SunlitZelkova

Sort of reminds me of how Toyota will be making the pressurized lunar rover for Artemis, in all likelihood to be launched by Starship HLS. Building a purpose built transport lander and launching it on an expensive expendable rocket wouldn’t make sense unless it was Japanese, but I think (guess) H3 Heavy does not have the payload to do that, and it won’t debut until the 2030s anyways. The rover is supposed to land in 2028 or 2029. Also, something I just thought of is that it would be rather unfortunate to have the rover ready but the mission delayed because of SLS.

Uh… what about the money constraint? Are things really only small because of mass constraints? Or does NASA not actually do any sort of cost reduction measures in the first place?

What I am imagining is a similar role in China’s lunar program to that of ESA or JAXA in the “Western” human spaceflight program- cooperation with “the big guy” as a means of keeping the lights on. There’s nothing really off about building a surface hab from a space station module, while they obviously *can* build lunar probes. Will Yenisei fly though? Or Oryol? They could end up like Hermes and HOPE if the wrong decisions are made. Yes, but as I mentioned this could theoretically be turned around. Well, if I am to believe Chinese newspaper articles from the 1960s and 1970s, they sort of did. What is for sure though is although not exactly the same, space funding and would-be space funding getting (deliberately, because it had higher priority) siphoned off into the ballistic missile program was a serious problem. They still managed to do quite a few things though. Think China and the USSR in the early-mid 50s but reversed, and with 21st century technology. It’s not a perfect analogy, but something like that dynamic. It sort of is keeping up though- the ISS is still here after all, and there are eight years ahead of them to figure out what to do next. Space is one of Russia’s* great prides, I can’t see the government having an option of ending the human spaceflight program (at least in LEO) without obviously looking weak. I suppose another option they have is sticking with LEO and using the post-Apollo Soviet narrative that deep space exploration is too dangerous for humans and should be left to probes. That would require actually funding more probes though. *On the international stage, not sure what the average Russian person actually thinks

Aaaaaaaaaaaand this is why unless it's about SLS and Orion (which everybody hates) space policy matters should probably be shied away from, even if they have been allowed in the past in certain instances.

How would you put people on it without ECLSS? Was there a pork problem with Orion too? Considering the development time for the CSM one would think it would have been ready. Or was it a victim of the changes from Constellation to ARM to Artemis?

*insert General Kenobi meme* My guess is it will end up being propped up by money from Chinese cooperation on the Moon. Not now, maybe not even ten years from now, but further down the line China will need Russia as a partner in… Earthly matters… and if space is something necessary for propaganda and sort of defense reasons they’ll probably help them out. OR (see below) Soyuz is basically the same thing as Shenzhou. Shenzhou will likely fly all the way to the 2030s because of how slow development is with the Next-Generation Crewed Spacecraft. So they should be fine in that department. Without Yenisei and Moon landing plans, there isn’t exactly much to be gained from Orel anyways. Errr… I think this assessment is a little flawed, for two reasons. 1. “The Soviet Union could afford it”- the Soviet Union couldn’t afford it, it only “afforded it” by neglecting the civilian sector which led to collapse. An old lady, upon finding that potatoes at a market in a suburb of Moscow were spoiled, supposedly once said “we have these great Sputniks, right? So why don’t we take them and launch these rotten potatoes in to space” or something to that affect. Now this important because of the reason below. 2. “Lack of investment” is sort of a problem all over Russia, not just the space program (see the performance of a certain military in a certain conflict so far). From what I have read, it seems to be a symptom of the chaos of the 90s. However, it may only be because Russia chooses not to invest that these problems exist rather than it being incapable of doing so. After all, there was a time when the country built tanks and ICBMs on its own while being almost completely cut off from the “world” (capitalist) economy. It wasn’t because the Ukrainian SSR or Baltic SSRs had access to Western tech- as the atom bomb’s code name said “she did it herself”. So Russia could theoretically do it again with the right organization and commitment. There have been passing comments about this sort of grand “reorganization of the state” but as to whether it will actually be possible will have to waited upon and seen. So, in summary, I think it is too early to say what will happen or begin planning a funeral. A lot of assessment around the Russian tech sector seems to assume that Russia is like a video game NPC. In reality though, Russia has the opportunity to change its strategy to achieve its goals (in the case of this discussion, maintaining its status as a space power). The Sputnik ball is in their (the government’s) court.

??? In reality, an ant trap is nothing more than an inanimate predator. I don’t think anything special is particularly needed for them to avoid it. I’m certain there were marine organisms in the far past that anglers regularly preyed on, but no longer do in the present because they figured out what the light really is. It’s all relative. Terrestrial dinosaurs were perfectly evolved for survival on Earth… until Earth abruptly changed and they weren’t. What sort of… biome?.. do you live in? I live in a suburb right on the border of country/farmland+forest, yet that almost never happens. On the other hand, my grandparents used to live in a suburb that had the backyard literally leading down to a forest valley (in which lay a road, albeit pretty far away) and all sorts of insects and animals would enter. It was a similar situation where my aunt lived on a small river in country/farmland. So I think it isn’t a case of something “filling the void” so much as it is that everything will always try to get in no matter what- because in reality, there is no “in”, houses are no different than the underside of a warm rock.

I was thinking about this last night. At first, I thought "there is so much I haven't done" and "there are a lot of craft I like driving in KSP, it would be a pain to build them all over again in KSP2". After thinking more about it, I'm personally in favor of KSP2 because of the new opportunities it creates. Nonetheless, here are some potential pros and cons. For myself, the pros ultimately triumph over any cons or the pros cancel out cons. It may be different for others- Pros: 1. New parts. There will probably be more available for pure Kerbolar system exploration too. 2. All KSP1 parts will be in KSP2, but will undergo changes. For example, the NERVA will be 2.5 meters in diameter in KSP2. Thus "rebuilding" craft (even if just to the greatest extent feasible) will be more interesting. 3. Support. I did not think about it, but if I am not going to be able to play KSP1 eventually anyways, I might as well move over to the modern successor now. 4. The Kerbolar system is being left as similar to KSP1 as possible. New technology and features but the basic environment is virtually identical. Ironically, specifically because I have so much left to do in KSP1, I don't mind going back and doing what "little" I have done in KSP1 over again in KSP2- in fact, it would be great fun (I enjoy flying missions over again) and would have a tinge of newness to it thanks to new features and the visual enhancements. So, I am not really leaving KSP1 behind at all- it is all there in the new game. 4a. Because KSP2 is a new game, instead of just "doing what I did over again" it may as well be doing it for the first time. 5. Bug fixes/bugs-problems not existing in the new game. Assuming the rover bug mentioned above is fixed, among other surface related challenges, missions that were previously a little unworkable (like standalone rover probes) will be more feasible. I found it rather unfortunate that my Lunokhod 1 replica exploded just a short while after the mission concluded. 6. New technology. I like to build replicas, but there are a lot of replicas that I can't build because the parts aren't there in KSP1 (I play the game stock). Especially the addition of more electric engines will be nice. Also, finally having nuclear reactors as power options will be great too. Paint schemes will be nice, as I will be able to make a green Soyuz and an orange External Tank, the latter without having to use colored flags. 7. Performance? The discussion on this seems a little all over the place to me. On the one hand, resource use (or whatever it is called) is going to be improved, but on the other hand, I recall a thread discussing the ideal computer for KSP2 claiming the specs have been raised? I don't know. Cons: 1. It is indeed going to suck that 2 years of building in KSP1 is going to go away. On the other hand, when I was in the process of considering buying KSP two years ago, I knew full well that KSP2 was on the way. Although I bought KSP1 instead of waiting on the grounds that I didn't really care about interstellar travel and thus wouldn't need KSP2, I eventually became interested in such concepts and continued playing KSP1 while fully being hyped and excited for KSP2- recognizing that I would "lose" my work. So I don't have too much of an issue with this. 2. I thought I had more last night, but I either I can't remember them or I didn't. 3. Performance? As above, I don't understand the situation on that. Perhaps I won't be able to even play KSP2, in which case I don't have too much of a problem with sticking with KSP1 and might examine using parts mods. Although I would still get it in the future, I probably won't get a new computer just for KSP2 (yes, get, I am not technologically fluent enough to build a PC, and in any case, I hear it is expensive at the moment anyways). It would be really cool if we had a memorial to KSP1 in KSP2. I would like to build a space resort around it, and put old KSP1 parts on display in a museum next to it.

What do recent (last 22 years) Russian crewed Mars exploration concepts look like? How many have their been? Astronautix only goes up to a 2000 RSC Energia proposal.

Do you mean separate vehicles or different separate vehicles? If the latter, I am curious to know why. Not that I disagree, but just off the top of my head, it seems like building two different vehicles would cost more money. Of course, on the other hand, having an oversized crew vehicle would also be wasteful, or an undersized cargo vehicle lacking in capability. I kind of refrained from looking at Starship in this discussion because it didn't credibly exist when SLS began. Falcon 9 itself had been "delayed"* multiple times, and in any case Boeing/old space could make a pretty easy argument that they were better equipped to build a SHLV and were the only ones to do it. Thus criticizing SLS' past based on Starship in the present doesn't really make sense. On the other hand, as for why radical changes aren't being directed now, is something that should be asked. Artemis provides an excellent excuse opportunity to do so. From a political point of view, there should be absolutely nothing wrong with canceling SLS now. After all, Energia and Buran got canceled despite the long commitment to development the moment they became economically worthless- it ought to be no different in the US. Could SLS be saved though? Would any modification be worth it (assuming development actually became efficient)? Yes, I was mistaken in regards to the lunar landing. But I was referring to this- It was supposed to launch on an EELV. Presumably the LSAM would ultimately use that vehicle too. During a brief period between May and November 2005 (and of course dating all the way back to the VSE's announcement), there was no intention to use a Shuttle derived LV, thus Shuttle-C got discarded. Considering the study that led to Ares (which then led to SLS) began in April 2005, I can't help but have a yearning to go back and look at election results from the previous year to see if that might have had an impact in the reverse course...

The USSR's space program was run by the Ministry of Medium Machine-Building and the RVSN. These organizations had many artillery officers in their ranks as a result of the way Soviet ballistic missile development worked. So they took their "fire it off a bunch of times" testing strategy and applied it to space, in contrast with how American aviation companies had their "build a careful prototype and make sure everything works" strategy. This is why the Soviet would build two space probes and launch them in pairs. This accounts for part of it. Another thing is ballistic missile development. The USSR in the 1970s was in the process of developing their third generation of ICBMs. IIRC ballistic missile test flights get counted as part of spaceflight records. In contrast, the US was sticking with the good 'ole Minuteman and Titan from the mid 60s. Detente and the (political) cost of Vietnam combined to slow strategic modernization in the US. Next, we have satellite quality. Soviet reconnaissance (at least their early warning satellites) had a number of issues in development, and some failures, causing need for replacements to be launched. Finally, the Space Shuttle and the Salyut programs may play a part. The Shuttle was supposed to replace every single expendable launch vehicle in the US- they did make an effort to put this in to practice. This obviously would cause severe cadence issues. The Soviets didn't do this, instead launching Salyuts, Soyuzs, and Progress' like crazy using Proton and Soyuz. Another thing- space was justified in the USSR based on security and some prestige concerns. Apollo and Mariner were basically it for American space exploration- Congress wanted very little to do with it after Apollo 11. Thus two Vikings in 1975 instead of eight Voyagers throughout the decade, and the Soviets sent multiple probes to Venus while the US sent a single Pioneer and a lone Mariner flyby. The Space Shuttle was stuck repeating two week Spacelab flights while the Soviets built Mir. Now of course, this wasn't something that applied specifically to space. It came with a cost, too. All across the Soviet Union, bureaucracies, whether they be space organizations or weapons manufacturers, took advantage of ideological and political quirks to advance their interests while ignoring severe core issues. Thus why the US is planning to land humans on the Moon in 2025 while the USSR is... dead? *glances nervously at the internal political situation in Russia*

The Long March 5B reentry was its own problem, but I don't think CNSA-NASA communication is a part of it. If it was going to fall on a city, its pretty unlikely there would have been enough warning for evacuation in enough time. Especially in a major urban area. The debris field would likely extend for miles. In any case, even if CNSA was sharing data, would the Western public trust it? I think we would have been relying on Space Force projections anyways.

I personally don't think Shuttle-C actually stood a chance of flying when it was proposed, at least not in a timely manner, because the Shuttle itself would have taken funding priority. I think the point we need to examine isn't technical parlance so much as it is general scale. The SLS, in the forms that currently exist physically, may as well be an expendable Space Shuttle with no payload and a rather useless orbiter. With the changes you mentioned, expecting completion in six years with the level of commitment and the poor history of the selected contractor was ludicrous. It has all of the challenges of a SHLV and ultimately ran into all of the worst possible problems for such a project (problems valid assuming there is a certain date to be met). The Shuttle was delayed, if such changes were to be made to SLS- and they were- then expecting SLS in a "timely" (on the original schedule) manner was/is silly. Not unlike how the Communist Party of the Soviet Union expected a Moon landing in 1968... despite only starting work in 1965, after having been pressed on the subject of a Moon landing for a few years prior. Also similar to the changing requirements for the Space Shuttle design as a result of the USAF getting in on the project. All things considered, regardless of what people want, based on what is there, based one of the available historical comparisons- Energia- the development schedule has been decent. Decent. Still, it could have been better and repeating such wasteful history is unacceptable. All of this is IMO. I find it interesting, because the same random focus on schedules and political goals that is leading to eight astronauts being sent through the Van Allen belts multiple times is not unlike what killed seven astronauts in 1986. I think the uselessness should highlight the problems with government procurement rather than SLS itself. Regardless of usefulness, its development schedule has been reasonable (insofar as it is very close to one of only two other historical SHLVs) for the amount of attention and "distractions" there have been in the government and either deliberately or accidently by contractors (wars and delays for more $$). Capabilities and cost? Those are things worth valid criticism. Even the schedule *could* have been improved theoretically. But comparing it to medium lift launch vehicles has a variety of issues, and I think it distracts from the real issue. Well... 1. At the time it was first proposed, Congress was very hostile to crewed deep space exploration. People thought the Space Shuttle would fly until 2030 at the time. 2. It was definitively shelved after the Columbia disaster probably because 2a. The original Crew Exploration Vehicle, intended to replace the Shuttle, did not involve Shuttle components- it was an entirely new vehicle intended to launch on existing commercial launch vehicles. 2b. A crewed deep space exploration program was iffy- the CEV was supposed to go to the Moon, but there were no concrete plans for a landing and certainly no Gateway. So there was no need for heavy lift, thus no need for Shuttle-C. 2b1. And thus no need for some way to keep Shuttle contractors alive. 3. It was a reminder of the Space Exploration Initiative, something Congress hated. Congress has a habit of doing this in space matters- a space station program based around CSMs and Saturn IBs and low rate Saturn V production would have been just as expensive as the Shuttle and been more safe and productive, yet in the minds of Congressmen "Apollo = waste", so instead we got an even more wasteful and dangerous replacement.

CNSA could not have shared tracking data with NASA even if they wanted to, because NASA can't actually receive such tracking data without congressional approval!

There is a part of me that wants to see dolphins participate in a St. Petersburg naval parade.

I don't think those dates were ever really worth anything. The Space Shuttle, too, was "supposed to" do a lot of things. It was supposed to fly in 1978 and by 1985, fly 60 times a year. That isn't the dumb cost fantastical assessment used in Congressional hearings, that is a number that NASA actually calculated based on highly optimistic infrastructure construction and refurbishment times. These were never realistic, and the specific Shuttle design that was built itself was born out of very similar reasons to the SLS- jobs in Congressional districts. Furthermore, there are number of hidden factors that made these dates very dumb on the part of those who made them- 1. A super heavy lift rocket is not the same as a medium lift launch vehicle, no matter where the tech comes from. The only operational example we have is the Saturn V, and its construction was propelled by almost civilizational-level political concerns and the desire to honor a slain President- and most importantly, the American aerospace industry in its (so far) peak form. The Soviets gave a half-hearted effort and had it explode four times. In contrast however, both the US and USSR developed medium lift launch vehicles (Proton and Saturn IB) in the same era that succeeded in lifting a variety of payloads, well before either of the SHLVs flew operationally. The only other example is Energia, which began in 1976 and did not launch until 1977 1978. SLS' timeline is thus very similar (almost identical) to Energia. Not unlike SLS, Energia, too, had a silly timeline at its beginning- first flight was supposed to be in 1983, also very similar to SLS. 2. It is known that the US aerospace industry has had a number of "problems" appear in recent decades. The delays on the F-35 program are an example, it was originally supposed to achieve IOC in 2010, this was pushed back to 2015, while the US Navy did not achieve IOC until 2019. The 737 MAX debacle is another. Without a serious effort at ending these issues, SLS was never going to fly "on time". 3. No effort appears to have been made to look at Space Shuttle development and try and learn lessons from it. Thus we have a vehicle whose safety and operational capabilities are compromised by political decisions. If no one was going to make an effort to try to correct mistakes, it was destined to end up like last time. So... For the above reasons, I don't think they do. SLS is still bad, but the delays couldn't have been helped. It was physically incapable of matching Falcon 9 in development or meeting the absurd timelines created for it. So I don't think Falcon 9 launching so many times while it tests is necessarily wrong or bad. SLS is bad for other reasons (as you mention, it is pretty useless), but it was always going to have Falcon 9s launching all around it, even if that had been in 2019 or 2021.

SLS has problems, I have not denied that. But comparing it to Falcon 9? It's like comparing the Space Shuttle to Soyuz (rocket). The Shuttle can basically be criticized for all of the same reasons as the SLS, yet it is rather illogical to compare it to Soyuz as they were born out of completely different contexts and with different requirements and limitations.

Check out all of the new parts in the VAB, but then start with sounding rockets and ballistic missile tests, then a satellite, then flinging something past the Mun, and so and so on. Eventually it will be totally epic getting around to interstellar travel. This may take years IRL (I got KSP in 2020 but still have not really ventured out beyond Eve and Duna). Starting a new save and just building a simple Orion or Daedalus and going interstellar right away would not be very satisfying for me personally, even though it is a highlight of the game.

Why? Falcon 9 is a commercial medium lift launch vehicle. Artemis I is basically a test flight, and it is government operated. In any case, it isn’t being billed as “regular access to space” like the Shuttle was, so there is no need to launch at a specific date per say because the customer is the operator. Obviously, SLS has problems, and the delays are indeed dumb because of launch windows and the expiration date on the boosters, but that comparison doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying NASA’s aviation development testbeds suck because they don’t fly as often as commercial airliners, and commercial aircraft still look like they did 20 years ago while NASA’s designs (at least the more radical ones) have yet to see much practical use in commercial aviation. Starship is in a much more similar stage of development with SLS. I don’t know just how difficult the red tape is going to make launching, but if it manages to fly a just couple test flights prior to Artemis I, a comparison would be warranted and SLS would be shamed further. Even a single test flight would be pretty damning towards the whole program.

Can we expect multiple Chang’e orbiters to be operating in the Earth-Moon system in the coming years? That would be pretty neat. In any case, it will be interesting because this decade will be the first time we have had so many lunar probes launching since the 1960s and 70s.

Unfortunately, it isn’t these days… I apologize. I shall take a bit more time to ascertain intentions from now on

What’s the purpose of this? /s In the end, it comes down to personal opinion and desire on what should be done, rather than logicality.

There is no excuse for dumping. Trash goes other places too- a lot of it sinks all the way to the sea floor and micro plastics are just kind of everywhere. https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-pollution Even if the pile of junk on the kitchen floor is convenient, I don’t let it sit there, nor do I want to have it continually accumulate. Furthermore the kitchen pile is a poor comparison because it doesn’t threaten my food safety and raise my risk of cancer and other health issues, nor damage the ecosystem. -to avoid veering too far off topic- Targeting marine garbage patches would be overkill. The South Pacific satellite graveyard is already a thing, at most, a notice to sailors and a redirection of marine traffic around the area would be required but otherwise there shouldn’t be need for that level of accuracy.

What exactly is a "hypersonic missile"? Not in the literal dictionary definition sense, but in the "military phrase" sense. Kinzhal was regularly referred to as a hypersonic missile prior to the events of February 2022 but once it got used in combat, some people argued it was "merely" an air-launched ballistic missile. What I have read about Kinzhal is confusing. Some mention portions of the flight taking place in the atmosphere, but don't specify just exactly how much. A cursory Google search makes it appear as though ALBMs have a flight profile very similar to normal ballistic missiles. No one calls the GAM-87 Skybolt a "hypersonic weapon". Likewise China's DF-21 derived ALBM is not referred to as a hypersonic weapon. Is Kinzhal special? Or is it just a free for all where people call their weapons whatever they want to? Like how the USSR built "aviation cruisers" instead of aircraft carriers/helicopter carriers.

World’s first space pirates? If the ERA legally belongs to ESA (the presence of which is part of the US Orbital Segment), and the USOS is part of the ISS, but the ERA was then taken under Russian control (fully becoming part of the Russian Orbital Segment, sort of a separate spacecraft based on how astronauts have restricted entry in some circumstances) without permission, could that be called piracy? Also what if Nauka gets moved to the ROSS in the future? I can’t remember if that is still part of the plan or not.