Here's the clip from the stream:
pic.twitter.com/suIdBQivUr
More non-Russian reboost options are good. This is also a partial test for the ISS deorbit vehicle.
Everything has been focus grouped to death. Here's a grayscale crossover, enjoy.
Compact sedans sell decently well in the US. Civic, Corolla, etc. There are so few subcompact options, and the ones that exist aren't super compelling, so it's hard to draw any conclusions from that segment.
Buildings vs tents probably matters a lot less than what's inside of them, quality control, training, and some of the design issues in the latest versions.
The NASA Astronaut Corps wiki page lists mission assignments for active astronauts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Astronaut_Corps
7/10 from group 23 (2021) are still awaiting assignments. They should all get assigned in the next few years to ISS crews, either on American or Russian vehicles.
A fresh set of ASCANs now seems odd when the ISS is going to start winding down and the future of Artemis and commercial stations is pretty unknown. This seems like such an inflection point, where they could get some of the most interesting missions in decades, or be stuck at a desk while waiting years for some startup to launch their space RV.
Yes! I like that they're flexible and you can either squeeze water through quickly or just hang it up and let gravity do the work for you at camp.
This is a picture from the CNOC website (they make cool flexible water bags) so it mostly uses their products, but it has some good example setups. The 28mm thread size is also the same as Smart water bottles and Evernew water bladders.
A have a Sawyer Squeeze (full size, not a mini) that was just fine after not being used for over a year and not having any special thought put in before storage. I had to squeeze the first few bags through, but then it woke up and went back to gravity filtering.
I usually try to shake water out of it right after use.
I brought a previous one back from a complete blockage with a hot water and vinegar soak and flushing both directions.
Somehow the insane SpaceX lander was the best option, which says a lot about their competitors.
It's wild that the crazy overbuilt and overcomplicated SpaceX lander is the best option.
The Blue Origin lander, which won the 2nd place consolation contract, changed to be more like Starship than their original 3-part proposal. They also rely on orbital refueling now.
I wish Dynetics could have made their mass margins work. I liked the size and shape of that lander.
That's a marvelous test stand.
I can't wait for the first landing
Given their deep pockets and stated goals, I would expected Blue to do what Vast is doing and self fund their starter station. They're doing that with lunar landers and self funding Mk1 Pathfinder! Maybe they're doing the same with Reef but are just being characteristically tight lipped about it.
I'm a bit optimistic again about Axiom after they shuffled their plans to get a minimum viable station sooner by building the power module first, then Hab 1. Relying on on ISS and legacy suppliers makes any timeline for them scary, though.
It should be nice and gentle, and the Dracos have tons of heritage, but there's still some risk from the new configuration and new plumbing.
Plus, they have to flip the ISS so the forward docking adapter with this Dragon points aft. That's one of the downsides of any reboosts from the US segment, including by Cygnus and Starliner.