Kryten

Barge landing currently isn't possible because Blue Origin (Bezos' company) hold a patent for it. Spacex is currently challenging the patent.

Shenzhou's docking probe is missing.

Then where's your constructive conversation about my unicorns? Don't try to force scientific dogma down my gullet.

So you just wanted to push out some completely ungrounded speculation, without anybody discussing it? Why bother even posting it to a forum then?

OK, then lets say we have evidence that unicorns on this planet "step into existence" where-ever they can, even in locations we thought unicorns are impossible due to hazardous environments. Hence the simplest conclusion is that; if this has happened on Earth, the chances are very high this has happened on other planets (and/or moons) as well. This statement is logically equivalent to your own; it's got exactly as much binding in fact. See the issue now ?

You can't draw conclusions from a premise that you just made up. Conditions that life can adapt to and conditions that life can arise in can't just arbitrarily decided to be the same.

GRAU only apply standardised designations to things; Soyuz and Progress are produced by RKK Energia.

Zealand is in the Netherlands, so clearly it's Dutch.

Given the endurace a lone, crewed dragon would be likely to have? They could; 1) hope the heatshield functions and/or 2) die

Complete nonsense. We've evidence of life 'stepping into existence' precisely once.

For a considerable majority of the time there has been life on earth, there hasn't been anything recognisable as an animal. Tool use, even in the most basic of forms, isn't likely to be more than 2 or 3 hundred million years old, about a tenth of life's span so far; and technological advancement has happened in the last evolutionary blink of an eye. The chance of all of these things emerging again, even with the assumption of life to start with, isn't high.

The same. Apollo used a basic Hohmann transfer; there are a few tricks to get there slower with less delta-v, but try to add more and you'll just miss the moon entirely.

I just noticed something. ULA gave the time of the first flight as 2019. However, BO have published a fact sheet (EDIT: part of the pdf linked above) that states it to be 'ready to fly' in 2017. Assuming it's not a mistake, this could mean they intend to have their own launcher ready that soon.

You'd expect them to anyway, really. SpaceX already has an assembly line for dragons, and the rocket fully developed, whereas Boeing need to set up a construction and checkout facility for CTS, as well as any work that might need to be done with dual-engine centaur.

NK-33 has a higher T/W than RD170-series engines because they contain vectoring mechanisms. An RD-170 derivative without vectoring has already been developed to replace NK-33 on Soyuz 2.1v (RD-193), and it's close enough to be a simple drop-in replacement.

The guy behind this 'theory' is deceased.

OSC have been trying to replace NK-33 for a long time already. They're currently involved in a lawsuit against ULA and RD-AMROSS due to their monopoly on importing RD-180s.

Again, SNC's bid included Lockheed Martin. As in the Lockheed Martin that receives roughly twice as much funding through government contracts as Boeing.

This doesn't even deserve a snarky comment, it's just wrong. It might have changed name and been split between agencies at various times, but we've had a continuous programme since the late 50s.

Because Lockheed Martin and SNC totally don't have any lobbyists...

This news isn't great for Aroejet Rocketdyne. This thing will probably replace DIV and AV, leaving nothing for them but RS-25 on the SLS. That's barely an engine a year...

It's capitalised because it is. There's no good explanation, it doesn't fit any rules, people just started doing it.

This FAQ makes it pretty clear the new engine is for the next gen vehicle. Given what else we know about their projects, I'm going to say; 2XBE-4 booster with Delta IV tankage, 1X xcor LH2 engine upper stage with centaur tankage, and Atlas avionics.

That means boeing knew what they could do with the time and budget they had, and SNC and SpaceX didn't. It's not a good sign for moving forward. It's a choice they shouldn't have had to make. Picking an unworkable propellant combination, and switching literally days before selection, again does not reflect well on future operations. SNC is old space; they're a traditional subcontractor founded in the 60s. This makes no sense. Dreamchaser was different, which can be argued to be 'innovative', but it wasn't any better. All it had was cross-range and slightly lower g-forces, neither of which are needed or terribly useful for this mission. And what happens if just one of dreamchasers control surfaces has a hard over? Goodbye people in lifting body. Capsules haven't had a parachute failure since Soyuz 1, and that was a design failure, while the only dream chaser flight so far went six million dollar man. They have requirements for it, same as they have requirements for letting people on it in the first place.

Not quite, because KSP uses metric tons, not short tons. It was programmed by Mexicans, remember.