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.