SpaceX's next Starship rocket exploded during a ground test in South Texas late Wednesday, dealing another blow to a program already struggling to overcome three consecutive failures in recent months.
The late-night explosion at SpaceX's rocket development complex in Starbase, Texas, destroyed the bullet-shaped upper stage that was slated to launch on the next Starship test flight. The powerful blast set off fires around SpaceX's Massey's Test Site, located a few miles from the company's Starship factory and launch pads.
Live streaming video from NASASpaceflight.com and LabPadre—media organizations with cameras positioned around Starbase—showed the 15-story-tall rocket burst into flames shortly after 11:00 pm local time (12:00 am EDT; 04:00 UTC). Local residents as far as 30 miles away reported seeing and feeling the blast.
SpaceX confirmed the Starship, numbered Ship 36 in the company's inventory, "experienced a major anomaly" on a test stand as the vehicle prepared to ignite its six Raptor engines for a static fire test. These hold-down test-firings are typically one of the final milestones in a Starship launch campaign before SpaceX moves the rocket to the launch pad.
The explosion occurred as SpaceX finished up loading super-cold methane and liquid oxygen propellants into Starship in preparation for the static fire test. The company said the area around the test site was evacuated of all personnel, and everyone was safe and accounted for after the incident. Firefighters from the Brownsville Fire Department were dispatched to the scene.
Car companies aren't accustomed to making vehicles that can only be used once. //
An experimental reusable rocket developed by the research and development arm of Honda Motor Company flew to an altitude of nearly 900 feet Tuesday, then landed with pinpoint precision at the carmaker's test facility in northern Japan.
The accomplishment may not sound like much, but it's important to put it into perspective. Honda's hopper is the first prototype rocket outside of the United States and China to complete a flight of this kind, demonstrating vertical takeoff and vertical landing technology that could underpin development of a reusable launch vehicle.
While Tuesday's announcement by Honda was unexpected, the company has talked about rockets before. In 2021, Honda officials revealed they had been working on a rocket engine for at least two years. At the time, officials said a small satellite launch vehicle was part of Honda's roadmap.
The rocket Honda talked about in 2021 could put a payload of up to 1 metric ton into low-Earth orbit. It's not clear if Honda is still aiming for this sector of the launch market. Company officials then committed to supporting internal development work until about 2025 or 2026, when it would make a "go" or "no go" decision on whether to finish the project and field an operational rocket.
normally butters Ars Praefectus
18y
5,207
Control Group said:
Having never heard of Impulse before, I'd love an explainer of their engineering. What makes their system better at in-space maneuvering?
The previous answers are all good, but I'll add that there are historical reasons why liquid kick/deploy stages have seen little investment in the West until recently, whereas the Soviets developed stages like Fregat and Briz which are conceptually similar to Impulse's Mira.
The US invested heavily in upper stages like Centaur which solve the relatively difficult problem of a high-performance cryogenic stage capable of multiple in-flight restarts. Questionable plans to put Centaur inside the Space Shuttle payload bay were abandoned after the Challenger disaster and replaced with a couple of barely-adequate solid-propellant kick stages for payloads going beyond LEO.
The Europeans, meanwhile, took advantage of their near-equatorial launch site in French Guiana to develop launch vehicles optimized for GEO missions with upper stages inserting into GTO directly from the ascent burn, without requiring any restart. Ariane 5 literally doubled down on this concept of operations by specializing in dual-satellite GTO injection missions. In more modern times, Vega has a liquid kick stage, AVUM, but powered by a hypergolic engine of Soviet heritage which was until recently manufactured in Ukraine.
On the US-headquartered side, Rocket Lab's Electron requires a kick stage from their Photon product line for any orbital mission, once again largely to avoid the challenge of restarting cryogenic stages in microgravity. Firefly, in contrast, has developed a restartable second stage, and they are developing a line of orbital transfer stages based on lower-thrust electric propulsion.
So, Impulse Space just doesn't have much competition in this part of the world. Different approaches were taken to the design of expendable upper stages. But in a future with reusable upper stages that don't want to accelerate to higher energies than they need to, separate kick stages are increasingly compelling. Likewise, if military forces begin to see earth orbit as a more kinetic or dynamic combat theater, that would also encourage kick/transfer stage development, for better or worse. //
Chuckgineer Ars Centurion
10y
323
Subscriptor
Bruce Dunn said:
The Mira thrusters are undoubtably pressure fed. With hydrazine, pressure is provided by helium from composite overwrap pressure vessels through often trouble-prone valves. Impulse does not say how the Mira propellants are pressurized, but it is notable that they both have high vapor pressures at near ambient temperatures. I suspect that the propellants are self pressurized, eliminating the mass and complexity of helium pressurization. At 273 K, the vapor pressure of ethane is 2.4 MPa and that of nitrous oxide is 3.2 MPa.
Hi Bruce, the article above (Industry Update: Prevalance of Nitrous-Based In-Space Propellants) verifies your suspicion: "Nitrous and propylene are self-pressurizing and do not require pumps, pressurants or even propellant management devices."
https://www.dawnaerospace.com/latest-news/prevalence-of-nitrous-based-in-space-propellants
Jack56 Ars Scholae Palatinae
7y
607
julesverne said:
Upside:Engine bay leak issue, solved.
Downside:Booster exploded.
Payload bay doors balked.
Ship attitude control lost.
No data on payload deployment.
No data on engine relight on orbit.
No data on Ship reentry.
The list goes on.
I'm sure SpaceX will solve these issues. But the root causes of the failures may negatively affect max payload mass to orbit. And the cadence of failure is picking up. Reason: unknown. But losing key engineers can cause outsized problems. I have no info on this, but given the recent series of backslips, I wonder if any of the most creative thinkers may have jumped Ship(sorry) following Musk's "Roman Salute" and other scumbag actions. I sure as fuck wouldn't want to work for him, despite intense interest in the SpaceX vision.
The main problems have been propellant system & engine leaks. It's new engineering territory. The engine chamber pressure is ~300 bar. The preburners are at >600 bar (>9,000 psi). The turbopumps higher again than that. The wonder is that most things don’t leak. //
Erbium68 Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
3m
1,070
Subscriptor
DistinctivelyCanuck said:
What I'm finding fascinating about the current failure modes on the block two starship is that obviously spacex thought they had a full handle on these from block one: and so many "solved problems" have spiraled into challenging fixes.
Leak issues causing loss of control were obvious in the very first flight that made it to sub orbital: but resolved on the subsequent flights.
Vibration issues causing RUD's: quickly resolved in the very first flights and are back again.
The other interesting aspect: the ground burns at massey's that were designed to identify these failures aren't doing it at ground level. (remember that there was a ground burn test with a near ten minute burn with extensive throttling:
I think we can expect another couple of iterations of those long burn tests soon.
My limited experience in the field of engine development tells me that this is perfectly normal for such projects. The solved problems always come with unexpected caveats. Especially vibration.
An example from ship practice is early reduction gear failures in turbines. All sorts of things were considered, lubrication was improved and the things worked perfectly on long term dyno tests. And then broke up at sea even under good sailing conditions.
The cause was eventually traced to the vibrations from the props caused by interference from the rudders. It was difficult to fix, but fixes were found (flexible shafts, basically).
Despite being so well understood the problem recurs over and over again as new bearing, hull and rudder designs come into use.
There was also a major vibration problem that hit Luftwaffe fighters in WW2. Arguments about defective bearings, reduction gears etc. duly took place. It was eventually traced to the fact that the fuel being used by the test labs was better than that often used at the front, which was messing with spark plugs and causing misfires which resulted in the vibration.
In engines, whether piston, turbine or rocket, just about everything interacts in ways beyond the scope of computer modelling - because until the mechanism is identified, it can't be modelled.
More power, no moving parts: the quest to fly a rotating detonation engine
After decades of research, tests advance innovative engine for improved military effectors //
Rotating detonation engines have no moving parts and a unique design that makes them both lighter and more powerful than traditional engines. Here’s how they work.
Just 10 years ago, a mere thousand or so operational satellites may have orbited our planet, but there will be tens or even hundreds of thousands a decade from now.
Experts have been sounding alarm bells for years that Earth orbit is getting a bit too crowded. So how many satellites can we actually launch to space before it gets to be too much?
Jonathan McDowell is an astrophysicist and astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who studies super-energetic phenomena in the universe such as jet-emitting black holes in galactic centers. In recent years, however, McDowell has gained prominence for his work in a completely different field of space research. In his monthly digital circular called Jonathan's Space Report, McDowell tracks the growing number of satellite launches and the ballooning number of objects in Earth orbit.
The project started with an ambition to "provide a pedantic historical record of the space age," but has, in a way, become a chronicle of the environmental destruction of the near Earth environment. In his frequent media appearances, McDowell has been vocal about his views on the future of the increasingly overcrowded near-Earth space.
"It's going to be like an interstate highway, at rush hour in a snowstorm with everyone driving much too fast," he told Space.com when asked what the situation in orbit will be like if existing plans for satellite megaconstellations such as SpaceX's Starlink, OneWeb and Amazon Kuiper come to fruition. "Except that there are multiple interstate highways crossing each other with no stoplights." //
"There's good evidence that the number of minor collisions is already increasing significantly," McDowell said. "We're seeing debris from objects that shouldn't really be creating debris. They probably have been hit by something small, even if they carry on working afterwards."
While the larger debris fragments over 4 inches in size are regularly tracked, trajectories of the smaller pieces are mostly unknown, and the collisions they can cause come entirely without warning.
Debris experts, however, are most concerned about encounters between two large defunct bodies — dead satellites or used rocket stages. One such close approach, between a decades-old Russian rocket upper stage and a long-defunct Russian satellite, took place on Jan. 27. With neither object being able to maneuver, space traffic guards could only look on with their fingers crossed, hoping the two would miss each other. On this occasion, they did —by a mere 20 feet (6 meters). The incident, described as a close call "worst-case scenario," could have spawned thousands of dangerous debris fragments that would have stayed in orbit for centuries, threatening everything in their path. //
McDowell says that humankind is likely going to discover the natural capacity of near-Earth space "the hard way." Despite the pledges of megaconstellation operators, the astrophysicist doubts that things will remain manageable in the years ahead.
"Five or 10 years from now, we'll have somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 satellites, and I am very skeptical that at the upper number of 100,000 things can be operated safely," McDowell sai
HomeThe Aerospace Corporation
Reentry Predictions
COSMOS 482 DESCENT CRAFT (ID 6073)
Sharing
Reentry Prediction
Predicted Reentry Time
10 May 2025 06:12 UTC ± 3 hours
Orbit Epoch
09 May 2025 19:55:03.226 UTC
Prediction Ground Track
COSMOS 482 DESCENT CRAFT (ID 6073) Reentry Prediction Image
Yellow Icon – location of object at midpoint of reentry window
Blue Line – ground track uncertainty prior to middle of the reentry window (ticks at 5-minute intervals)
Yellow Line – ground track uncertainty after middle of the reentry window (ticks at 5-minute intervals)
Pink Icon (if applicable) – vicinity of eyewitness sighting or recovered debris
Note: Possible reentry locations lie anywhere along the blue and yellow ground track. Areas not under the line are not exposed to the debris.
If you go through most of your days without worrying about space junk falling on you, there's little reason for serious alarm now. The Aerospace Corporation says any one individual on Earth is "far likelier" to be struck by lightning than to be injured by Kosmos 482. The US government's safety threshold for uncontrolled reentries requires the risk of a serious injury or death on the ground to be less than 1 in 10,000. The Aerospace Corporation projects the risk of at least one injury or fatality from Kosmos 482 to be 0.4 in 10,000 if the descent craft reaches the surface intact.
Marco Langbroek, a Dutch archeologist and university lecturer on space situational awareness, wrote on his website that the risk of public injury from Kosmos 482 is lower than that from the reentry of a SpaceX Falcon 9 upper stage. One of those came down uncontrolled over Poland in February, scattering some debris but causing no injuries.
Langbroek said the reentry analysis suggests the Kosmos 482 descent capsule will impact the ground or water at about 150 mph (242 kilometers per hour), assuming it makes it to the surface in one piece. The lander carries a parachute that would have slowed its final descent to Venus, but it's not likely that the parachute deployment system still works after 53 years in space. //
But what happens in the unlikely event that Kosmos 482 winds up in your yard? "If Kosmos defies the odds and does land in your yard, please don’t touch it!" the Aerospace Corporation said. "It could potentially be hazardous, and it is best to notify your local authorities.
"As for keeping it, don’t get your hopes up," Aerospace says. "There is a United Nations treaty that governs found debris—the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. It states that countries keep ownership of objects they launch into space, even after those objects reenter and return to Earth. The country that launched the object in this case is Russia, which could request the return of any parts that survived reentry. "It is also worth noting that the treaty says that the launching country is also internationally liable for damages." //
Cthel Ars Tribunus Militum
5y
7,663
Subscriptor
SimonRev said:
Technically wouldn't that have been the Soviet Union. Admittedly Russia is the obvious successor state, but couldn't one of the former republics conceivably attempt to make a claim if they felt they had a connection to it
Fun fact - the sections that deorbited in 1972 included several titanium alloy pressure vessels that landed intact (and very hot) in New Zealand; however the USSR formally disclaimed ownership so they ended up property of the farmers whose land they crashed into.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/new-light-on-mysterious-space-balls/VYQ6S2QIC4QREO55ERXWVIKNSI/
Plans were well underway to launch the Space Shuttle at Vandenberg in the early 1980s. The shuttle was what a rocket could never be: A flying aircraft with a human pilot. //
After the Challenger disaster, the entire program underwent an audit, and it was discovered that the SLC-6 launch pad — recycled from previous canceled Air Force projects like the never-launched Manned Orbital Laboratory — would be destroyed by the force of the first shuttle launch. The effect would have been similar to the April 2023 SpaceX Starship launch in Texas that hurled concrete powder miles from the launch site and damaged the launch vehicle. //
That was all in the future as a Boeing 747 jet carried a Space Shuttle to Vandenberg (then an Air Force base) for a promotional look at what was hoped would be a West Coast base of operations for the shuttle. If my recollection is correct, there has never been a manned flight launched from Vandenberg. In a full circle moment, SLC-6 launch pad is now leased for an expansion of the SpaceX Falcon program. The Falcon is a smaller rocket, carrying about 25% of the shuttle’s maximum. //
Reporters and photographers line up to watch and photograph the space shuttle and 747. The plane and cargo circled over Santa Maria and Lompoc before landing on time at the base. The brand new space shuttle Discovery visited Vandenberg Air Force Base on Nov. 6, 1983. Tony Hertz Telegram-Tribune file //
The newest orbiter will leave Vandenberg on Tuesday for Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where it will fly at least three missions before returning for the first Vandenberg launch. Between five and 10 annual missions may be launched from Vandenberg. The craft weighs 148,000 pounds empty and will weigh about 210,00 pounds in flight. It is 122 feet long and 78 feet wide; about the size of a DC-9 commercial airliner. It is removed or placed aboard the 747 with a bridge-like crane called a mating facility. The Air Force has spent $2.5 billion to build the space shuttle launch complex. Construction included the pouring of 250,000 cubic yards of concrete — enough to build a 25-mile four lane freeway — the use of 9,000 tons of steel reinforcing bar and 15,000 tons of structural steel. The latter would build a 120-story office building. Shuttles launched from Vandenberg will be put on polar, or south to north, orbits; Florida launches are put on equatorial orbits.
Read more at: https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/photos-from-the-vault/article297956698.html#storylink=cpy
Stratolaunch has finally found a use for the world's largest airplane.
Twice in the last five months, the company launched a hypersonic vehicle over the Pacific Ocean, accelerated it to more than five times the speed of sound, and autonomously landed at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. Stratolaunch used the same vehicle for both flights.
This is the first time anyone in the United States has flown a reusable hypersonic rocket plane since the last flight of the X-15, the iconic rocket-powered aircraft that pushed the envelope of high-altitude, high-speed flight 60 years ago. //
Zachary Krevor, president and CEO of Stratolaunch, spoke with Ars on Monday afternoon. He said the Talon test vehicle advances the capability lost with the retirement of the X-15 by flying autonomously. Like the Talon-A, the X-15 released from a carrier jet and ignited a rocket engine to soar into the uppermost layers of the atmosphere. But the X-15 had a pilot in command, while the Talon-A flies on autopilot.
"Why the autonomous flight matters is because hypersonic systems are now pushing the envelope in terms of maneuvering capability, maneuvering beyond what can be done by the human body," Krevor said. "Therefore, being able to perform flights with an autonomous, reusable, hypersonic testbed ensures that these flights are exploring the full envelope of capability that represents what's occurring in hypersonic system development today."
Stratolaunch's Talon-A is a little smaller than a school bus, or about half the size of the X-15. //
Engineers know less about the conditions of the hypersonic flight regime (in excess of Mach 5) than they do about lower-speed supersonic flight or spaceflight. The only vehicles that regularly fly at hypersonic speeds are missiles, rockets, and spacecraft reentering the atmosphere. They spend just a short time flying in the hypersonic environment as they transition to and from space.
There are two things you should know about hypersonic missiles. First, rockets have flown at hypersonic speeds since 1949, so when officials talk about hypersonic missiles, they are referring to vehicles that operate in the hypersonic flight environment, instead of just transiting through it.
Second, hypersonic vehicles come in a couple of variations. One is a glide vehicle, which is accelerated by a conventional rocket to hypersonic speed, then steers itself toward its destination or target using aerodynamic forces. The other is a cruiser that can sustain itself in hypersonic flight using exotic propulsion, such as scramjet engines. //
The Pentagon's emphasis on hypersonic weapons is relatively new. After the X-15's final flight in 1968, the government lacked any major hypersonic flight test programs for several decades. NASA flew the autonomous X-43 test vehicle to hypersonic speed two times in 2004, and the Air Force demonstrated an air-breathing scramjet engine at Mach 5.1 with the X-51 Waverider aircraft in 2013. While some of the X-43 and X-51 test flights failed, they provided early-stage data on hypersonic propulsion systems that could power high-speed aircraft and missiles.
But these were expensive government-led programs. Together, they cost nearly $1 billion in 2025 dollars, with only a handful of flight tests to show for it. The military now wants to lean heavier on commercial industry.
Since its founding 14 years ago, Stratolaunch has pivoted its mission from the airborne launch of satellites to hypersonic testing. //
Stratolaunch's founder, Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen, died in 2018, putting the company's future in doubt. Stratolaunch flew its huge carrier aircraft, named Roc, for the first time in April 2019 but ceased operations the following month. Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity firm, purchased Stratolaunch from Allen's heirs later that year and redirected the company's mission from space launch to hypersonic flight testing.
Through it all, Stratolaunch continued flying Roc, a twin-fuselage airplane with a wingspan of 385 feet (117 meters). For a time, it appeared Roc might share a fate with Howard Hughes' "Spruce Goose" flying boat, which held the record as the airplane with the widest wingspan, until Roc (officially designated the Scaled Composites Model 351) took off for the first time in 2019. The Spruce Goose flew just once after its business prospects faded in the aftermath of World War II.
Now, the Pentagon's hunger for hypersonic weapons seems likely to feed Stratolaunch's coffers for some time to come. //
David Mayer Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
5m
1,241
I'm uncertain how big a "game changer" endoatmospheric, maneuverable, hypersonic weapons will be. They should be relatively easy to detect, track, and target using existing systems, even if they have an incredibly low radar cross section, simply because they will be hot as all hell, appearing clearly to any infrared sensors.
Interception is another story, it all depends on how maneuverable the weapon is and if it can reliably detect interceptors. Available reaction time is going to be substantially lower than many other systems, just because of how fast the weapon is moving. Your interceptor doesn't need to match the speed, but it does need to deal with the maneuverability of the weapon. A 15° change in trajectory is a 7 kilometer difference in actual position vs expected position after 15 seconds. Lots of existing interceptors are going to have trouble coping with that.
If the weapon is regularly changing direction then the effective range of your interceptors is significantly reduced, meaning that any interception will have to be launched from closer to the defended area and will have to be launched later in the weapons flight. Launch too soon and the weapons maneuvering will exhaust the interceptors fuel.
If the weapon can detect the interceptor then it may chose an alternate target, heck, they might be maneuverable enough to come in for a second or even third approach.
You see, SpaceX’s plans for Starship are demonstrably stupid. In fact, it is so stupid in so many different ways a lot of us, myself included, struggle to get a big-picture view and articulate why this moronic giant phallus will never work. I want to correct that with this article. So, come with me as I will lay out in glorious detail the 7 Deadly Sins of Starship and why this project is destined for the scrap heap. ///
Starts off with demonstrably false statements...
Secretary Sean Duffy @SecDuffy
·
The U.S. commercial space industry is an inspiring project which showcases American ingenuity and exceptionalism. But the last FAA guidelines under the Commercial Space Astronaut Wings Program were clear: Crewmembers who travel into space must have “demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety.”
The crew who flew to space this week on an automated flight by Blue Origin were brave and glam, but you cannot identify as an astronaut. They do not meet the FAA astronaut criteria.
Blue Origin @blueorigin
We just completed our 11th human spaceflight and the 31st flight of the New Shepard program. The astronaut crew included Aisha Bowe, Amanda Nguyễn, Gayle King, Katy Perry, Kerianne Flynn, and Lauren Sánchez.
To date, New Shepard has flown 58 people to space. Read more:
6:55 PM · Apr 17, 2025. //
Jeff Bezos's "Blue Origin" rockets are, in my opinion, something that could and should be an absolute banger of a space project. The idea that we could have some billionaire creating rockets for the express purpose of ferrying civilians into the black is something I actually think is needed.
Normalizing space travel, even if in the mind, is something we should definitely be promoting in the zeitgeist.
But then, as Bonchie wrote on Monday, Blue Origin created a PR stunt that was so stupid, I'm surprised no one stopped to think about the negatives for even a few minutes. //
Bezos's rich, leftist, elitist friends are probably not feeling him too deeply right now, and he needed to make it clear that he was still with the agenda by launching the "all-female crew" and making history for women. //
Putting on something so ridiculous as a clear PR stunt that ended up being so cringe-worthy and stupid that it's being widely and roundly mocked sets things back a bit in the minds of the public. Bezos could have put anyone in that rocket including scientists, astronomers, hell, even a regular family who never would have dreamed something like this could happen to them.
Instead, we get self-absorbed celebrities who just chose to use it as a platform to virtue signal, making this all worse. I can't see how this endears space travel to anyone. //
This gets even more infuriating when you look at SpaceX, which utilizes its ever-advancing rocket tech to actually move humanity forward in a way that moves us forward. The spectacle of SpaceX isn't in celebrities, it's getting the job done. It's making science fiction a reality. SpaceX literally rescues astronauts stranded in space.
It's a company that is advancing itself with the clear intent of advancing humanity.
Blue Origin feels like a vanity project meant to elevate one man.
This all-female crew wasn't even a crew. These women were just pawns dressed as explorers, form-fitting suits that accentuated their figures in all the right places.
Again, I want to make it clear that I'm not mad that this flight didn't contain any scientific research or exploration. Civilians going up and coming back down is actually a fantastic idea that I think could really get people excited about the prospect of seeing the stars just a little bit closer.
But this just felt like a stupid virtue signal meant to make one man look good to people who are, frankly, regressive in their views and contribute little to nothing to our society. To do all this with a technology that already is being eyed by a chunk of the public as wasteful and selfish is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
In the last week, the US Space Force awarded SpaceX a $5.9 billion deal to make Elon Musk's space company the Pentagon's leading launch provider, and then it assigned the vast majority of this year's most lucrative launch contracts to SpaceX. //
The reason Bruno can say Musk's involvement in the Trump administration so far hasn't affected ULA is simple. SpaceX is cheaper and has a ready-made line of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets available to launch the Pentagon's satellites. ULA's Vulcan rocket is now certified to launch military payloads, but it reached this important milestone years behind schedule.
The Pentagon announced Friday that SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin—Jeff Bezos' space company—won contracts worth $13.7 billion to share responsibilities for launching approximately 54 of the military's most critical space missions from 2027 through 2032. SpaceX received the lion's share of the missions with an award for 28 launches, while ULA got 19. Blue Origin, a national security launch business newcomer, will fly seven missions.
This comes out to a 60-40 split between SpaceX and ULA, not counting Blue Origin's seven launches, which the Space Force set aside for a third contractor. It's a reversal of the 60-40 sharing scheme in the last big military launch competition in 2020, when ULA took the top award over SpaceX. Space Force officials anticipate Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket will be certified for national security missions next year, allowing it to begin winning launch task orders. //
So, why did ULA only get 22 percent of this year's task orders instead of something closer to 40 percent? It turns out ULA was not eligible for two of these missions because the company's West Coast launch pad for the Vulcan rocket is still under construction at Vandenberg Space Force Base. The Space Force won't assign specific West Coast missions to ULA until the launch pad is finished and certified, ... //
A decade ago, ULA was the sole launch provider to deploy the Pentagon's fleet of surveillance, communication, and navigation satellites. The Air Force certified SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket for national security missions in May 2015, opening the market for competition for the first time since Boeing and Lockheed Martin merged their rocket divisions to create ULA in 2006.
ULA's monopoly, which Bruno acknowledged, has now eroded into making the company a niche player in the military launch market.
"A monopoly is not healthy," he said. "We were one for a few years before I came to ULA, and that was because no one else had the capability, and there weren’t that many missions. There weren’t enough to support many providers. There are now, so this is better.". //
"They tend to be more efficient at the LEO drop-offs, I’ll be honest about that," Bruno said. "That means there’s a competitive space in the middle, and then there’s kind of these end cases. So, we’ll keep winning when it’s way over in our space, they will win when it’s way over in theirs, and then in the middle it’s kind of a toss-up for any given mission."
tigas Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
21y
7,000
Subscriptor
SomewhereAroundBarstow said:
And that's as close as you're going to get an active astronaut to saying that what some people call the Deep State is actually where the heroes that keep everything from falling apart work.
What actually makes you a "steely-eyed missile man" isn't bravery, mojo, having XY chromosomes or white skin, it's to
sit in their cubicle for decades studying their systems, and knowing their systems front and back. And when there is no time to assess a situation and go and talk to people and ask, 'What do you think?' they know their system so well they come up with a plan on the fly
Three weeks ago, NASA revealed that a shipping container protecting a Cygnus spacecraft sustained "damage" while traveling to the launch site in Florida.
Built by Northrop Grumman, Cygnus is one of two Western spacecraft currently capable of delivering food, water, experiments, and other supplies to the International Space Station. This particular Cygnus mission, NG-22, had been scheduled for June. As part of its statement in early March, the space agency said it was evaluating the NG-22 Cygnus cargo supply mission along with Northrop.
On Wednesday, after a query from Ars Technica, the space agency acknowledged that the Cygnus spacecraft designated for NG-22 is too damaged to fly, at least in the nearterm.
Darkness fell over Mare Crisium, ending a daily dose of dazzling images from the Moon. //
Firefly Aerospace's Blue Ghost science station accomplished a lot on the Moon in the last two weeks. Among other things, its instruments drilled into the Moon's surface, tested an extraterrestrial vacuum cleaner, and showed that future missions could use GPS navigation signals to navigate on the lunar surface.
These are all important achievements, gathering data that could shed light on the Moon's formation and evolution, demonstrating new ways of collecting samples on other planets, and revealing the remarkable reach of the US military's GPS satellite network.
But the pièce de résistance for Firefly's first Moon mission might be the daily dose of imagery that streamed down from the Blue Ghost spacecraft. //
Dtiffster Ars Praefectus
9y
3,725
Subscriptor
TylerH said:
Given the amount of fuel needed to return to Earth, probably somewhere around the middle.
The prop to lift back off is at least 1.1 times the dry mass + up mass, but 78% of that is LOX which goes in the bottom tank. We don't know if the liftoff prop will just be in the tanks or in some kind of a really large header in the tank (as a boil off mitigation), but I would assume if there are headers they will be at or near the bottom of the of their respective tanks. Thus atleast 41% of the landed mass would be LOX and be very near the bottom. The legs and engine section will also be fairly substantial and very low. The methane for liftoff would be another 11% and only about a third of the way up the rocket. Much of the rest of the mass is tankage, but that center of mass is also probably no more than a third of the way up. The habitat section and equipment is high up, but it's less than 15% of that lift off mass. The CoM of the whole thing on landing/liftoff is probably only 25-30% up from the surface. It is much less tippy than your initial intuition would lead you to believe. //
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2P-z_cXsOs
https://youtu.be/IpA9DORDkeE?si=oNmwnzJs6_UwzjPb
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/albums/72177720313239766/with/54395270843
"Every single thing was clockwork... We got some Moon dust on our boots." //
Firefly Aerospace became the first commercial company to make a picture-perfect landing on the Moon early Sunday, touching down on an ancient basaltic plain, named Mare Crisium, to fulfill a $101 million contract with NASA.
The lunar lander, called Blue Ghost, settled onto the Moon's surface at 2:34 am CST (3:34 am EST; 08:34 UTC). A few dozen engineers in Firefly's mission control room monitored real-time data streaming down from a quarter-million miles away.
"Today, around 9:20 a.m., we received information from employees of one of the companies from Komornik near Poznań that, after starting work, they noticed an unspecified object resembling a reservoir on its premises," said Łukasz Paterski of the Poznań Police, according to a website that provides news for the city. "No one was affected as a result of this incident."
Jonathan McDowell @planet4589
·
The Falcon 9 second stage from the Starlink 11-4 launch failed to deorbit itself on Feb 2. It reentered over Northern Europe last night, with entry over the Irish Sea at 0343 UTC Feb 19 and the reentry track extending to Poland and Ukraine a couple of minutes later
11:45 AM · Feb 19, 2025
The math that makes refueling from the Moon appealing is pretty simple. "As a rule of thumb," write the authors of the new study on the topic, "rockets launched from Earth destined for [Earth-Moon Lagrange Point 1] must burn ~25 kg of propellant to transport one kg of payload, whereas rockets launched from the Moon to [Earth-Moon Lagrange Point 1] would burn only ~four kg of propellant to transport one kg of payload." Departing from the Earth-Moon Lagrange Point for locations deeper into the Solar System also requires less energy than leaving low-Earth orbit, meaning the fuel we get there is ultimately more useful, at least from an exploration perspective. //
the researchers decided to focus on isolating oxygen from a mineral called ilmenite, or FeTiO3. It's not the easiest way to get oxygen—iron oxides win out there—but it's well understood. Someone actually patented oxygen production from ilmenite back in the 1970s, and two hardware prototypes have been developed, one of which may be sent to the Moon on a future NASA mission.
The researchers propose a system that would harvest regolith, partly purify the ilmenite, then combine it with hydrogen at high temperatures, which would strip the oxygen out as water, leaving behind purified iron and titanium (both of which may be useful to have). The resulting water would then be split to feed the hydrogen back into the system, while the oxygen can be sent off for use in rockets.
(This wouldn't solve the issue of what that oxygen will ultimately oxidize to power a rocket. But oxygen is typically the heavier component of rocket fuel combinations—typically about 80 percent of the mass—and so, is the bigger challenge to get to a fuel depot.). //
The team found that almost all of the energy is consumed at three steps in the process: the high-temperature hydrogen reaction that produces water (55 percent), splitting the water afterward (38 percent), and converting the resulting oxygen to its liquid form (5 percent). The typical total usage, depending on factors like the concentration of ilmenite in the regolith, worked out to be about 24 kW-hr for each kilogram of liquid oxygen. //
Obviously, we can build larger arrays than that, but it boosts the amount of material that needs to be sent to the Moon from Earth. It may potentially make more sense to use nuclear power. While that would likely involve more infrastructure than solar arrays, it would allow the facilities to run around the clock, thus getting more production from everything else we've shipped from Earth.