KSK

Awesome! Side booster ignition at T-5. "T-minus 7...6...5... Ignition sequence starts."

Hot dawg - even my man John is sounding a bit chipper today!

Here we go!

It's not Mr Williams but I think this is suitably anthemic. Launch autosequence initiated...

Because, if it works, it'll provide what the STS was originally intended to provide. Cheap access to space with a fully reusable launcher based on a fly-back booster and an orbiter. And I'm talking cheap as in 'worth using to launch any payload that SpaceX have previously put into orbit, including the stuff they launched on Falcon 1.' It'll also be the first ever honest-to-goodness sci-fi grade spaceship in history. Get it to orbit, fuel it up, point the nose at the second star on the right and light the engines. Next stop: Moon, Mars or, for uncrewed payloads, pretty much anywhere in the Solar System. And yes, that's a huge, quite possibly unrealistic or unachievable 'if'. But, by all the gods, if something like that isn't worth striving for - and throwing Falcon Heavy under the bus for if necessary - then I really don't know what is.

Makes no difference to my point. Whether you've got a gritty realism type of soap opera or a fluffy noon drama, they're still largely driven by characters and the interactions between those characters. Which is something I'd like to see in Solo - it's a character backstory that we already know the ending to, so hopefully it will take some time to explore Han's character a bit and show us how he ended up being the cynical small-time smuggler we see at the beginning of Episode IV. Out of curiosity, which part of the trailer made you think 'pure unrealistic drama' or 'noon soap opera'?

Easy, tiger. Let's get the first one over the Karman line in the preplanned number of pieces first. Then it might be time to dig out those old 'taking over the Solar System' plans and dust them off a little, hmmm? Besides, in the long run, if you're the only heavy lift game in town then you failed. Because it means there's no demand for more. And that most likely means that we ain't gonna be a multiplanetary species.

Heh heh heh. And so it begins...

A car going that fast just has to be driven by The Stig.

Great! I hope it is. Why? Because soap operas tend to be fairly character driven, which is what I'm hoping for with Solo. We know how the story turns out (even more so than for Rogue One) so having a very plot driven film doesn't make a great deal of sense. So let's have characters. Motivations. People doing the right things for the wrong reasons and vice versa. More of a Tie Fighter (as in the video game) style Empire perhaps where they're more Galactic Cops than Ultimate Evil. Although that would require better than normal writing for a Star Wars film, so I'm not overly optimistic. But then again, Rogue One did quite a decent job of portraying the Rebellion as a pretty mixed bunch - with its share of cowards, petty opportunists hiding behind a cause, and actual Rebel scum. So maybe there is hope for a more nuanced Empire in Solo. Time will tell.

Possibly. Although I'm not sure whether it's an African or European Kerm seed...

Nah - a truly kerbal design would use a solid motor for the suicide burn. Something of a one-way ticket though.

There's something not quite right with that calculation then, given that the ISS has a 92 minute orbital period.

Hyperspace is just misspelled Hype Space, right? Lets Jump! My buddy Elon will get those engines working on time - or this'll be the shortest launch of all time...

That human touch also includes a fair amount of candour. I think potential customers would appreciate that even if they might do a bit of eye-rolling in private at some of Elon's playing-to-the-crowd tweets and such. Low costs, decent and steadily improving reliability figures, and a good track record at pulling out all the stops to diagnose and fix the problems they have had, won't hurt either.

Wasn't it Event Horizon which had the 'Ion Drive' scene with everyone getting installed in these super high-tech acceleration pods to protect them from those (no doubt bone-crushing) millinewtons of thrust from said ion drives? Or it may have been some other film. Either way I have that scene pegged as one to giggle at rather than rage at. I just have this mental image of some of the crew trying to jury rig their acceleration pods as hibernation pods instead. "We could handle the g's but not the boredom."

This story, and the characters and settings depicted herein, are works of fiction*. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is either coincidental or intended as a heartfelt and sincere tribute. * Except for the telepathic trees. Those are real. Glad you're enjoying it @DualDesertEagle and thanks for dropping by to say so. Good to have you on the thread! As for the comparison to Emiko - well, as a big fan of @Just Jim's work myself, all I can say is that I'm honored!

Next up: The Boring Company "Falcon 9" radio control set.

They're launching RATSat 2 by mistake? And on a serious note, I gotta admit I was glad to see that payload deploying nice and smoothly after the shenanigans around the last launch.

Well there are obvious answers to both speculations but I suggest we fork off a Starship Troopers thread rather than derailing this one too much. Speaking of which...be right back.

Heh - back atcha. I'm not sure how well it would stand up to a repeat viewing but I'd certainly watch Interstellar again. I'm sure the folks on here poking holes in the science are all spot on but personally I found the story engaging enough to ignore the holes. I mean, to a certain extent, the title says it all. Any sort of interstellar travel (unless the film is some moody psychological piece about being trapped on a generation ship or something) is going to involve some... speculative...science. But yeah, this isn't meant to be an argument either. Different strokes for different folks and all that. In general though, I think @MaxwellsDemon said everything I need to say, especially the part about films like Gravity, falling into a sort of uncanny valley where most of the science is realistic but that only makes the unrealistic parts stick out more. Even then, gimme a good story (and preferably a kickin' soundtrack to go with it) and I'm inclined to ignore the science errors. It's fun to do occasionally (as per this thread), but in general poking holes in movie science is rather like shooting fish in a barrel. With an M1 Abrams.

Going to have to respectfully disagree about Starship Troopers. That's another prime candidate for @Just Jim's rogue's gallery of movies that are so terribly bad you can use it to throw a "Bad-Movie" party, in my opinion. I'll grant you that a more faithful adaptation of the book would have been difficult and probably controversial but what we got failed at pretty much every level; as a satire it was hamfisted, as a commentary on the source material it had nothing to say and as either a sci-fi war movie, or a coming-of-age-in-the-military adventure movie, it was dreadful. Featuring a cast of beautiful people actors that looked - and acted - like sculptures. Back on topic - I don't even recall any glaring scientific errors.

It's just a scrub. Doesn't mean the whole launch is a wash.

You could swap that around and it would still almost work.

Ahhh, beating the Monday morning blues, Purpleivan style! Thank you!