1

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: What if Starship can't work as currently envisaged?

« Last post by rsdavis9 on Today at 11:01 pm »

How so? “Starship” is a nebulous system. It started with composite tanks and legs and PICA-X heatshield, potentially landing on a droneship, and 42 first stage engines and a larger diameter. and now uses stainless steel, no legs (on most vehicles), ceramic tile heatshield, no droneship, and like 33 engines.

The only thing really solid about the concept is it’s 2 stages, fully reusable, uses methane/oxygen as propellants and is big. And all of those seem pretty validated in general, with possible exception of really low cost upper stage reuse.

I just don’t see how anything solid about it could prove to be a “dead end” technically. Some particular manufacturing process, engine pressurization scheme, the company itself, etc, could be a dead end, but not like the whole idea of a fully reusable 2STO methalox SHLV. Like, there’s no plausible way that that whole concept would be proven to be a dead end at this point.

Its already taken off and reached near orbital velocity and reentered and water landed intact. Albeit with not enough margin for a useful payload. But payload being just 1-4% of total takeoff weight it should be easy to squeeze another few percent out of it.
5000t*.02=100t

2

Spaceflight Entertainment and Hobbies / Re: Hobby Rocket Topics - BPS Space

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 10:51 pm »

Spaceshot Rocket Motor Development

3

Commercial Space Flight General / Re: Amazon Project Kuiper Broadband Constellation

« Last post by Vultur on Today at 10:36 pm »

I wouldn't say Kuiper "deserves" an extension, rather that it's plausibly in the public interest because good rural internet is valuable and competition is desirable.

"Deserves" is rather strong; Kuiper started after Starlink, they should be able to be a "fast follower" and progress as fast or faster (relative to starting the program) since surely Amazon has no lack of resources.

I would say rather that an extension might possibly be in the public interest due to the value of competition* even though it's probably not "deserved" in the sense that everything humanly possible was probably not done to meet the regulatory timeline.

*Though I'm far from convinced personally. If every major nation wants multiple mega constellations, space debris/collision issues might get bad fast. The first one is clearly in the public interest, creating a capability that didn't previously exist; adding more, IMO, is far less clearly in the public interest (especially if there are other mechanisms to avoid really exploitative monopoly behavior).

Title 47 Chapter 1 25.117 Modification of station license.

Any application for modification of authorization to extend a required date of completion, as set forth in § 25.133 for earth station authorizations or § 25.164 for space stations, or included as a condition of any earth station or space station authorization, must include a verified statement from the applicant:

(1) That states that the additional time is required due to unforeseeable circumstances beyond the applicant's control, describes these circumstances with specificity, and justifies the precise extension period requested; or

(2) That states there are unique and overriding public interest concerns that justify an extension, identifies these interests and justifies a precise extension period.

Clearly holds in this case. We can move on.

(2) reads like the winner, agreed.

Again people may argue about the merit, but there's a very specific mechanism for asking, and I expect they'll get it.

It does seem likely, but that's honestly a much narrower scope for extensions than I expected. "Unique and overriding public interest concerns" is fairly extreme.

4

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : Project Kuiper KF-01 : CCSFS SLC-40 : 16 July 2025 (06:30 UTC)

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 10:32 pm »

📷: The view from space, minutes after all satellites from our KF-01 mission were released from the dispenser system.

For Kuiper missions on Falcon 9, satellites are released every 20 seconds over an 8-minute period, and all 24 satellites are power positive and operating nominally in orbit.

https://x.com/ProjectKuiper/status/1945577059683631464

GewoonLukas
Thanks for posting that. I wasn't awake yet after a 24-hour job responsibility and would have missed posting it anyway since I wasn't "Following: them." I'm glad they posted the picture and deployment procedure. Hopefully, they will in future launches allow SpaceX to cover fairing separation to SECO and maybe... maybe... deployment, but I jest.

Tony

5

Rocket Lab / Re: Rocket Lab to go public, develop new vehicle (financial discussion)

« Last post by jongoff on Today at 10:23 pm »

Stock peaked at $48.07 today, continuing its enormous climb. There is no way that this can last, but it bodes extremely well for Rocket Lab that the market has so much faith in it.

(I anticipate a significant dip either at the next earnings date and/or if a Neutron delay is announced. Either way, those could be the last few good opportunities to buy before the stock soars over $50, much less $40 permanently).

I agree with your assessment. I like Rocket Lab, and think it's prospects are far better than some of the naysayers on here think. But I also think it's current valuation is pretty eye-watering. Well, ok I also think that about SpaceX, Tesla, and many other publicly traded and privately traded companies that we know the valuation of.

I don't own any Rocket Lab shares yet, so I hope you're right that it'll have some sort of correction to less eyewatering valuations that have realistic room for upward growth (still kicking myself about not getting in when they were down around $4/share -- I definitely felt that was undervalued, but didn't do anything about it).

~Jon

6

Commercial Space Flight General / Re: Amazon Project Kuiper Broadband Constellation

« Last post by meekGee on Today at 10:17 pm »

I can see an argument that Kuiper "deserves" an extension due to effort already expensed.

But Kuper is NOT your weapon against China.  If you turn this into a US VS. China strategy game, what the government needs to do is accelerate Starlink and capitalize on its lead. Kuiper is already behind China and doesn't have the launch means to catch up.

7

Other US Launchers / Re: US Launch Schedule 2

« Last post by Salo on Today at 09:33 pm »

Delayed to NET July 26th per https://www.cadenaois.org/vpublic_anspdetail.jsp?view=15

Primary Launch Day 26 JUL 0209Z-0543Z
Backup Launch Day 27 JUL 0209Z-0543Z
Backup Launch Day 28 JUL 0209Z-0543Z

8

Commercial Space Flight General / Re: The Reaction Engines Skylon/SABRE Master Thread (7)

« Last post by Tywin on Today at 09:31 pm »

Invictus is certainly a better name (imo) than Skylon. However, I hope it doesn't come back to bite them in the ass. Personally I would have chosen Prometheus. Regardless, I wish them every success and here's hoping they manage to get a working prototype in the air.  Also, as REL is no longer, perhaps we need a new thread to discuss Invictus.

KBR has money, let see if they used here.

9

Historical Spaceflight / Re: Apollo final science reports

« Last post by Proponent on Today at 09:30 pm »

I would also recommend Don Wilhelms' 1993 book:

https://www.amazon.com/Rocky-Moon-Geologists-History-Exploration/dp/0816514437

Just thought I'd mention that the entire book is now available for download free of charge directly from the Lunar and  Planetary Institute's website.

I find it very interesting and have been staying up way too late reading it the past couple of nights.

10

Commercial Space Flight General / Re: Amazon Project Kuiper Broadband Constellation

« Last post by Tywin on Today at 09:30 pm »

2 mega constelation from China, that will compete vs Starlink and Kuipersat, in ALL the world.