Topic: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)

[Nemesis]

They have done static fires on the booster and 2nd stage which should mean that it will happen within about 2 weeks.

Blue Origin is claiming they will launch again as early as December 28th to 31th.  I don't believe them.  More likely in my opinion February or later.

[Nemesis]

Not surprisingly that Vulcan launch didn't happen in September and now says October but the Vulcan launch list has none till December still.  No explanation, just an anomaly.  Not really expecting any this year. 

I've figured out that Vulcan anomaly. 

You can choose to list either a specific rocket or all launches by a company.

When I list - Vulcan - it only lists the baseline variant not any of the sub types with extra solid rocket boosters. 

So the Amazon Leo (LV-01) launch on a Vulcan VC6L doesn't show up on the Vulcan list.  It launches:

Fri • Nov 13th, 2026 12:54 PM - 1:24 PM EST

I'd never have designed the list that way unless it included the variants on the list. 

[Nemesis]

IFT 15

Projected To Launch  Thu • Nov 12th, 2026

Subject to delays of course

Edit 1: Fri • Nov 13th, 2026  5:45 PM - 7:00 PM EST

[Nemesis]

Blue Origin is now working on a 3rd stage to New Glenn to boost more to higher orbits.

They are also working on a successor to the BE-4 engine called Northstar, trying to simplify it and use 3 d printing while increasing thrust. 

So in other words they are already finding New Glenn and BE-4 inadequate.   Wonder how this will affect Vulcan.  Is BO going to try and maintain even more factories for engines?  They will with the 3rd stage add a 3rd engine to the New Glenn design and if they produce Northstar engines for New Glenn and keep making BE-4 engines for Vulcan they are not going to be as successful at lowering costs by increasing production of one design.

Blue Moon will now NOT be using in orbit refueling but instead will do 3 launches to take 3 of their Blue Ring boosters to attach to Blue Moon to get it to the moon.  With the launch of the Blue Moon being separate this is still 4 launches of a rocket that has only made 3 launches only one of which was a full success.  Guess they didn't want to have to try and develop in orbit refueling abilities. 

Seems they haven't learned anything from SpaceX success with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy.  All stages use the same engines.  More production of one engine design = volume savings.  All using the same propellants means fewer different propellants being stored on site and less money in handling costs and less space used.  Less piping and less chance of leaks.  Starship inherits all these and with larger engine volumes more savings.

[Nemesis]

I'm prone to be extremely critical of Musk, but I suppose "eventually" is key to that claim.  Saturn's LEO payload for the Apollo lunar missions was 140 tons for CM, LEM and fuel fifty years ago, so 200 tons seems doable.... eventually.

I'm going through the thread reading and seeing where I was right and more importantly wrong about things. 

This "mass to orbit" by Apollo isn't what it appears.  I looked into it because of people complaining how little mass SLS manages even though it is more powerful.

Ask yourself this.  If the Apollo stack could take 140 tons to orbit why was Skylab only about 77 tons?  The 1st to 3rd stage boosters were essentially the same.  So why was Skylab so small?

The 140 tons to orbit by Apollo included the 3rd stage booster.  Skylab just included just Skylab even though the booster did get to orbit too. 

SLS, the 2nd stage gets to orbit and like the Apollo 3rd stage does launch the elements going to Lunar orbit on their way but isn't counted in the mass to orbit of SLS. 

The difference between MASS to orbit and PAYLOAD to orbit.  The booster mass makes orbit but is NOT payload. 

[Nemesis]

IFT 15 launch successful.

Booster had one engine shut down during the hot staging event.  At this moment the 2nd Stage is coasting to the decision point on igniting 1 sea level engine to go to orbit.

The booster had the catch cancelled, reason unknown.  The engine that shut down was in the outer ring and was not scheduled to reignite so it is unlikely to be the cause.  All engines during boost back and landing seem to have been fine.  There is a picture from just before they used the flight termination and it shows the booster lower section dented inward. 

Nothing official  yet on that dent.  My guess is the autogenous pressurization didn't keep up to fuel flow.  If I'm right the big question of course is why?  Update:  Seen a claim that the dent was from the termination system, caught close to simultaneously with the detonation resulting in seeing the 1st effects.

Number of v3 Starlink carries is 26 again.

Orbital insertion burn has occurred and has been declared "nominal" by SpaceX.

About to begin deployment of Starlink v3, PEZ dispenser  opened.  Deployment beginning.  Deployment completed all 26 launched and are in communication.

It occurs to me that the communications between booster and tower during landing need permission from the FAA and with them shutting down all aircraft flights that booster landing might not be permitted. 

Looks like they passed the first in orbit abort to an early landing.