Said it before: this is some sci-fi stuff right here.
From one perspective, this was another failure. The booster failed at the end… it had difficulty with engine restart for the final landing burn and either kerploded just before hitting the water, or smacked into the water going *real* fast. Starship itself broke apart during entry. So both recoverable stages failed to demonstrate recoverability. But it *did* achieve the low orbit that was intended. It demonstrated the ability to serve as an expendable launch vehicle. An incredibly capable expendable launch vehicle, much more powerful than even the Saturn V. It could start throwing massive payloads into orbit even while attempting to perfect recovery. Large numbers of Starlinks, of course… but also large numbers of, say, Brilliant Pebbles, or tanks of water, or rolls of sheet aluminum and beam builders and PV arrays.
Space Shuttle: Developing an Icon 1972-2013 by Dennis Jenkins, mint condition
by Dennis R. Jenkins, 2017. The definitive and *massive* description of the Space Shuttle program in three hardcover volumes in a slipcase, still wrapped in the original plastic. Mint condition. Now out of print; my understanding is that when Specialty Press went out of business the remaining stock of these books was destroyed.
These three volumes include more than 1,500 pages. It is a massive brick of narrative, photos (B&W and full color), diagrams, art and data; anyone with interest in the Space Transportation System should have a copy.
Published in a magazine in 1983, this artist depiction shows a concept for a 1982 space station by Rockwell. Clearly of the same *kind* of station as the eventual ISS, this is a simpler, smaller construct. However, it also includes a “cargo bay” modeled aft that of the Space Shuttle, allowing payloads (what appear to be temporary science modules) to be readily transferred back and forth.
But not on ebay yet. If any of these are of interest, let me know.
Getting ready to sell a batch of stuff on ebay. But before I do… anyone hereabouts interested? If so, email/DM. A short thread of some stuff. First: a lot of three Matchbox toys… the SpaceX Dragon capsule the SpaceX Starship and the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser. pic.twitter.com/oxwHtTQm1l
Seventh: "Action Fleet" "Series Alpha" Naboo Royal Starship from Episode 1, including both the on-screen version and a concept art version in an unopened box. pic.twitter.com/SJ2nFrEQlv
I’ve just uploaded a 1986 article on the “Midgetman” road-mobile Small ICBM developed but not deployed by the US at the end of the Cold War to Dropbox for above-$10 APR Patrons/Subscribers.
This is of course on top of the monthly rewards packages and the “Extras” posted rather irregularly. If you’d be interested, consider subscribing:
Slightly over 4 years ago I yammered a bit about a game company called “Evil Hat” that was putting out a Lovecraftian game while not only hating Lovecraft but also *intentionally* not understanding the idea:
Making a *huge* point about bashing the creator of the IP you’re squatting on, while misinterpreting the importance of some of the most basic elements, points out that you’re just wearing the fandom as a skinsuit, a way to squeeze some of that filthy lucre from the nerds. Something we’ve seen far too often from the likes of those running Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Who into the ground.
Anyway, the producers of that Cthulhu game are back with another IP-cash-grab, this time in the “Tomb raider” franchise. I’ve never played any of the games; this franchise is not my thing. But for those of you who care about it… let me know if they got it right.
Someone did some digging around and found out some stuff about some of the people behind the game…
Fortunate is the man who has this coffee table. Fabulously wealthy is he if he has a woman who looks at that table and thinks “that’s awesome, I picked the right guy.”
It’s a spectacular piece, and I kinda really want one. However… before I’d plunk down money I don’t have for this sort of thing, I’d demand some improvements. From a distance it looks great, but in the closeup shots you can see the pretty strong layer lines. This appears to have been filament-printed, and little effort seems to have been made to smooth out a lot of it. But as a prototype, it’s fantastic.
It’s also interesting to point out that with 6 years worth of Star Trek to choose from, the stuff people *really* seem to like, to the point they’ll spend time, money and effort on, is the TOS and TNG stuff. A similar coffee table using the 1701D bridge? I can definitely see it. Ops from DS9? Meh. Bridges of NX-01 or Voyager? *Maaaaybe.* Kelvinverse Enterprise bridge? Unlikely. STD or SNW bridges? Literally no.
A lot of that is because the TOS and TNG designs were brilliant, while the later ones have been kinda bleh. But also, TOS and TNG are beloved. The shows themselves inspire interest in the designs. nuTrek inspire little more than dismay and fatigue.
I’d be interested to see a kickstarter for a production run of these, with the layer issues dealt with. Pretty sure it’d be far beyond my means, but I’d wish ’em well.
Gonna get rid of some rayguns (all Art Asylum/Diamond Select, ones in boxes have never been opened) to pay off some bills. Eventually ebay, but if anyone wants to email me offers…
In 1992 NASA had a flurry of PR about the “First Lunar Outpost” concept which would see the US return to the moon using large lunar landers launched by a single Saturn V derived heavy lifter. A fair deal of concept art was released; much of it used the relatively new technology of computer generated imagery. Five of these images recently appeared on ebay as 16X20 prints; what the heck, I went ahead and bought them. They arrived today and I was pleasantly surprised at the production quality. They weren’t simply printouts glued to cheap foamcore, but instead are very glossy, hard plastic bonded to higher quality foamcore.
I believe I’ll have these professionally scanned and made available to APR Patrons/subscribers.
NASA artwork (probably 1970s/early 80’s) of a dual-fuselage DC-9. This would double the capacity while not doubling the weight; drag would go up, but so would aerodynamic efficiency due to increased effective aspect ratio of the wing, as well as being more structurally sound for the weight. The need for a pretty wide runway is something of a concept-killer, though.