from the schedule-for-rapid-unscheduled-disassembly dept.
[20200420_144755 UTC: Update: According to this comment to the thread at NASASpaceflight, the RollLift (which would transport SN4 to the pad) has not finished being assembled. Looks like it will still be a while before testing commences. --martyb]
[20200420_162536 UTC: Corrected timelines and costs; see linked comment. --martyb]
NASASpaceflight has continuous updates of activities at the Boca Chica SpaceX site with many pics and videos, too. The last time I checked, SN4 (SpaceX's 4th Starship prototype: Serial Number 4) is nearing completion of construction and is soon to be transported to the testing platform. Historically, next would be pressurization tests, e.g. with liquid nitrogen, to see if the rocket can handle the temperatures and pressures. Prior testing failures have been... impressive. Should all go well with these tests, next up would be testing of SN4 with liquid methane and liquid oxygen. If successful, static fire tests with the rocket tethered and, ultimately, with a powered hop for a very limited duration and distance.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has set a goal of building a new Starship rocket each week. SN4 has been under construction for less than a month. By comparison, the SLS (Space Launch System) has been under development for many years, has cost billions of dollars per year, and has never (not even once) been launched. (Please see this comment for clarification.)
Here are the dates and times of upcoming road and beach closures (and alternates) as announced by Cameron County, Texas coinciding with planned testing by SpaceX:
- April 20, 2020: 0800-0900 (Primary Date)
- April 23, 2020: 0900-1000 (Primary Date)
- April 26, 2020: 0900-1159 (Primary Date)
- April 27, 2020: 0900-1159 (Alternate Date)
- April 28, 2020: 0900-1159 (Alternate Date)
(All times are Central Daylight Time; add 5 hours to get the corresponding date/time in UTC .)
Previously:
(2020-04-18) SpaceX Offers NASA a Custom Moon Freighter
(2020-04-03) SpaceX Loses its Third Starship Prototype During a Cryogenic Test
(2020-04-03) SpaceX Almost Ready to Start Testing SN3 -- The Third Starship Prototype
(2020-04-01) SpaceX Releases a Payload User's Guide for its Starship Rocket
(2020-03-10) Another Starship Prototype Explodes, but SpaceX Isn't Stopping
Related Stories
On February 28, SpaceX's SN01 Starship prototype imploded and exploded during a pressurization test (Mk1 failed in November). A day later, Eric Berger from Ars Technica visited SpaceX's facilities in Boca Chica, Texas. Some highlights from the story include:
- SN01 was not destined to fly, only to serve as a platform for static fire testing. (Elon Musk had previously tweeted that the wrong settings were used on the welding equipment used to build SN01.)
- SN01's failure has been attributed to bad welding on the thrust puck, which is welded onto the bottom tank dome of Starship and connects the Raptor engines to the rest of the rocket.
- The quality team raised concerns about the thrust puck to an engineer who did not act upon them. They have been instructed to contact Musk directly with design concerns.
- SpaceX went on a hiring spree in February that doubled its workforce in Boca Chica to over 500. The goal is to build a production line for Starships.
- SpaceX aims to build a Starship every week by the end of 2020, with a goal of building one every 72 hours eventually.
- SpaceX engineers have built an in-house x-ray machine to look for imperfections in welds.
- Construction costs for a single Starship could eventually drop to as low as $5 million.
- The Boca Chica site will operate 24/7, with workers alternating between three and four 12-hour shifts per week.
- A 20 km flight is planned for this spring, and an orbital mission could happen before the end of 2020.
In other news:
- SpaceX to Raise Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Through a Funding Round That Will Value It at $36 Billion
- SpaceX Could Earn $30 Billion Annually From Starlink, 10x Of Sending ISS Supplies – Elon Musk
- SpaceX's latest Starship test was uneventful and that's great news for its flight debut
- Astronauts capture SpaceX cargo capsule with robot arm for final time
SpaceX releases a Payload User's Guide for its Starship rocket:
SpaceX has released the first edition of a Payload User's Guide for its Starship launch system, which consists of a Super Heavy first stage and the Starship upper stage. The six-page guide provides some basic information for potential customers to judge whether a launch vehicle meets their needs for getting payloads into space.
The new guide is notable because it details the lift capabilities of Starship in reusable mode, during which both the first and second stages reserve enough fuel to return to Earth. In this configuration, the rocket can deliver more than 100 metric tons to low-Earth orbit and 21 tons to geostationary transfer orbit.
The killer application, however, is the potential to refuel Starship in low-Earth orbit with other Starships, enabling transportation deeper into the Solar System for 100 tons or more. "The maximum mass-to-orbit assumes parking orbit propellant transfer, allowing for a substantial increase in payload mass," the document states. SpaceX has yet to demonstrate this technology—which has never been done on a large scale in orbit—but the company's engineers have been working on it for several years and partnered with NASA last summer.
The user's guide also provides information about the size of the payload fairing in the cargo configuration of the vehicle, with a width of 8 meters and an extended volume capable of encompassing payloads as long as 22 meters. This would be, by far, the largest usable payload volume for any rocket that exists today or is in development. For human flights of up to 100 people, according to the document, "The crew configuration of Starship includes private cabins, large common areas, centralized storage, solar storm shelters, and a viewing gallery."
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
[Editor's note: SN3 is SpaceX parlance for "Serial Number 3"; Elon Musk is not just working on building rockets, he's building an assembly line and plans to build one Starship a week. This helps explain the use of serial numbers. --martyb]
For almost a year now, SpaceX has been building a series of Starship prototypes that will test how the system fares when launched to orbit.
[...] Musk recently shared images of the components for the SN3 prototype undergoing assembly.
Shortly after these images were shared, the assembled components were seen on their way to the company's test facility at Boca Chica, Texas, on the morning of March 29th. They were then seen being transferred to the launch pad by roll-lift and crane as of late afternoon. Footage of both these events was captured by the LabPadre and shared via Twitter.
SN3 pic.twitter.com/bM1wzzd4Zg
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk)
Like its predecessors, the next step for the SN3 will be cryogenic loading trials in which the spacecraft's methane and oxygen tanks will be filled with a cryogenic liquid (most likely liquid nitrogen).
[...] In a previous statement, Musk announced that the SN3 would be used for static fire tests and short flights, whereas longer test flights will wait for the SN4. [...] There is [...] documentation that indicates that SpaceX will be conducting tests as early as next week.
The documents, which were shared on NASASpaceFlight, reference a permit issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the "Starhopper" vehicle, which is valid until June 2020. They further suggest that a static fire of the SN3's engines could take place between April 1st and 3rd, followed by a 150-meter (500 ft) hop test between April 6th and 8th. This was the maximum height achieved by the Starship Hopper.
[...] Once the Starship is finished and integrated with the Super Heavy booster, Musk hopes to begin conducting payload runs to the moon by 2022, followed by crewed missions to the surface by 2024. In between, Musk also intends to conduct the first lunar tourism mission (#dearmoon), which will involve sending a crew of artists around the moon in 2023.
-- submitted from IRC
Previously:
(2020-04-01) SpaceX Releases a Payload User's Guide for its Starship Rocket
(2020-03-10) Another Starship Prototype Explodes, but SpaceX Isn't Stopping
(2020-02-19) SpaceX Announces Partnership to Send Four Tourists Into Deep Orbit
(2020-01-18) Elon Musk Discloses Details for SpaceX Mars Mega-Colony
SpaceX loses its third Starship prototype during a cryogenic test
This week, SpaceX workers in South Texas loaded the third full-scale Starship prototype—SN3—onto a test stand at the company's Boca Chica launch site. On Wednesday night, they pressure-tested the vehicle at ambient temperature with nitrogen, and SN3 performed fine.
On Thursday night SpaceX began cryo-testing the vehicle, which means it was loaded again with nitrogen, but this time it was chilled to flight-like temperatures and put under flight-like pressures. Unfortunately, a little after 2am local time, SN3 failed and began to collapse on top of itself. It appeared as if the vehicle may have lost pressurization and become top-heavy.
Shortly after the failure, SpaceX's founder and chief engineer, Elon Musk, said on Twitter, "We will see what data review says in the morning, but this may have been a test configuration mistake." A testing issue would be good in the sense that it means the vehicle itself performed well, and the problem can be more easily addressed.
A YouTube Video is included in the article at no extra cost.
SpaceX Offers NASA A Custom Moon Freighter:
Under the current Administration, NASA has been tasked with returning American astronauts to the Moon as quickly as possible. The Artemis program would launch a crewed mission to our nearest celestial neighbor as soon as 2024, and establish a system for sustainable exploration and habitation by 2028. It's an extremely aggressive timeline, to put it mildly.
To have any chance of meeting these goals, NASA will have to enlist the help of not only its international partners, but private industry. There simply isn't enough time for the agency to design, build, and test all of the hardware that will eventually be required for any sort of sustained presence on or around the Moon. By awarding a series of contracts, NASA plans to offload some of the logistical components of the Artemis program to qualified companies and agencies.
For anyone who's been following the New Space race these last few years, it should come as no surprise to hear that SpaceX has already been awarded one of these lucrative logistics contracts. They've been selected as the first commercial provider for cargo deliveries to Gateway, a small space station that NASA intendeds to operate in lunar orbit. Considering SpaceX already has a contract to resupply the International Space Station, they were the ideal candidate to offer similar services for a future lunar outpost.
But that certainly doesn't mean it will be easy. The so-called "Gateway Logistics Services" contract stipulates that providers must be able to deliver at least 3,400 kilograms (7,500 pounds) of pressurized cargo and 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) of unpressurized cargo to lunar orbit. That's beyond the capabilities of SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which was only designed to service low Earth orbit.
To complete this new mission, the company is proposing a new vehicle they're calling the Dragon XL that would ride to orbit on the Falcon Heavy booster. But even for this New Space darling, there's not a lot of time to design, test, and build a brand-new spacecraft. To get the Dragon XL flying as quickly as possible, SpaceX is going to need to strip the craft down to the bare minimum.
[20200420_144755 UTC: Update: According to this comment to the thread at NASASpaceflight, the RollLift (which would transport SN4 to the pad) has not finished being assembled. Looks like it will still be a while before testing commences. --martyb]
[20200420_162536 UTC: Corrected timelines and costs; see linked comment. --martyb]
NASASpaceflight has continuous updates of activities at the Boca Chica SpaceX site with many pics and videos, too. The last time I checked, SN4 (SpaceX's 4th Starship prototype: Serial Number 4) is nearing completion of construction and is soon to be transported to the testing platform. Historically, next would be pressurization tests, e.g. with liquid nitrogen, to see if the rocket can handle the temperatures and pressures. Prior testing failures have been... impressive. Should all go well with these tests, next up would be testing of SN4 with liquid methane and liquid oxygen. If successful, static fire tests with the rocket tethered and, ultimately, with a powered hop for a very limited duration and distance.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has set a goal of building a new Starship rocket each week. SN4 has been under construction for less than a month. By comparison, the SLS (Space Launch System) has been under development for many years, has cost billions of dollars per year, and has never (not even once) been launched. (Please see this comment for clarification.)
Here are the dates and times of upcoming road and beach closures (and alternates) as announced by Cameron County, Texas coinciding with planned testing by SpaceX:
- April 20, 2020: 0800-0900 (Primary Date)
- April 23, 2020: 0900-1000 (Primary Date)
- April 26, 2020: 0900-1159 (Primary Date)
- April 27, 2020: 0900-1159 (Alternate Date)
- April 28, 2020: 0900-1159 (Alternate Date)
(All times are Central Daylight Time; add 5 hours to get the corresponding date/time in UTC .)
Previously:
(2020-04-18) SpaceX Offers NASA a Custom Moon Freighter
(2020-04-03) SpaceX Loses its Third Starship Prototype During a Cryogenic Test
(2020-04-03) SpaceX Almost Ready to Start Testing SN3 -- The Third Starship Prototype
(2020-04-01) SpaceX Releases a Payload User's Guide for its Starship Rocket
(2020-03-10) Another Starship Prototype Explodes, but SpaceX Isn't Stopping
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday April 20 2020, @01:49PM (8 children)
> SN4 has been under construction for less than a month.
> By comparison, the SLS (Space Launch System) has been under development for many years
Apples meet oranges.
(Score: 3, Informative) by martyb on Monday April 20 2020, @04:22PM (7 children)
I was wrong and apologize for my error. Upon further investigation, I discovered I was quite far off in my recollection as to when SLS and Starship design started. Here is some of what I found:
From Wikipedia's Starship [wikipedia.org] description, Starship was first describes as the "Mars Colonial Transport" (MCT) in 2012. In September 2016 it was then renamed "Interplanetary Transport System" (ITS). Them came BFR and BFS (politely: "Big Falcon Rocket" and "Big Falcon Spaceship", respectively) in October of 2016. In November 2018 came yet another renaming as "Super Heavy" for the booster and "Starship" for the upper stage. The latter also being designed for flying solo for Earth-to-Earth transport and for LEO (Low Earth Orbit) operations.
It was in July of 2019 that "Starhopper" — a reduced-height prototype that was analagous to the Falcon-9's "Grasshopper" test vehicle — made its initial test flight.
Early versions of "Starship" are expected to have a payload capacity of 100,000 kg (100 metric tons) with an objective of growing that to 150 metric tons over time.
By comparison, the SLS (Space Launch System [wikipedia.org] has been under development since its announcement in 2011. The initial variant — Block 1— was required to have a payload capacity of 70 metric tons to LEO. Block 2 is anticipated to have a 130 metric ton capacity to LEO.
Total costs and launch prices are more difficult to track down. An article at Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] revealed a per-launch costs varying from $876 million (marginal cost; excludes R&D) and $2 billion. By comparison, space.com has reported SpaceX's Starship May Fly for Just $2 Million Per Mission, Elon Musk Says [space.com]. Granted, Elon Musk is well known for his aspirational goals. That said, though his time lines may be overly optimistic, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have current base pricing to customers of anywhere from $62 million to $150 million depending on reusability or expendability. Additional services are available with a requisite increase in price (e.g. NASA requirements for documentation).
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2020, @06:25PM (6 children)
I think your correct is not really justified.
While Starship very much is in the spirit of the Mars Colonial Transport, it's not really the same entity in any way, shape, or form. Literally everything has changed about, except perhaps the basic idea of a reusable primary stage + in-orbit refueling. Calling the Starship the MCT, or at least a direct continuation of such is kind of akin to claiming that the SLS is a continuation of the Constellation Program [wikipedia.org]. And really that's probably more accurate than calling the Starship the MCT. The typical game congress has been playing is they start some project, pump hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer monies into it, and then cancel it when a new administration starts with some partisan gestures, and then start the entire process all over again.
The only reason we're in the current absurd scenario is because Trump upset this cycle by actually continuing the program and actively trying to create something that can get into space instead of just unloading endless taxpayer money to shareholders in the military industrial complex. See: Zumwalt, F-35, etc.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 20 2020, @10:46PM
The real problem is that SLS is a paper vehicle for transferring public funds to private interests - any real world hardware capable of doing anything is incidental to the purpose. Starship is a vehicle that will likely fly in space in the near future.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday April 21 2020, @09:23AM (4 children)
I agree with the sentiments regarding SpaceX vs Boeing completely. Clearly Boeing have failed where SLS is concerned.
However, SN4 is one tiny module of an ongoing programme; comparing the cost and timescale of building SN4 to the cost and timescale of an entire programme is completely unfair.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 21 2020, @03:02PM (3 children)
AFAIK the entire SLS program over the last decade has not produced a single launchable prototype. There was that December 2019 test that deliberately crushed a core stage tank, and Orion has been tested separately.
It doesn't look like SN4 is destined to do even a 20km flight, but the version that will should be built this year.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday April 21 2020, @03:32PM (2 children)
All interesting points. Nonetheless, comparing a single prototype to an entire programme is a bad comparison. SpaceX are doing a great job, but don't hide it or weasel it with wrong comparisons.
My car is so much cheaper than yours - my wing mirror only costs $200, whereas your car cost $10,000!
(Score: 2) by martyb on Wednesday April 22 2020, @12:01AM (1 child)
Please reread the GP post (in the spoiler), especially how much SLS has cost so far, vs the estimated ultimate cost of Starship and that it looks like it is coming in below the lower bound so far. From what I've seen of the "progress" with SLS vs what I've sen with Starship, I would expect to see a Starship in orbit before year's end, and would not be surprised to see it happen before September.
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are some smart and hard-working folk at NASA. Still I cannot shake the feeling that the whole purpose of SLS is to distribute money to states and that any orbital vehicle would be a side benefit.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday April 22 2020, @12:04PM
Great - I think we agree!
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday April 20 2020, @01:51PM
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-rocket-ready-for-launch-pad/ [teslarati.com]
Initial tests should just involve filling the tanks, so I don't think we would see it launch before May. Unless it explodes.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2020, @02:04PM (19 children)
Heh, lock down Michigan for public health reasons and see the redneck pouring out in the street.
Lock down Boca Chica for private interest reasons and receive acclaims.
Americans surely deserve the slavery to a capitalistic oligarchy.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday April 20 2020, @02:25PM (15 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boca_Chica_Village,_Texas [wikipedia.org]
Yeah, no difference at all between Boca Chica Village and multiple U.S. states. Or a couple hours of road closures per day and a "lockdown" that causes millions to become unemployed.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2020, @03:34PM
Hope there will be no road rage incidents due to the traffic jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2020, @04:59PM (13 children)
Oh, yeah. There's no intelligent life without employment, the very purpose of intelligence in this Universe is to become employed.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday April 20 2020, @05:43PM (11 children)
https://www.vox.com/2020/4/20/21220931/unemployment-insurance-coronavirus-websites-crashing [vox.com]
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/americas-compassion-for-the-unemployed-wont-last/610243/ [theatlantic.com]
https://www.thecut.com/2020/04/what-are-some-unemployment-benefits-for-freelancers.html [thecut.com]
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/19/politics/unemployed-americans-jobless-benefits-coronavirus/index.html [cnn.com]
Just bake bread, watch Netflix, and stay the fuck home, guys! When's my next round of Trump/Yang bux?!
The first homeless bum on Mars is going to get their own Wikipedia page. But until then, we can all live like Diogenes RIGHT NOW and it will be glorious. We don't need no stinking robot workers, nuclear fusion, or coronavirus vaccine.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday April 21 2020, @12:37AM (10 children)
Righto. Currently, an American has one in three chances to survive [worldometers.info].
US doesn't show any curve flattening - no wonder, doesn't happen by itself - and very will likely run into the problem of exceeding the capacity of the health system everywhere. So, likely, the death ratio will be 1-5 to 1-3 everywhere the infection hits and is not stemmed.
Don't stem the civid19 infection and you solve the unemployment crisis, with 50-100 million less Americans - that's in the ballpark of WWII causalties [wikipedia.org] except is going to happen in America only.
If this is not gonna have an impact over economy, I don't know what else will have. I'm not even going to contemplate the number of deaths that will follow after, due to disrupted line of supply for basic needs.
I hope I'll see you all on the other side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday April 21 2020, @01:08AM (5 children)
>an American has one in three chances to survive
Nope. I made the same mistake a couple weeks ago, and freaked myself out for a while. Then I realized the problem:
This disease lingers, which means that someone who is recovered caught the disease several weeks ago. Meanwhile, if it kills you it'll probably do it relatively quickly. You're pulling data from two different points weeks apart on an exponential growth curve. It doesn't really tell you anything useful.
If you want survival rates, you need to look at a time window where all the patients outcome are known. Can we say that 2 weeks after catching it you're either safe or dead? Then we can look at all the people that caught it at least two weeks ago and find the survival rate from that, with no lopsided counting of all the new cases that will remain uncertain unless dead.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 21 2020, @01:33AM (4 children)
Offtopic anyway.
The mortality rate is still computed based on the same set: the total deaths in active cases with known outcome (i.e. mortality in hospitalized cases).
Whether or not this is representative on long term or for the entire population remains to be seen, indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by takyon on Tuesday April 21 2020, @02:33AM (3 children)
Sorry, c0lo, you won't get to see 50-100 million Americans die from coronavirus like you wanted. If you prey hard enough, maybe you'll see a respectable 5-6 million dead Americans.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 21 2020, @02:58AM
Mate, I think you've taken a step too far in assigning that "wanting" to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by Muad'Dave on Tuesday April 21 2020, @11:33AM (1 child)
Now you're expecting him to eat people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2020, @09:43PM
Obviously not! He's harvesting scalps for toilet paper.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 21 2020, @01:09AM
That has nothing to do with the AC minimizing massive sudden unemployment vs. some temporary road closures.
But the death rate you have come up with is very optimistic (in favor of a viral killing machine). Hint: people can get infected, recover, not be reported, and may not even notice any symptoms.
'Stealth Transmission' Fuels Fast Spread of Coronavirus Outbreak [columbia.edu]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 21 2020, @03:05AM (2 children)
Only if you don't look. For example, the growth in active cases per day and the number of deaths per day has declined over the last couple of weeks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2020, @12:02PM (1 child)
See that upward slope? [worldometers.info] Doesn't look like a flat curve to me.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday April 21 2020, @12:13PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2020, @06:09PM
Must be why I'm retired, wear a red hat and spout nonsense.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 20 2020, @04:02PM
I wonder if you were aware beforehand that Michigan is much larger than Boca Chica? Or is the US "enslaved" every time some business blocks a road for a minute or two so that a semi-tractor trailer can back out?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2020, @04:18PM (1 child)
What public health reason?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2020, @04:55PM
FTFY. No reason indeed, just madness.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday April 20 2020, @05:25PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNaXdLWt17A [youtube.com]
Monty Python - Swamp Castle
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2020, @08:26PM (3 children)
There is no rocket test. It is an expected Alien landing in that area. So instead of playing the weather balloon hoax, they are just closing the area so no one can see what really happened.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday April 20 2020, @09:31PM (2 children)
That would be a good theory if it wasn't for all the amateur photography and livestreams capturing almost every bit of rocket assembly done in that place.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 20 2020, @10:48PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2020, @08:01PM
Actually the Freemasons are simply a distraction, Loyal Order Of The Moose is the real seat of power.