MrDeathAndTaxes 🇺🇦🇺🇸

@kwrzesien @DJSnM Then they lose the payload. Same thing with if they could in theory but it requires more deltaV than they have available due to limits on propellant. Need to wait and see.

@DJSnM Hall effect are very low thrust, what if they can’t circulize?

The payload has Hall effect thrusters for orbit maintenance, so the question is just how *off* nominal this is.

@james_ptweets1 @carryunwind @AngryAstro66 @blueorigin Launch providers don't usually pay any part of the premium they simply charge less for the launch. The payload owner really only cares about total cost (payload + insurance + launch cost).

@StatisticalMind @carryunwind @AngryAstro66 @blueorigin The premium is probably higher on a new rocket. Much higher. Wonder if a blue Origin has to chip in for the premium and how much

NG-3 Update: We have confirmed payload separation. AST SpaceMobile has confirmed the satellite has powered on. The payload was placed into an off-nominal orbit. We are currently assessing and will update when we have more detailed information.

@KennySwims189 @DJSnM Blue Moon hasn't said yet but a relight failure seems plausible.

@DJSnM Was it the second stage engines that didn’t fire up for the SES - 2? What was the issue?

@AnQn_1x @JeffBezos @QonscienceRealm Did you fail to notice the ship is smaller in the second photo as well. It is called zoom.

@JeffBezos @QonscienceRealm 👀

@carryunwind @AngryAstro66 @blueorigin Typically no. That is what insurance is for. The payload is insured. A bunch of insurance executives are having heartburn. For AST the loss is more the delay. The sat will need to be rebuilt and launched it pushes back their timelines.

@AngryAstro66 @blueorigin If the mission is a failure does the client get a refund?

@AngryAstro66 @Lyndis4Ever @blueorigin Raising orbit may require more than a lifetime of station keeping. Most of the time in incorrect orbital insertion there is a significant reduction in lifespan unless the miss is very small.

BlueBird has Hall Effect ion thrusters with massive ISP. Satellites almost never run through their ion fuel in a typical lifetime. They're actually designed with this kind of scenario in mind. So, we'll see. Another problem will be the deorbit. If the second stage is malfunctioning, we could be looking at an uncontrolled burnup, and that ain't good with a massive second stage like this.

@realstockfox @blueorigin Payloads are insured. The larger loss is the delay.

@blueorigin How much money is that going to cost $ASTS if it’s non operational?

@AnnoyedSoFLGuy @SinanAkyuz73 Russia can go home at anytime and the war ends. Until that day Ukraine will kill the illegal invaders by any means necessary.

@SinanAkyuz73 It isn’t war it’s killing. Cowardly. If you went the guy so bad go get him yourself.

Ukrayna askeri düşmanı, Rus askerlerini öldürmeden önce dalga geçmiş

@ShalFarley @DJSnM Total time until on helicopters was 1:41. Total time until on deck was 1:47 (so 25 minutes longer than SpaceX). They had high current, had to photograph the headshield under water, and comms issues. Entirely possible it is 20-30 min faster in A3.

@DJSnM It wasn't just the time until the crew exited the capsule that seemed way too long, it was the time spent floating out there on the "porch" waiting for helicopter recovery, and that (seemingly unnecessary) step itself that rankled.

So, how much slower at spacecraft recovery was Orion compared to SpaceX? Looking at Artemis stream splashdown is 1:39:30 1st crew out at 3:02:58, 4th crew out at 3:06:59. SpaceX DM-2 landing at 6:28:04 1st crew at 7:46:48, 2nd at 7:50:33 Orion 1:27:29 Dragon 1:22:29 So, 5 minutes slower.

@ocd_offroad @mwc82 @JayAranha @NASAAdmin @rookisaacman @SciGuySpace Propulsion based deceleration is not possible. Heatshields are a magnitude more mass efficient. They are also proven and reliable. The only crew lost during reentry was due the shield already being damaged.

@mwc82 @JayAranha @NASAAdmin @rookisaacman @SciGuySpace Fair point, I think we easily have the ability to control that reaction. But a valid concern. Of course I would assume that once moonbase is established a simple orbital refuel and propulsion based decel will be the order of the day. Growing pains.

Not an expert so I can't really comment on this. But hopefully NASA will soon. nasa.gov/image-detail/d…

@LPATAN2 @blueorigin From the image the larger one AP2 is powered by solar. Note the second lander and cable between them. AP1 may just be a testbed. Runs on battery power with small sample to prove the concept.

@blueorigin what energy source will you use? Will you be burning the fuel itself? The ISRU material extraction process requires a lot of energy because it heats the lunar regolith extremely well. If you want to produce decent quantities of propellant/oxygen, you'll need a lot of energy. 1/2

Melt. Extract. Fuel. Repeat. 🚀 To build an affordable, sustainable presence on the Moon, we must learn to live off the land. Air Pioneer is a scalable, modular system that creates purified oxygen to reduce dependency on supplies from Earth. Using Moon-extracted oxygen for propellant, fuel cells, and breathing reduces our lunar landers’ load by many metric tons of mass. Launching less mass from Earth lowers the cost of our Moon base, fueling a future cislunar economy. 🌕

@JML_SpaceSoCal @blueorigin Yeah won't someone think of the wildlife on the moon. /s

@enbeeeh @forallcurious No. Orbit is more fast than up. The part of the atmosphere thick enough to slow the vessel down significantly is only 100 km thick. Coming straight down they would hit the ground at >8,000 m/s. Most of re-entry is just slowing down the getting "down" after that is easy.

@forallcurious Shouldn't it be going down (vertical) instead of horizontal?

Re-entry of Artemis II crew captured by the astronaut in International Space Station

@NigelKBaker @SciGuySpace The only proven vehicle for reentry from lunar return is Orion. 2 for 2. I mean Apollo was proven but unless you got a mint condition Apollo CSM in your garage that isn't going to help.

@SciGuySpace If only there was a proven reentry vehicle they could be using.

@mcrs987 Nice detective work.

Something I've been watching for the last couple months is ongoing groundwork (last frame even driving piles already) on the northern end of LC36. New filing with the FAA confirms this will be a lightning tower for the second New Glenn launch pad dubbed 36b

@IvanDamnit @NASAArtemis The Earth has an atmosphere it refracts and scatters light. Space is notable for its lack of atmosphere. It is why the shadows on the moon are so sharp. However in a solar eclipse on Earth with a good camera you could capture the stars. It wouldn't be as clear as space.

@NASAArtemis You can see stars even though there’s basically a solar eclipse happening? You can’t do that on earth. 🤔

The eclipse from Orion. On April 6, external cameras attached to the Orion spacecraft's solar array wings captured the Moon backlit by the Sun during a solar eclipse.

@ayo392 @NASAArtemis Did you somehow miss the stars in the photo and the sun is behind the moon in the photo.

@NASAArtemis I'm still confused, why can we see the Earth, the Moon but not the stars, the sun and other planets?

@Adv_KiranKumar @NASA because they are morons. Consider how dumb the average person is and now you consider half the population is dumber than that.

@NASA This is our Earth. Many people are calling this picture fake—why ?

@C_S_Skeptic @JefeGlancy @blueorigin It does if your BRING the nitrogen. Bring 30t of nitrogen in a single expended BM lander and combine it with O2 produced on size. that is enough to create 37.5t of air. At one atmosphere that is 28,000 m3 habitable area or the equivalent of 73 ISS.

@JefeGlancy @blueorigin Doesn't help in creating NEW air, Jeff.

Lunar Permanence will require using resources on the Moon rather than hauling them from Earth. Our in-situ resource utilization system extracts oxygen from lunar regolith to create breathable air for astronauts and propellant for refueling landers and fuel cells. It also produces iron, aluminum, silicon, construction materials, and even solar power systems. The materials for a Moon base are produced right where they’re needed, and at much lower cost than being brought from Earth.

@Nellinose @davill @blueorigin You need engines to build boosters to recover them. Right now SpaceX has one active boosters (booster 1 died) and these engines give them a second. If they want to increase that to a fleet of say 5 boosters that would require 35 more engines.

@davill @blueorigin I thought boosters and engines are recoverable. So why the boast about making new engines?

Our engine shop at Rocket Park continues to hum. The next BE-4 shipset is ready for install on our third New Glenn booster.