Rocket Report: Neutron launch date is delayed again; Vector Launch is back—sort of

"As the original architect of Vector’s vision, it’s deeply meaningful to bring these assets home."

See full article...

 

[Mandella]

In unfortunate news, a recent press release from Phantom showed photos of their latest Daytona prototype rolling back from the pad due to leaks during a pressurization test.

I got that reference!

I guess I'm getting to be a broken record about Jim Cantrell, but I can't imagine what "intellectual property" could be remotely valuable enough to be recovered from the wreckage of Vector Space. Of course, since financial details were not disclosed, it may have been one of those "dollar in hand" deals and releases like this are just another way to drum up some positive sounding publicity.

 

[wagnerrp]

I'm not talking about knowledge. I'm suggesting that there's no luck involved in not taking out neighbors if the failure mode is outboard. We don't have a strong confidence interval yet, but we're two-for-two in failures to the outside. So that's the (weakly) most probable failure direction. And, that's not inconsistent with having an asymmetric nozzle.

Nah. We're two-for-two in failures on VC2, where there's >200° of outside to safely fail to. The last flight would have "observed" straight into the adjacent booster were it a VC6.

 

[Nalyd]

Re Berger's law:

I hate to do it, but I’m afraid that I am compelled to invoke Berger’s Law for rockets on this one, which states, “If a rocket is predicted to make its debut in Q4 of a calendar year, and that quarter is six or more months away, the launch will be delayed.” Since its inception in 2022, the law has been undefeated.

There should be enough data to see if this generalizes to quarters other than Q4, right? Ie does it hold that “If a rocket is predicted to make its debut in a calendar quarter that is six or more months away, the launch will be delayed.” -?

 

[blackhawk887]

Nah. We're two-for-two in failures on VC2, where there's >200° of outside to safely fail to. The last flight would have "observed" straight into the adjacent booster were it a VC6.

View attachment 129270

Thats a VC4, not a VC2. But the point is well taken.

Also, a VC6 has a pretty high likelihood of multiple solids failing.

 

[nimelennar]

He said it was too early to provide details on the direction of the investigation but predicted it would be a “many months process” to identify the “exact technical issue” and the corrective actions required to prevent it from happening again.

Hmm.

Assuming that Dream Chaser Demo-1 doesn't get further delayed (which is a big assumption), and depending how many "many" is, this might line up well for them. They're currently penciled in NET Late 2026.

With them no longer launching to ISS (and so not having to coordinate schedules with other visiting vehicles), and Vulcans possibly not being in demand until they can offer some proof they've fixed the issue, all Sierra has to do is get Dream Chaser itself ready to launch.

 

[wagnerrp]

Thats a VC4, not a VC2.

My mistake. I knew the first failure was a VC2, and I didn't see a second pair of exhaust plumes on that photo.

Also, a VC6 has a pretty high likelihood of multiple solids failing.

Demonstrated 2/12 failures to date, so... ~76% chance of at least a single failure and ~38% chance of at least a double failure?

 

[l8gravely]

ULA is dead in my mind. They have a throw away booster, with no reuse possible. They have low capacity without the solid rocket boosters, which are not known to be flaky, to be generous. Vulcan itself is durable, the BE-4s look to be ok, but only time will tell.

So Vulcan-0 has approx 10t to LEO, while Falcon9 has 13T to LEO. And is resusable which reduces costs quite a bit. The only advantage Vulcan has is the huge (relatively speaking) volume inside the fairing. So light and fluffy loads would fit in there more easily.

 

[Fatesrider]

New data on how rockets pollute the atmosphere. New research bolsters growing concerns about the pollution produced by rocket launches, Ars reports.

Just as a thought about this: While certain kinds of materials as they are made on Earth are unlikely to be part of this "concern", the fact is far more is falling into that part of the atmosphere from space that weren't man-made in the first place. About 36,000 tons per year - or the equivalent of one US heavy cruiser from WWII.

And that's been going on for, well, the life of the planet.

So while the more TOXIC stuff going into the upper atmosphere is probably of greater concern than the other stuff, the higher UV radiation from the sun and other influences on what's been floating around up there that arrived from space instead of on the way to space have been part of the upper atmosphere's life cycle for the history of earth.

Granted, there may come a time when humans are sending out more tonnage than nature brings in (though I have my doubts about that for different reasons), but I don't really see this as a major issue. And if it is, I feel it's largely going to be a self-correcting one in the relatively near future, one way or the other.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Livestream for RocketLab’s HASTE launch “That’s not a knife”.

Spoiler: YouTube embed

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQru-Ol7DWU

Currently scheduled for about 4pm eastern.

 

[panckage]

I wonder what the betting odds are for Firefly's Alpha launch on Sunday.

Edit: 99% apparently
https://polymarket.com/event/will-the-firefly-lander-successfully-land-on-the-moon-on-sunday

 

[EllPeaTea]

Looks like Steve Stich isn’t completely gone from NASA. He’s moved to the HLS program.

https://www.space.com/space-explora...-program-in-wake-of-critical-starliner-report

 

[EllPeaTea]

Rocket Lab delay.

Launch preparations continue for our HASTE hypersonic test mission for @DIU_x and @HypersonixAU. Propellant load is about to begin at LC-2.

Accounting for upper level winds, our new T-0 for today's launch is:
4:50 p.m. ET
1:50 p.m. PT
21:50 UTC

 

[hark]

And a nice landing.

Starlink 6-108 had nice onboard audio from booster descent and landing.

 

[EllPeaTea]

No shots of staging or of the upper stage on the HASTE launch.

 

[EllPeaTea]

And clock has stopped just past T-3 minutes.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Terminal count has aborted. Sounds like they are trying for a recycle. Upper level winds are too high.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Jim Bridenstine putting his thumb on the scales. Is it really competition if half the launch slots are reserved for the losers?

Spoiler: Tweet embed

View: https://x.com/sciguyspace/status/2027503513803108548

I guess we know who successfully placed the anti-SpaceX provision in the Cruz reauthorization legislation for NASA.

Space is foundational to the American economy, national security, and our way of life. The launch industrial base that assures space access is a national imperative.
Section 313 of the Senate's proposed NASA Authorization Act of 2026 recognizes this reality. By capping any single launch provider at 50 percent of NASA's total launch contract value, Congress is reinforcing competition and protecting the small and medium-sized manufacturers, propulsion companies, avionics developers, and suppliers that make up the backbone of America's space enterprise.
Competition lowers costs, accelerates innovation and provides redundancy.
America succeeds in space when American companies compete, innovate, and grow.
I'm encouraged to see Congress taking meaningful steps to strengthen the industrial base that underpins both our civil and national security space missions and I commend Chairman Ted Cruz and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell for their leadership.
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Democratic Members #Space #NationalSecurity #NASA #SpacePolicy

 

[MarkW98]

Jim Bridenstine putting his thumb on the scales. Is it really competition if half the launch slots are reserved for the losers?

Spoiler: Tweet embed

View: https://x.com/sciguyspace/status/2027503513803108548

Does SLS count when figuring up "50 percent of NASA's total launch contract value"? I'm thinking not, since it's a NASA rocket and not from an external launch provider.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Terminal count has aborted. Sounds like they are trying for a recycle. Upper level winds are too high.

Clock is moving again. Launch scheduled for half-past.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Firefly LRR complete.

Launch Readiness Review complete for Alpha Flight 7! Our two-hour launch window opens tomorrow at 4:50 pm PT. We’re still working closely with @SLDelta30 to monitor upper-level winds while the team moves into the countdown for the Stairway to Seven.

Key objectives for this test flight:

• Achieve nominal first & second stage performance
• Test & validate key subsystems ahead of Alpha’s Block II upgrade on Flight 8

We’ll go live with @NASAspaceflight 20 minutes before liftoff: youtube.com/live/nyVbmoRXc…

 

[EllPeaTea]

“Hold, hold, hold” at Wallops.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Count has recycled, now aiming for the top of the hour.

 

[EllPeaTea]

“LD is go for launch”

 

[EllPeaTea]

Liftoff!

 

[EllPeaTea]

Very disturbing to see the rocket flying a flat trajectory while the first stage is still burning.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Hosts say that MECO, fairing jettison and payload deploy should have happened.

 

[Znomit]

Now that's a knife

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Jim Bridenstine putting his thumb on the scales. Is it really competition if half the launch slots are reserved for the losers?

Spoiler: Tweet embed

View: https://x.com/sciguyspace/status/2027503513803108548

Disparate redundancy requires paying more to keep a second option open. That's the price of not being dependent on a single supplier. What gives me the squint eye is the 50% limit. That's going to cause some real headaches trying to balance the numbers without a third supplier. SpaceX are typically the low bidder by a significant fraction while still doing the majority of the work so this doesn't really affect them: As long as there is another supplier their contract will always be under 50% of the total.

 

[bbgun06]

ULA might entice Amazon with a discount to be able to do a test launch and be paid. And if there's a discount it might be coming from NG pocket, since it's their part that keeps on failing.

Northrop Grumman makes the solid rocket motors which failed, not Blue Origin. They make the BE-4 engine on the core stage.

 

[Dtiffster]

Disparate redundancy requires paying more to keep a second option open. That's the price of not being dependent on a single supplier. What gives me the squint eye is the 50% limit. That's going to cause some real headaches trying to balance the numbers without a third supplier. SpaceX are typically the low bidder by a significant fraction while still doing the majority of the work so this doesn't really affect them: As long as there is another supplier their contract will always be under 50% of the total.

You could frame it as disparate redundancy costs money, but what this really does is stops number 2 from even having to compete with SpaceX allowing them to charge much more. And thus it cost NASA much more money. At least until there is robust competition at the number two spot.

What I want to know is how this actually works in practice. Most of the launches SpaceX does for NASA are dragon, which were booked years ago. If those don't count, well there aren't actually that many NASA launches put up for bid each year, and SpaceX is the only one currently certified to do many of them. With Vulcan struggling and New Glenn a pig outside Earth escape what are they supposed to do if SpaceX is literally the only one who can deliver on a high value contract and that carries them over 50%?

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

You could frame it as disparate redundancy costs money, but what this really does is stops number 2 from even having to compete with SpaceX allowing them to charge much more. And thus it cost NASA much more money. At least until there is robust competition at the number two spot.

What I want to know is how this actually works in practice. Most of the launches SpaceX does for NASA are dragon, which were booked years ago. If those don't count, well there aren't actually that many NASA launches put up for bid each year, and SpaceX is the only one currently certified to do many of them. With Vulcan struggling and New Glenn a pig outside Earth escape what are they supposed to do if SpaceX is literally the only one who can deliver on a high value contract and that carries them over 50%?

SpaceX are consistently around half the cost of the competition. That gives them more headroom to play with before hitting the cap even if they take a larger portion of the work.

Edit: Historically the #2 bidding against SpaceX gets 2/3 of the budget to do 1/3 of the work. A 50% cap requires either adding a 3rd supplier or reducing the award to the #2 to make the bills even.

 

[fenris_uy]

Northrop Grumman makes the solid rocket motors which failed, not Blue Origin. They make the BE-4 engine on the core stage.

Yeah, I know, that why I mention that the part that keeps failing is from NG.

 

[Torbjörn Larsson OM]

That press conference settled it, they cancelled SLS SLS1B.

Sunk costs was not a fallacy:

• The SLS 1B MK-2 launch tower was projected to cost up to 2.7 billion USD when it would be delivered after delays (in 2029, perhaps).
• The SLS1B-ish Exploration Upper Stage had projections suggesting it would cost nearly $2.8 billion through 2028.

But of course, the best news is that while we couldn't get a current kill date on SLS, its neutering means it will be targeted for replacement as soon as commercial alternatives comes on line. China invented solid rocketry may suit missiles with their long wait times and redundancy, but is not something you would like to tie crew (looking at NASA) or other important missions (looking at ULA) to.

(Too bad Ariane also uses medieval ricketry rocketry.)

Speaking of which, China has released some info on their stranded crew return: https://www.space.com/space-explora...cecraft-that-stranded-them-in-space-last-year

Good for the crew and for China showing its space program robustness. The Starliner-is-designed-as-unsafe-crap-but-let's-not-mention-it response (together with canceling SLS1B et cetera) is telling of how badly US is doing:

In Osburg's opinion, "the Chinese demonstrated pretty good responsiveness, being able to launch a backup spacecraft within a few weeks." The U.S. eventually also got their "not-stranded" astronauts back to Earth after the Starliner issue, Osburg told Space.com, "but did not demonstrate the same kind of responsiveness in action."

Seems US can learn from China now.

 

[@inemesitaffia]

View: https://x.com/ChinaSelect/status/2027132525986902295?s=20



@ChinaSelect report | China is using Latin America as a launchpad for military space operations. What looks like civilian cooperation is actually part of a PLA-linked global network tracking satellites and monitoring adversaries.

At least 11 Chinese-linked sites across Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, and Brazil, including ground stations and telescopes, serve dual-use military purposes, tied to the PLA.

 

[EllPeaTea]

SpaceX have published https://www.spacex.com/launches/sl-17-23 with details of a Starlink launch from California, currently scheduled for about 12am local time on the 1st.

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is targeting the launch of 25 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit from Space Launch Complex 4 East (SLC-4E) from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.

A live webcast of this mission will begin about five minutes prior to liftoff, which you can watch here and on X @SpaceX. You can also watch the webcast on the X TV app.

This is the 20th flight for the first stage booster supporting this mission, which previously launched USSF-62, OneWeb Launch 20, NROL-145, and 15 Starlink missions. Following stage separation, the first stage will land on the Of Course I Still Love You droneship, which will be stationed in the Pacific Ocean.

There is the possibility that residents of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura counties may hear one or more sonic booms during the launch, but what residents experience will depend on weather and other conditions.

The booster being flown is B1082 which last flew on January 29th.

Spaceflight Now:

Spoiler: Youtube embed

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXU7dFm1CSQ

Space Affairs:

Spoiler: YouTube embed

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuiml6wF428

 

[EllPeaTea]

Firefly have published https://fireflyspace.com/missions/alpha-flta007/ with details of a launch from California, currently scheduled for about 4:50pm local time on the 28th.

Mission Details

Mission Name: Stairway to Seven
Mission Type: Return to Flight
Launch Vehicle: Alpha FLTA007 Rocket
Launch Site: Firefly SLC-2, Vandenberg Space Force Base, CA
Launch Date: NET February 28
Launch Window: 4:50 pm - 6:50 pm PST
Payload: Test Demo
Alpha Flight 7 Official Firefly Patch

Alpha Flight 7 is the last flown in the rocket’s current configuration and serves as a test flight with the primary goal to achieve nominal first and second stage performance.

Flight 7 will test and validate key systems ahead of Firefly’s Block II configuration upgrade on Flight 8 that’s designed to enhance reliability and manufacturability across the vehicle. The Block II configuration includes a 7-foot increase to Alpha’s length, consolidated batteries and avionics built in house, an enhanced thermal protection system, and stronger carbon composite structures built with automated machinery.

The subsystems tested on Flight 7, including the in-house avionics and thermal improvements, will allow Firefly to gain flight heritage and validate lessons learned ahead of the full configuration upgrade.

NASA Spaceflight are producing the livestream.

Spoiler: YouTube embed

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4UXqDhfEbw

 

[EllPeaTea]

Firefly launch has slipped by 24 hours.

As we continue to monitor upper-level winds, Firefly is now targeting to launch Alpha Flight 7 no earlier than Sunday, March 1. Fairing transport and mating is underway. More to come soon on the Stairway to Seven test flight!

 

[ZenBeam]

SpaceX are consistently around half the cost of the competition. That gives them more headroom to play with before hitting the cap even if they take a larger portion of the work.

Edit: Historically the #2 bidding against SpaceX gets 2/3 of the budget to do 1/3 of the work. A 50% cap requires either adding a 3rd supplier or reducing the award to the #2 to make the bills even.

Maybe SpaceX will help NASA out by doubling their prices. Then NASA can get 3/4 as much work done for the same total cost, with it evenly split between the two providers. Win-Win-Win!

 

[The Lurker Beneath]

Re Berger's law:


There should be enough data to see if this generalizes to quarters other than Q4, right? Ie does it hold that “If a rocket is predicted to make its debut in a calendar quarter that is six or more months away, the launch will be delayed.” -?

There might be more of an incentive for optimistic prognostications regarding the last quarter.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

There might be more of an incentive for optimistic prognostications regarding the last quarter.

It's also holiday season with Thanksgiving, Halloween, and Christmas.