txags92 said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Watching Scott Manley's video from earlier...

Big setback for Amazon and their Internet constellation... They have a tightening deadline to get a minimum number of units on orbit or they lose their FCC licenses and will have to rebid those. Minimal spare launch capacity among other commercial providers. SpaceX only has one pad in operation and only one barge in Florida.
F9
Vulcan -- grounded, and potential issues with BE4 Engines now
Arian 6 --always very slow turnaround
AST space Mobile -- also more shopping launches

No other launch vehicle can carry the Mark1 lunar lander and the rover due to both weight and fairing sizes.
HLS lander Moon landing and LEO test for Artemis III

---

Falcon Heavy can launch it to TLI, but doesnt have the capability to top off its fuel tank in orbit. But there is some question about whether the top off would be needed since the Falcon Heavy can launch directly to TLI orbit in an expendable core and 2nd stage configuration, while NG would go to orbit then boost to TLI. That delay is supposedly the reason they need to top off.

The other question is how much effort Spacex wants to put into helping launch a competitors vehicle.

---

It won't fit inside SpaceX fairings. Therefore it can't fly FH without second stage modifications.

SpaceX will launch for BO. They've done it before. The question is will SpaceX modify a vehicle they're looking to 100% retire.

---

Mk 1 lander is 3.08m and FH fairing is 5.2m. It will fit. But not sure they want to modify it to handle the top off if needed.

---

Supposedly it is feasible. I dunno.

I'm seeing Blue Moon Mk1 listed as 3.08m diameter and 8m tall. Here that is for standard Falcon 9 / Heavy Fairing.

Falcon Heavy has more performance than New Glenn to LEO and to TLI.

Questions are around structural limits and GSE https://t.co/w87pmramPX pic.twitter.com/EstqPgt9SA

— Ken Kirtland IV (@KenKirtland17) May 29, 2026

I think it's a matter of fuel, not dimensions.

Ah, hydrogen, you are right. That's not gonna go on a FH. And the Falcon launch manifest is going to be as crowded as ever the rest of this year.

Hydrogen...
Since the MK1 is using H2 they have no way of fueling it at a SpaceX pad? That makes sense... Does the lander payload get fueled via or topped off from the launch vehicle tanks? SpaceX doesn't handle hydrogen at the pad for anything.

No way they'd shut down their own launch cadence to add H2 infrastructure. Plus they only have the one pad operational for Falcon at LC39.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Hydrogen...
Since the MK1 is using H2 they have no way of fueling it at a SpaceX pad? That makes sense... Does the lander payload get fueled via or topped off from the launch vehicle tanks? SpaceX doesn't handle hydrogen at the pad for anything.

No way they'd shut down their own launch cadence to add H2 infrastructure. Plus they only have the one pad operational for Falcon at LC39.

---

Yeah, like I said initially, the launch capability and geometry are there. It is the fueling and in space topoff that would likely prevent them from using Falcon Heavy.

This whole go to the moon deal always seemed very Frankensteinish to me.

You take a piece, you get a part. It's just not integrated end to end.

Mathguy64 said:

---

This whole go to the moon deal always seemed very Frankensteinish to me.

You take a piece, you get a part. It's just not integrated end to end.

---

Such is the nature of government contracts. Very political. Wealth is spread throughout various congressional districts.

What are the cross-hatched areas? Acoustic treatments, structural members, etc?

Why is/was BO using hydrogen on the lander when their BE4 is a methane engine? Is their upper stage H2 LOX?

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Why is/was BO using hydrogen on the lander when their BE4 is a methane engine? Is their upper stage H2 LOX?

---

Yes. Which is why it looked like a hydrogen bomb went off when the 2nd stage went up.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Why is/was BO using hydrogen on the lander when their BE4 is a methane engine? Is their upper stage H2 LOX?

---

Hydrogen provides better specific impulse, meaning less mass:thrust vs. Methalox. The advantage of methelox is that methane could be produced in situ on Mars/moon theoretically but hydrogen...not so much so.

Just my two cents.

nortex97 said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Why is/was BO using hydrogen on the lander when their BE4 is a methane engine? Is their upper stage H2 LOX?

---

Hydrogen provides better specific impulse, meaning less mass:thrust vs. Methalox. The advantage of methelox is that methane could be produced in situ on Mars/moon theoretically but hydrogen...not so much so.

Just my two cents.

---

Or BO stole the plans for a Raptor and since that was designed for methalox, they couldn't change it.

Nothing like a good conspiracy.

In a non joking way, we all know that's exactly how the Chinese are doing it.

Bump

PJYoung said:

---

Blue Origin alerted the court last week of its impending lawsuit, and requested that the judge order a pause to SpaceX’s contract while the case is adjudicated, according to a person familiar with the notice. https://t.co/Vo7ZCyptEd

— Joey Roulette (@joroulette) August 16, 2021

Blue should be more concerned about the potential ULA sues them if they don't ship some BE-4 flight engines for Vulcan sometime soon. https://t.co/tsqf0BlJ2p

— NSF - NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) August 16, 2021

---

I wonder if this is why Blue Origin is so heavily involved in NASA's lunar plans despite taking 25 years to achieve orbit.

That (2021) was roughly 11 years after the TSLA IPO, for context, and the F9 rocket successfully launched a payload and landed only in late 2015 I think.

Pretty good progress https://t.co/Ow1EI0s8Pf

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 31, 2026

Sort of incredible, as we look at the SpaceX IPO upcoming, even given the insane valuation. I bring that up, just as a point of reference that Elon's projects have made a lot of people, not just himself, quite a lot of money.

Another 24 starlinks went up yesterday from California.

I've been entirely unimpressed with the Chicom methelox engines/rockets to date. FFSC they claim to be working on as well but I don't think they have any flight articles yet even. One of their biggest weaknesses is metallurgy imho, which can sound boring but is key to the insane pressures/heat the raptor operates on (and the precise electronic controls that drive the whole thing). I once read how they reverse-engineered the flight control laws/programs of the SU-27 to the shock of the Russians (they made their own version of the plane after the Russians foolishly thought they'd honor a contract to license build/assemble around 80 of them), but it involved repeated tests/guesses of a system that was much simpler.

Anyway, hydrogen is a problem I'm glad SpaceX has avoided. Caution, some NSFW language but a good story anyway, illustrating (to me) why it's just implausible to put the BO lander on top of an FH:

THE WORST PROJECT OF ALL

People always ask me, "Mikey, what's the worst project you've ever had to work on?" and I always answer, I'm glad you asked that question.

Good news: my company got the NASA contract to provide liquid hydrogen ("LH2") to fuel the Space Shuttle.

So, we… pic.twitter.com/ZAEenRRqbt

— Michael DiMercurio (@MikeyDiMercurio) February 12, 2026

Holy moly. Thank you for posting that. A good reminder whatever problems I may have are not so bad.

I knew hydrogen was hard to deal with but I had no clue it was that dangerous to handle because of endless leaks that are hard to see or stop

You can detect em, just use a flame….

Starlink is spacex. My price keeps going up and the speeds and connectivity going down. Also, new customers do not have to buy the equipment. Customer service is difficult. It is my only option at one location though.

OnlyForNow said:

---

You can detect em, just use a flame….

---

Flammable is 50,000 ppm, maybe as low as 40,000 ppm

I just saw a WB-57 flying over my house on the way to Ellington. I wished them happy landings.

I wonder if this is the one that belly flopped on the runway a few months ago or another one.

fullback44 said:

---

I knew hydrogen was hard to deal with but I had no clue it was that dangerous to handle because of endless leaks that are hard to see or stop

---

We laughed at SLS for hydrogen leaks... H2, being the smallest molecule will slip through all but the most perfect seals.

The RS25 engines I know used pressurized helium in some of its seals to hold back the H2.

fullback44 said:

---

I knew hydrogen was hard to deal with but I had no clue it was that dangerous to handle because of endless leaks that are hard to see or stop

---

Alas, lessons we should have learned from the Hindenburg.

TexAgs91 said:

---

I just saw a WB-57 flying over my house on the way to Ellington. I wished them happy landings.

I wonder if this is the one that belly flopped on the runway a few months ago or another one.

---

Disregard I have my NASA planes mixed up, it was an ER 2 that was based here out of COS for a while.

Great side by side of Flight 11 with V2 and Flight 12 with V3 and a toe-tip into some of the math that shows just how much more impressive Starship V3 is in terms of TWR and overall performance.

at 2:23 V3 was at 52km (as the infographic switched over to Ship engines) and 5737km/hr
at that same time V2 was 48.8km and 4084km/hr.

MECO and staging for v3 began a few seconds later, but we can't see the exact numbers due to graphics changing. Higher (thinner air), faster, and far greater horizontal/downrange velocity throughout all time stamps of initial ascent.

Maybe it was covered in that video but the pad also has a much more capable clamp down system which allows them to go to 100% on the pad and then let it loose. I believe that's why they were able to go to 100% on the booster static fire test for the first time as well.

The additional time to booster cutoff was probably a combo of loss of one of the engines and addition propellant capacity.

Absolutely not . There is no way they could possibly rebuild faster than SpaceX rebuilt Massey’s. Keep in mind SpaceX had the remarkable luck of having a brand new team dedicated to mass producing launch pads when that incident happened. No one else in the industry has a team…

— Zack Golden (@CSI_Starbase) May 30, 2026

No one else in the industry has a team like that. Not even close.

Even with that massive advantage, it took 8 months to get that test stand operational again. And that test stand that doesn't feature the tallest launch tower and water tower in the world.

Expecting anything less than 1 year is far too optimistic. I'd be shocked if they accomplish it in less than 18 months.

I'm not betting against them, in fact I hope I'm wrong…but we should try to be more realistic with these expectations.

PJYoung said:

---

Maybe it was covered in that video but the pad also has a much more capable clamp down system which allows them to go to 100% on the pad and then let it loose. I believe that's why they were able to go to 100% on the booster static fire test for the first time as well.

---

He did not mention the improved golf down clamps. That certainly got the vehicle of the pad faster. But that did not contribute to sooner MECO, greater acceleration for the entire first stage, and being higher faster and further downrange at stage separation.

PJYoung said:

---

Absolutely not . There is no way they could possibly rebuild faster than SpaceX rebuilt Massey’s. Keep in mind SpaceX had the remarkable luck of having a brand new team dedicated to mass producing launch pads when that incident happened. No one else in the industry has a team…

— Zack Golden (@CSI_Starbase) May 30, 2026

---

I'm good underestimating Bezos when it comes to Blue Origin and space flight. They've been in business longer than SpaceX, and have been lapped multiple times.

I didn't even know that this is a case of underestimation. It just seems to me the damage, is probably an order of magnitude greater than what was seen at the Massey test site.

Lightning systems, the water tower, the transport erector, r pass, I'm sure elements of the deluge system. A lot might be repairable, but it might be quicker to rip out and start fresh.

Just getting into the queue at your fabrication sites... I doubt they're just going to drop everything... Granted they're months just getting the site cleared!.

I think the mechanics of a launch site versus a test site have to be very different as well, particularly for some of the NRO launches.

BO claims to work toward return to flight this calendar year.

End of 2026 pic.twitter.com/DHPyPTIJg3

— Rocky (@Rocky75617794) June 2, 2026

Sure, but it honestly is just a metal scaffolding (same with the lightning towers), I don't think tear down and replacement would be that hard. That said, I think the blast showed that the pad layout is just flawed. If they have 5-6 months to spruce the place up, I'm surprised they wouldn't 'revise' some of the design substantially a la Massey's etc.

This seems to be more of a 'Baghdad Bob' statement than a real engineering analyses/assessment.