You are not logged in.
Here's a newly posted YouTube and has a decent discussion of the habitability of Callisto.
Even tho this wasn't a manned flight--the vehicle is a forerunner for the BO manned flight to Shackleton Crater in the future--and is a relevant test flight of New Glenn.
The flight was in doubt until they actually did it this morning with only a minor hiccup of a short prelaunch hold of maybe 20 minutes.
Here's a link to the replay of the launch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enQ_IXtfm9I
There was an "Oops" as the payload was lost due to the upper stage underperformed or simply released the satellite too soon!
Administrator Isaacman interview on going to the Moon and a Moon Base construction:
Here's a comparison presentation between the Axiom Space suits versus the Polaris Dawn suit by SpaceX. Axiom has really over-engineered their design.
GW--Here's a short video about the Vulcan SRB failure.
"This was a really challenging event and...we almost did have a really terrible day," said Amit Kshatriya, NASA associate administrator. "We failed them."
"But to be clear, NASA will not fly another crew on Starliner until technical causes are understood and corrected, the propulsion system is fully qualified and appropriate investigation recommendations are implemented," he said.
The panel concluded the problems experienced during the mission were representative of a "Type A mishap," meaning an unexpected event that could have resulted in death or permanent disability, damage to government property exceeding $2 million and the loss of a spacecraft or launch vehicle.
Isaacman said the eventual cost of the Starliner's woes exceeded the $2 million threshold "a hundred fold."
"Starliner has design and engineering deficiencies that must be corrected," he said. "But the most troubling failure revealed by this investigation is not hardware. It's decision-making and leadership that, if left unchecked, could create a culture incompatible with human space flight."
Isaacman said the investigation revealed pressure within NASA to ensure the success of the agency's Commercial Crew Program, which is based on having two independent astronaut ferry ships. That advocacy "exceeded reasonable bounds and placed the mission the crew and America's space program at risk."
"This created a culture of mistrust that can never happen again and there will be leadership accountability," Isaacman said.
Isaacman promised that "lessons will be appropriately learned across the agency and there will be accountability.
"It is worth restating what should be obvious," he said. "At that moment, had different decisions been made, had thrusters not been recovered or had docking been unsuccessful, the outcome of this mission could have been very different."
Williams and Wilmore downplayed the malfunctions during the flight, which was originally expected to last about eight days. But NASA and Boeing ended up extending their stay in orbit, carrying out weeks of tests and analysis to determine whether the Starliner could be trusted to safely bring its crew back to Earth.
By August 2024, Boeing managers were convinced engineers understood the problems and the crew could safely come home in the Starliner. But NASA managers ruled that option out. Instead, they decided to keep the astronauts aboard the station until early 2025 when they could hitch a ride back to Earth aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon ferry ship.
To make that possible, a Crew Dragon was launched in September 2024 with just two astronauts aboard instead of four as originally planned. That freed up two seats for Wilmore and Williams after the SpaceX crew completed their six-month stay in space.
The Starliner, meanwhile, successfully made an uncrewed return to Earth in September 2024 even though, the investigation report revealed, additional propulsion problems left the craft with no available backup options had another failure occurred.
The mission, "while ultimately successful in preserving crew safety, revealed critical vulnerabilities in the Starliner's propulsion system, NASA's oversight model and the broader culture of commercial human spaceflight," the investigation team concluded.
------
I've edited out a lot of stuff and include what I consider the take-home lesson portions! I'm pleased that Jared is the new Administrator
I agree with GW about the landing of a tall and topheavy Starship being a VERY BAD idea. I recall from my course in Statics about having the center of mass over the base area being stable. The Starship needs to be a lot shorter and possibly include a 3rd stage instead of the whole shebang trying to land as one big chunk of metal. The lander should probably be fueled with hypergolic fuels instead of cryogenics. I know that making the trip isn't really within the realm of the large 2 stage vehicle, but inclusion of an expendable Earth departure stage and a seperate lander would undoubtedly work. The math should be fairly simple but getting it built in under 3 years is very problematic.
I am very enthusiastic with the appointment of Jared Isaacman as NASA Administrator!
Here's a link to this excellent interview!
We've had some conversation on this forum about landing methods for the lunar lander.
Here's a fairly interesting YouTube discussion about landings and how to carry it out.
Here's a short video which is one of several on this topic:
IMHO, this should be investigated for the upcoming trip to the Moon as it would provide a demonstration of concept. I didn't go back to my original concept to get a Mars mission using what i called a "modular approach" with some throwaway hardware such as kick stages that could be consigned to the Sun after use. I've been thinking about a stepwise journey to get bigger after getting it done once or twice.
Russia's Proton had a hypergolic "Kick stage" in it's architecture. My initial ideas about 7-8 years ago involved building hypergolic throwaway stages for LEO departure and inclusion of an landing stage.
I'm posting a new update to what, at the time originated, generated a LOT of interest and intelligent commentary.
Recently there has been a spate of "new ideas" which seem to be someone newly rediscovering some of the topics in this thread. I proposed many years ago what I now would call a "Kluge together" model." Use as many OTS components available and get our butts to Mars.
Just reposting here to get this thread active and incorporating the STUBBY STARSHIP concept suggested by Tim Dodd.
To briefly summarize what we have functioning at this time for use:
(1) Dragon capsule which has been used for missions to the ISS and several private multiday missions.
(2) A now well tested Falcon Heavy.
(3) More experience using Methylox as a propellant.
(4) The Centaur rocket from ULA.
(5) A single flight of New Glenn fro Blue Origin.
(6) A new and tested space suit from SpaceX.
I'm sure there are more that I could include but let's get brainstorming in the light of this new STUBBY STARSHIP concept!
Ground systems Oxygen leak. Try again this late afternoon; same time window.
GW--
Here's the latest AngryAstronaut YouTube presentation, which supports your post #2110:
I've ben keeping up with the evolving story about IFT 7 the latest engineering info I've seen has pointed the finger at a massive vibrations problem--some 5X greater than the test stand results. Vibrations --> metal fatigue and cracking, which apparently caused the fuel leaks, leading to the RUD.
The Thursday flight on 3/6/2025 was earlier announced, but there was a damaged part during the stacking which may result in another day or 2 delay. WAS!!
Here's new information that indicates a subsurface ocean.
kbd512-
I agree with you on most , nearly all of your above statements.
The lone exception is regarding hydrazine based propulsion, and you gave the "cost of manufacture" as the primary reason for abandonment of N2H4 as a viable fuel. WRONG! Hydrazine is simple to manufacture and at one time was easy to purchase up until around 1990. The most expensive portion of using hydrazine was SAFE SHIPPING! I was using 55 gallon drums of Hydrazine Hydrate in some of my manufacturing processes routinely, and the major expense was needing 5 barrels of Sodium Hypochlorite to safely dispose of the waste. Mixed with enough bleach, hydrazine was completely destroyed and diluted with water, it could go down the sewer system without any quibbles from the EPA.
Shipping Hydrazine by truck freight became almost impossible--nearly overnight.
Anhydrous Hydrazine was another story, and was always heavily regulated by ICC and shippers.
There have been several recent posts on YouTube regarding the possibility of Boeing laying off a load of workers in anticipation of cancellation of the SLS main stage. I've seen nothing more since last week, however.
Thomas; I edited my post and it was corrected by eliminating the colon immediately preceding the actual URL.
Rodger
There are 2 YouTube videos at present;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddMiC2lY-OM, which I posted earlier, and a second one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yeay2n … 4g&index=2
I'm moving this link here from Human Spaceflight; this is a short program by Angry Astronaut.
Here's a YouTube regarding the BO booster landing attempt:
Bob-
I don't have a specific reference, but many different posts on a number of YouTube presentations can confirm this ~80% power rating. I'm sure they will need to increase the chamber pressure and exhaust velocity to get the needed performance to not waste fuel in the liftoff stage and ensure enough payload to orbit.
GW-
According to various reports I've seen, the BO BE-4 engines are running at about 80% of their design pressure limits to extend their lifetimes; so--that accounts for the lower performance and lots of fuel burn overcoming gravity in the early stages of flight. I suspect that they will need to increase the chamber pressures to take advantage of the undoubtedly better performance (which IS available) needed in later flights.
According to comments by Scott Manley, the second stage of IFT-7 was veering off course due to the loss of steering capability, and probably triggering the flight termination system. Of all the usual live space website analysts, he undoubtedly does the most thorough and scientific reporting.
I just saw an update re: Ship 33; the Starship 33 experienced an onboard fire thought to involve leaking Oxygen and methane which was initially detected by onboard cameras. There was a massive RUD over the Turks and Caicos Islands and there are some very cool photos of the debris reentering the atmosphere. There is also a call number provided so that anyone finding debris can notify SpaceX for it's recovery. Thankfully there has been no report of any injuries, since the RUD and debris fallout occurred within the designated exclusion zone for possible reentry.
Here's a link to Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfVm4DTv6lM