It was an incredibly impressive performance by all involved. Starship had a rough start to the year, but it's nice to see that the program appears to be back on track and racking up the Ws. They'll almost certainly be flying revenue flights (live Starlink satellites) by spring, if not sooner.
Based on the maneuvering they were playing with yesterday, it looks like they're getting pretty close to the confidence level necessary to attempt a ship catch. I think Elon had previously said they were planning it for somewhere around flight 13-15, and given the success yesterday I've got to think that they will try it sooner rather than later.
It was also impressive the ship survived the reentry like it did. If you saw the pics before launch, they removed a LOT of tiles. That kind of compromise on the heat shield would have (and did once) destroyed the Space Shuttle.
For the record, the space shuttle lost tiles on many missions and survived. Columbia had its carbon-carbon leading edge impacted which exposed some aluminum internal structure inside the wing
That does sound like a reasonable test. Clearly nothing will be ready for Luna landing in 2027 but if they are at a point of testing deploying payloads, re lighting engines they are progressing, just not on the timescale they are talking T.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that 3 years from now they will have a ship capable of deploying useful payload to LEO or even geostationary orbit that can can recover.
If they have that it really will deliver on the promises
Also - none of the above should be taken to think mars is achievable this decade
I wonder how many governments or private contractors are creating giant and heavy satellites with the intention that the super heavy booster can put it into orbit. It will take time to make those satellites and I wonder if they are banking by the time they are done testing it will be ready to launch their payloads. In 3 or so years like you say.
Spy agencies would love to have super powerful spy satellites in orbit. They have always been constrained by size and weight. Some of the largest satellites in orbit have been for the government. Imagine how accurate and reliable weather satellites could be if they were allowed larger sensor arrays or more advantageous orbits with larger satellites.
You have the only worthwhile comment on here so far.
Whether or not they can reach Mars this decade will depend solely on the test cadence. If they are only able to test 4 or 5 times a year, I agree with you. I don't see it.
If they boost it up to 20 test flights a year (which seems to be what they are aiming for next year), then progress could speed up tremendously.
We also have two different things moving against each other that make estimating how far along SpaceX very difficult. The first is that this is like a jigsaw puzzle: the first pieces are much harder to find and place than the last few pieces. Once the platform is mostly working, it gets easier to refine. In particular, if they get the heat shield working properly, then probably the biggest piece will be solved (and the one that eluded NASA throughout the Shuttle program).
The second is the unknown unknowns problem. Until SpaceX solves the current batch of problems, they cannot be sure if an entirely new set of problems might arise. This is what has plagued AI systems, FSD, and pretty much any other cutting edge technology.
After this last flight, though, it's pretty clear that SpaceX is well on the way. Whether they can stay on schedule is doubtful. On the other hand, they appear to be a little late on delivering something that nobody else has even begun to even try starting.
It's always frustrating that people want to try and dunk on SpaceX for missing the timelines that even the company admits are wildly ambitious and "aspirational".
Yes, SpaceX is certainly behind the timelines they set for themselves, but don't lose sight of the fact that what they have accomplished even on their streched timeline is incredible. The only thing that MAYBE comes close is the development of the Saturn V, and that was developed with the full weight and resources of the US government behind it, and is far less complex than what SpaceX is doing with Starship.
There are a lot of parallels to 1966 era Saturn development. Stacking on the pad with a crane, launching from a raised platform over a flat surface instead of a big flame trench, slightly short of orbit flights for spacecraft reentry testing, in space engine restart tests, etc..
It's not as well known that NASA did those things because those flights were Saturn 1Bs.
Dunking on people / companies for missing timelines is totally justified. Especially if the company themselves admit that they are too ambitious. Cause thats just called lying.
Just give realistic timelines. Or if you really really, want to be ambitious, just give multiple. One ambitious and one realistic one.
I do agree that what SpaceX has achieved so far seems very promising, but thats doesn't make missing your timelines any better.
All space timelines are ambitious even if not presented that way. SLS was supposed to launch in 2016 and that wasn’t intended to be a super ambitious timeline. Was NASA lying then? What should their punishment be if they were?
I can see that you have no experience with this kind of thing. And I do not mean that as some sort of dunk or critique; it's just clear you do not have any sort of framework to understand how things work at the edge.
First, any timeline is a lie when working on cutting edge technologies. It just is. There is no feasible way to really know how long any of this is going to take. You take a guess and go with it.
There are really only two choices: be aggressive with the timelines, or give yourself lot of buffer.
Now I know that adding lots of buffer time sounds nice, but it tends not to work. In software development there is an old saying that you should plan to build it twice, because you are going to anyway. There is an only slightly less old saying that says if you plan to build it twice, you'll end up building it three times.
The problem with adding buffer times is that those quickly get folded into the actual project times and things end up being even later. People are weird, and also weirdly consistent when it comes to this.
Part of Musk's secret to success is to set out absolutely, clearly unreasonable timelines. He takes them seriously and the pressure is definitely on the teams to make it happen, but of course we know that his things are almost always late. But strangely, they are always much *much* faster than any of the competition. I mean, we are *still* waiting for anyone to regularly fly and land first stage boosters other than SpaceX, and it will be officially 10 years since SpaceX landed their first Falcon 9 on December 15th.
By all mean, I *strongly* suggest to take any timeline from Musk, SpaceX, Tesla, etc... with a huge grain of salt. That is our privilege and honestly, anyone not doing that at this point is just being a bit silly. But him making these outrageous timelines and then honestly trying (and failing) to get it done by then is part of the magic sauce that has actually given us incredible rockets, pushed EV adoption ahead by at least 10 years, has people using robotic arms controlled by their mind, and may also soon give us real honest-to-god personal robots soon.
Don't slaughter the golden goose just because you are hankering for some golden omelets and cannot wait.
Hm, that sounds pretty unintuitive, but thats often just how things are. And you seem to know what you are talking about, so ill take your word for it.
Thanks for explaining it in an easy to understand way and for not just downvoting without explaining why im wrong.
3 years to LEO? Seriously? Orbit next year, after the first successful V3 (I'm thinking flight 3 of V3). Refueling demo, next year. And I'll bet V3 Starlink next year. 7 million people think Starlink is 'useful'. That's 2 years earlier than your post.
Now, if V3 blows up the launch pad, all bets are off, but if SpaceX keeps on their current success rate, we'll see Starlink deployments next year.
Agreed with everything stated. I’m actually a little more aggressive, assuming they avoid another S37 event, orbital refueling by July, go for Artemis 2 by December.
HLS will basically be a V3 without a heat shield. Assuming they’ve got the consistent launch success and orbital refueling figured out by October, it won’t take long to manufacture HLS with their current set up.
With the extra launch pads built, I anticipate a much higher frequency of tests. By their expectations it could be 2-3 a month.
Artemis 2 is scheduled for February-April next year and is unrelated to anything spacex is doing. Artemis 3 is the one that relies on spacex for landing. That landing currently isn't scheduled until late 2027, roughly 2 years from now.
Spacex will not be ready by December next year. They first have to get the V3 version flying and uncover any kinks in the design. There will be improvements to be made even if they have successful missions. They then need to ramp up the cadence of producing vehicles. They're at a good start but they need more. They will only have one pad to start with next year. A second one won't be online until at least the middle of the year. The third likely in early 2027. They also have to test out in orbit refueling and do some long duration tests to characterize the vehicles behavior and thermal conditions in space. Then they need to do a test landing with a mock HLS. This will require many refueling missions and need at least 2 pads and maybe all 3. Once that is successful they can finally do Artemis 3.
And while HLS is based on the V3 ship, it does have a lot of unique things going on with it. And it is of such importance they will be taking for more time to go over it than a normal starship. Not to mention it has to use a propulsion system that is unique to it for landing which has yet to be tested in space or even integrated into a starship. 2027 is theoretically possible, but 2028 is far more likely. Any kind of landing in 2026 is virtually impossible.
Starlink is enabled by Falcon 9. None of the satellites are currently in the constellation were put there by this new rocket unless I'm wrong.
Also a test mission is not a commercially successful rocket, governments can fail all they want but no one will use your rocket if it keeps blowing up. I'm sure they will test LEO next year as well but that doesn't mean it's ready
You said, useful payload. I'm saying, WHEN V3 Starlink is deployed from Starship (I'm saying in 2026), it will have met your requirement of useful payload. Which is 2 years earlier than you noted.
Clearly, you're not in the know. Flights 10 and 11 (yesterday) were both highly successful. Flight 12 will happen with the new V3 in Q1 of 2026. It will likely repeat the route of Flight 11 to prove out the technology. Then if all goes well, expect 13 to go into orbit and MAY deploy starlink V3, but I expect if all goes well Flight 14 or Flight 15 in 2026 will be the actual deployment of V3 starlink satellites. Again 2 years earlier than what you predicted.
I'd expect the first orbital V3 launch to be carrying a few V3 Starlink satellites - not the full payload due to cost/risk and weight. But more as a proof of concept for their image. If it fails, no real loss, if it succeeds it can be said to have achieved something of commercial significance.
Let's see what happens, if they start testing it with starlink next year then great, but you just inventing what you think the next bunch of test flights will be/when they will bet etc doesn't make it so
Musk said first orbital will be with V3. They’ve tested the pez dispenser twice now. Once they are orbital they can start deploying Starlink. I think it’s pretty safe to assume they will deploy Starlink next year. Customer payloads would be a ways off though as those need a proper payload bay and doors.
Man your reading comprehension is terrible. That’s the opposite of what I was saying. One sentience referenced what Musk said. The rest was just statements on what SpaceX had already achieved and making predictions based on that. Musk could say they were going to Andromida and it wouldn’t change the predictions in the rest of the comment.
They launch every ~4 weeks when tests are successful. Both this launch and the prior launch already tested the Starlink deployment mechanism successfully.
If Starship v2 was everything they wanted, they’d put it into orbit and launch Starlink satellites from it in November or December. But they have enough performance improvements made with v3 that they’d rather kill v2 instead of investing more in it and proceed with v3. So that’ll set them back a few months as they switch their launch facilities and redo some tests that they’d already done with v2. In the short term, it looks silly - they’ll reach this milestone ~4 months later. But this is a company that’s been working towards colonizing Mars for 21 years now - they have a much longer timeframe they’re looking at, and v3 should enable double the payload to orbit, so by the middle of next year the switch to v3 should have paid off vs sticking with v2 (assuming all the tests are successful - even if they’re not, it’ll still payoff by the end of next year.)
Let's say that if everything goes to plan that's true, they are years behind schedule, why would one assume that now everything is going to go as planned
You almost make it sound like a bad thing for someone to be sufficiently invested to be well-informed. I tend to think of that as a plus side, personally.
They were ready to deliver payload to LEO or GTO a year ago, this is the 7th test that reached space w/95% of orbital velocity. All they needed to do was launch with Starship as an expendable upper stage.
The difference is they are trying to build a fully reusable launcher. And it’s poised to enter service after a couple more tests and then it will be testing in-orbit refueling.
So totally on schedule for moon and Mars this decade.
Still requires 10+ refueling tankers launches for 1 lunar trip. Very cool rocket. I'm still extremely skeptical on it's practicality. Also, they keep kicking the recovery can down the road for the new versions. We also have V4 coming now.
SpaceX was developing Starship regardless of the HLS contract. They'd be stupid not to try and get government money to help with it even though they dont need it. SpaceX is still a business
BO is not going to do Artemis 3. They also need orbital refueling and a reusable rocket. They’ve launched an orbital capable rocket ONCE in over two decades. They won’t suddenly leapfrog SpaceX.
They need to refuel because of the extreme amount of cargo they will be taking there. Starship will take about 100 tons to the moon. That’s an enormous amount. But the moon takes more delta V than Mars does. Because you need SO much power to slow down for the moon.
The fact it can be sent out to deep space with 100 tons of payload and up to 7 km/sec of deltaV is revolutionary. Nothing before it has remotely had the capability to send so much payload to deep space.
And refueling launches are cheap, probably no more than $20m each.
And they’ve never kicked recovery down the road, they’ve recovered numerous boosters and the upper state has been testing re-entry, maybe you don’t know this but there are no landing spots in the Indian Ocean.
And there is no v4 even on drawing board yet, the next round is v3 which likely enters service after a few test flights.
A little closer, this flight was the same as the previous one and not very different than flight 7 a year ago. This year they added the satellite delivery capability and better tiles. Still a long way to the Moon and Mars, with people inside.
The biggest change, in my mind, is that they are close to testing going to orbit. That unlocks a lot of new potential, both for SpaceX (deploying Starlink) but also for Artemis (catching/reuse is a core priority).
If they nail orbit and catching, then their cadence is going to skyrocket (pun intended). That will give SpaceX the cadence it needs to perfect orbital refueling.
I think we could see a empty HLS testing landing on the moon in mid-2027, and then have astronauts riding HLS down to the lunar surface by the end of 2028.
Everything is going to depend on how well or badly the first block 3 goes. Both stages do water landings by February and it'll be orbital, starlink deployment and a double catch attempt by summer, followed by fueling tests by this time next year. But every failure adds 2 or 3 months to that timeframe.
unless they progess a lot faster now, we are looking at 2028 or after for a Moon Landing. SpaceX still has to orbit and deorbit a ship successfully a few times and go to the Moon and back unmanned. I think the orbit and de orbit tests they can do in 2026 but going all the way is a big jump. IIRC the in-orbit fueling has to occur to get the fuel for the delta-vee to leave orbit and go to the moon. That one is a big ask in just a year. Maybe since the last two tests have gone well they will move faster.
they aren't even close to a 2028 moon landing or even a moon fly by. They need to be able to o put 1200 tons of fuel in orbit to get starship to the moon. these test flights aren't even carrying 20 tons on sub orbital.
Lunar flyby needs ~200t, lunar landing needs ~500t. 1200t is for a round trip carrying signficant mass the whole way.
Also worth noting that the current ships are functionally carrying more than 20 tons, since aside they dump a few dozen tonnes of unburnt fuel from the main tanks after shutdown, since they don't want it onboard during reentry. For a tanker, you'd be dumping that fuel into a depot instead of open space.
Finally, as I've noted here: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1o61lzh/comment/njeep0p/
Starship only needs a relatively modest performance gain to see a very significant payload gain. Since payload makes up such a small fraction of the current mass, it's very sensitive to changes.
With Starship V2 now retired, and V3 imminent, I think we'll see those sorts of gains well before 2028 rolls around.
Test flights clearly have far more than 20 tons payload capacity to orbit. They cut the engines at 26,300 km/hour, when they are mere seconds from making orbit (at end they were gaining 200 km/hour per second). Very clearly burning the remaining propellent would put a significantly higher payload over 28,000 km/hour.
READ what I said, 2028 or AFTER…we don’t know how fast SpaceX can move and how much they will learn each time they launch. V3 will be higher payload and V4 is already on the plan. Late 2028 might just happen if things go well but a lot of things have to go well in the next 3 years.
Lol, yeah sure. Years behind, not demonstrated number of claims that are prerequisite to anything more than suborbital flights but yes, totally brings them closer to the Moon (and MARS !)...
SLS made it to the Moon on it's first test, years ago. Starship has yet to complete a single orbit of Earth. SLS is an expensive mutt, but it's an expensive mutt that actually works.
There’s a big difference between a test and a demo. SLS succeeded on its first demo flight which it was expected to after being in development for decades.
SpaceX is building test articles of Starship to figure out the final design. They absolutely do not plan for the rocket to function as the final product because that’s not what they built.
The SLS had failures, setbacks, and iteration but it was all on paper or very small scale hardware tests that was not at all visible to the public. SpaceX is instead doing all that well out in public view.
Do you...think the booster and ship landing in the water wasn't planned? They are very explicit in saying those were planned landing sites for these test flights.
Considering that almost all rocket development programs get delayed by multiple years SpaceX being late is not exactly a strong argument to whether they will eventually succeed or not. The progress is obvious though, earlier this year block 2 exploded before seco and now they can land it. If you honestly think there hasn't been any progress then you're either lying or just really ignorant about this topic.
They have, in the past, recovered some splashed down vehicles or atleast parts of them. They had recovered Booster 11's and 13's aft section, Booster 12's hotstaging ring and some bags of TPS from Ships 30 and 31 i think?
Originally there were plans to actually tow Ships 31, 33, 34, 35 and 37 from the ocean to Australia. Ship 31's nosecone had snapped off making them unable to tow it, Ship 33, 34 and 35 never made it to splashdown and Ship 37 exploded immediately after splashdown because it had tipped over, which is normal and expected, but it prevented them from towing anything.
As much as I despise Elon Musk and what he has become, and as much as I fear for the future of space observation , or even being stuck on Earth due to debris from constellations like Starlink, I am super excited that humanity might actually again venture out into space in my lifetime. Just started rewatching The Expanse and the thought of one day having a colony on Ceres or beyond is so amazing to me, even if I probably won't live to see that happening.
There's a ton of talented people at SpaceX. Elon is just the money man at this point. AFAIK Gwynne Shotwell runs it on a day to day basis.
I do think Elon was a genius before, say, 2015-2020. He's lost his mind. Go back and listen to interviews from before the mid-late teens and he sounds way more coherent and rational both in terms of what he's saying and how he speaks. I think it was a mixture of extreme workaholism causing burnout, drug abuse, and having his brain sucked out by social media. Then the alcoholic went and bought the bar (Twitter) so he can affix his lips to the tap and suck social media brain rot exactly the way he likes it. Xhitter has turned him into a raving loon.
BTW Starlink is not much of a Kessler syndrome risk. The orbits are very low, not even really long term stable. That's by design so that they eventually fall out of orbit even if they fail, and they have a life span. Low orbits also reduces data latency (speed of light) and makes them cheaper to launch.
The Kessler syndrome risk comes from junk in higher more long term stable orbits. If you look into it, most of the worst junk in those orbits was created decades ago and involves things like old US and Soviet booster sections, fairings, and derelict satellites. We're better at not littering in those orbits now.
Even if Kessler syndrome did happen, it would not close space to us. We could fly through these orbits on the way to higher ones or planets with a low (but not zero) risk of hitting anything. Space is called space for a reason. It's big. What it would do is ruin portions of LEO for satellite use or any kind of longer term parking or rendezvous operations, since anything lingering in polluted orbits would eventually get struck by debris. So we'd be left with very low LEO, where junk deorbits naturally, and higher orbits that take more energy to reach.
The higher you go the larger the orbits become in terms of volume, so the higher you go the less risk there is from debris for simple statistical reasons. Kessler syndrome in high orbits would require us to launch an incredible amount of mass to create such a risk, far more than we're presently capable of putting up there.
"There's a ton of talented people at SpaceX. Elon is just the money man at this point."
This is a junk argument. Elon has not paid any money into SpaceX in well over a decade. A significant portion of his net wealth comes from SpaceX itself being worth something. You can't borrow from yourself to pay yourself.
"I think it was a mixture of extreme workaholism causing burnout, drug abuse, and having his brain sucked out by social media."
The drug abuse argument has been much debunked.
"I do think Elon was a genius before, say, 2015-2020."
I do agree that 2020 did something to him, like it did to many people. The government's response to Covid affected many people strongly and twisted their political opinions. That's why there was an out and out rebellion across large portions of the nominally left-leaning community. The social contract was broken between corporate leaders and the Democrats.
I'm not sure Elon was ever a 'genius', but I do think it was fair to say he was a legitimate visionary who was willing to stick to his guns more than most any others would have done. Turning Tesla into a serious car manufacturer(and the first all electric one, at that) was something that most analysts didn't think was practically doable, and similarly starting a rocket company from scratch and basically revolutionizing the industry with reusable, lower cost rocketry was a hell of an achievement.
It's annoying how many people have tried to dishonestly rewrite history simply cuz he's turned into a complete knob. You dont revolutionize two entirely different industries by luck, and he was genuinely quite hands-on with the decision making with both Tesla and SpaceX, at least beforehand. He was not *just* some wallet. If that's all it took, then others would have beaten him to these milestones. He was hardly one of the richest people in the world back then, after all. Bezos started Blue Origin at a similar time and he had a lot more money, for instance.
Plenty of reason to hate on Elon nowadays, but also, most of the people doing this rewriting of history are doing so because of things they've read on social media, not because they were at all paying attention to any of these things back then.
I never understood the starlink Kessler syndrome conversation. They're all on decaying orbits by design to avoid having any space debris. Where do people get the idea that they'll cause this issue?
It's fear mongering by people who don't understand space, or people who do but are politically motivated to attack.
For example there's a commonly cited astronomer at a the Canadian Regina university that ABSOLUTELY HATES SpaceX (she set a press ambush for SpaceX employees coming to retrieve a piece of Dragon trunk debris and gleefully talked about it on social media) and she constantly lies to the press giving misleading statements about how the sky is literally falling with regards to Starlink. Stuff like this is what makes Canada such a poor ally.
From various articles about it I guess? From my understanding of the issue, it's not a concern about the satellites alone as long as they work as intended. In that case decommission should be accounted for by design as you say. It's if something unintended happens and you have "rogue" debris crashing into satellites that otherwise worked fine, but then are destroyed, and the cascade effect that could have. That risk is always there but with more and more satellites from these constellations the risk becomes higher for a cascade.
Now space is big, don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a risk at the moment. But we are also still fairly young as a space-civilisation. Hopefully tech will be developed to clean up debris before it really becomes a problem.
"From my understanding of the issue, it's not a concern about the satellites alone as long as they work as intended. In that case decommission should be accounted for by design as you say."
Lots of people claim operational Starlink satellites are junk themselves. Glad that you don't.
"It's if something unintended happens and you have "rogue" debris crashing into satellites that otherwise worked fine, but then are destroyed, and the cascade effect that could have."
The issue with this argument is that the Starlink orbits are self cleaning, while yes a collision involving Starlink satellites would launch some debris into eccentric orbits, most debris would be cleaned out by the atmosphere relatively quickly preventing any kind of cascade.
Well that is definitely good to hear. I must admit I mainly have that information from regular news and when it comes to science they can definitely be - shall we say not precise. So thanks for correcting me.
I think Starlink has a purpose in the sense that it delivers decent internet where other options are either not present or outrageously expensive. I don't understand people here in Denmark using it, because we basically have gigabit fiber available almost everywhere at some 60-70 USD per month. I have no reason to believe the satellites are more junk than other satellites. I'm not qualified to say anything about that tbh.
"I don't understand people here in Denmark using it, because we basically have gigabit fiber available almost everywhere at some 60-70 USD per month."
So Starlink has "constant capacity" (more or less) across the globe so at some point SpaceX will drop the price to almost zero in a country that has already good internet until some people will start to use it. Also as you mention "almost everywhere" also means "not everywhere" so it makes sense for some people to use it. I've seen screenshots of people using it in countries where few people use it and it's very cheap (like $40/month) and very good (400+ mbps).
". It's if something unintended happens and you have "rogue" debris crashing into satellites that otherwise worked fine, but then are destroyed, and the cascade effect that could have"
Just to be clear, an impact can not raise the overall orbit, and is more likely to result in debris going into an even more eccentric orbit that will deorbit even faster.
You can have a cascade, but at starlinks altitude its extremely unlikely
I wonder how the banking maneuver went (results wise). Clearly it made it to the area but I mean in terms of curvature kind of thing, would be interesting to see on a map, hard to tell from the 3D compass on the UI.
Nice. In retrospect, couldn't they just use the flaps during the bellyflop to turn the ship around (extending the top right/bot left or opposite flaps)? Though I guess it could be mainly for adding cross-range in general, or that there isn't enough DoF to utilize them for that and do other stuff during that phase.
I personally don't know much about the WhatAboutIt chanel, but NSF is also clickbait trash. Hilarious you attack that channel while defending NSF.
My guess is that your personal political opinions are getting mixed into this as I hear that WAI is slightly political on his social media account from what I've heard.
Either way, neither is a good reason to report spam a youtube channel in an attempt to destroy it.
I’m not a fan of his work either, but being shut down like that could happen to any channel, even the ones like NSF, that you do like. So saying "it’s fine" to him being deleted like that, probably isn’t the wisest of takes and very shortsighted at the least.
Where's the video like the whole flight all the way to the moon in a drop? I didn't see it. It ain't real. I don't give a f***
ReplyDeleteSo fun to watch. Onward to Block 3! Looking forward to some pretty big milestones being accomplished next year.
ReplyDeleteIt was an incredibly impressive performance by all involved. Starship had a rough start to the year, but it's nice to see that the program appears to be back on track and racking up the Ws. They'll almost certainly be flying revenue flights (live Starlink satellites) by spring, if not sooner.
ReplyDeleteBased on the maneuvering they were playing with yesterday, it looks like they're getting pretty close to the confidence level necessary to attempt a ship catch. I think Elon had previously said they were planning it for somewhere around flight 13-15, and given the success yesterday I've got to think that they will try it sooner rather than later.
It was also impressive the ship survived the reentry like it did. If you saw the pics before launch, they removed a LOT of tiles. That kind of compromise on the heat shield would have (and did once) destroyed the Space Shuttle.
For the record, the space shuttle lost tiles on many missions and survived. Columbia had its carbon-carbon leading edge impacted which exposed some aluminum internal structure inside the wing
DeleteThat does sound like a reasonable test. Clearly nothing will be ready for Luna landing in 2027 but if they are at a point of testing deploying payloads, re lighting engines they are progressing, just not on the timescale they are talking T.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's unreasonable to say that 3 years from now they will have a ship capable of deploying useful payload to LEO or even geostationary orbit that can can recover.
If they have that it really will deliver on the promises
Also - none of the above should be taken to think mars is achievable this decade
I wonder how many governments or private contractors are creating giant and heavy satellites with the intention that the super heavy booster can put it into orbit. It will take time to make those satellites and I wonder if they are banking by the time they are done testing it will be ready to launch their payloads. In 3 or so years like you say.
DeleteI think there will be a moment when this happens.
DeleteFor example, James Webb took 20 years mainly because of the complexity of launching Inna small rocket, I wonder what could be possible
Is there demand for 30, 50, 100 tonne satellites? I guess not - more useful to have large numbers of small satellites?
DeleteAlternatively, lifting large mass, at high speed to other planets might be useful from a science point of view.
Spy agencies would love to have super powerful spy satellites in orbit. They have always been constrained by size and weight. Some of the largest satellites in orbit have been for the government. Imagine how accurate and reliable weather satellites could be if they were allowed larger sensor arrays or more advantageous orbits with larger satellites.
DeleteYou have the only worthwhile comment on here so far.
DeleteWhether or not they can reach Mars this decade will depend solely on the test cadence. If they are only able to test 4 or 5 times a year, I agree with you. I don't see it.
If they boost it up to 20 test flights a year (which seems to be what they are aiming for next year), then progress could speed up tremendously.
We also have two different things moving against each other that make estimating how far along SpaceX very difficult. The first is that this is like a jigsaw puzzle: the first pieces are much harder to find and place than the last few pieces. Once the platform is mostly working, it gets easier to refine. In particular, if they get the heat shield working properly, then probably the biggest piece will be solved (and the one that eluded NASA throughout the Shuttle program).
The second is the unknown unknowns problem. Until SpaceX solves the current batch of problems, they cannot be sure if an entirely new set of problems might arise. This is what has plagued AI systems, FSD, and pretty much any other cutting edge technology.
After this last flight, though, it's pretty clear that SpaceX is well on the way. Whether they can stay on schedule is doubtful. On the other hand, they appear to be a little late on delivering something that nobody else has even begun to even try starting.
It's always frustrating that people want to try and dunk on SpaceX for missing the timelines that even the company admits are wildly ambitious and "aspirational".
DeleteYes, SpaceX is certainly behind the timelines they set for themselves, but don't lose sight of the fact that what they have accomplished even on their streched timeline is incredible. The only thing that MAYBE comes close is the development of the Saturn V, and that was developed with the full weight and resources of the US government behind it, and is far less complex than what SpaceX is doing with Starship.
DeleteThere are a lot of parallels to 1966 era Saturn development. Stacking on the pad with a crane, launching from a raised platform over a flat surface instead of a big flame trench, slightly short of orbit flights for spacecraft reentry testing, in space engine restart tests, etc..
It's not as well known that NASA did those things because those flights were Saturn 1Bs.
Dunking on people / companies for missing timelines is totally justified. Especially if the company themselves admit that they are too ambitious. Cause thats just called lying.
DeleteJust give realistic timelines. Or if you really really, want to be ambitious, just give multiple. One ambitious and one realistic one.
I do agree that what SpaceX has achieved so far seems very promising, but thats doesn't make missing your timelines any better.
All space timelines are ambitious even if not presented that way. SLS was supposed to launch in 2016 and that wasn’t intended to be a super ambitious timeline. Was NASA lying then? What should their punishment be if they were?
DeleteIf they knew that, which they probably did, then yes, that was lying.
DeleteIm not suggesting any punishments just for missing timelines.
But its nonetheless shitty thing to do, and deserves criticism.
A bad widespread thing is still bad.
I can see that you have no experience with this kind of thing. And I do not mean that as some sort of dunk or critique; it's just clear you do not have any sort of framework to understand how things work at the edge.
DeleteFirst, any timeline is a lie when working on cutting edge technologies. It just is. There is no feasible way to really know how long any of this is going to take. You take a guess and go with it.
There are really only two choices: be aggressive with the timelines, or give yourself lot of buffer.
Now I know that adding lots of buffer time sounds nice, but it tends not to work. In software development there is an old saying that you should plan to build it twice, because you are going to anyway. There is an only slightly less old saying that says if you plan to build it twice, you'll end up building it three times.
The problem with adding buffer times is that those quickly get folded into the actual project times and things end up being even later. People are weird, and also weirdly consistent when it comes to this.
Part of Musk's secret to success is to set out absolutely, clearly unreasonable timelines. He takes them seriously and the pressure is definitely on the teams to make it happen, but of course we know that his things are almost always late. But strangely, they are always much *much* faster than any of the competition. I mean, we are *still* waiting for anyone to regularly fly and land first stage boosters other than SpaceX, and it will be officially 10 years since SpaceX landed their first Falcon 9 on December 15th.
By all mean, I *strongly* suggest to take any timeline from Musk, SpaceX, Tesla, etc... with a huge grain of salt. That is our privilege and honestly, anyone not doing that at this point is just being a bit silly. But him making these outrageous timelines and then honestly trying (and failing) to get it done by then is part of the magic sauce that has actually given us incredible rockets, pushed EV adoption ahead by at least 10 years, has people using robotic arms controlled by their mind, and may also soon give us real honest-to-god personal robots soon.
Don't slaughter the golden goose just because you are hankering for some golden omelets and cannot wait.
Hm, that sounds pretty unintuitive, but thats often just how things are. And you seem to know what you are talking about, so ill take your word for it.
DeleteThanks for explaining it in an easy to understand way and for not just downvoting without explaining why im wrong.
3 years to LEO? Seriously? Orbit next year, after the first successful V3 (I'm thinking flight 3 of V3). Refueling demo, next year. And I'll bet V3 Starlink next year. 7 million people think Starlink is 'useful'. That's 2 years earlier than your post.
DeleteNow, if V3 blows up the launch pad, all bets are off, but if SpaceX keeps on their current success rate, we'll see Starlink deployments next year.
Agreed with everything stated. I’m actually a little more aggressive, assuming they avoid another S37 event, orbital refueling by July, go for Artemis 2 by December.
DeleteHLS will basically be a V3 without a heat shield. Assuming they’ve got the consistent launch success and orbital refueling figured out by October, it won’t take long to manufacture HLS with their current set up.
With the extra launch pads built, I anticipate a much higher frequency of tests. By their expectations it could be 2-3 a month.
Artemis 2 is scheduled for February-April next year and is unrelated to anything spacex is doing. Artemis 3 is the one that relies on spacex for landing. That landing currently isn't scheduled until late 2027, roughly 2 years from now.
DeleteSpacex will not be ready by December next year. They first have to get the V3 version flying and uncover any kinks in the design. There will be improvements to be made even if they have successful missions. They then need to ramp up the cadence of producing vehicles. They're at a good start but they need more. They will only have one pad to start with next year. A second one won't be online until at least the middle of the year. The third likely in early 2027. They also have to test out in orbit refueling and do some long duration tests to characterize the vehicles behavior and thermal conditions in space. Then they need to do a test landing with a mock HLS. This will require many refueling missions and need at least 2 pads and maybe all 3. Once that is successful they can finally do Artemis 3.
And while HLS is based on the V3 ship, it does have a lot of unique things going on with it. And it is of such importance they will be taking for more time to go over it than a normal starship. Not to mention it has to use a propulsion system that is unique to it for landing which has yet to be tested in space or even integrated into a starship. 2027 is theoretically possible, but 2028 is far more likely. Any kind of landing in 2026 is virtually impossible.
Starlink is enabled by Falcon 9. None of the satellites are currently in the constellation were put there by this new rocket unless I'm wrong.
DeleteAlso a test mission is not a commercially successful rocket, governments can fail all they want but no one will use your rocket if it keeps blowing up. I'm sure they will test LEO next year as well but that doesn't mean it's ready
You said, useful payload. I'm saying, WHEN V3 Starlink is deployed from Starship (I'm saying in 2026), it will have met your requirement of useful payload. Which is 2 years earlier than you noted.
DeleteClearly, you're not in the know. Flights 10 and 11 (yesterday) were both highly successful. Flight 12 will happen with the new V3 in Q1 of 2026. It will likely repeat the route of Flight 11 to prove out the technology. Then if all goes well, expect 13 to go into orbit and MAY deploy starlink V3, but I expect if all goes well Flight 14 or Flight 15 in 2026 will be the actual deployment of V3 starlink satellites. Again 2 years earlier than what you predicted.
I'd expect the first orbital V3 launch to be carrying a few V3 Starlink satellites - not the full payload due to cost/risk and weight. But more as a proof of concept for their image. If it fails, no real loss, if it succeeds it can be said to have achieved something of commercial significance.
DeleteWow. You seem super invested in this.
DeleteLet's see what happens, if they start testing it with starlink next year then great, but you just inventing what you think the next bunch of test flights will be/when they will bet etc doesn't make it so
Musk said first orbital will be with V3. They’ve tested the pez dispenser twice now. Once they are orbital they can start deploying Starlink. I think it’s pretty safe to assume they will deploy Starlink next year. Customer payloads would be a ways off though as those need a proper payload bay and doors.
DeleteSure. Musk also said full self driving was rolling out in 2019 I think it's fair to have a sense of scepticism
DeleteIt helpful if you read more than the first sentence. The rest of the comment doesn’t rely on anything Musk says.
DeleteSo you agree, this does rely on Elon Promises
DeleteMan your reading comprehension is terrible. That’s the opposite of what I was saying. One sentience referenced what Musk said. The rest was just statements on what SpaceX had already achieved and making predictions based on that. Musk could say they were going to Andromida and it wouldn’t change the predictions in the rest of the comment.
DeleteThe next flight is due next year will launch the new Starlink, they said.
DeleteThey launch every ~4 weeks when tests are successful. Both this launch and the prior launch already tested the Starlink deployment mechanism successfully.
DeleteIf Starship v2 was everything they wanted, they’d put it into orbit and launch Starlink satellites from it in November or December. But they have enough performance improvements made with v3 that they’d rather kill v2 instead of investing more in it and proceed with v3. So that’ll set them back a few months as they switch their launch facilities and redo some tests that they’d already done with v2. In the short term, it looks silly - they’ll reach this milestone ~4 months later. But this is a company that’s been working towards colonizing Mars for 21 years now - they have a much longer timeframe they’re looking at, and v3 should enable double the payload to orbit, so by the middle of next year the switch to v3 should have paid off vs sticking with v2 (assuming all the tests are successful - even if they’re not, it’ll still payoff by the end of next year.)
Let's say that if everything goes to plan that's true, they are years behind schedule, why would one assume that now everything is going to go as planned
DeleteAre you referring to SLS, New Glenn, etc?
Delete"Wow. You seem super invested in this."
DeleteYou almost make it sound like a bad thing for someone to be sufficiently invested to be well-informed. I tend to think of that as a plus side, personally.
Being informed is one thing, being angry someone else doesn't share your faith in a company timeline to product maturity is something very different
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThey were ready to deliver payload to LEO or GTO a year ago, this is the 7th test that reached space w/95% of orbital velocity. All they needed to do was launch with Starship as an expendable upper stage.
DeleteThe difference is they are trying to build a fully reusable launcher. And it’s poised to enter service after a couple more tests and then it will be testing in-orbit refueling.
So totally on schedule for moon and Mars this decade.
I hope you are right. But the evidence is that their timelines slip so I think it's reasonable to assume they won't be ready on time
DeleteStill requires 10+ refueling tankers launches for 1 lunar trip. Very cool rocket. I'm still extremely skeptical on it's practicality. Also, they keep kicking the recovery can down the road for the new versions. We also have V4 coming now.
DeleteIt doesn't require any refueling for LEO or geostationary orbit which was what I am talking about
DeleteI'll wait until Elon/SpaceX posted the updated performance table after Flight 13-14 before saying that
DeleteAnd I am talking about what Elon sold this thing on and took tax payer money to do.
DeleteSpaceX was developing Starship regardless of the HLS contract. They'd be stupid not to try and get government money to help with it even though they dont need it. SpaceX is still a business
Delete"They'd be stupid not to try and get government money to help with it even though they dont need it."
DeleteBidding and then neglecting the contract because of priorities, which Artemis 3 is now threatened to be replaced by someone else (BO) is stupid
BO is not going to do Artemis 3. They also need orbital refueling and a reusable rocket. They’ve launched an orbital capable rocket ONCE in over two decades. They won’t suddenly leapfrog SpaceX.
Delete"They also need orbital refueling"
DeleteWhich is not needed for Mk1 modified as crewed to beat China
Tbf they have to rush things especially and that's assuming they want to fund it out of their pocket, but the risk & fear is there
I'm going to need a source on that.
DeleteYou can’t modify Mk1 to be a crewed lander for Artemis.
DeleteWill be a lie if I didn't say I have my doubts as well, but Blue claims they can do it and Berger trust them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
DeleteThey need to refuel because of the extreme amount of cargo they will be taking there. Starship will take about 100 tons to the moon. That’s an enormous amount. But the moon takes more delta V than Mars does. Because you need SO much power to slow down for the moon.
DeleteThey aim to be capable of that. Artemis 3 and 5 won’t carry anything close to 100T of payload.
DeleteNope.
DeleteThe fact it can be sent out to deep space with 100 tons of payload and up to 7 km/sec of deltaV is revolutionary. Nothing before it has remotely had the capability to send so much payload to deep space.
And refueling launches are cheap, probably no more than $20m each.
And they’ve never kicked recovery down the road, they’ve recovered numerous boosters and the upper state has been testing re-entry, maybe you don’t know this but there are no landing spots in the Indian Ocean.
And there is no v4 even on drawing board yet, the next round is v3 which likely enters service after a few test flights.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteA little closer, this flight was the same as the previous one and not very different than flight 7 a year ago.
ReplyDeleteThis year they added the satellite delivery capability and better tiles.
Still a long way to the Moon and Mars, with people inside.
The biggest change, in my mind, is that they are close to testing going to orbit. That unlocks a lot of new potential, both for SpaceX (deploying Starlink) but also for Artemis (catching/reuse is a core priority).
DeleteIf they nail orbit and catching, then their cadence is going to skyrocket (pun intended). That will give SpaceX the cadence it needs to perfect orbital refueling.
I think we could see a empty HLS testing landing on the moon in mid-2027, and then have astronauts riding HLS down to the lunar surface by the end of 2028.
Everything is going to depend on how well or badly the first block 3 goes. Both stages do water landings by February and it'll be orbital, starlink deployment and a double catch attempt by summer, followed by fueling tests by this time next year. But every failure adds 2 or 3 months to that timeframe.
DeleteThis is the 7th time it’s made orbital velocity. Essentially burning its engines for less than 5% longer and it stays in orbit.
Deleteunless they progess a lot faster now, we are looking at 2028 or after for a Moon Landing. SpaceX still has to orbit and deorbit a ship successfully a few times and go to the Moon and back unmanned. I think the orbit and de orbit tests they can do in 2026 but going all the way is a big jump. IIRC the in-orbit fueling has to occur to get the fuel for the delta-vee to leave orbit and go to the moon. That one is a big ask in just a year. Maybe since the last two tests have gone well they will move faster.
ReplyDeletethey aren't even close to a 2028 moon landing or even a moon fly by. They need to be able to o put 1200 tons of fuel in orbit to get starship to the moon. these test flights aren't even carrying 20 tons on sub orbital.
DeleteLunar flyby needs ~200t, lunar landing needs ~500t. 1200t is for a round trip carrying signficant mass the whole way.
DeleteAlso worth noting that the current ships are functionally carrying more than 20 tons, since aside they dump a few dozen tonnes of unburnt fuel from the main tanks after shutdown, since they don't want it onboard during reentry. For a tanker, you'd be dumping that fuel into a depot instead of open space.
Finally, as I've noted here: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1o61lzh/comment/njeep0p/
Starship only needs a relatively modest performance gain to see a very significant payload gain. Since payload makes up such a small fraction of the current mass, it's very sensitive to changes.
With Starship V2 now retired, and V3 imminent, I think we'll see those sorts of gains well before 2028 rolls around.
Test flights clearly have far more than 20 tons payload capacity to orbit. They cut the engines at 26,300 km/hour, when they are mere seconds from making orbit (at end they were gaining 200 km/hour per second). Very clearly burning the remaining propellent would put a significantly higher payload over 28,000 km/hour.
DeleteREAD what I said, 2028 or AFTER…we don’t know how fast SpaceX can move and how much they will learn each time they launch. V3 will be higher payload and V4 is already on the plan. Late 2028 might just happen if things go well but a lot of things have to go well in the next 3 years.
DeleteIf I hike a mountain I'm also closer to the Moon. That doesn't mean I will land there any soon.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but no one cares about you hiking mountains
DeleteYea but you haven’t already climbed to the moon three times. This is their fourth launch system to make it to space in less than 20 years.
DeleteLol, yeah sure. Years behind, not demonstrated number of claims that are prerequisite to anything more than suborbital flights but yes, totally brings them closer to the Moon (and MARS !)...
ReplyDeleteAgain, the booster "successfully" ditched.
Starship "successfully" ditched and blown up.
Whatever gets the clicks and the hype I guess.
Do you understand what “progress” is?
DeleteYeah, seems like this sub has some difficulty though.
DeleteLets not forget that SLS has been in development for nearly 20 years...
DeleteIf only the SLS was only capable of lifting less than a 3rd of its claimed payload or low earth orbit.. then it would be comparable
DeleteSLS made it to the Moon on it's first test, years ago. Starship has yet to complete a single orbit of Earth. SLS is an expensive mutt, but it's an expensive mutt that actually works.
DeleteAfter 20 years while not even being reusable
DeleteThere’s a big difference between a test and a demo. SLS succeeded on its first demo flight which it was expected to after being in development for decades.
DeleteSpaceX is building test articles of Starship to figure out the final design. They absolutely do not plan for the rocket to function as the final product because that’s not what they built.
The SLS had failures, setbacks, and iteration but it was all on paper or very small scale hardware tests that was not at all visible to the public. SpaceX is instead doing all that well out in public view.
Do you...think the booster and ship landing in the water wasn't planned? They are very explicit in saying those were planned landing sites for these test flights.
DeleteSo you are grossly ignorant about everything, no reason to boast.
DeleteYou realize the New Glenn, Vulcan, and SLS also blew up their first and second stages on their “successful“ first flights?
DeleteConsidering that almost all rocket development programs get delayed by multiple years SpaceX being late is not exactly a strong argument to whether they will eventually succeed or not. The progress is obvious though, earlier this year block 2 exploded before seco and now they can land it. If you honestly think there hasn't been any progress then you're either lying or just really ignorant about this topic.
Delete"Starship's 11th Flight Test Brings SpaceX Closer to the Moon and Mars"
ReplyDeleteDoes it though?
Saturn V's 11th flight landed men on the Moon.
Starship's 11th flight still hasn't even managed to get an empty ship to orbit, let alone any kind of real payload anywhere meaningful.
--
NGL, it's fun to watch it go though.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThey intentionally left heat tiles off for testing reasons fyi. That’s where we are getting the discoloration.
ReplyDeleteAnd we can build this dream together. Standing strong forever. Nothing’s gonna stop us now.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens to the ship and the booster when they ditch them in the sea, are they recovered or just left ?
ReplyDeleteThey have, in the past, recovered some splashed down vehicles or atleast parts of them. They had recovered Booster 11's and 13's aft section, Booster 12's hotstaging ring and some bags of TPS from Ships 30 and 31 i think?
DeleteOriginally there were plans to actually tow Ships 31, 33, 34, 35 and 37 from the ocean to Australia. Ship 31's nosecone had snapped off making them unable to tow it, Ship 33, 34 and 35 never made it to splashdown and Ship 37 exploded immediately after splashdown because it had tipped over, which is normal and expected, but it prevented them from towing anything.
On the stream they mentioned that they weren't going to recover the ship immediately, so I assume they will at some point.
DeleteAs much as I despise Elon Musk and what he has become, and as much as I fear for the future of space observation , or even being stuck on Earth due to debris from constellations like Starlink, I am super excited that humanity might actually again venture out into space in my lifetime. Just started rewatching The Expanse and the thought of one day having a colony on Ceres or beyond is so amazing to me, even if I probably won't live to see that happening.
ReplyDeleteThere's a ton of talented people at SpaceX. Elon is just the money man at this point. AFAIK Gwynne Shotwell runs it on a day to day basis.
DeleteI do think Elon was a genius before, say, 2015-2020. He's lost his mind. Go back and listen to interviews from before the mid-late teens and he sounds way more coherent and rational both in terms of what he's saying and how he speaks. I think it was a mixture of extreme workaholism causing burnout, drug abuse, and having his brain sucked out by social media. Then the alcoholic went and bought the bar (Twitter) so he can affix his lips to the tap and suck social media brain rot exactly the way he likes it. Xhitter has turned him into a raving loon.
BTW Starlink is not much of a Kessler syndrome risk. The orbits are very low, not even really long term stable. That's by design so that they eventually fall out of orbit even if they fail, and they have a life span. Low orbits also reduces data latency (speed of light) and makes them cheaper to launch.
The Kessler syndrome risk comes from junk in higher more long term stable orbits. If you look into it, most of the worst junk in those orbits was created decades ago and involves things like old US and Soviet booster sections, fairings, and derelict satellites. We're better at not littering in those orbits now.
Even if Kessler syndrome did happen, it would not close space to us. We could fly through these orbits on the way to higher ones or planets with a low (but not zero) risk of hitting anything. Space is called space for a reason. It's big. What it would do is ruin portions of LEO for satellite use or any kind of longer term parking or rendezvous operations, since anything lingering in polluted orbits would eventually get struck by debris. So we'd be left with very low LEO, where junk deorbits naturally, and higher orbits that take more energy to reach.
The higher you go the larger the orbits become in terms of volume, so the higher you go the less risk there is from debris for simple statistical reasons. Kessler syndrome in high orbits would require us to launch an incredible amount of mass to create such a risk, far more than we're presently capable of putting up there.
"There's a ton of talented people at SpaceX. Elon is just the money man at this point."
DeleteThis is a junk argument. Elon has not paid any money into SpaceX in well over a decade. A significant portion of his net wealth comes from SpaceX itself being worth something. You can't borrow from yourself to pay yourself.
"I think it was a mixture of extreme workaholism causing burnout, drug abuse, and having his brain sucked out by social media."
The drug abuse argument has been much debunked.
"I do think Elon was a genius before, say, 2015-2020."
I do agree that 2020 did something to him, like it did to many people. The government's response to Covid affected many people strongly and twisted their political opinions. That's why there was an out and out rebellion across large portions of the nominally left-leaning community. The social contract was broken between corporate leaders and the Democrats.
I'm not sure Elon was ever a 'genius', but I do think it was fair to say he was a legitimate visionary who was willing to stick to his guns more than most any others would have done. Turning Tesla into a serious car manufacturer(and the first all electric one, at that) was something that most analysts didn't think was practically doable, and similarly starting a rocket company from scratch and basically revolutionizing the industry with reusable, lower cost rocketry was a hell of an achievement.
DeleteIt's annoying how many people have tried to dishonestly rewrite history simply cuz he's turned into a complete knob. You dont revolutionize two entirely different industries by luck, and he was genuinely quite hands-on with the decision making with both Tesla and SpaceX, at least beforehand. He was not *just* some wallet. If that's all it took, then others would have beaten him to these milestones. He was hardly one of the richest people in the world back then, after all. Bezos started Blue Origin at a similar time and he had a lot more money, for instance.
Plenty of reason to hate on Elon nowadays, but also, most of the people doing this rewriting of history are doing so because of things they've read on social media, not because they were at all paying attention to any of these things back then.
These same people praise Bill Gates. Their opinions are inconsistent at best.
DeleteI never understood the starlink Kessler syndrome conversation. They're all on decaying orbits by design to avoid having any space debris. Where do people get the idea that they'll cause this issue?
DeleteIt's fear mongering by people who don't understand space, or people who do but are politically motivated to attack.
DeleteFor example there's a commonly cited astronomer at a the Canadian Regina university that ABSOLUTELY HATES SpaceX (she set a press ambush for SpaceX employees coming to retrieve a piece of Dragon trunk debris and gleefully talked about it on social media) and she constantly lies to the press giving misleading statements about how the sky is literally falling with regards to Starlink. Stuff like this is what makes Canada such a poor ally.
These people are not rational.
From various articles about it I guess? From my understanding of the issue, it's not a concern about the satellites alone as long as they work as intended. In that case decommission should be accounted for by design as you say. It's if something unintended happens and you have "rogue" debris crashing into satellites that otherwise worked fine, but then are destroyed, and the cascade effect that could have. That risk is always there but with more and more satellites from these constellations the risk becomes higher for a cascade.
DeleteNow space is big, don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a risk at the moment. But we are also still fairly young as a space-civilisation. Hopefully tech will be developed to clean up debris before it really becomes a problem.
"From my understanding of the issue, it's not a concern about the satellites alone as long as they work as intended. In that case decommission should be accounted for by design as you say."
DeleteLots of people claim operational Starlink satellites are junk themselves. Glad that you don't.
"It's if something unintended happens and you have "rogue" debris crashing into satellites that otherwise worked fine, but then are destroyed, and the cascade effect that could have."
The issue with this argument is that the Starlink orbits are self cleaning, while yes a collision involving Starlink satellites would launch some debris into eccentric orbits, most debris would be cleaned out by the atmosphere relatively quickly preventing any kind of cascade.
Well that is definitely good to hear. I must admit I mainly have that information from regular news and when it comes to science they can definitely be - shall we say not precise. So thanks for correcting me.
DeleteI think Starlink has a purpose in the sense that it delivers decent internet where other options are either not present or outrageously expensive. I don't understand people here in Denmark using it, because we basically have gigabit fiber available almost everywhere at some 60-70 USD per month. I have no reason to believe the satellites are more junk than other satellites. I'm not qualified to say anything about that tbh.
"I don't understand people here in Denmark using it, because we basically have gigabit fiber available almost everywhere at some 60-70 USD per month."
DeleteSo Starlink has "constant capacity" (more or less) across the globe so at some point SpaceX will drop the price to almost zero in a country that has already good internet until some people will start to use it. Also as you mention "almost everywhere" also means "not everywhere" so it makes sense for some people to use it. I've seen screenshots of people using it in countries where few people use it and it's very cheap (like $40/month) and very good (400+ mbps).
". It's if something unintended happens and you have "rogue" debris crashing into satellites that otherwise worked fine, but then are destroyed, and the cascade effect that could have"
DeleteJust to be clear, an impact can not raise the overall orbit, and is more likely to result in debris going into an even more eccentric orbit that will deorbit even faster.
You can have a cascade, but at starlinks altitude its extremely unlikely
Elon and Team do it again and again. GOTTA LOVE IT!!!! 🙃
ReplyDeleteI wonder how the banking maneuver went (results wise). Clearly it made it to the area but I mean in terms of curvature kind of thing, would be interesting to see on a map, hard to tell from the 3D compass on the UI.
ReplyDelete"I wonder how the banking maneuver went"
DeleteWell SpaceX is going to be charging $100million per ton of cargo, so I think the banking maneuver is going quite.... oh I see what you mean.
100m per ton to the surface of mars.
DeleteI thought the exact same thing when I first read that.
DeleteI was at the Boeing Air and Space museum a few years back, and they had a very cool chart showing the cost increase to send materials into space.
Read it again, it was 100 million to the surface of the moon or mars not to orbit
DeleteRead what again? The display at the air and space museum that I was referring to?
DeleteSpacex 100million per ton was to the surface of a body not to orbit but the comment should not have been towards you, my apologies
DeleteIncrease? When did that happen?
DeleteBy the chart, every launch got more expensive to ship materials into orbit. Far in excess of inflation.
DeleteLast I heard spacex made it cheaper with reusable rockets, that’s terrible
Deletehttps://x.com/mcrs987/status/1977953485774565857
DeleteNice. In retrospect, couldn't they just use the flaps during the bellyflop to turn the ship around (extending the top right/bot left or opposite flaps)? Though I guess it could be mainly for adding cross-range in general, or that there isn't enough DoF to utilize them for that and do other stuff during that phase.
DeleteImpressive work, matching the cloud patterns like that!
DeleteCongratulations to SpaceX on the best flight so far! One engine failure on the booster during its return trip, but everything else looked really good.
ReplyDeleteNot even an engine failure, that same engine lit back up later during the landing burn, so clearly it wasn't actually dead.
DeleteMost likely just the computer seeing a reading it didn't like and being overly cautious. We've seen similar things on previous flights.
I can't believe yt cut and then deleted WhatAboitIt channel 7 mins before launch
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI personally don't know much about the WhatAboutIt chanel, but NSF is also clickbait trash. Hilarious you attack that channel while defending NSF.
DeleteMy guess is that your personal political opinions are getting mixed into this as I hear that WAI is slightly political on his social media account from what I've heard.
Either way, neither is a good reason to report spam a youtube channel in an attempt to destroy it.
I’m not a fan of his work either, but being shut down like that could happen to any channel, even the ones like NSF, that you do like. So saying "it’s fine" to him being deleted like that, probably isn’t the wisest of takes and very shortsighted at the least.
DeleteI wonder what was up with that… I had to switch to SpaceX.com to watch.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deletebut hang on i thought the elon rocket was bad, please internet tell me what to think
ReplyDeleteThe cope is strong is this thread. Wonder where you all where when it was IMPOSSIBLE to tand a booster,
ReplyDeleteWho are you talking to? You ok?
DeleteCalm down don quixote those are just windmills
DeletePlease point out who is doing a "Cope" as you put it ?
DeleteThere's not a single person coping in this thread right now. I suspect you are in fact a bot, especially with a username like that.
Delete