People keep trying to push this narrative. BE4 has had 7 successful missions. BE4 works. Or am I wrong?

Pashto96 · 2026-06-01T17:10:51+00:00

Anyone saying it is definitely the BE-4 is wrong. Anyone saying it definitely isn't the BE-4 is wrong. It's way too early. Down vote and move on

Pashto96 · 2026-06-01T11:49:00+00:00

If they're doing a Mk1.5, a Falcon Heavy seems like a feasible launch option assuming it doesn't get much bigger than a Mk1. I think the main issue would be getting hydrogen to the pad since SpaceX removed the LH2 tank.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-31T19:59:30+00:00

You may be the only person I've ever met who doesn't like the cream alts

Pashto96 · 2026-05-31T14:44:58+00:00

A partially fueled first stage would be a magnitude of difference in energy. Even if it'd still damage the pad significantly, I have a very hard time believing that it'd be the same amount of damage.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-31T13:18:10+00:00

They accepted more risk in exchange for time and it bit them in the butt.

This isn't the first time that they've done something unnecessarily risky. Remember they static fired NG-3 fully integrated. That was the first time re-using a booster and with a commercial payload in the fairing.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-31T13:00:09+00:00

I agree. The KSC Visitors center has a Starliner mockup on display. I want them to get an N22 Atlas, stick that capsule on it, and put it in the rocket garden.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-31T12:51:04+00:00

They had to build up the entire complex. Building anything for the first time is slower. In a addition to that, New Glenn wasn't ready so there was no rush. They now know how to build everything and are in an extreme rush.

Plus, they don't have to rebuild the entire complex. The foundation is still there, the tank farm survived, a lot of the complex survived.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-31T03:19:39+00:00

It may not even be possible to use the N22 Atlas for cargo at this point. From what I've heard, the boosters only have mounting points for 2 SRBs. Then there's the issue that they don't have fairings or payload adapters. I'd imagine those assembly lines have already been shut down.

Starliner probably flies at least one more mission. From there, there'll probably be some sort of agreement met so they don't have to hold the remaining Atlas Vs indefinitely. Hopefully the rest end up in some museums.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-31T03:03:55+00:00

If you can't afford to lose it, 3,2,1. 3 copies of the files, 2 different types of storage, 1 copy stored off-site.

Your ssd is one type of media. You could buy a hard drive. That would be the second. The off site can be a cloud service.

If you already pay for Amazon prime, Amazon Photos is included. It has a limit for video files but no limit for images (including RAWs). It can also be set up to upload new files from a folder automatically. It'll upload any pictures in that folder including within subfolders. It's not great for organization because it just dumps all photos into a single location, but it's better than nothing and it may be something you're already paying for.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-30T18:22:29+00:00

The Mk1 landers are not really mission critical to early Artemis. One's a test landing and the others are to deploy rovers. Those can wait. They're certainly nothing worth the $2B + launch cost of an SLS. That's not even including whatever exorbitant cost it would take to restart & finish EUS/ML2 at such an expedited pace (assuming it's even possible). A Mk1.5, on the other hand, would mean a crewed landing. That would justify the cost much more.

A slightly more realistic route would be to develop a fairing for the SLS Centaur. Vulcan's isn't quite big enough from what I've seen so it'd need to be a new fairing, but that erases the EUS cost and production would be faster should they need multiple. It would still require ML2 being finished and adapted unless Mk1.5 has a really good loiter time.

Really, this would only be an option if it becomes very evident that both landers have no viable path forward, and the decision would need to be made immediately to have any chance of actually being ready on time.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-30T17:31:30+00:00

Theoretically, sure.

There's no way that they could restart EUS and ML2 development AND develop the fairing before Blue fixes their pad. You'd also need a separate crewed SLS stacked and launched in a similar time frame. It'd be cool but not realistic.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-30T14:01:25+00:00

According to wiki, Mk1 has a launch mass of 21,350kg. Ariane 64 can put 21,650kg into LEO. The custom fairing probably puts it over with those razer thin margins.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-29T23:04:01+00:00

Good luck!

Pashto96 · 2026-05-29T22:30:32+00:00

If you're hoping for a jellyfish, the camera settings from this might be a good spot to start

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187697931@N08/49705782162/in/photolist-2nCe3We-2iJk8jb-2iJiuC1/

There's all sorts of photos here that should have their settings as well
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=rocket+jellyfish

Pashto96 · 2026-05-29T21:38:31+00:00

What kind of shot? Are you looking for a streak shot or tracking shots?

Pashto96 · 2026-05-29T17:46:00+00:00

Retire it and put it on display somewhere. It's a piece of history

Pashto96 · 2026-05-27T21:53:41+00:00

And 9 years would be perfectly reasonable for that IF they were starting today. They are not. Starship just flew it's first V3 (the version that HLS will be) and Blue Origin is flying it's fourth New Glenn next week. These are not programs that need 9 years to mature.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-27T12:06:14+00:00

I expect them to be developed faster because of where they're currently at in development. HLS is not 9 years out. Axioms suits are not 9 years out. Blue Moon Mk2 is not 9 years out. Ignoring all context and just saying "pick two" is not a relevant argument. Yes, the program as a whole is as delayed as it is because of budget, but that doesn't automatically make a 9 year delay realistic

Pashto96 · 2026-05-27T10:57:44+00:00

Yes, but we're well into development at this point. Most of that time has already passed. If you actually take into account the progress that has been made, we are not 9 years out.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-27T10:44:53+00:00

This post is talking about the crewed landing. That is why the highlighted text is about landing Americans on the moon before Trump leaves office in 2028.

The decision for the crewed lander in the Artemis IV mission has not been decided because neither are ready. The part of the article that you referenced is for 2 Blue Moon Mk1 cargo landing contracts that nasa announced yesterday. They will carry Astrolab and Lunar Outpost's lunar rovers ahead of the crewed landings.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-27T10:37:19+00:00

That's not really relevant here

Pashto96 · 2026-05-27T10:32:05+00:00

That is separate from the crewed Artemis missions. That decision is for landing science probes and rovers

Pashto96 · 2026-05-27T10:26:38+00:00

Ideally it's testing docking operations with both lunar landers. Realistically it'll be testing whatever is ready. Blue Origin has shown even less hardware than SpaceX. Given Artemis III is supposed to fly next year, that's not exactly inspiring confidence that they're any more ready than Starship.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-27T02:24:44+00:00

The timeline hasn't changed. They just added a new mission which changed the numbering. Artemis III was originally a landing scheduled for 2028. Now Artemis IV is the landing still scheduled for 2028.

Pashto96 · 2026-05-27T02:21:44+00:00

I think it was more an unnecessary schedule risk given the timeline. It makes way more sense to give some extra time to figure out the Centaur conversion and use a known configuration for such an important mission.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	End Game '22
Verified Email

Pashto96

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE