Kryten

NASA are broadcasting a briefing on the flight here 'momentarily'. EDIT: Live Now.

Progress-M-52M, first Progress flight with Soyuz 2.1a.

As it happens, the next supply launch is in about seven hours. I doubt they'll starve in the interim.

The engines were to be replaced soon, anyway. The main issue would be the damage to the pad-it's not yet clear just how bad it is, but I'm going to say you're looking at at least a year there. It might even have damaged the second (Minotaur) pad, given how close together they are.

Second stage was solid.

I'm not trying to be facetious, the difference is literally a few valves-five of them, to be exact. I don't see how it's the Russians fault if an engine doesn't work properly after this length of time in storage-it's a testament to the quality of the workmanship that only two have blown up so far.

The difference is a few valves and the control unit; the nozzle, turbopump and combustion chamber are all soviet. If you look at pictures from the early test firings, you can see they didn't even bother to scrub off the 'HK-33' labels.

They're NK-33 engines built for the N-1 program; they've were sat in a warehouse from cancellation in the mid 70s until aerojet bought some on the early 2000s. They have a few upgrades (and are now known officially as 'AJ-26'), but they're still mostly soviet moon rocket heritage.

Look in the science labs. This is the fourth or fifth redundant topic for this.

He meant 'who's keeping the ISS supplied', not 'Who's taking the blame'. They should be fine with the existing schedule of progress/dragon/HTV flights, they'll just have to reduce the number of running experiments.

RIP Deke Slayton. Again.

Given these engine are forty years old, and one of these modernised ones has exploded before (on a test stand), it and pretty obvious what the most likely explanation is.

The sun can't really be approximated as a blackbody, given it's constantly producing more energy through nuclear fusion.

Universal abundance values aren't terribly relevant at planetary scale; the planet you're currently sitting on has well over a thousand times as much silicon as carbon.

It was hot enough it'd severely burn anybody that tried to actually drink it, and indeed that's what happened to a lot of people with similar claims.

Ironically, there's a much easier to make a hovercraft without a skirt-take the skirt off of a hovercraft. They increase efficiency, but they aren't vital; SR.N1 managed a complete channel crossing without being fitted with one. Nonsense; a hovercraft isn't constantly thrusting into the ground like a helicopter, it's floating on a cushion of pressurised air; the only energy needed is to top up losses from the cushion (which can be very small in the right circumstances) and for moving around. Oh, and there are hovercraft about twice the size of Zubr.

I don't see how American lawsuit culture matters in this case, given that that would be at least manslaughter and very possibly murder. Not a matter for civil courts.

Solid first stage of that size doesn't work from Wallops-it's too close to exiting settlements if one goes boom. They'd have to produce a whole new pad at a different site; not quick or cheap.

Launch may be delayed because some idiot in a sailboat is right in the middle of the danger zone just out from the range.

Given this is the closest recent related thread I could find, and it doesn't really deserve it's own, Ill just drop this here. As you may no, Orbital Sciences corp. are having their own engine troubles-they're working with a limited stock of soviet-built NK-33 engines, and don't even have enough left for the next planned contract of supply flights for NASA. They've been working on getting a replacement for a while, and we finally know what they've decided on - RD-180, he same engine ULA are leaving behind.

Technically no, but it's about 22:00 on the 31st based on public radar data.

Need something to get the investors excited, hovercars work better than satellite propulsion.

So you don't know about helium balloons or fridge magnets?

You don't necessarily need to exert energy to hover at a fixed distance, any more than a magnet needs to exert energy to stay attached to a fridge. Hovercraft can approach the efficiency of wheeled vehicles, but only on extremely flat surface where they can avoid loss of pressurised air.

Leaving aside the potential problems with the actual hovering bit, the whole issue with urban warfare is that you can't assume your enemy will be in front of you. A vehicle with thin side, back, and top armour in an environment where every window or rooftop could harbour a guy with an RPG is a spectacularly bad idea. Vulnerable thrusters/rubber skirts/sidewalls/impossibly powerful magnets/throatwarbler mangroves are just the icing on the cake.