Space X preparing for flight test 11

While there are no potential launch dates being discussed and NextSpaceFlight.com shows nothing more specific than No Earlier Than 2nd Half 2025 (which started in June), SpaceX is still crunching data from Flight Test 10 along with discussing new plans for this next test flight. 

The occasion was the American Astronautical Society's Glenn Space Technology Symposium in Cleveland held Monday, September 8, in Cleveland.  The SpaceX spokesman will probably be familiar to you, Bill Gerstenmaier, SpaceX executive in charge of build and flight reliability.  Gerstenmaier came to SpaceX in 2020 after a career at NASA.  He began his career as an aerospace engineer working on the space shuttles in 1977 - before the first STS mission.  He rose through the ranks at NASA to become head of the agency's human spaceflight programs before joining SpaceX. 

As we've talked about before in FT-10 posts, there were many things being studied, but the most important were the problems with Starship's propulsion and propellant systems that ruined the three previous test flights.  On top of that was data on Starship's heat shield, an array of thousands of tiles covering the ship's belly as it streaks through the atmosphere during reentry.  

"Things went extremely well," Gerstenmaier said.

A little more than an hour after liftoff, the Starship guided itself to a controlled splashdown in the Indian Ocean northwest of Australia. The ship came within 10 feet (3 meters) of its targeted splashdown point, near an inflatable buoy in position to record its final descent.  

Bill Gerstenmaier, SpaceX's vice president of build and flight reliability, discussed the results from Starship Flight 10 on Monday. Credit: American Astronautical Society

Nearly halfway around the world and within 10 feet of the inflated buoy seems like pretty good performance to me.  Yeah, a couple of B-2 bombers that took out Iran's nuclear program were apparently more accurate than that, but they were piloted by well-trained experts, not self-guided. 

"We were essentially doing a test to see if we could get by with non-ceramic tiles, so we put three metal tiles on the side of the ship to see if they would provide adequate heat control, because they would be simpler to manufacture and more durable than the ceramic tiles. It turns out they're not," Gerstenmaier said.

"The metal tiles... didn't work so well," he said. "They oxidized extremely nice in the high oxygen environment. So, that nice orange color, kind of like a [space] shuttle external tank color, maybe paying homage to the shuttle program, was created by those three little metal tiles up on top."

How well the tiles worked is interesting but not that important to folks like us who watch and try to understand.   More importantly, they're a good example of how SpaceX iterates and refines designs.  Metal heat shield tiles aren't a new thing; NASA was working on them when Gerstenmaier hired on there in '77. 

"I think we learned a lot by taking them to flight, and we still had enough protection underneath that they didn't cause a problem," Gerstenmaier said. "In most of the tiles, there are fairly large gaps, and that's where we're seeing the heat get through and get underneath."

A mastery of Starship's heat shield is vital for the future of the program. The heat shield must be durable for Starship to be rapidly reusable.  Musk eyes reflying Starships within 24 hours.

A (stunning) view of SpaceX's Starship rocket shortly before splashing into the Indian Ocean. Credit: SpaceX

Continuing his presentation, Gerstenmaier pointed to a patch of white near the top of Starship's heat shield. This, he said, was caused by heat seeping between gaps in the tiles and eroding the underlying material, a thermal barrier derived from the heat shield on SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft. Technicians also intentionally removed some tiles near Starship's nose to test the vehicle's response.

"It's essentially a white material that sits on Dragon and it ablates away, and when it ablates, it creates this white residue," Gerstenmaier said. "So, what that's showing us is that we're having heat essentially get into that region between the tiles, go underneath the tiles, and this ablative structure is then ablating underneath. So, we learned that we need to seal the tiles." 

An important aspect that's worth remembering is that Starships are made of stainless steel, a "special alloy" (seems to be the common description - I thought I remembered it being a 400 series stainless, but that's not enough detail to do any kind of study).  The Space Shuttles were made of aluminum.  That means the Starships can handle temperatures higher than the Shuttles could without damage.   

[...] SpaceX officials think they have a solution. Near the top of the ship, amid the patch of white, engineers noticed a few darker areas. These are places where SpaceX's ground team installed a new experimental material around and under the tiles.

"We call it crunch wrap," Gerstenmaier said. "It's like a wrapping paper that goes around each tile, and then... these tiles are mechanically held in place. They're snapped in by a robot. When we push the tile in, this little wrapping paper essentially sits around the sides of each one of the tiles, and then we cut it off on the surface."

For flight 11, the mission will be more similar to FT-10 we just had than the big words being thrown around - like "orbital".  Not this time.  We don't have a definite date, but it looks like FT-11 might make it in October and the shift to FT-12 will at least partially depend on well that goes.

"Next year, we step up to another version of both ship and booster, called V3 (Version 3)," Gerstenmaier said. "It also has a new Raptor engine underneath, with more performance than the previous ones.  So we'll fly V3 (suborbital) first, and then if that's successful, then we'll probably go orbital after that with the next V3."

That leans toward predicting an orbital flight no sooner than Flight 13.  Flight 10 was August 26th.  Saying FT-11 might be in October implies something like six to eight weeks between them with FT 12 in November and FT-13 looking to be by the end of the year.  This also matches a recent comment by Musk, who said SpaceX will likely attempt to catch and recover Starship back at Starbase somewhere around Flight 13 to 15, depending on the outcomes of the next couple of test flights.  

Where are we with SLS and Artemis after all the talk?

A week ago, we had the story of Senator Ted Cruz hosting a "save the SLS" meeting in the US Senate chambers last Wednesday, arguing that acting NASA director Sean Duffy and President Trump himself have both argued we need to make Artemis III's mission the last SLS launch because we simply can't afford to use the SLS.  Cruz argues that if we want to return to the moon in time to beat China nothing we can launch without massive and risky new development has as good a chance of getting us to the moon as SLS.  Ergo, if we want to go back to the moon we simply must pay for the SLS.  The counter argument is that with each SLS launch costing $4 Billion or more, we simply can't afford to go back to the moon.

From the beginning, the second Trump administration has sought to cancel the costly, expendable rocket. Some officials wanted to end the rocket immediately,  but eventually the White House decided to push for cancellation after Artemis III. This seemed prudent because it allowed the United States the best possible chance to land humans back on the Moon before China got there, and then transition to a more affordable lunar program as quickly as possible.  

In response, Ted Cruz added money to NASA's budget (via the "One Big Beautiful Bill" ) to ensure that Artemis IV and Artemis V flew on the SLS rocket, with the promise of additional missions.  

It might be surprising that after the release of their budget proposal back in May, calling for the end of the SLS rocket, the White House and NASA have been quiet.  

However, that changed last week, when interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy addressed the issue on a podcast hosted by one of the agency's public relations officials, Gary Jordan:

Here is my one concern. If Artemis I, Artemis II, and Artemis III are all $4 billion a launch, $4 billion a launch. At $4 billion a launch, you don’t have a Moon program. It just, I don’t think that exists. We have to bring the price down. And so I have to think about and work with members of Congress. What does Artemis IV, V, and VI look like? But to spend that much money in thinking about what we have to do to have a sustained presence, I think becomes very, very challenging.

Duffy went on to say that since the private sector started advancing the launch industry, a company that wants to put a satellite in space can do it for prices that were unimaginable as little as 20 years ago (still the Shuttle era).   

Duffy clearly argues that the SLS rocket is unaffordable and that any lunar program built around it cannot be sustained for more than a few flags-and-footprints missions. Instead, he says, the agency should be taking advantage of commercial alternatives (which are being developed by SpaceX and Blue Origin). 

I think it's not terribly uncommon for two sides that realize neither of them gets anything they want to sit down and see what they can agree about.  In this case, Ted Cruz's bill says NASA must procure and operate the Space Launch System for Artemis IV and V missions, but it doesn't specify the configuration of the vehicle.  

I don't know how many times I've mentioned that SLS has always been designed with an upper stage option called the Exploration Upper Stage, and that in keeping with the rest of the SLS, it has never been built, never been tested, and nothing associated with it has ever come in "on schedule and on budget" - let alone ahead of schedule or under budget.  So in the budget, instead of saying to buy the SLS,  the House Appropriations Bill calls for the space agency to "evaluate alternatives" to the Exploration Upper Stage.  "Evaluate alternatives" is a wide open door to modify the SLS plans.

One of these, as Ars reported last year, is the Centaur V upper stage built by United Launch Alliance, which is already flight-proven.  Another option is a "short" version of the upper stage Blue Origin currently flies on its New Glenn rocket. Sources indicated that Blue has already begun work on a modified version of the stage that could fit within the shroud of the SLS rocket. This smaller version of the stage, like the Centaur V, would allow NASA to continue launching the SLS rocket using the existing launch tower in Florida.  

But wait.  It gets a bit funnier.  

By canceling the Exploration Upper Stage and second launch tower, NASA could save more than $1 billion annually, which could be applied to other aspects of the Artemis program to ensure its success both in the near and longer term. It would give the Trump administration the talking points it wants on making Artemis more affordable and allow Congress to continue flying its beloved SLS rocket for a few more missions.

Finally, it would buy time to see whether SpaceX and Blue Origin can get their Starship and New Glenn rockets flying regularly and whether NASA can bring down the cost of a partly commercialized SLS rocket. At that point, the future of NASA's deep space program, and the rockets it should use, will be clearer.

A posted NASA graphic of SLS versions. The Block 1B Crewed version features the Exploration Upper Stage while the version that launched in November of '22 is the one shown on the left here. 
This was posted here around 8 months before that Artemis 1 mission flew.

This is something I've never posted about before

And probably never will again.  As a general rule I don't pay much attention to how many readers I've gotten or how many followers I have.  A crude explanation is I don't think I have much control over that.  Keep writing and keep posting.  

Within the last couple of weeks, I noticed I was getting more page views some days.  Some days there were 1500 views and 2000 would be a very popular post.  Other days were getting 20,000 and up into the 40,000s.  It was mostly on popular topics (of course), and I was getting close to having had 10 million total page views here in the 15th year of the blog's life.   I thought it was going to make 10 million last night, but it didn't and that's honestly part of why I did the "three sigma" (far from normal) post last night.  

It made it today.  

Screen snip off this PC with a couple of red, comma-like things added to show the number when I grabbed it was 10,019,164.  That was 7:45 PM EDT, 2345 UTC on September 7.  Which has no traceability to the time when the total went over 10,000,000.  The middle box on the top says I have 5379 posts, making this one #5380.  I've posted when I hit some big round numbers of posts before like 4000 and 5000 but not every thousand.   

I think posting something like this is probably a good way to know I had nothing else.  But that belies that Starbase Boca Chica static fired a booster today, Booster 15, supposedly chosen for Flight Test 11.  We hear rumors that FT-11 will be going more quickly than the 9 to 10 delay.  

Now for something I haven't done in a long time

This evening over dinner Mrs. Graybeard and I did something we haven't done in quite a while.  We used our streaming subscription to Disney+ to watch a movie we didn't catch in the theater, the new Marvel Cinematic Universe movie based on characters that have been cast since the Infinity War, and End Game movies about Thanos killing half of humanity.  It's called Thunderbolts: The New Avengers.   

If you've been a reader for a while, you know I like movies that aren't serious human drama.  I had enough Shakespeare in school and enough real life drama years ago.  No typical, Hallmark-channel, romantic comedies, and not much in the way of dramas that don't involve sci fi, whether that means a super hero movie or some programmed super soldier like a Jason Bourne.  As a general rule, I've liked comic book movies, although I've liked the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) more than the DC movies.  

I've said many times that Thor: Ragnarok has been my favorite of the Marvel movies and just tons of lighthearted fun - for a topic as serious as the end of the world for Thor's planet, Asgard.  There really hasn't been one that I think unseats Ragnarok, but that's not to say none of the newer MCU movies have been enjoyable or fun.   

With a couple of exceptions, all of the characters in Thunderbolts are familiar from other theatrical movies or streaming series in the last few years and of those exceptions only one major character is completely new addition to the MCU.  The main characters are Yelena Belova played by Florence Pugh a role she first played in Black Widow, Bucky Barnes by Sebastian Stan, Alexei Shostakov who is Yelena Belova's father played by David Harbour, John Walker by Wyatt Russell, and Ava Starr by Hannah John-Kamen.  All of these actors/characters have been in at least a few movies except I think Hannah John-Kamen was only in one movie, Ant Man and the Wasp (AKA Ant Man 2) as someone who could slip between universes.  The one completely new major character is Robert Reynolds (pretty much just called "Bob") played by Lewis Pullman. 

Without getting into too much detail the movie is about them coming together to form a new team.  All of them have problems they need to work with (or around).  All of them talk about depression and the hard, lonely lives they find themselves in.  They have a big problem to solve, caused by another actor and character in previous movies, Valentina Allegra de Fontaine played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus a Washington DC insider who's trying to get more power for herself by using other people.  

The main "New Avengers" from a publicity shot.  Left to right: Ava Starr (Hannah John-Kamen), Bob Reynolds (Lewis Pullman), John Walker (Wyatt Russell), Alexei Shostakov (David Harbour), Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh), Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan)

Image credit: Marvel Cinematic Universe

While the movie had its opening in theaters in the June time frame, and played in theaters for a while, I don't know if it was considered a success.  ScreenRant considered it one of the 10 best movies of '25, with most of the year past.  Like I said, we watched this on Disney+ which is part of our streaming service, Hulu, so it was no money out of pocket to watch.  We're paying for these things no matter what.  To my mind it was a respectably good movie and like the writer at ScreenRant, I think it's evidence Marvel movies have recovered.  I'll grade it a B.  

Small Space News Story Roundup 65

This time from Ars Technica's Rocket Report, Space.com and DefenseNews. 

Rocket Lab unveils Neutron launch complex

As Rocket Lab proceeds with design, prototype build and testing of their Neutron rocket, work has also been progressing on having its first launch facility ready, which is on Wallops Island, Virginia, DefenseNews reports. 

The novel booster, called Neutron, is Rocket Lab's newest and the company's first purpose-built reusable rocket to tap into the medium-size satellite launch market. The first flight is expected by the end of 2025 from the company's new pad, Launch Complex 3, which Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck officially opened for business on Thursday (Aug. 28). 

We've been talking about Neutron since Peter Beck first announced the rocket in 2021 and there's lots here if you want to go back and read some older posts.  While he acknowledges it's a big hurdle and there's not a nanosecond worth of slack in the schedule, Beck says they plan to launch the first Neutron mission before the end of this year.  "Nobody’s waving the white flag here until the last hour of the last day." 

Rocket Lab's new launch complex at Wallops Island is part of the company's growing footprint in Virginia. (Image credit: Rocket Lab) The launch mount is that large dark-colored hexagon with red trim, center of the image.

Cargo Dragon mission CRS-33 demonstrates lifting the ISS' orbit

As talked about here on Monday, August 25th, the cargo dragon used for mission CRS-33 carried a prototype of system that will be used to turn a Dragon craft into the US Deorbit Vehicle (USDV).  You may recall that the contract for the USDV was awarded to SpaceX in June of '24.  The basic problem is that due to various factors, the atmospheric drag on the ISS varies over time which then lowers the orbit.  Various systems have been used to raise the ISS orbit regularly; first the Russian Progress cargo vehicle, then Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus vehicle, launched by their launch vehicle and then their Cygnus capsules lifted into space by SpaceX.  

SpaceX’s first such test happened on Nov. 8, 2024.

And on Wednesday, Dragon's efforts got the station to an orbit of 260.9 by 256.3 miles (419.9 by 412 km), according to NASA. 

"The new boost kit in Dragon will help sustain the orbiting lab’s altitude through a series of longer burns planned periodically throughout the fall of 2025," agency officials added in the statement.

(I sure wish they'd given us before and after numbers for that 260.9 by 256.3 mile orbit.  We just know it was supposed to be a low power model of the eventual system.) 

The CRS-33 Dragon is expected to stay at the ISS until late December or early January, at which point it will head back to Earth loaded with experimental data and some discarded items from the ISS. The splashdown zone will be near coastal California.

FAA green lights SpaceX to build two new landing zones

Over the course of the last couple of years, the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station changed their rules on the use of landing zones, like SpaceX has used for years as (Landing Zone 1 and 2) LZ-1 and LZ-2.  With the increased pace of operations on the Cape, it would help minimize the number of disruptions to other launch complexes if the couple of launch providers that are planning to recover boosters would put a landing zone next to their launch pad.  SpaceX would have to construct two new pads, one next to SLC-40 and one next to LC-39A.  The way I interpret that, there will also need to be landing pads next to the Starship launch pads as well - if they don't qualify by using the "chopsticks" on the launch tower for everything.  

This Wednesday, FAA also gave the green light for SpaceX to construct and operate a new rocket landing zone at SLC-40 and conduct up to 34 first-stage booster landings there each year. The landing zone will consist of a 280-foot diameter concrete pad surrounded by a 60-foot-wide gravel apron. The landing zone's broadest diameter, including the apron, will measure 400 feet.  

The location of SpaceX's new rocket landing pad is shown with the red circle, approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the Falcon 9 rocket's launch pad at Space Launch Complex-40.  Credit: Google Maps/Ars Technica

SpaceX is not as far along in preliminary design for Launch Complex 39A, within a couple of miles northwest of SLC-40. 

SpaceX uses LC-39A as a launch pad for most Falcon 9 crew launches, all Falcon Heavy missions, and, in the future, flights of the company's gigantic next-generation rocket, Starship. SpaceX foresees Starship as a replacement for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, but the company's continuing investment in Falcon-related infrastructure shows the workhorse rocket will stick around for a while. 
...
The new landing locations at SLC-40 and LC-39A will replace Landing Zones 1 and 2, nearly 10 miles to the south. SpaceX landed its last rocket at Landing Zone 1 (LZ-1) last month but will continue using Landing Zone 2 for now. Bill Gerstenmaier, SpaceX's vice president of build and flight reliability, told reporters in July that the company is working with the Space Force and NASA to determine the "right time" to move out of Landing Zone 2.

As mentioned, LC-39A is the primary launch site for Crew Dragons, and Falcon Heavy missions.  Ars points out that there are no Falcon Heavy launches in the schedule until the second half of '26 - pretty much a year from now.  Making a concrete landing pad sounds like the kind of thing SpaceX could get done in a month, if not a weekend, although some amount of waiting for the concrete to cure and reach full strength seems like it would be in there somewhere.   

The Space Force reallocated the land around LZs-1 and 2 to a pair of small rocket companies in 2023. The two companies, Vaya Space and Phantom Space, will share the property, originally known as Launch Complex-13 when it was used for Atlas rocket launches from 1958 until 1978.

Neither company is within a year or two of launching from the Cape.  

Note that the small number of landings for the landing zone at SLC-40, 34, doesn't have much to do with SpaceX's stated goal of 170 launches this year.  About a third of the 170 will be from Vandenberg, while the majority of booster landings have always been on offshore drone ships.  Return to launch site landings are pretty rare.  

SpaceX to start making their own fuel supply

If SpaceX is going to launch as often as they say they want to, there's a big problem they need to address.  We got a hint about this in Flight Test 10 - after two days being scrubbed because of weather, on the third day, the coverage team said if it couldn't launch on that day, they couldn't try again the next day.  The cryogenic fuel and oxidizers were used up and it takes many days worth of deliveries to refill their tanks.  

Let's start with what seems to be a very obvious disconnect here.  SpaceX has spent years and millions on the building called Starfactory, that was designed to produce one Starship per day.  That's nothing short of an astounding number.  Remember the talk before FT-10 about "the machine to build the machine?"  That's Starfactory.  But what about the fuel?

Tanker trucks have typically delivered rocket propellant to launch pads at America's busiest spaceports in Florida and California. SpaceX has used the same method of bringing propellant for the first several years of operations at Starbase.  There are tons of reports that the road to Starbase those tanker trucks take are falling apart with potholes and cracked pavement everywhere. 

But a reusable Starship's scale dwarfs that of other rockets. It stands more than 400 feet tall, with a capacity for more than a million gallons of super-cold liquid methane and liquid oxygen propellants. SpaceX also uses large quantities of liquid nitrogen to chill and purge the propellant loading system for Starship.

It's not just Starship's size. SpaceX has the green light from the Federal Aviation Administration to launch Starships up to 25 times per year from South Texas, and is seeking regulatory approval to fly up to 120 times from new launch pads on Florida's Space Coast. Eventually, SpaceX eyes daily launches of Starship, or even more, as the company deploys a fleet of ships traveling to low-Earth orbit, the Moon, and Mars. 

To accommodate one Starship launch, more than 200 tanker trucks traveling from distant refineries are needed to deliver all of the methane, liquid oxygen, and liquid nitrogen.   Now imagine one launch every hour for a full day.  4,800 trucks?   I'll just say can't be done.  Ain't gonna happen. The answer SpaceX chose is to create their own fuels.

The company recently received approval from local authorities to build an air separation plant across the highway just north of the Starbase launch pads. Construction of the plant began this summer. Once operational, this facility will take in air, condense it, and separate it into oxygen and nitrogen. The resulting liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen will flow about 1,000 feet through a pipeline into ground storage tanks at the launch site.   

This, of course, is only part of their needs.  There's no mention of fuel (methane).  

The answer to this problem is a pair of methane liquefaction facilities to convert natural gas—initially delivered by truck or a future pipeline—into pure liquid methane, and eventually, a methane generation plant co-located with Starbase's dual launch pads. 
...
A public notice released by the US Army Corps of Engineers on August 27 describes SpaceX's plans, and an accompanying map illustrates the changes coming to the Starbase launch site. 

This map published by the US Army Corps of Engineers shows SpaceX's proposed expansion at Starbase. The launch site's existing footprint is in blue, and SpaceX's proposed expansion is in white. Credit: US Army Corps of Engineers

The plans for the Kennedy Space Center are behind this level of completeness as the launch facilities are behind the Starbase, Texas level of completeness, and the Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments and feedback on the plans.

Plans for Starship's future launch pads in Florida, still undergoing environmental reviews, show SpaceX intends to produce its own propellant there, too. The Army's public notice for SpaceX's plans at Starbase didn't include any details on how the air separation unit and methane liquefaction facility will work. But a draft environmental impact statement published by the Federal Aviation Administration last month lays out how SpaceX will bring the on-site propellant generation capability online at NASA's Kennedy Space Center.

In the interest of keeping this to be a shorter read, I've left out much of the commentary that's in the original story at Ars Technica.  As always, you'll get more details out of the original story than I excerpt.

A New Meeting in Congress to "Save the SLS"

I feel like I should be doing a disclaimer here: I swear I'm not making this up.  While I've regularly referred to the SLS as an abbreviation for the "Shuttles' Leftover Shit" that's a relatively new version of that acronym.  Before that it was known as the "Senate Launch System" - as in "it only exists because enough Senators were bought."  My proof I'm not making this up is the link to Eric Berger's story at Ars Technica.   

All of the original US senators who created and sustained NASA's Space Launch System rocket over the last 15 years—Bill Nelson, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Richard Shelby—have either retired or failed to win reelection. However, a new champion has emerged to continue the fight: Texas Republican Ted Cruz.  

The only surprising aspect of Ted Cruz taking over to fight to keep SLS is that fact that he's considered to be a conservative, but the bitter truth is that SLS is good for the recipients of the billions of dollars spent on an SLS launch and he's simply doing the same things that Bill Nelson, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Richard Shelby and hundreds of senators down through time have done: he wants to take taxes from people in all 50 states to pay for government programs that benefit only a small percentage of his constituents.  

Now Cruz is taking a position that makes this seem like a small thing.  He's selling it as the only way we can beat China to the moon.   

Earlier this year, Cruz crafted the NASA provision tacked onto President Trump's "One Big, Beautiful Bill," which included $10 billion in funding for key space programs, and in two notable areas directly undermined White House space policy goals.

As part of its fiscal year 2026 budget, the White House sought to end funding for the Space Launch System rocket after the Artemis III mission, and also cancel the Lunar Gateway, an orbital space station that provides a destination for the rocket. The Cruz addendum provided $6.7 billion in funding for two additional SLS missions, Artemis IV and Artemis V, and to continue Gateway construction.  

In various addresses and statements this year, Cruz has emphasized that his priorities for NASA are to beat China to the moon and start permanent settlements there.  I think I can agree with the priorities, it's how he plans to do it that give me heartburn.  I consider every penny spent on SLS to be as close to absolute waste as we can get short of melting them down and throwing out the zinc and while we might need to use SLS for the next launch or two, we can't get rid of SLS fast enough for me.  And by the way, that $6.7 billion for two more Artemis launches probably isn't enough, since a number closer to $4.5 billion per launch is regularly thrown around. 

This week, Cruz will hold a hearing titled, "There’s a Bad Moon on the Rise: Why Congress and NASA Must Thwart China in the Space Race." It is scheduled for 10 am ET on Wednesday.   

If you go to the link in that paragraph, you'll see that while the hearing is scheduled for September 3rd, the rest of the website is dated August 27, the Wednesday before the hearing.  One of the "interesting" developments in who will be attending since that notice is that all attendees who had links to the commercial space world have been dropped or uninvited.  

It's conceivable - though hard to believe - that Ted Cruz thinks NASA is doing this by themselves with the major contractor of SLS, Boeing with no commercial space involvement at all.  He would have to be remarkably uninformed to not realize the both SpaceX with Starship and Blue Origin with their Mark II have been contracted to deliver lunar landers.  Not coincidentally, both Starship and Blue Origin's New Glenn are reusable - unlike SLS.  That means both Starship and New Glenn are likely to be able to launch to the moon more often than SLS, which so far hasn't been able to meet a launch date for its first crewed launch, Artemis 2.  As you'll recall Artemis 1 launched in November of '22, so we're coming up on a three year turnaround and the advertised date is next spring, so more like 3-1/2 years between launches.

Another spaceflight advocacy organization, the Space Frontier Foundation, said it is healthy for Congress to have a robust debate about how the country should compete with China on the Moon. However, to do so, there should be a wide variety of viewpoints.

"The topic of our country’s strategy for competing for this new territory on the Moon, not just for the first footprint but the longer-term impact, is extremely important," said Sean Mahoney, executive director of the foundation. "We need better than just window dressing. We need an honest, realistic discussion about the costs, the risks, and the alternatives. It’s too important for this to just be something that gets a little bit of attention and then pushed through." 

I couldn't agree more.

This is the launch vehicle for Artemis II, photo from their factory in New Orleans before it was shipped to Florida.  One of the Shuttles' Leftover engines had to be replaced, bottom right in this picture.  Image credit: NASA

Labor Day 2025

Welcome to Labor day, or as we refer to it this year: August 32nd, the earliest Labor Day there can be. The chances of rain tomorrow are being put at 70% so rather than smoking something, we'll be having a pretty typical meal like we do every day, on our regular keto way of eating.  Since it seems the vast majority of stores are open, I could use to make a run to the nearest Office Supplies store for a printer ink cartridge.  Yeah, I know that's exciting.  

One of the reasons I shifted away from writing about the political/social side of life that so many fellow bloggers talk about all the time is that it's such an odd combination of important, and yet insanely boring to talk about all the time.  I get tired of the same handful of stories all the time, even if "all the time" simply means today or this week.  "Someone somewhere" decides what the story of the week is going to be and we get bombarded with versions and derivatives of that group of stories until the next story of the week gets chosen.  I get bored with seeing them on TV, I get bored with hearing them, and I get bored writing the same things.  

One of the things that's in the pile of stuff that cycles by endlessly are trade unions.  While Florida has been a "right to work" state for my entire working life, both Mrs. Graybeard and I worked in places where union membership might have not been legally required, rather it was more like a necessary evil we had to put up with.  

I know I've written this concept down before and won't bother linking to myself, but I've been involved with specifying components the company I was working for was going to buy long enough to realize that companies don't buy anything without negotiating a price.  You may get an offer for $X dollars and be insulted or you may be grateful, but in things I was involved with, we might buy components that were custom designed for us that both the component sellers and we the buyers would negotiate a price for.  Unions started in negotiating working conditions, classically hours of work versus pay per hour.  It may not seem fully logical at first glance but while I personally don't want to work in a unionized workplace, I can see the argument for having a professional negotiating your pay.  The argument against that is you have to pay the negotiator, too.  

The advent of unions was complicated immediately by violence.  The first blood spilled by union activists apparently goes back to the Haymarket Square massacre in 1886, in which:

... striking union workers threw a bomb at Chicago police, killing eight police officers and countless civilians, after being incited to their lethal rampage by socialist Samuel Fielden (not unlike how Marty Lamb was beaten after the crowd of unionists was inflamed to violence by “progressive” Rep. Capuano) [Note: explanation of the Rep. Capuano reference in that linked article just above - SiG]

Because of their enormous influence in the Democratic Party, unions have specifically gotten themselves exempted from laws the rest of society must follow.  You probably know about the exemptions from the anti-trust laws, and extortion laws, and that they tried to exempt themselves from Obamacare.  This is an exceptionally brief introduction to the history of union violence against anyone they regard as "in their way."  

Unions are progressively more desperate because membership in non-government employee unions has been dropping since the late 1950s.  Only government workers' unions are growing, where no true negotiation takes place because there are no parties at the table risking anything.  Unions like the NEA, AFT and the SEIU are the beneficiaries of fat government contracts.  They get more union dues which they siphon off to contribute to getting Evil Party politicians elected who will negotiate new, fat contracts with them.  Of course an alternate way of saying that is unions only survive where there isn't a free market but the expenses they cause are paid for by the taxpayers or society at large and don't come out of the pockets of the negotiators on the other side of the table.  

Despite the rhetoric, the unions aren't trying to make anyone's lives better except for their own.  If members get some crumbs that make their life better, that's nice.  For the non-unionized workers, who have to pay them their higher wages, too bad.  As the saying goes, FUJIGM.  

Well, this is wandering far off the topic of celebrating Labor Day, so I hope you have an enjoyable day no matter how you celebrate or mark the day.   

Sunday Morning Live - SpaceX's 9th Starlink Launch of the Month

Sunday Morning, currently No Earlier Than 7:49 AM EDT (1149 UTC), SpaceX will launch 28 satellites on the Starlink 10-14 mission. 

Spaceflight Now's live video coverage here starts at 6:49 AM.  Probably.  It's honestly hard to know because SpaceX just moved the launch from 7:20 to 7:49 a little while ago and I just modified all the times I'd previously written to the current, latest times.  Which kind of assumes they don't change again and we all know that's not absolute.

All told in 2025, following the deployment of the 28 satellites on the Starlink 10-14 mission, SpaceX will have deployed more than 1,900 of its Starlink V2 Mini satellites into low Earth orbit across 77 Falcon 9 launches.

The Starlink satellites will ride on top of booster B1077 which is in the "very experienced" group.  This will be its 23rd trip to space and back.  The landing drone ship for the flight is Just Read The Instructions, which will be stationed off the coast of South Carolina.  

SpaceX plans to launch at least 170 Falcon 9 rockets across 2025, with the majority of those supporting its Starlink constellation. Sunday’s launch will the 108th of the year.  As we start the last four months of 2025, that's the last third of the year.  It seems that implies 2/3 of the year has passed and a reasonable guess at how many they do in a third of the year is half of that 108, or 54 launches.  Another 54 on top of the 108 gets them to 162.  My WAG on that is that they're close and probably can make it, but it's not an absolute gimme.   

During the prelaunch coverage of Starship Flight 10, SpaceX said in a pre-produced video that roughly two-thirds of all operational satellites in orbit are Starlinks. Cornelia Rosu, the senior director of Starlink Production, said in the video that SpaceX is producing dozens of Starlink V2 Mini satellites weekly at its facilities in Redmond, Washington.

“Generally satellite manufacturing is a very slow process. It takes people weeks or months to build a satellite,” Rosu said. “At SpaceX, we iterate very fast and we have learned how to build satellites at a 70 sats per week rate.” 

You can watch that video just referenced at the Spaceflight Now article or here on X.  

Fleet leader B1067 after Thursday morning's mission to put up another 28 Starlink Satellites. 

Combining Starship FT-10 and the record reuse of B1067...

SpaceX had an epically good week.  We're rather used to that, and it's good to see again.   

A couple of us exchanged comments on the Starship's orange color to the FT-10 entry yesterday,  but Eric Berger at Ars Technica did some deep diving on the subject today.  

This color—so different from the silvery skin and black tiles that cover Starship's upper stage—led to all sorts of speculation. Had heating damaged the stainless steel skin? Had the vehicle's tiles been shucked off, leaving behind some sort of orange adhesive material? Was this actually NASA's Space Launch System in disguise? 

This is rather important because of the nature of the heat shield testing SpaceX had targeted doing on this flight.  We got some answers on Thursday from SpaceX on X.  You see, when the Starship landed within a few feet of the "target" where a  buoy was prepared to photograph the landing, there was also a drone flying in the area and some great pictures came from that.   

A (stunning) view of SpaceX's Starship rocket shortly before splashing into the Indian Ocean this week. Credit: SpaceX

This is where the discussion we had here in the comments came from; in particular a link to Elon Musk on X saying:

Worth noting that the heat shield tiles almost entirely stayed attached, so the latest upgrades are looking good!

The red color is from some metallic test tiles that oxidized and the white is from insulation of areas where we deliberately removed tiles.

There is no "official" explanation that I'm aware of that covers the apparent explosion in the engine bay that clearly damaged things in there.  It just doesn't appear to have affected the landing approach or the landing itself. 

Damage to the engine bay and one of the vehicle's flaps can be seen clearly in the new photographs. This did not appear to impact what was a soft and precise landing in the Indian Ocean, but obviously it was not nominal.

So, with this new information, what does it mean for SpaceX's plans to test future Starship vehicles? What follows is a mixture of informed guesswork and reporting. It is also very notional because SpaceX is known to change its plans rapidly in response to new data. So take this information with a pinch of salt.

Berger goes on to list what he expects to happen for Flight Tests (FT) - 11 through 20.  Eric's expecting FT-11 to be No Earlier Than October, and for it to be the last flight of a version 2 Starship.  He expects FT-12 to be the first flight of a version 3 Starship and to occur after the first of the year.  Musk said recently somewhere in the range of flight 13 to 15, the first flight to attempt to catch the Starship would likely take place.

Somewhere between FT-15 to -20, we will probably see the first attempts at orbital refueling.  Probably in the second half of '26. 

As Berger says about taking this with a pinch of salt, expect changes.  

I can't ignore my lead-in reference to the 30th flight of B1067, because it leads into a side story that resonates with me.  Remember when we thought 10 flights would be amazing?  And then they went past 10 and got to 20 so we started wondering out loud how long they could keep a booster going?  Now that good old B1067 has flown 30 times, what now?  Kiko Dontchev, SpaceX's vice president of launch, said on X, "40 is the current goal."  Until 1067 does her 40th flight and then it becomes 50. 

A pet observation someone gave me once was, "when you do things no one has ever done before, you learn things no one has ever known before."  No one has ever made an orbital class rocket that has flown 30 times.  How can we know if they can make 50?  Just keep inspecting after launches and keep track of everything.  

I started getting interested in SpaceX when I learned about some of the bold ambitions and goals that Musk was talking about.  Yesterday, Eric Berger did a different piece on Ars Technica talking about what the industry was originally calling SpaceX's "dumb approach" to reuse.  I find it hard to believe a bunch of intelligent engineers wouldn't recognize that his "dumb" approach just flew the same booster 30 times and nobody else has gotten remotely close to that.  

The company first made a controlled entry of the Falcon 9 rocket's first stage in September 2013, during the first flight of version 1.1 of the vehicle.  This was over two years before their first successful landing on one of the concrete "Landing Zones" on Cape Canaveral.  If nothing else, that landing validates their approach to design.  I remember the launch, the landing and posting that I watched it.

In the United States, the main competitor to SpaceX has historically been United Launch Alliance. Their reaction to SpaceX's plan to reuse first stages a decade ago was dismissive. The company's engineers wrote papers (pdf warning) and performed studies that argued SpaceX's plans were impractical.

Almost one decade ago, to the date, United Launch Alliance began sharing a graphic that demonstrated its approach—to separate only the engine section of the Vulcan rocket—was superior. The company dubbed this approach SMART, an acronym for Sensible Modular Autonomous Return Technology. The implication in this name, of course, is that SpaceX's booster flyback approach was dumb.

According to the United Launch Alliance analysis in 2015, the SMART plan would result in cost savings as soon as the second launch of a booster. SpaceX's approach, by contrast, would require 10 flights for there to be any cost savings.

One imagines that those engineers never dreamed that, a decade later, SpaceX would fly the same rocket 30 times and reach an annual launch cadence that approaches the total number of rockets United Launch Alliance has flown during its 20-year existence. As for SMART, it remains a theoretical concept.

SpaceX flies 30th mission of a Falcon 9 booster - the new record

This morning (Thursday 8/28) at 4:12 AM EDT (0812 UTC) SpaceX's fleet leader, B1067 flew for the record-breaking 30th mission, launching Starlink mission 10-11, delivering another 28 Starlink V2 Mini broadband internet satellites into the low Earth orbit constellation.  The launch site was Pad 39A on the Kennedy Space Center side of Cape Canaveral.  Close to 8 minutes 30 seconds after liftoff, B1067 landed on the drone ship ASOG - A Shortfall Of Gravitas.  This was the 122nd landing on ASOG and the 495th overall booster landing to date.  

With 30 successful missions, it's hard to come up with a short summary of B1067's life, but it's inevitable reporters would try.  From Spaceflight Now's summary:

The previous missions for B1067 include two astronaut flights, two cargo missions to the International Space Station and 18 batches of Starlink satellites. 

A short post, but only news for a day or so.  The previous Falcon 9 mission was yesterday (Wednesday) morning at 7:10 AM EDT (1110 UTC) from SLC-40 on Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, and the next launch will be from Vandenberg SFB (Space Force Base, not station) Friday night at 11:09 PM EDT (0309 UTC).

I've never written a fan letter at all, let alone to a rocket, but I almost could.

As the flight 10 data starts to pour in ...

As the data on yesterday's test flight starts to release, I don't see reporting of anything new that could be signs of bad outcomes along the way.  The flight test seemed to be entirely as planned.  

For the first time, SpaceX engineers received data on the performance of the ship's upgraded heat shield and control flaps during reentry back into the atmosphere. The three failed Starship test flights to start the year ended before the ship reached reentry. Elon Musk, SpaceX's founder and CEO, has described developing a durable, reliable heat shield as the most pressing challenge for making Starship a fully and rapidly reusable rocket.

And there were lessons to learn from Tuesday's test flight. The ship made it all the way to the Indian Ocean intact, arriving next to a prepositioned buoy northwest of Australia, where it was just after sunrise Wednesday morning at the time of splashdown. A camera on the buoy showed the ship slowing down before contacting the water, then tipping over and exploding as expected.

Today, though, I got to see something I didn't see watching the mission.  The Starship changed color in flight, so that it looked rather orange right before landing in the Indian Ocean.  It's quite noticeable here; I'm rather confident that area was a dull silver like the stainless steel alloy that it is at launch 66 minutes earlier.  

Starship 36 settles down to reach zero velocity at the surface of the Indian Ocean. As expected, as soon as the engines were shut down, the ship tipped over and exploded. Image credit: SpaceX 

This article was published at 10:48 AM and by that time, no SpaceX officials talked about this and whether or not it was expected.  It could be an effect of the thermal environment the ship goes through during reentry, and remember that the flight had many experiments planned for the thermal protection systems. 

Those of us familiar with the Space Shuttle era remember seeing the Shuttles covered in white and black tiles.  The Thermal Protection System on the shuttles was not a slam dunk engineering success, where a set of tiles was installed on a shuttle and with the odd exception of hitting some piece of space junk leading to replacing a small number of tiles, it was close to zero maintenance.  In reality, tile damage was a regular occurrence throughout the 30 year shuttle program with tile repairs and replacements being done between every pair of missions of every shuttle.  

SpaceX is working on the same problems today.  Musk mentions thousands of tiles peeled off of the space shuttle Columbia when NASA first flew the orbiter on top of its modified 747 carrier aircraft in 1979.  For the desired "rapid reusability" targeted for Starship, that sort of repair and replacement after every flight isn't reasonable.  

"We are confident in making a fully reusable orbital heat shield but it will require many flights, many iterations to figure out where the weak points are in the heat shield, where we need to change the design, either strengthening the tile or changing how big the gap is between tiles, or changing what’s underneath the tile," Musk said in a discussion broadcast on SpaceX's official livestream of Monday's Starship launch countdown.
...
"The space shuttle heat shield would come back essentially partially broken and would require many months of refurbishment in order to fly again," Musk said. "What we’re trying to achieve here with Starship is to have a heat shield that can be reflown immediately."

These are deep subjects, but not easily linked to the Flight Test 10 mission.  As always, there's no such thing as knowing too much.  SpaceX had a great day yesterday, one which it seems they were overdue  to have.  It's just that they have a lot of things they need to get working properly soon.  Starship won't make it to the moon without refueling in space, which means that has to be worked on soon, maybe even before they finish with the thermal protection systems.  The first refueling test missions were penciled in for this year but that isn't looking very likely as we're virtually in September already.  That requires more than one flightworthy Starship. 

OK - THAT was incredible

Starship Flight test 10 was simply incredible.  Going into the mission we knew they were testing far more than just getting Ship 37 to a suborbital flight and lots of things we might consider negative outcomes could simply mean a test of some idea was concluded.  Maybe the results were positive, maybe they were negative, we simply won't know but at the end of the flight, when Ship 37 landed on its tail in the Indian Ocean then exploded it was obvious that the mission was the big win that we were saying SpaceX needed.  

We watched the launch, watched the booster to see if it could land vertically in the Gulf, which it did before it exploded.  Thousands of degrees temperature difference between the engines, hardware and the Sea Water will do that.  That was followed almost immediately by the deployment of 8 mockups of Starlink satellites up at the Starship on its suborbital flight.  The last time we were close to watching that, the door to the "Pez dispenser" wouldn't open because some air in the ship's body generated enough pressure to keep the door closed.  So the simple fix was to drain the air out of the ship through another port before trying.  Looked excellent.

Once the Starlink satellites (size and weight mock-ups) were in Space, attention turned to the ship re-entering.  We got very good views of that whole process, part of which was to test different heat shield materials and ways of applying them.  I expected the hull to burn through in places, but I only saw some molten areas in corners of the flaps, like we did on last year's Ships.  

The ship never lost control and looked as stable as a building - going 25,000 km/hr.  We'll have to wait a bit for SpaceX's content to hit, but this video contains the full flight.  To help you reduce your time looking for the big events, the launch is around the middle of the slider bar (which gives times from the end of the video not from the start) and the end of the mission is around 66 minutes after the launch. The mission timer in the upper left corner is more valuable than the video slider bar at the bottom.

This is around the last fraction of a second of this booster's life. Screen capture from the NASA Spaceflight video. Image credit: SpaceX

CRS-33's Dragon capsule isn't your average Cargo Dragon

Buried so deeply in the mission details about the Cargo Dragon launched yesterday that I didn't see it anywhere is that this isn't a standard Cargo Dragon.  This Dragon contains a scale model test system for the one that will enable the ship to kick the International Space Station out of its orbit and send it to its destruction on re-entry.  The modified Dragon with the full-sized engine system is going to be called the US Deorbit Vehicle (USDV) and is expected to be needed in 2030 or the early 2030s. 

You may recall that the contract for the USDV was awarded to SpaceX in June of '24.  The basic problem is that due to various factors, the atmospheric drag on the ISS varies over time and that lowers the orbit over time.  Yes, there's still atmospheric drag at the altitude of the station, primarily because the atmosphere can expand and contract over time.

Responsibility for maintaining the station's orbit has historically been borne by the Russian space agency, which had the sole capability to reboost the ISS after NASA retired its space shuttle fleet in 2011. Russia's Progress cargo freighters often use their own thrusters to raise the lab's altitude or steer it out of the way of space junk. What's more, Progress ships can refill propellant tanks inside the station's Russian command post, giving the outpost the ability to perform its own maneuvers when necessary.

Historically, Northrop Grumman's Cygnus spacecraft first demonstrated its ability to raise the station's orbit in 2022.  There are a couple of problems with using the Cygnus - the current big problem that gets them out of consideration is that Cygnus can't fly because their launch vehicle depended on Russian engines.  That's the root cause of why SpaceX is flying Cygnus CRS missions to the ISS.  

As always, it's more complicated than that, including that Cygnus has to dock in a different place than Cargo Dragon can, and Dragon actually nets some more positive effects from that.  Dragon, though, suffers most from using small thrusters.  It just simply needs "more power."   

When NASA asked SpaceX to modify Dragon for larger reboosts, engineers devised a new propulsion pack to be placed inside the hollow trunk of the spacecraft. This unpressurized compartment is mounted below the craft's pressurized cargo cabin, and it's where SpaceX usually carries larger experiments that are robotically attached to the outside of the ISS.

For this mission, SpaceX installed two additional Draco thrusters into the spacecraft's trunk. The small rear-facing rocket engines are closely aligned with the station's velocity vector, and they're connected to six dedicated propellant tanks in the trunk containing hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, combustible fluids that ignite upon contact with one another.

"Our capsule's engines are not pointed in the right direction for optimum boost," said Sarah Walker, SpaceX's director of Dragon mission management. "So, this trunk module has engines pointed in the right direction to maximize efficiency of propellant usage."

A look inside the Dragon spacecraft's trunk shows six propellant tanks covered in silver insulation and a central helium pressurant tank overwrapped in black carbon. Credit: SpaceX

From the way it's discussed, it doesn't sound like there's a specific planned date for this test.  When a desired time is decided on and all is ready, the Draco thrusters will gently accelerate the massive 450-ton complex.  It's calculated that the reboost kit can add about 20 mph, or 9 meters per second, to the space station's orbital speed. It doesn't sound like much, but they quote analysis saying it's the same speed-up contributed by "one-and-a-half Russian Progress cargo vehicles."  

I'm sure verifying those calculations and their underlying assumptions are what this mission is all about.  After all, they're planning to splash that 450-ton behemoth into deep water.  It would be a Very Bad Thing to accidentally crash it into a big city because the calculations were wrong. 

EDIT TO ADD 8/26/25 0905: Link in the first paragraph to the source article on Ars Technica

It wasn't a total waste of a day to SpaceX

Just because the big test was scrubbed, it's not like they had a day off.  

This morning at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, SpaceX launched a Cargo Resupply Service mission to the International Space Station.  The mission called CRS-33 lifted off at 2:45 AM EDT (0645 UTC) on August 24, 2025, from SLC-40.   The booster on this flight, B1090, has flown six times: O3b mPOWER-E, Crew-10, Bandwagon-3, O3b mPOWER 9-10, and two Starlink missions.  In my book, six previous missions is as good as new - or better - and has flown often enough to be seen as proven to be known good.  CRS-33 is the third flight for this Dragon spacecraft, which previously supported the CRS-26 and CRS-29 missions.

This is a time-compressed video, only 2:11 long, but shows launch, a couple of highlights and the booster landing on A Shortfall Of Gravitas, or ASOG.

The CRS-33 dragon capsule is scheduled to autonomously dock to the ISS at 11:30 UTC (7:30 AM EDT). 

On the eve of the next big Starship test flight

While they seem a little against the limits here - it's less than 24 hours before the scheduled launch and Ship 37 hasn't been stacked on its booster - it's hard to think of a group that gets more done faster and better in the industry.   

The summary I posted eight days ago (Friday August 15) still seems good.  The big picture converges on a couple of other posts; the first one is here in a piece that focuses on SpaceX's approach to design; Elon Musk's Five Laws of Manufacturing.  I'll edit it aggressively and re-post it here:

1. Make the requirements less dumb. The requirements are definitely dumb; it doesn't matter who gave them to you. ... “No matter who you are, everyone is wrong some of the time.” ... “all designs are wrong, it’s just a matter of how wrong.”
2. Try very hard to delete the part or process. If parts are not being added back into the design at least 10% of the time, not enough parts are being deleted.
3. Simplify and optimize the design.  Don't optimize something that shouldn't even be there.
4. Accelerate cycle time. 
5. Automate.  If a product is reaching the end of a production line with a high acceptance rate, there is no need for in-process testing.

The other one takes a good look at how SpaceX has implemented these laws, in a provocatively entitled article, "SpaceX has built the machine to build the machine. But what about the machine?"  

It dances around the topic that building the production factory is both more important and more difficult than building the rockets.  Ponder this one for a moment:

The ultimate goal of this factory is to build one Starship rocket a day. This sounds utterly mad. For the entire Apollo program in the 1960s and 1970s, NASA built 15 Saturn V rockets. Over the course of more than three decades, NASA built and flew only five different iconic Space Shuttles. SpaceX aims to build 365 vehicles, which are larger, per year. 

You've seen Starships - the current revision is taller than the Saturn V, and has more than twice the thrust.  The next version will be bigger.  The goal with the SuperHeavy isn't just reuse, launching after a month of refurb; it's rapid reusability.   They've talked about using them for transoceanic travel, like an airliner; go anywhere on the globe in less than 90 minutes.  The model is something like a monstrously powerful version of a Boeing 747. 

Naturally with three flights that ended with three mission failures, along with the loss of another ship on the test stand, it's reasonable to ask if the "machine to build the machine" was built correctly.  Berger's response is that his sources in the company think it was.  He goes on to add:

They are frustrated by the run of problems this year, but they believe the fundamental design of Starship is sound and that they have a clear path to resolving the issues. The massive first stage has already been flown, landed, and re-flown. This is a huge step forward. But the sources also believe the upper stage issues can be resolved, especially with a new "Version 3" of Starship due to make its debut late this year or early in 2026.

The acid test will only come with upcoming flights. The vehicle's tenth test flight is scheduled to take place no earlier than Sunday, August 24. It's possible that SpaceX will fly one more "Version 2" Starship later this year before moving to the upgraded vehicle, with more powerful Raptor engines and lots of other changes to (hopefully) improve reliability.

It's an old saying in sports that "winning solves a lot of problems."  SpaceX really needs a win.  They've been unable to progress on any of the other big problems they've been working on, such as orbital refueling, which has to work to enable Starship - AKA the Human Landing System - to even get out of Earth orbit and to the moon.  They need to test the ideas for cryogenic fuel storage in space.  Landing an unmanned Starship on the moon belongs in the list as well.  Quite possibly, the inability to work on these things (and more) is the biggest problem resulting from the months of bad luck this year.  

Starbase at night, with a SuperHeavy booster in transport along the curved road. Image credit: SpaceX

I should mention that within a half hour of my writing that the ship for Sunday Evening's launch hadn't been stacked yet, I went back to the (Lab Padre) live feed and the Starship was in the last few feet of being lifted to stack on the booster.   That was over an hour ago.

Small Space News Story Roundup 64

SpaceX launches its 100th, no, 101st, no - wait, 102nd Falcon 9 of the year 

Don't wait too long or you'll miss more.

SpaceX launched its 100th Falcon 9 rocket of the year Monday morning, 101st was the USSF-36 (launch of the X-37B) on the 21st from Cape Canaveral SFS, SLC-40; 102nd was this morning (the 22nd) from SLC-4E at Vandenberg.  103 will be Sunday morning at 2:45 AM.

You get the picture.

 That's quite a cadence ... The Monday morning flight was a notable milestone for SpaceX. It is just the second time in the company’s history that it achieved 100 launches in one calendar year, a feat so far unmatched by any other American space company, and it is ahead of last year's pace. Kiko Dontchev, SpaceX's vice president of launch, said on the social media site X, "For reference on the increase in launch rate from last year, we hit 100 on Oct 20th in 2024. SpaceX is likely to launch more Falcon 9s this year than the total number of Space Shuttle missions NASA flew in three decades.

This is the 34th week of 2025, so I won't count Sunday morning's 103rd launch of the year. Their 102 launches in 34 complete weeks is 3 launches per week.  This is Falcon 9s and doesn't include Falcon Heavy or Starship test launches.   

Canadian University Students Carry Out Canada's first launch in this century

It's very easy to think a country like Canada has an active space program; they're technologically advanced, all of us old enough to remember the Canada remote arm on the shuttles know they've done things that went to space.  I was a bit surprised to read a team of college students launched a suborbital mission - which didn't actually succeed.  

Students from Concordia University cheered and whistled as the Starsailor rocket lifted off on Cree territory on August 15, marking the first of its size to be launched by a student team, Radio Canada International reports. The students hoped Starsailor would enter space, past the Kármán line, which is at an altitude of 100 kilometers, before coming back down. But the rocket separated earlier than expected. The livestream can be seen here.

Persistence is thy name ... This was Canada's first space launch in more than 25 years, and the first to be achieved by a team of students, according to the university. Originally built for a science competition, the 13-meter tall rocket was left without a contest after the event was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the team, made up of over 700 members since 2018, pressed forward with the goal of making history and launching the most powerful student-built rocket.

A solar eclipse two years from now has started making headlines 

I just want to put this out there in case you haven't heard of this, but the solar eclipse on August 2nd, 2027 is starting to attract attention.  Why?  It will have the longest totality in the 21st century, peaking at 6 minutes and 23 seconds at the best point along the path.  (I've seen 6:22, 6:23 and 6:27 for the duration.  I went with the "Willie Nelson" version - the one in the middle.)   The longest period of totality is on the centerline of the path, and this map shows the center line and peak eclipse (in red).

It may be hard to read this but if you click it to embiggen it, you can see the peak looks to be in Southern Egypt.  

If traveling to southern Egypt is something you might want to do you should probably start looking into this some more.  The first place I saw an article on this (sorry - don't remember when/where) had links to several places that are arranging tours, and I expect that field to enlarge as progressively more people find out about this eclipse.   

Firefly Aerospace in talks to launch Alpha rocket from Japan

On Monday, Space Cotan Co., Ltd., operator of the Hokkaido Spaceport (HOSPO), announced it entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Texas-based launch company to conduct a feasibility study examining the practicality of launching Firefly’s Alpha rocket from its launch site.   

Hokkaido Spaceport is located on the island of the same name in northern Japan, in an area called Taiki Town.  The Spaceport bills itself as “a commercial spaceport that serves businesses and universities in Japan and abroad, as well as government agencies and other organizations.” It advertises launches from 42 degrees to 98 degrees, including Sun-synchronous orbits.  

The Spaceport is reported to have room for two launch complexes designed to support the launches of small, orbital-class rockets.  Which implies that Firefly will fund the construction of the launch complexes.  

“Firefly will continue to expand our responsive launch capabilities to meet the growing demand of the satellite market across the globe,” said Adam Oakes, Vice President of Launch at Firefly Aerospace in a statement. “We look forward to exploring the opportunity to launch our Alpha rocket from Japan, which would allow us to serve the larger satellite industry in Asia and add resiliency for U.S. allies with a proven orbital launch vehicle.” 

The "Big Picture" view of Firefly is a little tough to summarize.  They had the great results with their lunar lander, becoming the first private company to successfully to do so when they put their Blue Ghost lander on the moon this past March 2nd.  On the launch vehicle side, their results haven't been particularly good.  All six of Firefly Aerospace’s Alpha rocket launches so far took off from Space Launch Complex 2 at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.  Of the six, the Alpha has logged two successful flights.  Half of the remaining four ended up in the wrong orbit, and the other two failed to reach orbit at all.

Meanwhile, Firefly Aerospace also has its sights on bringing its launch capabilities to Europe. Specifically, they are working alongside the Swedish Space Corporation (SSC) towards launching from the Esrange Space Center in Kiruna, Sweden.

Most recently, a Technology Safeguards Agreement was signed on June 20 at the Embassy of Sweden in Washington D.C.. The agreement between the two countries creates the technical and legal apparatus to allow U.S. rockets to launch from Swedish spaceports.

Firefly Aerospace launches its sixth Alpha rocket from Vandenberg Space Force Base on April 29, 2025. Image: Trevor Mahlmann / Firefly Aerospace

Add to that overall summary of the company that the industry seems to think well of them.  Back on August 7, they did an initial public offering (IPO) of stock in the company.  

It went well for them.  Shares in Firefly (FLY) began trading at $70 on the NASDAQ stock exchange midday Thursday, jumping from their offering price of $45, The Wall Street Journal reports. The company sold more than 19 million shares in the listing, raising $868 million.