I can't google it, but I thought Dreamchaser was going to use Vulcan?

That's their plan, such as it is, though the platform is fairly launcher-agnostic. Heck, at one point they even talked about using stratolaunch.

Note; above are from fantasies that are over 11 years old now.

Ship 40 and Booster 20 get taller.

Ship 40's common dome section has arrived at Mega Bay 2. pic.twitter.com/fCHArlA3OQ

— Avid Space (@LabPadre) February 12, 2026

Another section of Super Heavy Booster 20 has been brought out of Starfactory and taken into Mega Bay 1. pic.twitter.com/p9U43CSEwo

— Avid Space (@LabPadre) February 12, 2026

I did some reading on SN/Ship flight dates the other day. SpaceX has built ~3 dozen Starships depending on what/how you want to count in about 7 years. That's one ship every ~9 weeks. Nearly all of those were essentially bespoke one-off builds assembled in bays that seem mostly to have worked up one ship at a time. Reasonable for bespoke builds. Some hopped, some flew, some were scrapped, others destroyed in testing.

What's going to shock a lot of people is the confluence of V3 design/systems verification and the completion of the Gigabay at Starbase. They're going to go from prototype to production real fast once the V3 is verified and the factory is complete later this year. 2026 is gonna be the most exciting year in spaceflight in my lifetime. 2027 if gonna be game changing.

RGV Aerial Photography did a good comparison of the two Gigabays under construction at Starbase and Roberts Road.
The Florida site looks to be for re-fit work only for now as there isn't an existing Starfactory there. I'm curious if the Starbase factory can/will send barrel sections to be stacked in Florida or if the Gigabay in Texas will spin up to do all the assembly the factory can put out. We haven't seen what Starfactory can do as the 7 plus nosecones that were visible inside when I was there in October are mostly still sitting there, waiting on somewhere to go.

We just released a comprehensive video report explaining the status of @SpaceX's two Gigabays, purpose-built for the mass production of Starship.

Written by @BJSchnettler! Watch it here:https://t.co/6a4hCK93M3 pic.twitter.com/673NoWo6aI

— RGV Aerial Photography (@RGVaerialphotos) February 11, 2026

Correction: Four times.

— Casey Handmer (@CJHandmer) February 13, 2026

Expect delays for the next Vulcan Centaur launch.

Why would there have been total loss on a human flight? This one kept going.

double aught said:

---

Why would there have been total loss on a human flight? This one kept going.

---

On the shuttle, we saw what happened with a SRB burn through with Challenger.

Since SLS does have a launch escape system, they might be able to get the capsule clear before failure, or before the RSO blows it up.

Rapier108 said:

---

double aught said:

---

Why would there have been total loss on a human flight? This one kept going.

---

On the shuttle, we saw what happened with a SRB burn through with Challenger.

Since SLS does have a launch escape system, they might be able to get the capsule clear before failure, or before the RSO blows it up.

---

SRB burn through at a mid body O-ring is not the same as an engine nozzle burn through. Both are certainly dangerous, but not to the same degree.

Holy crap... I don't think any rocket should be overflying that much populated area until it's flown a few hundred times without a RUD on ascent. I would not trust Starship for a while. All it takes is one Flight 6 or 7 incident to have heavy debris falling over populated areas.

— Everyday Astronaut (@Erdayastronaut) February 13, 2026

He is talking about flights 7 and 8 and the proposed ascent profile over Florida.

He's kind of got a point.

As per Rapier's response an SRB burn through can rapidly escalate, as there is no way to turn it off/down.

Quote:

---

The 2024 booster malfunction occurred on the Vulcan rocket's second test flight. The rocket did not return to action for 10 months as engineers probed the nozzle failure. Investigators determined that a carbon composite insulator, or heat shield, inside the nozzle failed to protect the nozzle's metallic structure from the superheated exhaust coming from the booster. Engineers traced the cause of the failure to a "manufacturing defect" in one of the insulators, which led to the melting and burn-through of the booster nozzle. Officials said the damaged motor continued firing on the 2024 launch, albeit with less thrust and lower efficiency, and the Vulcan's BE-4 main engines, supplied by Blue Origin, compensated for the thrust differential. The BE-4s on Thursday's flight appeared to save the rocket once again.

ULA officials last year said they inspected other boosters in the company's inventory to ensure they did not exhibit the same defect. The incident on Thursday's mission suggests the defect was not fixed, or there is a separate problem with Northrop's boosters.

---

Vulcan and Atlas depend on these massive boosters for most launches, and if a human capsule etc. is involved it can be very dangerous very quickly as with most rocket 'anomalies.' They're pretty impressive in and of themselves imho:

SRB explosions also produce a lotnof burning debris falling through the air. That's what shut down the shuttle SRB based antares 1 launcher, if Orion had aborted it would have descended through burning( or near burning) debris.

You also have the problem of aborting while under heavy acceleration. A normal abort for something like Falcon 9 will have the command to shut all fuel to the engines producing s near full cut of boost and allowing the capsule to pull away with less thrust. With an SRB there is no shut down, and you have to have an LES that can overcome the boost.

SRBs work great for payload launched, but they've always been a little sketchy for manned craft.

Rapier108 said:

---

double aught said:

---

Why would there have been total loss on a human flight? This one kept going.

---

On the shuttle, we saw what happened with a SRB burn through with Challenger.

Since SLS does have a launch escape system, they might be able to get the capsule clear before failure, or before the RSO blows it up.

---

Yeh, I know that. I just don't get why the guy said "it's safe to assume" humans and payload wouldn't have survived, when the craft did survive in this scenario.

They would, most likely, have tripped the LES and attempted an abort i would think. I really don't know what the abort windows look like on that vehicle though.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

They would, most likely, have tripped the LES and attempted an abort i would think. I really don't know what the abort windows look like on that vehicle though.

---

Tripping an abort, and being "safe to assume" the crew would not survive are two completely different scenarios though. It is certainly something we want them to show they have figured out before ever letting humans fly on that system, but given the outcome of this flight, saying it is safe to assume a crew would not have survived is a bit extreme.

Woah I agree with caution on overflights for starship right now. I mean the whole point is to fail fast. That's fine for SpaceX but you have to accept and mitigate risks. That means you have to play very tight with the safety regs.

If they're approving this they have done a huge amount of work and convincing. I don't believe the FAA would just okay it.

The mission would be a total loss, but the crews chances would entirely depend on whether we insist on an effective abort system.

On the SLS? Yeah id be worried about the crew given the reuse of the massive SRBs. I know it has abort capabilities, but I believe it still has abort blackout windows doesnt it?

Vulcan centaur? If I understand correctly the plan was for Starliner and dragon to bith have full abort capabilities, but I would trust my 5yos backyard rockets more than I trust starliner...

Yeah, I would not want to take my chances on any unproven abort systems. But that is somewhat different from being able to "safely assume the crew would be lost". Either way its semantics and the reality is no crews should fly with those rocket motors until they have thoroughly proven the issue is fixed.

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

double aught said:

---

Why would there have been total loss on a human flight? This one kept going.

---

On the shuttle, we saw what happened with a SRB burn through with Challenger.

Since SLS does have a launch escape system, they might be able to get the capsule clear before failure, or before the RSO blows it up.

---

SRB burn through at a mid body O-ring is not the same as an engine nozzle burn through. Both are certainly dangerous, but not to the same degree.

---

According to who?

According to the craft yesterday that still made it to the appropriate orbit.

Ask anyone in the SRM industry if they agree with your assessment. I doubt you'll find one.

Ag83 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

double aught said:

---

Why would there have been total loss on a human flight? This one kept going.

---

On the shuttle, we saw what happened with a SRB burn through with Challenger.

Since SLS does have a launch escape system, they might be able to get the capsule clear before failure, or before the RSO blows it up.

---

SRB burn through at a mid body O-ring is not the same as an engine nozzle burn through. Both are certainly dangerous, but not to the same degree.

---

According to who?

---

Well, if a mid body o ring fails, you potentially get a blow torch right against the body of the main craft (or in the case of the shuttle, a giant fuel tank). If the nozzle on bottom of the booster fails, at worst, you have a blow torch on other engines and imparting some lateral thrust that has to be overcome by the other engines. I am not saying that can't result in a failure of the craft or the mission. Just saying a blowtorch to the main rocket body is a worst case scenario and a nozzle failure is something less than that.

The segmented SRBs survived several seal failures/extremely close to failures. Boisjoly and others at Thiokol had been warning about them for quite a while.

The fact a failure didn't destroy a vehicle is not proof of the severity of the malfunction.

Depends on the progress of the burn through and if it continues to spread up the nozzle. And eventually spreads. My understanding is that any Crack in an SRB under thrust tends to start eroding as it burns. Just likenthe burn through on the shuttle SRB joints, its ok as long as the erosion doesnt persist longer than the material being eroded does..

That being said, the GEM series are known to be pretty reliable, and are probably the most trustworthy of the SRBs on the market for manned flight.

I am really curious now about abort black out windows for the Vulcan/centaur with a starliner and/or dragon. Im also curious if NASA will force a test to ensure ant abort mode can clear falling/burning SRB debris( my understanding that even after detonation, the fuel will continue to burn until spent) in the event of an explosion or termination.

Very curious as well. I am in agreement with your points, and Casey's long post here:

Just to be clear here, NASA declared its recent test a "successful wet dress rehearsal" despite missing its T-30s target by almost five minutes, botching the dreaded Orion hatch close out procedure, and managing to achieve up to 16% H2 due to copious leakage at the fueling… https://t.co/ROk9OJ84Nb

— Casey Handmer (@CJHandmer) February 14, 2026

Ag_of_08 said:

---

The segmented SRBs survived several seal failures/extremely close to failures. Boisjoly and others at Thiokol had been warning about them for quite a while.

The fact a failure didn't destroy a vehicle is not proof of the severity of the malfunction.

---

It's been 35+ years since I was directly involved in the SRM industry, but no one at that time that I ever met (and I do not believe at this time), would agree agree that "a nozzle burnthrough is less serious than a case burnthrough". Could certain launch vehicle configurations differ in consequences? Sure. But I would bet the NG SRM folks are very unconformable right now, In post-Challenger redesign days, some of our biggest arguments/debates were about the nozzle, not the case joints.

Wasn't the erosion problem near the nozzle joint one of the worst in the SRBs? It just happened to fail farther up the stack drom what I remember.

I agree with you...any containment failure is potentially just as catastrophic as another. The "eh it's fine, as long a sit doesnt fail too fast" mentality is how we got to Challenger

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Wasn't the erosion problem near the nozzle joint one of the worst in the SRBs? It just happened to fail farther up the stack drom what I remember.

I agree with you...any containment failure is potentially just as catastrophic as another. The "eh it's fine, as long a sit doesnt fail too fast" mentality is how we got to Challenger

---

Who is saying "eh its fine"? This whole discussion started because somebody said that it the same failure had happened with a crew capsule on top of the stack, it would be "safe to assume the crew would be lost". In response it was pointed out that the payload made it to orbit despite the burn through. Nobody said it was not an extremely serious problem that needs to get fixed for real before they ever set humans on top of it for a launch.

Quote:

---

Wasn't the erosion problem near the nozzle joint one of the worst in the SRBs? It just happened to fail farther up the stack drom what I remember.

---

Yes, that was also an area of considerable concern and great effort to fix post-Challenger. In fact, I would say that I think the biggest area of dispute in the shuttle post-Challenger redesign was the need to incorporate redundant and verifiable seals in the internal nozzle joints.

2nd edit to clarify: there was the nozzle-to-case joint (where nozzle attached to main motor case) which was also a known problem area but there were also the internal nozzle joints where there was considerable debate about their performance history and had single o-ring seals.

Regardless, on any SRM, any combustion gas coming out of anywhere it isn't supposed to (i.e., the aft exit plane of the nozzle) should be viewed as extremely serious business. And while one can squabble about the phrase "safely assume loss of crew", it was, rightfully so, considered prudent to consider such a leak as a loss of vehicle and crew event (at least in shuttle).

Quote:

---

SRB burn through at a mid body O-ring is not the same as an engine nozzle burn through. Both are certainly dangerous, but not to the same degree.

---

While you did not say "eh, it's fine", you definitely suggested it's not as big of a concern as a case leak. I disagree with that. Just because it worked out OK on this particular launch on this particular vehicle does not mean anyone who knows SRMs thinks it is any less serious of a matter. If you know of someone who was ever involved in SRMs that does, please say so.

You sound like a NASA manager the night before Challenger..."hey, we've seen this before and it was fine, why should it be any worse the next time?". Dangerous way to think in this business.

Regarding the SRM nozzle failure and uncrewed/cargo only vs manned flight... I know, I'm late to the discussion, but I was out of pocket all of yesterday.

We need to pause and realize that we're looking with all of the benefit of hindsight with all of the perfect camera angles condensed into the X posts and YT videos well after the fact. We need to put ourselves as best as able into the chair of the mission manager or flight director and look at the data in real time as it's coming in.

So obviously live video would show the aftermath of the nozzle being shed. That was a bight feature that materially (and therefore very visually) altered the exhaust plume including some ejected solids that shed to the outside of the main stream. But that would be over in an instant. Watching a live feed if you blink you miss it.

What would controllers still have? They'd see and immediately start to address the following (top of mind, not comprehensive)

• Trajectory veering off nominal
• increased engine gimballing
• Off nominal acceleration
• Loss of data from sensors on/in/near that failed SRM nozzle

So the question then becomes one of mission rules and procedures. Do they KNOW they have a SRM that has burned through somewhere? Likely not!

Take Challenger... They did observe in real time unplanned engine gimbaling and some strain gages were showing off nominal readings. In real time though no one had an opportunity to perform more than observation on this and in no way draw any meaningful conclusions. Right before vehicle breakup they started to see increased H2 flows. The H2 tank was leaking and losing pressure and the turbo pumps were attempting to compensate. Still it was an observation, but there was no time to make a determination.

IF something does pass the line to abort then we have to ask what and how? My first question is CAN the SRB/SRMs be jettisoned early? They do have small solid motors at the top that veer them away from the stack. On shuttle I think they were close enough to exhaustion that although they were still producing some thrust the main vehicle saw immediate improved thrust to weight once they were gone so as the Solids peeled away the Orbiter also accelerated away from them. If they're shed early could they out-perform the stack on their own and get ahead? I don't know that answer but its certainly a question and gets into various abort rules and contingencies.

That Vulcan launce was ultimately a success. I think we can all take and accept some greater risks with cargo that we won't take with humans on board but it's never without risk. I think the ultimate question is can controllers get a clear enough picture quickly enough to make a determination one way or the other AND is it in a phase of flight where it's even possible? I'd like to hope there isn't a phase of flight where there simply is NOT an executable abort mode that has a degree of risk lower than just riding it out.

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

SRB burn through at a mid body O-ring is not the same as an engine nozzle burn through. Both are certainly dangerous, but not to the same degree.

---

While you did not say "eh, it's fine", you definitely suggested it's not as big of a concern as a case leak. I disagree with that. Just because it worked out OK on this particular launch on this particular vehicle does not mean anyone who knows SRMs thinks it is any less serious of a matter. If you know of someone who was ever involved in SRMs that does, please say so.

You sound like a NASA manager the night before Challenger..."hey, we've seen this before and it was fine, why should it be any worse the next time?". Dangerous way to think in this business.

---

You keep insinuating that I think "this is fine" and that is absolutely not what I have been or am saying. Please stop lying about what I am saying. In every post, I have reinforced that it is not fine and needs to get fixed before we ever consider flying humans on it. That is not a NASA Challenger attitude in any way.

txags92 said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

SRB burn through at a mid body O-ring is not the same as an engine nozzle burn through. Both are certainly dangerous, but not to the same degree.

---

While you did not say "eh, it's fine", you definitely suggested it's not as big of a concern as a case leak. I disagree with that. Just because it worked out OK on this particular launch on this particular vehicle does not mean anyone who knows SRMs thinks it is any less serious of a matter. If you know of someone who was ever involved in SRMs that does, please say so.

You sound like a NASA manager the night before Challenger..."hey, we've seen this before and it was fine, why should it be any worse the next time?". Dangerous way to think in this business.

---

You keep insinuating that I think "this is fine" and that is absolutely not what I have been or am saying. Please stop lying about what I am saying. In every post, I have reinforced that it is not fine and needs to get fixed before we ever consider flying humans on it. That is not a NASA Challenger attitude in any way.

---

Please quit saying that I said that you think "this is fine". I am not the one who wrote that. I responded that I can see how someone thinks you think that based on what you did post. You downplayed its significance and said, basically, that nozzle burnthrough is not of the "same degree" as a case burnthrough. I have disagreed with that and that was my main point.

As far as the Challenger thing, you said (and this is a direct quote so you cannot accuse me of "lying" about what you have posted): "but given the outcome of this flight, saying it is safe to assume a crew would not have survived is a bit extreme.". That strikes me as a bit of nonchalance about this. If that is an overread, my apologies. ULA and NG clearly have major issues with this motor and nozzle they need to get a handle on if they are going to be launching US national security payloads. Purely commercial folks can do as they wish.

All I know is that my buddy who is the PM for the satellites on this launch is grateful that they made it successfully to orbit. I'm already hearing that future NSSL missions on Vulcan will most likely slip because of their recent performance issues.

Ag83 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

SRB burn through at a mid body O-ring is not the same as an engine nozzle burn through. Both are certainly dangerous, but not to the same degree.

---

While you did not say "eh, it's fine", you definitely suggested it's not as big of a concern as a case leak. I disagree with that. Just because it worked out OK on this particular launch on this particular vehicle does not mean anyone who knows SRMs thinks it is any less serious of a matter. If you know of someone who was ever involved in SRMs that does, please say so.

You sound like a NASA manager the night before Challenger..."hey, we've seen this before and it was fine, why should it be any worse the next time?". Dangerous way to think in this business.

---

You keep insinuating that I think "this is fine" and that is absolutely not what I have been or am saying. Please stop lying about what I am saying. In every post, I have reinforced that it is not fine and needs to get fixed before we ever consider flying humans on it. That is not a NASA Challenger attitude in any way.

---

Please quit saying that I said that you think "this is fine". I am not the one who wrote that. I responded that I can see how someone thinks you think that based on what you did post. You downplayed its significance and said, basically, that nozzle burnthrough is not of the "same degree" as a case burnthrough. I have disagreed with that and that was my main point.

As far as the Challenger thing, you said (and this is a direct quote so you cannot accuse me of "lying" about what you have posted): "but given the outcome of this flight, saying it is safe to assume a crew would not have survived is a bit extreme.". That strikes me as a bit of nonchalance about this. If that is an overread, my apologies. ULA and NG clearly have major issues with this motor and nozzle they need to get a handle on if they are going to be launching US national security payloads. Purely commercial folks can do as they wish.

---

From the post I was quoting of yours: "You sound like a NASA manager the night before Challenger..."hey, we've seen this before and it was fine, why should it be any worse the next time?"

No, I don't sound like that because I am not and have not been saying it was fine. What I said was that this rocket made it to space, so making the blanket statement that a crew on top of it would not survive is extreme and unsupported by the evidence at hand. But I also said that doesn't mean we should ignore it and let it fly without getting the issue fixed for sure this time.

This is not an all or nothing argument where if I say that a statement that a crew would 100% die flying them is extreme and ignores that there have been successful flights, it is not the equal of endorsing continuing to fly them. You can object to absolutism in statements without taking the complete opposite side of the argument. I am not and have not been trying to argue that these boosters flying in their current condition with these burn through issues are safe. I was simply arguing against the absolute certainty of the blanket statement made that a crew would not survive launching with them.

Let me repeat that again just so you hopefully understand where I stand and will quit claiming I think these boosters "are fine" and we should continue flying them. They are NOT fine, and we should not continue flying them until we completely understand why they are burning through and have a definitive fix. We also should not put a crew anywhere near them until we have multiple successful flights with the revised design proving that the fix is successful.

I feel the same way about the Artemis II mission being crew certified without testing the revision of the reentry approach and proving that it solved the issues from Artemis I. I feel like NASA putting a crew on Artemis II with the currently unresolved issues is them repeating the mistakes of the Apollo 1 pad fire and Challenger disaster. They are letting time pressures overrule crew safety and I hope they don't come to regret it.