Right now, the Earth is losing mass at about 55 000 tons per year. Yes, losing. About 100 000 tons of hydrogen and helium escapes the upper atmosphere, partially offset by roughly 45 000 tons of dust and meteorites getting scooped up along our orbit.

Considering this has been happening for millions of years, I think we're quite safe from affecting the Earth's mass and orbit within the span of even centuries.

But it's much more likely that the majority of material mined and processed in space will not be coming down to Earth. It's much better put to use in orbital construction, or shallower gravity wells like the Moon and Mars.

You're entirely right that getting to the rocks, and getting the mined stuff to where it's actually useful, are gonna be a problem. Maybe we'll finally get some nuclear thermal engines, cause the shite ISP of chemical rockets is really insufficient for these trips and ain't no one wanna wait on the gravity assists.

Fingers crossed this woman doesn't end up with a Zydrate addiction. It comes in a little glass vial, you know.

NASA has the measurements of all their astronauts and Dragon flight suits for Butch and Suni are already made.

It's stronger than aluminium, as well as easier to manufacture and work in less-than-ideal conditions than carbon fiber. Useful traits when your end goal is to build a whole fuckton of the biggest, most capable, fully reusable rockets in history.

Crew Dragon has been solely responsible for the US side of ISS rotations for four years, without incident. 8 successful missions, not counting the privately funded trips. Cargo Dragon has been doing resupply missions since 2012.

Yep. And if they fail to deliver on the lofty expectations they've created here, the backlash is going to be epic. I don't want to root for their downfall, but.... Imma stock up on popcorn.

A lot of that time, if not the vast majority, is likely performance testing. That's trivial to automate and can be run across 100+ systems simultaneously.

Because now it's practically a necessity. Before that, you could easily not put a case on your phone, exercise some basic care with it and you would've been fine. None of my previous phones had a case on them. Not a one. Because I don't drop them, I don't throw them and I don't use them for hammering in bolts or whatever. But the camera bump finally got me to put a case on my phone, because the damn thing not sitting flat on a flat surface annoyed me too much.

The Astray frame is such a beauty. Strong and incredible articulation, in a time when even mainline hero kits (looking at you, Exia!) weren't getting such love.

Admittedly, I'm not up to date on how the preparation is going, but a Space News article from last month claims they're still looking good for the launch window. Blue may have hoped that ESCAPADE wouldn't be the very first launch, but that ship has sailed. Wouldn't count them out just yet, not until some critical failure lifts its ugly head. But for my money, the most likely, and most disappointing, outcome is that they scrub due to technical problems and end up missing the window. First launches rarely go off without a hitch. Still gonna be rooting for them and watching whatever stream is available.

I'm glad to see Blue starting to aim high, but all of this is heavily dependent on New Glenn's first flight going well. Fingers crossed, there's no major problems with the rocket and they can remain on track for this mission.

Thunderfoot's psychotic obsession with Musk and the complete denial of reality happening before his eyes it necessitates has destroyed any credibility as a scientist he ever had. The authority of a food chemist on matters of rocket science is questionable in the first place. Your blind, unquestioning acceptance of whatever drivel escapes his frothing mouth is no less pathetic.

And with that, I'm going to toast to the memory of the brain cells I've lost over the course of this "conversation". Hoping for anything even resembling a reasoned argument from you is clearly a fool's errand.

Yeah, you got nothing.

Fucking lol.

EDIT: Hoo boy, you didn't even look at what you linked, did you? My point was that SpaceX has completed 8 crewed missions. The video is just half an hour of Thunderfoot's inane rambling about launch costs. Not a single word about whether or not SpaceX has completed any crewed missions, ISS or otherwise. That's the point I'm challenging you to disprove here. Go ahead. Show your work. I'm looking forward to it.

They have 8 incident-free crew missions under their belt. Sit your ass down, the adults are talking.

What's your reasoning behind the claim that a company that's been transporting crew to and from the ISS for 4 years, and currently has a vehicle docked to the station, is incapable of launching a tenth mission? Mind that said mission was supposed to launch next week, but Starliner is being a pad princess in orbit and won't get off the required docking port.

I suppose I'm somewhat fortunate to have been a poor bastard for most of my life. 25fps with moldy potato settings was just fine, as long as the game didn't crash or deep fry the CPU, so I'm not as sensitive to the occasional drop below 60fps and don't feel slighted when I have to turn some settings down. Though I can understand being incensed when you've poured thousands into a bleeding-edge gaming rig that's supposed to handle anything at 4k, maxed out and a stable 120fps and it's the game itself dragging your experience down.

But the stutters weren't the only problem people reported early on. There were cries of the game being unplayable, on account of endless bugs, visual glitches and repeated hard crashes. Worst I got was the normal mapping on Cal's face getting real weird in certain lighting conditions. That's hardly game-breaking.

I mean if you want to invalidate my lived experience, sure. Played on release on a 5600X, RTX3070 and 32GB of RAM, 1080p, almost everything maxed out. Open areas on Koboh saw a drop to mid-40 fps, but other than that, I had one hard crash and no bugs I noticed.

Gamers when the game has bugs: >:(

Gamers when the devs delay a patch because they discovered it breaks a core system: >:(

They're trying to fix bugs, not make existing ones worse. Deal with it, princess.

Cause no one wants to look like the idiot. And when no one has read the article, it's a lot harder to dispute the claims of what the article is about. It's a vicious cycle - someone who hasn't read the actual article makes claims about it, others who also haven't read it react and before you know it, you're ten posts deep, arguing about something that may or may not have happened. All it takes is one person to make an under-informed post and another to pick up on it. The difference between thousands and millions of users affects only the probability of it happening.

They're probably still poring over the data. Telemetry from the temperature sensors, the feeds from the internal cameras, data from the booster and why two of its engines failed and so on. Most likely also data on what and how many TPS tiles S29 lost on the way down, I doubt the video feeds were their only way of checking those All in all, it's gotta be terabytes of data to sort through and analyze

They did leave two tiles off the aft end and put in a thinner tile. Possible that those spots burned through and damaged the sensors, but the sea-level engines were healthy enough to still work.

It's not Reddit behavior. It's just the limited capacity we have for dealing with the flood of information we're exposed to. Between that and the daily stresses of work, family and whatever else a given person has going on, there's no time to filter out what is or isn't important, there's no time for nuance or thought, there's only time enough for a knee-jerk reaction before the next aggravating thing comes along.

When has anything space ever been on schedule? SpaceX may be behind, but considering what they're trying to do with Starship, it's hardly unexpected.

Round where I'm from, "pede" is a derogatory term for gay people.

There's a point at which you learn more from actually building something and putting it through its paces than simulating. It's a tough balance to strike , no argument there. Simulating until you've covered every conceivable edge case and failure mode is ludicrously costly and time consuming. Relying entirely on yeeting shit and seeing how it fails risks missing the edge cases. But so far, I've seen little reason to doubt that SpaceX has found a working balance between simulation and practical testing. They're certainly progressing faster than the industry historically has and the F9 has had no failures, even partial ones, in over 200 flights. That's a track record that most launch vehicles can't meet. It's definitely possible there's a 1/1000 flaw in the Falcon 9, but until it actually happens and they lose a rocket and/or a payload (gods willing it won't be crew), it's nothing but a hypothetical "but what if..." scenario.

No they didn't. They had, a mockup of an empty shell into which they might eventually fit the vehicle. And they still have that.

Blue Origin: "Here's renders and a papier-mâchė model of what our lander will look like. It's assembled together in lunar orbit, from an automated cargo ship, our own lander and another Orion." Note that this isn't what they won the option b proposal with.

SpaceX: "Here's renders of what our lander will look like. We have a full scale prototype out in Boca and we're blowing it up to see if our math and simulations are right on how much pressure the tanks can take. It'll require some modifications, such as larger landing legs and dedicated landing engines." And their HLS proposal isn't a vehicle carried in the Starship's cargo bay, it is the Starship.

what you're failing to understand is that this 2.94 billion dollar bid was already AFTER they were informed of the budget changes.

I can find no source for SpaceX's initial bid being higher, let alone 2x higher (to meet your claim that they bid on the same level as BO, not even gonna consider Dynetics).If you have one, I'd like to see it. And if it is the case that SpaceX was picked because they were willing to slash their bid in half, then I would expect BO's follow-up litigation to be based around that. Instead, BO focused on the claim that NASA didn't give their proposal proper evaluation and consideration.

I doubt minimizing corporate loss was Lueder's motivation there. Presumably neither Steve Cook or Jeff Bezos offered Lueders a large enough bribe job matching her qualifications.

That wasn't my point. The point was that if their proposal had been closer to the budget set aside for the award, as opposed to being double the budget, they might have been contacted to see if they could complete the contract for the lesser amount.

SpaceX didn't need a mockup to present. They had prototypes of the base vehicle and a proposal for necessary modifications to perform the contract duties and an established track record of developing ambitious rocket engines and launch vehicles. BO had bits and pieces of other things they were gonna bolt together and a pretty model of how it'll look like, we swear, scout's honor. But if you're talking about the Blue Moon that eventually won the secondary bid, that's not what they initially proposed.Blue Moon Mk2 is a variant of a lander that's been in development since 2016, so two years longer than SpaceX's Starship prototypes. The one that's planned for a lunar landing this year, Blue Moon Mk1, isn't the one they bid for HLS. It's a robotic lander, smaller than the HLS's Mk2. So fancy that, they won a HLS contract when they bid a variant of something they were already working on, much like SpaceX did. And remember, BO is developing a lander. SpaceX is developing a fully reusable super heavy lift rocket, an interplanetary transport craft and a lunar lander as part of the same package.

AFTER being told to do so. That's the entire problem. Blue Origin and Dynetics both came forward and said they'd gladly match that bid, but since they didn't get the special information that was only given to SpaceX, they couldn't know this.

Finish reading my post. SpaceX's initial bid was 2.94 billion and the final award was 2.89 billion. Again, they agreed that they can do the job for 50 million less than what they originally bid. BO's and Dynetics' proposals would've suffered a much larger hit. And sure, BO got the secondary contract for 3.4 billion, after rethinking their entire proposal. So why did they not submit that one in the first place? If they had, they might have gotten a similar call.

Is it? Starship has been in development since at least 2012-ish (as the "mars colonial transport" or "its" or "bfr" or a few other names). It hasn't done a succesful mission yet. ULA's Vulcan was anounced in 2014, and it works just fine. So I don't really think it's actually faster or better, but it IS more showy.

The first time Starship was spoken of was in 2012, yes. The very first idealistic designs of it. The design that's actually being tested is from 2018. So 5 years to go from "Alright, this is what we're gonna do" to full stack flight testing. Roughly on pace with their previous rockets, the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 took about 4 years.

Absolute and complete lie. Its exactly the opposite. SpaceX did not, and still DOES NOT have a solid design or mockup of HLS. Dynetics and Blue Origin had both.

Blue Origin had (and still has) no experience with human-rated capsules. Their proposed lander had to be assembled in lunar orbit or launched on another SLS. The Dynetics lander was over its own mass budget. It was literally too heavy to do the job it was being proposed for. Meanwhile, SpaceX proposed a derivative of what they were already working on. Blue and Dynetics had no practical development done on their landers, they would've relied on the HLS award to even get started on actual development.

The problem is that SpaceX had a bid at the same level of the others, but they lowered it when Kathy Lueders gave them a call (and not the other parties) to lower it. This is spelled out in NASA's own document:

SpaceX's bid was just under 3B. Blue Origin bid at a bit under 6B. Dynetics wanted 9B. This information is freely available online. SpaceX was also given the least in design development funding, with 135 million versus Blue's 579 million and Dynetics' 253 million. It's not terribly shocking that a company with a good track record and the lowest bid wins a contract.

No, the contract stated that anything between zero and three were options, based on funding. They said the goal was two, but then budget was reduced. Nobody was told this. The number of contracts was also reduced to one as a result. Nobody was told this. And then Kathy Lueders gave SpaceX a call, and not the others, to share this information.

They needed a lander contract. The entire Artemis project was already fucked when it comes to the timetable, but delaying the HLS contract would've made things even worse. And when the budget got cut, they negotiated with the one bidder who was deemed most likely to still get the job done with the lower budget, as opposed to the other two whose bids were wildly over what NASA could give them. SpaceX bid at 2.94 billion and the final award was 2.89 billion. Again, BO bid 6 billion and Dynetics bid 9 billion. Losing 50 million is an easier pill to swallow than getting half or a third of what you need.

Point 1: SpaceX's entire development philosophy is "test early, test often and learn from failures". This is a much quicker pace than simulating every imaginable failure scenario and leads to faster progress in development. With the Falcon 9, that process proved wildly efficient and successful, culminating in a launch vehicle so reliable that it's cheaper to insure a payload on an F9 that already has multiple launches under its belt than a brand new booster. And they're turning enough of a profit to develop the Starship largely on internal funds, seeing how the early Raptor flight tests were before the HLS contract.

Point 2: Just adding, the Raptor engine is the first full-flow staged combustion engine to ever get off a testing stand and actually fly. The engineering complexity of these things is on the level of the Shuttle's RS-25.

Point 3: SpaceX were the only ones with more than designs and mockups to present, and they had a reliable track history from working with NASA on the commercial resupply and crew projects. And I see no problem with awarding a contract to a bid that actually fits into the budget.

Point 4: Multiple options was always part of the plan. NASA wants redundancy, so that if one of the providers runs into problems, the other provider can continue (and perhaps even take up the slack) instead of everything coming to a grinding halt. For a perfect example, look at the Shuttle and Commercial Crew programs. The Shuttle got grounded and since it was NASA's only manned launcher, they had to bum rides from the russians. In contrast, the CC contract was awarded to Boeing and SpaceX. With Starliner's continued issues, SpaceX has picked up the slack and fulfilled more than their initial contract in launches, instead of NASA having to bum rides from the russians again. The initial HLS contract was supposed to go to two providers, until the budget got cut. Blue's bid was always the favorite for the second pick.

I see where you're coming from, but also think it's a tad hasty to say it'll never lead to anything but fluff. Excitement should be nourished, cause it's the people who are excited about new things that will explore what could come of it. Now let's give 'em time to cook.

That's assuming that the generative technology remains stagnant. I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, the systems get complex enough to conjure up entire minor quests at runtime. Honestly, it's just a further development of procedural generation, I don't see how it's going to stall out at "meh dialog".

No more pre-defined dialog trees for NPCs and more reactive interactions. An example from BG3: ::: spoiler Tap for spoiler you can find evidence that Isobel, the cleric who keeps Last Light Inn safe from the Shadow Curse, is the resurrected daughter of that act's boss. ::: But you can't talk to her, or anyone, about it, since those conversations were never written. With a system that generates NPC dialog on the fly, based on context and the NPC's pre-defined parameters, you could.

Why are you bringing up Musk? I fail to see how Neuralink is the killing blow to the very concept of brain-computer interfaces. Your bias is showing.

It's true that current BCIs can't do what I outlined as their potential benefits. Hence, why they're potential. The technology still needs to develop before those potential benefits can be realised. Personally, I look forward to that day.

Your issue, as far as I understood it, was that the brain implants are pointless, cause they do nothing we can't already do. There's plenty current medical technology can't fix, but a brain implant could (one day). Such as restoring sight by bridging cameras to the visual cortex; or restoring control over their body to disabled people, either by bypassing damaged nerves anywhere in the body or connecting prosthetics to the motor cortex. Are those things worth the trouble of going through brain surgery?

Okay, but would you rather be locked in your unmoving body or get brain surgery and have motion again? Would you rather be blind and deaf or get brain surgery and have your senses back?

"In order to fight monsters, we created monsters of our own. The Jaeger Program was born."

If Starship Troopers had the player numbers of Helldivers, these articles would be about that game instead.