SunlitZelkova

Well, they also criticized the use of tankers and multiple dockings for refueling. If it was 1977 I think it would be a valid concern. But is uncrewed docking really that hard in 2021?

There are probably laws preventing it (a crafty lawyer could even accuse it of violating missile technology control agreements) and national pride reasons people may not want to accept it. I don't think there is a good point of doing that though. SpaceX already launches spacecraft for other countries. It would be a burden for them to build it themselves. And of course, he will still make money launching their spacecraft for them. If restrictions were super relaxed though, it would be cool if SpaceX could help "run" space programs for other countries. With no need to develop a crewed spacecraft (just buy Crew and Cargo Dragon flights), it would become much more feasible for other countries to build their own space station. SpaceX, assuming it has its own astronauts for Starship flights in the future, could even assist with astronaut training.

They will never be used to fight an offensive war. Now that I think about it, it does sound a bit odd, but Japan continued to maintain fairly large amounts of ground defensive weaponry throughout the Cold War despite China, Russia, and both Koreas having no where near the amphibious capability required for a full scale invasion of Japan. So even if faction A does not possess the ships required for an invasion of faction B's planet, it still may be worth possessing defensive weaponry. This is all within my scenario where all factions continue to maintain a desire for peace and therefore will never build up major offensive forces (as a real life example of something like this, the size of forces in the East and West during the Cold War was very dual role- although NATO possessed massive air and naval forces which could have been used to launch a first strike on the USSR, it could just as easily have been used to defend the vast expanse of NATO territory spanning the Atlantic and Mediterranean, likewise although the USSR possessed a massive land army that could have overrun Western Europe, it could just as easily be used to defend the vast expanse of the Soviet Union. Thus each side could lay their claim to a desire for peace while building up military forces. But if the USSR had a massive amphibious fleet based in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, or if NATO possessed a massive land army in Europe, the story would be different. Just as such forces would destroy the two sides claims of wanting peace, factions in the solar system cannot possess interplanetary invasion fleets for the same reason, within my scenario), whether different human nations in the solar system will potentially go to war with each other is a different question. No, I did not read the links, I apologize. I have now. I think their points do kill the concept of crewed fighters. However, uncrewed/drone *fighters* (not really fighters, just small, cheap missile trucks designed to deliver the short range missiles within range of the target, perhaps containing detection systems) could be viable. The trucks would be simple and expendable, but would act like fighters (they are not weapons themselves, they carry weapons). And if these trucks with missiles are defensive weapons as in my scenario, it would be easy to build a simple booster to send them to an enemy faction's planet. Uncrewed booster-truck-missiles do the combat remotely and repurposed civilian ships can be used for occupation/ground invasion. This does however ignore the OP's scenario. Due to lack of time I did somewhat skim through the articles, so if there is something in there that invalidates my proposal I apologize.

Would it be possible to build a super-heavy lift launch vehicle using existing Japanese rocket technology?

My comments assumed that it was humans vs. humans, probably with existing nations, or new nations that maintain the desire for peace [among the great powers] that arose after World War II. So it would be limited to the solar system at most. Defensive weapons *should* be all the two factions ever need. And the small fighters, assuming very high-tech levels per the OP's scenario (with warp drives) should be good enough for most operations. I don't think the authors of such works can be blamed too much. In real life most modern torpedoes have re-attack capability, and a lot of space sci-fi combat works are heavily influenced by real life naval operations (for example, in Star Wars destroyers and cruisers are rarely seen fighting each other "in 3D", they behave as if they were on the water or in atmosphere). So from a pure art perspective it isn't a problem. Now for a realism based discussion like this is apparently supposed to be, I agree.

*Reply aimed at examining the SF works themselves* Well the thing is, a lot of the stories/films whatever where heavy space battleships originated were never intended to be serious attempts at realism anyways. *Various novels from the 40s to the 60s* Star Trek Star Wars These are all works of art, set in space, with science-like elements sprinkled in to enhance entertainment for the reader. And with no internet for people with knowledge of "how it would actually work" to complain on and with "nerd" having much more of a negative stigma than it does now, the artists/creators felt no need to make an effort toward realism as their primary target audience was interested in the artistic and entertainment aspect of their works, not the realism. Even if there was, these are still works of art, and the creator is entitled to do whatever they want to to enhance the story (storytelling is the purpose of the medium they used). Modern works that still contain such large combat craft are simply following the trend. So I don't think the creators/authors can be blamed too much. *Reply aimed at examining the actual tech* I don't think there should ever have been an expectation for/will be large combat craft in space in the first place. On Earth, navies went to battleships as weapons simply became more powerful, ships more sturdy, and this required an increase in both armor and the size of the vessel to hold newer, more powerful guns. Torpedo boats were developed for both coastal defence and as a possible cheap counter to battleships. A number of large battleships had to be refit with lighter guns (75-76.2mm) to defend against the new threat. However torpedo boats never ended up killing the battleship concept as they too were limited in speed due to the limitations the water creates. There is only so fast a boat could go with 1910s-1940s technology. Then bring the airplane. Although to primitive and somewhat experimental to prove effective in changing the tide of battle in World War I, come World War II aviation technology had improved immensely. Airplanes could fly far faster than before- even at the start of the war, sometimes faster than the common anti-aircraft guns of some nations could handle- and carry a heavy bombload in comparison with their counterparts from the previous global conflict. Just as space battleships could not escape lighter craft and missiles as you wrote, the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse could not escape the Japanese G4M and G3M bombers carrying bombs and torpedoes. Once they were spotted they were doomed. Now enter space- the final frontier, and perhaps the "final" theater of war. Technology already needs to be at a very high level to be fighting in space anyways- for such event to occur there would need to be two competing vast societies that not only exist in space, but at least partially depend on space for their existence (to make it worth fighting over). There would be no need to climb from sailing ship-ironclad-battleship-dreadnought-airplane/aircraft carrier as there was on Earth. Militaries would likely jump straight to high speed small craft. There would likely be little need for some sort of mothership in this scenario. So rather than "the age of the space battleship is over", I would go a step further and say it is unrealistic for an "age of the space battleship" to occur at all.

In regards to rover vs. human, I think humans could only perform slightly better. Due to safety reasons, crewed rovers likely will never travel that fast at all. So the distance covered is not much of an improvement. There is a limit to how far you can go away from the lander anyways. All of my answers/opinions/statements were within the context of government run space exploration, which the citizens of each government obviously have at least some say in. If the government (NASA)'s goal is to explore space and make new discoveries about space (vs. making discoveries about humans in space) then I don't think there is any good argument for humans in space exploration run by the government. SpaceX is a private company, so even if my and others statements about the uselessness of humans in space exploration were true, I don't think it matters, as SpaceX can go to Mars to do the science "with their own hands", or to build the first Mars colony with the first Mars McDonald's, or just to take selfies and draw pictures in the dirt, if they want to. No logic required as it is their rocket, not mine. So although I made some statements about humans being unneeded for space exploration, I am not opposed to Starship or anything, because it is not my place to criticize a private company (of which I am not affiliated with)'s plans. Not to turn this into a Starship thread, but there was a discussion about this in the Artemis program thread. From @cubinator And by @tater But rather than using Starship itself to get to the outer planets, I think using rapid-reuse Starship to build a JTV/STV/UTV/NTV (Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus/Neptune Transfer Vehicle) in orbit makes more sense.

Oh yes, I recognize that if the goal is pure science, human are useless. I'm sure virtually all of the potential science tasks for the human Mars missions currently under study/early planning can be accomplished by robots. In the 60s there was a good argument for humans. Probes failed quite frequently and were unreliable. But nowadays, there should be no major obstacles. My question is within the context of "humans should do the science" because "reasons" (which one could argue is kind of all there is going for human space exploration beyond LEO at this time. In the 60s as I mentioned and prior, there were no robots so the dream of "sending men to the Moon/planets" had to exist- there was no other option for exploration. Such is not the case now, so the whole "let's send humans there" is purely because people who support such an idea want to, not because of any logical reason/requirement. But I digress). So for those people who think humans should go to Mars, "where do you think they should go after that?" is what I was asking. This is not to say I do not value your answer or anything. A clarification of my question just happens to partially make up my response to your response, which I found myself wanting to respond to.

Apart from simply learning more about it, does Ceres have any value as a target for human exploration? In the event humans land on Mars sometime between now and 2040, would Ceres make a good "next target"? Or would human exploration further out just stop? Historically, all space agencies and people have ever really been interested in sending people to are the Moon, Mars, and prior to the realization/discovery about its atmosphere, Venus. There is a single concept paper about a human mission to Callisto out there, but after a human Mars landing, having actual scientists and engineers seriously discuss sending a human mission to a Jovian moon is a bit hard to imagine.

There is no CSS-2. They will expand the current station to be larger than now, but there are no plans for either deorbit of the current station or construction of a new one right now. No one will invest in Starship until it has actually flown a cargo flight. It is too risky as it is unproven.

Project Horizon was never intended to be a realistic plan. It was mainly created so that come around 1959 when the government was starting to get serious about space, the Army could say they had experience in space and keep their spaceflight program under the ABMA. The Eisenhower administration saw through their games and military lost all of its space projects, apart from the Air Force which had actual reasons to build things like reconnaissance satellites. The 70s SBSP project was created in the 70s but it was never intended to be built in the 20th century. Construction wasn't expected to begin until the year 2000. And it wasn't even a program anyways- just a study. It was not closed due to infeasibility, but due to pro-oil voices in the Reagan administration attempting to kill government research on most alternative energy sources.

It is likely just made up dates in an attempt to wow the Hong Kongers. The China Academy of Space Technology hasn't even made much progress in the way of the technology required anyways. The thing about the plan is it does involve creating huge satellites. If I am interpreting the image of the slide correctly (it is a little blurry and hard to tell) the 10000 gigawatt satellite will be 20 km by 1 km, and will require 143 Long March 9 launches to complete. It isn't one solar panel of course though. 660 megawatt satellite is 300 meters by 600 meters and requires 17 Long March 9 launches. With the will and money, it's not too dumb of an idea, NASA and the DOE studied such a plan in the 70s- http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2016/12/energy-from-space-department-of.html On an off-hand note, this is the sort of project rapid-reuse Starship is great for. In fact, the cargo spacecraft proposed by Boeing for the NASA-DOE study basically has the same configuration as Starship, but with plane-like return instead of propulsive landing (right down to a chomper-like payload bay).

Yes. There will be a maximum limit to how far it can go before being unable to return, but it isn't intended to stay at a fixed distance away from the station. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here is some info on those. For SBSP, it is very hard to tell, but the plan looks a little like this. All likely aspirational as the tweet indicates- 2022- Launch of a small scale demonstrator capable of supplying 50 kilowatts. 2030- Launch of a larger experimental array capable of supplying 660 megawatts. 2060- Launch of full scale satellite, capable of supplying 10000 gigawatts. Translation, not by me- Whether these projects will actually come to fruition is unknown, not only because of their apparent ambition, but because news about spaceplane development in China is pretty hard to find.

"Why discuss it at all if it is such an unneeded plan (for Roscosmos)?" is what I was wondering. The Italian module will not be launched until phase 2 of the CSS, which involves launching the backup Tianhe core to create room for six. By that time, the Next Generation Crewed Spacecraft should be flying, which will have a capacity for seven maximum, so there shouldn't be problems with crew space. Gateway might not be good, because it cannot be crewed long term due to radiation. The main purpose is supposed to be as a refueling point for a reusable lander anyways, and if the only way to access it is Orion, the science that can be done would be limited to 30 day stays a year, but possibly not even that as I think the entire Orion crew is supposed to go down to the surface anyways. I should have been more clear. The proposed Chinese-Italian module is called HERD (High Energy cosmic-Ray Detection), specialized for dark energy detection and studying cosmic rays. It is not just Columbus 2.0 or an analogue of a Gateway module. It may be beneficial to use CSS because China already (that is, in 2021, as of this post) welcomes the cooperation (for technology as you said), and China is going to pay for part of it. Versus building a new module for ISS or ROSS, which would require either the construction of a complete module on their own or new negotiations to build one jointly. If it is an ESA-only module, they would also need to build some kind of FSM-like delivery spacecraft, because there is no Space Shuttle. The CSS also has space, whereas the American section of the ISS is packed. How is the relationship between ESA and Roscosmos doing in regards to human spaceflight (with stuff like Nauka and the ERM)? Would they be up for building a joint module for ROSS? The CSS module that has been proposed is only Italy-China, no ESA involvement. In fact even ESA astronauts to CSS at any time in the future is hypothetical, the module, even if it is partially Italian built, may be operated solely by taikonauts.

It would probably be easier just to build a Soyuz/Progress with the Chinese docking system. Despite the similarity and the fact that Shenzhou was developed with the aid of Soyuz technology directly from Russia, it still isn't entirely compatible. Looking back at the proposal, it is indeed a joint Chinese-Italian module. Whether it would actually be owned by Italy or not is unclear. It is still limited to a power point. As I said, it is just a proposal, no concrete plan ("we will" declarations) yet. The thing with the potential ESA collaboration on CSS is that ISS will not be there forever, and even if the station is commercialized by Axiom, the European modules themselves are just old. So eventually it will go down. And if relations with Russia are shaky and the US flips back to quasi-isolationism in 2024 (along with the potential iffy-ness of the Axiom commercialization), it might be more favorable to collaborate with China. Especially if LEO science is just a sideshow anyways, with ESA of course being part of Artemis and all, and the module being a joint one with China, it would be fairly cheap and allow a continuation of Europeans in LEO doing science. And of course, if *Europe* or the majority of ESA members choose a more independent/neutral path in the "great power competition" that has begun (at least, neutral towards China), it helps keep relations cool with China despite joining the US in condemning things like crackdown in Hong Kong. As for Roscosmos, it is quite strange they are discussing that/looking at it. If there is going to be a Russian station in the future anyways (as has been declared) what is the point of flying to the CSS?

Some ESA astronauts have already conducted training in China so it would not be an issue. *Italy* (not ESA) has proposed a module for the CSS.

Interesting. I wonder if the space base dates from or is related to MKBS or some of the Mir-2 designs, so perhaps it became law in case something like that is built? This could create issues if the cosmonauts and taikonauts are to live in the same habitat (and habitats are added to the law). Neither side would want to permanently give up the opportunity of having one of their own command the base. It is, it is just intended to be capable of docking to the station to allow for servicing, instead of having to build a spaceplane. There is a sort of "Sino-JWST" in the works as well, that would feature in-orbit assembly. Currently just a research project, no funding or plan to cut metal. ------------------------------------------------------------- Lot's of great info has been revealed about China's deep space exploration vehicles, courtesy of a lecture by Long Lehao, a rocket designer, given at Hong Kong Polytechnic University recently. Three variants- Long March 9A (CZ-9A), Long March 9B (CZ-9B), and CZ-9. B will not have boosters, possibly to allow for first stage recovery. The "921 rocket"- intended to launch the Next Generation Crewed Spacecraft and crewed lunar lander in a two launch LOR architecture, now has an official name- Long March 5DY (CZ-5DY). China may attempt a crewed lunar landing before 2030. In addition, it appears the Next Generation Crewed Spacecraft will have a built in launch escape system, similar to Crew Dragon, instead of an escape tower. However, for LEO missions it will have an escape tower- which implies there will be two different versions of the Next Generation Crewed Spacecraft, perhaps a variant with maximum crew (7 taikonauts/astronauts/cosmonauts) for space station transport, and a BLEO version with less crew. Elon actually replied to this tweet- Let the second Moon Race begin, with a GAO dispute over the lunar lander and a quiet presentation at a Hong Kong university, instead of an inspiring speech by JFK! China will also be attempting to land its first recoverable booster next year, of the Long March 8R rocket. The Chinese MSR mission has now been officially referred to as Tianwen-2, indicating there will be no further Mars missions from China until 2028. A two launch architecture- with Long March 5 and Long March 3 launches- is still on the table. Several deep space projects are mentioned in the image- 1. China will launch a sample return mission to asteroid 2016 HO3 in 2024, on a Long March 3B rocket. 2. Hard to tell, but there is something about launching a Jupiter spacecraft before 2034 on a Long March 5. 3. China will be launching a spacecraft that will fly out to 100 AU as part of the celebrations for the 100th anniversary of the People's Republic. Launch is apparently in 2049. This lecture also discussed space based solar power and multiple spaceplane projects. Full video, in Chinese, here- There has also been some poorly reported news about the Chinese space program too. China is not aiming for a crewed landing on Mars in 2033. I wouldn't be surprised if this suddenly creates a call for a crewed Mars program to begin in the US, at least by nationalists. The likes of CNBC and ABC news are already hyping up a new space race. It would be truly comical if this kick-starts a NASA crewed Mars program, all because of a mistranslation and a desire to get ad revenue through shocking headlines.

This is disturbing. Although I suppose there wasn't any cooperation in space during the 2000s when relations were decent anyways, so it doesn't necessarily signal a severe decline in relations. Some think Nelson does not actually think that. He contradicts himself in that sentence. They are considering creating one on Tianhe. Unless by "station", you meant Tianhe, not the ILRS, in which case, never mind. They have yet to submit the paperwork though. Would a habitat count as a vehicle? --------------------------------------------------------------------- The full footage will be released eventually- Weirdly, if you open this tweet on Twitter, it says the images of the space telescope "may contain sensitive content". The space telescope is a free flying component of Tianhe/CSS, although just how far it is supposed to go is unknown. Xi Jinping talked to the taikonauts, and they have unpacked cargo from Tianzhou-12- In case you are interested, video of their conversation- More images from cargo unpacking- An EVA is planned to take place in the next 10 days.

That is the biggest threat to the project. If for whatever reason China tries to take more or characterize it (in propaganda, announcements, actual operations whatever) as a "Chinese-lead" project, Russia will leave, just as it decided not to participate in Artemis for the same reason (or at least partially for that reason). As for who it is/will be- no one knows. So far it is the "International Lunar Research Station"- not Russia-China, not China-Russia. Because the treaty that will govern its operations hasn't been written yet, whether there will be some kind of hierarchy or not is yet to be determined.

It is impossible to tell what will happen in the future. A war may start two years from now over Taiwan, that completely wrecks the economies of China and the US and kills all funding for deep space exploration (along with spaceflight being literally killed during the cyber and ASAT combat). But in terms of how it looks right now, it is hard to tell. Judging from the video released at GLEX, it is a primarily robotic research station with a capacity for short surface stays in the long run. China was planning to do this anyways- a robotic research station on the lunar south pole has been known as the end goal of their robotic lunar program for awhile. Russia (that is, Rogozin) proposed creating a legal framework for the project (maybe a Russia-China counter to the Artemis Accords), so we will have to see what becomes of that. The actual project itself looks iffy. It's not like the ISS where without the Russian section the whole thing doesn't work- China can do this on its own and is developing its own set of spacecraft (unlike the ISS where the US lacked a long duration capsule and required Soyuz). So while this likely will happen in some form- China is going to build the lunar station anyways- whether Russia stays will be a matter of politics. Hopefully it succeeds though. The thing is, there isn't too much too lose for either side with this project. Russia and China have not declared themselves as allies- communist party affiliated papers regularly state China will not form some kind of Warsaw Pact-like alliance, in order to solve its problems on its own. But ever since China ceded disputed territory to Russia, IIRC, there hasn't been much tension between them. The only dicey thing is risking loss of intellectual property. But China is getting to a point where it probably doesn't need to conduct such actions in the field of space/rocketry, vs. collaborating in the early 2000s would likely have lead to theft. So the politics, from what I know as of this post, don't appear too stormy for the road ahead. However as for the external factors (rising tensions with the West) and whether that will result in some kind of catastrophe that could destroy deep space exploration plans, it is hard to tell. We will just have to wait and see.

Yes. I am not trying to say that the entire Chinese space program is peaceful. But in the particular example I mentioned- the reporting on a mission to Tianhe-1- it is rather clearly non-military. I think they are learning, at least a little bit, about PR. And it isn't just about trying to show off- they are also probably more confident. Things seem to have been much more quiet during the 2000s and early 2010s when there was a higher likelihood of failure, but as the Chinese aerospace industry matures, they can show stuff off while not worrying about a catastrophic failure. At least I would like to think that. Hopefully the flow of what limited info there is continues and does not lessen as tensions rise. When I said fear was not good, I meant fear as "constant fear for our lives at all times no matter where we are during the launch" vs. "fear of that thing over there that can't hurt me as long as I don't go near". Because the boosters can kind of fall anywhere within a certain radius. Of course once it is on the ground people can know to stay back, but you can't stay back when it is falling rather silently towards your house.

Yes, no one is saying it doesn't happen at all, but in this particular case- the launch of Shenzhou 12- there have been no photos of unprotected people around the boosters, which is what the tweet implied had occurred. In regards to how it would be better for more official announcements, I will quote myself from the discussion about the PR aspect of the Long March 5B core reentering uncontrolled- China doesn't really care what people outside of China think, partly because they believe the West (or Western mass media) will likely try to slant the coverage negatively no matter what, and partly because the target audience for the space program propaganda aspect is domestic Chinese people, not foreigners. It is possible they think releasing such images- of people in protective gear around the boosters- will produce a reverse effect, not raising safety awareness but instead creating fear each time a rocket launches. They would likely rather quietly work on preventative measures like the parafoils and search teams rather than cause a ruckus. (In regards to Western negativity- a number of commentators from "reputable" news sources like CNBC claimed that the space station might have military applications, despite the fact is is open to international collaboration. Such baseless click bait reporting likely makes Chinese propagandists feel things targeted towards improving their image with the West are a waste of time) The spacecraft uses aerobraking, so it might just be the aeroshell. It is a very preliminary concept, and the slides did use copy pastes from a NASA document, so the 3D artist may very well have added those fins just to make it look cool. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In regards to the use of nuclear electric propulsion, here is something I wrote back when Tianhe-1 was launched- I wonder if the use of electric propulsion on Tianhe-1 indeed is intended for evaluating use of electric propulsion for crewed spacecraft? In a certain sense, apart from Starship, most Mars transfer vehicles proposed to date have been space stations with large engines attached.

IIRC, being outside during an earthquake is not automatically safe either lol I'm surprised they don't try to do more education with regards to how dangerous the boosters are. If the situation occurred in the US, I would like to think a large number of PSAs and messages from local authorities (police) would help prevent such incidents. Or maybe they do take such measures, and the civilians who approach the boosters know, and are just really dumb. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The astronauts have boarded the station- Some appears to have come out regarding early concepts for the Chinese crewed mission to Mars (!!!) The slides use both images copy pasted from the NASA DRA 5.0 and the movie "The Wandering Earth" lol. This is apparently from a presentation given on China's Space Day (April 24th). The mission architecture is basically that of the Constellation program (DRA 5.0) but using Long March 9, the 921 rocket, and the Next-Generation Crewed Spacecraft instead of Ares V, Ares I, and Orion. In addition, the Mars crew and cargo transfer spacecraft use a combination of NTRs and nuclear electric propulsion. Rather than going straight to TMI from LEO, the two vehicles will slowly spiral out to high Earth orbit, and then the crew will board, before conducting TMI. It also gives a very vague run down of the MSR profile, which is part of the precursor phase to the human Mars program. There is a Phase 3 of the proposal (with Phase 1 being robotic exploration and Phase 2 being human expeditions) that involves establishing a Mars-Earth "econosphere". This would likely involve Chinese private space companies, and use of reusable spacecraft (there are fully reusable TSTO spaceplanes in development, along with reusable rockets). This is a very early concept, and nothing will go forward until after the results of the Mars sample return are known, so it is possible this will all completely change or never come to fruition at all. If it does however, given that NASA has a similar requirement (no human Mars planning until after MSR), and that the MSR missions are supposed to take place in the same timeframe, it would result in a race to Mars as both crewed programs would start simultaneously. Of course, such a situation ignores what SpaceX is doing.

I don't think he is defending it. He says in the post it is a problem. He is simply correcting. The tweet first shared implied that it was civilians who were standing near the booster. It was not. It was the debris recovery team with proper protective gear. There is currently no indication that any civilians happened upon the wreckage and went too close. Proper safety measures (albeit pure safety, the issue is still there) worked, at least this time. As YNM said, they kind of have no choice. Wenchang will just create the problem of boosters falling in other nation's territorial waters (the "real" territorial waters, not the disputed ones). And they are trying to minimize zone in which it falls to make it easier to find and secure, with parafoils for example, which were successfully tested and will be included in most launches going forward. The reason it was not used on Shenzhou 12 is likely because the test of the parafoils was done only a week ago or so, and Shenzhou 12's boosters had already been built and it was not possible to modify them without screwing up the schedule.

I disagree with this. There are plenty of objects in aerospace museums that didn't actually do much for people, but are still historically important. The Museum of Flight in Seattle has the first 747 ever built. It flew zero commercial flights and served as a testbed. But it is still historically important, and resides in a "public" museum. It fits there much more than in a warehouse managed by the likes of Boeing. That said, transporting SN15 to a museum would be difficult. Would it be possible to disassemble it and then airlift the sections by helicopter (slung load or whatever it is called)? Other large historical craft (Spruce Goose) have been disassembled for transport before, so that aspect would not compromise the artifact. Not that all of this would be necessary immediately or anything. But just as the Museum of Flight (in Seattle) likely prefers the first 747 rather than the 1000th 747 off the line or whatever, SN15 has historical value as the first Starship prototype to land intact, and although it is a bit fresh right now, some day at least, a museum would be glad to have it.