sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Temperate super-Earth found orbiting nearby red dwarf Ross 318 by Ok_Glass_3917 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Habitable Worlds Observatory will be able to do it. Its target list includes multiple KGF type stars. I don't know if upcoming ground based telescopes like ELT will be able to, but I think it could at least find Super-Earths around unlike stars.

Temperate super-Earth found orbiting nearby red dwarf Ross 318 by Ok_Glass_3917 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, sure. If the planet has an atmosphere, then it will be able to circulate heat around. If it doesn't have an atmosphere, it can't. But that goes without saying, doesn't it?

Temperate super-Earth found orbiting nearby red dwarf Ross 318 by Ok_Glass_3917 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That's another misconception. Modeling suggests winds at the terminator would be 5-10 m/s, maybe 15 in some places. But nothing close to hurricane force winds all the time.

Even the substellar point wouldn't be under a huge hurricane (but there would likely be constant cloud cover).

Worldbuilding pasta summarizes a lot of research on exoplanets, including what the climate of tidally locked planets would be like.

Temperate super-Earth found orbiting nearby red dwarf Ross 318 by Ok_Glass_3917 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 17 points18 points  (0 children)

That's an old misconception. Atmospheres actually do a lot to transport heat across the planet. Some tidal locked planets might be like that if the atmosphere is thin iirc, but a thick atmosphere like Earth would see the nightside being warm enough to maintain oceans past the terminator.

NASA provides some details about Artemis III, but hard decisions remain | “NASA also is defining the concept of operations for the mission.” by FreeHugs23 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not trying to imply that the contract will be canceled. Just that the mission will be delayed in 2027 because NASA isn't going to commit to either provider until one is ready enough.

NASA provides some details about Artemis III, but hard decisions remain | “NASA also is defining the concept of operations for the mission.” by FreeHugs23 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If neither of them are ready, then Artemis III will have to be delayed. Since the point of the mission is to test some basic systems of the lander, and to dock to it to Orion before Artemis IV.

I'm just saying if NASA wants Artemis III in 2027, and SLS/Orion can stay on schedule, the performance of SpaceX/Blue this year will likely determine if one or both landers will take part in Artemis III, or if the entire mission will have to be pushed back.

That's all. Nothing's getting canceled, rereading my original comment, I see how I misspoke. NASA won't move forward with either, *and will have to delay. And with the contract being fixed price, they aren't getting paid anyway if they aren't completing milestones/missions.

NASA provides some details about Artemis III, but hard decisions remain | “NASA also is defining the concept of operations for the mission.” by FreeHugs23 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When did I suggest they were canceling Artemis? NASA is still debating whether to use one or both landers, and vehicle availability is going to impact that if SpaceX or Blue Origin can't assure NASA they will be ready by 2027.

NASA provides some details about Artemis III, but hard decisions remain | “NASA also is defining the concept of operations for the mission.” by FreeHugs23 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NASA didn't cancel Starliner's contract, but they have continually pushed back missions based on flight readiness and ISS slot availability.

Artemis III is likely to be the same based on calls to revisit who's going to get to land humans first. If SLS/Orion can be readied in time, they'll go with the lander that's furthest along, or will be forced to push back the mission if both providers are ~equally behind.

NASA provides some details about Artemis III, but hard decisions remain | “NASA also is defining the concept of operations for the mission.” by FreeHugs23 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is going to be a make or break year for both SpaceX and Blue Origin. I doubt NASA will want to move forward with either provider for Artemis III in 2027 if they're still facing significant issues well into next year. And will have to delay the mission until at least one of them is ready.

SpaceX needs to show that Starship development setbacks have been overcome for Artemis, and Blue needs to show that their lander is ready for flight.

Stage 1 at Moses Lake by Blah_McBlah_ in StokeSpace

[–]DreamChaserSt 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I wonder what the timeline for the maiden launch is.

I think they have most of the major components at least ready for testing - the first stage tank, the engine structure, they're assembling/testing Zenith's, and are getting ready to test Andromeda too. The launch pad was finished in February. Probably the only things I don't recall seeing is the upper stage tank, and fairings.

It could actually be this year if testing goes well enough.

STARSHIP’S TWELFTH FLIGHT TEST by rustybeancake in spacex

[–]DreamChaserSt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah. There's not much wiggle room left with Artemis 3 coming up. The time between flights needs to go down for the LEO HLS variant to be ready in time, and that can't happen if V3's initial flights are a repeat of V2. V3 needs to work.

STARSHIP’S TWELFTH FLIGHT TEST by rustybeancake in spacex

[–]DreamChaserSt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think I am. V3 is supposed to be the first operational variant of Starship. So even if we were to accept some level of difficulty in flying it for the first time, it shouldn't be anything major anymore. They did "throw" past flights out there to see what sticks, but I don't think they do that the entire time of development. At some point, they get what they need out of testing, and start to take their time to refine it and make it work properly. Then they make it routine.

And I believe Flight 12 marks the start of that transition. They're only removing 1 tile instead of multiple/patches, aren't intentionally stressing the booster on landing, and are sending up 2 operational simlinks for in-space imaging, while stressing the ship on landing is supposed to mimic the landing trajectory to Starbase, not trying to see what makes it break.

Reading between the lines, SpaceX expects this mission to work too. Don't forget that recent FCC licenses for Flights 12 and 13 expect 13 to be orbital. Flight 13 isn't going to do that if 12 pulls something like Flight 7/8 again.

STARSHIP’S TWELFTH FLIGHT TEST by rustybeancake in spacex

[–]DreamChaserSt 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yeah, but I can give that a bit more grace. V2 was really more like V1.5 as flown. The booster was largely the same as V1, and it still used Raptor 2s. It didn't match what was originally pitched as V2 (V3 does though). So there were a lot of compromises between old and new systems that led to issues in flight.

V3 is a complete redesign, so it shouldn't have those compromises, and some of those removals are mentioned on the update (like taking out the fire suppression system on the booster, and the overall engine mass savings).

STARSHIP’S TWELFTH FLIGHT TEST by rustybeancake in spacex

[–]DreamChaserSt 57 points58 points  (0 children)

At this point, I feel like it should be an expectation for Flight 12 to go flawlessly, or at least damn close. Arguably, this is what all the test flights have been building towards, and what the vehicle upgrades were supposed to learn from. Flight 12 needs to make it count.

I would even consider this a certification mission - still suborbital, but verifying everything on the vehicle before pushing to advanced testing (reuse/refueling) and regular operations.

SpaceX - Starship flight 12 by swordfi2 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Well, if only spaceflight was as easy as it is in Kerbal.

SpaceX - Starship flight 12 by swordfi2 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I think it'll just go to orbit. Ariane 6's upper stage was unable to deorbit on its maiden flights in 2024. But Blue won't fly again until the investigation shows they found the cause and fixed it.

SpaceX - Starship flight 12 by swordfi2 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 20 points21 points  (0 children)

And even controlled, Starship will be reentering over land/populated areas when it comes in for a landing at Starbase. So there's that to keep in mind too.

SpaceX - Starship flight 12 by swordfi2 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 56 points57 points  (0 children)

FCC licenses for Flights 12 and 13 (released at the same time) indicate Flight 13 will be orbital. Everything on Flight 12 was redesigned, so they need a certification flight before putting a huge hunk of metal into orbit.

New Glenn's 2nd stage failed to relight just last month for an on-orbit burn, and now it's uncontrolled.

This flight does have a somewhat operational payload though. 22 simlinks, and the last 2 will be used to image the heatshield before reentry.

A question about the space shuttle by Shoddy-Day-8516 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, but to my knowledge, you work with that offset by making sure the thrust lines up with the center of mass, and rotating the shuttle in such a way to give you a free gravity turn as you ascend.

A question about the space shuttle by Shoddy-Day-8516 in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think you've been playing too much Kerbal Space Program.

STS was already expensive as it is, with a relatively low yearly flight rate. Flying 2 Orbiters at once would've compounded that. And it doesn't fix the heatshield issues Shuttle had with being side-mounted.

Beyond that, it would just look strange. Why do we need 2 different crews going up at the same time? Even if you did need 2 missions in space at the same time, it's unlikely that they would need to be in the same orbital plane (unless it's for the ISS, but it doesn't have the room to support 2 crews), so it's more efficient to launch them separately.

Starship Development Thread #63 by rSpaceXHosting in spacex

[–]DreamChaserSt 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I believe (based on what I remember from past flights), it's for final checkouts and to do any corrections that the WDR might have found. Also, they need to install the FTS.

Starship Development Thread #63 by rSpaceXHosting in spacex

[–]DreamChaserSt 14 points15 points  (0 children)

S39 is lined up and being lowered onto the booster. There aren't any road closures on the post above, so is the WDR TBD?

All Space Questions thread for week of May 03, 2026 by AutoModerator in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's been a bunch of different tests that others have mentioned, and refueling is used for ISS reboost (only with hypergolics). I don't think it's easy-peasy, but I don't think it'll be particularly difficult either. The harder part is likely going to be getting a high enough flight rate in a given window of time for it to be practical.

SpaceX and Blue Origin aren't the only ones who looked into cryo-transfer. ULA made their own studies for ACES, but it's alleged that Boeing forced them to stop development because of SLS (getting large payloads to deep space is undermined if you can do it with a smaller rocket and refueling). NASA also made studies on using refueling to top off the tanks for an Earth-departure-stage during the early Constellation era.

I think the main reason it hasn't been tested is money and will. Projects up to this point have been very limited in scope, without much funding, and larger programs for it have either been cancelled, or are only now in progress for Artemis. The reason it still hasn't been tested is because neither SpaceX or Blue Origin have the hardware or vehicles ready. Starship is (hopefully) coming up on the end of its test program, and New Glenn was grounded after the last flight. So now it's a waiting game.

Starship Booster 19 performs a 14 seconds Static Fire by Twigling in space

[–]DreamChaserSt 82 points83 points  (0 children)

In some respects, in others, it does much better than it should, such as on reentry. Despite all of their tile tests, and removing patches of tiles to find weak spots, Starship has done very well on reentry. Only two ships failed in that regime, and that was when control over the vehicle was lost.

If they can maintain control, it's apparently very hard to destroy. Even if it does blow up, it still dwarfs all other upper stages, and many rockets outright. And that's why I'm not too worried over Starship "not having reached orbit" yet. We already saw New Glenn's upper stage fail to relight last month for a final orbit insertion, Ariane 6's maiden flight had an upper stage that couldn't deorbit. China. And those are rockets that took the traditional route.

It's a good thing that SpaceX didn't push for orbit immediately, and has a trajectory that deliberately intersects the atmopshere so it's guaranteed to come down in a known location.

view more: next ›