Spaceception

I don't believe so. Looking through old web captures, they don't even mention the FAA, and the landing attempt was a small blurb. This was the first droneship attempt https://web.archive.org/web/20150717181812/http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/01/10/spacex-launches-fifth-official-mission-resupply-international-space-station And the second attempt: https://web.archive.org/web/20150723152319/http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/04/14/liftoff-falcon-9-and-dragon-begin-crs-6-mission-resupply-international-space-station No mentions of an investigation, just talking about the landing attempt and what went wrong. Looking for FAA investigations on Falcon 9 between Jan/Jun 2015 (encompassing the first droneship landings, and before CRS-7) didn't bring anything up either, but maybe someone who's better at digging through search engines will prove me wrong. It looks like as long as SpaceX showed landing (or the lack therof) boosters posed no risk beyond what a normal fight would have, they weren't concerned.

Yup, they had a planned upgrade for Falcon 1, 1e, that would upgrade both engines, stretch the tanks, and increase payload from ~.45 to ~1 mT. They had 6 expected customers for it, 2 moved to Falcon 9 when they cancelled it.

I mean yes, you can say they were "blowing up rockets" but this was after already, and successfully, stage separating to deploy a payload, nothing about this hurt the overall mission or threatended its success. They had a booster coming back from space that would otherwise crash into the ocean (like everyone else's boosters), and they wanted to reuse said boosters eventually, why not give it the hardware to try and bring it back if you can? For a long time on webcasts, and even after landing (and reflying) boosters, SpaceX referred to them as experimental landings, because they were. The DC-X, referred to often in these discussions, was a subscale vehicle that did a few high altitude hops, but nothing like what the Falcon 9 boosters went through, this was largely uncharted territory, and there were doubts about how much it financially made sense. It's just how you're framing it. Is it a bad thing they were blowing up rockets, because landing wasn't working early on? Or is it a good thing because they had to learn how to do it in the first place, and you're looking for more information about it?

CRS-7, I think I remember watching it live on a news channel in some waiting room TV (not medical, I think an autostore or similar?), because my family was running errands that day. The launch failure was a surprise, and I ended up looking it up when we got home. To @Kerwood Floyd The failure was in late June, and it took them until December to fly again, almost 6 months. 9 months later in September, AMOS-6 blew up on the pad, and it took them 4 months to return to flight, And yes, they did do mishap investigations, this is the one for AMOS-6 https://web.archive.org/web/20200519183949/https://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates. This was the CRS-7 report from SpaceX as it was ongoing about a month after the failure. https://web.archive.org/web/20150721152601/https://www.spacex.com/news/2015/07/20/crs-7-investigation-update

If they manage a comeback after all of this, I'd be a little impressed. The only thing keeping me from being really impressed is how much of this is not having enough investors, and how much is their fault? My impression from loosely following the news is that taking Astra public in the first place was a bad idea, at least when it's such a young company (since Rocket Lab seems to be making it work - or isn't suffering at least).

It looked official, and a lot of other people ran with it before realizing what it was, but it was spread fairly far across space twitter in a short amount of time, so there was some delay in people getting excited, and then realizing it was fake (I, and a lot of people got carried away). I think this is the best I've got (click to expand), they retweeted their own post, but below that was a link to, I think, the license announcement for IFT-2. But they were just suspended.

I know... unfortunately. I fixed it a while ago.

Wait, abort! I can't believe I fell for that. Fake FAA account. I can take some solace that NSF fell for it too (their tweet was quickly deleted).

Cycle 3 is coming up, and there's some interesting studies coming up. I'm admittedly more interested in the exoplanet science than the astrophysics it's designed for, but if you want to look through it, here's the link https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/science-execution/approved-programs/general-observers/cycle-3-go Anyway, exomoons! David Kipping, who some of you know from the Cool Worlds channel is part of a team led by Ben Cassese to look for moons around the Jupiter analog Kepler 167e. And there's more! Emily Pass is leading a program to search for large exomoons around the potentially habitable planets TOI-700 d and e. Other highlights is another TRAPPIST-1 study to see if they can detect an atmosphere of TRAPPIST-1e by getting a double transit with TRAPPIST-1b (which should have little to no atmosphere), to get around stellar contamination (which makes me wonder if earlier studies for TRAPPIST-1e have been inconclusive, so they're trying to find a way around it). As well as looking for the thermal emissions, and potential atmosphere of LP 791-18d, which is a roughly Earth-sized planet near the inner edge of the habitable zone, and is thought to be volcanically active like Io due to interactions with 2 planets larger than Earth (and the outer planet is a mini-Neptune).

FTS is on its way.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/03/stoke-stage-2/ I don't know if we knew this before, but they mentioned Nova would be 30.5m tall, 12m taller than New Shepard.

From the launch update page: This is going to be a great launch. The entire flight should last about an hour from liftoff to splashdown. Shorter than IFT-2's projected flight by about half an hour. Maybe the engine relight brings them back into the atmosphere earlier (so it's not a short ignition/shutoff)

It's funny that wasn't even officially posted. Launch in as little as 8 days though, I wonder if they'll include pies in the webcast at all. Wait, I just realized it's on my Spring break! I won't have to worry about missing it

With Transporter 10 and the Starlink launch, they actually had two broadcasts going at the same time, and launched twice within two hours. They also had 4 active spacecraft in orbit - Two Falcon 9s, and two Crew Dragons.

I really like the look of these photos, it almost looks painted, and adds an amazing quality to it. Keep an eye on FTS installation. Once they do that, iirc, it puts them about a week give or take from us to see licenses/launch attempts.

3rd times the charm for a WDR?

Second stage is testing What do you think they're naming the 1st and 2nd stage engines? After other novae, like Persei, or Delphini?

Rocket Lab is building (small) constellations in collaboration with Globalstar and Space Development Agency, which will be able to be launched on Neutron (but is launcher agnostic). It sounds like they won't have a dedicated constellation, but will instead work with others to develop and deploy multiple different constellations. https://www.rocketlabusa.com/space-systems/spacecraft/ Also updates on Neutron

Well that's one regulatory agency they're in talks with, but they won't be able to get licenses if they don't work out an updated environmental assessment with the other. So, this should mean that they're in the process, and we just have word from 1 side of that so far.

Blue Origin revealing the secret barge they've been working on.

More details here: https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/commercial-space/new-glenn-rolls-launchpad-tanking-test It'll also go through a static fire 1-3ish months before launch. The engines for this are completing qualification testing now. Also, the second stage won't be filled, and it's not flight hardware. It sounds like the booster they're using for the static fire isn't being used for the first launch, but it will be for a future one. Cool detail, and another thing that'll make this launch one to see live. They sound confident about it. Other details; the inital fleet will have 4 boosters, which are all in production, with expected turnarounds of 30 days. 3 second stages are completed, and 3 more are in production. And fairings for the first 7/8 missions have been built, not much info about the engines other than that the ones for the first hot fire are in testing. They're trying to hit the ground running. They're expecting 2 launches this year, likely to put everything through its paces and make sure it all works, but they're looking to have the ability to launch at least 12 rockets annually up front, with equipment coming in to bring that to 24.

Second stage development is coming along well. I wonder how far along it is to being ready for orbit.

Start swimming But I think it'll have plenty of handhelds, probably on a bunch of nearby walls and 'levels,' it probably won't be all that empty inside.

FTS installation for IFT-1, April 14th, Launch (attempt) 17th, actual, 20th. 3-6 days. IFT-2, November 11th. Launch, November 18th. 7 days. If the trend holds, we must be about a week from launch! Not March 8th oddly, that, or they're either installing it very early, or they're just getting it ready. Edit, this is just delivery, I'm reading that FTS was delivered on August 31st for IFT-2, but I could only find installation dates after some searching.