Starlink, Kuiper, and the US military all saw additions to their mega-constellations this week.
See full article...
See full article...
Rocket Report: A nearly perfect flight for Starship; China’s surprise launch
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Speculation from viewers on the SFN stream that there may have been an anomaly with the upper stage. The speed shown for the upper stage started to plateau just as the booster touched down, when it would normally keep increasing for a further 10/15 seconds.
Edit: Max velocity for the upper stage on this flight was about 25,000km/h. Compared to velocity at SECO on the earlier launch from Florida of 27,000km/h
Edit: Max velocity for the upper stage on this flight was about 25,000km/h. Compared to velocity at SECO on the earlier launch from Florida of 27,000km/h
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Just three more missions to surpass Atlantis for the title of second most reused major component of an orbital rocket, and then six more after that to take the top crown from Discovery.
Both the block 5 Falcon 9 boosters and the space shuttle orbiters had aspirational goals of 100 uses. I think Falcon 9 will get closer in much less time and for much less cost, and will only be retired short of that due to Starship making it obsolete instead of finally admitting it was too dangerous to keep flying.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
Tweet thread from Landspace on their preparations for the Zhuque-3 maiden flight.
TL; DR - prop load test and static fire of first stage complete. VI test next, then back to the shed for inspection before launch attempt.
TL; DR - prop load test and static fire of first stage complete. VI test next, then back to the shed for inspection before launch attempt.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Duffy is going to open up the Artemis III HLS contract.
NASA Acting Administrator Sean Duffy said:We are in a race against China so we need the best companies to operate at a speed that gets us to the Moon FIRST.
SpaceX has the contract to build the HLS which will get U.S. astronauts there on Artemis III.
But, competition and innovation are the keys to our dominance in space so @NASA
is opening up HLS production to Blue Origin and other great American companies.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Hmm. He talks about Blue Origin and maybe one other company competing against SpaceX for a launch by end of 2028. (Apparently, the most important performance metric of all is to launch before the end of Trump's second term; beating China comes second
). Anyway, I'd love to know what other company besides BO and SX can cold-start a crewed lunar lander program in 2026 and deliver the final product within three years... 
Is it Dynetics? Are we exhuming and resurrecting the ALPACA?
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
I'm not convinced that SLS/Orion would be ready in this timeline, let alone any alternative lander, but this is what Eric has been hearing.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
So... once astronauts get there, will they be able to leave the lunar lander?
I saw some newfangled semi-hard shell spacesuits a few years ago, but have heard next to nothing since. I suppose they could explore remotely... from the moon, but it might be an odd choice.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
A follow up to yesterday's questionable Starlink launch...
Jonathan McDowell said:
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
It doesn't really change anything for the suits, right? Axiom is still on the hook for having those ready to go for Artemis III, no matter who the lander is provided by. Now if BO or some random contractor has requirements for their lander that aren't met by Axiom, well that's a whole other wrinkle that isn't being addressed here. Nothing is really being addressed with this announcement to be fair.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I gather the BO plan is sonething like send a Mark I lander with an unfueled ascent stage and crew module to NRHO, and then send one or more to the landing site with the propellant for the ascent stage. Forgetting that transferring prop on the lunar surface is a little dicey and that it requires pretty impressive landing accuracy, I guess it's doable (not sure I believe it is less risky than prop transfer in LEO, but whatever). Assuming that BO can actually launch and successfully land a Mark I in '26 (big if), I still question how they are developing that ascent stage and crew module in the windows they are being given. I'm not saying that someone couldn't do it, but where is all this credit for BO being able to move that fast coming from (especially with something that is they have little to no experience doing).
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
None of them are going to be able to do that, not with NASA's current crew rating requirements.
Boeing's been trying get Starliner into operation for over a decade. Lockheed has been working on Orion for 21 years. The other usual suspects are no faster.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
I think this is primarily intended to motivate SpaceX to prioritize HLS instead of focusing on Starlink and Mars, rather than a real expectation that Blue can get something done faster.
Nothing wrong with a little competition, though.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Guess they just had a badly timed loss of signal. Good thing the spacecraft goes about its job mostly autonomously anyway.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I have absolutely no problem with it either as long as it's not a huge monetary commitment on NASAs part, afterall the funding is likely to come from some other budgets that are already trying to be cut to the bone. Throwing them a bit more funding though to try and accelerate a parallel track, that even if it doesn't work out probably helps them with their existing Mark II lander anyway, isn't really a waste. It shouldn't truly be that expensive, as how much incentive does Bezos really need to try and play hero and beat SpaceX and China to the moon?
I still wonder where this 'SpaceX is falling behind narrative' is coming from though. Is it a reaction to the string of failures and the media coverage of it? Is it coming from the program managers at NASA who know more than we do? If so is it the prop transfer being pushed back and causing cascading scheduling issues or is SpaceX really not making progress with the design of HLS proper? The narrative that I've heard Eric voice is that Musk isn't focused on the moon and that is putting Artemis behind, which could be the case but if he has sources saying that he hasn't really made it clear. To me it sounds more like a vibes thing than something concrete.
If on the other hand it is just the publicly visible aspects of starship being behind (i.e. test failures), than I don't see how that has anything to do with Musks level of commitment to Artemis. Afterall they are clearly very committed as a company to getting starship launching starlinks and orbital prop transfer working for Mars, I'm not really sure how a Blue Origin shaped stick motivates them to move any faster on either of those things. If they really are starving resources working on HLS proper than that would be another matter, and I sure would like to hear about it in some upcoming article that clearly has to being written about this as we speak. I also would be curious if anyone has considered whether throwing an 11th hour effort together might scavenge scarce resources internal to NASA that would end up ensuring neither effort make it, which if this really is a media narrative feeding administration bedwetting thing is a pretty worrying possibility.
Last edited:
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I'd place my bets on "program managers at NASA". The recent report from ASAP regarding SpaceX being multiple years behind the official 2027 deadline, is probably a good indication of the things and cascading schedule issues they know about, that we don't.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
In the graphic it looks like V3 and V4 with Raptor 3s have exposed Raptors instead of the partly shrouded ones of V2/Raptor 2. Also, the payloads of V2/V3/V4 had slipped a bit because of continued beefing up required (stringers, slightly thicker steel, bigger downcomer, re-enforcement around the door, etc) expected from the original plans. V3 is what V2 was supposed to be and V4 is basically what V3 was supposed to be.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This is what Paul Hill of ASAP said:
Which doesn't have anything to with HLS proper. Now he's not wrong that SpaceX getting V3 working, launching on a cadence and demoing prop transfer are all gating this, but again literally none of that can be attributed to Musk being not focused on Artemis.
Last edited:
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
SpaceX wants to launch as many Starlinks as possible, a Mars mission, and the HLS demo next year. Thats a lot on their plate, and there is necessarily some tension between those goals that SpaceX leadership is going to have to resolve internally. Duffy wants them to resolve it in a way that prioritizes HLS as much as possible, and he really wants to not be in 3rd place behind both Starlink and Mars.
Duffy probably also wants to prioritize HLS for NASA internally, and set the stage to remove any external roadblocks that may interfere with HLS. By framing Artemis 3 as a strategic national priority with major geopolitical implications, he may be, for example, paving the way to have the FAA implement aggressive airspace closures or waive licensing requirements for Starship and/or New Glenn / Blue Moon (as Secretary of Transportation, Duffy also runs the FAA).
Positioning the project as a major strategic priority opens a lot of options for the administration. And creating a competition is a good way to support that position, while also fending off claims of favoritism towards one company.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
ASAP's default position is that things can go wrong, while SpaceX's default position is that things can go right. Because of this, the two are never going to see eye to eye on schedules.
Schedules are not ASAP's concern anyway. They shouldn't worry about being late except to the extent that they have some evidence that safety related shortcuts are happening that are going to affect crew flights.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
If SpaceX prioritizes starlink launches over the prop transfer demo, then that's a problem. If designing a Mars ship is taking away from designing an HLS than absolutely lighting a fire under their ass makes sense. But the prop transfer demo has to get done for both Mars and HLS to move forward, and I don't really buy that there will be anything like a ship that can fly to and attempt EDL on Mars by the next window anyway. I guess a little public shaming to focus Musk if he requires focusing isn't a bad thing.
Boy I hope Duffy is strategic enough to be thinking like that. I kind of have my doubts, but I'd love to be wrong. My main concern in this is prioritizing resources within NASA, because they have finite resources to be supporting and crew rating a lunar lander. This isn't 2021 where they had 6-7 years to spin up and sustain an effort to support two parallel paths for a 2027-28 landing. With 2-3 years in the current NASA still reeling from the Russ Vought hammer, trying to wedge in a last minute Hail Mary could actually slow HLS down not speed it up.
If they can open up more resources, cut the red tape then by all means. I don't honestly believe this admin gives a crap about appearance of favoritism though.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
For me, it smacks of "Supplier Scapegoating." I've been on the receiving end of it before.
Let's be honest -- the idea that SpaceX is becoming a pacing item of Artemis because they're not moving fast enough is silly, bordering on outlandish. Equally silly is the thought that some other player, starting this late in the game, would be able to beat SpaceX to a working HLS barring some extreme issue with Starship. And less silly than the idea of blaming SpaceX for being somewhat behind when SLS/Orion is... how many decades behind, now?
The primary culprit here is NASA and Congress spending decades funding a "moon rocket" with no funding for a lander (or spacesuits) until the 11th hour. NASA knew exactly what they were getting when they picked SpaceX for HLS -- a project with very real technical risk, but the only option that would fit their budget constraints and had a snowball's chance in hell of making it in something resembling their timeframe. And it's not like they had any illusions about "Elon Time," either, having worked with SpaceX for many years at that point.
Like you, I have trouble seeing how SpaceX could be moving any faster -- StarShip is highly ambitious, complex, and groundbreaking, and they're already taking heat from many quarters about moving "too fast" and "cutting corners". I can't think of any alternate player that could move faster. BO, with their much more traditional approach, might take less time overall (assuming they don't hit any unforeseen roadblocks), but starting now, as opposed to 2019? And let's not even talk about relative costs....
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The prop transfer demo is just the first item. Even if SpaceX prioritizes it over Starlink, there are a lot of decisions further down the road that will impact the HLS schedule.
SpaceX is on record as planning a Mars launch in 2026. How much manufacturing and testing capacity are they going to devote to that next year, even if they end up delaying it to 2028? If they end up not having enough tankers built for both the HLS demo and the Mars launch, which one will get them? Decisions like that are almost certainly going to come up over the next 15 months.
NASA is doing everything they can to make sure the answer is always "NASA comes first", but realistically, NASA isn’t always going to come first.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)