Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 Next
With the resurgence of flights to the moon (SLS) I am trying to contact anyone who was at the launch of Apollo 11, and more precise  to the southeast side of Route 406 across from the Sand Point Park? The exact spot is just SE of the new Max Brewer Bridge where the first condo is located right beside the bridge.  I m looking for anyone who was present in that area or parents, or grandparents who might have taken video or pictures while waiting there hours prior to the launch. The exact spot is (if you were there) you would remember the billboard with a sign on it on the east side facing the VAB with the words Cable Crossing. Prior to the launch a young fellow was up on the bill board to get an unobstructed view of the launch.  I was first thinking this person drove over a 1000 miles to be at the launch like me then I got thinking he went up on the billboard like it was nothing and he had done it before many times with all the launches back in the day. I was 13 at the time and I thank my parents  for listening to me and my brother that we wanted to see the rocket go to the moon, and so we did.  I have been searching for a while for someone who was there and has some pictures of the area and maybe some good old super 8 film.

I have some pictures of what my father took that morning and posted some on the historical spaceflight section and also posted on Collect space under space places, and posted on the Titusville facebook for anyone who might have been there or parents, grandparents that might have passed down some photos and film.  It's my bucket list so anyone with any other ideas to get these items, there have to be 100's of thousands who are still alive and were there that morning and still like me have fond memories of that historical day spent with their families and friends.  Thanks to anyone who might have or know who has some info like this.  Sterk03
ISS Section / Re: Expedition 68 Thread
« Last post by Rondaz on Today at 02:30 am »
6/ I am still trying to determine the best way to use this for determining ops status, but you can see where objects, like the ISS, are actively controlled (
GAO-23-106042: National Security Space: Overview of Contracts for Commercial Satellite Imagery

Quote from: GAO
Commercial satellite imagery and data can play a key role in national security. For example, the war in Ukraine has drawn attention to how governments are using commercial satellites to track troop movement and the impact of attacks.

The commercial space industry is expected to grow significantly in the coming years, and therefore may be able to address more of the federal government's imagery needs. We previously reported on defense and intelligence agencies' acquisition and use of commercial satellite imagery.

This report includes an inventory of contracts across 10 civilian federal departments that use satellite imagery.
4/ Compared to a controlled reentry on 2022 Dec 4 of the SHENZHOU-14 spacecraft:
I agree with all this, in the main; but it's reasonable to also think that Blue Origin's team will once again have a *modest* advantage on the technical quality of its proposal - the National Team did, after all, grade out as "Acceptable" to Dynetics' "Marginal" grade on this criterion.

Maybe.  One couldnít close a mass budget.  The other couldnít close a link budget.  Even after hundreds of millions in prior NASA awards in the run up to the competition.  Thatís systems engineering amateur hour in both cases.  Maybe one gets their act together and ekes out a technical advanatge.  But I think itís more likely that both continue to wallow in systems incompetence.  Neither has successfully completed even a Falcon 1-like project.  Until they do, I remain skeptical.

Of course, we do not know yet exactly what each "partner" will be responsible for developing.

I donít think the partners matter much.  Theyíre not bringing the system together, just supplying elements.  Itís up to Blue and Dynetics  to get their choirs to sing together technically, and neither lead has demonstrated experience doing that at this level.

It would be a different discussion if, say, LockMart Space Sustems was lead.  They have demonstrated, current experience getting complex (if expensive) landers down safely on Mars.  But theyíre not a lead, and I canít point to anything like that at Dynetics or Blue.

Read about Luca's role for the @NASAArtemis I mission, monitoring @NASA_Orion's European Service Module commands and data for
but it will never be safe enough for the general public, which is it's express reason to exist.

Never say never.

Starship is being built by the company which is regularly transporting people to orbit on the Crew Dragon. Nobody is afraid of flying that one. I think that bodes well for the future of Starship.

Dragon has abort modes and an inherently safe method of EDL (doesn't require a liquid propulsion system to work).  And it's still not safe enough for the general public.
Presence of absence of abort modes does not inherently confer or remove safety. All they do is reduce some specific risk that is not reducible any other way.

We do not care that solid motor abort towers are normally jettisoned just after the first stage burn completes leaving a capsule 'abortless' riding a fully fuelled second (or possibly third) stage. There are abort options using e.g. a capsule's service module on-board motors to escape a stage that gracefully fails (e.g. contained engine failure), but if the stage RUDs then you don't have a backup abort option. We accept that making the stage sufficiently reliable is an acceptable alternative. We do not demand adding abort-abort motors in the event of an abort motor failure, we just accept that abort motors can be made sufficient reliable.

We have demanded that trans-oceanic aircraft must have multiple engines, and have then happily compromised from requiring 4 engines with engine-out to accepting two engines of sufficient reliability without any engine out capability (ETOPS). We do not concern ourselves that aircraft have no abort-modes from wing failure (despite it being a failure mode that has occurred in flight) as long as we have deemed the structure sufficiently reliable and maintained.

No commercial car has an abort system in the event of a steering assembly failure, despite that being a single point of failure. We accept that the assembly can be made sufficiently reliable to not require one.

The common theme is that if a system or component can be deemed to be sufficiently reliable, we are happy to accept that there is no abort mode. In the early days of human spaceflight abort modes were a necessity because there was no avenue to system maturity within the timeframe required to start flying humans within. Starship is not under that deadline: it can wait to fly enough to demonstrate reliability before launching or landing humans, and the only deadline is whether Maezawa is willing to continue to push back the launch date (or willing to pay a little extra for EOR launch/land using Dragon).

I seriously doubt that SS will ever get to be reliable enough for the general public to justify having no abort system. Not without major changes.
In the sense of being in the same category as schedule passenger aviation, I agree. It'll take decades to get there. It'll be beyond 2050 even with the most optimistic assumptions to get to ~99.9999% reliability needed for that (100,000 consecutive successful flights WITH close call analysis and some level of PRA). I don't see Starship going 30 years with no major changes.

But there's a big gulf between where we are and that, where space (and hopefully deep space) becomes accessible to any of the sufficiently-motivated portion of the middle class (think similar to what the suborbital spaceflight folks were targeting, like XCOR and Virgin Galactic).
The primary reasoning for 2 contracts for a provider of a service was that due to goals of the project it was not that realistic to believe that both would deliver or even 1 would. HLS is no different. SLS/Orion after it's first launch is a lower risk than any effort that would replace or compete with it. That does not mean that there would not be one anyway.

For App P there is highly likely only funds for 1 selected and it is also possible that the funds may be less than expected requiring a renegotiation and lengthening of the scheduled delivery date on the selected provider. Thus the bidder's price still holds a very significant position in the decision as long as the lowest cost bidder can do the job!

Schedule wise I do not expect an award for App P to occur before April. A source selection process on these size contracts are slow. And thus the official award date may even end being summer of 2023. That being last quarter of the 2023 fiscal year. 1 Oct 2023 would need a new budget passed by congress.

The latest version of the BAA says that the anticipated date for the award is June 6, 2023.

The BAA has a bunch of optional milestones in case that NASA doesn't receive the requested funding. So no renegotiation should be necessary. As of now, both the House and Senate proposed FY23 Appropriations bills fully fund HLS.
How likely is this congress to pass a budget before it ends? Cause I have zero faith in one passing next year with divided chambers.

They are usually able to work it out. The Senate already needed bipartisan support since you need 60 Senators for appropriations bill. A CR for an entire year is very rare. 
What is Boeing going to be doing? No one has said.

Assuming there's no radical departure from the previous ILV design, Northrop was responsible for the transfer stage. I would assume Boeing will be building its replacement. Perhaps based around Centaur/DCSS/ICPS?
SpaceX Mission 1601 Starlink Group 2-6 from SLC-4E
NET mid-January [NET January 12]
ASDS North  29  19  10   West  117  49  35

Will there be any "external" customer payloads launched by Vandenberg Falcon 9's in January? = Will SpaceX launch Starlink 2-4 and 2-6 as the only January Vandenberg Falcon 9 launches?

Or one Starlink, one other?

1st SDA TT&L launch has been slipped to March.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography