Exoscientist

Repeated engineering failures stem from the top. What SpaceX needs to do first is hire a true Chief Engineer. Then follow standard industry practice of doing full-up(all engines), full mission duration, full thrust static tests. Bob Clark

The suggestion that a Moon landing can be mounted with a launcher at ca. 60 ton payload capacity is derived from a proposal from the early 1990's for a low cost follow-up to Apollo called Early Lunar Access(ELA): Moon denied: the 1993 Early Lunar Access proposal. by Dwayne A. Day Monday, January 9, 2023 https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4511/1 It would use a Gemini-sized capsule for a 2-person crew lunar mission at ca. 3 tons dry mass for the capsule. Studies had shown the Gemini capsule could be adapted to carry a crew of two for a lunar mission. Unlike, Apollo there would be only this one crew module that would go all the way to the surface of the Moon and back to Earth, in contrast to the Apollo architecture that had a second smaller, crew module for the lunar lander. Interestingly, the hydrolox lunar lander stage would have about the same gross mass as the fully fueled Blue Moon MK1 lander with a 3 ton dry mass crew capsule added, i.e., ca. 25 tons. The plan was to use only one other additional in-space stage, a Centaur-like stage to perform the translunar injection(TLI) burn. This stage and the lander stage would be launched separately and link up in low Earth orbit. A spaceflight rule-of-thumb is a hydrolox Centaur-like stage can get a payload mass of equal size to its prop load mass to TLI. So a hydrolox stage would be needed at 25 tons or more prop mass. Centaur itself did exist at ca. 20 tons but a slightly larger one would be needed. The ELA plan was proposed in 1993, perhaps they were thinking of an extended Centaur. In any case, a hydrolox stage of the needed size did come into play with the Delta IV Heavy's upper stage, first launched in 2004. Besides that problem, the plan was to have the 25 ton hydrolox lander launched on the Space Shuttle. The shuttle then would need its payload capability expanded slightly to 25 tons. Another issue is NASA for safety reasons did not want a hydrolox stage in the shuttle payload bay. For these reasons the plan did not progress beyond just the proposal stage. But now we do have a hydrolox upper stage in the DIVH upper stage of the needed size to do the TLI burn. And we do have a launcher at 60+ ton capacity in the Falcon Heavy. The Falcon Heavy would need to be man-rated or Falcon 9 would need to be launched separately to get the crew to orbit. The New Glenn at 45 ton payload capability as partially reusable likely could also get ca. 60 tons to orbit expendable.

Finally, people are starting to ask the tough questions about the SpaceX development of Starship: Twin Test Flight Explosions Show SpaceX Is No Longer Defying Gravity. Consecutive losses of the Starship rocket suggest that the company’s engineers are not as infallible as its fans may think. … But these two Starship explosions were a step backward in SpaceX’s development process, as the flights could not even repeat the successes of earlier test flights, and they perhaps show that the company’s engineers are not as infallible as fans of the company sometimes like to think. “There’s this persona that has built up around SpaceX, but you’re starting to see that they’re human, too,” said Daniel Dumbacher, a former NASA official who is now a professor of engineering practice at Purdue University and chief innovation and strategy officer for Special Aerospace Services, an engineering and manufacturing company whose customers include NASA, the United States Space Force and some of SpaceX’s competitors. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/08/science/starship-spacex-explosion-elon-musk.html (Behind paywall.) Repeated engineering failures stem from the top. SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer making the engineering decisions. Bob Clark

SpaceX was spectacularly successful with the Falcon 9 by first aiming for an expendable launcher, then proceeding to reusability. If SpaceX took this approach with the Starship, they would already be flying a 250 ton capacity launcher that could make flights to the Moon and to Mars in a single launch now. Instead, they won’t let their launcher be operational until full reusability is achieved, and we don’t know when that would be. At this point SpaceX doesn’t even know what heat shield they will use for the Starship, having abandoned the one they had used on several flights. Blue Origin is a taking the approach of getting payload to orbit first, like what was done with the Falcon 9. Landing is a secondary, even minor goal initially. They plan on proceeding to a large lunar lander this year. Running the numbers this lander could serve to land a crew module at 3 tons mass on the Moon and could be launched on an expendable New Glenn or Falcon Heavy at a 60 tons to LEO capacity in a single launch. No multi-billion SLS, no refueling flights required. Bob Clark

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxxzYSZbpeDTcua39lvmtSoTIhxsVG9IiS Actually, I was referring to the 4th flight. A Raptor exploded during the landing burn. The booster then exploded just before ocean touchdown. In this flight it has been taken as the ocean touchdown causing the explosion. However, it actually occurred just before touchdown. Then strictly speaking you can consider this also as an explosion in flight. Bob Clark

SpaceX is in real danger of being lapped by Blue Origin. Blue demonstated the importance of having a top-notch Chief Engiineer in David Limp in reaching orbit on the first flight and rapidly progressing towards landing a large lander on the Moon on an upcoming flight. SpaceX demonstrated the importance of having a top-notch Chief Engineer in not having one. Bob Clark

In flight explosions on 6 out of 8 test flights. In any other space company questions would be raised of the Chief Engineer. Unfortunately for SpaceX, the Chief Engineer is the owner of the company. Bob Clark

Which flight was this? Bob Clark

Does this mean the FAA is allowing them to launch even though the mishap investigation is not complete? Even though the failure in the last flight caused commercial aircraft to be diverted? Bob Clark

REVISING ARTEMIS Long-time advocate of SLS rocket says it’s time to find an “off-ramp” “A revised Artemis campaign plan should be a high priority for the new NASA Administrator.” ERIC BERGER – FEB 26, 2025 9:52 AM | https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/02/long-time-advocate-of-sls-rocket-says-its-time-to-find-an-off-ramp/ Bob Clark

[snip] SpaceX has announced Feb. 28th as the intended next flight of Starship. But after the explosion in flight during flight 7, the FAA required a mishap investigation of the Starship. Normally, the FAA requires the mishap report prior being granted permission for the next flight. But after this announcement the FAA has said nothing. Certainly the mishap report has not been delivered since those are always made public by the FAA. If the FAA allows this launch without requiring the mishap report beforehand this would be highly unusual. [snip] This has made apparent that conflicts of interest are rife [snip] Bob Clark

There is much handwringing at NASA as it appears the Artemis missions will be cancelled. However, in point of fact we are now at a point in the development of spaceflight that manned lunar missions can be mounted for what we are now spending just for flights to the ISS, as long as they are commercially financed. Then we now have the capability to be at the long-desired position of having a sustained, habitable presence on the Moon: Could Blue Origin offer its own rocket to the Moon, Page 2: low cost crewed lunar landers. https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2025/02/could-blue-origin-offer-its-own-rocket.html As part of the calculations I came to a surprising conclusion, the production cost, as opposed to the price charged to the customer, of a manned space capsule might be only a few ten's of millions of dollars. Bob Clark

Further support for the belief SLS will be cancelled: Key NASA officials' departure casts more uncertainty over US moon program By Joey Roulette February 20, 202510:17 AM ESTUpdated 8 hours ago https://www.reuters.com/world/us/key-nasa-officials-departure-casts-more-uncertainty-over-us-moon-program-2025-02-19/?utm_source=reddit.com Then we should be working now towards replacement architectures for getting to the Moon. Bob Clark

Robert Zubrin wrote another article about getting to Mars: The Mars Dream Is Back — Here’s How to Make It Actually Happen. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-mars-dream-is-back-how-to-go He again makes the argument there should be a smaller 3rd stage used for the actual landing, rather than the Starship, here called the Starboat. Bob Clark

During the IFT-7 flight, the flames were seen coming out of the flap hinge at about 7 minutes into flight. Given stage separation is about 3 minutes into flight, the flames were seen about 4 minutes after the ship’s engine ignition. A test should go at least that far, though ideally all the way to the 6+ minute burn time of the ship. If it requires additional nitrogen and water supplies being added to the test stand to conduct the test that long, then so be it. Also, a greenish tinge from the exhaust seen in that above clip near the start of the clip, near the base, just for a moment is a hallmark of copper burning. Bob Clark