BOBBIE DRAPER In The Expanse Season 6 Episode 6 “Babylon’s Ashes”

Honestly, funding Starship HLS was probably one of NASA's worst recent decisions. At least Blue Moon is also in development, too, or else there'd be good reason to worry about the entire Artemis Programme being cancelled.

It's genuinely possible that Starship HLS might not be ready before Blue Moon MK 2 is.

The world needs more space nerds

Apollos 15 and 17.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html

Behold the magnificent desolation of the Moon on December 17, 1972, as seen from the Apollo 17 command module as it made the journey back to Earth.

(NASA/ASU)

My thoughts on the upcoming IFT-3 flight of Starship-Super Heavy

As of writing (12th of February), IFT-3 is currently scheduled to occur later this month, but it could still easily get delayed.

My prediction is that IFT-3 will probably achieve orbit and will probably conduct an internal propellant-transfer, but that the upper stage (SN28) will probably suffer a failure of some kind during reëntry, either being destroyed or deviating far from its targetted splashdown-zone.

It's safe to say that successful reëntry is unlikely on IFT-3. Here's why:

The Starship upper stage will be the largest reëntry-vehicle ever built.

This reëntry profile (a belly-first reëntry with four fins used for stability) is unique and has never been done before. Starship's belly-first orientation is inherently ærodynamically unstable, which is why it needs constant corrections from the four fins. It could get trapped in a nose-first or tail-first orientation, both of which might be more stable. Else, a loss of control would just result in endless tumbling.

We've already seen heatshield-tiles falling off during IFT-1 and IFT-2. In fact, more fell off the latter than the former due to higher ærodynamic pressures and engine vibrations.

A failure during reëntry would be consistent with the general pattern of testflight-failures established so far. Essentially, each flight is a failure, but less of a failure than the previous one.

Honestly, I don't know what could happen to the first stage booster (B10). SpaceX knows how to do boostback-burns and propulsive landings. It's seemingly just a matter of preventing the vehicle from blowing itself up. Engine reliability will probably determine the booster's success.

It'll be interesting to watch nonetheless.

The fate of the Artemis Programme now depends on the success of these test flights and in SpaceX rapidly developing and utilising this reüsable launch-system. Development has been ongoing for over five years now, and the vehicle has yet to reach orbit. The landing of astronauts on the Moon is scheduled for September 2026. How likely is it that SpaceX will have humans on the Moon in just two and a half years from now?

1989: ‘Shuttle Evolution “Block II”’

(sorry for low resolution, I cannot find a higher-res version anywhere)

1989: A concept drawing for a never-realised next-generation Space Shuttle, capable of carrying 8 astronauts and possibly over 30 tonnes to low-Earth orbit. The most noteworthy feature is the detachable cockpit with engines which could serve as a launch escape-system or a lifeboat during an incident in-orbit. It was to use its lifting body, wings, and body flap to glide to a runway and presumably land on skids. The escape system would enable a crew's escape at any point during launch or orbital flight.

Comments and observations

The inclusion of this escape-system in the orbiter would necessitate a gap in the heatshield at the nose, one of the hottest parts of the vehicle during re-entry. That's obviously a big problem. Further, a pad-abort would seem to be very impractical. 3 seconds at 8 Gs would only send the capsule about 2 km high, probably not high enough to glide towards the nearest runway, especially with those stubby wings. Perhaps an emergency parachute system and a splashdown of the capsule would have been more sensible?

Other changes to the orbiter seem to be in the interest of improving gliding performance, such as two wing-tip vertical stabilisers instead of one tail-mounted one (to eliminate wing-tip vortices), shrinkage of the orbital manœuvring system pods by relocation of the OMS's propellant-tanks into the wings, and the addition of canards which would probably yield greater pitch-authority during landing.

The system also proposes replacement of the solid rocket boosters with liquid-hydrogen–fuelled boosters. These could provide a greater payload capacity, as well as greater control of thrust during ascent, and the possibility of an emergency engine shutdown, improving the crew's safety. The biggest and most obvious downside would be increased cost. The drawing doesn't specify whether the LFBs are intended to recover themselves by deploying parachutes, but what's certain is that saltwater generally damages delicate chemical rocket engines, so they probably couldn't just plop into the ocean like the real Shuttle's SRBs did.

Discovery Approaches ISS by NASA on The Commons

My girlfriend and I could not stop laughing about this motion blur, so I...

ariane yeong

Selene Goddess of the Moon by Susan Lyon