ptfrd

Will Falcon 9 be enough, or Falcon Heavy be required?

https://www.youtube.com/live/Dw1JXZwo00o?t=34m48s (34:48) Seems to imply Falcon 9 is insufficient.

Cool, but not the best use of $0.8 billion. NASA should go to the UN and try to get a load of countries to agree to just accept the risk of an uncontrolled re-entry. Keep $0.01 billion to compensate for any damage/injury caused. Give the rest to poverty alleviation.

Out of interest, if there are specific parts of the ISS that are expected to survive re-entry, could they be removed and put in a Cygnus or something? Leaving the rest to fully burn up?

And how bad an idea would it be to wait until the ISS is a day away from re-entry, and then launch a missile at it? (Presumably it would be better if they could use a trajectory where the missile approaches the ISS from above.)

(Yes, I know, none of this will ever happen. I'm just interested in any thoughts anyone has.)

For $0.8 billion I'd design a new engine! (Would have to learn rocket science first but I'd be able to afford the best teachers, so doable.)

Does DK apply here? The most comprehensive report & evidence review that I know of says:

Parents should be encouraged to seek clinical help and advice in deciding how to support a child with gender incongruence and should be prioritised on the waiting list for early consultation on [the issue of social transition].

Clinical involvement in the decision-making process should include advising on the risks and benefits of social transition as a planned intervention, referencing best available evidence. This is not a role that can be taken by staff without appropriate clinical training.

Doesn't sound like the author thinks social transition is the kind of thing teachers should normally be making decisions about.

Thanks for posting. I suggest considering adding "Unofficial" to the title of this post.

FAO Will (or anyone else associated with Spaceflight Now):

In the current version of this article, one of the paragraphs appears twice!

True. And I guess the likelihood of there being much left to look at, let alone any actually useful visible clues, is not high. (Bearing in mind the RUD seems to have been destructive enough to have incapacitated 75% of the satellites.)

I wonder if they considered sacrificing one of the contactable satellites, trying to send it back towards the 2nd stage in the hope of getting some useful camera views, or anything like that.

A tweet from Musk

Upper stage restart to raise perigee resulted in an engine RUD for reasons currently unknown. Team is reviewing data tonight to understand root cause.

Starlink satellites were deployed, but the perigee may be too low for them to raise orbit. Will know more in a few hours.

The broadcast ends after SECO-1 (which seems to happen at the expected time). But can anyone spot any clues?

Is there more ice than normal on the 2nd stage? (E.g. In the view at T+6:30)

One of the in-flight tests was manually orienting the craft so that the solar panels on the rear were pointing towards the sun.

i.e. " mooning the sun"

(Joke credit: Sunny ... https://www.youtube.com/live/scmu9IcyK5k?t=8m34s )

In recent months it became clear that if Maezawa's mission happened, it would not occur until at least the early 2030s—at least a decade after the original plan.

The original target was 2023, so is Berger saying he already had inside information that it wouldn't fly before 2033?

If, yesterday, you'd told me 2027, I'd have believed you!

We might actually find out, because there was a 2nd circumlunar tourist trip planned. If that's still going ahead, maybe it'll just be promoted to the 'slot' that was previously allocated to Dear Moon?