SunlitZelkova

My logic could be extended to say that Apollo 11 memorials are "KSP tradition" so carrying over both or having only a Collins memorial in KSP2 are as justified as carrying over explosions and funny expressions of the Kerbals. Nonetheless, I do agree/think (not sure what your opinion is) it should only be a thing/is only justified in KSP2 if there is also an Armstrong memorial in KSP2. If none, there is no justification for a Collins memorial. Currently it is only Apollo 11 astronauts though. It could stop with the three when Buzz passes away, the devs could say "it was only for Apollo 11 astronauts". Reasons could be given for why there will not be other memorials, the Moon mission club is "exclusive" as of the game's release (2022, no one is going back to the Moon until 2023 at the earliest), a small number of people have been to the Moon compared to low Earth orbit, and maybe even something along the lines of "Apollo was a pretty extraordinary achievement considering when it occurred, so we feel a need to honor it" (it is made by American developers after all). The former two reasons still leave the possibility of other Apollo astronauts open though. Considering the conversation was bordering on inflammatory earlier, I would like to reiterate you are welcome to disagree

Buzz Aldrin doesn't have a memorial because he is still alive. Most of the people who want a memorial for Collins are not advocating for a memorial for every single astronaut. I can't speak for the OP, but my reasoning for supporting it is that if there is a memorial for one Apollo 11 astronaut, there should be one for every Apollo 11 astronaut (obviously Buzz would not have one until he passes away). I.e., the only reason (for me) there should be one is because there is already a Neil Armstrong one, and if you are going to honor one Apollo 11 astronaut all of them should be honored. I agree that if the reason for a memorial is simply because "he was an astronaut and he did a lot of amazing stuff" it is kind of a poor idea because it excludes all of the other astronauts and cosmonauts. I don't mean this as an offense to Collins, he was an amazing person who did amazing things, but I think there should be a Collins memorial not because of his merits or what he did per se, but because he was an astronaut on Apollo 11, and there is a precedent for honoring Apollo 11 astronauts with the Neil Armstrong memorial. Of course, you are welcome to disagree.

If there is a Neil Armstrong one on the surface of the Mun, it would only make sense to have something in orbit for Collins.

A sandbox is self contained and is probably legally more like a building than the ground "outside" (the regular nature ground) so I don't think so lol.

Apart from "more (maybe bigger) bits" what makes this more dangerous than say, the Falcon 9 second stage reentering over Oregon and Washington?

Starship has prototypes, but no Super Heavy. In addition these prototypes are still rather "bare", no where near the level of the final product, whereas some of the modules for the new Russian station are already under production/exist. Starship certainly has a great team behind it, but the Russian engineers are just as good, Soyuz is after all still performing just fine. As kerbiloid said, part of the problem with the development of Oryolnok is that Soyuz and Progress are eating up the funding and still exist, similar to how the Constellation Program was underfunded partially because the Space Shuttle was still happening. All of this might remain the same for the next few years, but once the Russian segment of the ISS (or the ISS itself) ends there will be more money to go around and a political need to do the new station (maybe not Oryolnok) will be there, so even if it isn't to the exact schedule announced, it (or something resembling it) will happen eventually. I think comparing Roscosmos and SpaceX is pointless because one is a national space agency and the other is a private company. As Roscosmos' activities are dictated by the government, of course its projects will constantly be in limbo, and as SpaceX can basically do whatever it (Elon) wants to, assuming it puts its mind to it. Now just because it can "do" (fabricate) whatever it wants to doesn't mean it will work. That's not to say it is likely to fail, but at the same time it isn't guaranteed to work either. We just need to wait and see. On an unrelated note, this Roscosmos/ROSS vs. SpaceX/Starship discussion that has been going on has a curious dynamic. ROSS is technologically conservative and very doable, but the will is the primary deciding factor in whether it will succeed or not. Starship is technologically radical and has a lot to prove, while the will is guaranteed (at least for as long, and so long as no major design flaw is uncovered).

They would be fined for not having a permit for digging. From a website called Yard Sumo, but applies to basically anywhere in the US (not just backyards)-

It is interesting. I think the LEO aspect of China's crewed space program is very much guided by showing that China is equal to Russia and the US, i.e. nationalism, so they don't want it to look like they need Russian support for their space station. On the other hand, the Moon (base and continuous exploration compared to the very experimental nature of Apollo) is something that no one has yet to do, so they don't mind entertaining the idea of cooperation more seriously. Whereas there was never a concrete plan to work with Russia for their modular space station, what has been revealed over the past few days makes it look like they are anticipating a fair amount of Russian participation in the lunar base (in the form of robotic exploration at least. The slides I shared do not mention anything about Yenisei, Oryolnok, or the LVPK, only Luna 25-28).

When I was first interested in space exploration, China had yet to launch its first space station, and I did not follow space exploration while the Tiangong stations were up, so the fact that there are now two space stations is pretty mind boggling. Tianzhou is a cargo spacecraft, Shenzhou is obviously for crew transport, Wentian and Mengtian are "Laboratory Cabin Modules". And as tater said and is clear in this image, Tianhe is the core module. This is the final configuration although apparently there is a backup Tianhe module that could be docked to the other end of Tianhe-1 to expand the crew capacity to six.

I don't think they said suits used air/O2 for suits in that conversation in the show, they didn't specify what it was. Keep in mind that article is only about Space Shuttles going to the Moon. Not "a vehicle that doesn't have enough delta v to get to the Moon". Unfortunately because it is a pop TV show they will deliberately ignore realism for drama. For example, there is no good reason why the windows on Jamestown should have been thin enough for shots from an AKM to penetrate. Also, they sometimes ignore common sense for drama too. The defector on the lunar base doesn't speak English during the incident in which he is shot, only to speak it rather well in later episodes. Even if the cosmonauts panicked when the Moon Marines showed up pointing rifles at them, it is pretty unlikely he would just forget to speak English and reach for the translation card. Sadly I don't think the Apple executives would sign off on such a plan. Is there a mod allowing for a spectator view/free camera in KSP? Standard views from the spacecraft when playing KSP as usual are probably not good enough for what has been described as Apple TV+'s flagship show. Also judging from the reddit, this show is watched by people who are confused by the lunar base being a thing despite it being an alternate history show (I recall some questions saying "why are there lunar missions in 1974? I thought the last one was in '72?), so the Shuttle might be for them. They may get confused by it not being present. But on the other hand, they then get confused by Space Shuttles in lunar orbit, so I suppose exactly who such reasoning was targeted for is a mystery. After all, this is an alternate history show, people don't watch it to see NASA's budget being slashed resulting in a dangerous vehicle (as happened in real life), they watch it to see what might have been.

I wonder if US intelligence agencies will notice this, and if it will affect the president's final decision on the new Artemis timeline. It wouldn't matter too much, but if he is serious about competing with China, trying to get to the Moon 4-5 years before China, as opposed to delaying the landing to 2028, might be a good option for "competition". Technically, it is tomorrow (or is about to be) in China, so today (in the US). Tianhe-1 is supposed to launch on the 29th. I am not aware of any livestreams as of this post though.

An article has been released where Garrett Reisman (former astronaut and technical advisor) and Ronald D. Moore (executive producer) explain why Space Shuttles go to the Moon- cost. http://www.collectspace.com//news/news-042621a-for-all-mankind-space-shuttle-moon.html They could have done the Space Shuttle + Nuclear Shuttle + Space Tug for lunar base transport that was planned in real life, but it would have cost a load of money for the CGI, compared to using stock footage. They would also need to build a new set, while there was a Space Shuttle cockpit set already. They couldn't afford all of its along with the expanded lunar base set. Also, they just felt the real life Shuttle was too iconic to leave out. It would have been nice to see the full STS, probably with the DC-3 space shuttle design, but that would have meant no larger lunar base. I think the trade off is fine, considering I don't watch it for realism anyways.

The V2 sound rocket tests, including the Bumper, were all conducted by the US Army, so I don't think so. A number of laboratories across the country participated in the launches but not NACA.

Ok but the V2 and V2 based sounding rockets were all retired/used up by the time NASA was created. Maybe NASA History Office books used it, but it was never used in any official function by NASA! (You all may be joking, but to be clear, "I have never heard V2 used by SpaceX or NASA" was intended to be "I have never heard Dragon V2 used by SpaceX or NASA")

I don't think economy really matters, just the will. The USSR's economy was... not good, to put it lightly, in the 80s, yet the Soviets built and operated multiple space stations, including the first modular one, with expendable rockets, while the US was limited to not more than two week long stays aboard the supposedly cheap and reusable Shuttle. Challenger halted US crewed spaceflight for two years, the USSR had its own accident (Soyuz T-10a, which did not involve crew death) but was able to continue flying just five months later. And despite having a better economy, the US was never able to build its own modular space station, in fact it nearly cancelled it (it survived by one vote in some House committee). Had it not survived, there would have been no ISS. The reason so many things have been delayed before seems to have been caused by the economic problems of the 90s and 2000s. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but (from what I have read) while sanctions hurt, the economy is still nowhere near the level of how it was then (not taking in to account the pandemic). Even if it isn't to the exact schedule, I think Russia could fairly easily build this station so long as they want to. And for sure, eventually they will want to. If Russia is trying to "come back" as a world power, having something in space is necessary, if you are trying to show you are an alternative to the US or China as a major economic and defence partner, flying Soyuz 9 style missions with Soyuz or Oryolnok won't cut it.

By this I mean will we have to tediously load hundreds, maybe thousands of Kerbals into ships to take them to distant star systems? Or will there be a separate "colonist" type of Kerbal that you can load in bulk, and "normal" Kerbals will only be needed for a relatively small caretaker crew? What do you think? Of course, this question would cross over with the question of whether colonies will be able to populate themselves (will Kerbals be able to reproduce?). My question probably doesn't matter for a bare minimum colony (loading Kerbals one by one would work) but for cases where players want to build massive colonies it would matter (in the event Kerbals don't reproduce).

*shrugs* helping to know orientation? To be clear, I meant the green and red. The Gemini, Apollo CSM and LM, Crew Dragon, and maybe Starliner have them.

It isn't, he probably used that because they use the same name but are clearly different, with Dragon 2-Cargo Dragon looking visually similar to the one and only Crew Dragon, whereas there are two Cargo Dragons that look very different. Wikipedia says it is "Dragon 2", with Cargo Dragon and Crew Dragon as the two variants. I have never heard of "V2" being used by either SpaceX or NASA.

Do any Soviet/Russian spacecraft have/had navigation/running lights? There don't seem to be any from what I can find, only the docking light.

This is what happens when they launch a SN/Starship in the fog. It breaks people's regular intake of Starship-test-amine, and they go into withdrawal and have pointless arguments over Starship because they have no 4K videos of the flight to analyze and dissect. EDIT- For clarification, this is a joke, with no ill will intended towards anyone

Yes. There is no Chinese language version, and none of the English CNSA watcher accounts or websites that I follow have anything related to it. My reply was meant for SOXBLOX only. No word on any stream yet, there will likely be something on bilibili (by "amateur" space fans I think, not official), and CGTN may have something too, although if there is, it will probably have lots of commentary. As to how to access the former (search words, channels) I don't know.

Yes. My reply was meant for SOXBLOX, whose post implied he thought it was an official account. Lots of stuff as a result of Space Day- I don't recall China ever having done something to "be on time" in regards to space. Their modus operandi seemed to be "go as you do things", not rushing and taking their time to learn and improve upon different things, whether it be crewed flight or rocket development itself. Maybe this indicates a new "seriousness" for CNSA (more aggressive schedules)? Although, given one of LM9's main missions is a Mars sample return, I suppose there is a very real deadline in that case to avoid missing the launch window and wasting a probe. This is an image from a presentation given on Space Day (April 24). It is the "official" roadmap to the Russia-China lunar base. Of course, things are open to change. Keep in mind no one has any idea how much coordination, if any at all, there was with Roscosmos regarding this plan, so there may indeed be unrealistic aspects in the schedule regarding their side of the work. Quoted translation (not by me, although I did correct "Luna 26", as previously 25 was repeated twice)- Phase 3 is obviously crewed. So I guess there is something of a date now for the first Chinese crewed lunar landing. Ignore the sky ladder, pay attention to the lunar rover- The Mars rover now has a name- Tianhe rolled out on April 23rd. Launch is on the 29th-

There is a difference between a billionaire using personal money and an organization using state or corporate funds. Once Starship flies, it will be an option, but apart from billionaires using their personal money, it is too risky for anyone else. NASA's endorsement does raise confidence, but keep in mind they are also the same people sticking to the rather impossible 2024 date. I'm sure the reaction at Roscosmos is one of "what are they thinking?" when they heard the announcement, although the continued use of the 2024 date despite the White House wanting to review the schedule may also give them a chuckle. And of course, the goal of a corporation is profit. No matter what NASA says, if they (SpaceX) can't guarantee 101% that Starship will be functional and on time, the likes of OneWeb will not use it. And DearMoon isn't exactly "scheduled". It is planned, but the date will certainly shift. Musk said there will be "hundreds" of uncrewed Starship flights before people fly on it. Using the minimum of 200 uncrewed flights (for the number "hundreds"), starting in July of this year, that means there needs to be (very) roughly one launch every four or five days or so to allow for a DearMoon launch sometime in December 2023.

I just recently landed my first probe there, but it was overbuilt so there wasn't too much to learn from it. Is there anything particular about landing on it with Kerbals I should know? I am currently just planning to use the same design parameters as a Mun lander.

I think kerbiloid is just saying Starship is too dicey in its schedule and exotic in its engineering for a foreign national space agency to commit to right now. There are also pride reasons why it wouldn't happen, I'm sure the politicians who give Roscosmos money would hate to hear "we need the Americans to help assemble our first national space station in 25 years".