TexAgs91 said:

---

Public service notice: if you have titanium body parts, you might want to steer clear of Starship booster catches.

---

Holy crap. The titanium plate in my skull would make for a bad time.

Why does Elon hate metal people...?

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Public service notice: if you have titanium body parts, you might want to steer clear of Starship booster catches.

---

Holy crap. The titanium plate in my skull would make for a bad time.

Why does Elon hate metal people...?

---

Competition for his robots.

China successfully launched the Shenzhou 20 spacecraft today at 5:17 p.m. local time, sending three astronauts to the Tiangong space station for a six-month mission.pic.twitter.com/qyou17QDP7

— Volcaholic 🌋 (@volcaholic1) April 24, 2025

will25u said:

---

China successfully launched the Shenzhou 20 spacecraft today at 5:17 p.m. local time, sending three astronauts to the Tiangong space station for a six-month mission.pic.twitter.com/qyou17QDP7

— Volcaholic 🌋 (@volcaholic1) April 24, 2025

---

I wonder which village was hit by the first stage of this rocket.

Possibly/maybe Neutron test launch in Sept:

One of the database rows appears to indicate that this mission/satellite name is NEUTRON-1

As @JacobKeeton20 explains, the station heights listed seem to correspond with initial heights of Neutron S1 & S2 while on the pad (likely confirmed in filing) pic.twitter.com/x4A6CBrKBb

— Tran (@trypto_tran) April 16, 2025

$RKLB

My current hypothesis (speculative & open to revision) is that this is not a constellation filing, but rather a lower MEO mission profile for Neutron's first test flight (NET September❗)

Thread where I flesh out my reasoning:https://t.co/C70Gn4ZTdv https://t.co/4IrsKDanCs pic.twitter.com/AythLl1xAg

— Tran (@trypto_tran) April 16, 2025

Raptor 3 vacuum spotted for testing:

Higher resolution snap of the @SpaceX v3 Raptor Vacuum!

From @NASASpaceflight's McGregor Live

— Ryan Caton (@dpoddolphinpro) April 23, 2025

San Antonio and Austin at night, as photographed by Astronaut Karen Nyberg from the international space station. I think I see my porch light! pic.twitter.com/HMYKA324gP

— Traces of Texas (@TracesofTexas) April 26, 2025

I hate light pollution.

I agree but I do love night photos from the orbit especially when I can recognize the city in question.

I assume the "fireflies" on the right are the Eagle Ford field infrastructure.

plain_o_llama said:

---

I assume the "fireflies" on the right are the Eagle Ford field infrastructure.

---

Probably Austin chalk wells.

txags92 said:

---

plain_o_llama said:

---

I assume the "fireflies" on the right are the Eagle Ford field infrastructure.

---

Probably Austin chalk wells.

---

Yeah the Eagle Ford runs more east/west

BO NG (what an acronym) 2nd stage test fire last week:

January’s GS2 performed remarkably during our inaugural New Glenn launch, delivering our payload to orbit with less than 1% deviation from the target. Today, we completed a full duration 15-second hotfire test of the upper stage for our NG-2 mission. This time, we achieved… pic.twitter.com/SWZzAf5oYL

— Dave Limp (@davill) April 24, 2025

Good wrap-up of stuff:

Since this is politics but also policy related, Isaacman's testimony was, in my opinion, excellent. I hope he is confirmed and succeeds.

My takeaway: He is trying to thread the needle to confirmation, but there are some good insights in there. I have no reason to believe these are anything by Isaacman's true thoughts and reflect the direction he would like to take the agency.

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) April 25, 2025

In other words, Congress, stop making NASA into a jobs program. The agency doesn't want it, and it's bad for the country. pic.twitter.com/VbDg5w7VeA

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) April 25, 2025

It looked like in the hearing congressmen would ask him if he would like to do XY and Z as Nasa chief, and he was like, Absolutely. They didn't get to the part where they weren't going to give him any money to do any of that.

Awesome view of HOME from SpaceX fairing.

pic.twitter.com/YbsWWujwxq

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 28, 2025

T-8 mins for Firefly Aerospace.

TexAgs91 said:

---

It looked like in the hearing congressmen would ask him if he would like to do XY and Z as Nasa chief, and he was like, Absolutely. They didn't get to the part where they weren't going to give him any money to do any of that.

---

I think a guy like Jared can maneuver NASA into being able to afford the extreme science if he's able to offload the bloat.

We flew an aircraft on another planet for the cost of an SLS paint job. I feel for the engineers trying to make things happen with limited budgets when they have to compete with what was basically history's most expensive launch.

will25u said:

---

T-8 mins for Firefly Aerospace.

---

Looks like they scrubbed for today.

Didn't quite make it. Amazingly, after making contact between 1st and 2nd stages, I guess the engine nozzle fell off, and it still managed to reach altitude, but not orbital velocity.

Alpha FLTA006 update: Initial indications showed Alpha's upper stage reached 320 km in altitude. However, upon further assessment, the team learned the upper stage did not reach orbital velocity, and the stage and payload have now safely impacted the Pacific Ocean in a cleared…

— Firefly Aerospace (@Firefly_Space) April 29, 2025

nortex97 said:

---

BO NG (what an acronym) 2nd stage test fire last week:

---

It's the BONG DONG

Quick video about the IM LTV simulator:

And there it is. Will see what congress does with SLS funding.

"Skinny" budget plan for FY 2026 is out. Science cuts for NASA are there, as reported. Also, this, about the SLS rocket. 👀https://t.co/omTTPNK2YR pic.twitter.com/0NCPdAKb6n

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) May 2, 2025

There is 0% that budget plan passes. It cuts NASA from $24B to $18B. That's a lot of congressional districts being impacted.

SLS & Orion cancelled after Artemis III and Gateway right away.

Pretty solid chance SLS dies though. Presidents never get their draft budgets taken too seriously, you are correct. I think Isaacman is likely to face a floor vote next week (he made it thru committee pretty easily).

Jared Isaacman's written testimony before the Senate C S & T Committee. Translation: SLS is an endangered species after Artemis III, and the Block 1B config and ML-2 are goners. pic.twitter.com/e2xPK3xhAc

— John Kross (@JohnKross20) April 27, 2025

If he's confirmed and sticks to this tune it's tough to see more than perhaps one more SLS launch.

Personally, I think that's a great thing, but the next question is how the 'successor' steps are implemented/funded. There just aren't going to be a lot of GOP senators willing to fight/die on this hill vs. Trump, and that includes FL/MS/AL.

As someone who has covered SLS from the beginning, it is mind-blowing to see the rocket described this way in public, government documents. Not that the description of the rocket as "grossly expensive" is not true. It is. Still, it's wild.

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) May 2, 2025

I'm fine with SLS being cancelled, but I want to know are we going to be working towards going directly to Mars or are we still doing sorties on the moon to build up technical expertise. (I'm in favor of option 2 as long as we don't get too bogged down on the moon, and parallel missions to the moon and mars are even better)

Why can't we make a modernized iteration of the Saturn 5? Similar architecture but with modern engineering techniques?

Why is every NASA rocket program trying to both re-invent the wheel and use the old wheels at the same time just for contractors?

bmks270 said:

---

Why can't we make a modernized iteration of the Saturn 5? Similar architecture but with modern engineering techniques?

Why is every NASA rocket program trying to both re-invent the wheel and use the old wheels at the same time just for contractors?

---

I've heard that it's a few things.

For one, each Saturn was painstakingly handcrafted. We have all the plans and such, but the actual fabrication was basically custom and it's not like we can dust off the old castiron molds or anything. Each rocket was barely a copy of the last one, so copying that doesn't get us much.

And since technology has advanced, a lot of the techniques and materials are now more expensive and unnecessary. And once you make changes like that, you'll have ripple effects that make you start changing more and more until you're essentially designing a new rocket anyway.

I'm sure there's more but that's the impression I got from asking that question.

I have a Lego Saturn V that's pretty nice, if they need to use it for a model.

We tried to make a Saturn V successor that would be more affordable, in the space shuttle program, but it wound up being just as expensive. Then that morphed into a successor program (Orion begat SLS eventually) using the same engines/most of the hardware which wound up…just as expensive.

The engines are really not much more advanced than the F1 but wound up costing $100 million each which is pretty hysterical. And we gave up on reusability for some insane reason somewhere along the line. Bonus for no single SLS being the same just as with the Saturn V, even needing a new mobile launch tower to be built for a new version (untold billions more, despite literally using Saturn V crawlers). And, it's prone to having 'problems' pop up:

One of the four main engines on the Artemis II rocket started leaking...https://t.co/Xl4c3fQM3h

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) April 30, 2025

Anyway, apparently not going to hit week 3 target in May for the next flight:

SpaceX Starship 35 suffers an issue during last night's static fire pic.twitter.com/fvCdX4AvOI

— Interstellar Gateway - IGW (@interstellargw) May 2, 2025

Decay said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Why can't we make a modernized iteration of the Saturn 5? Similar architecture but with modern engineering techniques?

Why is every NASA rocket program trying to both re-invent the wheel and use the old wheels at the same time just for contractors?

---

I've heard that it's a few things.

For one, each Saturn was painstakingly handcrafted. We have all the plans and such, but the actual fabrication was basically custom and it's not like we can dust off the old castiron molds or anything. Each rocket was barely a copy of the last one, so copying that doesn't get us much.

And since technology has advanced, a lot of the techniques and materials are now more expensive and unnecessary. And once you make changes like that, you'll have ripple effects that make you start changing more and more until you're essentially designing a new rocket anyway.

I'm sure there's more but that's the impression I got from asking that question.

---

Curious Droid has a good short discussion about this.
Short answer, we cannot rebuild them, but more than that we wouldn't want to.

I don't mean copy the blue prints, I mean the architecture. Stage sizing, stage thrust, orbit, etc. can be totally different and modern engines, modern design and engineering.

LOL.

Well, this is awkward:https://t.co/HH1abaSYkj pic.twitter.com/FwqNmXdlW3

— NSF - NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) May 2, 2025

City of Starbase, TX Incorporation Election

🟢 For - 97%
🔴 Against - 2%

— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) May 4, 2025

NSF:

Quote:

---

SpaceX might have been trying to replicate the Flight 7 and 8 issues on the ground, pushing an engine too far. If that's the case, SpaceX might have found and solved the issue. Of course, without any official confirmation from SpaceX, this is all speculation. Currently, SpaceX has not released its own footage of the test, unlike after the single engine test.

Ship 35 has since been rolled back to Mega Bay 2 for post-engine testing processing. Regarding when Flight 9 might fly, this could've pushed back any tentative launch date, which was understood to be centering around May 9/10. This date range is understood to have been ruled out following the test.

It is currently unclear what is next for Ship 35. Normally, SpaceX would roll to the launch site after a short stay back at the Production Site. If teams require additional testing, the Ship would likely roll back out to Masseys for another Static Fire test.

---

Of course, they've got a couple other ships that should be ready anyway by the end of this month, though it seems no two upper stage starships are the same, yet:

Quote:

---

It is noteworthy that Ship 36 took slightly longer to get to cryogenic proof testing than previous ships. This could be because SpaceX has made a few modifications to the Ship due to past failures. With its cryogenic testing completed, Ship 36 is back inside Mega Bay 2 and is currently getting outfitted for Static Fire testing. As the next Ship after Ship 35, it is currently slated to fly on Flight 10.

The objectives for Flight 10 are entirely dependent on how Flight 9 performs, so there is much speculation about what it will try to accomplish.

The fifth fully stacked Block 2 Ship is Ship 37, which was completed only a few weeks ago and is currently in final assembly before heading out for a cryogenic proof test in a couple of weeks. Ship 37 is currently slated for Flight 11 and could be the first Ship to get to orbit, depending on how Flight 9 performs and what plans SpaceX has for Flight 10. Currently, Ship 37 is missing many tiles and ablative and felt; SpaceX may be waiting on data from Ship 35 before completing its heat shield.

---

5-10-20 engine configuration for booster block 3 (from B18 on?). Based on jack Beyer speculation on X.

will25u said:

---

City of Starbase, TX Incorporation Election

🟢 For - 97%
🔴 Against - 2%

— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) May 4, 2025

---

They barely squeaked that one by!

Statship Flight 9: New Local Notice to Mariners cites NET May 13 for launch. Obvious caution required as we wait for status on Ship 35. pic.twitter.com/Oojk9SjtKD

— NSF - NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) May 5, 2025