1

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Replacing SLS/Orion using Starship HLS and Crew Dragon

« Last post by Roy_H on Today at 05:42 am »

1) The 2 HLS architecture.
2) The 2 HLS architecture carrying D2 to/from lunar orbit.
3) The 1 HLS architecture with post-ascent refueling.
4) The 1 HLS architecture with no refueling after VLEO, using D2 for direct EDL.

The main advantages to 2 HLS are:
a) No refuelings in lunar orbit.

Thanks then what does LLS stand for, is it another name for HLS?
All plans call for one HLS. How is two counted?
The one labeled "One-LLS Architecture Leaving Dragon in VLEO" is closest to my plan. Assumes no additional mass required for shielding. I do admit that is an unknown. Has SpaceX addressed this issue, and made a statement about HLS shielding and it's dry mass? Grok was making it's dry mass estimate from existing Starship which so far are all prototypes and do not require radiation shielding.

2

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Replacing SLS/Orion using Starship HLS and Crew Dragon

« Last post by TheRadicalModerate on Today at 04:28 am »

But now, something new has been added: the Dragon "boost trunk". CRS-33 will fly with this trunk, next month and it is supposed to be able to reboost ISS. It might have enough additional energy to allow some of the higher D2 orbits you are discussing.

I'd be pretty surprised if the USDV was crew-certifiable.  I mean, I guess it could be crew-certified, although proving that the boost trunk (nice name) won't explode will be... interesting.  (Remember, they've got extra Dracos so that some of them can fail during the deorbit burns.  Not exactly the behavior you want in a crew-certified spacecraft.)

And you still have all the other problems associated with D2's from TEI:

1) Certifying the D2 at translunar speeds.
2) BEO avionics hardening.
3) Increasing ECLSS crew-days by 2x or 3x.
4) All the other things we had on the list, which I can't remember now.

This certainly violates the "minimal changes" rule we had in place.

3

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Replacing SLS/Orion using Starship HLS and Crew Dragon

« Last post by TheRadicalModerate on Today at 04:22 am »

Seems to me you need two fuel depots. 

1) Launch a tanker/fuel depot.  Fill in LEO,  Fly to L1. 
2) Launch second tanker/fuel depot in LEO.  Fill it.  Launch Starship lunar lander.  Fill it from LEO depot.  Launch Dragon, dock and transfer crew to Lunar lander.  Fly to L1.  Refuel, land on moon, return to depot, refuel, fly back to earth.  Use atmosphere to slow down and achieve a circular orbit near fuel depot.  Launch Dragon to fuel depot to retrieve crew and return.

There's a problem with what you have here:  If you refuel pre-descent, you need massively more propellant than if you refuel post-ascent.  In fact, you need so much more propellant that a single depot, even one carrying 2500t of prop when it leaves LEO, is insufficient to fill the HLS lander.

The layman's arm-wave explanation for the discrepancy:  It costs a lot of prop to land the prop you need to get back to LEO, then return it back to LLO or NRHO.  Think of the LEO prop as payload that's both down- and up-mass on the lunar surface leg.

Of course, the problem with post-ascent refueling:  the crew is stranded in lunar orbit if the refueling fails.  With pre-descent refueling, it has enough prop to abort to LEO with no additional fueling at all.

This is a major reason for choosing the two-HLS architecture, where both HLSes are fueled in LEO, and the LEO-LO-LEO ferry has enough prop to abort back to LEO if something goes wrong with the RPODs in lunar orbit.

4

Boeing Starliner (CST-100) Section / Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6

« Last post by jongoff on Today at 04:10 am »

Question, will be a crew flight of the Starliner after the cargo flight in 2026?

I want to see a good cargo flight completed before crew flight scheduling.  Otherwise we'll be in the same condition as before, with schedule vs. performance issues.

Who pays, and how much? NASA does not need a high-cost, low performance cargo flight to ISS. They already have two fully-qualified CRS providers. NASA can (and should) require Boeing to complete another OFT at their own expense, and then complete a successful CFT, also at their own expense, because that is what Boeing contracted to do.

The problem, apparently, is that Boeing is reluctant to complete their fixed-price development commitment, so (apparently) NASA wants to find a way to keep Starliner going using some sort of creative funding scheme. In the mean time the NASA budget is being cut by 25%.

Or maybe offer to pay them the average price ($/kg) of the other two cargo vehicles for the demo flight. Ie don't overpay Boeing for needing to be bailed out with endless second chances.

~Jon

5

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Replacing SLS/Orion using Starship HLS and Crew Dragon

« Last post by TheRadicalModerate on Today at 04:04 am »

I'm sure the 2 HLS plan is somewhere up thread, but could you explain it to me? I can't imagine how 2 HLS is better than one.

Here's a whole set of bat charts on:

1) The 2 HLS architecture.
2) The 2 HLS architecture carrying D2 to/from lunar orbit.
3) The 1 HLS architecture with post-ascent refueling.
4) The 1 HLS architecture with no refueling after VLEO, using D2 for direct EDL.

The main advantages to 2 HLS are:

a) No refuelings in lunar orbit.

b) There's an abort for any failed RPOD except the post-ascent docking between HLS #1 and HLS #2.  (And this could probably be fixed with an EVA.)

c) It's the minimum change to the Artemis architecture, so the Blue HLS doesn't have to change, irrespective of what LEO-LO-LEO ferry is used.

6

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : Dror-1 (Commercial GTO-1) : CCSFS SLC-40 : 13 July 2025 (05:04 UTC)

« Last post by Targeteer on Today at 03:51 am »

~1637 m/s to GEO:

Two objects cataloged from the Dror-1/Falcon 9 launch;
object B in an as-expected 202 x 61959 km x 24.2 deg supersync transfer orbit, but object A in a suborbital -32 x 1924 km x 27.0 deg orbit which looks erroneous to me

https://bsky.app/profile/planet4589.bsky.social/post/3lttykgvnw224

64784    DROR-1   2025-148A   1528.23   7.27   62052   13091

7

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

« Last post by VSECOTSPE on Today at 03:48 am »

I don’t think the positive aspects of the Senate report language on SLS amount to a hill of beans after Cruz put language and funding in reconciliation maintaining Orion/SLS thru Artemis V.  That’s the baseline manifest going forward — there will be no drawdown on Orion/SLS until after March 2030 (or whenever Artemis V slips to), regardless of Dragon/Starship or other alternatives.  In fact, if the STS drawdown is anything to go by, Congress will add several more Orion/SLS Artemis missions, like they did with STS after ISS Core Complete.  (And that was after Columbia, when we all knew how dangerous it was to keep flying unnecessary STS missions.)

This White House kicked the Orion/SLS shutdown can to Artemis III and absent leadership from the next White House to stick to Artemis V, it will probably take dead astronauts or a similar event before Orion/SLS is ramped down.  (And even then, there will still be advocates arguing that if we just rearrange the old Shuttle subsystems into yet a different jigsaw, the system will finally be safe!)

The commercial Moon/Mars budget wedge from the President’s FY26 budget appears to be gone, not surprising given the Trump/Musk/Isaacman meltdown and subsequent lack of advocacy.  It has maybe been replaced by a ~$900M “Mars” line.  Budget is policy and the Senate report language speaks volumes in this respect.  It blows $2.7B, with a “B”, on the legacy Orion/SLS systems (on top of whatever Cruz is supplying), while providing barely a third of that for the successor systems.  It then ghetto-izes those successor systems by focusing/limiting them to Mars EDL.  Yeah, the Senate will consider a commercial lunar crew transport replacement for Orion/SLS once the private sector has fully developed one, but they’re not going to put any money into it.  Yet yesterday, SpaceNews published an article about China completing structural tests for a superheavy launcher, Long March 10, that is intended to provide lunar crew transport and be reusable.  Could the Senate be any more tone deaf about the actual human lunar competition NASA is facing?

And then we’re going to continue blowing what, $100M+ a year, on a fission power surface program that never goes anywhere, and even if it did, has nothing to do because Orion/SLS can only throw a few astronauts at the Moon every couple years.

What is it we’re actually trying to accomplish flushing billions into these unrelated, disconnected, and mostly legacy drains?  What are the goals?  Nuclear-powered flags and footprints on the Moon?  Redoing Apollo more expensively, slowly, and stupidly?  Losing over the long-run to a better planned and more vibrant Chinese program?

If all you care about is whether NASA is providing some material support for various iterations of Starship, yeah, there’s a nugget or two of good news in the Senate report.  But if you’re like me and care most that Artemis be a productive program, do more than Apollo, and point forward not backwards, then this Senate report contains nothing to cheer about.  Between the reconciliation language and this report language, you could do a Rip Van Winkle, pull a coma for the next half-decade, and when you came to, NASA will still be struggling to put a few astronauts in orbit around the Moon every couple years. 

The fat lady has not sung yet in this budget cycle.  But it looks increasingly like it’s time to throw in the towel on Artemis.  Orion/SLS into the next decade and a lousy ~$900M (maybe) for a big Mars lander test is not worth all the damage threatened to the science portfolio.  Not by a long shot.  If this is the only Artemis NASA can have, then I say terminate it, and plow that money into the part of the agency that actually gets space exploration done.

Bleah...

8

Suborbital Missions / Re: NASA's Wallops Flight Facility

« Last post by randomname on Today at 03:40 am »

Yet another rocket launch on the manifest for Wallops, this one apparently termed "MUFFIN ROCKET LAUNCH" for some odd reason. Launch window opens on July 25th, with a daily window of 2145-0415 UTC.

Two newly released NGA rocket launching notices for this "Muffin" rocket launch on the 25th:

141711Z JUL 25
NAVAREA IV 753/25(12).
NORTH ATLANTIC.
VIRGINIA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   2145Z TO 2345Z DAILY 25 THRU 30 JUL
   IN AREA BOUND BY
   37-49.00N 075-30.00W, 37-51.00N 075-28.00W,
   37-49.00N 075-25.00W, 37-47.00N 075-22.00W,
   37-46.00N 075-25.00W, 37-45.00N 075-25.00W,
   37-45.00N 075-28.00W, 37-47.00N 075-29.00W,
   37-49.00N 075-30.00W.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 310045Z JUL 25.

141650Z JUL 25
NAVAREA IV 754/25(12).
NORTH ATLANTIC.
VIRGINIA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   2345Z TO 0415Z DAILY 25 THRU 30 JUL
   IN AREAS BOUND BY:
   A. 37-49.00N 074-24.00W, 37-48.00N 074-55.00W,
      37-43.00N 075-05.00W, 37-44.00N 075-20.00W,
      37-50.00N 075-29.00W, 37-51.00N 075-28.00W,
      37-52.00N 075-23.00W, 37-54.00N 075-20.00W,
      37-58.00N 075-18.00W, 37-57.00N 075-05.00W,
      37-53.00N 074-55.00W, 37-50.00N 074-24.00W,
      37-49.00N 074-24.00W.
   B. 37-31.00N 070-40.00W, 37-20.00N 071-28.00W,
      37-40.00N 073-58.00W, 38-01.00N 073-56.00W,
      38-10.00N 071-16.00W, 37-55.00N 070-40.00W,
      37-31.00N 070-40.00W.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 310415Z JUL 25.

9

Suborbital Missions / Re: NASA's Wallops Flight Facility

« Last post by randomname on Today at 03:37 am »

NGA rocket launching notices for a rocket launch(es) from Wallops on the 18th. Zones are very different than the HASTE launch; this is unrelated. There were several LNMs posted for this launch several days ago that I'll also include. Each LNM contains a different zone, and all are fairly close to shore.

101710Z JUL 25
NAVAREA IV 729/25(12).
NORTH ATLANTIC.
VIRGINIA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   2145Z TO 2345Z DAILY 18 THRU 24 JUL
   IN AREA BOUND BY
   37-49.00N 075-30.00W, 37-51.00N 075-28.00W,
   37-49.00N 075-25.00W, 37-47.00N 075-22.00W,
   37-46.00N 075-25.00W, 37-45.00N 075-25.00W,
   37-45.00N 075-28.00W, 37-47.00N 075-29.00W.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 250045Z JUL 25.

031911Z JUL 25
NAVAREA IV 730/25(12).
NORTH ATLANTIC.
MARYLAND.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   2345Z TO 0500Z DAILY 18 THRU 24 JUL
   IN AREAS BOUND BY:
   A. 37-50.00N 075-29.00W, 37-51.00N 075-28.00W,
      37-52.00N 075-23.00W, 37-54.00N 075-20.00W,
      37-58.00N 075-18.00W, 37-57.00N 075-05.00W,
      37-53.00N 074-55.00W, 37-50.00N 074-24.00W,
      37-34.00N 073-51.00W, 37-24.00N 073-42.00W,
      37-14.00N 073-47.00W, 37-11.00N 074-05.00W,
      37-20.00N 074-41.00W, 37-31.00N 074-49.00W,
      37-38.00N 075-07.00W, 37-40.00N 075-18.00W.
   B. 37-31.00N 070-40.00W, 37-20.00N 071-28.00W,
      37-40.00N 073-58.00W, 38-01.00N 073-56.00W,
      38-10.00N 071-16.00W, 37-55.00N 070-40.00W.
   C. 35-56.00N 070-23.00W, 35-47.00N 070-52.00W,
      35-51.00N 071-22.00W, 36-03.00N 071-43.00W,
      36-23.00N 071-56.00W, 36-48.00N 071-50.00W,
      37-01.00N 071-23.00W, 37-01.00N 070-52.00W,
      36-46.00N 070-23.00W, 36-22.00N 070-10.00W.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 250600Z JUL 25.

A new NGA notice was sent last night, canceling the above NAVAREA IV 729/25 and replacing it with another notice starting on the 23rd instead. A new NOTAM was also later posted naming this launch on the 23rd as RACHEL 4, so it seems the two rockets launched on the 18th, which also had NOTAMs calling them RACHEL 4, weren't the full batch (maybe another two on the 23rd for a total of 4?)

190334Z JUL 25
NAVAREA IV 751/25(12).
NORTH ATLANTIC.
VIRGINIA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   2345Z TO 0400Z DAILY 23 AND 24 JUL
   A. IN AREA BOUND BY
      37-49.00N 075-30.00W, 37-51.00N 075-28.00W,
      37-49.00N 075-25.00W, 37-47.00N 075-22.00W,
      37-46.00N 075-25.00W, 37-45.00N 075-25.00W,
      37-45.00N 075-28.00W, 37-47.00N 075-29.00W.
   B. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
      IN AREAS WITHIN:
      A. 19 MILES OF 37-46.12N 075-06.88W.
      B. 31 MILES OF 37-32.42N 074-15.17W.
      C. 27 MILES OF 37-49.23N 073-23.16W.
      D. 32 MILES OF 37-46.68N 072-20.05W.
      E. 36 MILES OF 37-45.37N 071-15.56W.
      F. 46 MILES OF 36-25.20N 071-02.88W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 729/25.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 250500Z JUL 25.

A0335/25 NOTAMN
Q) KZNY/QXXXX//////
A) KZNY PART 1 OF 4
B) 2507232345
C) 2507240500
D) DLY 2345-0500
E) DUE TO RACHEL 4 ROCKET LAUNCH OUT OF WALLOPS ISLAND, ZNY OCEANIC
CTA/FIR ZNY WILL NOT ACCEPT IFR FLIGHTS WI THE VACAPES AREA 
DEFINED AS 374700N0752700W TO 374800N0752600W TO 374900N0752500W TO
374900N0752400W TO 374900N0752300W TO 374900N0752200W TO
374900N0752000W TO 375000N0751300W TO 375100N0751800W TO
375100N0751700W TO 375500N0751500W TO 375500N0750600W TO
374800N0750500W TO 374500N0750200W TO 374100N0750400W TO
374000N0757000W TO 374000N0754800W TO POINT OF ORIGIN.

AND WI VACAPES AREA 2 DEFINED AS 371400N0734700W TO 371100N0740500W
TO 372000N0744100W TO 373100N0744900W TO 374600N0744200W TO
374800N0742500W TO 373400N0735100W TO 372400N0734200W TO POINT OF
ORIGIN.

AND WI VACAPES AREA 3 DEFINED AS 373800N0734600W TO 380100N0734300W
TO 380200N0730900W TO 375700N0730000W TO 373200N0724800W TO POINT OF
ORIGIN.
END PART 1 OF 4
A0335/25 NOTAMN
Q) KZNY/QXXXX//////
A) KZNY PART 2 OF 4
B) 2507232345
C) 2507240500
D) DLY 2345-0500
E) AND WI RACHEL 4 AREA 1 DEFINED AS 375400N0752200W TO 375600N0751800W
TO 375500N0751500W TO 375100N0751700W TO POINT OF ORIGIN.

AND WI RACHEL 4 AREA 2 DEFINED AS 373200N0704600W TO 372100N0712000W
TO 373200N0724800W TO 375700N0730000W TO 380200N0730900W TO
380900N0711300W TO 375500N0704600W TO POINT OF ORIGIN.

AND WI RACHEL 4 AREA 3 DEFINED AS 355600N0702300W TO 354700N0702000W
TO 355100N0712200W TO 360300N0714300W TO 362300N0715600W TO
364800N0715000W TO 370100N0712300W TO 370100N0705200W TO
364600N0702300W TO 362200N0701000W TO POINT OF ORIGIN.

AFFECTED ROUTES, CLOSURES AND REROUTE OPTIONS:

L453 CLOSURE: NORTH OF SAUCR REROUTE VIA:L451 JAINS, OR L452 AR8, OR
ROUTE INLAND
L454 CLOSURE: OKONU-ITCHE. L455 CLOSURE: SAVIK-BEXUM. L457 CLOSURE:
END PART 2 OF 4
A0335/25 NOTAMN
Q) KZNY/QXXXX//////
A) KZNY PART 3 OF 4
B) 2507232345
C) 2507240500
D) DLY 2345-0500
E) OKONU-NOSDID. L459 CLOSURE SAVIK-DASER. Y481 CLOSURE: OHRYN-KINGG.
Y482 CLOSURE: OHRYN-SQUAD. Y485 CLOSURE: YAALE-SAUCR. Y486 CLOSURE:
MOUGH-SAVIK. Y487 CLOSURE: ISLES-KING. Y488 CLOSURE: BEHHR-SAUCR.
Y489 CLOSURE: BEHHR-RESQU. Y490 CLOSURE: BEHHR-ROLLE. Y492 CLOSURE:
ISLES-SQUAD.
REROUTE VIA: L451 JAINS, OR L452 AR8, OR ISLES Y483 MARIG L456(RNP
4/10 EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT PERMITTED), OR ISLES Y483 MARIG L461(RNP 4/10
EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT PERMITTED).

Y493 CLOSURE: EAST OF TUBBS REROUTE VIA:L451 JAINS, OR L452 AR8
OXANA, OR ROUTE INLAND

Y494 CLOSURE: EAST OF WHOOS REROUTE VIA:L451 JAINS, OR L452 AR8
OXANA, OR ROUTE INLAND
M201 CLOSURE: VIRST-DRYED REROUTE VIA M202 KINER DRYED M201 NEXT
FIX(RNP 4/10 EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT PERMITTED), OR M202 MUNEY NEXT
FIX(RNP 4/10 EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT PERMITTED), OR M203 JNFOX NEXT FIX,
END PART 3 OF 4
A0335/25 NOTAMN
Q) KZNY/QXXXX//////
A) KZNY PART 4 OF 4
B) 2507232345
C) 2507240500
D) DLY 2345-0500
E) OR M204 LUNKR NEXT FIX

AR9 CLOSURE: ALL EASTBOUND TO NORTH ATLANTIC REROUTE VIA: SIE B24
WICKE BEHHR SLATN. WESTBOUNDR EROUTE VIA: SLATN BEHHR WICKE B24 SIE.
F) SFC
G) UNL
END PART 4 OF 4

10

Suborbital Missions / Re: NASA's Wallops Flight Facility

« Last post by randomname on Today at 03:32 am »

NGA rocket launching notices for a rocket launch(es) from Wallops on the 18th. Zones are very different than the HASTE launch; this is unrelated.

And here's an amateur stream that showed two rockets launching last night, the 18th. According to the stream, one was launched at 8:04 PM local (0004Z) and the other at 8:47 PM local (0047Z).