SpaceX Starship may never reach the Moon or Mars! Here's why...

[@noppornwongrassamee8941]

Maybe it's just the sci fi nerd in me, but I feel like a better use for Starship's lift capacity (whatever it ends up being) would be to lift components for a dedicated interplanetary ship (say, something with a nuclear engine) into orbit rather than use Starship itself for interplanetary journeys.

[@BACA01]

Interplanetary nuclear ships would tow starships for interplanetary journeys. They also would decelerate them for entering atmosphere without the necessity in heatshields. Russia is currently building one.

[@Jogeta5]

When something like that is built and operational a future cargo Starship can launch it.

[@effervescentrelief]

If Starship could not go, then I'm sure that's the contingency plan.

[@redcougarjgw]

I thought you were talking about a Tesla truck for a minute there.

[@Kr0N05]

I think NASA and SpaceX will develop a nuclear 'Tug' , but one that will push a Starship.

[@judedornisch4946]

Startship and Super heavy have not even entered the optimization phase.

[@nicolasrouvreau8365]

The super heavy can be built in carbon fiber for exemple (no need of high temperature resilience).

[@flewdefur]

Yea, if you think this is rapid iteration now, imagine how fast it will be once they are catching the booster reliably. It will be like taking a car out for a test drive. And if they get really good at building starships and engines, disposable starships is still possible. Imagine how much simpler a disposable starship would be if it didnt have to land.

[@wombatillo]

@@nicolasrouvreau8365 The questions are 1) will it actually be lighter? 2) will it be reuseable for 100 flights? 3) how much will it cost 4) what kind of fabrication spaces are required? and 5) will a carbon fibre tank be ok for LOX use given at least a hundred pressurization and heat cycles over the life of the rocket? SpaceX tested the carbon fibre back in the day when they are starting out and decided it's not worth the hassle.

[@Danny-bd1ch]

@@flewdefur You are delusional.

[@Smiles10130]

​@@flewdefurthey already make 1 daily for raptor engines. In the starbase tour, I saw engine 390 for raptor 2. Raptor 3 is gunning for 335 tons of thrust before it gets released, that's almost 2x raptor 1. Currently at 285. I think musk wants to perfect raptor 3 before using them on a starship.

[@Rod_Knee]

Starship is still deep in the prototype stage. There is a long way to go before most people would view it as "Version 1.0". Let's give SpaceX a bit longer before we write of their performance ambitions.

[@DeepDeepSpace]

They claimed Starship would be landing on Mars this year.

[@ProjectManagementPercontation]

That would be fine if it was supposed to be rapidly reusable 5 or 6 years from now.

[@owenc.8288]

The thing is made out of steel. I guess thats why they call it super heavy.

[@davidlang4442]

@@Rod_Knee At least another decade of work to set things right. Mars is at least 15 years out. Maybe Twenty. A whole new ship will need to be developed. One with artificial gravity. Starship isn't going to cut the mustard as it currently is. One like the ship in the movie 2010. That will take another 25 years to develop and another 5 years to build in orbit around Earth. This ship will be good to explore the solar system with. Musk's heavy lift rocket will get the stuff up there. That's what it's good for. Starship is good to get someplace fast on Earth.

[@marimuthu14]

Meanwhile China just pulled in their Long March 10 launch date from 2027 to 2025-2026... This rocket is very similar to Falcon Heavy with a Hydrolox 3rd stage with 27t TLI. Twin launches will deliver a crew module and a lander to low lunar orbit for rendezvous, crew transfer and landing. Such a clean, low cost and practical design. Two launches with rockets around the same cost as Falcon Heavy. Instead of this messy nonsense. I'm telling you the Chinese are going to land first and setup moon base long before SpaceX can get Lunar Starship working flawlessly.

[@johnanderson2550]

Just like Falcon, this will be a steady development process of incremental mass reduction and increases in payload. Right now the design focus is mission success. Mass optimisation comes later.

[@benjaminmeusburger4254]

"mission success" for what mission? their focus at the moment was testing a garage door in orbit = deploying satelites if their highest priority would be landing on the moon, then they wouldn't bother with a heat shield for the first 3 tests but simply tried to orbit and refuel simply accept the loss of the upper stages and don't bother with a heat shield

[@johnanderson2550]

@@benjaminmeusburger4254 Elon said during his interview with EDA that they're not doing any payload development this year.

[@art.is.life.eternal]

@@benjaminmeusburger4254 Deploying those communications satellites is primarily what is PAYING for the development of this MULTI-MISSION space vehicle. You have clearly lost sight of (or never saw in the first place), that Starship has many "missions" ahead of it - and could itself - because of its size, serve as either a temporary Station near the Moon, a hab module ON the moon (until more Starships deliver enough materials to build a large, permanent base) a delivery system for gigantic payloads of people and cargo to anywhere, serve as a moon lander, a Mars delivery system with enormous prefabbed sections of a Base, equipment, people, and a plethora of other missions (deep space exploration to Ceres, Vesta - MANNED MISSIONS), some of the moons around the larger planets, which hold the promise of life, It is being designed as a multipurpose, multi-mission, reusable system, unlike anything EVER built before. Why should "their highest priority" be landing on the moon? This isn't 1969 - I was 17 when we first landed - and now I'm 73. WTF happened - people lost their sense of competitive advantage - we "beat the Soviets" - time to stop. Congress and Nixon turned the tap off, and killed the dream. But now, FINALLY, we've got a PRIVATE, competitive Space Program, with multiple players, and SpaceX leading the way. We've lost almost a CENTURY - and it's time we get busy, and finish what we started - with 2024 technology. These are TEST flights, FFS. Do you know how many failed tests it took to develop the Saturn IV? I do - I watched them on TV.

[@FroddeB]

I dont find the rapid refueling hard to believe. The recent EverydayAstronaut tour of Starbase really showed how big the factories are going to be. They're preparing to ramp up production big time... As long as they can deliver a huge amount of a Starships and they have a framework that works for rapid reusability, then rapid refueling will become quite easy. There's a few ifs in there, but I'm sure SpaceX will figure it out. Starship is their new main product, SpaceX falls with Starship if it fails to do what it's supposed to.

[@jarredeagley1748]

Agreed, though I imagine the ground equipment for rapidly fueling multiple starship superheavy stacks is going to take a while to get rolling. That's a lot of methane and LOX!

[@nujum24]

I don't think its the starship turn around time that's the problem, more so that the OLM turn around time is worrisome. As it is right now the OLM takes over a month to get it ready for the next flight, that needs to change fast.

[@jarredeagley1748]

@@nujum24 If I were to guess, they might build multiple OLM's and rotate them. The new OLM they're building will have a flame trench too, so they're definately improving on the design.

[@nujum24]

@jarredeagley1748 Even if they do that, the time it takes each of them to get ready for a single flight is too long. And we don't really know if upgrades they are doing or fixes.

[@robertthomas9564]

So long as the booster can achieve rapid reusablity, we are good to go. The starfactory can easily crankout 10 S26 type, expendable tanker ships in a few months; no heat shield, flaps, header tanks....... All of that weight savings goes towards more fuel delivered to HLS on each launch.

[@timchance2002]

OMG!!! Why cant you be totally honest with acknowledging that Starship is still in IFT Phase! There are 2 more iterations of the future ship that take all these issues in account.... Stop Gaslighting on a TEST Article!!!!

[@JacquesMartini]

Meanwhile at Apollo, 50 years ago . . .

[@jasongoodacre]

I agree. SpaceX are doing something never achieved by NASA in over 50 years. And they are close to solving it. And this numbnuts is talking about payload mass, when everyone knows this is a TEST vehicle. You solve the main problems before finalising design and payload optimisation.

[@T1hitsTheHighestNote]

It will need several more test flights before we have a functioning system. We've only seen the v1 of the basic shell lift off so far. We haven't seen the tanker design, the the moon lander version. Mastering space docking/tanking will take several tests. How fast can you refly a ship and/or booster? How do you even refill Stage 0 fast enough?

[@MarcStollmeyer]

Maybe SpaceX should stop gaslighting NASA.

[@timchance2002]

@@MarcStollmeyer I really wasn't even going to respond to this: But I changed my mind. I'm sure you have this backwards. SpaceX isn't gaslighting anything. At all. Nasa, and by the way, The DOD are the ones choosing the only regularly available contractor to use, therefore gaslighting SpaceX to the entire world of who is the only consistent reliability right now. SpaceX's primary goal is star link. Everything else is secondary. Hence the Pez Dispenser door.

[@richardsmith8590]

And hey, is this really doubt or is this drama? drama....These aren't the ships that are going to be used...but you knew that

[@somaliskinnypirate]

well, hey, gota pump up them (view) numbers! lol

[@Pieman10101tx]

Bros gotta pay the bills somehow. I listen cause sometimes he digs up stuff I haven’t seen yet even if he is somewhat over-exaggerated while doing it sometimes.

[@MyLifeThruTheLens]

This is click bait, the last interview by Tim addressed all this

[@ryandavis4448]

Yea it's still in prototype phase. In fact, SpaceX has already said they're gonna increase the size of the Starship.

[@xponen]

If this isn't the Starship they're planning to use, then the next two larger versions will cost more than the $2 billion already spent on this relatively "small" one. It's becoming impractical. This Starship is already bigger than the Saturn V.

[@codedlogic]

This video's logical fallacy is CATEGORY ERROR. These are prototypes. Starship can't yet lift 1 TON to orbit. Much less "only 50 tons". The goal here is to build a rapidly reusable system. AND THEN fine tune it to achieve its objectives. Not the other way around. For example, Falcon 9 has doubled its lift capacity since it first flew. You are just mindlessly criticizing a prototype for not being the end product yet.

[@matfax]

Technology demonstrators. They need a safety record for these engines, the methane fuel, the steel-based structure, the heat shield, the maneuverability, the launch tower catching, the fuel transfer in orbit. Why overenginneer it when the results might force their hands so that they have to start over?

[@just_archan]

​@@matfaxtechnology demonstrator on ALREADY obsolete tech. We knew about raptor 3 before IFT1. Same with electric TVS. Or having longer booster ship. Or that ship will have 9 engines instead 6. Or that front flaps will be smaller and more leeway. Even double heatshield was mentioned to Tim dott a day before IFT4. V1 is pathfinder and is just good enough to gather data to adjust V2.

[@farmerpete6274]

And a click-bait title... You can do better than this, Angry.

[@fteoOpty64]

​@@just_archanSpaceX have simulated all of those and more. The restriction is to choose which to physically build and test, then iterate. If SpaceX can clone 5 of itself, it will but it can't. We all have physical limitations and make compromise base on overall cost. Lowering cost as a design factor is important. If we use the SLS model, we will not get to the moon in another 2 decades in any serious number of humans, meaning hundreds not tens of people.

[@avgjoe5969]

Angry astronaut plays devil's advocate (its in the name). Regardless of how early, its still worth discussing. Frankly, I'm waiting on V3 as the workhorse. Even 50t short, that's 150t to LEO. So there are solid margins for success. That said, going from 50t to 100t w/o extending fuel tanks is a big ask and worth looking at. Raptor 3 brings 50t extra per engine, more engines, even better and we still don't know what the new ISP for Raptor 3 is... 300>350bar has to make it more fuel efficient. In the end, stretching the rocket will help a Lot.

[@rolanddeschain965]

Bezos: I'm tired... ULA: tag me in!

[@art.is.life.eternal]

One of the very best comments on this page.

[@joaodecarvalho7012]

Artemis is kind of chaotic. They don't seem to know what they're doing.

[@privateerburrows]

Well, the refueling protocol would not be the Lunar Starship waiting in orbit for dozens of refueling Starships to come feed it, as you seem to suggest. There would be a large tank in orbit that would be fed by Starships until full. This tanker satellite would have the sunshield, insulation and cooling system. Then Lunar Starship would launch and dock with the tank satellite, fuel up, and go on to the Moon.

[@TCarneyV12]

So as a long time view I remember Angry's rant about the raptor 3 and why Space X just needs to settle on a design and get it fully developed.... Looks like they knew what they were doing. Booster 10 for ITF-3 was first spotted in July of 2022. We are working on 2 year old prototypes. Trust the Hardware rich design process, 1. SpaceX, has a working prototype, which looks like it will be either partially reusable and rapidly refurbished at worst by the end of the year. 2. SpaceX is cash flow positive due to star link 3. SpaceX has a mass production factory built and already partially operating 4. The last test said 2 layers of ablative heat shield survived reentry. Which means if you had to you could ditch the tiles and settle for rapidly refurbishable. If you read the full comment make your prediction where they will be in 18 months (Jan 2026)

[@Rod_Knee]

I think they'll have had successful recovery of both Super Heavy and Starship by then, and possibly reuse of Super Heavy.

[@shadowlordalpha]

I agree, but really... getting it developed is the different iterations. Most companies just don't number them before they settle on a final one

[@jeremynew6449]

I kind of expect HLS tanker flights will be expendable just so they can "get it done faster".

[@charleslivingston2256]

Expending Super Heavy with its 33 engines is pretty expensive.

[@charleslivingston2256]

I think they will have flown the stretched version of both Super Heavy and Ship by the end of the year. SpaceX is nothing if not relentless in their pace.

[@texican3574]

I think that SpaceX' success has jaded us. We may be losing sight of the ambitiousness of what they are doing. The science and engineering needed to create the technologies for almost every system being used is mindboggling. Despite what NASA, politicians and even Elon himself love to forecast, the technology will take as long as it takes to be developed and proven.

[@matfax]

I guess they had to make optimal promises so the project wasn't canceled in its infancy, and maintain the story so that it doesn't end like the Dear Moon project. Compensating for the deficiencies of our society and politics...

[@DeepDeepSpace]

@@matfax in other words, SpaceX lied about how far Starship was in development in order to get that government funding.

[@petersuvara]

I think you need to accept when something is not working. Falcon is great, Falcon Heavy is also. It's not looking good for Starship, sorry.

[@benjaminmeusburger4254]

"create the technologies for almost every system being used" their mission to land on the moon - that was already done in 1969 and is for Artemis just bigger by a factor of 2-3 nobody forced SpaceX to reinvent a reusable upper stage (the old one would be the SpaceShuttle) and write into a contract that they can do it within 4 years Projects that take multiple years are always a horror - however a timelines needs to be adjusted and targets to be reset. At the moment SpaceX talks about new version and new engines. TBH I don't know if they are any further now then 2 years ago. At least they now know that a slab of concrete is not enough for a launch pad, their termination system now termines flights and that garage doors in vacuum can be tricky

[@art.is.life.eternal]

@@matfax Well said.

[@XKS99]

I feel like a larger starship will actually make reentry easier as the mass to surface area ratio will be lower.

[@eddie3867]

Im still positive space x will reaches his goals in the future

[@lostpony4885]

Im not positive that goal isnt supporting Putins conquests.

[@jonathangibson4778]

@@lostpony4885 SpaceX has hurt Putin, both with Starlink and Starshield, as well as Crew Dragon making Soyuz obsolete for Nasa

[@Jogeta5]

@@lostpony4885 🤦‍♂

[@art.is.life.eternal]

@@lostpony4885 WTF are you talking about? SpaceX, and its reusable, safe and MODERN crewed modules to and from the ISS, have cost the Russian government hundreds of billions of dollars. They thought they had us in a real bind - until SpaceX proved them disastrously wrong. Look at the Soyuz capsule - cramped with two astronauts/cosmonauts, and packed like a Sardine can with three, each of them praying no one farts on the way up or down - and then look at Crew Dragon, with its clean, aircraft-like interior, a touch-screen tilting pad for the pilot, instead of hundreds of toggles, gauges, internal control structures, and 1970s-style design. Crewed Dragon, on the other hand, must make the Cosmonauts feel hopeless - its ability to carry at least 4, in spacious, clean comfort, its safety record, smooth ride, its uncluttered interior - WE HAVE BEEN SAVED. People like you should feel gratitude that SpaceX achieved all this for HALF of the funding that Boeing (cough) was given, to achieve a safe crewed module. How is ANYTHING SpaceX is doing helping Putin achieve his invasion? Even SpaceX's communication satellites are being used to feed tactical information to Ukraine, and the Russian "space program" (without the U.S.s desperate payment of 25% - and lowering - cost to orbit, compared to the blackmail fees being charged to us by Russia - is withering on the vine.

[@DynesLair-kb6qs]

I appreciate your input and being willing to talk about the current state of things despite how it might make fans of starship react or feel. I think the most helpful perspective to examine the gap of capabilities today vs what is expected / needed in the final product. Some differences between current and final versions like the refined raptor 3 engines will make a big difference and help with reducing complexity while greatly improving payload capillaries. I do think starship will eventually live up to the touted specs, it's more a matter of timing which I am not researched enough to speak on.

[@Zhiroc]

One thing to mention is that hot-stage ring is temporary. As I understand it, newer boosters will just have the main body include the structure, which should remove some weight as this would be just part of the hull and thus doesn't need to be independently strengthened. And the same goes for extra engine shielding--as Raptor reliability improves, there's no need for it, just like there's no shielding around Merlins.

[@art.is.life.eternal]

...and, if I remember correctly (it's hard to keep up) that ring weighs TWELVE TONS.

[@tradeguardian649]

this is no different to the nay sayers who said SpaceX would never land a Falcon 9 rocket, Starship is still a prototype, its likely the end product will look totally different to what we see today. I think your beef is more about the ambitious time-frames

[@christopherleveck6835]

50 metric tons is still 7.5 elephants in low earth orbit.....its that .5 elephant that scares me.

[@GreggyBoop]

I mean, of all the elephants involved, the .5 elephant is the least dangerous 😂

[@verypleasantguy]

@@woodym2 The trunk

[@PlanXV]

Need one million elephants to colonise mars

[@jmwoods190]

​@@GreggyBoop Or could it actually be the .5 elephant in the room? 😉

[@TechmoChamp]

It is also 13 tons less than Falcon Heavies capabilities today.

[@flink1231]

I think they can reach 100 tons, 150 tons to LEO, the thing is when. They are already developing this much faster than anyone would expect (maybe except Elon himself?), doubling capacity will take time.

[@tombloemker9434]

Naa, It's way too early to assess the final stats for starship. Really, they are still trying to nail down the design requirements. I am surprised they say the payload is data. They dont even have a final design, how can they worry about the flight/glide envelope? Version two will help build a thrust table that will clarify numbers of engines versus higher champer pressure improvements that will impact version 3.

[@Jogeta5]

The data they get from V1 ship/booster launches is critical. Calculations and simulations need to be tested.

[@benjaminmeusburger4254]

@@Jogeta5 how is the V1 data criticel, when V2/V3 have completely different parameters and engines?

[@DavidWilliams-xw2eu]

Yeah. The original payload to LEO for Falcon 9 was only 9 tons whereas block 5 can now go 22.5 tons. 50 tons is worst case at the moment on a vehicle still in heavy development. Lets see where future iterations performance lands.

[@criver127]

Based on a technical assessment from ULA? Given their recent years of utterly abysmal performance why would anyone assign credibility to THEIR ASSESSMENTS?

[@FB0102]

Ad Hominem logical fallacy. You can assess the validity of the claims independent of who said them.

[@slartybarfastb3648]

It turns out the Angry Astronaut is Old Space after all. Elon must have refused to give him an interview or stuck him with the bar tab maybe?

[@Hiser23]

You can’t put anymore into the ULA comment than you can this dipstick, he’s jealous of SpaceX. If he wanted to hang with losers he could’ve saved his breath begging for money on here so he could as he says “hob nob” with the Brits and went to Decater Alabama and rode on Tory Bruno’s nob.

[@harmankardon478]

when it suits his story, he goes with whatever.. Jordan is not to be taken seriously, he has no idea what he is talking about... having bfast with rocket scientists lol classic stuff!

[@cartoonmaps]

Thanks! I appreciated your very clear and detailed reports. Well done. I am also a Patreon subscriber/member and I encourage everyone to support you and your efforts. Great stuff!

[@TheAngryAstronaut]

Thanks so much for your ongoing support!! Viewers like you make all the difference to this channel!! :)

[@Jaxvidstar]

Elon was planning a version 3 of Starship/Super Heavy. So I am not worried about it's future.

[@Smiles10130]

I think musk should skip v2 and go to v3 directly.

[@Jogeta5]

@@Smiles10130 That won't happen as the V2 boosters and ships are already being built. Due to their increasing production capacity and launch cadence, skipping large numbers won't really occur anymore.

[@kingfairytale4306]

​@@Smiles10130 While I understand your viewpoint, rushing this process will only lead to failure in the future, so it's best to go one step at a time. (Even SpaceX has been going one step at a time, albeit while running around like a maniac, and I mean that in the best way possible, but still one step at a time.)

[@Smiles10130]

@@kingfairytale4306 You're correct that is the space x way. But v3 is what will be necessary for a Mars colony and the sooner it comes out, the sooner we can start that discussion.

[@ironspider9280]

Your videos have come a long way in the past couple of years. This was really well done.

[@Ivan-fc9tp4fh4d]

Every problem is always SOLVED only by people who think how TO DO IT, not how it is impossible to do it ... :)

[@ProjectManagementPercontation]

Every cancelled project is making progress right up to the day it is cancelled.

[@crp9985]

That is a loaded statement and shouldn't be used in any argument. Lots of people went bankrupt thinking they couldn't be wrong. On the other hand many people made a fortune doing things people thought couldn't be done. There is a fine line between crazy and genius.

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

​@@crp9985 10 years ago head of ArianeGRoup ridiculed SpaceX that they were dreamers and that launching 100 rockets a year was a pipe dream. In 2023, SpaceX successfully launched 98 rockets.

[@crp9985]

@@GreyDeathVaccine Doesn't mean they will continue to succeed everything they say they are going to do.

[@art.is.life.eternal]

@@ProjectManagementPercontation Every successful, innovative and cutting edge project is criticized for every failure - until it succeeds - which SpaceX has proven again and again. Reusable ships - BOOSTERS AND ALL? RIDICULOUS! Never been done! Impossible! Until it WAS done, and is now being done routinely.

[@chloedance9316]

This was some great journalism AA! I read the comments from BO and ULA as well, and it was an interesting insight from them that Starship is underperforming. The V2 is being developed to restore the original payload capacity, given all the extra mass they've had to add. It's a real shame most journalistic outlets haven't reported on this. But you are right - the fanboys have no appetite for actual news if it's bad.

[@matthewakian2]

I think should concentrate on making the Starship system fully reusable, even semi- rapidly reusable. Even if it can get just 30 tons to orbit. That will be game-changing enough in the space industry and allow incredible things to start happening.

[@matfax]

For what though? How many potential consumers exist for this product who wouldn't prefer Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy for its safety record? This leaves Starlink as the primary use. And Starlink has bad rep now, due to harming the Ozone layer. I believe that a Moon expansion might open a new market eventually, but this takes time. Who knows, SpaceX might - just as with Starlink - find their own way to monetize it with a new industry, like space energy. Once an infrastructure exists, the market will follow.

[@isakoqv]

This makes sense to me. We really have no idea what a fully and rapidly reusable vehicle entails. Might be easier to focus on weight reduction once we do.

[@xponen]

@@matfax True, with a 50-ton payload, even the smaller Falcon Heavy can outperform Starship 1, which is as big as the Saturn V. That's crazy to think about!

[@stephenfidler1005]

​@@xponen Cost. If fully reusable no more throwing second stages away.

[@xponen]

@@stephenfidler1005 Falcon Heavy second stage cost less than Starship, look at the size difference.

[@TaeSunWoo]

Hasn’t Elon said multiple times that this is “Starship 1.0”?

[@Codysdab]

The current version of starship is a test article,you know that, you even know the upgrade path, what the hell are you trying to assert here with click bait like this?

[@gojidoh]

It really feels like willful ignorance at this point

[@phineasphogg2125]

For the booster, additional engines help, because the faster they burn prop, the lower the gravity losses (and the less prop needed for boost-back.) The number of R.vacs engines on the ship only matters because R.vacs have higher Isp than R.sl. If the ship only had one type of engine, the number wouldn't matter, because the rocket equation only considers Isp, not how many engines are running. More engines just let you complete a burn faster (if you don't have any payload g-force restrictions.)

[@skedaritou8138]

well is "cheap" so you can still lauch a ton of those and archive the mass in orbit

[@randomasian8715]

Englis

[@skedaritou8138]

@@randomasian8715 No se joven, aveces se me va el ingles a las 4 am por eso aunque lo domine , estando medio dormido no es mi lenguaje materno

[@ascherlafayette8572]

So youre telling me that the current, prototype, unoptimized, fully reusable version of starship, with its full massive cargo volume, only lifting 50+ tons . . . Is a problem?

[@richardsmith8590]

whatever the problem maybe, I'm sure SpaceX will figure it out.

[@Oswaldfiveo]

😂😂😂

[@Danny-bd1ch]

They will eventually run out of investors and Govt milk.

[@art.is.life.eternal]

@@Danny-bd1ch They don't NEED investors, just Elon Musk (THE richest man in the world) - and Starship is NOT government funded - it's on SpaceX's dime. A privately built and developed craft. This isn't 1963. Other contracts from NASA, the DoD, NOA, Space Force, and other government agencies have lined up to use Falcon Heavy to launch their satellites, as well as other private companies, and foreign satellite companies, are paying for the development of Starship. Add to this income the constant delivery of Musk's constellation of Starlink communication satellites, and his customer base for them, and THERE are the funding sources for Starship - NOT you and me. Look it up, before bad-mouthing the ONLY major satellite and Astronaut/Cosmonaut delivery company that ISN'T - like Boeing, ULA, and Blue Balls - bilking the taxpayers of their hard-earned money. Success means you can pay your own way. FAILURE means you have to keep begging fort more.

[@zhongxina9420]

​@@Danny-bd1chwith how much boeing is failing I doubt that😂

[@dhickey5919]

Thank you, Angry. In the software world we call this performance issue 'technical debt'. Getting the project prototype fully operational is the primary goal. Later versions will address the technical debt where it's possible. It was never going to be the same vehicle as was designed on paper.

[@JosefHabdank]

Frankly, even at 50 tons to LEO at full reusability it is revolutionary. And who really believes they exhausted their optimization options after doing only 4 test flights :) Falcon 9 at version 1 could only take 10 tones to LEO. Current version takes 22 tons. If you assume that similar level of optimization is possible, they will easily reach 110 tons with Starship (2.2x of the initial lift capacity). But I think they can optimize Starship way more ten they were able to optimize Falcon 9. 200 tons to LEO are not out of question.

[@Excuzerr]

I think you missed a couple of possibilities. But I appreciate your point that V3 isn't going to be ready soon enough for artemis. First, I would expect that HLS would reach orbit with significantly more propellant because it's missing control surfaces and heat shields and doesn't need header tanks with reserved fuel for vertical landings. It's essentially an expendible version. The second point is that push comes to shove, the tanker ships could be used in expendible mode (second stage expended, first stage reused). This too would increase propellant delivered per tanker mission. I suspect that even with V2 ship, they could fill HLS with 7 or 8 tanker missing 6 rather than 15. This raises another thought I've had for awhile now. It really doesn't make sense for starship itself to be used as the initial HLS. It would make a lot more sense to send a dedicated HLS spacecraft as a third stage from inside the fairing, essentially a third stage. If used in completely expendible mode (both first/second stage expended) a V2 starship could deliver a pretty enormous third stage with lots of propellant into orbit.

[@petternordlander2328]

Falcon 9 has increased payload to LEO a lot since first orbital version, 10.4 t, to current 17.5t. There will be plenty of time and opportunities to iterate on optimizations once they have rapid reuse, heat shields, booster catching etc figured out. This is not the space shuttle.

[@Steven_Edwards]

Yeah, except they have a contract to meet.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Falcon 9 has not, can not and will never lift more than 10tn payloads. Falcon Heavy is also limited to10tn payloads, but it can lift them higher. That's why the US Space Force employs ULA disposables to launch their heavy payloads to high orbits despite costing 2-3 times more than SpaceX; because the Falcons can't do it.

[@bgovero5516]

The great thing about Starship is there's a business case for it in Starlink alone. That business drive and funding will keep them optimizing until they get the thing that can land 150 tons on the moon.

[@tomparmenter8665]

It's still in development don't get your pants in a twist!

[@nonowayjose9159]

Grumpy AstroNUT cannot help that... low T likely.

[@isakoqv]

Doesn't mean that there aren't fundamental design limitations that are yet to reveal themselves. Elon himself commonly refers to it as "success is one of the possible outcomes".

[@TomDrez]

​@@isakoqvright? You can "optimize" all you want that doesn't mean you can beat physically possibles limitations

[@art.is.life.eternal]

@@TomDrez Yes, you CAN "beat physically possibles limitations" - companies have been doing it since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We did it in the 1940s - when computer modeling of fighter and bomber aircraft couldn't be done - and they used exactly what SpaceX is doing - rapid iteration to failure, and on until success. There wasn't time to do it any other way. We did it again in the 1960s (watch a few videos of Gemini boosters and test modules, and Saturn IVs exploding on the pad, on launch, in launch, and finally into orbit). There were an insane amount of failures - an insane amount of explosions (and then there was the horrific and sad lessons of Apollo One). - there was no way we should have been able - with 1960s limitations - to get to the moon - even to orbit - but we did it. And technology now, compared to technology then - makes almost anything possible - with leadership, vision, and determination.

[@MichaelMartini11730]

How far in development is the in-orbit fuel tank depot thats needed to give the HLS 15 refuellings just to get to the moon. Look up the reportt titled."".At Least 15 Starship Launches Needed to Execute Artemis Mission" ...

[@markbph2336]

another good video jordan.... i see the biggest technical challenge for space x is RAPID REUSEABILITY......! both the rapid reuseability of the heat shield of starship and rapid reuseability of the booster engines. the biggest problem.... bigger than technical issues will be government approval slowness and delays....!

[@olveaustlid4383]

Keep bringing the truth, no matter if its good or bad. Honest and unbiased information is in short supply these days.

[@thomaswakefield6889]

This guy is a clown. Starship will make the moon long before Dream Chaser. He needs to stop listening to SpaceX haters and deniers.

[@solanumtinkr8280]

The staging ring is temporary, it's intended to design the need out in later test versions.

[@DavidKnowles0]

How about shrinking down the starship for the Lunar ship.

[@garethcraig8902]

This is early days for new technology, we did not have gigabyte internet connections straight off the bat. The main goal here is full reusability. Then they will apply the Musk algorithm, rinse and repeat until she is unstoppable.

[@ejciicollins3200]

It's a PROTOTYPE not the completed version 🤦🚩 THE END 🙀

[@antonnym214]

Very cool they fixed you up with accommodations! Kudos to Saxavord! Thank you for your fair reporting on this. It's possible to recognize the challenges and still be a fan. I was unaware about the payload limitations. Nice to see Spacex is being transparent about it.

[@WestOfEarth]

Thank you AA for not being a insufferable fanboi of Musk.

[@ndoghouse6853]

You dont sound very angry! Enjoy your stay. Sounds like fun! What I wonder is how they plan to deploy that 100 ton payload. Theres no fairings? Only a "Pez" dispenser door? No structural mechanisms? Im sure they'll figure it out and its still way early in the development stage.

[@richardjr1972]

There is absolutely no way that SpaceX didn't know about a 50% engineering deficit, not with today's modern engineering tools, this HAS to be planed versioning/iteration in the pipeline, I would get a upto 15 - 20% deficit, not 50, not as an unknown "surprise"

[@gojidoh]

It is, and they've said so themselves

[@RyanMcCarvill]

They've been hinting at it for several months with discussions about raptor 3, more engines, and stretching the platform. They've known about it for awhile.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Elon Musk is an habitual liar; he is, after all, a salesman.

[@darkguardian1314]

I think the degrading of Starship performance relates to the weight of the heatshield tiles. I remember at a time when Starship was going to use WD-40 to "sweat" their way through reentry. I also remember they were looking at 'feathering" used by Space One and VSS Unity and late VSS Enterprise. I'm no way qualified to evaluate any of these methods but as an engineering student, I find the case study... fascinating...(Spock 🖖)

[@TheShanehiltonward]

Elon spoke on this last month. You're a day late and a dollar short.

[@Warchin007]

Good vid. My understanding thus far of starships devlopment is always growing. thanks for sharing. A penny for my thoughts is as follows. 1) Starship one - cargo is data. 2024. 2 Starship two - will have cargo up 100,000 tons to LEO. 2025. 3) Starship three - will meet all cargo goals 2026 - 2027. At least that looks like the plan. I myself will be cheering for Space X success . 🚀

[@Asterra2]

Thought this was going to be about BO/ULA's attempts to prevent Starship from achieving its intended launch cadence, but it's _this?_ This is bizarrely alarmist, but at least it might give the anti-SpaceX cult a shot of dopamine. Let's be perfectly clear on one thing at least: Raptor has had major design updates in the workings for literally years. The extra Isp provided by Raptor 3 _literally_ mandates changes to the fuel profile in order to take advantage of that, hence the inevitable changes to Starship that we see in Block 3. There's your 200 tons. The additional weight from unanticipated modifications to Block 1 is exactly the kind of dross that gets shaved off as prototyping segues into mature designs-as happened, for example, with Falcon 9.

[@DraftedByTheMan]

Every KZbin content creator has his/her own schtick…AA’s is doom & gloom. I remember when he thought Starship shouldn’t even launch 🚀

[@Danny-bd1ch]

You calling serious people "anti-SpaceX Cult" is extreme projection.

[@rolanddeschain965]

Honestly it's along the same lines.

[@Smiles10130]

​@@DraftedByTheManexcept European launch or companies that are smaller.

[@tbur8901]

It makes sense when you think about it to start 'small' for proof of concept and then enlarge. But an alternative propulsion for space would be much better.

[@Smiles10130]

There's nothing else that can propel a spacecraft of this size. Unless you develop nuclear technology which they don't have clearance to work with and will take years to develop.

[@codyb0923]

The current starship is a v1 prototype. Obviously there are going to be improvements and upgrades

[@myvideosetc.8271]

I consider myself a spacex fan, but not a delusional fan, they have challenges ahead, I hope they can optimize super heavy and starship at the same degree they did with F9.

[@Hokie2k11]

I think it comes down to whether they NEED full reusability of the tankers to get to the Moon and Mars. From what I gather, they don't. It seems like they can build stripped-down upper stages fast and cheap. A backup plan would just be to build 6-8 of those for every Mars or Moon bound spacecraft. No, not nearly as cost-effective, but they can still do the mission and you can likely get far, far more than 100t of propellant in each.

[@slartybarfastb3648]

The entire purpose of Starship is to fully reusable, rapidly reusable, and reliable. There will be no expendable Starship booster or orbiter, unless you include lunar Starship.

[@Jogeta5]

@@slartybarfastb3648 Like Falcon 9 and heavy, if it's required the ship can be expendable. Like Elon has mentioned for the Lunar base. The Starship platform is designed for mass production after all.

[@slartybarfastb3648]

@Jogeta5 The reason Musk sees Falcon 9 as obsolete is precisely due to the second stage being expendable, as well as the booster for many launch profiles. Starship will not be expendable. If it can't fly on Starship without any part being expended, it will not fly at all. And Lunar Starship is not truly expendable as it also serves as the lunar habitat as well. Return the Starship, you lose your habitat.

[@Hokie2k11]

@@slartybarfastb3648 of course it'll fly regardless. If it is cheaper to launch, particularly expended, than a F9, it makes sense to use SS. Every indication is that it's an extremely budget friendly design if you keep the second stage stripped down - I'm talking under $10 million for an expendable 6 emgine second stage. Probably under $7million if they get production to under once a week. At those prices they'll use SS regardless of its reusability.

[@logicalfundy]

As I understand the current situation at SpaceX, they are already sunsetting version 1 and building version 2. They won't have any version 1 rockets left by the time they need to launch HLS.

[@Sodomis666]

Forget about Mars: human kidneys will not survive the voyage back...

[@matfax]

@@Sodomis666 Artificial Gravity should do the trick

[@LostAnFound]

How do the scientists you hang with get around F=MA? By the way, people, that's what rockets come down to: Force equals mass, times acceleration. In other words, the numbers are known as soon as the rockets are certified on test stands

[@jonny3003]

I don't think it really makes sense to say that a prototype underperforms. That's like saying the Wright brothers couldn't carry 20 passengers with them when inventing the first airplane. Elon is trying to crack the problem of a fully reusable rocket which has never been done before. So there will be weight penalties first to reach this goal. Optimization of weight will be done later. Additionally the shielding of the engines is rather for them to survive reentry. So far they have a lot of little tubes on them which would be torn away during reentry of Super Heavy otherwise. Only with Raptor V3 those shields will become obsolete and weight will be reduced by that.

[@jgunther3398]

he;s talking about where starship stands right now. not what name you want to give it

[@ericgribble9645]

At one time Elon was talking about using a thinner new stainless-steel alloy. It would be difficult to do so now, everything would need to be re-tested. Good video that recognizes the changed realities which are hard to accept. Starship is very experimental, and I am sure it will eventually be a success.

[@Kiddington-Oh]

Some time ago I heard that the test vehicles could put fourteen tons into orbit. That might have referred to the first version of the raptor engine and the ship that didn't launch. At the time I thought, "they got a ways to go."

[@user-bi7nq4nj7q]

next, its just stupid to use this class of engine to shuttle to/from the moon. they can make a massive tug out of ion engines that use so much less propellant. starship is great, but to get out of earths gravit well, you need a better plan. starship is not dead, but from here, we should be able to accelerate testing of other engines with greater ISP and thrust

[@soapbar88]

They need a nuclear starship.. as youve mentioned prior.. raptors are truly amazing but the efficiency of liquid gas propellants is a huge problem for space travel

[@viarnay]

The USSR tried nuclear planes once but they never worked...

[@ReiseLukas]

The problem I see with that is a lot of these theoretical tech we can use in the future requires huge infrastructure in space. Starship is the best solution for getting a ton of material to space quickly so that infrastructure can be constructed. I don't see nuclear engine rockets launching from the surface, that could be more risky than chemical rockets

[@Smiles10130]

@@soapbar88 I don't believe nuclear engines have enough thrust. Which is a problem. Isp is important but only if there's enough thrust

[@peterkawa9869]

Radiation is the problem

[@Smiles10130]

@@peterkawa9869 from cosmic rays or the engine?

[@marvindebot3264]

The optimum shape for a low-gravity orbital and sub-orbital transport is the Space 1999 Eagle. It's stable, has good redundancy and is modular in design. Starship is a freighter, not a low grav lander and certainly not until level, flat, blast-resistant pads are available. Come on Elon, you know this as well as I do. Can Starship do the job? Yeah, probably but not as well or as safely as a lander/transporter specifically designed for the role.

[@fionajack9160]

Light, wide, retractable legs and it’ll land fine until pads possible

[@deyean5564]

i think with new design, shields en hot stage dome, will help to the goal of 100 tons

[@Smiles10130]

That's why they use hardware rich design. Build, test, modify repeat

[@jbdelphiaiii7637]

I figure it makes most sense to use a cartridge design for the fuel resupply tanks, no pumping. The design of the cartridges can be focused on minimalization rather than re-use. Avoids the need for a Starship upper stage reuse. They can also be designed for on the way capture, or capture of cached cartridges at destination.

[@jklappenbach]

We should never be going directly to Mars in Starship. Instead, we should focus on building giant, mobile stations capable of providing the shielding, artificial gravity, and food generation necessary to ensure the success of a fledgling base on a hostile new planet. These stations could be built from inflatable segments that would fill starship's fairing and expand to roughly double the size. Say its 8m x 15m in the fairing. The segment would expand to 16m x 30m fully inflated. Take a hundred launches, launch up 100 segments and connect them end-to-end in a ring. You'd need more launches for equipment, water, engines and fuel. The design of each segment would include a bladder surrounding the crew areas for water storage and to provide radiation shielding. The ring would be 3km in circumference, and nearly 1km in diameter. Large enough to accommodate a large crew, grow plenty of food, and rotate slowly enough to minimize Coriolis to acceptable levels while providing ~1G. Attach a docking bay that also features ion thrusters at the center, and then get this thing working and self-sufficient in LEO. After it's ready, take it to the moon. And then send another one to Mars. If the shielding is done right, they can take their time and not worry about overdosing on radiation. Once in Martian orbit, the station can send landing craft, provide materials, food, and the starter kits for Martian conquest, and critically, provide rehab for pioneers when they need to recharge their bones and biology. If things go haywire, the station is a perfect platform to regroup and try again. Women can have babies on the station, and raise them under 1G until it's safe to gradually increase exposure to 2/3G. These stations would also enable mining operations in the belt, or on Psyche. I've thought long about this, and this is the ONLY way that conquest would make sense. We must walk before we can run. And to walk, we need these stations. The one drawback is that this will take years longer, since the R&D of the station will be extensive. But consider this: before Starlink was begun, people were loudly proclaiming how impossible, how impossibly long it would take to launch thousands of satellites and manage the fleet in LEO. Obviously, they were wrong. In 2023, SpaceX had 91 Falcon9 heavy launches. When Starship is in full swing with dozens of vehicles and multiple pads, they could loft the mass for such a station in under a year. And the loft costs would be less than the cost of a single SLS launch.

[@nate_rndm]

It's always seemed a bit odd to press a LEO-optimized heavy lift vehicle into other roles. Even for a fin-less, shield-less lunar lander it seems wasteful to drag starship's excess mass all the way there and back. That said, a direct-to-Martian-surface flight saves the fuel needed for an orbital insertion burn as well as the massive development cost of a specialized Mars-transit craft or orbital station. It makes sense to set records and kickstart Mars exploration with Starship even though, as you show, long term there are probably better options for building a civilization there.

[@Smiles10130]

You can't send a space station to the moon or mars that's kms in size because there's not enough thrust,especially ion thrusters. You can't stabilize an orbit with them either. You would need some serious thrusters to stabilize and move the station. Where will you store the fuel?

[@jklappenbach]

@@Smiles10130 Edit: After looking into this more, ion thrusters scale linearly with power. The ion engines you're quoting operate on the order of kW, meant to power vehicles on the scale of kg. If we raised this to mW or gW, we would see the according orders of magnitude increase in thrust. Also, we can optimize for heavier ions, though it would make sense to centralize on ions that were already in huge supply due to multi-use.

[@bb5979]

The capacity of spacex to achieve the seemingly impossible isnt to be underestimated

[@alberta3d]

23:55 Hey that's me 😁

[@purexhavoc9777]

18:00 SpaceX is actually aiming for a 1 hour turn around time. The whole point of the chopstick tower is to stack it immediately on landing. Sounds insane but they already have falcon 9 down to a 2 day turn around. But falcon has a separate pad it lands on and has to be re-rolled out to the launch pad.

[@xponen]

They should have tested the chopstick tower concept and the Raptor engine on the Falcon rocket first. Not doing so was a mistake. If they had done it with Falcon, they could have tied research and development (R&D) to a profit-making business. However, with Starship, the entire spacecraft is in R&D and can't generate any income.

[@purexhavoc9777]

@@xponen its just hard to comprehend the scale of spacex. Their value is 5 times higher than 4 years ago. They launched 4 starship test flights in a little over a year. Judging starship on its 4th test launch like the guy in the video is insane considering it was apollo ELEVEN that landed on the moon.

[@fionajack9160]

@@xponen falcon booster not throttleable and as nimble as Starship booster

[@xponen]

@@fionajack9160 Falcon booster is much smaller than Superheavy booster, so the chopstick mechanism will be smaller and move faster.

[@billandersen1389]

If you’re referring to Tory Bruno’s Medium post, this is designed to make Vulcan look better than Starship. Tory isn’t being dishonest, he’s just trying to make his product look as good as possible. First, it will be fully reusable, having a huge impact on launch cost. Second, optimization will happen next, once function is demonstrated.

[@protean15]

For the fueling missions, seems like an expendable aluminum version of starship (upper stage) would make a lot of sense. Loose the TPS, Loose the grid fins and actuators (might need something like it for stacking), loose the four fins and actuators. Leave the engine count at minimum and loose any additional thermal protection for them mandated by reentry and flips, etc. Seems like that could get the current version up near 100K ton to LEO.

[@matthewota3647]

"Loose?" I think you mean "Lose" Two different meanings. Loose: free or released from fastening or attachment: a loose end. Lose: to come to be without (something in one's possession or care).

[@protean15]

@@matthewota3647 I stand corrected.

[@madkiime]

when doubtful people throw something negative to a project which is still on it's development phase spacex even said that it is still on it's prototyping phase

[@johnrday2023]

Angry, you usually provide unique comments on Space and are not afraid to express a different viewpoint, and are ahead of all other comentators, which is very much appreciated ! But c'mon Angry, please try to not be so negative against Spacex unless it is required - be a little +ve once in a while! Thanx.

[@morgananderson9647]

I always love the information you bring to us. It's true research and detail. It's not this sugar-coated BS press releases that most mainstream media give us... I will always be with & STAY ANGRY ABOUT SPACE!!! Thank you Jordan! M-

[@bunkynpaws7369]

Not quite sure why anyone would write a critique of development and testing hardware as if it were a finished article. The 100+ tons to orbit hardware is a design requirement, based on assumptions of ongoing engine development and expected dry mass of safe reusable hardware. The fact that they still think this is achievable is implicit in the "Starship 2" design stating 100+ tons to orbit, which will ( perhaps ) be the first hardware that is not a test article. Personally, I think the "version numbers" applied to both test articles and engines are arbitrary and subject to change. If the first flight of a commercial Starship ( possibly Dear Moon ) can still only put 50 tons in orbit, THEN you should worry.

[@TheMotoracer838]

Why are you doing this, this version of starship will never carry payload...

[@shaung949]

There are only three left of this version then his argument is completely redundent.

[@darkguardian1314]

I look at Starship as nothing more than a tech demonstrator. I never believe Starship can make it anywhere but orbit to deliver payloads. It is generating good hard data for the next generation of spacecrafts. We need another tech jump in engine design.

[@Hokie2k11]

That doesn't make much sense given how quickly they can build them. Odds are, at the current rate of production and launching, Starship will be the second most active rocket in the world next year (6-8 launches?), surpassed only by the Falcon 9. Thats quite a bit more than just a tech demonstrator.

[@viarnay]

@@Hokie2k11 Even a half of launches would be a giant step forward...

[@cA7up]

I think we all knew the original starship wouldn't be a final design, I think it'll work out as time goes on and the future design will fly to the moon and beyond..

[@jroar123]

The official numbers are : Mass - Reusable: 100-150 t (220,000-331,000 lb) Expendable: Up to 250 t (551,000 lb)

[@peterschwarz8449]

Somehow they misunderstood a lot of things. At the moment the aim is to test as many aspects as possible as cheaply as possible. It is intentional that the proportions of the first stage to the shuttle are incorrect. so the first stage stays closer to the starting table and doesn't rise as high. The shuttle has to be large because it will be refueled later in space.

[@robertsanders3174]

You called SLS “operational”. You must be talking about the Lego set 😂

[@pebmets]

Did you not notice Orion went around the moon? SLS launched it. Did you not read the Core stage for Artemis II was just delivered. Artemis II is the one that will carry 4 astronauts. Please accept Musk and SpaceX are not perfect at everything they do.

[@zhongxina9420]

​@@pebmets2 years and 4 billion per launch? I will turn old and gray before even block 2 sls is launched. not to mention the main contractor is boeing💀

[@slowercuber7767]

I appreciate your critical (and I mean that in at least three senses of the word) vids of StarShip. They help to remind me of what still needs doing and the obstacles that must still be overcome. On the other hand, I will be very surprised if SpaceX fails to beat your estimates of when Raptor 3 and Star Ship 3 are ready to fly. I fully expect SpaceX to have landed on the moon by 2027, if only as a one-way cyber-crewed mission, whose purpose will be to prepare a landing pad atop the regolith for the manned missions.

[@RyanBlockb5]

Starship don't seem practical, needing to refuel 10 to12 times.

[@SDGreg]

Look at the original F9 v1.0 performance versus the performance today. Lots of development cycles left for Starship development.

[@kevinvanhorn2193]

Is it a pitfall to focus first on getting to orbit, then on recovering both stages, and THEN on minimizing vehicle mass to maximize payload capability? The Starship design itself is still evolving, based on what they're learning from these test flights. It seems premature at this point to be sounding the alarm about payload capacity.

[@TechmoChamp]

For reference Falcon Heavy can deliver 63.8 metric tons to LEO

[@timidturkey2777]

"OH NO! The current prototype version can ONLY lift 50 metric tons into LEO as a fully reusable vehicle" Wow! Epic fail on SpaceX's part. ONLY 50 ton?!?! What losers!!!

[@literallyshaking8019]

Saturn V, a smaller booster built in the 1960s was capable of carrying 85 tons into LEO. I will concede that Starship is still in the prototype phase so numbers don’t mean much, but if they can’t lift 100 tons with such a massive booster then that’s a pretty major fail considering it’s future mission objectives. I hope they get it sorted out and succeed.

[@stephenfidler1005]

​@@literallyshaking8019 how about not comparing apples with oranges. I don't see any evidence of Saturn 5 reuse You think 50 tons is the end game? Also 50 tons reuse is the cheapest current strategy for LEO

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

@@literallyshaking8019 85 tons to LEO? How did Saturn V did this? Different fuel used?

[@literallyshaking8019]

@@GreyDeathVaccine it was during the Skylab mission

[@JacquesMartini]

Up to now, it liftet excatly ZERO tons of payload to LEO . . .

[@seanmcpherson5595]

Let's imagine that 50 tons is the maximum weight that can be satellited to a low orbit. All this, due to the cost of fuel and maintenance. It doesn't seem like a bad arrangement to me.

[@cobbyclan3466]

A realistic assessment of Starship. FH with a larger fairing can get the job done. A 100tn stainless steel tube is too cumbersome and complex. 15 refuelling ships to land 2 astronauts on the Moon simply ain't gonna happen.

[@richardhouser508]

Angry, a very valuable report! Thanks so much!

[@generalsirc2615]

I am very skeptical that the current starship is able to carry any cargo. It has never carried cargo and doesn’t look like it’s designed to. Therefore it can’t carry any. If it could they would put a block of concrete in it to ensure their calculations are correct

[@avgjoe5969]

Nice topic. Definitely not discussed much at all. They are using Raptor 2 engines rated at 230 tons. They are ready to produce raptor 3 at 280 tons thrust. V3 Starship has 35 engines on booster and 9 on the upper stage. V3 is also 30 meters taller with all the additional fuel that that implies. The expected performance of V3 is 200t. Assume they can only stretch 20m and get 160 tons. Even at 140 tons, they are still a success and that will get them to the moon. As for the existing state: V1 is using up raptor V2 obsolete engines (230t vs 280t thrust plus no need for heat shield). Obsolete material is being used up to perfect landing the rocket (as the lift capacity doesn't matter in this case). (They produced alot of Raptor 2s.) Once Launch/Landing is perfected (booster and starship), I believe you will see more emphasis on payload. As is, I believe Booster 32 (the one after this coming launch) is the last of the V1 design and will be followed by the V2 which Musk says will lift 100t and this is currently under construction. Assume he falls well short (75-80t). He can still start putting up Starlink V2large satellites while he continues to develop the lander (which does not Yet require 100t payload to complete the mission in 2026/27. It Will require 100t or more thereafter if we intend to support a permanent base on the moon. But by then V3 will be more than mature. I presume 2027/28 for the second lunar landing an much more rapid thereafter (every 2-3 months like the ISS maybe). If they put Teslabots on the moon (say a couple of hundred with heat shielding and radiation hardening), construction should go nicely. Tesla has begun testing the bots in its factories with 1000 expected to be deployed internally by end of 2025. So maybe not a completely silly idea. I would expect V3 to have at Least 160t lift capacity (200 was indicated) to LEO and be ready by year end 2025 about 9 months from the mission date. (Add 6 months if they crash and blow up the landing pad). Moving back to 2027 would also not be a problem given the suit issues, the goal is to beat China's 2030 deadline by a comfortable margin and given Starship's projected launch rate for Starlink, NASA will have many data points to track the progress. So. You may well be right and see him fall short. But even a 20% shortfall still achieves all the goals with whatever form V3 takes. In the mean time, they have alot to prove about reusability, they have to start launching V2large to put up at least 6-8x the overall comms capacity per launch. (V2large has 2.25x the capacity of V2mini.) The biggest threat that I see is the Chopsticks landing proves too risky and they go with Lander legs (That they developed anyway) on all flights (losing about 30 more tons of capacity). This will still work, but forget 200t or anything near it. We might be looking as low as 110t to LEO if legs are needed... and I would say, risk here is greater than 10%.

[@mukamuka0]

Trash talk from ULA, they are competitors. Without an actual fact full analysis, I'm not going to waste my time and listen to them.

[@kipkipper-lg9vl]

Enjoy your echo chamber

[@DanVolk]

Love the commentary. Come to Cincinnati when you get a chance. It was a blast meeting you and getting a chance to chat.

[@Brandon23294]

Have they even loaded the thing up?

[@Smiles10130]

Nope. It's not operational yet.

[@Jogeta5]

No payloads for V1 ships, just data.

[@kingfairytale4306]

The only thing ever being put on a starship is monitoring equipment as of right now, so likely barely a ton, let alone the two hundred they are planning.