SunlitZelkova

They have three, possibly four years though. They seem to be capable of moving decently fast, the sets released in time for Star Wars: The Force Awakens were not nightmarish in quality*, nor have the Mandalorian and Bad Batch themed set(s)*, which were more or less released alongside those two shows (within 6 months of the show's premiere at least (although it could have been faster), I don't recall the exact dates). I would be more worried about getting licensing from SpaceX. It could also require Boeing and Lockheed Martin's approval, depending on if the SLS were to have an Orion inside or not. *It should be noted that this is based on just a few reviews and the opinions of Lego Star Wars fans could vary.

What do you think the possible names might be for the Next Generation Crewed Spacecraft and the crewed lunar lander? My KSP replica of the NGCS is currently called "神箭" (Shenjian), which is just pulled from what Wikipedia claims the Long March series was renamed to in the 90s (but I have never heard that btw, so I can only assume it is false info lol). Once I build it, I am planning to name the lunar lander "天箭" ("Tianjian", "Heavenly Arrow(?)") (based on the Shenzhou-Tianzhou dynamic) although that might be nonsensical. I am not familiar enough with the Chinese language(s)/space history/mythology/spacecraft naming conventions to come up with a good one.

I think the reason there is no Lego SLS so far is because Artemis I is uncrewed, which public interest-wise is a little lame. We might be able to expect one when Artemis II happens though. Artemis II will, to a certain extent, be like the 21st century's Apollo 8 in terms of PR effect (humans to the vicinity of the Moon for the first time in over half a century!), and also, if they sell a Lego SLS around when Artemis II happens, they can sell a Lego Lunar Starship when Artemis III happens, without having to make people simultaneously buy two 120-150 $ sets. Assuming they are going to eventually make a Lunar Starship set (we have an Apollo Lunar Module after all) hopefully they would give you pieces to convert it into a Starship tanker too to complete the mission profile. Kind of like the 3-in-1 Creator sets.

Would it be possible to launch a modified Crew Dragon on a modified Starship too? This would eliminate the very bad possibilities of failing to perform a propulsive landing with crew during normal EDL, and of course Crew Starship will need to/should have some abort modes anyways during the early part of launch. This Starship will do propulsive landing anyways as it is still recoverable, so an abort mode is retained despite the normal Crew Dragon LES not being there. And then afterwards, if there is going to be some potential failure with the Starship upper stage during the latter part of launch, wouldn't that just doom the crew on a normal Crew Starship anyways? And therefore there is no loss in losing the LES with this hypothetical new Crew Dragon variant. IIRC, there are some ESA and Roscosmos studies stating that the amount of volume a single human needs in a spacecraft makes cramming 100 people in a Starship unfeasible anyways, and people in this forum then went on to calculate something like a 17-25 possible max crew for Starship. However, apart from SpaceX's Mars City, no one is going to require this many crew on a single flight (unless Starship has the potential to act as a "space bus" travelling between multiple, perhaps co-orbited, commercial space stations) and thus SpaceX will lose money on many launches. Thus using Crew Dragon might be more economical/efficient for commercial space demands in the near future (2030-2040, when Starship would be safe enough to carry crew). Launching Crew Dragon would eliminate consumer concerns over propulsive landing and save money for SpaceX, both by not needing to develop a new life support system inherent* to Starship and reusing Crew Dragon technology. This could also open up the serious possibility of launching Orion on Starship. NASA keeps their "traditional and safe" capsule, with no propulsive landing, and maintains billion dollar contracts through it, but without the need for SLS. Launch escape situation is the same as described above. *17-25 crew would be desirable for SpaceX's Mars City, however, it would probably be better to develop that as a sort of "plug-in" module that could be carried by a Cargo Starship with minimal modifications, rather than integrated into a new Starship variant. Apologies if this ends up coming off like a D.C. NASA manager in the early 70s spit-balling crazy money saving design parameter ideas to potential Space Shuttle contractors Actually, re-reading this, my thoughts regarding abort in the latter stage of flight really do sound like the justification for no LES on the Space Shuttle. There are major differences between Shuttle and Starship however, so I think the risk is far lower and thus although my ideas sound eerily familiar, they are reasonable.

https://spacenews.com/chinese-crewed-moon-landing-possible-by-2030-says-senior-space-figure/ This doesn't qualify as true development news, but it is interesting nonetheless. Some of the presentations given in the past year have also proposed a crewed lunar flyby (Artemis II equivalent) with the Next-Generation Crewed Spacecraft in 2025. However, it is not known how much development work has been done on the Long March 5DY rocket to launch it. It is known that work is progressing at a decent rate on the engines for the Long March 9, but that is unlikely to launch crew. -------- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-hypersonic-weapons-test-details-united-states-military/ I did not see this before. So we have confirmation from the US military that there was indeed some sort of hypersonic test at some point in the summer. Important news appeared however on Wednesday from the 7th China (International) Commercial Aerospace Forum. The ramjet engine of the first stage of the Tengyun spaceplane- has made its first flight. It is possible that the "HGV" was actually a sub-scale demonstrator for the Tengyun, akin in purpose to the BOR-4 prototype for the Soviet Spiral spaceplane (but powered), and that the "projectile released" was the first stage/carrier aircraft completing its mission while the "HGV" was a sub-scale, presumably non-powered (and thus just intended to impact) model of the Tengyun upper stage/main spacecraft (the X-37B looking thing). This would also explain why it was launched on a Long March rocket, and not a DF series missile. I think we have our culprit . Apologies for no links on the news from convention, it was just yesterday and the link to the image of the slide/presentation from my source is broken. It will hopefully appear soon. @steve9728, have you heard anything about the Tengyun test?

Actually, wouldn't it be possible to launch Cargo Dragon inside of Cargo Starship? Which would be presumably cheaper than launching Cargo Dragon on Falcon 9.

It is mainly used against nuclear winter/nuclear autumn/*nuclear weapons causing near-extinction like events* theories, but also to downplay the damage of the weapons in general (to describe a nuclear war as more like WWII bombings over a larger area instead of having any special or long-term disastrous effects). However, something interesting to note is that a lot of those arguments and studies were made prior to mainstream acceptance of climate change and before ocean acidification was widely known (1980s). I haven’t seen any works relating to how a nuclear war and the associated uncontrolled fires and release of numerous dangerous chemicals (as factories/industrial plants and buildings of different construction methods/materials get destroyed) might affect those two things.

Launch of Prichal stream(s?) is live. Can the spacecraft be christened “Big Brain Progress” while it is in flight to the ISS?

"And therefore, the study concludes that there is no increase in the effectiveness of diplomats during negotiations when exposed to microgravity".

The amount of funding that the HOPE spaceplane (the real one, not the uncrewed HOPE-X demonstrator) and other crewed Japanese spacecraft have gotten (I'm exaggerating a little of course).

Where does the "modern buildings don't catch fire" argument used in defence of nuclear deterrence come from? The inside is flammable too (fire departments still exist for a reason), and nuclear weapons don't just sizzle the outer surface- they blast away the entire structure. Even if you aren't going to get a Hiroshima-like landscape after the blast, shouldn't large fire storms akin to those at Dresden and Tokyo be expected? Damage is different due to construction material differences, but area affected similar. If I'm missing something and incorrect, of course please correct me Also, does the blast force scale with the yield? Example- dropping a 10 kiloton weapon (same as Little Boy) on modern day Hiroshima, with its various modern construction techniques, would be very different from what actually happened at WWII Hiroshima (many more buildings standing), but if you drop a 1 megaton weapon on modern day Hiroshima, could you expect a more "WWII Hiroshima-like" landscape afterwards (more buildings completely or near demolished)?

I find it funny how JAXA/ISAS is excluded from this. Are they just too normal of a space program to make fun of? I can't recall anything particularly crazy they have done, apart from decent portions of their budget being partially related to maintaining potential ballistic missile technology (there is a reason JAXA still operates solid fuel launch vehicles when the H series are just fine, along with sample return missions (the re-entry capsules of which are dual use in relation to missile RVs) getting funded). JAXA approach: These clamps failed. Let's do our best to replace them with the money we have. *followed by* Japanese conservative politician approach: Those clamps are vital to potential indigenous ballistic missile technology. Have 10 million yen to replace them! I have a really, really bad feeling about all of this. When I heard the news about the clamps for the first time, I was listening to a disco playlist on YouTube. The song that started playing, as I read the tweet, had the lyrics "burn baby, burn". I am not kidding

I wonder, what would this be if it was real? Assuming this aspect of the test completely rules out the HGV theory (making it a spaceplane), might something have been released by the spaceplane in flight? Either purposely or accidentally? That said, I can't help but think that the top people at FT said, "wow, that HGV article based on spotty sources really made a lot of money. Do it again", and then with no real/realistic news to report on, the reporters had to make something up. There isn't anything particularly "saber rattling-ish" about a pure weapons test. If the HGV had splashed down 200 miles off the coast of the US, North Korea-firing-a-missile-over-Japan-style, it would be understandable, but this is nothing really more than the equivalent of the American SM-3 test against an ICBM class target, at least within the context of maintaining strategic stability.

So Soyuz MS-20 isn't the only thing being done to improve Russia-Japan relations Would it be possible to launch two Soyuz and have them dock, Soyuz 4 and 5 style, and have each carry diplomats from Russia and Japan, and then sign the WWII peace treaty in space?

If the proper support infrastructure and launch pads were built, how often can rockets be launched? The story I use as the background for my KSP save has two Saturn Vs launching every other month in the 1980s, along with Saturn IC (INT-20) launches, and Space Shuttle launches also occurring- not to mention normal commercial and military launches. Likewise, there are two N-1s launching each month, with four every 6 months from Baikonur. With Baikonur, it is in the middle of nowhere so I assume massive expansion wouldn't be problematic, but is there space for another VAB or three at Cape Canaveral?

Agreed. This is what I meant, not constructing an entire crane. Remote manipulator arm would be good too! Especially if orbital colonies/outposts might be a thing as well, although I don't know whether those qualify as colonies or just huge space stations.

Shooting “down” a spacecraft with a similar shape, construction, and materials used for crewed spacecraft would be pretty creepy though. Also out of curiosity (a question for anyone to answer btw), what is the justification used around the X-37B potentially having strike capabilities? It has no bomb bay, and won’t it naturally lose speed or just break apart if it was to be used as a suicide weapon (and thus be easily shot down by existing SAM systems)? And the readying of an X-37B should be pretty obvious to Russia’s intelligence capabilities (NOTAMs, rocket assembly, infiltrating ULA or the launch provider to learn of the payload, etc.) so how is it supposed to work as a practical weapon (I’m assuming they are referring to the X-37B as a nuclear weapons delivery platform, as there are not enough X-37Bs nor launch pads for a conventional version to be an effective strike system)? Under Soviet ideology where the entire US society is just a front for the machinations of the conniving capitalists, I suppose the Space Shuttle first strike theory/fear made sense, but a repeat of that in modern Russia feels weird, at least based on what I know about the nature of modern Russian government perceptions of their potential adversaries.

Now I know not to rely on Wikipedia for what I think are trivial and easy info-bits!

I don't, but it is possible that the sloppy nature of my docking style might affect it, now that I think about. The distance that I begin docking is similar, but I usually come screaming in at something like 40-50 m/s towards the target before hard braking about 20 or so meters off, then dropping to 0 m/s, then turning, then proceeding to dock

Tiangong, too, is affected by the recent Russian ASAT test. Unfortunately for the ISS crew however, Tiangong is not co-orbited with it (the ISS), which means they can't use the Soyuz descent engines to travel to it, and use an operable Shenzhou to return to Earth... ------------- Landed on December 14th, 2013, and has now been operable for 7 years, 10 months, and roughly 30 days (I was too lazy to take into account different time zones and what not) as of this post, which means it has broken the Apollo 12 ALSEP's record of 7 years, 10 months, and 11 days to become the longest operating piece of equipment on the Moon! Although in all fairness, the Apollo 12 ALSEP was turned off due to budgetary reasons, and did not fail. Still impressive anyhow, especially considering it was their first (!!!) lunar lander. Note- the rover is inactive, ceasing to operate in 2014.

I play the game stock. I can rendezvous and dock no problem, but often times both the passive and active vehicles will begin spinning as they approach each other, kind of like ice skaters holding hands and rotating on the rink. Is there a way to stop this? I try multiple times to bring velocity to 0, then point the vehicles towards each other using small reaction wheel movements, and then resume approach, but it still happens. This is not a vital issue, just a quality of operations type thing I do have tried both keeping SAS on and off on the passive vehicle during approach. It will still start moving away laterally. I do not use SAS for the active vehicle at all, not when aiming towards the target nor during approach.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20030063128/downloads/20030063128.pdf This 2003 NASA study chooses Callisto as a target. Not sure what Elon was thinking. On Ganymede's surface, you get 50-80 mSv per day. The limit over the course of five years for Earthly employees involved with radiation is 100 mSv...

Thanks for the clarification! I have never heard of that term before. It should be noted most “mainstream” climate activists don’t support this- such plans have numerous holes and potential disastrous unintended side effects. I have not seen much support for such efforts in the wider climate movement, apart from the occasional mass media editorial article. I’m sure Mike can give you a more detailed and accurate answer, but higher altitude in general means higher fuel efficiency. Which means airliners high as fly as they can go, as he said.

Concept art of completed bases aside, I have not read much about real-life base construction methods (which presumably KSP2 ones would be based on). The Soviet DLB lunar base had multiple modules, which were partially inflatable (to allow them to be landed as a cube), but I have not been able to find how the modules were supposed to be placed and assembled. Even the most advanced of the Apollo derived lunar base studies consisted of only one module or separately landed ones adjacent to each other, while most post-Apollo bases, even ones with multiple modules, did not progress beyond some mass and dimension figures and some shapes on a power point slide, although some of the latter did feature crane-rovers for use in moving around materials (I can't remember whether there were renders of cranes assembling actual modules however). The current Artemis proposal is just one module. With base building being a bigger focus, do you think it would be possible to see some sort of crane-type parts added? The BAE would be a little lame to use just for a simple add-on module. Using the BAE to do "real" construction work (i.e., the Munar equivalent of building an apartment complex) is understandable, but relying on it for what is basically just setting up a fold-out RV on the Mun would be a little disappointing and feel like over kill, especially when modular space stations of presumably the same scale can be assembled manually anyways.

The fun continues! If I was a progressive Congressman who wanted to phase out SLS in favor of commercial space, I would attack SLS as "a multi-billion dollar program with ballooning costs and numerous delays, all just to send toys into a distant lunar orbit". Snoopy plushy around the Moon is still really cool though!