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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!! :)

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@rolanddeschain965]

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

[@art.is.life.eternal]

One of the very best comments on this page.

[@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!

[@XKS99]

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

[@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?

[@joaodecarvalho7012]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.)

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@TaeSunWoo]

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

[@ejciicollins3200]

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

[@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.

[@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😂

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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?

[@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....!

[@TheShanehiltonward]

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

[@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.

[@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" ...

[@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?

[@DavidKnowles0]

How about shrinking down the starship for the Lunar ship.

[@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

[@codyb0923]

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

[@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 🖖)

[@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💀

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@solanumtinkr8280]

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

[@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.

[@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."

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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...

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@WestOfEarth]

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

[@neohermitist]

Using Agile PM techniques generally doesn't work well for non-software projects. If 50 tons is the prototype ability, that makes it extremely unlikely that 120 tons will be possible. What do you think will change in the design to get a 100%+ improvement? It's all weight and thrust.

[@jroar123]

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

[@snakevenom4954]

Starship most certainly does have the Delta V requirement to go to the moon. Assuming a dry mass of 150t, which includes 50t of payload, and assuming Raptor 2's being used, not raptor 3's, we get a Delta V of 7,618m/s. Or if you want to do the math yourself, 3,467×ln(1,350,000/150,000). I got my exhaust velocity from averaging the sea level and vacuum optimized nozzles. The mass is in Kilograms too. To get to the moon, insert yourself into a LLO, land on the moon, and get back into LLO, you need 7,400m/s of Delta V. Less than 7,618m/s. Would likely want a chiller in the ship to reduce boiloff but the ship is capable of completing the mission. Also, on paper it can certainly do 100t to LEO fully reusable mode but I'd imagine in practice it's not so great. The way how I see it, there is nothing pointing to Starship NOT being able to land on the moon. There's time limits of course but engineering wise, it can most certainly do it

[@shanent5793]

NASA estimates are 8010 m/s for an equatorial LLO mission, and 9060 for NRHO. That's TLI, lunar orbit, surface, return to lunar orbit. Are the atmospheric engines even necessary? I think they're only needed for landing on Earth, the vacuum engines are fired at staging so what little atmosphere is left isn't hurting them. Boil-off is only a problem in LEO, most of the heat comes from the Earth and Moon. Once it's fueled it can boost itself to a higher orbit or do TLI to reduce the heat load

[@nonowayjose9159]

Grumpy AstroNUT cannot perform Boy Math.

[@snakevenom4954]

@@shanent5793 So I did a bit more research and crunched some more number. Yes removing the sea level engines improves performance. You don't even need to replace them with an RVac and this saves a lot of weight. Looking at the NASA PDF for Artemis, we need 8,310m/s of Delta V to get to the NRHO orbit, to LLO, land on the moon, ascend from the moon to LLO and insert itself into the NRHO. My old numbers were with a 150t Starship with both the vacuum and sea level optimized engines. Just removing the sea level engines and keeping everything else the same we get 8,190 m/s of Delta V. Not enough for the moon. But shave off 10 tons and we get 8,448 m/s. Just about enough for the mission. To be safe, removing 25t and having a total of 125t of weight gives you 8,870 m/s of Delta V. Plenty for the mission. If NASA for whatever reason wants the 9,060 m/s, then you would need Starship to be 100t. Giving it 9,702 m/s of Delta V. Enough room for boiloff and safety.

[@shanent5793]

@@snakevenom4954 looks good. I wonder if the NASA figures include landing reserve and inclination changes. Ideally their launch/landing site would be on the NRHO plane, so if they're not exactly at a pole, they'll need to change inclination or wait up to two weeks for a window

[@alberta3d]

23:55 Hey that's me 😁

[@kavabean]

Starship is a military project. It's remit is to be able to rapidly deploy military satellite networks and space weaponry in upcoming wars. Space determines modern ordinance accuracy incl missiles, smart artillery and smart glide bombs. Mars and Moon projects are just cover for Starship funding. What matters is how many satellites US can get up and how fast when satellites start getting shot down and many orbits turn into no-go zones.

[@jroar123]

You are coming across as a SpaceX decenter for some reason. Starship is experimental in its current version. Don't forget that Starship will go threw several changes before we see the one that will go to Mars.

[@dalethelander3781]

Lunar Starship HLS was supposed to be ready for Artemis III in 2026. That's not going to happen.

[@zmblion]

​@@dalethelander3781 ya and NASA planned to have SLS up and going by 2016 reusing old parts doing the same stuff they always have and it didn't fly til 2022. No SpaceX isn't going to be ready with a new design and vastly different rocket than anything ever made. It would take NASA 25yrs and they would scrap it halfway thru if they tried and it's really NASA themselves have unrealistic timelines

[@Smiles10130]

​@@dalethelander3781 are you betting against space x. Who have 2/3 medium/heavy lift orbital vehicles currently flown in the western world. Who will put up 90% of the payload this year. Which is worth 215 billion? That has musk and Shotwell. That's not a bet, I'd be willing to make. A lot can happen in 2 years.

[@DeepDeepSpace]

@@Smiles10130 It took four launch attempts just to accomplish what they planned to accomplish in the first launch. SpaceX has yet to prove Starship's recoverability, its rapid reusability, its ability to carry payload, orbital rendezvous, orbital refueling with cryogenic fuels, relighting Raptor engines in space after they've been off for a few days, landing on the moon and launching from the moon. All of this needs to be accomplished in two years. Not going to happen.

[@timothygermann780]

He is pointing out how long it is taking to get Starship to work. It was originally supposed to be ready by 2024. then postponed to 2026 with 2028-2030 more likely. Musk originally said Mars by 2024 too... and humans on Mars by 2030. Musk now says humans on Mars between 2040 and 2050.. Why incredulously ask why someone is "betting against SpaceX"? like they can do no wrong? That's cult thinking.

[@slowercuber7767]

14:22 I heard the fire suppression stuff is about ten tons, maybe and the interstage separator wasn't it 9 tons? I don't know how heavy the engine shielding is, nor how much the weight will change do to changes to reduce ice forming and blocking the fuel lines. But on the other side of the equation, I believe lighter tiles are in the offing, and the V3 Raptors will not require the shielding that the current V2s require. Also the V3s are capable of more thrust. There is a lighter interstage connector in design. Finally, once the current problem with fuel leaking is solved (assuming it can be, of course) maybe it will be possible to reduce or eliminate the 10 tons of fire retardant materials. Hey, I'm an optimist, but the problems seem tenable.

[@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.

[@TechmoChamp]

For reference Falcon Heavy can deliver 63.8 metric tons to LEO

[@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.

[@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.

[@Sodomis666]

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

[@matfax]

@@Sodomis666 Artificial Gravity should do the trick

[@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.

[@RyanBlockb5]

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

[@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.

[@Mothball_man]

Well let’s see. Heavy stainless steel, extra fuel weight to land boosters, non-aerodynamic grid fins, over-structured fuel tanks, heavy tiles and ablative covering, hydraulics systems to control fins. I can’t imagine what the problem is.

[@ironspider9280]

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

[@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.

[@shaung949]

So we're concerned that the version of starship that is currently used for flight tests is under performing? Did it not occur to consider that there are exactly 3 ships of this version left or that they are years out of date from an iteration standpoint? This version of starship will not be the one flown to the Moon so the whole video is pointless. The version 2 of starship will had ALL the upgrades and refinements that current testing has highlighted not just the critical hotfixes to allow continued testing.

[@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.

[@MrGeneralScar]

One of the optimisations will be on v2 booster where the hot stage ring will be included in the design and NOT weigh 10 tonnes like it does now. This article is old news, it was written well before flight 4. We know the heat shield will get heavier, but on V2, I suspect it will get much lighter. If they can find 50 tonnes of weight savings between the booster and the ship from V1 with all its modifications, and V2 with those modifications built in from the get go, then they will then hit thier target. One has to imagine that Raptor v3 with all the bits that kinda look like they are missing which have been integrated, those engines will probably be lighter by themselves, when you have say 35 engines on the booster, and 9 on the ship, 44 x even 500kgs = lots of weight (20-odd tonnes) loss. Add to that they weight loss on the hot stage hardware, and any efficiencies they can gain from the heat shield on V2 after they do a couple more reentry flights on V1 and you can easily see that 50 tonnes could quite easily be doable. For me its far too early to talk payloads, the payload for this year is data, not hardware. By next year I think they will be flying V2. We will see how many tonnes of Starlink V2 they launch on the 1st full payload flight, then we can know what the capabilities are and not before. If your talking 2028 min, I think you still are living on NASA time frames. While 2024 was never going to be a thing, even if Starship was ready, the suits, the lunar gateway... None of the other stuff except SLS is ready anyway. My bet is by 2026, Starship will be waiting for others to do the first crewed landing, at the very least they would complete and uncrewed test flight with starship on or before then. It might be a bit optimistic, but I say give it a year, and SpaceX will likely either be running V2, or be scrapping anything from V1 left to prepare for V2 flight. Catching the booster at least will be sorted if not close to sorted all hinges on if they RUD Stage 0 on the first attempt, because if they do RUD on the first attempt you can be sure the lawyers will come out of the background again, there will be a mishap investigation, and likely many groups trying to delay or shut down SpaceX's activities in Texas again. If Flight 5 with a catch goes badly, and they cant demonstrate the booster being able to change its trajectory and splash down instead even if that means throttling up into a mini hop over to the ocean to save Stage 0. Then Flight 6 may not happen this year at all. If Flight 5 goes smoothly and the catch is done without mishap, flight 6 will likely happen this year and maybe even flight 7 as well.

[@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.

[@SDGreg]

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

[@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.

[@kusumayogi7956]

Im space X fans, but the real problem with starship is RETURN CAPACITY is only 50 ton(including payload and fuel) If starship launch and bring 100-150 ton stuff before reach orbit and something bad happen and need starship to return to earth. That huge weight payload will become real problem and disaster for the rocket. Also starship is limited when it carry resource from moon or mars if we are success mining moon or mars

[@SCComega]

Why would you use starship to carry things from mining on the moon / mars? Everything that are on either body is going to be easier and cheaper to get on earth, outside of maybe shooting material off the moon to earth orbit for processing... But even then, space elevators would do the deal with regular steel and other traditional materials, which just means building up infrastructure on the planetoids for 20-40 years. Any missions with starship would be for developing ground infrastructure, not economic colonization. Any of that is going to be done in the asteroid belt, and any of that is probably going to be done via custom unmanned 2nd stages that grab a moderately sized asteroid and tugboat it near earth for processing.

[@kusumayogi7956]

@@SCComega sound sciene fiction

[@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 . . .

[@bb5979]

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

[@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

[@julianfp1952]

On the technicalities I agree with the conclusion, the critical factor is Raptor 3 development (and beyond) because that not only increases thrust and ISP but with no need for engine shields can give very significant weight savings. On the booster Elon already mentioned "10+ tons" weight saving from deleting the fire suppression system to purge gasses that might currently get trapped behind the engine shields - presumably that's getting rid of or massively downsizing the huge CO2 cylinders under the big booster chines. It seems to me that if they can get the basics right on v1 and v2 - Raptors, Ship heat shield, hot staging, propellant feeds to the engines with no blockages or sloshing etc then going from v2 to v3 becomes a reasonably straightforward mechanical engineering job to add extra rings to the various tanks and payload barrel. Obviously this is rocket science so simply extending a rocket's height is never as simple as that but there are some very capable engineers at SpaceX with I'm sure very good computer simulation resources and by the time they get to v2 -> v3 transition massive production facilities to build prototypes and probably multiple launch towers available to them (a working tower at KSC by 2026?) so I suspect that the transition from v1 to v2 and then from v2 to v3 might not be as huge a step as some imagine. Because of that, while I do agree that the September 2026 date will probably slip, I think that an early 2028 could still be a possibility. If NASA cut funding for HLS would Elon ignore the Moon and focus solely on Mars? I hope not because in my view, given the necessarily long duration of any crewed Mars expedition, it would be bordering on criminally irresponsible in terms of risk to human life to not use the Moon as a testbed for various long-term-stay systems prior to the first crewed Mars flight. The process of testing out technologies with long term human stays on the Moon could be overlapped with uncrewed Mars missions which I assume will be necessary anyway to pre-stage supplies on the Martian surface and, crucially, test the Mars landing procedures - I would hope more than once - before risking a human crew. With the 26 month gap between Hohmann transfer windows I think at least one gap should and could be constructively used by SpaceX to test out life support, supplies and long term health stuff on the Moon in preparation for the first crewed Mars flight even if NASA were to cancel Artemis.

[@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

[@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

[@gojidoh]

YOU know this is an ongoing and developing process. These ships arent the ships that are going to be used. ATM theyre slapping upgrades onto ships and boosters eithout much weighr conscern because they know the next gen ships (which they are starting to produce) will have these upgrade baked in to them. Youre being seriously dense if you think otherwise

[@ReiseLukas]

He always comes off very selective in his research on space and rocketry. He's got a lot of knowledge on Britain and Europe's developments for space but has moments of ignorance regarding SpaceX. I've caught him making criticisms about SpaceX like they haven't already addressed those issues. I love Angry Astronaut when he talks about Cornwall, Dream Chaser and most space topics but everytime he does a critic on SpaceX I face-palm because he addresses stuff SpaceX has already addressed and made moves to fix.

[@gojidoh]

@@ReiseLukas it's very strange, especially for how long he's been covering SpaceX