The upper stage, meanwhile, appeared to fly normally until a telemetry display on SpaceX's webcast indicated that one of the ship's six engines shut off more than seven minutes after liftoff. The display then showed more engines failing, and the data stream froze.

In an update posted on SpaceX's website later Thursday evening, officials said ground teams lost contact with the spacecraft approximately eight and a half minutes into the flight. At the time, information on SpaceX's live video stream showed the vehicle was traveling at about 13,246 mph (21,317 km/hr) at an altitude of about 91 miles (146 kilometers).

"Initial data indicates a fire developed in the aft section of the ship, leading to a rapid unscheduled disassembly with debris falling into the Atlantic Ocean within the predefined hazard areas," SpaceX officials wrote in the update.

The falling debris caused air traffic controllers to divert or reroute commercial flights over the Caribbean and the Atlantic Ocean, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Air traffic controllers have the ability to activate a "Debris Response Area" if a spacecraft experiences an anomaly with debris falling outside of identified closed aircraft hazard areas, where the FAA notifies pilots in advance about the risk of reentering space junk. Activating a Debris Response Area "allows the FAA to direct aircraft to exit the area and prevent others from entering," the statement read.

This is what the FAA did Thursday evening. Air traffic controllers closed a swath of airspace between the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico to commercial air traffic for more than an hour, causing some passenger airline flights to enter a holding pattern, return to their departure airports, land at alternate airfields, or delay their takeoffs.

Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity.

Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and… Show more
8:14 PM · Jan 16, 2025 //

Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
It’s harder than it looks

Ryan Saavedra @RealSaavedra
CIA Director Nominee John Ratcliffe yesterday: “There's only one country in the world that can parallel park a 200-foot rocket booster. The Chinese can't do it. The Russians can't do it. We do it.”
Embedded video
2:05 AM · Jan 17, 2025. //

anon-9s7n
10 hours ago
Explosions in tests can be just as useful as non explosions. Sometimes more so. The success of a test flight is whether you learned what you needed to change to make it better and safer. I'd say this was successful.

The debil
10 hours ago
Unfortunately, it takes failure to have true success, no matter what the endeavor.
If you do not learn from failure, you are on the path to greater failures. //

Random US Citizen The debil
8 hours ago
Thomas Edison: “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work”

On any given day, SpaceX is probably launching a Falcon 9 rocket, rolling one out to the launch pad or bringing one back into port. With three active Falcon 9 launch pads and an increasing cadence at the Starbase facility in Texas, SpaceX's teams are often doing all three.

The company achieved another milestone Friday with the 25th successful launch and landing of a single Falcon 9 booster. This rocket, designated B1067, launched a batch of 21 Starlink Internet satellites from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. //

But SpaceX's accomplishment of 25 flights offers an opportunity to step back and take in some context. The newest and final iteration of the Falcon 9 design, known as Block 5, debuted in 2018. At the time, SpaceX officials said they planned to fly each booster 10 times before standing down for more thorough refurbishment.

SpaceX now plans to launch each Falcon 9 booster up to 40 times. Engineers temporarily removed two Falcon 9 boosters from SpaceX's launch rotation in 2023 for in-depth inspections after their 15th flight. That allowed SpaceX to extend each booster's certification to 20 flights, and last year, officials announced they were going for 40. //

SpaceX is also recovering and reusing payload fairings, the shell that encloses satellite payloads during their initial climb through the atmosphere. Last month, the company confirmed it flew a fairing shell for the 22nd time, another new record. SpaceX's factory in Hawthorne, California, must also churn out new upper stages for each Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy flight. That's 135 of these multimillion-dollar stages for each Falcon mission in the last 365 days, or one flight (and one new upper stage) every 2.7 days. //

Imagine, for a moment, the sprawling footprint and bloated headcount of SpaceX's factory if it had to manufacture a new Falcon 9 booster, nine engines, and a payload fairing set every 2.7 days. How cost-effective could that be? Would it even be possible? It's mind-boggling enough to visualize the blistering production pace for Falcon 9's upper stages in Hawthorne or SpaceX's Starlink satellites in Redmond, Washington. //

Elon Musk, SpaceX's founder and CEO, has suggested that his company must produce 100 or more Starships per year to fulfill his Mars settlement ambitions, even with full reusability. //

While SpaceX's competency with reusing Falcon 9 boosters gets a lot of attention—landing a rocket is still incredible, even after seeing it nearly 400 times—its manufacturing prowess with Falcon 9 upper stages suggests that building 100 Starships each year just might be doable someday.

Starship will test its payload deployment mechanism on its seventh test flight. //

blackhawk887 Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
8y
18,175
Keith Tanner said:
2.7 megawatts of electrical power! It's running the computers, the gimbal actuators and the flaps. Anything else?
Mostly flaps. They need to apply a lot of torque at a high speed, which means lots of power.

2.7 MW isn't really that much, though, except for the fact that it's electric power. Each Raptor turbopump puts out 75 MW of shaft power, and each Raptor combustion chamber puts out 7,000 MW of thermal power.

During boost, Starship's thermal power output is roughly equal to half the entire United States' average electric generation power output.

NVIDIA's CEO reflects on Elon Musk and the xAI team building the world's fastest supercomputer in just 19 days.

“Building a massive factory, liquid-cooled, energized, permitted, in the short time that was done, that is superhuman. And, as far as I know, there's only one person in the world who could do that.

Elon is singular in this understanding of engineering and construction and large systems, marshaling resources. It's unbelievable. //

From the moment that we decided to go, the planning with our engineering team, then all of the infrastructure, all of the logistics and the amount of technology and equipment that came in on that day, to training, 19 days. Incredible.

So, I think what Elon and the X team did is singular. Never been done before.

Just to put in perspective, 100,000 GPUs is easily the fastest supercomputer on the planet, as one cluster. A supercomputer that you would build would take normally three years to plan, and then they deliver the equipment, and it takes one year to get it all working.

We're talking about 19 days.”

Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA on the
@BG2Pod
, October 13, 2024

Taking stock of spaceflight one-quarter of the way through the 2000s. //

2. Ingenuity flies on Mars
   Almost everyone reading this article remembers the seven minutes of terror associated with the landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars in 2012. A similar thing happened nine years later when the Perseverance rover landed on Mars (this time, with some amazing video of the dynamic experience). Yet as cool as these landings were, and as impressive as the capabilities of Curiosity and Perseverance are, a tiny payload named Ingenuity carried by Perseverance stole the show on Mars. //

3. Falcon Heavy launch, dual rocket landing
   By popular demand, this mission in February 2018 ranks in the top spot. The visuals were irresistible. The rocket launch itself was impressive, with the combination of 27 Merlin rocket engines generating a brightness that one almost had to look away from. Then the twin boosters separated and returned to Earth, landing like a pair of synchronized swimmers. Finally, there was the arresting view of a cherry red Tesla (and Starman) flying away from Earth in the general direction of Mars.

It was a spectacle that understandably captured the public’s attention. But the new rocket was more than a spectacle. By designing, building, and launching the Falcon Heavy, SpaceX demonstrated that a private company could independently fund and fly the largest and most powerful rocket in the world. This showed that commercial, heavy-lift rockets were possible. By providing competition to the Delta IV Heavy, the Falcon Heavy saved the US government billions. It's likely that the US government will never design and develop a rocket ever again.

A successful engine relight demonstration would pave the way for future Starships to ascend into stable, sustainable orbits. It's essential to test the Raptor engine's ability to reignite in space for a deorbit burn to steer Starship out of orbit toward an atmospheric reentry. //

The second change SpaceX will introduce on this test flight involves the vehicle's heat shield. These modifications will allow engineers to gather data before future attempts to return Starship to land at SpaceX's Starbase launch site in South Texas.

Perhaps as soon as next year, SpaceX wants to bring Starship back to Starbase to be caught by mechanical arms on the launch tower, similar to the way the company recovered the rocket's Super Heavy booster for the first time last month. Eventually, SpaceX aims to rapidly reuse Super Heavy boosters and Starships.

"The flight test will assess new secondary thermal protection materials and will have entire sections of heat shield tiles removed on either side of the ship in locations being studied for catch-enabling hardware on future vehicles," SpaceX wrote on its mission overview page.

SpaceX installed catch fittings on the Super Heavy booster to allow it to be captured by the launch tower's catch arms. The ship will need similar fittings jutting out from its heat shield.

"The ship also will intentionally fly at a higher angle of attack in the final phase of descent, purposefully stressing the limits of flap control to gain data on future landing profiles," SpaceX said. //

SpaceX seeks to fly Starships as many as 25 times next year, so cutting down the turnaround time between flights is fundamental to the company's plans. Making Starship capable of sustained orbital operations—something the in-space engine relight should enable—is a prerequisite for launching Starlink satellites or refueling Starships in orbit.

The Falcon 9 rocket is truly delivering on the promise of rapid, reusable launch.

SpaceX recently hit some notable milestones with its workhorse Falcon 9 rocket, and even in the full context of history, the performance of the vehicle is pretty incredible.

Last Tuesday, the company launched a batch of Starlink v2-mini satellites from Kennedy Space Center in Florida on a Falcon 9 rocket, marking the 400th successful mission by the Falcon 9 rocket. Additionally, it was the Falcon program's 375th booster recovery, according to SpaceX. Finally, with this mission, the company shattered its record for turnaround time from the landing of a booster to its launch to 13 days and 12 hours, down from 21 days.

But even though it was mere hours before the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States, SpaceX was not done for the month. On Saturday, November 30, the company launched twice more in a little more than three hours. The payloads were more Starlink Internet satellites in addition to two Starshield satellites—a custom version of Starlink for the US Department of Defense—for the US military. //

So far this year, SpaceX has launched a total of 119 Falcon 9 rockets, for an average of a launch every 2.3 days. The company has already superseded its previous record total for annual Falcon 9 launches, 92, completed last year. If SpaceX achieves its goal of 15 additional Falcon 9 launches this month, it would bring the company's total this year to 134 flights. If you add two Falcon Heavy missions to that, it brings the total to 136 launches.

That is a meaningful number, because over the course of the three decades it flew into orbit, NASA's Space Shuttle flew 135 missions.

The space shuttle was a significantly more complex vehicle, and unlike the Falcon 9 rocket, humans flew aboard it during every mission. However, there is some historical significance in the fact that the Falcon rocket may fly as many missions in a single year as the space shuttle did during its lifetime. //

The principal goal of the Falcon program was to demonstrate rapid, low-cost reusability. By one estimate, it cost NASA about $1.5 billion to fly a single space shuttle mission. (Like the Falcon 9, the shuttle was mostly but not completely reusable.) SpaceX's internal costs for a Falcon 9 launch are estimated to be as low as $15 million. So SpaceX has achieved a flight rate about 30 times higher than the shuttle at one-hundredth the cost.

Space enthusiast Ryan Caton also crunched the numbers on the number of SpaceX launches this year compared to some of its competitors. So far this year, SpaceX has launched as many rockets as Roscosmos has since 2013, United Launch Alliance since 2010, and Arianespace since 2009. This year alone, the Falcon 9 has launched more times than the Ariane 4, Ariane 5, or Atlas V rockets each did during their entire careers. //

Booster no. 1067 completed its 23rd flight by launching the Koreasat 62 mission into geostationary transfer orbit. Maybe we'll see it go for two dozen before 2024 is out? //

PhillyJimi Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
7y
154
Missing another really important point. SX is going to build over 100 2nd stages this year and they have build over 400. Yes, reusing the 1st stage is great but that is some impressive production from SX to kick out that many 2nd stages. //

Wickwick Ars Legatus Legionis
14y
37,082
OrvGull said:
Goes to show what a cul-de-sac manned space flight was.

The Shuttle's flight rate was not limited to what it was because it was manned.

By the time it retires, Atlas V will have flown about 115 flights in 24 years. That's a worse cadence than the Shuttles maintained. By your logic, it's an example of what a cul-de-sac unmanned flight was. //

pavon Ars Tribunus Militum
17y
2,206
Subscriptor
That shuttle comparison isn't apples to apples. First, Crew Dragon missions cost a lot more than a normal Falcon 9 launch. SpaceX is paid $350 million per mission, and OIG has estimated Space X's internal cost to be around $220 million per mission. In addition the Shuttle was able to launch both crew and cargo at once, and usually did so with ISS missions. The shuttle cargo capacity was roughly double a reusable Falcon 9 or half a reusable Falcon Heavy. Published Falcon Heavy mission prices vary a lot (from $117-330 million), but lets take a WAG and say $100 million internal cost. So depending on mission needs the comparison would range from:

Crew Dragon + Falcon Heavy Cargo $330M ~= 1/4.5 Shuttle
Crew Dragon + Falcon 9 Cargo $235M ~= 1/6 Shuttle
Falcon Heavy Only $100M ~= 1/15 Shuttle
Falcon 9 Only $15M ~= 1/100 Shuttle

So for the most common ISS case the Shuttle was about 5 times more expensive than Space X, and that is internal cost - it would be closer comparing the actual price NASA pays. That is still a big multiplier, but it was only when the humans weren't a mission requirement and were only along for the ride that it was stupid expensive. //

mhalpern Ars Praefectus
6y
42,765
latteland said:
SpaceX is amazing, world beating even, but this comparison is misleading. The shuttle was human rated and a generic falcon 9 is not. The human rated versions of falcon 9 have performed extremely well, but they don't launch them over and over for human use, just once afaik.
all F9s flying today are human rated, they just don't put people on them after their 5th flight

SpaceX has unlocked an impressive achievement – 400 launches of its workhorse Falcon 9 rocket.

The launch on November 27 at 0441 UTC was to deploy another batch of 24 Starlink satellites into orbit. The Falcon 9 took off from LC-39A at Kennedy Space Center, and the booster landed successfully on SpaceX's A Shortfall of Gravitas droneship, marking the 375th booster landing. //

117 of the 400 Falcon 9 launches were conducted in 2024 alone, and it is likely the company could achieve 136 total launches this year if things go according to plan. //

Male bovine excrement.

...it's difficult not to connect the company's breathtaking launch pace and acceleration with the emergence of some quality issues...

A 0.495% (99.505% success) chance of loss of cargo is phenomenal—Soyuz has launched 1800 times, and has a ~5% chance of failure. The recent incidents aren't quality issues. Space is hard. The fact that SpaceX's teams have achieved this reliability is a testament to their gold-standard quality control practices.

Re: Male bovine excrement.
They have probably learnt from Richard Feynman's statement regarding the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, when he compared the NASA management's estimation of the catastrophic failure rate of the spacecraft with the engineers' estimates:

It appears that there are enormous differences of opinions to the probability a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from working engineers, and the very low figures come from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could launch a shuttle every day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask, "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?"

(From Appendix F: Personal Observations on the Reliability of the Shuttle, in 'What do you care what other people think?'.)

Easy Rider
SpaceX has made space look ... easy. Which, of course, it still isn't. But their achievements really cannot be underestimated - they have rewritten the book. Far and away Musk's most interesting company, although he obviously doesn't deserve all the credit. He certainly employs some stellar engineers. I'll always remember the first demo launch of Crew Dragon in 2020 - such an incredible thing, seeing that uber-slick capsule and those uber-slick suits, cruising up to space like a bus ride to town. One of the few highlights of lockdown!

thinkreal Ars Praetorian
22y
573
I’m still boggled by the contrast of approaches to engineering. How long have the Orion team been wringing hands over heat shield tiles after some anomalous but not disastrous effects? SpaceX - “let’s rip off a couple thousand tiles and see how the steel holds up, next year we want to try some new hardware somewhere around there” //

AverageDutchGuy Ars Scholae Palatinae
5y
822
Super3DPC said:
3 things that surprise me on this flight:

1. How routine it feels. I no longer hurry to catch the launch live. I wait until the whole thing is over and skip the video forward a few times. 6 launches this and it's almost boring already. I'm just too spoiled.
2. After re-entry we can see parts of Starship stainless steel change color to have rainbow tint. Can those skin be reuse without changing them? Rainbow tint on stainless means excessive oxidation IIRC.
3. I thought they'd use RCS to reorient Starship before engine relight. I mean the whole point of relight test is to make sure Starship can re-enter the atmosphere right? Can't do re-enter atmosphere without RCS reorienting Starship before re-entry burn right?

Rainbow discoloration on stainless just means a (thin) oxidation film has happened (and the color can be a nice indicator of what temperature was reached (for the dark purple to dark blue observed on the ship it would be between 450 to 600 degrees centigrade respectively, with bright blue being reached around 540) If it didn't deform I see no reason why it would have to be replaced, unless excessive tempering would occur in the likely cold-rolled skin material and ultimate strength was impacted.

Edit to add: heat range given is accurate for AISI304, since Starship uses (iirc) AISI 301 it might be slightly off. Source: https://bssa.org.uk/bssa_articles/heat-tint-temper-colours-on-stainless-steel-surface-heated-in-air/. //

Endymio Smack-Fu Master, in training
2m
53
jeremyp66 said:
Reusable spacecraft have been done before.

None anywhere near this size and scale.

jeremyp66 said:
for perspective, the sixth launch of Saturn V put two men on the Moon.

At a cost of several percent of the nation's total GDP: roughly $290 billion in 2024 dollars. Musk is doing it for a little over 1% of this.

jeremyp66 said:
OK so let's stop pretending that SpaceX is doing this "privately". Starship is substantially funded by the US tax payers. Starship is part of Artemis.

No, more precisely, the preexisting Starship concept is being used in Artemis, among many other things. That's how Musk was able to underbid the competition. His original Artemis bid was ~$2.8B: competitors ranged from $4B to $10B, for proposals which were less competent and flexible as well. All the Artemis funds are only about a third of Starship's R&D costs alone, not even counting the operational costs of the moon mission itself. //

Endymio Smack-Fu Master, in training
2m
53
MagicDot said:
Another very small step forward, almost matching the achievements of 1962.

Saturn V put 2 men on the moon -- by throwing away the vast majority of the hardware used to get there. Starship will place 100 on the moon, plus cargo, at a cost of ~1% of Saturn V ... and keep all that pricey hardware to boot.

MagicDot said:
That definitely is an acid test...and Elon is clearly on acid to think he's pulling that off in his lifetime.

Interesting. I recall the exact thing said about Tesla's ability to compete against entrenched automakers, or their ability to manufacture their own batteries at scale, or SpaceX's ability to manufacture reusable rockets or launch a 6000+ satellite constellation.

the FAA indicated that it will grant SpaceX permission to increase the number of Starship launches in South Texas to 25 per year from the current limit of five. Additionally, the company will likely be allowed to continue increasing the size and power of the Super Heavy booster stage and Starship upper stage. //

For example, the number of large trucks that deliver water, liquid oxygen, methane, and other commodities will increase substantially. According to the FAA document, the vehicle presence will grow from an estimated 6,000 trucks a year to 23,771 trucks annually. This number could be reduced by running a water line along State Highway 4 to supply the launch site's water deluge system. //

During recent public meetings, SpaceX's general manager of Starbase, Kathy Lueders, has said the company aims to launch Starship 25 times next year from Texas. The new regulations would permit this.

Additionally, SpaceX founder Elon Musk has said the company intends to move to a larger and more powerful version of the Starship and Super Heavy rocket about a year from now. This version, dubbed Starship 3, would double the thrust of the upper stage and increase the thrust of the booster stage from about 74 meganewtons to about 100 meganewtons. If that number seems a little abstract, another way to think about it is that Starship would have a thrust at liftoff three times as powerful as NASA's Saturn V rocket that launched humans to the Moon decades ago. The draft environmental assessment permits this as well.

Finally, the document also grants SpaceX permission to land all 25 of the first and second stages back at the Starbase facility.

The Starship launch system is about to reach a tipping point, Gwynne Shotwell said, as it moves from an experimental rocket toward operational missions.

"We just passed 400 launches on Falcon, and I would not be surprised if we fly 400 Starship launches in the next four years," Shotwell said at the Baron Investment Conference in New York City. "We want to fly it a lot."

That lofty goal seems aspirational, not just because of the hardware challenges but also due to the ground systems (SpaceX currently has just one operational launch tower) as well as the difficulty of supplying that much liquid oxygen and methane for such a high flight rate. However, it's worth noting that SpaceX will launch Starship four times this year, twice the number of Falcon Heavy missions. An acceleration of Starship is highly likely. //

"Starship obsoletes Falcon 9 and the Dragon capsule," she said. "Now, we are not shutting down Dragon, and we are not shutting down Falcon. We'll be flying that for six to eight more years, but ultimately, people are going to want to fly on Starship. It's bigger. It's more comfortable. It will be less expensive. And we will have flown it so many more times.". //

As Starlink has come online, it has significantly increased the valuation of the privately held company. A decade ago, SpaceX was valued at about $12 billion, and this grew to $36 billion in 2020. Most recently, the company was valued at about $255 billion. //

DDopson Ars Tribunus Militum
22y
2,397
Subscriptor++
daddyboomalati said:
Can someone unpack this for me? I cannot understand how a massive rocket is a better choice than the Falcon 9 for medium-weight payloads. My only thought is that it delivers multiple satellites at once. I do it all the time in Kerbal Space Program, but is this a thing in real life, or an eventual likelihood?
It's simpler than that. Starship costs less to launch than F9.

Each F9 launch expends a second stage that costs roughly $20M to fabricate. They do recover the $40M booster and the $6M fairings, but they have to fabricate a new second stage for every launch. And that second stage consumes one Merlin engine, but that's only a relatively small fraction of the stage's cost, on account of SpaceX's spectacular efficiency at manufacturing rocket engines for <$1M, literally hundreds of times cheaper than, eg, the RS-25 engines NASA buys.

The cost to fuel a Starship is on the order of a few million, possibly in the $2M or $3M ballpark (this was estimated in a prior thread), probably more when including their current fueling logistics costs, possibly a bit less at scale when they are manufacturing their own LOX and can amortize various bits of fueling infra over a consistent level of demand.

Ground logistics add additional costs (control center staff, ground crew, amortized share of launch complex, etc), but these are hard to estimate. Dividing the entire Boca Chica facility cost over ~5 test launches would produce an unfavorable number, but that's silly. The ground facilities should amortize fairly well as the launch cadence increases. And this stuff is probably mostly comparable between the two platforms.

Sticking with relatively conservative numbers, I expect their all-up internal marginal cost per Starship launch to be well under $10M per flight, much less than the cost of fabricating a new F9 second stage.

Launching Starship is thus cheaper than launching F9.

Now that's an internal cost that we may never learn with precision, and SpaceX will make a business decision about what price to charge to their customers. They may create very attractive rates for rideshares. They will likely maintain high prices for "white glove" launch contracts that include significant payload preparation and other services, especially DoD and NASA, which already typically pay more per F9 launch contract than the sticker price on the website for "just a launch". //

Like a lot of competitors in the global launch industry, Russia for a long time dismissed the prospects of a reusable first stage for a rocket.

As late as 2016, an official with the Russian agency that develops strategy for the country's main space corporation, Roscosmos, concluded, "The economic feasibility of reusable launch systems is not obvious." In the dismissal of the landing prospects of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, Russian officials were not alone. Throughout the 2010s, competitors including space agencies in Europe and Japan, and US-based United Launch Alliance, all decided to develop expendable rockets.

However, by 2017, when SpaceX re-flew a Falcon 9 rocket for the first time, the writing was on the wall. "This is a very important step, we sincerely congratulate our colleague on this achievement," then-Roscosmos CEO Igor Komarov said at the time. He even spoke of developing reusable components, such as rocket engines capable of multiple firings.

A Russian Grasshopper
That was more than seven years ago, however, and not much has happened in Russia since then to foster the development of a reusable rocket vehicle. Yes, Roscosmos unveiled plans for the "Amur" rocket in 2020, which was intended to have a reusable first stage and methane-fueled engines and land like the Falcon 9. But its debut has slipped year for year—originally intended to fly in 2026, its first launch is now expected no earlier than 2030.

1Zach1 Ars Tribunus Militum
7y
2,954
Subscriptor
Thanks for your experience Stephen.

I see a lot of exciting milestones still to come, full orbit and daylight soft landing of Ship, double Starship launch for fuel transfer testing, Ship catching, lunar Ship details/test landing. Plus I don’t expect catching Booster to get less exciting for a while. //

Super3DPC Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
6y
175
Glad to see that I'm not the only one replaying flight 5 launch and catch over and over again. My wife rolled her eyes every time she sees me replaying videos of it although she was also gobsmacked the first time seeing it.

Everyday astronaut has some amazing footage. In that video you can see the exact moment the chines exploded. https://youtu.be/dpxB1S-ohEU?si=PzIO1vQhQe0XBbKn //

msadesign Ars Praetorian
12y
435
Subscriptor
Slightly off topic:

Can anyone explain why so much fuel transfer on orbit is needed for the planned lunar missions? The Starship is already on orbit, after all. But I read that 10+ fuel launches are required to reach the moon. Why is that?

Dtiffster Ars Praefectus
8y
3,321
Subscriptor

msadesign said:
Slightly off topic:

Can anyone explain why so much fuel transfer on orbit is needed for the planned lunar missions? The Starship is already on orbit, after all. But I read that 10+ fuel launches are required to reach the moon. Why is that?

With the HLS' profile they likely need north of 12 tonnes of prop for every tonne of ship plus up mass from the lunar surface. We don't know how much HLS will mass, but I can't see it being much less than 70 tonnes all in, and it could be over 100. So at 840-1200+ that's a lot of prop that needs to be transferred. The HLS itself should have a good amount of residual prop (maybe upwards of 200 tonnes) eapecially if it does have full sized tanks, but you are still looking at a depot and 3-5 tankers even if you can get 200+ tonnes out of a tanker.

SpaceX wanting their proposal to be read as conservative though, assumed much less prop per launch and that they would simply brute force it. Comments that have come out of NASA since then have basically said they are carrying that forward until SpaceX proves they can do more. They'll have more performant starships and propellant transfer demonstrations launching next year, should give better certainty on the lower bound. They'll also be iterating on this. I could see an uncrewed demo mission happening in '26 possibly and '27 more probably, so that'll give them a lot of time to dial up the performance and perfect the transfer.

BOCA CHICA BEACH, Texas—I've taken some time to process what happened on the mudflats of South Texas a little more than a week ago and relived the scene in my mind countless times.

With each replay, it's still as astonishing as it was when I saw it on October 13, standing on an elevated platform less than 4 miles away. It was surreal watching SpaceX's enormous 20-story-tall Super Heavy rocket booster plummeting through the sky before being caught back at its launch pad by giant mechanical arms. //

What's not so easy to address is how SpaceX can top this. A landing on the Moon or Mars? Sure, but realistically, those milestones are years off. There's something that'll happen before then.

Sometime soon, SpaceX will try to catch a Starship back at the launch pad at the end of an orbital flight. This will be an extraordinarily difficult feat, far exceeding the challenge of catching the Super Heavy booster.

Mario Nawfal @MarioNawfal

BREAKING: MEGA MILITARY CONTRACTOR CAUGHT FAKING SATELLITE DATA TO TAKE DOWN STARLINK

SpaceX just exposed a dirty ploy by Lockheed Martin and Omnispace to block Starlink’s direct-to-cell service.

Lockheed’s partner allegedly rigged their aging satellite to fake interference and filed bogus FCC complaints, trying to stop Starlink from dominating the 5G space.

In a bombshell FCC filing, SpaceX revealed how Omnispace manipulated its MEO satellite to “intentionally detect” Starlink signals—despite the satellite barely being operational.

SpaceX slammed the claims as “bizarre,” accusing Omnispace of creating “artificial conditions” to fake interference.

The plot thickens: Omnispace refused standard coordination talks and went as far as licensing through Papua New Guinea to dodge regulations.

It’s all part of an effort to sabotage Starlink’s $34.9 billion future in global communications.

Will the FCC see through this sham, or will Lockheed’s shady tactics derail Starlink’s revolution?

InvariantCapitalist Ars Centurion
1y
985
Subscriptor

Lee Vann said:
Anyone valuing SpaceX above the large Aerospace companies is a fool looking to be parted from their money. Their sales are just to low compared to the big boys. For example Lockhead Martin does ~50 billion a year in sales on a bad year. Northrop Grumman is a little behind them. How much in sales does SpaceX do in a good year? 9 Billion. A pretty good chink of change, but not up there with the big boys. More in the range of the mid tier.

Business valuations are based on expectations of future profits, not historical revenues. Starlink revenues are estimated to increase to over $6.5B this year from $4B last year, and projected to reach $20B to $30B with very high margins in a decade or so.

And that doesn't factor in the impact of switching from a partially reusable launch system (Falcon 9) that throws away a $15M first stage every launch to a fully reusable launch system like Starship lowering their cost per launch from around $30M to roughly $10M while increasing payload capacity by at least 5x. Its far improved cost structure should massively increase the demand for commercial launches. Not only will it dramatically reduce the cost of satellite launches, it enables satellite providers to build them with heavier cheaper materials and to make them far larger to offer even much improved capabilities.

It also massively reduces the costs of building space stations and potentially makes space tourism not only far cheaper but more attractive with weeks long stays for far more people. And If Starship is certified to fly humans its likely to fly more than 10,000 a year to orbit, that's a big business.

And again, likely with higher margins than a Lockheed Martin or Northrup Grumman. All this said, I wouldn't value SpaceX at $200B, but I'm a bottom feeding value investor. But its certainly worth a far higher price per dollar of revenues than these old space dinosaurs..

InvariantCapitalist Ars Centurion
1y
985
Subscriptor

gsgrego said:
People keep praising Elon for stuff.

Name 2 things he has personally done besides fund SpaceX and then hire competent people who don't do what he suggests?

Tom Meuller, the greatest living rocket engine designer, says that Elon led every key engineering decision at SpaceX while he was there, and just tweeted yesterday about the meeting he was in where Elon told the lead engineers that he was going to optimize SuperHeavy by removing the mass of landing legs and catch it with the tower to greatly accelerate launch turnaround times. Their jaws dropped.

Now he probably got the idea from someone else, but the important thing is that he recognized a great idea and made it a priority. Just as he did when he pushed Tom for changes to make Merlin more easily reusable (in 2007!!!), demanded they attempt hypersonic flybacks and landings of F9 boosters when parachutes failed, switched to stainless steel Starship design from carbon fiber ITS design for their next generation launch system.

He's not just a checkbook, he believes fully in first principles thinking and reducing complexity to an almost religious level and clearly signs off on every major engineering decision at all his companies. You can see this across SpaceX and Tesla, for example the Tesla Cybercab without physical controls, back seats or charging connector is so Elon. It remains to be seen how long it will take to actually ship (Elon Time) and whether those compromises will turn out to be brilliant or CyberTruck level mistakes. //

InvariantCapitalist Ars Centurion
1y
985
Subscriptor

fancysunrise said:
It is possible and my position even on Musk is not black and white. But in general, he is not one of those people. And it isn't juwst about his bad behavior. It's because he's a clown.

And yes, I've read Berger's book. Actually just made a comment on that the other day in different discussion... With all due respect to the author, I don't really agree with it from what I can discern from it and other sources and my own connections to SpaceX. To your bullets: He started the company - read:funded - but is not responsible for its engineering. He was introduced to a guy who had ideas and lacked money. Money guy meets (and manipulates, often) idea guy is not exactly a novel trope in fiction or real life.

Basically you toss out any citations that conflict with your previous opinion on musk. Sure he's an internet troll. But there are also a long list of prestigious space engineers from SpaceX to NASA to others including Jim Cantrell, Robert Zubrin, Tom Meuller, and Michael Griffin who say Elon has studied rocket engineering intensely, understands it deeply and signs off or leads all major engineering decisions at SpaceX.

fancysunrise said:
The desire to build a reusable system - including one that looks like the present effort - is not his and not new. The funding push to get it done is, but even that is not exclusive to SpaceX. They're just the best funded. Where he has inserted himself into decision making, it's turned out poorly -- e.g. Berger's own example to somehow illustrate the contrary with guides in the Falcon hull to prevent slosh resulting in RUD. Musk is not a scientist or engineer. He wants attention. If he can get it by pushing for something positive, that's fine. If he has to be destructive to get it, that's also fine, whether with the aerospace industry, his workers, investors, laws and the environment or anyone and anything else. Either way, he's always dishonest. We don't need to look at antics around submarines in southeast Asia or the war in Ukraine or "X" or investment fraud or disowning his own child out of spite or awkward jumping on stage and fawning of fascists to get more money and power or any of the rest of it to comment on his role in the space industry. Same way we aren't forbidden from discussing Von Braun's historic role in space just because he was a fascist (or "merely" complicit, if we are overly generous to some disingenuous apologists, who are very wrong) -- we can talk about his engineering chops and decisions and the consequences for better or worse (and it goes both ways with him as well) before and after the war. But Musk is not like Von Braun, because again, Musk is not the "idea guy". Musk is a rich clown who wants attention, and it shows.

Again just because you hate him for his abundant personal sins doesn't change the facts, Elon is rich because he's an idea guy first and has pursued first principles thinking in everything he's done, and has never shied away from gambling his entire net worth on his ideas. It would be as crazy as claiming Von Braun wasn't a brilliant rocket engineer because of his Nazi and SS memberships.