There is a lot riding on V3. SpaceX cannot afford to take too many launches to get V3 solid. If 2026 is another 2025 (3 V2 failures in a row followed by 2 V3 successes), then they can forget about landing on the moon before 2030.

My hope is that Flight 12 goes nearly flawlessly (at least gets to soft splashdown) and they can start testing in-space refueling in July/August.

If they can demonstrate in-space refueling by the end of 2026, then they have a shot at a lunar-landing demo in 2027 and a crewed-landing in 2028. But a lot has to go right for that to happen. Here's hoping it does.

• stephc_int13

  today at 11:52 PM

  I am pretty sure that at least some SpaceX engineers are reading HackerNews.

  But I don't think I ever seen any insiders comments here, even anonymously.

• NitpickLawyer

  today at 11:09 PM

  > then they can forget about landing on the moon before 2030.

  A crewed Moon landing before 30 is really implausible. Everyone is late, but the latest NASA OIG report put the Axiom suits very late (somewhere ~2031 if everything holds, but it notes it might not hold).

• russdill

  today at 11:22 PM

  Small edit, 2 V2 (not V3) successes (flights 10 and 11).

• john_minsk

  today at 10:54 PM

  question: what will happen if orbit refuelling goes wrong? Won't it destroy everything in orbit?

  • JumpCrisscross

    today at 10:56 PM

    > what will happen if orbit refuelling goes wrong? Won't it destroy everything in orbit?

    No. What is the mechanism through which you suspected this could happen?

    • bragr

      today at 10:58 PM

      Kessler syndrome presumably?

      • hgoel

        today at 11:33 PM

        Keeping the orbits low enough, and/or intentionally going suborbital after docking/before starting the fuel transfer, will make the chances of that being possible very low.

        It's also worth considering that they have demonstrated cryo propellant pumping between two tanks within a ship, so, AFAIK, transfer between two ships is more about testing the docking systems, than it is about the pumps. They could probably rig the system to first pump some inert gas to verify the quality of the docking, then try to pump propellants.

      • margalabargala

        today at 11:35 PM

        ...caused by what?

  • Lerc

    today at 11:28 PM

    Presumably the effect of any explosion would decrease proportional to the volume as it expands. Is there much volume in space?

  • bediger4000

    today at 11:01 PM

    Liquid handling in microgravity has always been weird. Big gas bubbles in the fluid, surface tension effects causing liquid to float in balls in the ullage, stuff like that. Turbopumps break if they ingest a larger bubble.

    There could be some odd failure modes I would think. Failure to pump the liquid, broken pumps, who really knows? My guess would be that a failure mode would be a big spill, a failure to pump, only partially refilling, or broken turbopumps before an explosion.

    • MadnessASAP

      today at 11:55 PM

      For something like a transfer between Starships you can resolve a lot of those problems by (very) gently spinning the 2 craft. It won't take much force for the liquids to settle at the bottom of their respective tanks where you would presumably put the intakes.

    • pmontra

      today at 11:30 PM

      A probably very naive question: why not pistons?

      • labcomputer

        today at 11:47 PM

        Because there’s a much, much simpler and easier way:

        1. Connect the two ships

        2. Connect the liquid valves from both cryo tanks together.

        3. Spin the ships about the short axis

        4. Open the vent valve for the cryo tank to receive liquid.

        5. Lock closed the vent valve for the cryo tank to supple liquid.

        Steps 2, 4 and 5 are how you normally transfer cryo fluids between dewars on earth. You just to create pseudo gravity / acceleration in the body frame of the ships to make it work in space.

    • idiotsecant

      today at 11:23 PM

      Seems like you could use peristaltic pumps

      • pants2

        today at 11:27 PM

        That would take ages!

• everyone

  today at 10:53 PM

  [flagged]

  • rpmisms

    today at 10:58 PM

    Have you met hardware guys? This is not how they operate, in my experience.

    • malfist

      today at 11:09 PM

      Are you trying to say that "hardware guys" don't care if they're working to advance the agenda from a Nazi?

      • rpmisms

        today at 11:38 PM

        Historically, that has been true about rockets.

      • saalweachter

        today at 11:17 PM

        I mean, rocket guys have a long history of not minding advancing the agenda of a Nazi.

    • everyone

      today at 11:03 PM

      I mean I might be a hardware guy myself depending on your definition. I've never dealt with rocket engineers.. Are they "hardware guys" according to you? If so it seems you are using that term incredibly broadly.

  • Recurecur

    today at 11:02 PM

    “They [sic] guy is a freaking nazi”

    Presumably you’re at least fairly intelligent, nonetheless propaganda has done its job. Fascinating…

    Just FYI, engineers are one of the groups most likely to lean right.

    I’m hopeful tomorrow’s launch goes flawlessly!

    • dbeardsl

      today at 11:09 PM

      Propaganda? He literally performed nazi salutes at a high visibility event. Not to mention all the wacko stuff he posts on twitter. A brilliant innovator can also have significant mental health issues.

    • deanCommie

      today at 11:16 PM

      > Just FYI, engineers are one of the groups most likely to lean right.

      leaning right is one thing. Supporting Elon and Trump and MAGA is leaning far right.

      • hcurtiss

        today at 11:30 PM

        OK deanCommie

    • everyone

      today at 11:04 PM

      [flagged]

  • excalibur

    today at 11:02 PM

    Aren't theories supposed to include some conjecture? This here is pure deduction.

  • wonderwonder

    today at 11:08 PM

    That's makes a lot of sense becuase the Nazi's were notorius for not having good rocket engineers

  • deanCommie

    today at 11:15 PM

    The whole DOGE debacle and in general the broad radicalization of western male youths has made me very cynical about the ethics of "young brilliant engineers".

    not to say the archetype you describe doesn't exist, but disappointingly I am convinced they are far from the majority.

This is the first flight of the new engines. They look so much sleeker and simpler than the previous two generations:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQGMtnP...

* And supposedly with a 20% power increase to boot!

• MattDamonSpace

  today at 10:20 PM

  Oh wow that photo is from years ago but you’re correct, this is the first flight of that design

• russdill

  today at 11:18 PM

  SN1 was a test engine, the flight engines are even cleaner https://fixupx.com/interstellargw/status/2057165036196409820

• Culonavirus

  today at 11:25 PM

  Booster dry mass savings of around one ton per engine iirc.

• chasd00

  today at 10:18 PM

  The stats are pretty out there. Iirc just the fuel pump, which you can probably pick up and put on your desk, generates 100k HP.

  • jvanderbot

    today at 10:26 PM

    Well, it's powered by bleeding exhaust from a very big rocket.

    • TomatoCo

      today at 10:42 PM

      One of my favorite clips to give a sense of scale for rockets is this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70u748VALt4

      I show someone and then I tell them, that's not the rocket exhaust. That's the exhaust for the engine that runs the fuel pump for the rocket.

    • jasonwatkinspdx

      today at 10:47 PM

      Nope, Raptor is full flow staged combustion, so both the fuel and oxidizer have dedicated preburners and turbopumps each.

      • jvanderbot

        today at 11:31 PM

        Thanks for that correction!

> The two modified satellites will test hardware planned for Starlink V3 and will attempt to scan Starship’s heat shield and transmit imagery down to operators to test methods of analyzing Starship’s heat shield readiness for return to launch site on future missions

Hope we get to see those images. Would be awesome to see a 3rd person view of starship in space.

Dang, they aren't catching the booster this time, but I guess V3 is practically a new vehicle and validating the next Starship launch is probably too critical to risk damage to the launch site for now.

• amarant

  today at 10:05 PM

  Oh hey, you're right! Somehow I read "water landing" and interpreted it as landing on one of the barges (ocisly or jrti) any clue why that isn't the case? Is super heavy just too big for the barges maybe?

  • ggreer

    today at 10:31 PM

    They won't use barges because the booster has no landing legs (to save weight), and because the booster is massive compared to Falcon 9. Also Starship is meant for rapid reusability, and it can take days to return a barge to port and unload the booster. Getting barge landings to work would be a distraction from the goal of Starship, and SpaceX already has Falcon 9 for current payloads.

    And they won't attempt a catch with the first V3 booster because it's not worth the risk. They can build a new booster every couple of months. It takes much longer to build the launch/catch tower, and they don't have any spare towers yet. A catastrophe during a booster/ship catch would set them back a year, so they'll only attempt a catch if they're confident it will succeed.

  • wmf

    today at 10:07 PM

    It doesn't have landing legs so it has to be caught by chopsticks. They're skipping the barges; either it lands back at the pad or it doesn't land.

  • pixl97

    today at 10:07 PM

    Superheavy is 10x larger than the Falcon. Its thrust would sink the barge.

    • robocat

      today at 10:15 PM

      Yeah. Rocket first stage Approx. unfueled mass:

      Super Heavy: 200000 to 280000 kg

      Falcon 9 first stage (without Falcon Heavy side boosters): 25600 kg

      • jjk166

        today at 10:49 PM

        So 200-280 tons. A standard barge can support 1500-3000 tons of cargo. Even with the added weight of a catch tower and a healthy factor of safety thrust isn't gonna sink the barge. Far more likely the major hurdle would be stability issues with how tall it is.

        • pixl97

          today at 11:09 PM

          It's not 280 tons... it's a falling object with kinetic energy so that rocket thrust is going to be very problematic for that boat especially if it' hitting unevenly.

          That and there's no way for it to stand without a catch tower.

These are always exciting, even if it's more of the same. I love that we live in a time where we can regularly watch huge rockets launch into space with intentional issues just to see what might go wrong and how best to monitor/solve them.

Congratulations, everyone, at being alive at the best point in human history so far!

• olliepro

  today at 10:09 PM

  With super high res onboard camera footage too.

Everyday Astronaut has posted a video on this launch https://x.com/Erdayastronaut/status/2057163096817332576?s=20

• Diederich

  today at 10:21 PM

  I'm watching it now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_ecCDqTSJs As always, Tim is doing a fantastic job.

  • today at 10:37 PM

There is a 70% chance for storms in the area tomorrow so it's very likely going to be a scrub tomorrow.

• Recurecur

  today at 11:10 PM

  AccuWeather has it at the infamous 51% probability level for thunderstorms at 5 CST, so there’s still a decent chance for success tomorrow.

  Time will tell!

Is there a polymarket or anything else to bet against this?

Really looking forward to seeing raptor 3 fly. Those engines are insane.

They have really invested focus in creating mass market content lately - like, actually having someone spend some time creating the text on this page. Didn't really see that earlier.

And a number of long form videos (like "Test Like You Fly").

IPO time: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg4pe2953q1o and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48213933 (in the last few hours)

I don't know why they aren't doing more booster catches. Kind of a bit disappointed they keep skipping. Either they can land them or they can't. If it's not consistent then they're avoiding the possible failure so their stock price (launching soon) stays up, otherwise just prove it's solid and actually works.

• ggreer

  today at 10:45 PM

  They can build new boosters pretty quickly. New launch/catch towers take a lot longer, and they don't have any redundancy yet. Also they weren't going to reuse their V2 boosters once V3 was ready, so they could learn more by testing things like intentionally disabling an engine during the landing burn or flying at a higher angle of attack.

• GMoromisato

  today at 10:39 PM

  V3 booster has a lot of changes, including a brand new downcomer, an integrated hot-staging ring, and 3 instead of 4 grid fins. Chances of a RUD are not 0.

  If Flight 12 blows up in space, they've already got Flight 13 almost assembled. It might delay them a month, maybe. But if a returning booster destroys the launch pad, it would delay them much longer--maybe a year.

  With those stakes, it makes sense to not try a booster catch until they're sure it's going to work.

I am watching Elon give a long speech about the launch, scarily delivered at high speed, without pause. Including a Bitcoin marathon promotional informercial complete with an on-screen scan code. "That QR code is your boarding pass." He just repeated several paragraphs verbatim from a few minutes ago.

He occasionally mentions the aspirational 100x reduction in launch costs.

AI slop. Yuck, Youtube. Surely Google could have AI moderators catching this crap.

• sfjailbird

  today at 10:20 PM

  That's a fake youtube channel that is somehow allowed to squat the SpaceX channel name. It's been going on for years, including the crypto scam. Baffling. Maybe a big middle finger from Google to Elon.

• jiggawatts

  today at 10:24 PM

  It probably is AI generated.

  My very first exposure to "AI spam" was trying to watch one of the Starship test launches, the second one if I remember correctly.

  That was around the time that Elon bought Twitter, so he removed all publicity video streams from third-party platforms like YouTube and moved them to Twitter's streaming service.

  I wanted to watch this on my big TV, so I was hunting through YouTube for the stream. I found the most likely looking one and watched as Elon got up on a stage, started waffling on about how this is the "future of humanity" and then with 40 seconds to go before the launch the (entirely realistic) AI voice was dubbed over and started offering "double your Bitcoin if you transfer to this account", with the obligatory QR code in the corner.

  I was actually impressed by the audacity!

  The really frustrating thing was that YouTube then promptly blocked all content even vaguely related to the launch! It was impossible to keyword search for anything that said "starship", "spacex", etc.

  It was a scary preview of instant corporate censorship.

  I'm sure the person (or bot!) at YouTube "meant well", but sheesh... they just erased the online presence of dozens of legitimate space-fan channels like NASA Space Flight. And NASA. And SpaceX's official channel too!

  Ironically this meant that the only remaining matches were 100% scams.

  • Nevermark

    today at 10:31 PM

    > Ironically this meant that the only remaining matches were 100% scams.

    I am wondering if some of this is unmarked paid advertising. I can't imagine any other incentive for Youtube to effectively align its brand with Ick.

    Ads, as one of the prophets said, are the Devil.

• throw310822

  today at 11:22 PM

  The incredible thing to me is that I've reported one of these videos to YouTube and got an answer back via email saying "we checked the video and it's fine for us". This should be enough to sue Google on the basis that they made an active choice to keep it up.

• lysace

  today at 11:49 PM

  Ignorant eyeballs are also eyeballs. One might argue - sometimes even more profitable eyeballs.

  Silicon Valley built this machine. Many tens of thousands of software engineers worked on this.

[flagged]

[flagged]