burble @ burble @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

10

Comments

284

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

If someone is born without legs, it might take True Polymorph to add some.

Yeah, the real kicker is the 25 gp worth of powdered silver.

In 5E, Lesser Restoration is free, so no one should really be blind, deaf, paralyzed, or poisoned. If they're missing a limb, though, Regenerate needs a vial of Holy Water that costs 25gp. For a commoner who makes 1sp a day, that's a lot.

Axiom and ILC Dover can't be too thrilled that SpaceX will lap them on suit development. I'm hoping the upcoming stations need less EVA work than the ISS, but these suits seem like a good fit if/when that's needed.

AMAN-1 was built as a replacement for AMAN ... The original AMAN satellite was lost in the LauncherOne failure by Virgin Orbit in January.

Ouch, they can't catch a break.

In addition to the examples mentioned in the article, here are 3 company names I hadn't heard of:

• Crescent (Lockheed owned. Well, that's boring.) is proposing Lunar comms sats
• GITAI: modular, multi-purpose Inchworm robots equipped with tool-changeable end effectors to conduct lunar surface labor
• Helios: molten regolith electrolysis to extract oxygen

I'm guessing it takes some work to harden a cryogenic pump to survive the shock and vibe environments. They would also have to demo their ullage motor setup.

Is the LOX header tank still in the nose?

moving 10 metric tons of liquid oxygen

The LOX header tank is 14.5m³ in some random diagram I found. LOX is 1ish tons/m³. So that checks out. I wonder if they're going to pump from the main LOX tank to the header? Or vice versa?

I think Destin misses the point that the goal isn't to be Apollo. Artemis will have longer surface stays and, eventually, a surface hab. Between that and Gateway, it'll help develop tech for deep space exploration. Flags & footprings could've been faster and simpler, but it would've gotten cancelled.

It's almost a miracle that Artemis still exists given the different administrations that started its different parts. That doesn't excuse the architecture, but it helps explain it. We wouldn't have any of it without the political power of SLS and Orion, but they limit the flight rate, require NRHO, drive up the budget, and lack payload availability that caused Gateway delays and led to the crazy HLSs.

The Starship architecture is pretty unprecedented. It's huge. It's overkill. It's super underbid. It needs a lot of launches. Blue Moon is in the same boat. That being said, complaining about an unclear number of launches, lack of hypergols, and need to demonstrate refuelling feels disingenuous without talking about how much more you get vs. the Apollo landers. NASA doesn't know what to do with the extra volume and payload.

Delays for designs as ambitious as Starship and HLS seem a lot more excusable than delays for SLS (first launch, EUS, MLs, RS-25s), or the suits that NASA was supposed to make but outsourced last minute. The landers and suits should have started way sooner.

The concept I saw involved putting the reboost module in Dragon's trunk, docking with that, and EVAing over to plug in a handful of connections. That seems doable.

Jared Isaacman really wants to fund a Dragon trip to it to attach a reboost/attitude control module. I'm pretty down to let him go for it.

Falcon 9, Atlas V, Ariane 5, and Delta IV couldn't get to 5 launches in year 2.

Of the 3, I have the most faith in ULA to make it happen because of their experience and schedule pressure. Retooling existing Delta production lines seems like it should reduce their mfg teething issues. The same logic should apply to Ariane 6, but they've barely been launching Ariane 5s for the last few years, so I'm not confident.

If it helps (it won't) Blue is doing their demo flight with a different design from their crewed vehicle.

I'm sure there's more HLS development going on behind the scenes than we know about, but wow do a lot of major milestones still have to get hit before a crewed landing. Even if orbit happens later this month or early next year, there's still orbital refueling once, launching enough to fill a depot, the demo landing, actually building and testing the HLS...

I thought they also bought out the rest of the Atlas Vs, but that only gets them so far.

I wonder how many of the 3 new rockets will launch more than 5 times in 2025. I guess I wouldn't bet on any? Maybe Vulcan?

It's only 3 launches, which is a drop in the bucket for a program with 92 flights booked. So, yeah, it might be a mix of trying to placate investors and starting to cave because of availability.

So that's about 50 per month from now until then? They'd better get moving.

Gunter's Space Page has some more info on some of the payloads. Others are linked down in the remarks section of this page:

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/enso.htm

There isn't any more info about what's on Daring Diego or Bane.

Rideshares like this are always a fun way to find out about companies and projects I've never heard of.

I guess it was a matter of time given the delays for Vulcan, New Glenn, and Ariane 6, but I thought they also bought up a bunch of Atlas V launches. Their manufacturing timelines must also be slipping if they didn't rush the test sats up sooner and start manifesting Atlases.

They would need an even longer depot to get out there and refuel it first