YNM

"search it in the web" ?

Ah, right. Will see I guess how Starship HLS development rolls out. Not really as ISS partners need somewhere else to settle in. Wouldn't surprise me that if Axiom gets their modules together then it might be more acceptable to either deorbit the ISS or they'd be sold to a private venture completely. That being said, this is the HLS thread, not the Artemis/Gateway thread.

Will say that it's a bit odd to think that Shuttle + payload was 110 tonnes max (launched to LEO) yet SLS Block 1 payload to LEO is only 95 tonnes max. Perhaps to do with not carrying the engines to orbit but it's weird that they need an extra segment and one more engine.

They're projecting power there, really. Have you not seen them retrieve samples again from the Moon ? Yes it's very far from a manned mission but that shows they're willing to do it if it means they're projecting power.

Fact that they use an expensive SSME only to be thrown away and retain the exact same SRBs makes it as Shuttle-derived as much as possible w/o the Space Shuttle being used itself. There were plans to fly Centaur on Shuttle so will say that even the use of RL-10 is Shuttle-derived.

It eliminates the need for a dedicated transfer vehicle for the case of Mars if we're comparing to most NASA-sponsored plans. It's not really designed for the Moon, but it's well in the capability if we're using the Mars-destined design. That hardly makes anything shuttle-derrived... If they were to replace the SRBs with LRBs powered by F-1s and replace the main engine with something better than the SSMEs (new ground-up design LH2/LOX engine that's designed to be thrown away), and the 2nd stage utilize J-2X, would that be Shuttle-derrived or Apollo-derrived ? We're using like, two Apollo-derrived engines by that point.

Not really straightforward when we're this far down the execution. There were actual tests with an old F-1 engine as well as merely the turbopumps I think. Obviously it's not great when all the hardware are ages old. J-2X design and testing was underway but was terminated in 2014 due to 'lack of funds'. Shuttle-derrived designs are going to be limited by what the Space Shuttle was. If you really want to make something much more capable you better design things for the ground up again, or at least use parts of the design that the Space Transportation System design also included (ie. tugs and all). But since the Shuttle was deemed way too dangerous towards the end of it's career (not due to age but due to the inherent design), and the basis of STS is the Shuttle itself, then that means the whole plan just don't work. Starship and Superheavy on the other hand are designed to meet the advanced capabilities they're supposed to reach one day. It's not for no reason they're 9 m in diameter. It might not going to fly as quickly as we did for Saturn V (from concept to actual flight), but it's designed for it's mission from the start.

Perhaps I'm a week late, but Happy Earth Day ?

A lawsuit kinda suits in it perfectly. I do have one worry however. Funding in a lot of cases, even with partial funding, means that you have the obligation to it. In this case, NASA is only owed half the obligation of what developing Starship for HLS capability is. The rest goes to SpaceX itself, where HLS capability merely represent a subset of what Starship could achieve in their own milestone. My real question is where will they cut the line on calling it "ready for HLS" ? I'm mostly worried by the fact they put out "half or less" - ie. there's chance that they'd be developing something additional and it'll affect HLS deployment even if it's not actually needed in HLS. Now yes flying a vehicle that's closer to perfection is always better - you want every doubts to be down in the mud, if possible - but this could represent one risk that the timescales might slip. That being said, given SLS itself has a rather... terrible time schedules (yet the program is dependent on it), and the rest of the bidder couldn't even make something more believable than Starship's bid, then the point is somewhat moot in this specific case. But it is a point in any case.

Perhaps move the thread to Kerbal Network ? Done, thanks moderators ! I would like to know too if there are anything weird happening on the software backend of the forum. (I really hope it isn't though.)

They removed the seats, instrument panel and LSS for the cargo version of Dragon 2. (reference in page 24.) Yeah that was me. I mean there have been a lot of Dragons at this point so I was referring to the fact they've changed the design and not that it's the second one to fly.

to be pedantic, two separate modules but connected to one node module XD

Well they're not going to be produced and launched anymore. All the upcoming CRS flights are going to use the IDA ports. I honestly kinda lament the loss since this means that they can only use the IDA and not the CBM, and as we can see already it makes for a very tight scheduling. No dual-docking of Dragon and Starliner, for instance...

They're intended for station operations - like, you wouldn't active dock from a station to a smaller ship. Also I presume for permanent docking of modules etc. After the change to Dragon V2, it's basically the exact same as the crewed version.

^^ this. If anything, dirt is a major contaminant for aggregates in concrete - which are usually sand and crushed rock. There are test that checks for this. AFAIK there has been some idea to use the aluminum in regolith to be used as chemical rocket fuel, but I think that ablative propulsion is a pretty sound idea too. (sound as in it works on paper, don't ask me how much power do you need for it)

Hence why I asked "are there hanzi version of it". Is it going to be on bilibili or ?

Ah. So they wouldn't put anyone onboard yet... idk. We need some way to test the docking IMO...

Will have to ask. Does that mean they don't intentionally de-orbit the 2nd stage this time, or was it not happening yet when he took the photo ?

I don't think it's just in the US. For comparison one ubiquitous car here (MPV / small SUV) is the Toyota Kijang (now Kijang Innova). The earliest model that our family owned had a kerb weight range of 1 - 1.5 tonnes, so was the second model. It was produced from mid 80s to early 2000s. From then on they switched to the latter Innova model, technically not the same chassis. It started the same - at 1.5 tonnes (it had one body form, the previous ones had short to long) - but the latest model released in 2015 is already 1.7 - 1.9 tonnes. Sure yes we've got more features, like airbags and a better 3rd seat row by default (the old models are either an option or only aftermarket), and it is longer, but if anything I'd say that we were able to fit more stuff in the old one than the new one, partly because how the interior are shaped. So if you ask me, then yes ICE vehicles have gotten somewhat unnecessarily bulkier than they used to be. If it keeps this way then it's only a matter of time before batteries can be justified in the weight.

Given that in those days they're not doing a very heavy car (like, most cars listed in there have weight of less than 1 tonnes - fair comparison today would've been the small ICE cars, and something long-range like Teslas have curb weight of about 2 times that with the exception of the Roadster - but it only seats 2), then one part of it is also because current cars are heavier to accommodate all the features that cars these days have. It doesn't mean that electric cars aren't getting better though. I will say that we'd probably accept the heavier weight - ICE cars these days are already designed to be larger and heavier partly to offset the emission requirements that are linked to curb weight and dimension. And since most people's driver license allow up to 3.5 tonnes GW then 2 tonnes curb weight + 1.5 tonnes is possible (that can be 7-9 person + 750 kg of luggage). Electric cars have better control as well, with no kind of complicated transmission, lower CoM and possibly stronger brakes and throttle - so perhaps we'd see changes to the accepted limit of weight. The only problem so far are SUVs (speaking from a country where everyone has them because we have large families and they all cram into one car), as well as flooding (one concern is because batteries are usually placed under the floor, which means higher susceptibility in a flood). That being said, public transit will always be more efficient than private transport, from many measures.

Actually, thinking about it, if they're planning to fly them by 2022/2023, couldn't they plan it to test it with Starship HLS in, maybe HEO ? That way at least it's not a repeat of Artemis 1, and it actually test the interface before the actual landing mission...

Are there hanzi version of it ?

Actually I think they were marketed towards the ladies of the era. A way to let them have some way to visit each other every now and then. A modern equivalent of electric cars from that era are milk floats.

Ah. Well so only on the "not LLO" part to be "not Apollo 8". I guess expect no close-up views of the Moon and no impressive Earth-rise. But given they're only going to do NRHO for Gateway it's pretty good to get some idea of what it'd look like from there I suppose.

So what would they do with Artemis 1 ? Just unmanned launch check ? I mean it'd be better to see if it actually works first...