CowTheSlice

starship addict

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@Starship_block3 Spitter investing not out of hype but out of belief in a company we've all been following for a 2 decades🥰

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@Robotbeat Yeah. The hardest part of all of this is 100% the logistics of starship. The only way these will be cost effective is if starship achieves full and rapid reusability.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@ibobnotnot @Joshmayfield @ZacksJerryRig 1/10 of the ideas SpaceX comes up with lands and when they land they usher in a paradigm shift in the industry. Such as reusable first stages and satellite constellations which are obvious in retrospect but considered financially impossible years ago.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@TheGreyMouser__ Not comparable to typical spacecraft when the dissipation requirement is less than that of the international space station which was assembled 20 years ago

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@Ivantea2175684 @seld_on Each satellite will orbit in a twilight polar orbit, meaning constant solar irradiance. So not only is this going to sidestep the regulatory hurdles of compute build out by solve the increasing strain it has on electrical infrastructure.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@seld_on Agreed. However, this is SpaceX after all.
I’m sure these satellites will be constantly refined. There’s nothing better than just launching them to find out.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@xdNiBoR Nah change launch attempt to successful launches otherwise brainless hooligans will find a way to spin it in negative light. Morons.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@xereeto @nirbheek @lougrims @defnotbeka It’s much harder to build it under the sea then launch it into space. Plus, let’s not forget about electrical infrastructure. Half the problem is loading a local grid with an insane amount of electricity demand. Instead, put satellites into a polar orbit that gets permanent sun.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@deltaIV9250 this is using the new profile of pushing orion into LLO

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@deltaIV9250 I did some very rough maths assuming some rather pessimistic numbers. Taking a parking orbit of 300x300km and HLS' dry mass to be 150t. Starship would need to be loaded with around 1400t of propellant. Which means the mission is doable with its current performance. ~30t reserves

[NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman @NASAAdmin]

Starting with some energy, and my inability to write brief updates, I am just extremely proud of the NASA crew, our industry, and our international partners. We are getting into a rhythm here at NASA. Earlier this year, setbacks put the Artemis II rocket back in the VAB for repairs, and we determined it was necessary to add another mission, Artemis III in 2027. Since then, we have unveiled the Ignition plans to build a Moon Base and nuclear-powered spaceships, launched a highly successful mission around the Moon, brought the crew home safely, and now watched the torch pass to Artemis III. There will be no shortage of major milestones to celebrate in the months ahead as we build the Moon Base and launch the Nancy Grace Roman telescope. I am beyond proud of the team and all the momentum and excitement around the space program.

I do want to take this moment to address two of the questions I have been seeing since the crew announcement.

Why are there no women assigned to Artemis III?

I have seen reactions ranging from disappointment to outrage. I have personally been to space twice with 50% female crews. My closest advisors and some of the smartest engineers I know are women. In our latest NASA leadership organization, nearly 50% of the Center Directors and Mission Directorate leadership are women. The last astronaut candidate class selected under this Administration was majority female because they were the best of the best, including one astronaut I previously went to space with.

In a world with so much controversy, I hope this can be a moment where we celebrate the astronauts selected, respect the integrity of the process, and recognize the extraordinary depth of talent across the entire corps. The crew selection does not involve any political appointees. The Astronaut Office assigns the crew that gives the mission the best chance of meeting its objectives, taking into account many factors, including the background and expertise of the astronauts, such as test pilot experience, development work on specific programs, and availability. For example, those raising this concern may not be aware of the pipeline of crews already preparing to launch to the Space Station, or those who have been undergoing lunar-specific training that would be a better fit for a future surface mission.

The Artemis III astronauts are experienced, qualified, and deserve to be celebrated for the mission they have been assigned, just as the crews that follow will be celebrated when their time comes. We have an extraordinary astronaut corps, and every mission and every crew is part of a larger campaign to get America back to the Moon and to build the future we all dreamed about as children.

What are the objectives for Artemis III if both landers will not be fully ready?

Coming off a highly successful lunar mission like Artemis II, it is not surprising that the bar is set high for Artemis III. I think it is important to understand how difficult and dangerous it is to land astronauts on the Moon. We have not done it in a very long time, and we want to draw from a past playbook for success. That means getting into a cadence of launching, learning, and rolling improvements into the next mission.

First and foremost, it is imperative for SLS to be flying with some frequency for operational currency and, honestly, safety. Earlier this year, it was very clear across NASA leadership that an additional mission was necessary in 2027. It is also imperative to gain interoperability data from rendezvous and docking with landers in Earth orbit. We do not need those landers that are still in development to be fully capable and certified for landing on the Moon on Artemis III, but we do need to test certain systems and controllability. Not to mention, we are moving quickly into a future where we do not require a single rocket to bring everything necessary for a mission to space, and as such, gaining experience with multi-launch campaigns and on-orbit assembly is directionally correct.

The Blue Origin test lander for Artemis III will incorporate many of the most important systems and subsystems that have not previously been operated by the provider, including ECLSS in a crew cabin, and other avionics. With SpaceX, they have demonstrated many of those capabilities continuously on Crew Dragon, but other controllability tests are important based on the negative-X axis acceleration that will be necessary when Starship undertakes the TLI burn to the Moon with a docked Orion.

After Artemis III, we will learn a lot and roll in further improvements, be that hardware, software, or procedural updates, as both providers undertake end-to-end uncrewed demonstrations to the surface in 2028, in advance of Artemis IV, where NASA astronauts will finally complete the grand return to the Moon.

As I said in my remarks yesterday, when Gene Cernan left the lunar surface on Apollo 17, he said, “We leave as we came, and, God willing, we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.” We are returning, and we are doing so with the fire carried forward from Apollo, the lessons learned from Artemis II, the crew of Artemis III, and all those who will follow. NASA will send the very best crews for the right missions. If the composition of our astronaut corps and our latest class of candidates says anything, it is that we have exactly the talent required to get the job done.

Godspeed Artemis III, and all those who will follow.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@ThePrimalDino Just delay Artemis III so it can dock with starship landing demo instead. Zero chance blue is ready by mid next year anyways.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@lewisknaggs42 I like Orion not SLS. SLS is just a whatever rocket it works but it’s not going to survive long term.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@canraptor_ They should honestly just wait for YE or 2028. Do it with the HLS landing demo instead of a v3. Zero chance blue will be ready by this time next year anyways.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@jeremyy0805 @Truthful_ast falcon 9 has worse leg to height ratio and has to land in wind and at sea on a barge that is constantly moving in place.

Starship on the other hand is landing in a literal vacuum so control would be better and it has hundreds of tons of residual prop at the bottom as ballast.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@Jeff153143 @jeff_foust It doesn’t have to go to NRHO. Which is a very inefficient orbit.

In the original plan, starship would meet Orion in NRHO then go down to LLO then a landing, then go all the way back up to NRHO.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@Pallacus @InfographicTony @ErnestCalFab @elonmusk @MarcusHouse @LunarCaveman @DJSnM @NASA @SpaceX @SpacesFuture @JoeTegtmeyer @LabPadre @CSI_Starbase what you think <1g would kill the crew? Doesn’t matter what orientation it’s in so long as the thirst vector passes through the centre of mass, the entire stack would be controllable

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@Elevatorcait @Truthful_ast @Sn15enthusiast They also planned to launch bmmk1 endurance in January this year. Don’t assume blue origin is immune to delays.

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@deltaIV9250 Blue origins timelines here are just unrealistic unfortunately. There is no way they can rebuild the pad and switch to an entirely different vehicle integration method in 12 months. I also believe it’s best to fly bmmk1 before mk1.5/2. Don’t assume the lander will have no issues

[CowTheSlice @CowSlice]

@KEICalifornia @KenKirtland17 Still needed. Maybe ~6-8 less refuelling flights