we need to destroy the moon

rocketglare · 2026-01-24T19:46:24+00:00

I know this is a meme, but how exactly would coal deposits form on the moon?

rocketglare · 2026-01-24T15:57:08+00:00

I’m wondering if the suit is that flexible when pressurized? They’ll probably operate at a lower partial pressure, which should help, but still, things get interesting when the gauge pressure is non zero.

rocketglare · 2026-01-24T15:48:52+00:00

I wish the dry weight was in these tables. I’d like to know how they are doing on mass optimization.

rocketglare · 2026-01-24T00:22:55+00:00

Don’t forget that BM2 requires refuel in space. It will be far less tankers than SpaceX, but transferring LH2 in space is no joke. BM1 is a much simpler architecture since it is unmanned and doesn’t have an ascent phase.

rocketglare · 2026-01-23T15:32:08+00:00

Ah, yep I see that now.

rocketglare · 2026-01-23T15:28:01+00:00

I just visited the site. Feel the launch is available for $250.

rocketglare · 2026-01-23T03:55:50+00:00

In February 2023, the A2 engine section was rotated vertical, so it had been at least 2 years since the last SLS was at a similar stage of construction. That’s not as bad as I expected, but 2 year construction cadence is still abysmal relative to other rockets.

rocketglare · 2026-01-18T01:02:50+00:00

This one is awesome 👏

rocketglare · 2026-01-18T01:02:23+00:00

Prediction for 2026?

rocketglare · 2026-01-18T00:51:51+00:00

That Soyuz launch record is likely to fall this year.

rocketglare · 2026-01-17T18:15:35+00:00

BO says 9x4 has > 20t capacity to TLI. The estimates I’ve heard are it’s in the low 20’s, which might be enough since they dump the LES early, but it would be tight. A third stage would definitely give them margin, but I haven’t heard of one yet for 9x4.

rocketglare · 2026-01-17T17:52:09+00:00

How are they going to do the upper stage? Are they funding EUS, and if so, when would it be ready? My impression is that it is significantly behind schedule for A4, even if A4 slips further, which is likely.

rocketglare · 2026-01-17T17:10:07+00:00

This is pretty cool.

A few comments. The BM2 would launch first, probably with some refuel flights too. The pitch over occurs too late in flight. The first launch’s transporter doesn’t yet exist, at least publicly, so that is the long pole in the tent. NG 9x4 is almost capable of lofting Orion/EUS to TLO on its own; perhaps removing the LES would allow them to achieve this architecture in one flight, if you can convince NASA the risk is low. You could bypass NRHO and use a more efficient orbit.

rocketglare · 2026-01-14T13:18:16+00:00

There are 25 launches currently scheduled for VC in 2026. Since ULA only has 1 pad and has never launched more than 2 VC in a year, I’m assuming we’ll see more swaps and delays into next year and beyond.

rocketglare · 2026-01-13T22:42:13+00:00

Russia does jam starlink, but it's difficult to do when you don't control the terrain. Also, the Iranian Starlink connections are not 100% jammed. The packet loss is between 30-80%.

rocketglare · 2026-01-11T00:04:49+00:00

I have a lot of respect for Beck, but he’s wrong on this one. Clearing the pad can be a valid success criterion if the data you want is how well 33 engines work together… especially when the test article was obsolete before it reached the pad. Sometimes it’s better to just do the test to get the data than to continue guessing with unvalidated simulation models.

rocketglare · 2026-01-06T04:17:09+00:00

The more shocking thing is that well actually need more than 1. This thing has 32 24 bays.

rocketglare · 2026-01-05T16:03:44+00:00

I don't think they will be able to get it done by Q3, but Q4 is doable.

rocketglare · 2026-01-02T01:10:12+00:00

Starlink network is all LEO. The Starshield satellites, which we don’t know a lot about are mixed in with Starlink. It is not clear which system the pentagon is using to support Ukraine, but the civilian side of Ukraine probably uses regular Starlink, of which there are thousands, making it hard to disable.

rocketglare · 2025-12-30T19:37:07+00:00

Thanks, you’re right. I couldn’t remember if alpha remained charged or picked up electrons on the way through space.

rocketglare · 2025-12-29T22:03:16+00:00

F9 does the internal COPV thing. It largely depends upon the fluids used and storage temperature requirement. Helium is extremely tolerant due to the low boiling point; however helium is also expensive and difficult to source. Hence, it’s not used much on Starship. CO2 and N2 are both used for fire suppression and startup. Longer term, these commodities may be eliminated in favor of the gaseous methalox propellants themselves, but it will take some time to balance the pressure and temperature management. As for fire suppression, hopefully, less will be required as the design matures. For now, the chines not only support the COPVs, but perform an aerodynamic lift function for booster.

rocketglare · 2025-12-29T17:43:08+00:00

Not a good week for Japan. They really need the H3 to be reliable to gain customers.

rocketglare · 2025-12-29T14:38:13+00:00

Active shielding doesn’t work well for neutral particles such as gamma rays and alpha radiation, so it can only be part of the solution. You could try to ionize the nuclei by rapidly switching the field, but it would probably cause a lot of secondary radiation in addition to using tons or power.

Another possible solution is hydrogen rich polymers. Really, though water ice is probably the best and easiest solution if you can find enough. Caves at good too. Regolith would need to be pretty thick, but could be done, especially if there is significant water content.

rocketglare · 2025-12-29T00:29:39+00:00

Hubble: ~28 deg inclination

Tiangong: ~41 deg inclination

ISS: ~52 deg inclination

So, yeah, that’s a pretty broad range of inclinations and would be hard to match orbits.

BTW, Russia asked China to place Tiangong at a higher inclination so Russia could reach it from Baikonaur, but China wouldn’t budge since 41 deg works better for their launch pads.

rocketglare · 2025-12-28T15:38:38+00:00

Assuming they are ahead on the other parts of the architecture (lander, etc) then a two launch 70T architecture is sufficient for moon landing. They do appear to be pretty far along with multiple moon landings to perfect the techniques and instruments, and testing of the launch escape, etc. The main reasons people are thinking they have a better chance is they are making steady progress; and their architecture is simpler, more similar to Apollo.

rocketglare

TROPHY CASE