan is one thing, but SHLVs are hard. If NASA had a “Commercial Heavy Crew” program in the future to replace SLS but keep Orion (something I very much hope for while respecting the reality of pork), it would be cool to see a ULA SHLV compete against modified Super Heavy and New Armstrong. The F-35 has run into just as many development problems as SLS though, and has just as high a price tag (relatively speaking). On the other hand, the F-35 is actually innovative and useful while SLS is pretty trash (in terms of capability).

This has nothing to do with reusability. Reusable or not, a rocket left outside is going to get destroyed by a hurricane. People said that NASA would solve everything by going back to expendable vehicles post-Challenger/Columbia. There is zero reason things would be better simply by switching back to reusability. They’re not a space launch provider. SLS is built by a variety of contractors. NASA does operate SLS, but it would be unfair to pin SLS’s failings on the people at MCC and Ground Exploration Services. I think true responsibility lies with Congress and the contractors. They created SLS’s requirement to utilize Shuttle contractors and signed off on the design despite its poor performance, and then let the program devolve into what it is.

Well, we are capable of that. Not only are ICBMs designed to launch in storms, as they have to be on call at any time, most are designed to fly through a reasonably distant nuclear explosion. Specifically I recall hearing about the R-36 having a requirement to launch through a nuclear detonation on a nearby silo. Also, given the location of the Soviet/Russian SSBN bastion in the Barents Sea area, I imagine their SLBMs are capable of launching through storms and rough seas as well. The question comes down to this: does ruggedization of rockets have a hard limit imposed by performance, in the same way you can’t make a Jeep have the performance of a Lamborghini and still be rugged? Or can it be done, albeit at a cost? I think Starship is what really opens the opportunities for this. It almost certainly does cost more, but you don’t want to spend more money on something you are going to throw away. Starship will be fully reusable and thus won’t have such an issue.

Have you seen what the ocean on Earth is like? It isn’t a “wet desert” or “wet sky”, oftentimes navigating it is akin to hiking through a mountain forest. Rockets would not have the finesse to deal with that. You wouldn’t try to climb a forested mountain in a rocket car. There are also physical limitations on how fast you can push something through the water that preclude use of rockets. If the speeds are going to be the same anyways, might as well use propellers, which do the job fine, have the finesse needed for navigating rough weather, and don’t cost nearly as much.

My biggest concern is not the technical ability to find them but whether or not the fragments have already been swept away by the current to some place else. Also I didn't realize until now that "The Galileo Project" is intended to find evidence of alien life in direct connection with UFOs/UAPs. That makes me a little uneasy.

Having followed the Pacific WWII shipwreck hunting scene for a long time, I am aware of how difficult it can be to find stuff on the seabed. I wish them good luck in trying to find the stuff!

Question: Is there a possibility we will get a* Orion drive with the release on 2-24? It isn't really interstellar, it's not the "next-gen tech" described as part of the future interstellar update, and it would qualify under the "new generation of engines" and "new parts" described as part of the 2-24 release. On the other hand, if the scope of the 2-24 release is intended to be the baseline Kerbolar experience alone, they would want to stick with technology that exists in KSP1- chemical rockets, NTRs, and ion engines. *I say "a" Orion drive because there could be huge versions that qualify as interstellar parts, but some of the real life proposals could fit on a single Saturn V, and thus a small-enough Orion to do interplanetary missions (and thus not go outside the scope of what they want to release right now by being interstellar level) and fit on chemical rockets could be a possible new part for the 2-24 release. Larger Orion drives would have to wait for the interstellar update, of course.

The thing is though is that it doesn’t really seem to have been a mistake. There is little to no mention of it having been a threat whatsoever in histories of Skylab, prior to that article there was a random forum post from somewhere mentioning it and that was it, at least as far as the internet goes. If no one is going to remember or reflect on Skylab’s S-II, all that tells China is that in 50 years no one is going to care about the LM-5B’s core stage either, if something isn’t going to matter in the future, it might as well not matter now. Heck, Skylab’s reentry itself is more of a fun space anecdote nowadays rather than a serious lesson in debris management (for the general public, that is). If we continue to see Skylab this great American achievement (with the S-II being brushed aside to paint a pleasing image), it’s not going to encourage better behavior elsewhere. My post was not to say that LM-5B core stages are acceptable because of the S-II, but that so long as we don’t really reflect on the S-II as a mistake in the Skylab program to the same level we show concern over the launch portion of the Tiangong program, China won’t really be persuaded to do better themselves. That’s not ok either on their part- even if someone else doesn’t reflect on their bad behavior, that doesn’t make it ok for you to have bad behavior- but realistically solving a problem takes “two to tango”, rather than simplistic condemnations and a copy paste “we urge *insert nation* to take *insert action*”.

You may be jesting, but I shall inquire over any actual data on this as I am curious.

Viking was funded in 1969 and launched in 75. The Titan III was officially confirmed as an LV in 1970. I’m unaware of the exact date “MSR” (which seems to be the program’s name for now) really kicked off. As late as 2019 it was still a mere proposal, and only this year did Lockheed get the contract for the Mars Ascent Vehicle. It’s a rather hodge podge affair, but I suppose that is how you fund a space program. The MAV launches in 2028. Assuming it kicked off in 2021, we should know next year. I assume you mean the MAV one because the ESA Earth return tug/mothership/probe is already planned to launch on Ariane 6.

I was thinking about this and realized they are probably influenced by the launch of Skylab. The S-II put it into orbit and stayed there for two years. https://www.drewexmachina.com/2022/07/31/rockets-falling-from-orbit-the-saturn-v-that-launched-nasas-skylab/ It wasn’t responsible then but… the Skylab decision certainly makes it look ok to be irresponsible.

Just a heads up, I think these fall under climate policy and thus politics. This thread is mainly for the pure science. Person says such and such about solving climate change- no. Person says such and such about how climate is working- yes. It's a thin line between either or though, of course.

On December 1st we've got the US Marines activating its first helicopter squadron*. On December 17th, the B-47 Stratojet made its first flight. Considering the design went on to influence modern day airliners, this is an extremely significant event*. I had never thought to think the sound barrier was broken, the Spruce Goose flew, and the B-47 flew all in the same year. Crazy stuff! *Sources coming on the day of

November 2nd, 1947 - The Hughes H-4 Hercules, better known as the Spruce Goose, took flight for the first and only time. Howard Hughes himself was at the controls. Source- https://www.flyingmag.com/when-the-spruce-goose-took-flight/?fbclid=IwAR2ZwmbBPNmBr4kHpEElpHYlClCuLxAOJ35gvDRwzyY6VP4Dwou5H5yUszA By the way, this article is a great explanation of the whole history of the plane, in case you are unfamiliar with it or want to learn a little more. I’ll also add that the museum that now houses it is definitely worth the visit. Not only is there the Spruce Goose, but space stuff as well, like the unflown Mercury-Atlas 10 capsule and both a Titan II and Titan IV. Among the more eccentric aviation items they have are an F5D Skylancer and a Soviet-built MiG-17A (most in museums in the US are J-5s, Chinese license built MiG-17Fs). Other interesting space items present are one of the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle test articles, a PGM-11 Redstone missile, and a full scale replica of the Vega type probe.

The spaceplane (Shenjian?) may be coming back to Earth soon, along with the core stage.

Wow! I can’t believe it took me nearly 10 days to notice this. I need to get out of the Science & Spaceflight and Spacecraft Exchange sections and explore the forum a bit more lol. I am amazed we are getting so much for just 50 dollars, it seems like so little considering how expansive and sophisticated the game will eventually become. The only thing that worries me is having a proper amount of personnel to cover the huge influx of feedback. I’m sure they have that down though.

What @DDE said is a great explanation. I’ll tack on to it in case you are wondering why the idea of military operations around the Moon is even a concept worthy of discussion in the first place. Without turning this into politics, basically one side (side A) misinterpreted the scientific missions of the other side’s (side B) probes, and side B thinks side A is taking advantage of such poor analyses to establish a monopoly over speculative lunar resources. Also there are a number of potential military applications for cislunar space, like putting reconnaissance assets there out of reach of Earth orbit ASAT. Obviously placing a military asset somewhere invites attack, so there is a potential for combat around the Moon. So now theories are flying and accusations are trading and it is looking like the Moon could end up just like LEO did (a mess of lack of clarity and control and the ever present danger of a disaster in orbit).

One of the worlds I made for space what-ifs has Mengtian’s core stage slamming into the uninhabited Saudi desert. Many voices are raised over what happened but nothing really comes of it beyond harsh statements back and forth. It will be interesting to see if my fiction becomes reality!

So we really did get a Halloween surprise from CNSA. A spooky dead core stage hangs over the Earth, and no mortal knows when it will fall!

With zero knowledge of Chinese word play I have come up with turning “Tiangong” (天宮) into “Miangong” (面宮) and sending world class noodle dishes there (maybe with space grown vegetables added in). The pronunciation isn’t exact though, as you are certainly aware. Tian is Tiān and Mian is Miàn. I also need to gain more knowledge of Chinese dishes. Preferably direct first hand knowledge *licks lips*

It just occurred to me there has never been a calligraphy contest for an Asian language in space. There was never more than one Japanese astronaut in space so it wasn’t possible before, but with a trio of taikonauts on orbit permanently soon, I wonder if we will see one.

So if HLS (not HLS? The second one for regular access) is a dual provider program, what will the criteria be for either Starship HLS (obviously getting picked) and the other lunar lander over each other for a mission? It’s not like Commercial Crew where both vehicles have reasonably similar capability (barring the trunk) and can be swapped easily. Starship has much more capability than what little is known about the other potential competitors. That’s not even necessarily the fault of the other potential providers. It is just hard to match Starship when they don’t have their own SHLV. Makes me wonder if we might have seen proposals to launch HLS designs on SLS if it had the cadence to do that.

If you wish upon a shooting star falling core stage!

At separation from Mengtian, about 42 degrees. But I’m not finding any orbital updates. It seems we have fallen into a slight malaise since Wentian.

Yes I think*, yes, and yes, except I don’t know about flying wings**. Apart from having a low stall speed, having a lower speed overall can be beneficial in the right hands. Po-2s flown as bombers during WWII were difficult to shoot down because the max speed of it was near the stall speed of the German fighters. When North Korea used them in the Korean War, US Navy pilots flying their F7F Tigercats had similar issues. *I think this is what wing loading is, not sure for sure. **Flying wings may be their own beast. The YB-49 had poor performance, and presumably the YB-35 had similar issues. B-2 shouldn’t count as it is fly-by-wire. Yes, because you get the above mentioned benefits at a cost. The A6M Zero had a very low stall speed for an aircraft of its class (with very low wing loading!), but was difficult to control at high speeds and could not out run or catch up to American fighters using boom and zoom tactics (at least once the F6F and F4U arrived). There are ton of factors that go into an aircraft being effective though. The Zero wasn’t as controllable at high speeds as the F4F, but USN pilots also practiced world class tactics like deflection shooting and had better coordination overall, along with the benefit of radar direction. I bet if the Americans had had Zeros and the Japanese the F4F, the outcome would have been the same in air battles over the Pacific (assuming the Americans still had radar).