RCgothic

I agree with your analysis that a 1st stage for a rocket with half the payload of Falcon 9probably weighs about half as much, ~14t, and that six Rutherford's aren't going to cut it for a landing. Probably needs at least 9 auxiliary Rutherfords, (octoweb arrangement?) and they'd have to be firing on ascent so as not to be dead weight whilst retaining enough charge for a landing. Rutherfords are only 25cm across though, so it's easy to squeeze 9 into a 1.5m diameter, leaving a 1.5m wide annulus for the main engines. For a takeoff TWR of 1.5 Neutron would need ~4MN of thrust. Nine Rutherfords barely dent that. And it'll need four more engines more powerful than Merlin 1D. Or alternatively six 640kN engines. Feasible. 15 is a lot of engines for a first stage though.

I presume vestigial helium tanks are just a small mass penalty and they always planned to go back to autogenous pressurisation and so never removed the system.

As tater said, SN12, 13 and 14 were scrapped due to (as yet unknown) upgrades to SN15 and subsequent prototypes. (Landings excepted) testing has gone pretty smoothly so far, so it wouldn't be worth delaying flight experience with SN15-type prototypes in order to get more flight experience with SN8-type ones. Totally worth the manufacturing practice though.

Helium ingestion caused low thrust. Oops.

SpaceX's inspection drone had a terminal in-flight failure:

Late April for arrival at KSC (assuming good static fire). I will be extremely surprised if Artemis 1 launches this year.

I suppose one of the benefits of high chamber pressure is really responsive hydraulics!

And the FAA have no reason to deny that permission based on the flights to date or they would already have denied SN9 or 10. There isn't more risk just because the prototypes haven't stopped crashing.

That's why they fly. The only site at risk belongs to SpaceX, and the people who get the say on whether SpaceX can risk that site is SpaceX. The flights haven't come even close to risking anything else, and they're equipped with flight termination systems in the event that they might. And on the contrary, I don't think SpaceX is taking any reputational damage whatsoever from these flights. I don't see why the FAA would have any more problem with SN10 than SN9 (or especially SN8).

Anyone else reading Liftoff by Eric Berger? I'm 7 chapters in and folding it hard to put down. I'd have loved to have worked for SpaceX in those early days.

I've heard that advanced solids are pretty much locked in at this point, and that whenever they debut that will be block 2. It won't be as much of a performance increase as liquid boosters. Nowhere near 60t to TLI. I reckon it'd need a 5th RS25 and liquid boosters to hit that milestone. Might need to stretch the core further, and the boosters would probably be larger diameter as well which is all kinds of disaster for GSE compatibility.

Good shot here: Legs deployed but not all locked. Good find Ultimate Steve!

Valiant effort little leggos!

Catching up on the Everyday Astronaut feed I'm pretty sure the landing legs deployed, it was just a hard landing.

It just exploded on the ground! Argh! D:

I don't believe so. Once the SRBs are lit shuttle is departing or exploding no matter what. Edit: Yes, the hold down charges and SRB igniters were fired at the exact same time. The exhaust plume of the SRBs can boil steel, so nothing survives it for long. Ares 1-X torched a decent section of fixed service structure during its takeoff pad avoidance manoeuvre, not that it mattered as it was due to be demolished anyway.

The valve is repaired so obviously it'll take half a month to prepare for static fire.

Starship Superheavy will blow SLS away. SLS's payload to LEO is about 50t max (Block 2) plus a lot of fuel and stage (~130t total). Starship is 100t payload plus 80t starship plus ~30t landing fuel 210t total without even considering expending Superheavy (which would still be cheaper than SLS).

Thrust outside expected bounds on Raptor.

I believe it's topped off right up to launch. The tank farm is still going at least.

Yes, if the payload goes up on FH. If it goes up on two F9's, then that's 32t of spacecraft in LEO. FH then goes up with nothing but a fairing and a basic docking target, the combined spacecraft autonomously docks to it, and 63t of fuel residuals sends 32t to the moon from LEO easy. EOR. I'd like sevenperforce but I'm out for today.

FH is theoretically about 32t to TLI assuming the 32t makes is own way to LEO, which considering an F9 (ASDS recovery) is about 16t, is a nice multiple.

Pad not clear, vehicles on scene.

Looks like there's been a hold for a bit. Recondenser is now active again. Maybe a recycle to the start of the process again.