YNM

Not sure, but probably mid-year or after, but probably not too close to the last quarter of the year for good reasons (wouldn't want to launch in a typhoon season I suppose). If they slip past that then it wouldn't be surprising for it to be well into the end of the year. The last few further updates : Removal of one of the engines to replace the turbopump : Electromagnetic compatibility testing :

At least separating the nozzle would be pretty good... does mean the denser parts of the engine will re-enter much faster (read : higher speed, not necessarily falling faster) though ! Like, on the Shuttle re-entry there were flaps that protects the engine from the heat of re-entry until the whole thing fails. Even then given the way how the engines were stacked perhaps some of them gets to protect the others slightly... Ideally the engines should re-enter each on it's own. Thing is tumbling but idk how whether it'll stabilize on re-entry and in what way... But idk. Fingers cross on the fireworks, I suppose. EDIT : Video showing tumbling (green light is green laser) :

I presume you only need to make sure the engine is fully exposed to the re-entry aero on it's own rather than in any sort of slightly protected way with the stage itself.

My own thinking was probably send basic stuff to the surface first (like habs etc). At the same time, make the station, and make all missions only to there first until we're ready with the surface ops. If we want to put the surface crew rotation at, say, 7 months each with 5 months on the surface, then we probably can do away with only 2 crew landers, 1 for contingency. Then we can have a shuttle between the station and the surface for resupply and retrieval of stuff. Crew rotation also only needs a craft that can dock with the station rather than reach surface. Figure that this isn't too far off what they'd do on the ISS. We do need refuelers though.

Honestly I think their design is better used to lower down freight... like rovers etc. They could then more easily change the tank sizes I suppose, and the weight limit of the remaining space be fitted to the density of cargo rather than crew compartment. With "Interim" in the name it's really not meant for the main mission. I guess it explains Starlink... there're way more Starlink launches than there are external commercial launch contract for F9 already.

Wondering how they made these... Now yes more advanced technology means we can do even better. But it doesn't mean that we can do *everything* much better. Construction still uses a lot of manpower for a reason. While automation works in a factory, if you're competing against workers who're only paid for a fraction of what you pay your machine operators then they're still going to win in the price category. Even better if they also can use the exact same automation processes and pay the operators cheaper, and the maintainers cheaper. Human experiments have historically been carried out on those part of the population deemed inferior. Don't think we're completely out of the woods from that. So... this ?

We had slavery in the past, and puppet governments in the recent past (and arguably today). We had Bob Murray, who just recently died after applying for black lung benefits (and probably after being made into a musical too). There's still Xinjiang, Turkmenistan and North Korea. Don't think the world isn't cruel, folks.

That's surprisingly more efficient than the one we have at home (2011 Yaris, usually do like 13-15 km per liter, but it is exclusively used in the city with a lot of congestion). Since both of your choice is full EV then there're a few simple dealbreakers to think of : 1. Is there enough range to cover your occasional long-distance trip ? 2. Are there charging stations within the maximum range for that long-distance trip, if the range doesn't fully cover it ? 3. If you're buying a used car, are the primary batteries still going to be covered by warranty ? (personally think this one is also important as it changes the long-term financial position) One thing to consider IMO are hybrids. There are hybrids out there that works as full EV for the short distance commute, but will only start use ICE when the range has been depleted. Here we don't have a lot of the necessary infra for long-distance EV driving, and there're many cases of flooding (which poses risk for batteries) so hybrid vehicles are gaining traction more than full EV. That being said, saving up first is definitely a better option than doing something on an impulse. In the future hopefully there'll be cheaper EV cars with better stuff.

They've been bogged down partly because they keep to have to re-schedule their flights. Since the start of this year (Jan 18) they've been cleared to fly again; however with two docking ports serving three "missions" at the same time it proves difficult to schedule things. We really need a 3rd IDA/IDSS docking port...

I wonder if the more slender aspect would help it break up or make it harder to break up...

I think the seats are replaceable... so the seats stick to the astronauts, not to the capsule.

Well... that's the question, isn't it ? We just don't have any idea. Stages are generally a lot more sturdy than satellites and stations. Skylab utilized a modified Saturn V upper stage (S-IVB) which massed 35 tonnes (out of 76.5 tonnes for the whole station). Empty mass of the stage itself as used in Saturn V was 13.5 tonnes. Skylab re-entry made for quite the spectacle. The largest fragment was tanks that were located inside the main station itself as they're relatively protected. That does mean the stage-based station itself was destroyed, but there were other stuff inside it that survived pretty much intact. So, will this one lands in big pieces ? We don't know. The stage of LM-5B is longer in aspect; but it is more massive than the S-IVB upper stage (21 tonnes vs. 13.5 tonnes).

And Starliner worse than Dragon 2.

Have a good insurance ?

I get that. Have seen it from Evan Hadfield's videos (Chris Hadfield's son). But like, if that law is applied to individual producers, that's pretty darn crazy on it's own right. Pretty sure CRTC doesn't apply to individual production houses that makes programmes / content to be broadcasted on TV, right ? Like, if it had been that, it must've caused an uproar. Either that or a draining of production houses that want to produce "not canadian enough" content. The other alternative if it did apply to individual producers is that the law hasn't been applied that fiercely and merely exist as paperwork; The only remaining alternative is that they were only applied at the broadcaster level and production were never impacted. YouTube is not a broadcaster, nor is it a producer. It merely provides service to allow people to upload videos; monetization and donations were new on the platform and honestly if anything it's the most problematic portion of the service, legal-wise, even though it's the only reason why YouTubers are a thing. And given the way how the law might've been applied, there's only two option of what the effect means here : 1. It barely affects anything and things just went on like it always had. 2. Your gov't is less sane than we thought. Take care.

Wait, did they re-schedule it ? (stream always better on the long-running link)

Pretty sure you can reduce the amount of fuel only down to the amount you need. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to de-orbit (venting fuel is really just opening the prop valves AFAIK) or had to do away with active attitude control of the capsule for re-entry. (Soyuz has had to do quite a number of the latter.) Also, doing away with dedicated LES fuel means that you can put in more payload instead, or you can use less fuel for the launch. It's due to the rocket equation, not reusability.

Do you not understand how LES works or what ? 1. A mishap occurs, and LES need to be activated. LES engines fire, emptying all the fuel from the capsule (or dedicated LES tower to then be jettisoned), and avoiding LOC due to mishap. Capsule lands w/o any fuel on board. 2. Successful launch. Remaining fuel used for maneuver and de-orbit, as well as vented out before re-entry, in the case of SpX - or in every other capsule design before it, they were jettisoned away during launch, and the maneuvering fuel will later be vented off again. Capsule lands w/o any fuel on board after being in orbit. 3. An explosion/mishap occur and the LES fails. Full LOC, regardless of the design chosen. (even worse if you never had LES in the first place.) If you feel like they're 'cheating' with the amount of fuel, that's actually because they understand that fuel not used for LES ops is fuel available to do *anything else* : a. If you use LES fuel then you'll never use maneuvering fuel. b. If you use maneuvering fuel then you probably never needed that LES fuel which you had to jettison. They simply look at the truth and devised a way so that the fuel is used exactly only in one case and there isn't any for the other.

I thought your gov't was a bit more sane than that... Honestly this is one of those cases where you can go "See that box ? If anyone asks, it's sorted" situation.

It does say that they're using Al-Li like many other aerospace manufacturers but that's interesting. I've always thought that the milling must be really expensive, and letting go of it must've been a pretty good way to push down cost.

Oh yeah, like the first powered aeroplane was made by a bicycle repair shop... idk. If it works, it works. Their focus is using cheaper-grade (cheaper due to larger tolerance from a different grade, not inferior) material so they can test their methods of flying. Will they do this on the final product ? Who knows. If it works now, it probably works later. If it doesn't, then they've figured out things while doing it cheaply. It only makes sense to do proper prototyping where you care about them (shape, method of control, engines). But it makes little sense on the materials itself, really - you just need it to withstand the forces enough to carry the test out.

It's like a pickup truck crashing into your house (F9 2nd stage empty mass ~3.9 tonnes) vs. an 18-wheeler crashing into your house (LM-5B first stage empty mass ~21 tonnes). LM-5B only features side boosters and 1st stage. LM-5 is the one that have a 2nd stage, so the 1st stage doesn't reach orbit, but the problem is that this time the first stage reaches orbit.

If you think your government is still sane, then I don't think you really need to worry too much. If not... well you know what to do. Question that they could even be enforced meaningfully, given the personalized and localized search results already. Like my YouTube 'recommended' tab is just the whole thing what most Indonesians on the .net watch already since I've turned off personalization. If I had turned on personalization, or if someone else has, then that'd be tailored to whatever that person had watched before - like for me it'd mostly be from the channels I subscribed to...

I guess because the vehicle is by SpaceX, this stream is appropriate here : (EDIT : It was re-scheduled) (stream always [slightly] better on the long-running link)

Most large construction started as either a graph and a sketch, or a concept drawing. Even at the end someone has got to draw it before it could be built - building anything without any plans, if anything, is much worse. In any case, they are in the time to prove themselves now. That being said, this is the HLS thread, not the ISS thread.