Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through April 12, 2023	25		04/17 02:13am
	Archive through June 30, 2023	25		06/30 12:24pm
	Archive through August 22, 2023	25		08/23 08:33am
	Archive through January 13, 2024	25		01/19 08:08pm
	Archive through February 26, 2024	25		03/20 04:13pm
	Archive through August 07, 2024	25		08/08 11:52am
	Archive through September 03, 2024	25		09/06 06:43pm
	Archive through September 10, 2024	25		09/12 10:33pm
	Archive through October 25, 2024	25		12/05 11:37am
	Archive through April 19, 2025	25		05/13 09:56pm

There is a viral discussion about, well, guess “bragging rights” covers it.

The definition of astronaut (until 2022, NASA) as maintained by NASA was orbit at 50 miles altitude and engaged in the operations of the space craft.

Those meeting the qualifications got added to the list, and awarded gold wings (denoting the achievement.)

Post 2022, just got their name added to the list, and no wings or special mention.

The rhetoric is getting heated as to whether (or not) katy Perry and her five crew woman team qualify for the term “Astronaut.”

(The description above is a paraphrase, the full document can be read on the NASA web site.)

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, April 22, 2025 - 09:42 am: Edit

I think the big difference with Blue Origins is that none of the 'crew' are actually involved in the operations of the craft.

i.e. they are 100% passengers and it's all Ground Based/Computer Based control.

The other 'Tourist Taxis' do normally require 'Crew' to allow the Passengers to fly.

(I bet SpaceX could be used without Crew, Virgin Galatic due to 'Plane flight part' might actually need a Crew - noting these two I think also do some micro-experiments on each flight, so it's not 100% Tourist Based?)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 13, 2025 - 07:49 am: Edit

A new analysis shows that the 1908 Tunguska event was a secret atom bomb test engineered by the Czar and his cousin the Kaiser. Unfortunately the German and Russian scientists along with all of their records and equipment were destroyed when the blast turned out to be bigger than expected.

Oh well, it’s better than the UFO theory….

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, May 13, 2025 - 08:25 pm: Edit

The thought of a Sikorsky Ilya Murometz bomber delivering a Tsar Bomba does paint an amusing picture, but even those well post-date the Tunguska event.

However, I could picture a Zeppelin carrying one suspended beneath it, but only if Wile E. Coyote was piloting the thing and he was trying to drop it on the Roadrunner.

Given the lack of roads in Siberia, however, there's nothing for the Roadrunner to run on, so even THAT doesn't work...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 13, 2025 - 09:56 pm: Edit

The highway used to deliver the TsarKaiserBomba was wiped clean away in the explosion of a proton bomb that destroys human-built structures.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 02, 2025 - 01:58 am: Edit

The discovery of a new dwarf planet, 2017 OF201, appears to rule out the presence of a major planet beyond Pluto.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, June 05, 2025 - 10:49 am: Edit

Joseph Jean-Pierre Marc Garneau, the first Canadian to go boldly into outer space, has passed away at the age of 76.

He received a PhD in electrical engineering in 1973, and served in the Canadian Armed Forces from 1974 to 1989.

During his time as an astronaut, he flew aboard STS-41-G, STS-77, and STS-97.

Upon his third return, he served for a time as President of the Canadian Space Agency, and later stood as a Member of Parliament and Cabinet minister at the federal level of Canadian government.

And from a Star Fleet Universe perspective, he provided part of the inspiration for Captain David Garneau-Hadfield, who was introduced as a commanding officer of NCC-1821 USS Sakharov in Captain's Log #51.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, June 19, 2025 - 02:57 am: Edit

Are the wheels falling off SpaceX's wagon?

With the failed launch a couple of weeks ago and last nights failed testing - that isn't good on hardware.

On funding (please delete if considered political), President Trumps threat to scrap the Space X deals - it could be SpaceX in a tricky position?

So - where does SpaceX go from here?

(Noting, some Missions had a very high chance of failure and was exected- SpaceX was after the Data - but with the firm now succesfully launching rockets, the failures become more relevant?)

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, June 19, 2025 - 11:07 am: Edit

"Failure" is a mild word for that massive explosion!

Hard to say what happens next. Space X has failed before and bounced back, I suspect they will do so again.

Private space travel is coming. Just as Amazon lost money for years and now is a business juggernaut, I wouldn't be surprised if Space X got through these failures and becomes a multi-national mega corporation.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, June 19, 2025 - 11:12 am: Edit

SpaceX is failing to reinvent a wheel that was largely perfected five decades ago. It's not exactly inspiring confidence.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, June 19, 2025 - 11:37 am: Edit

"Failure" is a mild word for that massive explosion!

To be honest - I didn't get to see the explosion - my monitor just went very bright orange and I couldn't see anything until after the 'event'.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, June 19, 2025 - 02:27 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

SpaceX is failing to reinvent a wheel that was largely perfected five decades ago. It's not exactly inspiring confidence.

---

By Tom Lusco (Tlusco) on Friday, June 20, 2025 - 07:56 am: Edit

Not sure I'm closer to it than you or not Ted. Engineer, formerly in the space program, but decades removed from that particular activity. Still, I follow developments in spaceflight as an enthusiast. My $0.02.

SpaceX has from the beginning of Falcon-9 at least followed a 'hardware-rich' approach to development, as opposed to the 'design+evaluate-rich' that 'old-space' traditionally preferred. What that means is, while they design and analyze with rigor, they also build hardware and test it more aggressively, earlier and more often. They accept failure in testing as a learning experience.

From a systems engineering perspective, I see the big advantage of the spaceX approach to early and aggressive testing (with corresponding RUDs) as being an excellent way to expose emergent properties (characteristics of systems that only materialize during operations and are not easily predictable). Rockets themsleves aren't very complicated; rocket engines can be quite complicated, and optimization of the vehicle in light of the cruel rocket equation necesitates pushing boundaries to get meaningful improvements. What makes the 'test and find emergent properties' approach so valuable is that while the rocket net might be complicated, the rocket in its flight environment is complex due to the unpredictable nature of its environment.

Bottom line, the hardware-rich, blow stuff up and learn from it approach has demonstrated success for spaceX to-date; the shuttle lander design is a tough nut to crack, but if they can keep iterating I think it likely they will succeed, eventually.

Note that a key aspect of this hardware rich approach is building hardware that is easy to build. While they've designed the whole thing from scratch, using new-ish materials and a radically new engine design, the focus has always been on mass production. If the parts are affordable, you can do this. If they aren't, you can't (easily).