Watching @ NSF Mary's footage, it seems clear that the vehicle exploded mid air during the flip maneuver, about 1 second after at least one of the engines reignited.
It's a shame there was so much fog. The footage would have been spectacular (and an interesting investigation tool).

You guys are giving up way to easily. The Atlas had literally dozens of explosive failures when it was being developed, and starship is significantly more ambitious. I think Elon is on the right track with the rapid prototyping and rapid testing. Sure, raptor reliability needs to improve, but considering its the most advanced and highest performing engine ever flown, its doing pretty well. I don't see the FAA shutting things down. Control of the craft is clearly established so they can be confident there won't be any crashes outside of a very small footprint.

I just don't think many folks appreciate the degree of challenges of launching a methelox orbital vehicle which is also a full flow staged combustion engine. Neither, on their own, have been done before. It's sort of a big deal.

I'm closing in on enough pieces to build my own Starship. Took some of us a couple of hours to dig this out of the dunes.

Possible explanation here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoD4zDnC3Ig
If the bulkhead separating O2 and CH4 ruptured it could explain both why it seemed tail heavy during descent and why it exploded shortly after ignition. The engines would run fine on the unmixed fuel and oxidizer left in the pipes, but as soon as mixed fuel/oxidizer reached the engine combustion would propagate back to the tank causing the explosion.

texl1649 wrote:

I just don't think many folks appreciate the degree of challenges of launching a methelox orbital vehicle which is also a full flow staged combustion engine. Neither, on their own, have been done before. It's sort of a big deal.

I take a position that most things are achievable given sufficient funds, time and effort.

What all of this comes down to is, the cost/risk/reward equation for a re-usable launcher development.

So far, Elon 0, Gravity 4.

speedygonzales wrote:

Possible explanation here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoD4zDnC3Ig
If the bulkhead separating O2 and CH4 ruptured it could explain both why it seemed tail heavy during descent and why it exploded shortly after ignition. The engines would run fine on the unmixed fuel and oxidizer left in the pipes, but as soon as mixed fuel/oxidizer reached the engine combustion would propagate back to the tank causing the explosion.

That's a pretty bad analysis. The engines would have cut off instantly because of the sudden inlet pressure change if the bulkhead had failed. They aren't lawnmower engines.

Seems almost boring these days, but another successful F9 starlink launch in the books. Most interesting part for me was the landing. The drone ship camera cut out, but stage 1 kept rolling. Can’t remember the last time we got to see a complete landing from the stage 1 point of view.

FGITD wrote:

Seems almost boring these days, but another successful F9 starlink launch in the books. Most interesting part for me was the landing. The drone ship camera cut out, but stage 1 kept rolling. Can’t remember the last time we got to see a complete landing from the stage 1 point of view.

B1058 also matched the record for fastest booster turnaround, at 27 days, which was set by B1060 earlier in February.

Hearing that SpaceX has won the NASA Lunar Landing System contract, which is worth $2.9 billion USD:

https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/statu ... 97505?s=19

Basically SpaceX had the lowest price and had adjusted their budget schedule to meet NASA budget, and thus was the only bidder that qualified. Dynetics price was reportedly significantly higher, and Blue Origin was even higher.

ThePointblank wrote:

Hearing that SpaceX has won the NASA Lunar Landing System contract, which is worth $2.9 billion USD:

https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/statu ... 97505?s=19

Basically SpaceX had the lowest price and had adjusted their budget schedule to meet NASA budget, and thus was the only bidder that qualified. Dynetics price was reportedly significantly higher, and Blue Origin was even higher.

Now confirmed.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04 ... ar-lander/

A great win, and I think also a huge vote of confidence in the starship program. Will be a little funny that the astronauts will cross from this little Orion capsule into this gigantic lander, but also opens up opportunities to bring more to the lunar surface.

FGITD wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Hearing that SpaceX has won the NASA Lunar Landing System contract, which is worth $2.9 billion USD:

https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/statu ... 97505?s=19

Basically SpaceX had the lowest price and had adjusted their budget schedule to meet NASA budget, and thus was the only bidder that qualified. Dynetics price was reportedly significantly higher, and Blue Origin was even higher.

Now confirmed.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04 ... ar-lander/

A great win, and I think also a huge vote of confidence in the starship program. Will be a little funny that the astronauts will cross from this little Orion capsule into this gigantic lander, but also opens up opportunities to bring more to the lunar surface.

Strong feat and a huge vote of confidence indeed.

I really hope my lifetime will see a permanent base on moon with a couple of dozen residents. Will be a huge step forward in science possibilities and even philosophically a tremendous achievement to have settled on another body in space, even if it doesn’t qualify as another world.

CRJockey wrote:

FGITD wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Hearing that SpaceX has won the NASA Lunar Landing System contract, which is worth $2.9 billion USD:

https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/statu ... 97505?s=19

Basically SpaceX had the lowest price and had adjusted their budget schedule to meet NASA budget, and thus was the only bidder that qualified. Dynetics price was reportedly significantly higher, and Blue Origin was even higher.

Now confirmed.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04 ... ar-lander/

A great win, and I think also a huge vote of confidence in the starship program. Will be a little funny that the astronauts will cross from this little Orion capsule into this gigantic lander, but also opens up opportunities to bring more to the lunar surface.

Strong feat and a huge vote of confidence indeed.

I really hope my lifetime will see a permanent base on moon with a couple of dozen residents. Will be a huge step forward in science possibilities and even philosophically a tremendous achievement to have settled on another body in space, even if it doesn’t qualify as another world.

My gut feeling is that NASA knew SpaceX was going to develop and build Starship and then use it to travel to the Moon and beyond, so for them to try to compete with another system just didn't make sense, especially if what NASA said the prices were for the other systems were going to be.

ThePointblank wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Now confirmed.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04 ... ar-lander/

A great win, and I think also a huge vote of confidence in the starship program. Will be a little funny that the astronauts will cross from this little Orion capsule into this gigantic lander, but also opens up opportunities to bring more to the lunar surface.

Strong feat and a huge vote of confidence indeed.

I really hope my lifetime will see a permanent base on moon with a couple of dozen residents. Will be a huge step forward in science possibilities and even philosophically a tremendous achievement to have settled on another body in space, even if it doesn’t qualify as another world.

My gut feeling is that NASA knew SpaceX was going to develop and build Starship and then use it to travel to the Moon and beyond, so for them to try to compete with another system just didn't make sense, especially if what NASA said the prices were for the other systems were going to be.

I don’t disagree. And arguably, the total amount spent for two programs would be excessive, even if money comes from different sources.

On the other hand, competition rarely leads to inferior total mission performance. Maybe in long term space exploration, two competing programs would have been nice.

I wonder how many refuelings of Starship it would take to complete the journey.

I suspect one after launch and prior to accelerating to translunar injection, and maybe again after its return from the Moon to Earth orbit for de-orbiting and retropropulsive landing?

Even then, Starship is a large and heavy vehicle and I'm surprised it would have the Delta-V to accelerate itself from LEO to the Moon, make a propulsive landing there (with no atmosphere to slow it down), then liftoff and accelerate back towards Earth orbit.

Good news either way. As much as I welcome private ventures into space, NASA backing still gives Starship a brighter future...

...now if they can fly one without it blowing up, that'd be a step in the right direction.

Francoflier wrote:

I wonder how many refuelings of Starship it would take to complete the journey.

...now if they can fly one without it blowing up, that'd be a step in the right direction.

Are you trying to put me out of business?

Francoflier wrote:

I wonder how many refuelings of Starship it would take to complete the journey.

I suspect one after launch and prior to accelerating to translunar injection, and maybe again after its return from the Moon to Earth orbit for de-orbiting and retropropulsive landing?

Even then, Starship is a large and heavy vehicle and I'm surprised it would have the Delta-V to accelerate itself from LEO to the Moon, make a propulsive landing there (with no atmosphere to slow it down), then liftoff and accelerate back towards Earth orbit.

Good news either way. As much as I welcome private ventures into space, NASA backing still gives Starship a brighter future...

...now if they can fly one without it blowing up, that'd be a step in the right direction.

Something like a half dozen or more to fill it all up. But it can be done in LEO while the others would have to be done in a moon orbit.

I'd say I'm pleasently surprised that SpaceX got it. Though the two big reasons seem to be neither of the other two bids ended up being valid. One had prepayments in it which weren't going to be allowed, and the other was already too fat and needed to go on a diet.

Anyways, huge congrats to the SpaceX team. It's going to be nutty to see this 50's scifi rocket on the moon.

As I understand, the Lunar lander starship is more or less just a shuttle from lunar orbit to surface, and back. So just the one launch, fuel up, and TLI needed. It has no heat shield or air brakes.

Begs the question of how many they’d even need. Program costs would definitely go down if they could park a Starship in lunar orbit, fly out crews/fuel, and just leave it in lunar orbit to wait for the next crew. When it comes time to replace one, land it and you’ve got a decent start to a lunar base

To begin with I imagine no more than one or two needed, a second would give you some level of redundancy should something happen with the other. Now if we start seeing long term habitation on the moon then you might end up wanting a small fleet. Hell, given their size you could strip out the internals and turn it into the lunar gateway.

My feeling is that it begs the question of the need for that Gateway outpost.

Could anyone summarize for me the planned NASA's lunar exploration architecture? IMU it's still based on a Lunar Gateway in NRHO (first launched on a Falcon Heavy with a "slow" transit to lunar orbit, fully robotic), and SpaceX only won the reusable transit-descent-ascent-transit element from the Gateway to lunar surface and back. So SpaceX's lander is meant to spend it's whole operational life shuttling crews between the Moon's surface and cislunar space: never meant to come back to Earth (neither to LEO nor to Earth's surface). If this is correct, the moon lander will be a *very* different beast from Starship's prototypes now trying to nail down belly flops and propulsive landings: the lander will only be human-rated for transit-descent-ascent-transit, not for launch from Earth's surface, nor for re-entry from LEO and landing?

Specifically: how is the lander going to be lauched and flown one-way to cis-lunar space (fully robotic, I expect)? How is the fuel for lunar surface trips going to be launched and flown to the Gateway?

Also, IMU the plan is to fly crews direct from Earth's surface to the Gateway, and then back to Earth's surface, with SLS+Orion. Orion has a max undocked mission duration of 21 days, right? So how is the whole mission timeline going to work? How many launches are going to be needed to support a single mission? Which launchers?

Thanks in advance for the education!

The direct impact of this award is development of the lunar starship, aka moonship. And then 2 flights (one manned). This would not entail the ship linking up with the new lunar gateway, funding of which is ‘on hold’ essentially (and SpaceX has the contract to support this, yes). They didn’t want lunar gateway to be a pacing item for the manned return to happen (which is silly, but reflective of NASA seeing funding at 1/4 of what is requested, basically).

Plan then is for more awards to be made after that. The current starships have been basically proof of concept vehicles, not prototypes at all of a final model for LEO let alone lunar or Martian exploration. Hopefully SN15 finally lands upright/doesn’t blow up shortly after.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-spac ... ar-lander/

jollo wrote:

Could anyone summarize for me the planned NASA's lunar exploration architecture? IMU it's still based on a Lunar Gateway in NRHO (first launched on a Falcon Heavy with a "slow" transit to lunar orbit, fully robotic), and SpaceX only won the reusable transit-descent-ascent-transit element from the Gateway to lunar surface and back. So SpaceX's lander is meant to spend it's whole operational life shuttling crews between the Moon's surface and cislunar space: never meant to come back to Earth (neither to LEO nor to Earth's surface). If this is correct, the moon lander will be a *very* different beast from Starship's prototypes now trying to nail down belly flops and propulsive landings: the lander will only be human-rated for transit-descent-ascent-transit, not for launch from Earth's surface, nor for re-entry from LEO and landing?
Specifically: how is the lander going to be lauched and flown one-way to cis-lunar space (fully robotic, I expect)? How is the fuel for lunar surface trips going to be launched and flown to the Gateway?
Also, IMU the plan is to fly crews direct from Earth's surface to the Gateway, and then back to Earth's surface, with SLS+Orion. Orion has a max undocked mission duration of 21 days, right? So how is the whole mission timeline going to work? How many launches are going to be needed to support a single mission? Which launchers?
Thanks in advance for the education!

Ask in a month. NASA is reevaluating the whole thing right now, Different management is being sworn in and political considerations might be a stupid way to plan things, but that's where the money comes in.
Boeings performance in the manned spacecraft field has been so bad, the lobbyists might not be able to smooth things over this time. If SpaceX can avoid blowing anything up this week, they're going to be well on their way to being the new big dog in town.

Nomadd wrote:

Are you trying to put me out of business?

Look, I'm no Warren Buffet, but waiting for scrap metal to fall from the sky does not sound like a sustainable business model in the long term.

jollo wrote:

Could anyone summarize for me the planned NASA's lunar exploration architecture?

I don't think even NASA knows at this stage and SpaceX is probably in the process of figuring it out.
The whole thing feels to me more like NASA picked the most advanced project with the more mature provider offering the lowest price.
SpaceX's spectacular accomplishment with the Crew Dragon program was probably no small part in NASA putting so much trust in them for their Moon exploration program.

All we know is that any single mission will involve many launches, in-orbit refueling and that the Moon Starship cannot come back to Earth, so they'll either discard it or refuel it in orbit and send it back to the Moon.
In any case, this solution definitely relies on SpaceX successfully achieving its goal of fast and cheap reusability of Starship... So there's still some way to go.

Francoflier wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

Are you trying to put me out of business?

Look, I'm no Warren Buffet, but waiting for scrap metal to fall from the sky does not sound like a sustainable business model in the long term.

Thinking too small! Use that scrap starship metal and start selling keychains made from it, planetags style. Sitting under a goldmine here!

My extremely amateur guess as to how they’re going to do it is that it will initially be more along the lines of some of the original Apollo ideas. Launch the lander, (Fuel it...) send it to the moon. Launch the crew, send them to the moon. Lunar orbit rendezvous, down to the surface in starship, then back up, rendezvous again, leave starship in orbit and head back to earth with the crew.

Biggest unknown to that plan is the refueling. First you have to do in earth orbit, and then most likely in lunar orbit for the missions that follow.

I believe it would be the fastest and most efficient way to get there.

texl1649 wrote:

The direct impact of this award is development of the lunar starship, aka moonship. And then 2 flights (one manned). This would not entail the ship linking up with the new lunar gateway, funding of which is ‘on hold’ essentially (and SpaceX has the contract to support this, yes).

While the Lunar Gateway is practically on hold for now, 'Moonship' would still have to rendezvous with the crew vehicle aka Orion.

In it's currently planned form, 'Moonship' does not have any capability for atmospheric reentry and landing on Earth. This also limits its reusability since it requires in-orbit refueling, which NASA considers complex and risky.

SpaceX’s mission depends upon an operations approach of unprecedented pace, scale, and synchronized movement of the vehicles in its architecture. This includes a significant number of vehicle launches in rapid succession, the refurbishment and reuse of those vehicles, and numerous in-space cryogenic propellant transfer events. I acknowledge the immense complexity and heightened risk associated with the very high number of events necessary to execute the front end of SpaceX’s mission...

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... -final.pdf

From what I gather, NASA/SpaceX is planning a series of launches before the first astronauts land on the moon:
1. 'Fuelship' (or several)
2. 'Moonship' + cargo, no fuel --> rendezvous with 'Fuelship' in LEO --> depart to lunar orbit
3. SLS with Orion + Astronauts, no cargo --> rendezvous with 'Moonship' to transfer astronauts

Then 'Moonship' lands on the Moon while the Orion capsule remains in lunar orbit. Cargo is offloaded and the crew return to Orion (as well as any cargo or samples that shall return to Earth).

If they want to save fuel, they could launch the Starships directly to the moon and rendezvous there rather than in LEO. A free return trajectory would be ideal to avoid lunar orbit insertion for the Fuelship. Then Moonship is put into lunar orbit and waits there for Orion while Fuelship is disposed of by sending it back to Earth.

mxaxai wrote:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... -final.pdf

From what I gather, NASA/SpaceX is planning a series of launches before the first astronauts land on the moon:
1. 'Fuelship' (or several)
2. 'Moonship' + cargo, no fuel --> rendezvous with 'Fuelship' in LEO --> depart to lunar orbit
3. SLS with Orion + Astronauts, no cargo --> rendezvous with 'Moonship' to transfer astronauts

Then 'Moonship' lands on the Moon while the Orion capsule remains in lunar orbit. Cargo is offloaded and the crew return to Orion (as well as any cargo or samples that shall return to Earth).

If they want to save fuel, they could launch the Starships directly to the moon and rendezvous there rather than in LEO. A free return trajectory would be ideal to avoid lunar orbit insertion for the Fuelship. Then Moonship is put into lunar orbit and waits there for Orion while Fuelship is disposed of by sending it back to Earth.

Thanks everybody for the responses and info. I (incorrectly) assumed that, a tender being assigned, the "plan" was a bit more firmed up...

So does this mean that the total duration of a manned mission is 21 days tops (Orion's limit)?

So if I have this right, Congress deny NASA the amount they need to develop a HLS with more than one finally shortlisted from the three contenders, said Congress then bitch about NASA awarding a sole contract with the one bidder who came in under budget, which these externally imposed cost constraints made inevitable.
So it's all about pork for districts, small wonder they've not been able to get beyond LEO for half a century nearly.

Plus Space X just happen to be the ones now flying NASA astronauts to the ISS, have in a short space of time revolutionised cost of access to space, with only a limited amount in total budget terms of NASA funding for the original COTS program that saved and then set Spece X on it's path to now, money well spent, with much better results, than the traditional contractors at a fraction of the cost.

Now the planned first landing, without the Gateway, looks to be a more conservative mission, which given by then over half a century since they last did it, is understandable.
That is, two crew stay on the Orion, two go down on Lunar Starship for a 7 day surface time.
They will need a basic Gateway, the power/propulsion unit and a docking module at least, for a subsequent mission to send all four crew down for longer, leaving the Orion docked to this basic Gateway, none of which need a SLS to the launch modules for it. Just for Orion.

So for NASA, this preserves the need for Orion, which is obvious since it is designed for beyond LEO and docked, empty, to this basic Gateway will likely allow these longer duration surface missions.
Speaking of Boeing products, given this focus on the Moon, there is another delayed, over budget Boeing product for NASA that might be on thin ice, it's not the SLS, it's Starliner.
If that fails it's next unmanned crew test, NASA should be asking itself with all these constraints on Artemis, why are we throwing more $ at an ISS ferry that even when operational will be more expensive than Falcon 9/Crew Dragon. All the moaning about SLS thrown away each launch, what about Starliner and it's booster?
Though the idea was to reduce costs of each system by competition, in the case of Starliner they seem have swaggered in expecting an easy win in for getting flying over those upstarts at SpaceX.
But who is about to fly it's third crew flight and second fully operational one, plus a fully commercial/non ISS one later this year?

NASA have it seems said to it's Capitol Hill tormentors, 'pony up or your second bidder is a non starter'.

Moonship could just eat Orion, like in You Only Live Twice. No need for docking equipment.

GDB wrote:

That is, two crew stay on the Orion, two go down on Lunar Starship for a 7 day surface time.

Har, it's going to feel weird for the landing crew, crawling out of a capsule and stepping into a whole spaceship just for the two of them.

However, I still don't get it: if the moonship is going to be fuelled in LEO just after launch, and it's going to rendez-vous only with Orion in cislunar space (no gateway), is it going to have to come back all the way to LEO to be refuelled for the next mission? Or is the whole 2024 mission concept completely expendable, i.e. NASA is not funded enough to reuse reusable hardware?

(BTW, I heard you, ask again in a month or so... but it's hard to avoid trying to make some sense of it all).

From what I’ve read they will throw away the moonship after the astronauts hop back into the little Orion. They’ve talked about what kind of ‘death’ to send it to (toward the sun or earth). NASA can’t afford politically to do anything to jeopardize the SLS with congress, in truth, so it’s not really about money/funding, but rather congressional priorities. Putting an old left-wing senator in charge of NASA tells you all you really need to know about that.

While the moonship is technically reusable, it appears that it's expected lifetime is limited to ~100 days in orbit. It's not designed for a permanent stay in space the way a space station is. And it doesn't have heat shields, so it can't land for refurbishment.

As a single-stage vehicle, it might have just enough delta-v available to reenter Earth's atmosphere for disposal. Depending on the payload and fuel fractions obviously. I doubt that it could return to LEO, though, without another refueling.
Going from LEO to NRHO, or back, requires just under 4 km/s. From NRHO to landing is 2.75 km/s, and the same again for takeoff to NRHO. That's a total of just over 9 km/s, which is a lot to ask of a single stage.
But returning to LEO? Another 4 km/s, or 13 km/s total. Doable for a 2-stage vehicle but doubtful for an unrefueled Starship (even if it's empty on the way back). A highly elliptical Earth orbit, or atmospheric reentry, would cost only .45 km/s. That might be possible.

This commentator has an accessible but deep dive into the factors of the NASA selection, while cost was of course a driver, it seems from NASA's own statements there was much more to it than that, plus yes, throwing down the gauntlet at Congress now they are bitching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krM8YnlEz_k

Live 4K Transmission from Pad 39:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VQPmpiMPvI

Crew 2 launch in 20 minutes.

Dragon Endeavor in orbit. Crew 2 Falcon 9 on the ASDS. Good job SpaceX!

Well done indeed, second flight of Endeavor and the booster.

Dragon 2 has some improvements. Among them, 10% more fuel, which increases pad abort capability and doubles the wind they can take off in. They wouldn't have been able to launch with today's wind previously. It also gives them the ability to fly around and survey the station before or after docking.

Stunning photo of the Crew 2 launch by a pilot (Title: My fiancé was flying from Richmond to Charlotte this morning and witnessed the SpaceX Crew-2 launch.):

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/ ... charlotte/
In the comments under the photo:

Commenter: Did the pilot announce it? That's awesome.
Uploader: He was the pilot! But they didn’t realize what it was at first and it was an early flight so they kept quiet.

All aboard! For a few days there will be 11 crew on ISS, until Crew 1 departs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-e ... t-56871765

Blue Origin is protesting the award of the contract to SpaceX for the Human Landing System competition:

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-prote ... tem-award/

Something tells me they won't succeed...

ThePointblank wrote:

Blue Origin is protesting the award of the contract to SpaceX for the Human Landing System competition:

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-prote ... tem-award/

Something tells me they won't succeed...

Agreed.

ThePointblank wrote:

Blue Origin is protesting the award of the contract to SpaceX for the Human Landing System competition:
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-prote ... tem-award/
Something tells me they won't succeed...

Blue's strategy when they went after the contract seemed to consist mostly of badmouthing SpaceX with very little technical justification. They wouldn't answer any of the questions the HLS people put to them while SpaceX was completely open, even about their loud glitches.

I’m sure it’s standard practice for these sorts of contracts to appeal... most definitely should not go far. I get it’s a different situation, but you’ve got 2 companies-one currently has 4 crew launches down, 2 dragons ISS docked at the moment, is about to launch their 2nd orbital flight of this week alone, while also prepping a prototype for launch, while ALSO building more flight ready prototypes AND a prototype booster. Then there’s BO, who have done the same suborbital launch once or twice a year, for 3 years and seem to be more intent on suing anyone who has remotely similar ideas than actually going into orbit.

I think BO might be getting a little worried though...SpaceX and NASA seem to be cozying up together very comfortably

But back on topic...SN15 seems like it ran through static fires ok, per Musk they should launch this week. So with that in mind, I fully expect them to launch next week at the earliest. Excited to see how the changes made on sn15 onwards work out

Just had a 2nd SN15 static fire today. Flight maybe Thursday since tomorrow is going to be pretty windy.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ast-month/

About a guy who hunted for the Falcon 9 upper stage debris when it landed in the northwestern United States... interesting stuff.

(Partially relephant song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro - "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? - It's not my department, says Wernher von Braun")

flyingturtle wrote:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/space-junk-sleuths-track-down-the-rocket-chunks-that-lit-up-the-northwests-skies-last-month/

About a guy who hunted for the Falcon 9 upper stage debris when it landed in the northwestern United States... interesting stuff.

(Partially relephant song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro - "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? - It's not my department, says Wernher von Braun")

I can't believe those were real spokespersons. The FAA is definitely involved when a re-entry doesn't go according to plan and someone saying that it would be FEMA's responsibility to recover debris is just moronic. They must have contacted the sandwich cart ladies or something for comment.

Splashdown! As this article says a number of firsts and things not done for a long time;
https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... n-darkness

And the last sentence is quietly an indictment of the other COTS contractor.

SpaceX related, USAF appears to be considering starship conceptually for rapid/rocket cargo missions.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/05/air ... abilities/

Naturally, the Chinese have plans for a copy cat as well, with plausible military implications.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04 ... ook-alike/

Starlink Launch 25 went without a hitch yesterday.
It was B1049's 9th launch and it is currently bobbing on a barge in the Atlantic, making its way back home.

More significantly, B1051 just got rostered to launch Starlink L27 (not sure what happened to L26) in a few days, and it will be its milestone 10th flight, reaching the original reusability goal for Block 5 F9 boosters.
Given the pace of turnarounds has been stable and there doesn't seem to be any obvious showstoppers, I expect it should fly on afterwards if everything goes well.