Recent Posts

21

Starfleet Command Models / Looking for models from Axanar

« Last post by TLRoff on May 31, 2026, 02:59:32 pm »

much verbage on Google but no actual info that I can find..  Supposedly there's a 4 year war mod for  the series but haven't been able to find it.   I models for want for SFC, SFC-II, and SFC:OP   (Not a SFC-III fan!)

22

Engineering / Re: New Glenn explodes on launch pad during static fire

« Last post by Nemesis on May 29, 2026, 03:58:48 pm »

The explosion destroyed one of their two lightning towers, the horizontal integration equipment AND the other booster that they had ready (no mention of if it already had its engines but I'd guess no). 

One of the rumours is that the centre engine blew up and drove fragments upwards through the booster.  This would potentially ground Vulcan that already seems to be grounded by the two failed STB nozzles so potentially delaying their launches even more.

This is going to be a massive rebuild.  Two years may be on the optimistic side (though I hope I'm wrong).

The announcement didn't actually say no one was hurt.  It said that everyone was "accounted for".  Odd phrasing if there were no injuries or deaths. 

23

Engineering / New Glenn explodes on launch pad during static fire

« Last post by Nemesis on May 28, 2026, 10:26:23 pm »

Within the last 2 or 3 hours they had their New Glenn doing a static fire explode on the launch pad.  No casualties but how much damage to infrastructure and how long to repair/rebuild and for the inevitable investigation is in question.  The chances of them being able to launch a prototype lunar lander in under 2 years is in SERIOUS question now.

This is actually a duplicate post from the "Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship" thread.  Thought it worth its own thread to make it more visible.

I do wonder (this isn't on the other thread) if this was a test with a reused engine.  There is nothing I know of to indicate it is, I'm just speculating. 

24

Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)

« Last post by Nemesis on May 28, 2026, 10:20:13 pm »

B.O. has added an Amazon LEO flight for New Glenns 4th mission.

Amazon Leo (LN-01) Tue • Jun 2nd, 2026 2:04 PM - 4:13 PM EDT

This will NOT happen.  Within the last 2 or 3 hours they had their New Glenn doing a static fire explode on the launch pad.  No casualties but how much damage to infrastructure and how long to repair/rebuild and for the inevitable investigation is in question.  The chances of them being able to launch a prototype lunar lander in under 2 years is in SERIOUS question now. 

25

Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)

« Last post by Nemesis on May 26, 2026, 10:16:48 pm »

B.O. has added an Amazon LEO flight for New Glenns 4th mission.

Amazon Leo (LN-01) Tue • Jun 2nd, 2026 2:04 PM - 4:13 PM EDT

26

Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)

« Last post by Nemesis on May 21, 2026, 07:39:25 pm »

The launch of Starship today aborted over a pin in the quick disconnect arm not retracting to allow the arm to do the same.

New date and time:  Fri • May 22nd, 2026 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM EDT

Edit  Actual launch

Launch has occurred.  Lift off was MUCH faster than has been usual.  They were carrying more mass than usual.  (I think it was 22 dummy satellites including 2 with cameras to look back at the ship)

Booster:  Lost an engine (went out but no details) shortly after launch.  The number of engines left running after the hot staging seems to have been short of what was expected and the relight also was less than expected.  Engines then cut out early.  Seems to have had only one engine relight for the "landing".  Cameras were lost repeatedly and so far I haven't seen video of the "landing"/"impact" or details on its location in the Gulf, just that it was in the Gulf.

Update on the engines out on the booster.  The "What about it" Youtube channel did a slow motion and pauses replay of the hot staging and it shows more engines lit than the telemetry was showing.  It could be that the sensors failed and the onboard computers had the same information as the telemetry then it would have been out of control (any inertial navigation tech would be contradicting predictions based on engine data) which should have resulted in shut down.

Ship:  Engine ignition went correctly but 1 vaccuum Raptor went out.  The remaining 5 engines were able to compensate with a longer burn.  However they will probably not do the engine relight as it might drive them out of their planned area. 

All dummies and camera dummies deployed in 8min +8 sec., lights were seen from the last one out and the payload door closed.  Camera views from the 2 camera dummies seem not to be expected till sometime after the flight completes. 

Now coasting to the Indian ocean "landing" site.  Since it will not be landing precisely where planned they might not get the landing video from the deployed camera buoy.  HOWEVER block 3 is supposed to be capable of more "cross range" ability so MAYBE they can land on target anyhow (my speculation).   (I love it when my speculation comes true and it appears to have here). 

They have begun some release of the camera dummy video (1 some far) starting with the dummy in launch position and continuing through deployment and for a short time afterwards.  You get to see the door close from outside as earlier we saw it close from inside.

The "landing" seems to have been a major success.  This time we saw something different.  Just before the engine flips the ship upright a aircraft flew over it showing it in horizontal flight, unfortunately the aircraft was flying faster so the view didn't last long.  I suspect it was Australian military.

I didn't see any sign of the flap burn throughs that have plagued them.

Overall though the engines (and engine telemetry) seem to have been the only real issues. 

The major question left though, is there anything here that NASA/FAA will call "an incident" requiring extended time delays before IFT 13?  Less major is there anything he requiring enough changes by to either booster or ship to significantly delay the next flight?

Over all well done. 

27

Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)

« Last post by Nemesis on May 08, 2026, 06:44:37 pm »

Now THIS is interesting.

Superbird-9, Starship, SpaceX

Launch Status - Date/Time TBD - Projected To Launch - June, 2027


A third party contracted launch of Starship with payload. 

This is the link though it will expire at some point:
 
https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/launch/starship-superbird-9/

28

Engineering / Re: NEW Amiga500 mini

« Last post by Nemesis on May 07, 2026, 12:05:09 am »

Been watching some youtube videos on this and apparently there is a plan (no guarantee that it will happen) to make a A500 Maxi version sometime later.

Link to video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizwMpD7JZI

It will be THE A1200.   Details lacking due to a lawsuit from one of the "rights holders".  It will be full size and apparently full function.  What exactly is included in "full function" is unclear at this time.

It was due for release in June (16th I think).  But it has been delayed:

    "Dear RGL community,

    We wanted to take this moment to thank you for your continued, incredible support.

    Without you we would not be able to continue to bring back the iconic gaming machines of our youth that mean so much to us all. With this in mind, we're disappointed to have to tell you that the release of THEA1200 will be delayed.

    The hardware is complete, from chipset to plastics and final moulds, and we've now reached the manufacturing stage. However, global chip shortages and rising plastic production costs, which have taken time to mitigate, have significantly delayed our overall schedule.

    This has had a knock-on effect on development. While functional, the operating system isn't yet where it needs to be. We could ship with a more basic OS, but that wouldn't do justice to THEA1200. This machine is about delivering the best possible Amiga experience, and that means taking the time to get it right.

    THEA1200 will now release on Friday 4th December.

    We know delays are frustrating, and we don't take that lightly. Your feedback has played a huge part in shaping this product, and we want to make sure the final result lives up to that. We'll be sharing regular updates from here on in, so you can see the progress as we go. We will also release a Q&A, which covers pre-orders and additional details.

    Thanks as always for your support, it genuinely makes all of this possible and is heartfelt by our small but passionate team.

29

Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)

« Last post by Nemesis on May 01, 2026, 12:25:56 pm »

Ariane 6 has now flown Amazon's Project Leo (formerly Project Kuiper) satellites.

IFT 12 now Tue • May 12th, 2026 6:30 PM - 8:43 PM EDT

Edit: Fri • May 15th, 2026 6:30 PM - 8:43 PM EDT

They have had some trouble apparently with a valve (or valves) on the deluge system.  During a test one of the valves blew off and flew through the air.  Whether faulty installation or an over pressure event is unclear to me.


Edit 2:  Tue • May 19th, 2026 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM EDT

Edit 3: Wed • May 20th, 2026 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM EDT

Edit 4: Thu • May 21st, 2026 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM EDT

If it doesn't launch by Friday the next opportunity I understand is Tues May 26th, probably the same time of day.

30

Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)

« Last post by Nemesis on April 27, 2026, 07:18:49 am »

Vulcan now has 20 launches scheduled all for Dec 2026.  Most all of them Government launches that are secret.  Then there are some GPS launches and ONE that is apparently a non government communication satellite.  Why keep giving them launch contracts when they aren't actually launching anything? 

I'm assuming what is holding them up are the SRBs losing their nozzles in flight.  Compared to other rockets they have flown they have switched suppliers for Vulcan to a lower bidder and it isn't working out for them.  Maybe the company will make a fix soon and launches will begin again but until then it doesn't make sense to keep adding more contracts to a company that at present can't fly them reliably.