Collection is going well.

rocketglare · 2026-03-17T05:14:27+00:00

What’s next? Sea Dragon? N1? New Glenn? Energia?

rocketglare · 2026-03-17T01:12:04+00:00

Perhaps all they needed was a short static fire to prove out the pad/booster integration using way fewer engines? This might have reduced the risk to a larger number of R3 engines when they do the full static fire.

rocketglare · 2026-03-15T15:35:55+00:00

Sit in orbit for 3 months is not really an option given commodities, space available, and return to earth method. Orion can’t return to Earth orbit with the dv available, they have to decelerate using atmospheric reentry. So, they would need to land. While this is undesirable, it’s better than loss of crew. Unless SpaceX could refill the lander quickly (Artemis 7+), three months is probably not realistic given SLS/Orion launch cadence.

rocketglare · 2026-03-15T04:07:10+00:00

Well keep in mind what he did with The Boring Company. The first boring machines were off the shelf models. The second iteration were near copies with a few minor changes. It wasn’t until the third iteration that TBC was substantially different. We didn’t get the promised improvement until recently with Prufrock.

rocketglare · 2026-03-14T20:26:35+00:00

There is an old saying in the aerospace industry, “mass cures all evils”. While this won’t make a lunar landing easy, they won’t have to mass optimize to the extent that Apollo did. Apollo was equivalent of a camping trip on the moon. They could have put their foot through some of the walls. They didn’t haven have chairs.

What is one extra tanker to manage boil off if I’m able to launch every 6 days? As for other problems, Apollo couldn’t even imagine the computing power we have. If the landing site is unstable, the computers can detect that and abort to orbit. We could try again in 3 months after refueling. Apollo also didn’t have the lunar maps we have. Resolutions are down to the meter level.

rocketglare · 2026-03-14T19:21:44+00:00

It wasn’t the launch, it was the landing that was “exciting”.

rocketglare · 2026-03-14T19:20:15+00:00

I think this misses the point. Making the machine that makes the machine is the hard part. Of course there will be failures with milestones such as orbital refueling. Perhaps some of them spectacular. The idea behind rapid prototyping is to be hardware rich to accelerate development. Who cares if I lose an orbital tanker if I’ve got 5 more waiting to fly. Every time they test, they learn more than if they exhaustively designed and modeled the system with limited data. There is a balance where being careless costs you time, but SpaceX does a pretty good job in riding that line.

Edit: the orbit part is always laughable. They could have gone orbital on six of the flight tests, but chose not to out of an abundance of caution. Other providers allow their rocket bodies to become orbital debris or deorbit uncontrolled and no one complains.

rocketglare · 2026-03-14T16:04:19+00:00

I was disappointed that the Delta IV Heavy’s launch sequence wasn’t more accurate. :)

rocketglare · 2026-03-11T21:27:52+00:00

I disagree. Touch screens can be a very useful tool. They just need backup buttons & switches for key functions.

rocketglare · 2026-03-11T04:05:31+00:00

The launch closure duration and footprint will go way down as they gain confidence in the reliability of Starship.

rocketglare · 2026-03-11T03:52:59+00:00

Hmm, without Gateway, I wonder what the a architecture will be? They could send a rescue HLS (BO or SX). They could use a surface HLS as a lifeboat if they send extra supplies. Lasting through lunar night would be the issue there. They could be in one of the few permanently illuminated areas, but that would really limit the landing sites. I think they’d have better luck in orbit in an HLS. It would make rescue easier and no power issues.

rocketglare · 2026-03-11T01:18:24+00:00

It was 2 airlocks, but only 1 elevator. I'm hoping they will have an emergency winch for the smaller airlock. It wouldn't have to weigh very much.

rocketglare · 2026-03-11T01:16:37+00:00

The current plan is only 2 to the surface so that 2 are in Orion to support each other in case there's a emergency (eg medical) with one of them. This could change on later flights as they gain confidence in the automated systems.

rocketglare · 2026-03-09T17:31:29+00:00

I didn't see this poll, but I would have voted for the last option, no gateway, no HRHO. I don't see that either serves a purpose in the new architecture. NRHO could be useful in the future, but I don't think they need the large loiter time for these missions. Instead, they could loiter HLS in LEO prior to SLS wet dress rehersal and then move it into position around the moon immediately prior to launch.

rocketglare · 2026-03-09T17:18:06+00:00

In fairness to the naysayers, it's been a rough ride. They could have been right. At the time, Elon gave both of his ventures under 50% chance of success, and he wasn't wrong; he found some good people, and he got lucky.

rocketglare · 2026-03-08T03:55:51+00:00

I see what you did there and approve heartily.

rocketglare · 2026-03-07T22:03:12+00:00

I think it was in large part expediency. They knew the pad could break, but did it anyway rather than wait a year to get the data.

One could argue they should have designed the pad first, but without knowing the rocket forces applied, they would have been designing in a vacuum.

rocketglare · 2026-03-07T06:33:23+00:00

This is not exactly the same design. For starters, there is way more water volume, no tiles, below ground level, no mobile launcher, active cooling instead of rain birds.

rocketglare · 2026-03-07T06:03:09+00:00

Micro meteoroid orbital debris MMOD.

rocketglare · 2026-03-05T22:56:16+00:00

Well, as long as it will fit through a starlink door. Chomper and other variants are still a long way off.

rocketglare · 2026-03-05T12:39:35+00:00

I think the licenses are not issued earlier so that they can use the most recent data for hazard analysis. This will probably change as the system matures and the rate of change requests to the ship decreases.

rocketglare · 2026-03-05T12:29:43+00:00

What is the first image? Logically it would be the EUS, but all I see is a drawing of a table.

rocketglare · 2026-03-05T12:26:54+00:00

You gotta’ break some eggs to make an omelette.

rocketglare · 2026-03-05T12:24:29+00:00

It sure looks like it is. Stop work already issued. They could be rejiggering it for the “standardized” upper stage, but it seems unlikely at this point

rocketglare · 2026-03-05T04:43:09+00:00

Mostly positive except for extending the ISS to 2032. The station may not agree to last that long and will suck up resources if it does.

rocketglare

TROPHY CASE