Space and Science BS Thread

I know I’m nitpicking here but it doesn’t explicitly say they use Atlantic sea water…

 

https://twitter.com/jimfree/status/1506631865276448771?s=21

 

Should be interesting.

I wonder if they are going to speed up the timeline...

 

Or announce Boca Chica is a go for launches

 

You’re right, I didn’t read it carefully enough. Saw “nearby Atlantic” and slid over “sea air”. No idea then, I also went through several google pages of articles.

 

It wouldn’t make sense not to use Ocean water but like the article says, it’s pretty corrosive. Pouring it all over the pad doesn’t make sense if it’s not desalinated.

I’ll keep looking..

 

New Crew Dragon, new name


https://twitter.com/astro_kjell/status/1506677192121622528?s=21

 

At least another year for New Glenn
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/...lenn-rockets-first-florida-launch/7130846001/

 

They’re looking for a second provider. Part of me hopes BO gets rejected again…

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-provides-update-to-astronaut-moon-lander-plans-under-artemis


2 demonstration missions?
https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1506718283906564096?s=21

 

So NASA upped the manned moon landing from A-IV to A-III. I assume A-II will be a manned flight orbiting the moon, proving the viability of Orion.

Guessing, A-IV will launch Gateway to lunar orbit. Or a Falcon Heavy... Given all the private work going on, I question how many SLS rockets will be built. The original plan was for 10...

BO is really behind schedule (unlike NASA - ha) so I will be really surprised if they get this contract. But you never know - contracts are bought all the time.

 

https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1506726179784511490?s=21

seems unnecessarily expensive to have a second provider- think Starliner and by extension, New Glenn

 

It does - but I think SLS will prove to be too expensive.

 

I wonder if this is because John Vilja left?

Will prove? I thought it already had?

 

True.

I was assuming the continuing production costs would be too costly - not counting the already occurring R&D and first unit costs.

I use the term R&D loosely...

 

I think you can use R&D as it was intended. We DO have a functioning rocket sitting at 39B.

 

Who’s making the ESA EVA suits??

https://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/1506758024119074826?s=21

 

Got some extra time and spare computing capabilities?
https://twitter.com/nasaexoplanets/status/1506767208453586945?s=21

 

Yes, but -

The SLS is a modified Space Shuttle. It should not have taken 12 years to get to this point. It's an embarrassment as well as a major waste of taxpayer dollars.

I am pro space exploration and pro NASA (I worked on the SLS) but am disgusted at the current situation/wokeness of NASA.

 

$4,000,000,000+ per launch…

 

It seems we are all assuming SH will prove successful. While I’d very much like that to happen there’s still no guarantee and at present artemis hinges on its success. Spacex has proven themselves accomplished at landing empty rockets so I’m more confident they can do the same with HLS even loaded but that too needs not just one but many consecutive successful super heavy launches complete with both HLS and Starship tankers. This is why I really want to see SH start flying.
Since it’s impossible to have an orbit that stays in the earths shadow does it make any sense to put up a solar panel “parasol” to both power the pumps and shade the HLS during the time it takes to run enough Starship tankers up to fill it? Ala the James Webb sunshade.