YNM

Well, hopefully when they start flying Methalox out we'll see how prone is it to boiloff.

Which is why Starship is still so far away from the final goal. But to be fair we have never done anything remotely close at that, we've always used hypergolics for it. They'll have to find a way to deal with boiloff. Either that or design the tanks so it can hold all the pressures generated inside once it all boils off. Or a cooling system perhaps.

I'm willing to bet that using TFRs for destructive testing hasn't been a thing. Plus the jurisdiction of the FAA ends on the US-Mexico border, which is a mere 3 mi / 5 km away (although the closest point to the border on the Rio Grande is a mere 2.4 mi / 3.8 km away but this is towards the land). Given that this is a TFR from ground level all the way to space, it's a bit concerning perhaps that the horizontal borders are nowhere as far... And I'm seriously wondering why there hasn't been any reaction from the southern neighbor given this launch site is soo close to them.

Or a reusable stage catcher...

If it's a few days long I hope they won't need to hold their stomach. Maybe this will be the first time we see the potty in Dragon. It's still a big news however, orbital flights from a company and processing that have little backing from a national space agency. I know there were tourists onboard Mir but they had Roscosmos for training, plus it goes to Mir. Still willing to bet that whoever they elect to fly still have to pass medicals, and I guess the accommodation would be the same as on an ISS ferry flight.

It's due to the reflection from the door. It's as vertical as a joined up welded cylinder can be.

I'm using Firefox v85.0 with HTTPS Everywhere and I don't have such problems yet. I've just enabled the HTTPS-only mode from FF itself to write this post. No problem so far. The feature was apparently introduced since v83. There's a chance that it might be the connection itself. Perhaps your ISP was somewhat naughty, and that was what FF caught as the problem. The mobile ISP here is somewhat naughty though I haven't had any problems since a year ago (then again I've been barely using it for the past year, with being stuck at home and whatnot).

It was more like a gentle leaning over, probably due to the dolly configuration when it traversed the corner. I'll guess that the stage inside isn't exactly solid with the container, given sea transport and all that.

Older thread here : Maybe this should be merged there ? EDIT : Thanks to moderators for the thread merge !

The first stage (and second stage, following the first stage trailer) have safely arrived on Tanegashima Space Center earlier this morning, at 31st Jan at ~8 AM. Article from NHK. (google-translated)

*cut scene to SN9 landing on it*

For the guys filming it ?

Good then. But yeah I'll say that the condition in Boca Chica is slightly different than in Vandenberg or Cape since it's pretty close to the US-Mexico border (a mere 3 mi / 5 km from the last border on the river mouth, not sure where the territorial water goes from there and territorial waters extend out to 12 nmi from MLW). There's a chance that the neighboring authority might want to make a call or something. I notice that one of the stands seems to be higher than the other, due to the ground level being different but the stand itself being the same ?

Does the SNs have self-destruct ? Also, does launches from CCSFS result in temporary evacuation for Cape Canaveral ? Maybe from LC-46 (Minotaur) in the past, or LZ-1 or LZ-2 when used for landing ?

Well, crap. The container have toppled on Tanegashima from the road transporter. Work to return it to upright have started.

They have to evacuate people and stuff, I don't think you can do them on a whim.

I mean I didn't even knew that FAA was the one with this jurisdiction, thought it was the DoD or Armed Forces or something.

I do have to ask, previously most destructive (or potentially destructive) mid-air testing has to be carried out in certain restricted areas. Perhaps this wasn't in the list that the FAA can actually license ? Or maybe their requested bound limits were actually not large enough for that ? Like apart from the military-industrial complex mid-air destructive testing hasn't really been a thing, and Boca Chica is only mere tens of miles away from neighboring countries. FAA might've had a call to their offices from the authorities next door ?

Or Block 2. Like I said, sending stuff to the surface would only really be in grasp once something with the lift capability of SLS B2 exist. B1b would be a bit of collecting rags together still. The problem really is that we've taken all of this forever since Shuttle ended, when using Shuttle-derrived stuff would still makes sense. These days something from a clean sheet design would be as attractive as a Shuttle-derrived things. If anything methalox is going to be the rage when SLS enters regular service...

Well idk, imagining like a few rovers and permanent habs and stuff for the surface, which would be somewhat sensible to be put on SLS with EUS thanks to the volume. But yeah like they'd probably be in production only once we have an alternative from the private US sector as well. If the first SLS were off the ground a few years ago we might be looking for them sooner, but alas we aren't.

If they're still peddling the lunar surface outpost then 40 tonnes from SLS B1b might actually be a conservative amount. But lord knows how far away those are. SLS B2 would be needed if they're serious about putting permanent habitation down, plus stuff like ISRU, maybe trying to go to the redder orb as well. If it's just Gateway station then even the Block 1 Artemis is overkill - plus commercial launchers would be able to do this soon after (we have FH and DIVH already, maybe if Vulcan Heavy could be accelerated it'd soon amount to 3, plus there's SpX's Starship + Booster a little further ahead) so yeah if Gateway is all they're ever planning then it's absolutely unnecessary. (Zvezda is 23 tonnes, JEM is 24 tonnes, so even the largest modules have good safety margin with SLS Block 1, and other launchers - likely FH or Vulcan Heavy - can launch them, just.) Which is why I hope it doesn't stop at Gateway only. But that'll take a while to settle...

Most likely not going to be used as comanifest, but rather for dedicated 40 t cargo. EUS is supposed to be the whole of the first SLS w/o upgraded SRBs (that'd be Block 2) - the ICPS being used merely because EUS isn't available. However, given that the Mobile Launcher that the Block 1B will go on is apparently only going to be finished in 2023... so idk, just like, suit yourself, whatever that can throw 40 t of cargo to TLI, or just don't make 40 t whole cargo to TLI.

I mean honestly the problem is that it's been so long now that the role of ICPS is barely significant in actually making the rocket fly any faster than if it had to wait for EUS. Boeing is already in process of producing their first EUS by now. Also I'm not sure about the numbers on ICPS. Is it exactly the same with DCSS or are there extra volumes and better engines ? Wouldn't doing that technically make it longer to make (but given how long this has become it barely even matters anymore).

Yeah, that was the engine test for the tech/components they'll use for the new production RS-25E (or whatever upgrades they're considering for that engine). Apparently 40 tonnes of cargo to TLI, vs 26 tonnes for Block 1.

Out of nowhere.