Beccab

Anyone knows of S-IVB sized telescope proposals? I've been looking for a while to no avail

Cutting a TLI into more burns means that the spacecraft passes many times through the van Allen belts instead of just once; this can be reasonable for a robotic probe, but for crewed spacecrafts it's a lot of radiation that should be avoided at all costs. Also, are you sure the term is cosine losses? Iirc that one refers to the losses caused by having angled engines, but i can't remember the correct one either

There will be a fifth crew dragon! Also:

Haven't found anything on OMOTENASHI yet, officially at least. Scott Manley trusted that info as correct though, so i did as well Edit:

Rest in peace, OMOTENASHI and NEA scout

Yeah, the whole article is literally "We may not be able to hit our contractual obligations, you should pay us more"

I mean honestly, yeah. That ULA may not have enough rockets for the wanted cadence is probably true, but Tory saying that SpaceX won't have either when they're launching nearly every 6 days is quite laughable

All good lmao, there has been plenty of bad takes from both sides of the SLS vs Starship debate so it wasn't impossible

I mean, did it? The article is about how MCT, then BFR, then ITS, then Starship could send stuff to Mars 10 years before SLS, and neither did it yet or are going to in the next couple years. Hell, SLS is completely booked until 2033 or so, and no plans are founded beyond then for now. If you're looking for rotten milk, this is more fitting

I'd go even further and say that it wasn't really a thing of goodwill or actual appreciation from Congress, but much more because none of them wanted to be remembered as the man who killed JFK a second time. If it wasn't like that the program would have likely ended with the Apollo 1 disaster

Not really - for instance, the ET and S-II of respectively STS and Saturn V (not INT-21 due to budget shortfalls) were left just short of orbit and reentered before doing a complete trip around the world; however, the Long March 5 notoriously doesn't, which gives it an advantage for something that really shouldn't be one

The problem is that an extremely broad definition. The SSME are useless after MECO; why would those count them as payload and not the engines of, say, an ICPS stage? The RCS system is a good portion of an orbiter's mass; yet, the Centaur stage also has a powerful one used during, say, Starliner's launch which doesn't count as payload either. Do you count the whole orbiter even if a good percentage of it is as useless as any second stage after orbit insertion? Do you count only part of it, and open the can of worms between where the orbitally useful part ends and where the useless part begins? The only metric that is both objective and not unfair towards other stages is the payload it can carry inside the cargo bay, which is not SHLV sized Solar array, yeah

Under current definition of SHLVs, the Shuttle is not considered an SHLV because the orbiter is part of the launch vehicle and you'd need an entirely new propulsion module to be able to launch without it

FH, November 1

November 2022 has just become the first month in history which saw two Superheavy-class launch vehicles launch successfully! The only other time this could have happened was July 1969, but as we all know that N1 crashed catastrophically over the launch complex

No, various EVAs are planned for both missions

Considering that Starship's final design design dates more than two years after SLS's original launch date and that the original contenders were SLS and FH, it should have never been a race in first place. But this is neither the time nor the place to talk about this stuff

Yep, 15 minutes roughly

YEEEEEEES

Yikes

If they had to start now, they'd launch at 3:14 Just woke up btw, go SLS!

They also had the Constellation rover and suits lol