A YouTube channel called nighthawk in light did a video on how to make paint that does this at home using commonly available ingredients

Avi “fuck you I’ve got tenure and I’m off my meds” Loeb

Little greys are just modern american faeries.

points to sign

“Just because you don’t have a good explanation yet doesn’t mean you are reasonable to suggest the explanation is Aliens/Gods/Magic/Ghosts/Psychics.”

I mean, it also depends on how reliable the engine is in regards to relighting, also wether or not it has a way to settle the fuel before firing. Might be easier just to have a few small solid rocket engines added to the stage to give it enough oomph to get it to aero capture in a reasonable amount of time. Admittedly this would probably require extensive testing to ensure that load of the deorbit motor is spread in a way that won’t just shred the stage.

Or maybe they just use some engines on the satellite to get it in to it’s final orbit and release it from the upper stage while the upper stage is in an orbit that will decay fast enough to be considered acceptable.

I’d recommend looking in to the cost plus contracting system that nasa used for years and that can likely be blamed for the cost over runs and delays.

I mean, we’re talking about hydrogen for rockets here which is an absolutely tiny portion of global fuel consumption, wether or not we should be using it for anything else and the costs and scale of doing so is neither here nor there. ( Personally I think hydrogen powered cars are dumb)

In the context of rocket science hydrogen is just a better fuel in absolute terms. It is ~25% more efficient than methane. It’s less dense and thus needs larger tanks, but due to the square cube law that matters less and less the larger the rocket is, so on particularly large rockets like those going to the moon, hydrogen is just flat out better and leads to smaller less costly rockets if done properly.

The problem is that Boeing has been holding nasa hostage and extracting ransom, I don’t think nasa should be reliant on private companies for it’s rockets, they should have a internal department that develops and builds boosters in a similar way to how JPL works with probes and rovers. It would be costly upfront for sure, but would save money in the long run since it would prevent private companies from exploiting public interests in the future.

The SLS isn’t owned by the people ether, not really anyways, all the infrastructure and production lines are owned by Boeing which is just as bad as any of the new companies.

Personally I think NASA should just have an internal booster production team/facility like they do with rovers and probes through JPL.

It’s ludicrous to me that the consensus coming out of the space shuttle program and SLS that nasa’s designs were blamed for cost when the cost mainly came from choices made by private interests and contractors.

It’s certainly algorithmic but I wouldn’t call it intelligence.