91

ISS Section / Re: Expedition 72 thread

« Last post by ddspaceman on 03/24/2025 07:35 pm »

NASA Invites Media to SpaceX’s 32nd Resupply Launch to Space Station

Jessica Taveau
Mar 24, 2025

Media accreditation is open for the next launch to deliver NASA science investigations, supplies, and equipment to the International Space Station.

NASA and SpaceX are targeting no earlier than Monday, April 21, to launch the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft on the company’s Falcon 9 rocket from Launch Complex 39A at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. This launch is the 32nd SpaceX commercial resupply services mission to the orbital laboratory for the agency.

Credentialing to cover prelaunch and launch activities is open to U.S. media. The application deadline for U.S. citizens is 11:59 p.m., EDT, Friday, April 4. All accreditation requests must be submitted online at:

https://media.ksc.nasa.gov

Credentialed media will receive a confirmation email after approval. NASA’s media accreditation policy is available online. For questions about accreditation, or to request special logistical support, email: [email protected]. For other questions, please contact NASA Kennedy’s newsroom at: 321-867-2468.

Each resupply mission to the station delivers scientific investigations in the areas of biology and biotechnology, Earth and space science, physical sciences, and technology development and demonstrations. Cargo resupply from U.S. companies ensures a national capability to deliver scientific research to the space station, significantly increasing NASA’s ability to conduct new investigations aboard humanity’s laboratory in space.

Along with food and essential equipment for the crew, Dragon is delivering a variety of experiments, including a demonstration of refined maneuvers for free-floating robots. Dragon also carries an enhanced air quality monitoring system that could protect crew members on exploration missions to the Moon and Mars, and two atomic clocks to examine fundamental physics concepts, such as relativity, and test worldwide synchronization of precision timepieces.

Astronauts have occupied the space station continuously since November 2000. In that time, 283 people from 23 countries have visited the orbital outpost. The space station is a springboard to NASA’s next great leap in exploration, including future missions to the Moon under the Artemis campaign, and human exploration of Mars.

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-invites-media-to-spacexs-32nd-resupply-launch-to-space-station/

The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying the Dragon spacecraft lifts off from Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Nov. 4, 2024, on the company’s 31st commercial resupply services mission for the agency to the International Space Station.
Credit: SpaceX

92

Blue Origin / Re: Blue Origin Space Capsule/Spacecraft

« Last post by TheRadicalModerate on 03/24/2025 07:22 pm »

As for BO having their lunar focus, seems like picking up Orion would be big boon for them. Just buy it right from LM.

It's not owned by LockMart.  It's owned by the US Government.  Furthermore, it has a major component that's contributed by Europe (the ESM).

There's a way to deal with this, especially in crafting a cislunar commercial crew service:  the solicitation can allow the use of Government Furnished Equipment.  GFE has weird cost accounting rules, but otherwise it's sorta like renting the use of the GFE from the feds.

As a practical matter, this shouldn't really matter to either Blue or LockMart.  LockMart already is contracted to provide OPOC, the Orion Production and Operations Contract.  That makes them the integrator of the entire Orion stack.  Providing the contractual mumbo-jumbo needed to let them integrate it onto a New Glenn and a Cislunar Transport as GFE should be doable.

It's not clear to me who the prime contractor for this cislunar commercial crew system would be.  It could be that all Blue winds up supplying is New Glenn launches and integration expertise, with everything else being operated by LockMart.

93

ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan / Re: ULA Vulcan Launch Vehicle (as announced/built) - General Discussion Thread 3

« Last post by lrk on 03/24/2025 07:16 pm »

Perhaps someone can elaborate on the difficulty of partially filling the stage?

I understand the tanks need to be pressurized, but how is that different than after a couple of minutes of burn and you are also half full? Obviously they are pressurizing with helium or whatever they are using?

Centaur doesn't have precise propellant level sensors, just full and empty indicators, more or less.  So design changes or a special variant would be needed to launch partly fueled, anyway.

94

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : NROL-69 : CCSFS SLC-40 : 24 March 2025 (17:48 UTC)

« Last post by vanoord on 03/24/2025 07:16 pm »

Likely Stage 2 de-orbit burn / fuel dumping was visible over much of the UK around 20:02

Image from a colleague (North Wales).

95

New Physics for Space Technology / Re: Tests proving propellantless propulsion by transferring momentum into vacuum

« Last post by QF Propulsion on 03/24/2025 07:04 pm »

See Nomadd's reply you obviously do not know what the words you are using mean. Not real in this context doesn't mean non-existent, but lacking in the properties you assume then to have.....

Based on experiments; photons created in Dynamical Casimir Effect happen to have all the properties as the photons reaching your eyes; albeit different values 
Since, the conjecture that I'm using to explain the results of my experiments is that magnets facing each other with the same poles may create similar conditions as the Casimir Effect, those particles in my equations have the same rights to be real

96

Blue Origin / Re: Blue Origin Space Capsule/Spacecraft

« Last post by DrTadd on 03/24/2025 06:59 pm »

I can see dragon being very relevant for a while yet.

According to this, Musk will be sending stuff to mars in 8 months. I guess that will be done in concert with the late 2025 moon mission. The missions are not carrying people, life support on something that large is going to mars will be a research project in its own right. Moon will be much easier than mars just do to proximity (endurance time).

https://www.wionews.com/web-stories/science-technology/optimus-to-colonise-red-planet-elon-musk-to-launch-spacexs-mars-mission-by-next-year-8885928

At least they do not need to have those exo-earth landing ships return to Texas. I would think the smart money would be using F9/dragon to shuttle to the landing starships, then use dragon to return home.

There were like 75 F9 launches before putting up people. That took almost 10 years. I do not think starship will take that long, but that will still be 1.5 a week for all of 2026. Falcon 9 'only' did twice that last year, it busiest year yet. That is a vehicle with over a decade of flight operations to meet that rate.

I wish SX all the best, but starship still has a long row to hoe yet to achieve the successes of F9.

As for BO having their lunar focus, seems like picking up Orion would be big boon for them. Just buy it right from LM. Question is, where are people in BO's timeline outside of NASA programs?

97

New Physics for Space Technology / Re: Tests proving propellantless propulsion by transferring momentum into vacuum

« Last post by CoolScience on 03/24/2025 06:54 pm »

"properly testable and falsifiable"

This is what reveals your anti-empiricism bias, but it's been obvious for some time to anyone who follows your posts.

You have literally lied directly about essentially every post of mine you have ever replied to and your assertion here is equally untrue.

The first makes the same mistake as Semmelweis's critics, throwing out lots of good empirical babies along with the bad theoretical bathwater.

I literally said the exact opposite.
Properly implies with enough rigorous to be clear, well defined and repeatable.

The second is just blatantly untrue. An experimental result can be perfectly falsifiable upon repeat experiments, even without any theory being put forth.

Please go look up any description of the scientific method; a hypothesis must be falsifiable. "A force is produced" is not falsifiable, because like typical posts in this section, they can always say "but xyz tweak is needed to the setup" or "it is just under the noise". For a claim of this nature the way to make it falsifiable is to make a numerical prediction and I gave the specific description of how to do that

In this case the bad logic happens to be harmless, because in this instance the theory and experiment are both bunkum, but in general that's not always true.

You coincidentally got the right conclusion today, but you used (in part) faulty reasoning to get there.  In aviation we call this a "near miss," and when we catch one it's an important learning opportunity.  That bit of bad logic wasn't a problem this time, but that won't be true every time.

And yet again, in order to attack me you have ignored what I said, and the context, even after 8 literally just pointed out the context, you deliberately here move my words into a different context to take issue with them. I was careful to point out how both theory and experiment are bunk. Neither the theory nor the experiment result indicate more work should be done on this, but you pretend I only addressed one

98

Blue Origin / Re: Blue Origin Space Capsule/Spacecraft

« Last post by TheRadicalModerate on 03/24/2025 06:52 pm »

I wouldn't expect Blue to give up on human spaceflight just because SpaceX could swamp them on volume.  Humans are, at least from an economic standpoint, just a particularly valuable payload, and we know that there's some market for small payloads on smaller systems.

Especially for cislunar applications, spacecraft limited to 4-6 crew should be substantially cheaper than Starship from the standpoint of prop delivered to orbit.  Whether they're cheaper in terms of prop launches to orbit, especially for hydrolox prop, is a good question.

99

Discovery (Post-STS-133, T&R) / Re: LIVE: STS-119: FLIGHT DAY 3 - RPM AND DOCKING

« Last post by Chris Bergin on 03/24/2025 06:45 pm »

I can merge them, as I have.

100

Other US Launchers / Re: US Launch Schedule

« Last post by Salo on 03/24/2025 06:41 pm »

https://www.nro.gov/Portals/135/Documents/news/press/2025/250324%20NROL-69%20Press%20Release%20FINAL.pdf?ver=bS80udq5lMsFKTxDEuTOpw%3d%3d

National Reconnaissance Office Release #5-25
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 24, 2025
Office of Public Affairs
703-808-1198, [email protected]
NRO and U.S. Space Force partner to launch NROL-69 mission
Fifth NRO launch of 2025 continues dynamic mission schedule

CHANTILLY, Va. — The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), in partnership with U.S.
Space Force Space Systems Command (SSC), Space Launch Delta 45, and SpaceX, successfully
launched the NROL-69 mission aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Space Launch Complex
40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on March 24, 2025, at 1:48 p.m. EDT. The Falcon 9
reusable rocket booster returned safely to Landing Zone 1 after delivering the national security
payload to orbit.
Today’s successful mission highlights the close working relationship between NRO and SSC to
ensure reliable and cost-effective access to space for national security missions.
“NRO and SSC’s partnership through the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program is an
important step in safeguarding our nation’s interests in space,” said Col. Eric Zarybnisky,
director, NRO’s Office of Space Launch. “Together, we are advancing national security by
ensuring the U.S. maintains resilient and cost-effective space capabilities to meet evolving
threats and deliver vital intelligence.”
NROL-69 is the first NRO mission launched with SpaceX from the NSSL Phase 2 contract
awarded in August 2020. NSSL, a government launch acquisition partnership program between
SSC and the NRO aimed at ensuring continued assured access to space for national security
missions, is overseen and operated by SSC, headquartered at Los Angeles Air Force Base in
California.
Previously, NRO and SSC launched two NSSL Phase 1A missions with SpaceX from
Vandenberg Space Force Base with NROL-87 and NROL-85 in 2022.
“The combined team of our skilled personnel plus SpaceX in partnership with the NRO
thoroughly examined the flight hardware and integration elements to minimize mission risks,”
said Col. Jim Horne, Senior Materiel Leader of Launch Execution. “And our SSC team who
operate the range systems and infrastructure was fantastic. It was our first NSSL mission this
calendar year, and it hit the mark, right in the middle.”
Over the past two years, NRO has launched more than 150 satellites, creating the largest and
most capable government constellation on orbit in our nation’s history. Continuing with this
momentum, 2025 is set to be another dynamic year, with approximately a dozen NRO launches
scheduled. NROL-69 is NRO’s 5th launch of 2025, following NROL-153, NROL-57, and two
rideshare missions aboard SpaceX’s Transporter-12 and Transporter-13.
For more than 60 years, the NRO has successfully met the needs of its U.S. intelligence, military,
civil, and allied partners. It remains the world’s leader in unique intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance systems. The NRO’s next-generation systems will help ensure that the right data
is delivered to the right user at the right time, faster than ever before.
Additional information on upcoming launches will be made available at NRO.gov/launch .