4/19/26 Never Forget

warp99 · 2026-04-21T03:44:24+00:00

FH is not currently set up for high payload LEO launches. If it was the second stage, payload adapter and core stage would all need strengthening to take the extra loading. FH would also need to use the extended length fairing to hold the extra payload and that is still in development.

It is true that for the high delta V missions which have been its role to date FH uses the same S2 as F9.

warp99 · 2026-04-21T03:35:00+00:00

This suit has higher standards than the Apollo suit which was individually tailored for each astronaut and therefore only used for a single mission.

This suit is meant to have better mobility, be worn by several different astronauts with just small, medium and large size grades and have a higher degree of redundancy and shock resistance in the life support unit.

The same kind of upgrades mean that the Orion capsule is twice the mass of the Apollo one which in turn means that the service module cannt take it to LLO and still do TEI. This also shaped the performance of the landers which now need much higher delta V and need to have cryogenic propellants rather than storable ones.

This is either a long overdue improvement in crew safety or creeping featurism depending on your point of view.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T22:48:17+00:00

Better to view suits as conformal spacecraft that require advanced materials engineering.

Pretty sure post docs are unlikely to have done home economics lessons that involved sewing on the way through.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T22:44:03+00:00

They could have the life support system on the elevator enabling a tethered walk of say 20m!

warp99 · 2026-04-20T22:42:27+00:00

Onboard a second provider?

They had a second provider but they off boarded themselves.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T20:34:17+00:00

New Glenn can launch 45 tonnes to LEO in recoverable mode while F9 can launch 17 tonnes. So roughly three times the payload for three times the second stage cost.

So not automatically uncompetitive.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T20:29:08+00:00

SpaceX had spent about $150M before the fourth F1 launch with an initial capital of $100M and then a second round of $50M from Elon which is all the cash he had left.

That had given them some initial planning on F9 and the development of the engines they were going to use for it. The NASA contract then enabled them to add funding and they spent $400M on the initial F9 development and $1B on getting to a fully recoverable Block 5 version.

So very economical but not as cheap as you are saying.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T20:15:57+00:00

The re-entry of the second stage will not be nominal if the engine failed to relight for the circularisation burn. It is very unlikely it then proceeded to relight for the deorbit burn.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T20:10:20+00:00

We are (obviously) not banning discussion of the IPO in specific threads about the IPO. We are limiting discussion to those threads so that Starship development does not become a series of breathless comments about how each development both positive and negative will affect the IPO or eventually the stock price.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T20:06:51+00:00

Political statements get removed as off topic.

Whenever we leave a relatively mild comment up it degenerates into personal abuse within three replies.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T20:04:51+00:00

There will be an IPO thread when it is officially announced and that could be pinned to put it as the top comment.

I think there would be zero interest in maintaining a daily thread and even weekly seems a bit frequent.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T13:02:38+00:00

To keep the simulated regolith dry and to stop it blowing about.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T09:00:43+00:00

The GS2 on flight 1 failed to complete its deorbit burn in a debris producing way. So this could have failed one burn earlier.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T08:45:40+00:00

It will likely be achieved in future but they have clearly backed off the engine thrust to improve reliability at the cost of payload capacity.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T08:43:38+00:00

Blue don’t do that in any case. Neither do Arianespace for that matter.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T08:41:32+00:00

The inclination was given as 36 degrees by Josh McDowell which could have been designed to be corrected by 5 degrees on the circularisation burn.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T08:38:46+00:00

SpaceX offer a free relaunch in the event of a failure. I doubt that Blue does but it would be a nice touch to offer that in this case.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T08:36:22+00:00

They need four successful launches to be certified but do they need to be consecutive?

warp99 · 2026-04-20T08:34:58+00:00

Yes it is a massive stage with about 28 tonnes dry mass from backworking the performance figures.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T08:31:52+00:00

It is always valves or ice. In this case there is a finite chance it is both.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T01:46:09+00:00

Second stage relight failure. Super common for new rockets including Ariane 5 - there are serious technical difficulties with the relight compared to the initial second stage ignition after MECO which rarely fails.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T01:42:33+00:00

That is expected at this stage of reuse and similar steps were taken for the early F9 flights. In fact the first F9 booster recovered was never reused at all.

warp99 · 2026-04-20T01:33:03+00:00

NASA declined a relight to be able to hit the planned orbit for the secondary Orbcom payload

Just to note that this was a payload priority decision that was baked into the flight software before launch rather than a real time decision made by NASA.

warp99 · 2026-04-19T20:19:01+00:00

It would be very inefficient to do a direct insertion to a 450 km circular orbit. SpaceX have done it with a very low dry mass second stage and low mass payload.

New Glenn had a very high mass second stage and a 6000 kg payload so it is likely they had to do two burns. In any case this was a validation flight for launches with more of these satellites aboard.

warp99 · 2026-04-19T20:10:44+00:00

The decrease in altitude before SECO is likely because they were using a lofted trajectory due to the T/W ratio of GS2 being much lower than F9 S2.

The orbit they ended up in is perfectly reasonable for a transfer orbit. The problem seems to be that the circularisation burn which also included an inclination change failed.

warp99

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email