yesterday at 11:41 PM
Starship is, essentially, Space Shuttle done right: fully reusable booster without solid boosters (avoids Challenger disaster) and orbiter stacked on top instead of on the side (avoid Columbia disaster).
The original designs for the Space Shuttle had the booster (with wings!) return to the launch site, but the cost for two new crewed vehicles was too large, so they scaled it back to the compromised version.
Even more revolutionary, compared to Shuttle, Starship is built on an assembly line. They can build a booster ever 4 weeks and a ship every 2 weeks.
The future we were promised in the 1970s is about to become real.
today at 12:15 AM
Space shuttle was a reliable recovery vehicle too.
I see a need for maintenance crews and large payload recovery in the future.
Starship doesn't seem like the tool for that, and no tool is in development for it TMK?
today at 12:18 AM
no reason you couldn't make a starship with a cargo bay for recovery, it would just cost a considerable amount of payload mass
yesterday at 11:57 PM
The Space Shuttle took 2 people into orbit on its first launch and returned them safely to earth. On the first attempt. On the first test of any of the hardware into space. In 1981.
Starship did not and has not done that and until it does I will continue to hold reservations.
I do not see this Starship and its mission profile ever being a human-rated system in this incarnation, ever.
A really cheap way to launch mass into LEO? Sure, I'll give it that.
yesterday at 11:59 PM
> I do not see this Starship and its mission profile ever being a human-rated system in this incarnation, ever.
May I know why ? And if the feat was done by NASA or China, would you change your conclusion?
today at 12:09 AM
The system architecture seems to be more fragile than simple capsules with parachutes or even the shuttle (which was already pretty dangerous). There’s no parachute, if you don’t hit the tower during landing you’re in a lot of trouble (unless they can soft-land the ship without the tower and without the bottom exploding?).
today at 12:15 AM
“the system is more complicated” is not a good argument for it never working.
A passenger airliner is vastly more complicated than a parachute, yet both work.
(You’re also in a lot of trouble if you don’t hit the runway in an airliner)
today at 12:21 AM
The problem isn’t “it’s more complicated” but more “if something goes wrong there’s not a lot you can do”. There’s basically no redundancy and a lot of single points of failure. Having two sets of Parachutes is a lot harder to screw up than a powered landing.
With a normal capsule, you have multiple fuel tanks and redundant RCS thrusters so you’ll practically always be able to deorbit and land (since you also have redundant parachutes). If starship has a fuel leak, how are you going to land, even if you’re able to deorbit?
today at 12:16 AM
It would not change my conclusion at all.
If you asked me if I wanted to return to earth on something that glides like a plane and lands on a runway with no propulsion... or a pressure vessel that needs it's engines to work perfectly to get you back to a single spot at the pad, within a few meters, to be 'caught', and if that doesn't happen, you hit the ground vertically and explode...
I know which one I'm taking. Yes I know the shuttle had no 'go-around' as a glider. But wings and wheels and a big runway in the desert.... versus the insane acrobatics of Starship...
We haven't seen how Starship would deal with crosswinds in the atmosphere being predicted wrong. What happens when it knows it is off course on the way down and can't make it back to the pad? If there where people onboard? I assume there would be a contingency where it just vents fuel and hits the ground and hopes to act as a crush-can at terminal velocity but I don't know how people survive that. By comparison, ditching the shuttle like a plane with an engine-out failure seems easy by comparison.
I am not demeaning the amazing achievement of the Starship and its booster and this ability to catch it and reuse it. I think that is indeed an amazing achievement that should be celebrated. But I don't see this as being a thing to put people on that can somehow be intrinsically safer than the Shuttle, just yet. These are just my basic opinions, I think they are opinions with some merit, and I don't feel that deserves downvotes.
today at 12:24 AM
that's not going to happen, Artemis is using Orion with parachutes to land in the ocean
today at 12:10 AM
Starship’s been in development for over two decades and the design keeps being changed and failing.
Soyuz has a very impressive record, Starship has been horrifically mismanaged by comparison. The falcon heavy flew 14 times and SpaceX is all in on a heavy launch vehicle because what? Even if they hit every target perfectly from now on it was a wasteful project.
today at 12:21 AM
The design changing and the development _failing to meet its stated deadlines_ is not a good argument for the system never working. Especially given we know the deadlines were unrealistic to begin with, yet significant milestones have been achieved in (deadline-ignoring) impressive time frame - like landing a second stage rocket from orbit within 8 years of development (by a private company, not a national effort).
today at 12:09 AM
Huh? Space shuttle killed 14 astronauts. It was a flawed design from the beginning and never delivered on its original promise.
Starship has its own design trade-offs, as any engineered object does, but it has the benefit of 50 years of technological development since Shuttle.
I'm not as certain as you about whether or not Starship will ever be human rated. But if successful, it will be launching a couple of hundred times per year. Talk to me in five years and we'll see where we are then.
today at 12:14 AM
isn't the whole "we put a human into space" symbolic anyway? There's no air up there. If we had a full supply chain of robots that brought us back regolith from the moon wouldn't that be more useful than being able to send a person up there?
today at 12:11 AM
How is incremental development and testing related to human-rated flight?
As is, your comment has a bold claim backed by seemingly unrelated fact.
yesterday at 11:53 PM
>> Even more revolutionary, compared to Shuttle, Starship is built on an assembly line. They can build a booster ever 4 weeks and a ship every 2 weeks.
Note that they are also scaling up production in a big way, because they want to launch weekly soon, and then daily. Not sure if we will get to the latter anytime soon but I'm also not going to bet against Elon.
today at 12:20 AM
[dead]
today at 12:21 AM
The space shuttle is infinitely sexier sorry
today at 12:10 AM
"fully reusable" is highly aspirational.
They have barely reflown a handful of tiles, and have not reflown any engines.
Essentially, the two things you'd expect to break will probably still break.
today at 12:19 AM
Landing the damn thing (and almost landing the booster) seems to point in the general direction of full reusability.
today at 12:14 AM
You're allowed to compliment technical achievements, even if its done by a republican.
today at 12:24 AM
It's done by thousands of people, who are employed by a republican.
Reducing their work to the (self-serving) political alignments of the CEO is a big part of the optics issue.
yesterday at 10:39 PM
If the heat shield holds up then this changes everything. Next step is double catch and re-flying the same ships and catching again, then payloads to orbit become significantly cheaper opening a new era in space flight.
yesterday at 10:53 PM
Yeah, I'm eagerly awaiting results from inspection of the heat shield (which hopefully they will disclose). Reflight without refurbishment is the last goal they need to hit before the system can be considered a success. After that, optimizing for increased payload and nailing reliability will be the things to work on. And of course orbital refueling for HLS.
yesterday at 11:30 PM
They already recovered a ship from that one time they accidentally landed one in the ocean. SpaceX got to have a lot of heatshield endurance data by now.
today at 12:01 AM
How many payloads are we going to put in the orbit before we end up with a new set of problem?
yesterday at 10:55 PM
This changes nothing, in space fuel transfer between ships is the make it or break it.
yesterday at 10:59 PM
Fuel transfer seems like a trivial problem next to the reusable heat shield. And even if for some weird reason it never works, the program could likely pay for itself just launching Starlink/Starshield with full reuse.
yesterday at 11:20 PM
Or use SuperHeavy to launch non-reusable second stage and fueled Moon module of different design. After all SuperHeavy doesn’t have to be used exclusively for Starship.
yesterday at 11:25 PM
I don't know -- that fuel transfer scene in Armageddon was pretty sketchy!
yesterday at 11:13 PM
Only for going to the Moon or Mars. As a launch system, Starship will still be a phenomenal success even if they struggle with fuel transfer, which is really an entirely different problem.
yesterday at 11:02 PM
Fuel transfer isn't needed to launch to LEO at much lower cost.
yesterday at 11:11 PM
It’s needed to go to the Moon based on the current Artemis design
yesterday at 11:21 PM
Which is of secondary concern. SpaceX makes money on Starlink, not launches.
yesterday at 11:41 PM
This depends on what you're considering to be the main goal of Starship. Both of you are correct that Starship's stated goals included what you're considering the goal.
yesterday at 11:37 PM
If the simple industrial process of pumping liquid from one tank to another is too difficult, one wonders exactly what sort of society anyone could imagine building in space.
The main reason fuel depots and fuel transfer were disparaged was to protect the gravy train of SLS. But that's essentially over.
yesterday at 11:56 PM
Nothing is simple in zero g. All our industrial processes have baked in assumption about gravity (and most also about the composition and pressure of surrounding air).
yesterday at 10:57 PM
Even without enabling missions requiring refuelling this is still a huge step change in orbital capabilities.
yesterday at 11:18 PM
Orbital refueling seems like a small problem compared to a reusable starship.
yesterday at 11:20 PM
No really it can now launch 20x the Starlinks per flight and StarMind is possible now economically.
yesterday at 11:01 PM
plenty of use cases were fuel transfer is not needed.
yesterday at 11:31 PM
It changes cost to put up satellites, which is very significant.
It might not change much for mars
yesterday at 11:08 PM
Huge congratulations to the engineering team on this one! It's been quite interesting to watch the evolution of Starship. Had they put another couple of tonnes of propellant and oxidizer on the Booster they might have caught both of them. It is still unclear to me what the final mass fraction to orbit will work out to be, but something that is 100% re-usable is better than something 60% reusable[1].
[1] Estimate of Falcon 9's booster + fairings being 60% (by cost, not by mass) of the launch package.
yesterday at 11:27 PM
It looks like they delivered 50 tons today. Even if it stays this way, it will still reduce price to orbit significantly.
yesterday at 9:28 PM
Insane achievement! It is the dawn of a new era! One that has been 10+ years in the making.
yesterday at 10:37 PM
I still remember watching Falcon 9 (Block V, iirc) successfully landing back on land (as opposed to droneships) after deploying Orbcomm OG2 satellites in December 2015 -- almost 11 years ago.
It blew my teen mind.
This day marks a fabulous advancement for the human species.
yesterday at 10:45 PM
We went outside in our Orlando office to see the flair up in the sky, and then were looking for the re-entry, by the time we could figure out where it was our coworker said it was already standing upright.
today at 12:13 AM
I was at Canaveral for the double booster return (Heavy?), and it's unbelievable the velocity those things come back down at, with the powered deceleration.
A few seconds after the sonic boom, you're seeing them cancel out the last of their velocity and land on the pad.
One of those 'it can't possibly be that big because nothing that big could be moving that fast' optical lack of reference moments.
yesterday at 11:24 PM
I'm still not really convinced this is better than a space-shuttle style landing.
Seems like the same design principles that goes into Starship could create a version with more aerodynamic surface.
Is the idea that Starhship will be considered safe enough for human crews?
yesterday at 11:51 PM
Was Space Shuttle safe enough for human crews?
Space Shuttle was a compromised design from the beginning. They originally wanted the Space Shuttle booster to also have wings and return to launch site (with a crew!). But they couldn't afford to develop two new vehicles, so they compromised by making the external tank as cheap as possible and adding solid rockets (which led to the Challenger disaster).
But their biggest mistake was having the engines on the orbiter (so they could be recovered) but not the fuel tank. That meant the orbiter had to hang on the side of the external tank, which made it vulnerable to foam strikes (leading to the Columbia disaster).
Landing with wings is aesthetically pleasing (compared to tower catches) but consider the waste: You have to boost the weight of the wings, landing gear, etc. all the way to orbit and then bring it all the way back. It's much more efficient to just bring fuel and use that for landing. And if your guidance is accurate enough, a pinpoint landing means you can land on the launch tower and not worry about landing legs.
today at 12:01 AM
For the shuttle there was also a lot of interference from the Airforce, which forced them to have a massive payload bay, so AF could launch and service their big Keyhole satellites (and possibly snatch Soviet ones in one orbit without warning).
Then there was pressure to make use of solid propellants to amortize their use with military uses, not to mention pushing for Shuttle carrying all payloads for the US.
This together created the dangerous and expensive design tHat was STS.
yesterday at 11:58 PM
The space shuttle was aerodynamic for a very specific reason - they had to do a mission (that never happened) where they would launch, deploy a spy satellite into a specific polar orbit, and return back to Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in a single orbit. The result was a requirement for a lot of cross range, which needed large wings that hurt its performance a spacecraft.
Starship doesn't have that - and so it can be much more optimized for it's purpose. It's basically tanks with a cargo bay and control surfaces, while the shuttle had to toss it's tanks away every flight.
today at 12:04 AM
IIRC this could also snatch a satellite using the same profile, with no warning.
Also some in the Soviet leadership were very scared the shuttle could carry nukes clandestinely, then during an ostensibly routine mission change inclination using its wings and decapitate Moscow with no prior warning.
yesterday at 11:25 PM
You don’t want it more aerodynamic
yesterday at 11:36 PM
Do you think Space Shuttle landing is equivalent because you like all the extra weight and complexity of a landing gear, or because you like having to build a giant runway?
yesterday at 11:46 PM
Unnecessarily snarky but 100% correct!
Of course, being able to land on runways gave the Space Shuttle more choices for emergency landings than needing a chopsticks catcher.
That said, the Space Shuttle holds records for the most humans killed in spaceflight, and the most expensive cost per kilogram to LEO.
yesterday at 10:46 PM
I'll be that guy: they still have to fly it again. That's the real question. Incredible achievement. We got used to landing and caught boosters real quick!
yesterday at 11:57 PM
This was a huge milestone, but you're right that there are a long list of future milestones: catch both on the same flight, reuse of both on a given flight, fly without significant refurbishment, fly N times in T time for many values of each, orbital refueling, crew, etc.
today at 12:06 AM
Definitely! But for thr record, they did reuse the first stage previously.
yesterday at 11:42 PM
To everyone who works at SpaceX and read this. You are all amazing.
I hope other great minds at SpaceX are well remembered into the far future.
yesterday at 9:38 PM
I like that they wrote "dont panic" on the fuselage above the s42 badge
yesterday at 10:04 PM
yesterday at 9:53 PM
[flagged]
yesterday at 10:29 PM
Then they can look it up and be part of today's lucky 10000.
yesterday at 10:00 PM
It’s a foundational book for many people.
yesterday at 10:22 PM
yesterday at 10:51 PM
It’s sold over 20 million copies. I think a few people might get it.
yesterday at 11:14 PM
Plus the movie and radio series.
yesterday at 10:53 PM
Adams is still very widely read. Also, digital watches are still a pretty neat idea.
yesterday at 10:47 PM
Did it carry a towel?
yesterday at 9:42 PM
If this makes even me want to go study engineering I know it will inspire millions of youngsters into making the future we all want. Bravo!
yesterday at 9:38 PM
The engineering of this is just mind boggling awesome. The culmination of so many fields, so many factors, to this. Congrats!!!
yesterday at 10:14 PM
It is. It's a great achievement for Gwynne Shotwell.
yesterday at 10:56 PM
Yes, though not an engineering one. At SpaceX she handles business development, strategy, and ops, though she was trained as an engineer and did it previously in her career. I think this is almost the more impressive feat here, not to diminish the engineering leap.
Definitely a name that won’t be forgotten anytime soon.
yesterday at 10:59 PM
> bind boggling
mind bottling
yesterday at 9:33 PM
Watched it with my 5 year old daughter (3 year old son was sadly uninterested), and we were both cheering and high fiving. Very exciting.
yesterday at 9:27 PM
So precise it was almost boring - incredible work. Kudos.
yesterday at 11:52 PM
The "Baby Come Back" soundtrack really brought this home for me. What an incredible achievement. Very moving.
yesterday at 10:27 PM
I know engineering is about expediency, and price, but I’m still bummed that we aren’t getting ships with landing gear in this or likely the next generation of rockets either.
Seems that the heavier the rocket the more ground clearance to need to self-land, and so you can’t scale up the dragon’s landing system. I don’t think there’s anywhere near enough weight to shave off of the next rocket or enough specific impulse to add to bring the size back down.
yesterday at 10:30 PM
Starship HLS has landing gear. For Earth landings everything is so marginal that the weight penalty of landing gear is too high.
yesterday at 11:39 PM
Also, landing it on the chopsticks makes rapid turnaround easier.
today at 12:08 AM
Yeah, the chopstics mechanism is just so elegant in the end!
It can catch both stages & be used to stack the thing as well, simple and genius!
yesterday at 10:38 PM
The space shuttle orbiter definitely had a lot more cool factor.
yesterday at 11:27 PM
I think I’m convinced that VTOL is a better engineering trade off for space ships rather than making space planes.
yesterday at 10:46 PM
It was extremely cool 45+ years ago. But the space race ended, and while government-funded space programs did some fantastic work beyond that (space telescopes and Mars landers), it took capitalism to develop the resuable rocket, then scale it up to Starship proportions.
yesterday at 11:29 PM
Like 50% of SpaceXs initial development came from tax payer money.
yesterday at 11:37 PM
The government was a customer. That’s very different from the government giving a research grant.
That’s like saying 25% of Exxon’s development came from tax payer money because the government uses a shitload of oil.
today at 12:21 AM
A more accurate analogy would be giving contracts to Exxon back before they had ever found or drilled a single oil well, as their primary source of revenue to subsidize their R&D and learning curve, in the hope that they would eventually be able to supply the government with needed oil, and ultimately succeeded to become a key supplier.
yesterday at 11:40 PM
It also had a large stupid factor. Like one of von Braun's Germans was reported to have said: "they reinvented the wheel -- and made it square."
yesterday at 10:32 PM
I had to read the comment below (from u/modeless) before I realized by landing gear you meant the upright ones. I thought you wanted it to land sideways like a plane. (Arguably doable, though the control systems might add a lot more weight)
yesterday at 10:50 PM
The problem with space planes is they are terrible planes, terrible rockets, and feed the egos of pilots.
To be fair to NASA and the astronauts, NASA needed humans who behave like military test pilots. In physiology, in reaction time, in crisis management, in following chain of command. And the armed forces were willing to give them access to known quantities.
We didn’t know how control systems would evolve over the next three decades, but the pilots wanted to pilot, and did not trust the control systems. And the irony of it all is that the Space Race was a proxy war for nuclear armament, so control systems needed to be made autonomous anyway.
Better control systems, wider telemetry, and not worrying about incinerating employees let current generation rocketry iterate faster, and do more fucking around and finding out. We found out twice with the shuttle and it killed the program.
It’s curious how much the upper stage now resembles a space shuttle on a ballistic trajectory instead of a glide angle. Very different landing strategies for those two modes of descent…
yesterday at 10:31 PM
Yeah the Starship program isn't about landing on Mars or even going there.
It's about pumping mass into low Earth orbit, partly for commericial, but mostly military purposes such as Golden Dome. Been in the works for decades and finally here. The people who know are very excited.
yesterday at 10:49 PM
Starlink is pretty amazing tech which can be used for both good and evil - from enabling reliable communication in disaster zones to letting civilians browse social media from remote locations to communicating with weapons of war.
yesterday at 11:03 PM
Every product has the same adoption curve. Early customers pay a premium which pays for building the factories, not just the product. By the time everyone is using them the prices have gotten low enough that the price is informed by supply rather than demand.
SpaceX being their own customer, and a lower priority one, lets them levellize their revenue, which also helps retain staff. And if anyone commoditizes launch systems, they have a hedge against that. However if demand for starlink ever does exceed capacity, the launch side could find their schedules being much more variable.
In software, you see this with priority queues all the time if you know where to look. Someone makes a “low priority” system that soaks up spare capacity. Internal customers become dependent on these systems and then become delay-averse. Meanwhile, other teams also start soaking up that spare capacity, by improved design or feature creep or both. That low priority system becomes starved of resources, and the internal customers start saber rattling. That system gets its own dedicated resources, and now stranded resources climb back to the original levels, if not worse.
Starlink will eventually become the same thing. And I wonder if they will spin it off when that situation arises.
yesterday at 11:01 PM
> to communicating with weapons of war
You could say the same thing for terrestrial internet. Not trying to be contradictory, I just find this a very interesting ethical topic.
yesterday at 11:11 PM
The Internet was built to be literally bomb-proof rather than figuratively. The utility of that has been self evident and “five nines” thinking continues this tradition. AWS AZs are meant to partially survive floods and wildfires. A super volcano would take out an entire region but people would have other problems at that point (the exception being if emergency services were on those machines, but disaster teams have been learning to bring emergency infrastructure with them ever since New Orleans).
As a UIUC student used to be fond of reminding me, part of the University of Illinois’ contribution to the old Internet was in a building that, if it were to collapse, would fall outward and not crush the basement. Officially that building was designed so every office has natural light, like a collapsible water cup, but it’s a very interesting coincidence that it (the basement) is bomb proof.
yesterday at 11:03 PM
Yeah but Starlink also intends to put weapons ONBOARD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s...
yesterday at 11:07 PM
Defensive weapons.
It would be a pretty inefficient way to deploy offensive weapons.
yesterday at 10:55 PM
I unfortunately agree. Years ago I realized the Mars talk was just talk when I noticed that Musk and SpaceX were not funding any of the other stuff you’d need to fund if you wanted to “make life multiplanetary.”
Continuing to iterate on self contained biospheres and long term closed cycle life support? (Not a solved problem!) Working on construction techniques for the Moon or Mars? Studies on the dose response curve for gravity, like sponsoring a spin lab for the ISS to at least see if mice can reproduce in 0.3g? Self contained industrial infrastructure leaning heavily on 3D printers? Psychological research on the best way to build interiors and run social units?
Musk could personally fund all of that with little impact on his net worth.
It’s also decades of work. Some of what I listed is harder than the rockets. Better get started if you want to have a settlement on Mars this century.
Nope. Nothing. Just rockets, the a satellite network that is clearly “dual use.” Then Trump 2.0 and lots of “golden dome” (Star Wars 2.0) talk.
It’s not to go to Mars.
I love space and I hugely admire the engineering achievement, but it’s disappointing to learn for this and many other reasons that the people behind it were not the visionaries they pretended to be. They’re just more territorial apes obsessed with ape tribal stuff like race and nationalism and fighting over dirt at the bottom of a gravity well. Small minds with big toys.
yesterday at 11:46 PM
I don’t think is right at all. It’s just Musk focusing on the fundamentals of ‘what is stopping us making significantly (100x or 1000x) more progress on space exploration. And the answer to that is that it’s just too expensive to launch mass off the earth.
If you make it much cheaper, then everything else flows from that. You no longer have to spend years engineering everything at the cutting edge of your mass budget. You can use off the shelf parts, you can have redundancy.
The gains will come when these flights become commonplace.
today at 12:06 AM
Biosphere stuff is more fundamental than just mass. We had several closed ecosystem projects built on the ground out of concrete, with no mass limits, and all of them failed.
today at 12:23 AM
A habitat on Mars would certainly not be closed ecosystem, especially not in the beginning. The biggest issue at biosphere IIRC was CO2 poisoning. You can crack the air in a mars habitat with power and in the worst case find Martian resources that will do some advantageous chemistries
yesterday at 11:16 PM
> a spin lab for the ISS to at least see if mice can reproduce in 0.3g?
That was done and the results were published a few months ago, but the study did not have any relationship with SpaceX.
The results were rather pessimistic for the long-term missions on Moon or Mars.
In my opinion, even if it is possible that humans might support a somewhat lower gravity than mice, the conclusion is that for interplanetary travel humans must use only spaceships that create artificial gravity by rotation.
The results of the study were that mice require a gravity of at least 2/3 of that of Earth to stay in perfect health and of at least 1/3 of that of Earth to avoid extremely severe health damage.
This means that even on Mars the gravity is not sufficient for long-term human life. In an underground Mars base, one could make a part with increased gravity by rotation, where the crew should spend most of the time, but that would increase a lot the complexity of building and maintaining such a base.
today at 12:06 AM
I didn’t know this had been done.
If the results hold then it’s another thing that counts toward settling space, not another planet.
It’s where I’ve been leaning for a while. If we want to go beyond Earth build huge rotating stations or spacecraft. Don’t just go down another gravity well.
Build your own spin stations and dial in the exact gravity and everything else you want. Mine asteroids, which are super easy to access. You can launch mass off an asteroid by throwing it really hard.
yesterday at 11:25 PM
Or by constant thrust at 1/3g, or a mix of thrust and rotation that achieves sufficient acceleration, though spinning + thrust means precession which I’m glad isn’t my job to zero out.
Unless someone invents the Epstein drive we aren’t going to have astronauts experiencing acceleration for months rather than minutes of the trip. And the more constant the acceleration the shorter the trip anyway.
yesterday at 11:05 PM
The Mars smokescreen was strong so a lot of people bought into it, even employees who didn't have the security clearances.
The origin of SpaceX with Michael D. Griffin and Pete Worden really make it clear though.
https://ioc.exchange/@muskfiles/116333241408716236
yesterday at 11:07 PM
Curious to know what the smoke would be screening?
today at 12:01 AM
Sounds like they're saying it's actually for military applications.
today at 12:18 AM
Really interesting. I remember scratching my head a little about stainless steel. It’s durable but heavy, cuts into payload fraction, and probably not what you would pick if the goal was to shoot interplanetary. At least not for the upper stage. Maybe for the big chunky reusable booster, but there aluminum probably makes more sense. Falcon is aluminum so it’s already the devil they know anyway.
I recall talk about transpiration cooling. My guess is it died due to complexity or that it would use fuel as coolant which further eats mass. There was a bunch of original work on composites which would make way more sense if you want to hit high energy orbits.
You could still, AFAIK, use Starship to put a bunch of components into LEO and assemble something to go interplanetary. Or at least its booster.
I have wondered if we won’t see interplanetary on a big scale (beyond Apollo scale) until we have fusion or beamed power. You could put up a beamed power constellation with this architecture I guess.
But it makes a lot more sense as is for LEO military applications. I can see that.
The weird Musk-Russia links, if that is real, are odd given this thesis. If we are building Golden Dome or whatever it’s called now then who is the adversary? If not Russia than who?
China isn’t expansionist beyond Taiwan and it’d be way cheaper to build our own domestic TSMC than to fight that proxy war.
North Korea and maybe Iran are the only other credible threats with an interest in attacking the US, and they are kind of a joke compared to Russia and China when it comes to long range capacity.
yesterday at 11:06 PM
Oh I doubt very much he has given up on that. He's smart enough to know that the delivery time is going to be extremely variable, and that most of the other problems involve figuring out how to make the place palatable to humans, which is just too far in the future right now. Don't bite off more than you can chew.
yesterday at 11:49 PM
> which is just too far in the future right now.
How much time is needed to do the required research? Like, how long it would take to learn how to create an artificial biosphere on a small scale, so you can have a farm on the Moon or Mars? 10 years? 20 years? Maybe 50 years? Isn't now is the good time to start the research?
yesterday at 11:14 PM
The silver lining is that if Elon had continued pushing for Mars, to not let it happen organically, Mars would become a company town, with all the bad connotations that ever had, with paying for air added on top of it.
today at 12:11 AM
Until they toss Musk out an airlock and found the Mars Colonial Republic. :)
yesterday at 9:25 PM
Congratulations to the steely eyed missile men and women of SpaceX.
yesterday at 9:29 PM
I wonder if John Aaron was watching. Or Gene Kranz. Both are still alive.
yesterday at 10:08 PM
They surely would have been watching. Unless that wasn't an option :-)
yesterday at 9:50 PM
I imagine this is what it was like to witness Apollo 11 55 years ago.
today at 12:22 AM
This isn't even remotely close to that.
yesterday at 11:43 PM
I was nine. I remember our black and white TV, the crackling from the picture tube's high voltage wiring adding a tang of ozone. We stayed up late that night.
yesterday at 10:19 PM
Er, no. Nothing like it. Grabbed from your bed in the middle of the night, bundled downstairs to watch (grainy) and hear (crackly) weird things on a black-and-white TV, while adults, including strangers, whooped and shouted drunkenly. I understood the Apollo 11 thing only in the days after, through news reports. The live event was as impenetrable to me as a dream. Then again, I was half-asleep and five years old.
yesterday at 10:36 PM
I was seven, and I happen to have had a profoundly different experience than you. There was a massive rocket mania and all the kids I knew wanted to see the landing.
Russ Olsen does a great keynote about the life-changing experience for those of us so affected. I happened to be in the audience for this edition and it was something special to be old enough to remember it much as he remembered it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMZBA7KHnHQ
yesterday at 11:06 PM
[flagged]
yesterday at 10:39 PM
My grandma was one of the only person with a TV where she lived, half of the town was in her living room, nothing comparable. I bet most people watched this on their toilet seat before scrolling to the next cool thing as if it was nothing
yesterday at 11:58 PM
> I bet most people watched this on their toilet seat before scrolling to the next cool thing as if it was nothing
I think GP tries to compare _their_ experience (not the experience of "most people") with what people felt 55 years ago.
idk about them, but I watched it in a live stream starting about an hour early, because I wanted to see the reentry (that plasma is something special) and I didn't want to miss things. Still I don't think it is the same. Not after Falcon 9 landings, double Falcon 9 boosters landings and catching of the Starship first stage. I expected it to be caught today. Got some doubts after the booster missed the tower, but still pretty sure that 2nd stage would make it.
yesterday at 11:56 PM
yesterday at 11:13 PM
Honestly if this thread had the actual number of points it deserved based on the kind of milestone this represents for humanity's future and access to space, it would be in the millions.
If you don't follow rocketry you can't possibly understand what this means.
This was the Trinity test.
And even if you hate Elon and all his businesses, this knowledge will proliferate. Either by talent movement / osmosis, by espionage or just being inspired ("if they can do it, maybe we have a chance as well").
Within a decade the average cost to LEO will drop 20x-50x and if you're not recovering both of your stages, you don't exist.
today at 12:02 AM
will scaling the size of the rocket continue to be the way to go? will doing a three stage setup make sense?
today at 12:08 AM
The tyranny of the rocket equation says no, probably not. As you add mass the amount of fuel you need goes up exponentially.
today at 12:05 AM
Can anyone explain this to an idiot like to me? I follow information tech, but am pretty ignorant on engineering/space.
I recall the SpaceX chopsticks catch from about a year ago, which looked great.
This looks similar (heavy thing lands smoothly on a platform) but I gather it's very different from the comments?
today at 12:15 AM
today at 12:14 AM
Previously they successfully caught the booster returning to the launch site from ~100 km about ~10 minutes from launch.
Here they caught the upper stage ,called starhip, which went to ~260 km orbit, deployed 50 tons of satellites and after 22 hours shed its orbital velocity and manuevered to be caught with centimeter precision. :)
today at 12:23 AM
Oh nice, it's great to see each milestone along the way.
I suppose the challenges with this step are that after starship did its job, we expect it to be worse-for-wear, and so maybe less able to stably land? (But it did it!)
yesterday at 9:26 PM
Do we know why they didn't try to catch the booster?
yesterday at 9:41 PM
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2121648438144024943
booster was low on fuel, plus no mood of risking tower with boom, boosters are cheaper than towers.
yesterday at 10:48 PM
Cool. And people thought he wrote this himself!
today at 12:19 AM
If he doesn't write his own tweets then he hires someone with the same personality to write them. They are not notably restrained or anti-inflammatory.
today at 12:01 AM
Such Elon rage! I love the downvotes. Always worth it.
yesterday at 9:27 PM
Slight underperformance in the engines resulted in the the booster not reaching where it was supposed to be and the GNC systems automatically aborted to the gulf for safety.
yesterday at 9:27 PM
Two reasons floating around. 1.)They lost communication with tower 2.)They ran out of fuel for safe land.
source: Scott Manley https://youtube.com/shorts/m2oGDCvDmdE?si=0AlX8sgHDihXCED6
yesterday at 9:27 PM
Apparently the booster signaled it didn't have enough fuel to risk it. Either because it consumed more then expected on the way up, or a measurement error potentially.
yesterday at 9:34 PM
At the last moment the exhaust turned green. That's consistent with the fuel running out, the engines running oxygen rich, and subsequently "engine rich". So I would put my money on actually running out vs a measurement error.
yesterday at 9:29 PM
I heard somewhere the engine efficiency is still somewhat variable so they burned more fuel than anticipated.
yesterday at 9:32 PM
That's basically what Musk said, yes: that they need to work on both engine performance and performance consistency. He said they'd be cutting off the main engines one second sooner to provide more margin for boost-back.
Amazing that a one-second difference can matter, but those things go through tons of fuel every one of those seconds!
yesterday at 9:28 PM
"Slightly low on fuel."
If I understand correctly, the margin was tight enough not to take the risk of damaging the tower.
yesterday at 9:32 PM
And if the landing footage is any indication, it sure looks like they would have made the catch anyway if they'd gone for it.
yesterday at 9:45 PM
landing footage shows exactly why they didn't attempt the tower catch - the final braking burn was engine rich (green tint), it didn't blow up, but there was a respectable chance of it just crashing into the tower running on less than fumes
yesterday at 11:05 PM
I'm not sure thats the case. the booster hovered for what seemed a lot longer than prior booster landing attempts. Almost like they were purposely running out the fuel.
yesterday at 10:10 PM
The goal, as I understand it, is to return the booster with as little fuel as possible at time of catch -- and not run short.
The booster footage indicated to me that its engines turned off, and then the body of the booster imploded, before it touched the ground and then became the expected fireball.
I'm definitely not a rocket scientist, but this series of events leads me to believe that the fuel was absolutely exhausted.
yesterday at 10:33 PM
Sounds like the final boom was intentional from control
yesterday at 10:37 PM
Perhaps it was, and if so: It occurred subsequent to the implosion.
(In case that distinction is missed, I do mean "implode" as the antonym of "explode".)
yesterday at 9:38 PM
Their risk tolerance would probably be greater if both towers were fully operational. But any damage to the only functional tower during booster catch = an automatic abort to the ship catch one day later, and the ship catch is what was really interesting at this point of development.
yesterday at 10:35 PM
The previz imagery of their plans for the Louisiana coast showed pairs of towers dotting the coast. At first I thought they were for alternating the cadence of launches, but now I wonder if one is to catch the booster and the other to catch ship.
yesterday at 11:28 PM
They need another cheaper tower just for catching. Much less mass when landing.
today at 12:23 AM
Their design goal is to be able to relaunch in an hour. Moving between stage zeros along with all of the rest to be done would likely make that impractical.
yesterday at 11:44 PM
The existing towers can only handle empty ships & boosters. The tower stacks them, then they’re fueled. A catch-only tower would avoid some cladding and the propellant loading lines, but it would still need a deluge system and a QD arm to replace any remaining propellant with inert gas. At that point you might as well pay a little more and get a fully capable tower.
yesterday at 10:52 PM
Do we know what sea life just died as the booster exploded? What are the impacts to the Texas Gulf when a booster detonates into the ocean?
yesterday at 11:08 PM
Probably next to nothing compared to what we fish out of the ocean constantly.
yesterday at 11:42 PM
idk, i'll take a look after i finish eating my steak dinner
yesterday at 9:23 PM
Holy ship, it was picture perfect capture!
yesterday at 10:04 PM
This is absolutely incredible!! I can’t wrap my head around this.
yesterday at 9:24 PM
That was incredible to watch!
Huge congratulations to the team.
yesterday at 11:06 PM
If you ignore the scale it doesn’t seem all the impressive. But the scale is bonkers.
yesterday at 9:42 PM
We witnessed history today
yesterday at 9:28 PM
Ah man I just missed it. The live feed is just stock footage. Any links to the catch?
today at 12:10 AM
different angle of view with Elon commenting https://www.youtube.com/shorts/M-krN98_Vy4
yesterday at 9:23 PM
Damned impressive.
yesterday at 9:26 PM
That was incredible impressive, what a feat of engineering!
today at 12:12 AM
The Chinese one was more impressive
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GJ-wZLLuh9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt1V9UWhuKk
yesterday at 9:32 PM
The heat shield looks very good. Excited to see how much work it will take to fly this again. I'm in awe. I like the future sometimes.
yesterday at 10:31 PM
Seemed to me two tiles were missing, including one right in the center of the ship's belly, but no hull damage.
yesterday at 9:35 PM
Best thing ever built and it works!!!
yesterday at 9:34 PM
How many years until the next milestones?
- in orbit refueling
- moon landing
- Mars rendez-vous
- Mars landing
- humans on Mars
Nah, the game is to put data centers in space. Plus the Space Force dreams.
yesterday at 9:46 PM
It's important to be able to set aside cynicism, even if for a single hour, to enjoy technological achievements like this.
yesterday at 9:55 PM
I am not a cynic, but a realist. It is easy to do things when you put a ton of money towards the effort so I find this nothing special. Maybe when I was a child these things would fascinate me, but they are just engineering.
So, what would amaze me? Ending homelessness in the United States. Because that takes more than money. I would like to swap the "passion" or engineering for the "compassion" of ending suffering. Very easy to shape and change material things, very hard to change the heart.
The people you want to share your excitement might be suffering under the same separation of wealth that made this landing possible. (Yet there is little talk that they failed to catch the booster and it exploded).
yesterday at 11:58 PM
Me and four other engineering graduates just sat and watched this around a big TV in my mates apartment in Sydney, and what we saw was an amazing team, delivering amazing engineering results. Just take a win for humanity for once.
yesterday at 11:16 PM
Homelessness is largely driven by personal choice and by our desire to not compel the "unhoused" into mental institutions where they'd probably be better served.
There are ample government and private support mechanisms, including housing and food, but most choose not to take advantage.
yesterday at 10:23 PM
> Ending homelessness in the United States
You don't need private people/companies or more taxes for that. US has enough resources to do it already. Maybe you should go ask your politicians, better yet, ask your friends/neighbors/yourself if you are ready to take the drastic steps necessary to solve that.
yesterday at 10:27 PM
Well to start off, I am homeless, so I can’t really ask myself for help with that.
But imagine engineering hearts so that we did not have to ask?
yesterday at 11:15 PM
Of course, you should not need to ask, in a better world.
If govt really cared about it, more than that, if (most) PEOPLE really cared about it, it should be top 3 priority of any govt in any country.
- Govt should build massive cheap hotel-type housing spaces (full free) equipped with bare minimum necessities like roof, heating, food, basic healthcare (not million $ free cancer treatment).
- Mandatory drug rehabilitation (if applicable)
- Mandatory job search/placement/training
- Jail with forced-labor for people who put no effort and/or causes disturbance
If your govt has $6M to fund tourism in Egypt, money to fund opera/ in columbia, comic book in peru, then they have money to help homeless people IN the country. No money should go to non-citizens (let alone non-citizens in another country) while citizens of a country go homeless.
I am typing this from the security of my home, without worrying about 0c temp, or food. So it is easy for me to say this but still, I am sorry that you are going through this, and I sincerely wish you the best; that your life turns around, even if just a little, enough to have a roof over your head.
yesterday at 10:46 PM
Thank you for for making this comment. It helped me realize in myself what's changed over the last few years.
I grew up reading Zubrin's The Case for Mars, The Martian, and October Sky. I went to space camp at NASA, and as a 14 year old I sent an angry email to NASA when I learned of the early ISS decommission date(they later extended the lifespan several times, and I like to think I was the reason ;) ).
I followed Bigelow Aerospace in the 2000s doing the only interesting commercial work in space, and afterwards became amongst the first online SpaceX fanboys, long before they ever landed a merlin engine.
I studied hard in school with a passion of going to Embry-Riddle to learn to build rockets - though I ultimately chose a software path in life instead, I stayed an enormous space fanboy over the 2010s, frequenting the SpaceX subreddit and catching every launch and landing stream I could live.
I've cried watching so many rocket landings. The spirit of human endeavor is god damn BEAUTIFUL to me.
I want to point my finger and say that everything else changed. The Internet became what it is. Elon Musk showed his true colors. Software Engineering became middle management.
But the truth is that I've changed.
I care about the people wealth disparity hurts more than I do about us getting our perfect vision of the future now now NOW.
The faster we pump this machine, the louder the Earth is SCREAMING.
The world is on fire, and we're covering it in data centers with the goal of building artificial machines for strip-mining humanity of the very competency in engineering that has given us so much joy.
We're caught up in a race to the bottom and without diverting our path I have to wonder if this starship landing will be one of the last great human-driven engineering achievements before we lose the ability to do so ourselves.
I don't think the answer is to swap the passion for engineering with compassion, as I think they can both live happily together, but I hear where that desire is coming from.
It's coming from a place of love.
And when the last tree has fallen, we may find that we cannot eat money.
May love fill this place.
yesterday at 11:11 PM
Thank you for having the courage to post this
yesterday at 10:07 PM
ofc a comment like that would get downvoted by investors and technologists, but yes i agree, if you have enough imagination and money, almost anything in engineering is eventually possible. that same imagination and money is rarely spent on making the experience of living beings who are suffering nicer. but we dont live in a 1D world and all people need a win, engineering nerds included.
today at 12:14 AM
Space is unique in consistently attracting comments like GP's. Literally no other endeavor, no matter how boring or silly, attracts these. Has been so since before the Internet, even.
Even pointing out that this is just private company doing private stuff - so no government money to accuse of being misallocated, which was the only thing that gave those evergreen comments some legitimacy - won't help. I guess it's just inertia now.
At least this is talking about homelessness and not feeding people; the latter was getting too easy to push back on by pointing out just how much space contributed to farming and food security.
yesterday at 10:13 PM
Semaglutide will likely help on the homelessness front, both directly and by helping us understand deep drives better in general.
Musk's Neuralink is ironically likely to help on the psychiatric disorder side.
Just Send More Money™ is not likely to help (as you recognize). Neither is "compassion".
yesterday at 10:31 PM
And a $25,000 EV will alleviate the auto crisis in Americ- wait a minute...!
yesterday at 9:49 PM
It is important to recognize what technology will be used for and demand it won‘t be used for evil.
yesterday at 9:53 PM
The implied claim being "datacenters are evil"?!
yesterday at 10:03 PM
s/evil/a scam/
yesterday at 9:55 PM
That ship has sailed since the V2 rocket.
yesterday at 10:09 PM
Since the rock and the stick.
yesterday at 10:28 PM
That ship has sailed since the first rockets were used to launch bombs and incendiaries somewhere in China, a long time ago. Hammers can be used to build and to kill. Knives cut wood as well as flesh. Humans are belligerent primates whether we want it or not, changing that isn't something even all humanities faculties in the world can manage nor any ideologue intent on creating the New Soviet Man or Übermensch or transhumanist. Fortunately there tend to be more people intent on doing 'good' things with technology than 'bad', where 'good' can also include defending against those doing 'bad' things even though that is a thin line to walk.
yesterday at 9:52 PM
Is it? I mean, I’m loving this historic event but if someone wants to remember the stupid parts, what’s wrong with that?
yesterday at 9:53 PM
[flagged]
today at 12:11 AM
Couple of milestones before that:
- flying reused booster + Starship
- longer in orbit missions for Starship of weeks or months. There are some non trivial issues with that probably; and you'd need that to not make refueling pointless.
- having two active launch sites. Nor strictly required but probably handy if you are going to have two Starships in orbit at the same time.
They might not get to all that in that order. But the important step today is that they get to inspect a "flight proven" Starship without water damage. I bet they are going to learn a lot of details of where exactly they need to iterate and improve. This took them some time with Falcon 9 as well. We've gotten used to this thing basically launching and landing without many issues. But that wasn't always the case. 2027 is probably going to see an increase launch rate.
Moon landings are going to be an interesting one because it depends on NASA as well and the decision making around that is very political. On the other hand, there's going to be increasing peer pressure from the Chinese. They have their own plans and it doesn't involve waiting for NASA to get there first. They are targeting 2030 for a manned mission. I expect the politics might get a bit more opinionated on that topic as that gets closer. The long term game here is not just landing and planting another flag but actually establishing a permanent presence on the moon. That involves flying useful payloads back and forth. Starship seems designed for that.
What happens after that is going to be an interesting one. IMHO, Starship is optimal for earth landings but not necessarily for the moon and Mars. What's currently flying is probably over engineered for a place with no atmosphere and one 6th of the gravity (the moon) or a very thin atmosphere and one third of the gravity (Mars). Would those flaps even work in the Mars atmosphere? However, it's a great launch vehicle to get components in space to build something more optimal. Also the booster might be used to launch other things than Starship. Like something that will never come down and can instead be fueled for deep space missions and Mars/Moon landings.
today at 12:18 AM
They did refly one of the boosters already.
yesterday at 10:04 PM
In orbit refueling is likely next year. The goal is to have two shots at a moon landing in 2028.
And a nuclear ion rocket scheduled for 2028 as well.
The current NASA administrator is doing a good job getting rid of all the things keeping NASA from doing things. (And at least after Artemis II, both parties in congress seemed to be on his side.)
yesterday at 10:40 PM
What was the issue that delayed Issacman's nomination/confirmation? Why was his nomination withdrawn and then renominated?
yesterday at 11:15 PM
I believe it was Trump and Elon Musk falling out over the "Big Beautiful Bill". A lot of people then campaigned for to get the job anyway, and he did.
After Artemis II, there was a moderately hilarious congressional hearing in which the Republicans insisted on giving NASA more money, the Democrats insisted on giving even more money than that, and Isaacman trying to say "we're good".
(I believe NASA got the more money.)
yesterday at 9:39 PM
Launches, Starlink, military provide cash. SpaceX needs to be profitable at least to some extent.
yesterday at 9:47 PM
All I want are bigger and more cleverly located space telescopes, a couple of more probes and orbiters around other planets and asteroids, and I want those Mars samples that Percy has been pooping over the Mars surface returned to Earth and studied in a lab. And maybe a probe to Alpha Centauri or exo-planet viewers that use the Sun’s gravitational lensing in the next 5 or 6 decades.
yesterday at 10:04 PM
We will need nuclear propulsion for a lot of that, but the good news is that it has already been built and demonstrated back in the 70s.
edit: Rate limited so adding link to interview the reply mentions here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujfF_SnxvZQ
yesterday at 10:14 PM
And NASA is working on it again! Isaacman talked about it in a recent interview with Everyday Astronaut.
yesterday at 10:15 PM
I think the concept for the Alpha Centauri probes uses solar sails and externally fired lasers[1]. The exo-planet viewer concept also proposes solar sails.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2069_Alpha_Centauri_mission
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_gravitational_lens
yesterday at 10:01 PM
Those exploration dreams can only exist via the bankrolling of government contracts and riding bubbles.
Google is only able to fund Waymo, Quantum Computing, etc because of their questionably moral ads cash cow.
yesterday at 9:49 PM
I don't know how long it will take, but I'll be here watching you seethe as they hit each one and you post another list.
yesterday at 10:04 PM
yes exactly
yesterday at 10:07 PM
“Full flow engines can’t be made!”
“Okay, they can, but the engines are too complex and expensive!”
“Okay, they can be made much simpler and cheaper, but they’re not powerful enough!”
“Okay, they’re powerful enough but the heat shield won’t work!”
“Okay, it works, but catching a rocket is impractical!”
“Okay, catching a rocket is practical, but…” <—- we are here.
yesterday at 10:22 PM
Coming up next:
"They'll never be able to re-use the ship"
"They can re-use it, but it's not economical".
yesterday at 10:27 PM
"They can re-use it economically but can't be fast enough"
"They can re-use it economically and fast back to back...but look at the amount of environmental damage!"
"They can't generate enough power to fix the damage"
"They generated enough power to undo environmental damages but ruined the sky"
...
yesterday at 10:03 PM
That's your reaction to watching this? Pretty sad.
yesterday at 9:40 PM
I mean, you need to get money from somewhere to fund your dreams. If it's datacenters in space then let be it. They are pretty cool as well. It seems a lot of people don't like them on Earth.
yesterday at 9:53 PM
>They are pretty cool as well.
That remains to be determined. The math with blackbody radiation cooling borderline works. So they may be cool, but whether it is enough ...
But I don't think we will see success before the craziness down here has settled down and they don't face the political headwinds they currently do. And I don't think that they can compete with ground based per unit cost no matter what kind of black magic they do.
yesterday at 9:39 PM
What actually is the point of all this? I'm not trying to be a snarky contrarian, I've never had any interest whatsoever in space, star trek, "what's out there?", so I genuinely don't get it.
I'm not trashing people's interests, obviously I am the odd man out in not giving a damn, I just don't see what we're trying to achieve when there are so many issues we can't even figure out on earth.
yesterday at 10:32 PM
> damn, I just don't see what we're trying to achieve when there are so many issues we can't even figure out on earth
Earth issues are mostly coordination problems. Space issues are technological problems. Elon Musk has been very successful at solving technological problems: electric vehicles, space flight, mind-machine interfaces.
It makes sense that people like him who can solve technological problems point their attention and substantial agency to the things that their unique skills place them in a position to solve.
The Elon Musk of coordination does not currently exist. One must imagine that the kind of person or school of people who instituted NATO and the US-Japan MDA and turned our one-time enemies into our staunchest allies were people of such caliber but there’s no one I know today who qualifies for that.
Musk definitely has mastered firm-level coordination but clearly national coordination (let alone international coordination) is a problem beyond even him. His teams nearly religiously point the same way, and they have achieved wonders. It is truly remarkable what these people have done. Good for them, and I’m glad to see them at it!
yesterday at 10:57 PM
Thank you for the well thought out reply. I will try to do better to understand the larger technological breakthroughs of space flight as a key development in how things modernize on earth itself
yesterday at 10:40 PM
Elon Musk is not the person building any of it. Not EVs, Space Flight or mind-machine interfaces.
He is reckless and ignorant and yes it works for some of his stuff and it doesn't work for others.
His ignorance alone in DOGE probably killed children and humans. Don't get me wrong, US of America doesn't has to pay for aid around the planet even if they contribute massivly to climate change and consumes a lot of resources importet around the planet, but his abrupt cancelation and involvment in USAID killed chilrden and humans.
Do we also ignore everything else if you list up things which are only positive? Like Boring company? Solar city? Buying Twitter and manipulating democracy around the planet? Doing an Ad tour in front of the White House and disrespecting anyone else who can't buy themselves next to Trump?
yesterday at 9:54 PM
Perhaps you don't have any clue that earth and it's inhabitants are very, very likely to be the only one, - - or, of the very few planets in our known universe, with such a sequence of events over millions if not billions of years that allow us to be living beings, evolving - - while out in space is a vacuum, intense radiation, no oxygen, no food or water for many hundreds if not thousands of light years distance away. Incredibly few of our species grasps this fact and actually appreciates it ...
yesterday at 10:08 PM
These people are completely useless. They would never come out of the cave or the forest. They'd sit in the village they were born in forever never knowing what is beyond the horizon. Never tasting the fruits of the universe forever content with only what they can see only to be wiped out by a random virus or errant rock from the sky. I am so so thankful for the engineers, scientists, and literally every junior dev at SpaceX right now.
yesterday at 9:52 PM
If you don’t get it, nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise.
The people who “had an interest” in pursuing the unknown built the entire modern world that you exist in, since so many things have some connection back to the space program, including ironically the very device you’re using to express your opinion. So it’s probably worth paying them a little respect.
yesterday at 10:38 PM
> since so many things have some connection back to the space program, including ironically the very device you’re using to express your opinion.
Well there you go. I did not know that. And yet, instead of saying, "The space program is useful because of X and Y, it's pretty cool actually, I recommend book Z about it.", I get replies that I am a lost cause who doesn't respect scientists.
Unreal. I could have a more balanced conversation with a Muslim imam about religious beliefs.
yesterday at 9:59 PM
So we did the moon landing btw.
Shouldn't you be able to articulate a proper answer without any issues?
Is it an engineering feat? Yes.
But i would bet James Webb Telescope and Moon landing were a lot bigger?!
yesterday at 10:10 PM
A single one of these Starship's payloads can deliver a telescope approximately 20-25x larger than the James Webb Telescope.
yesterday at 10:20 PM
Okaaayyy? We still were able to send James Webb up without a Starship?
Soooo?!
Its cheaper okay, we can send up bigger things good but the comment stated
"So it’s probably worth paying them a little respect."
It sounds like i get down to my knee for Space-X and i still don't get it
yesterday at 10:37 PM
With Starship, it will cost about $70-90 to put 1kg of payload into orbit.
That will open vast new opportunities for space-based researh and services.
For example a university that has to pay at least $50k to launch a research cubesat today will be able to do it for about $2k.
yesterday at 10:23 PM
This is the most powerful rocket ever constructed. It has the largest possible payload. The James Webb is tiny compared to what is possible. No other rocket can do that. End of. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
yesterday at 10:27 PM
Ah I see a fanboy.
Okay I get it, discussion useless.
Just to be clear: James Webb was build and designed with nanometer aligned optical system, has to be cooled down while being at L2, can't be serviced and repaired and it was only enough money there to build it once and took 5 years of building and 25 years of planning.
A rocket is an engineering joke inc omparision.
yesterday at 10:31 PM
That's why a car salesman could build it with fraction of cost while nasa sucking on thumb and spending 100x more money to launch anything. Cool
yesterday at 10:44 PM
It is an achievement, i'm not disagreeing with it.
I'm disagreeing with the level of it.
I'm also disappointed that we celebrate this and ignore that the richest man on the planet is also involved in reducing usability of starlink in a real war were real humans are dying. And his involvment in USAID, DOGE and co.
yesterday at 10:57 PM
Starshield is govt controlled.
Starlink is not allowed for offensive usage.
So take your complaint to govt. Also, nobody is stopping you from using starlink-alternatives.com . In fact, since you hate him, that's what you should do.
yesterday at 11:14 PM
Ukraine is defending itself and just before Trump, US of America put a lot of pressure on my country germany and the europeian union to stop doing business with Russia.
Now Elon Musk, the richecst person on the planet and part of US of America is interfering with his system, which gives him A LOT more power than a single human and non gov should have in a WAR which is not his probably due to some indirect garbage between him and the current US of America Gov.
While the EU is paying for it.
And i do not use anything Musk.
Musk has only direct negative impact on my life, no posive one. He used his money to buy twitter because he couldn't shut up and then leveraged it to manipulate and allow manipulation in our elections in germany (search for Elon Musk and AfD).
He is potentially poisening our atmosphwere with his rocket launches.
And in general, I do care about fellow human beings and i'm pissed in their names for all the people he is responsible for being killed (after all he is also responsible apparently for all the invention of the companies he invested in eh?).
yesterday at 11:29 PM
Why does EU rely on a system built by a private person?
Where is EU's innovation? Oh wait, we are busy with bottle caps, stays together like family lmao https://x.com/moritzkremb/status/2107021822155985254
Where is Germany's nuclear power plants?
Where is Germany's industry? Why is Germany axing its own legs and then crying about it? Why did Germany laugh when Trump complained about over reliance on Russian gas? Why is Germany predicted to not have enough gas this January? Why is Germany fucking up the middle class with more and more taxes? All that tax, yet almost nothing to show for. Keine geld!! Economy going to shit. People taking sick days like candy. More people dying to heat than gun violence in USA. Hours of notary to open a company. Effing europoors and you come to complain...
PS: Statistically, when I walk on the streets, every 4 German I meet, there's one nazi (as per your definition I would strongly assume). Look inside first.
today at 12:05 AM
> Why did Germany laugh when Trump complained about over reliance on Russian gas?
Any idea that Trump is a perceptive genius with regard to energy security should have been throughly dispelled with the Iran fiasco that rolls on.
today at 12:01 AM
If a private person from another country is the only one controlling space, it becomes a geo politicial and military issue.
So either we should advocate for destroying it, or we are allowed to leverage.
And for all the other things you ar ementioning: Non of them have anything to do to what i said. Its just strawman left and right.
Are you also joking about the Gas and winter? Because Donald Trump, the President of the US of America used his power to start a war with Iran.
More people in USA die from gun and heat than germans die from gun and heat.
And just because there are nazis around the world, i'm not and this is part of my argumentation. If you are a nazi and it doesnt matter to you, of course you don't understand it.
You argue with your Salesman, but don't care of anything negative about Elon Musk? As long as he catches a Rocket eh? Get a spine?
yesterday at 9:47 PM
Well considering we gave SpaceX a contract to get us to the moon and for that to happen it needs to do something ridiculous like 20+ in orbit refueling yeah it's a pretty important thing to criticize.
yesterday at 10:00 PM
What's the point of heating sand - we barely have enough food to feed our pre-industrial society.
yesterday at 9:49 PM
yesterday at 10:44 PM
It's crazy how far you have to scroll to even see this on the front page of NYT.
yesterday at 10:56 PM
Maybe people have bigger problems ? War, cost of living crisis etc ?
yesterday at 11:21 PM
Would be nice if the good news got some room on the front page, no wonder people are so hopeless when the things that would give them hope and optimism are buried under a pile of doom
today at 12:11 AM
I forgot to mention Space X has again limited Ukraines star link again so people are dying from their inability to intercept Russian ballistics…personally I find that more important front page news…you reap what you sew ?
I don’t disagree with you but this exciting for “tech people” who are into engineering. That’s about all.
yesterday at 9:55 PM
The most amazing thing i've seen in a while.
yesterday at 10:39 PM
You can see a plane passing underneath it at video timestamp 22:44:43!
yesterday at 11:35 PM
Nice catch (NPI)! Unfortunately I think it's a bit more mundane, it'll be a piece of ice breaking off the lower section of the body. If you scrub through the footage, particularly earlier in the flight (e.g. 1:43:37 on the SpaceX stream, T+54:05) you'll see other pieces of ice flying off that look very similar.
yesterday at 9:48 PM
i wonder how much fuel was left over after landing? What is their safety margin in seconds of burn remaining?
yesterday at 10:09 PM
Probably 2 to 3 seconds max? You pay a massive penalty for carrying any extra fuel.
yesterday at 9:50 PM
It's very impressive
yesterday at 9:36 PM
Magical era. What a feat!
yesterday at 9:27 PM
Holy cow.
yesterday at 9:34 PM
It's difficult to underline how huge this is. This marks the first time in the history of rocketry that the upper stage of a rocket has returned home from orbit to a safe, upright landing.
(And to preempt the obvious objection: yes, maybe you can call the Space Shuttle an "upper stage of a rocket" if you squint hard enough, but it didn't do upright landings, its external tank was not reusable and even the Shuttle itself was effectively rebuilt from scratch at exorbitant cost each time.)
It's sad to see a lot of media missing the point, eg as I type this BBC is reporting this as "SpaceX successfully catches part of Starship rocket on its return to Earth".
Edit: corrected to note that the SRBs were reusable, but the ET was not.
yesterday at 9:46 PM
> none of its boosters were reusable
Notably, they were reusable! Sure, they had to refurbish them, same with the shuttle’s main engines. The only thing they threw away was the external tank which didn’t have any engines.
today at 12:03 AM
Yeah this guy is smoking something. I actually think the shuttle landings were more impressive than this one. Not taking anything away from what they're doing here, but they're still only up to the mid-1970s technology-wise.
yesterday at 9:52 PM
> none of its boosters were reusable
The SRBs of the shuttle landed by parachute and were recovered from the water and reused
yesterday at 10:12 PM
Don't forget the X37
yesterday at 9:38 PM
Whatever you call it, the Shuttle Orbiter wasn’t a complete stage in any case. It needed the external tank, which was never recovered.
SpaceX has now demonstrated all the pieces of a fully reusable launcher. Next comes putting them all together in the same flight, and hopefully demonstrating that the flights can become frequent and cheap. There’s no guarantee of that, but it’s looking good.
yesterday at 9:40 PM
[flagged]
yesterday at 9:47 PM
If they manage to launch one of these every day it’ll be like adding a few more daily transpacific airline flights. The scale is not particularly significant.
yesterday at 10:05 PM
And adding tons of satellites in the sky.
yesterday at 10:57 PM
Not all Starship launches will be used to add satellites.
yesterday at 11:05 PM
Which does not mean they won't add satellites at a whole new scale?
yesterday at 9:41 PM
You can always tell the pearl-clutchers who have no idea what they're talking about when they complain about pollution from space travel.
yesterday at 9:44 PM
Ask astronomers what they think about Starlink then.
yesterday at 9:47 PM
Always the sign of a solid argument when the subject gets changed to a completely different one the moment there’s pushback.
yesterday at 10:05 PM
How is it completely different? Satellites are polluting the sky...
yesterday at 9:40 PM
> yes, maybe you can call the Space Shuttle an "upper stage of a rocket" if you squint hard enough
Why wouldn't it count? It is not the first time in the history of rocketry that the part that is not the boosters returns home intact.
Sure, you can say "it's the first time in the history of rocketry that it lands upright", but you could also say "it's the first time in the history of rocketry that it is not white".
If you want to say how huge this is, tell me how different it is from landing the boosters. Because from the outside it sure as hell looks very similar.
yesterday at 9:57 PM
The Space Shuttle has four parts, namely the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the two SRBs. Only the Orbiter is reusable and actually lands, the rest are jettisoned in flight. (SRBs are recovered, the ET is not.) However, the Orbiter is completely incapable of flight without the other three, so it's not a rocket stage on its own, just part of one.
As for why it's harder to catch Starship than Super Heavy, where do I begin:
* Super Heavy is suborbital, its maximum velocity is far, far less than Starship.
* Super Heavy returns upright. The Starship does the famous but aerodynamically very complex "belly flop" to reduce speed.
* Super Heavy only has two static fins to guide it. Starship has four actively controlled fins that need to survive the extreme forces of launch and re-entry.
yesterday at 10:03 PM
> The Space Shuttle has four parts, namely the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the two SRBs. Only the Orbiter is reusable and actually lands, the rest are jettisoned in flight and burn up in the atmosphere.
Nitpick- the SRBs were also recovered and reused
yesterday at 10:04 PM
Right you are, corrected.
yesterday at 10:12 PM
Thanks, the insights about Super Heavy vs Starship are interesting.
About how "huge" it is, I understand that it is economically huge: Musk will get even richer.
I would be interested in knowing how "huge" it is in terms of engineering. Like, my understanding is that they needed to invent new maths to go to the moon in the 60s. Does SpaceX compare with that, or is it "just" what you can do with a lot of money and powerful computers?
Genuinely interested, even though rocket fans will hate me for not knowing the answer and daring asking. Bring the downvotes!
yesterday at 9:58 PM
yesterday at 9:57 PM
You know what was huge? James Webb telescope.
Look its cool to see a catch like this, it doesn't necessarly feels that difficult tbh?
And I just don't get it? Is it cool to watch? yes, but whats the endgoal besides reducing costs for starlink and military stuff?
yesterday at 10:03 PM
Do you want more cool stuff like James Webb in orbit? Fully reusable huge rockets like Starship is how you get them there.
Also, remember how JWST had to do that incredibly complex and fiddly in-orbit expansion and alignment to fit together the mirror after launch? If Starship had been available at the time, this would have been far easier, since Starship has twice the diameter (four times the area) of the Ariane rocket they used to launch it.
yesterday at 10:15 PM
Can Starship get to L2?
yesterday at 11:13 PM
Yes without a shadow of doubt it could deploy two JWST on a single launch. Add in the refuling they successfully demonstrated and the sky is no longer the limit.
yesterday at 10:24 PM
[dead]
yesterday at 10:08 PM
Besides that I really really wished it wouldn't be Elon Musk, i'm looking forward to cheaper stuff so its easier to send science stuff up. Don't get me wrong at all.
But it feels like hyperbole.
Pure technically speaking, if you can fly a rocket up and control it properly, whats the crazy thing flying a rocket back down and controlling it?
Or do you see it more like a milestone seeing?
And for me, it still feels like if Elon Musk tries his Dataenter 'idea' and really sneds up everyday a Starship, we will lose a lot of control as normal humans whats going on in space and what will happen to our atmosphere.
yesterday at 10:45 PM
I think the main challenge is really the heat shielding. That is the part that is so different from the takeoff. And it actually remains to be seen if that is good enough for repeated rapid reuse.
yesterday at 10:25 PM
> Pure technically speaking, if you can fly a rocket up and control it properly, whats the crazy thing flying a rocket back down and controlling it?
It only took the entire existence of humanity to reach this point.
I'm not willing to hand-wave that away as some kind of technologically-obvious conclusion.
yesterday at 10:32 PM
"It only took the entire existence of humanity to reach this point." as everything else.
EUV required genuine new engineering for an example.
yesterday at 11:04 PM
To pick just one achievement among many, the Raptor engines on the Starship are literally revolutionary. First ever full-flow staged combustion engine, designed for both extreme reliability and cheap mass production, even the fuel they use (methalox) had never been tried at this scale.
yesterday at 11:32 PM
I agree with the engineering of Raptor engines, fair and square but does that have anything to do with catching ar ocket?
yesterday at 10:44 PM
> Pure technically speaking, if you can fly a rocket up and control it properly, whats the crazy thing flying a rocket back down and controlling it?
You are absolutely right. Same thing about just putting a battery and some motors to make a car like RC car! Same about 48v/replacing canbus. Same thing about putting some satellites on orbit for internet! Same for mobile service! Same about if humans can use eyes to drive, computers should be able to using cameras! All _simple_ things, obvious in retrospect.
Yet one man is marching forward, poking his nose in industries he does not belong, and still almost always coming on top.
Makes you wonder why existing incumbents can't do these "simple" things.
yesterday at 10:53 PM
One man who got money, has money and a cult following.
Of course he is flexible enough mentally and ignorant enough to disrupt markets, sure and for this he got rich.
But why does every Musk follower ignore all the bad things he leaves in his march forward?
All the humans around the Space-X 'city'?
Kids and Humans affected by USAID and DOGE?
His lying around everything he promised to people?
yesterday at 11:11 PM
This thread is about an achievement made by the thousands of people working at one of his companies. Elon is only a small part of the equation.
Also, I don't understand what you're even trying to say by "ignorant enough to disrupt markets". There are plenty of rich people flinging money around, few have achieved anything near what Musk did. Look at Blue Origin, which is still playing catch-up despite SpaceX already proving everything and Bezos throwing basically infinite money at it.
yesterday at 11:21 PM
Its a comment and comments reflect discussions.
Every success of his companies, give Elon Musk power and deminishes everyone who is or was affected negativly by Elon Musk.
What would you expect if HN had an article about Fat Boy launched successfully on Japan?
Pure positive comments?
yesterday at 9:59 PM
> it doesn't necessarly feels that difficult tbh?
Are you for real?
yesterday at 10:25 PM
[dead]
yesterday at 10:02 PM
?! We know how to send rockets up, we know how to send them back to earth. We know how to stabilize a rocket. I mean we fly them for ages?!
'that difficult'
Look at projects like James Webb telescope.
yesterday at 10:36 PM
You don't understand the precision required to catch a 70m tall behemoth when you have Earths atmosphere. It's not even close to bringing a capsule to an approximate area, a small ship somewhere with almost no atmosphere, or even landing a rocket on a pad (which we've only had since Falcon 9)
yesterday at 10:48 PM
But others are also working on it and showed they can do it too?
yesterday at 11:06 PM
Today was literally the first time humanity flew a rocket to orbit and landed it vertically.
yesterday at 10:33 PM
yesterday at 11:21 PM
“The James Webb telescope is just a three mirror korsch telescope in space. We’ve known how to build those since the 30s and we’ve been putting telescopes in space since the 60s. Doesn’t seem that impressive”
This is what you sound like to everyone else here
yesterday at 11:31 PM
And i can easily explain to you why this is not the case.
They put the most advanced telescope at L2 which is the most remote location 1.5 million km away which can't be serviced and can't be rebuild easily.
It has nanometer optical precision in space which needs to be cooled through multiply layers of high tec foil.
Its mirrors are precicse to nm level.
Took 25 years of planning and 5 years of building.
yesterday at 9:32 PM
Feels good.
yesterday at 9:36 PM
SpaceX made me watch engineering feats live on stream. I love it!
yesterday at 10:51 PM
yesterday at 9:23 PM
Damn, that looked smooth and glorious. This is how I'd like the future to be.
yesterday at 10:20 PM
Legendary ♥
yesterday at 10:02 PM
New tech tree unlocked for humanity.
yesterday at 9:31 PM
Congrats to the engineers.
(But lose the bastard at the top, OK?)
yesterday at 10:22 PM
He's actively holding the program back at this point. Top engineers in this industry are increasingly reluctant to join a company with a such a toxic culture and public reputation tainted by musk.
yesterday at 11:27 PM
The top engineers are already there. The top engineers care more about engineering than politics.
Source: Everyone else in SpaceXs rearview mirror - If the top engineers were elsewhere they would be ahead
yesterday at 10:33 PM
If a carsales man can do it, you can too. Go on. Open up your own SpaceY and do better. I'm sure all the top engineers will flock to yours.
yesterday at 9:51 PM
yesterday at 9:47 PM
This achievement likely changes the course of life in this solar system.
yesterday at 9:54 PM
What?
Why?
Are suddenly aliens on the moon or mars and now because its cheaper to send stuff there, its now suddenly economically worthwhile to do so?
yesterday at 10:46 PM
The course of human life, now much closer to Mars colonization, thanks to reusable launch being so much cheaper than expendable.
yesterday at 10:58 PM
Mars colonization doesn't make sense though. You can't colonize a planet which is not self sufficient and depends on planet earth.
If you do'nt 'fix' earth why fixing up mars?
yesterday at 10:15 PM
[flagged]
yesterday at 10:22 PM
I think you are not smart enough to articulate it yourself and instead of even trying to answer it properly, you are deflecting.
Do i like rockets? yes. Do i think Space is interesting? yes.
But suddenly we want to go to space because of what? It got cheaper? So whats the economic value which will pay for this?
yesterday at 10:38 PM
This sounds a lot like the 'we want a faster horse' quote attributed to Henry Ford. Yes, if space access gets significantly cheaper people will suddenly want to access space just like people did suddenly want to take aeroplanes to distant sunny destinations for a mere few weeks once that became somewhat affordable while before that going to those places was something you read about in adventure novels or National Geographic Magazine. Space hotels will become a thing for those who can afford it, maybe those 'giant wheels in the sky' will be built as well because someone like Musk thought 'why not?'.
yesterday at 10:49 PM
Radiation, missing gravity and risk.
But sure i will take the space tourism.
yesterday at 11:11 PM
If you want the Vulcans to take notice, you gotta get to warp speed. Building the transporter of the parts/pieces of that kind of ship is just the first step.
yesterday at 11:27 PM
I do like this take though
yesterday at 9:30 PM
Impressive how reliable they've made those engines!
yesterday at 9:29 PM
Kind of crazy to reduce the hardware on ship so much and move so much complexity to the ground. This can really only happen in a situation where anybody can throw out any dumb idea, because if you suggested this 20 years ago people would think you are an idiot.
yesterday at 10:19 PM
That's...the point. You can hire commercial welders to work on the ground side and build everything out once, cheaply.
The issue with the shuttle era was that they needed huge teams of specialized technicians to refurbish the insanely complex orbiter after every mission.
If we ever get sufficiently improved materials science for heat shields and engines there's still always a possibility of returning to the SSTO space plane concept. That would allow a more austere launch and recovery environment, but given current limitations this is the local maxima.
yesterday at 9:53 PM
What do you mean? Reducing the complexity of the drive doesn't mean moving anything to ground?
Or do i miss something?
yesterday at 9:29 PM
perfect. hyperbole failure moment
yesterday at 9:29 PM
This is exactly the most impressive feat of engineering I have ever seen.
Only catching both the booster and the rocket would top this one. But the rocket only being caught is still impressive regardless.
SpaceX below $1T is criminally undervalued.
yesterday at 10:26 PM
SpaceX below $1T is criminally undervalued.
Launch itself isn't super profitable and doesn't have a very big TAM, especially if you carefully treat the TAM as a present value and discount future cash flows. Also, at least by my personal guesswork, Starlink alone shouldn't get close to a $1 trillion valuation. It seems like the current valuation is based on people's guesses about the likelihood that space data centers pan out in a big way.
yesterday at 11:30 PM
> It seems like the current valuation is based on people's guesses about the likelihood that space data centers pan out in a big way
The Starship program is one of - if not the - biggest risks here. Making starship work could bring the launch cost down far enough to derisk that whole program, and today just made it a lot less risky
yesterday at 11:07 PM
We've seen the booster landing/catch before, but seeing the ship do it with the belly flop definitely looked cooler to me. I still remember the awe of watching two boosters land at the same time after a heavy launch. Watching the transition from bellyflop to landing gave me the same awe and being impressed.
yesterday at 9:51 PM
Why is Space-X undervalued because they can catch a rocketship?
You do understand that a company needs to have a business case equivilient to its valuation right?
Going to Moon only costs money, going to Mars only costs money.
Our whole planet sends 1000-2000t of payload into space, most of it is now starlink.
yesterday at 10:03 PM
> Why is Space-X undervalued because they can catch a rocketship?
The market values SpaceX over multiple areas of the business and their future plans and it isn't just this event which they have proven to accomplish.
> You do understand that a company needs to have a business case equivilient to its valuation right?
Nope. That is not how this works nor how investors see it. It is about their total addressable market (TAM) which SpaceX can capture over everyone else. So here are some more further questions:
1) Who is paying SpaceX for the compute that they have?
2) How quick is SpaceX building their data centers to support their customers?
3) How many people use Starlink as their primary internet provider?
You understand that almost all of where SpaceX businesses can expand into those areas and grow into that valuation and higher?
> Our whole planet sends 1000-2000t of payload into space, most of it is now starlink.
Your point is?
So who else can catch and reuse a rocketship to frequently deploy satellites into space in a very short period of time? (Don't say Blue Origin.)
yesterday at 10:13 PM
1) Anthropic because Elon Musk bought too much Compute and doesn't need it for his own AI proudct. In parallel Neoclouds are building up the same compute and its more like a negative sign that they got lucky
2) ? I don't understand what you mean. Are we now talking about Datacenters for others or the space thing?
3) probably below 8 million. 10 Million customer overall, plenty as an alternative or for camping etc.
Amazon Leo is an alternative. But for sure Space-X started a race to the bottom (china, blue origin and co) so they have to start moving and use their first mover advantage.
My point is, that Space-X is already responsible for the most amount of payload which gets send into space. We as a whole planet don't have that much payload and Space-X made it alot cheaper to send payload up.
So were is the 1 Trillion evaluation? Btw. its currently at 1.89T
yesterday at 11:18 PM
> 1) Anthropic because Elon Musk bought too much Compute and doesn't need it for his own AI proudct.
The Grok models and products also use the compute in SpaceX's data centers. It only makes sense to provide that excess compute to others such as Anthropic that don't own any, and that is worth tens of billions a quarter.
> In parallel Neoclouds are building up the same compute and its more like a negative sign that they got lucky
It is not the same. You can ask any chatbot, how many GPUs do the neoclouds have over SpaceX in their data centers?
Then:
> 2) ? I don't understand what you mean. Are we now talking about Datacenters for others or the space thing?
Both. The point being that they (SpaceX) are already quickly building new ones on land codenamed "Gun Range" and "Spam" and are the only ones that can launch and connect all of them via Starlink (if they eventually launch new ones into space) and serve both themselves and new customers.
> Amazon Leo is an alternative. But for sure Space-X started a race to the bottom (china, blue origin and co) so they have to start moving and use their first mover advantage.
Amazon Leo is not even generally available. So that doesn't even count.
> My point is, that Space-X is already responsible for the most amount of payload which gets send into space. We as a whole planet don't have that much payload and Space-X made it alot cheaper to send payload up.
So what happens when the neoclouds are not able to build data centers on land anymore due to legislation that prohibits more of them getting built [0] and ultimately they get paused? Most of the neoclouds are already sold out and cannot build more of them and have deadlines on these loans with interest on them.
Maybe the compute has to be deployed somewhere else in the long term....
> So were is the 1 Trillion evaluation? Btw. its currently at 1.89T
Exactly. It if goes lower than 1T it is cheap. This is not even pricing in the building of their own semiconductor fabricator (Terafab).
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/nov/04/datacenters-...
yesterday at 11:26 PM
If you start building Datacenters up in space, you need to send A LOT of Starships up there for MONTH to get ONE normal avg size GPU based DC in Space.
This DC can then poisen our atmopshwere btw. and burns up limited resources on our own planet.
They don't need the compute because their product Grok is not competitive. They don't use the compute to make Grok better because?!
Amazon Leo will be though. Space-X has a first mover advantage, what did Tesla do with it?
today at 12:00 AM
> If you start building Datacenters up in space, you need to send A LOT of Starships up there for MONTH to get ONE normal avg size GPU based DC in Space.
This isn't a massive problem for SpaceX as you want to believe it to be.
> This DC can then poisen our atmopshwere btw. and burns up limited resources on our own planet
So are you going to tell them to pause everything? (You won't) What solution do you have to them to solve this? (You don't have any solution.)
> They don't need the compute because their product Grok is not competitive.
That is false. Otherwise they would have given up on scaling Grok already.
> They don't use the compute to make Grok better because?!
So Cursor does not have any customers that use Grok on a regular basis beyond Twitter / X? Nor does Grok Bot need the compute either? (They most certainly do.)
Efficiency gains in their inference engines allow them to use less GPUs for themselves, and also sell that excess compute to others who are otherwise sold out. Both scenarios can be true and it doesn't mean they "don't need it" either.
> Amazon Leo will be though. Space-X has a first mover advantage
With what launch pad? SpaceX has plenty of their own and are building even more.
> What did Tesla do with it?
They built self-driving cars with "FSD" and autopilot with that advantage, and your point is?
yesterday at 10:25 PM
Don't you think the US government is very likely to put restrictions on what other countries can use SpaceX services for?
yesterday at 9:33 PM
Well, both booster and ship catches have been demonstrated now.
yesterday at 9:43 PM
Did they catch both of them in this mission?
It was meant to be a dual catch of the booster and the rocketship and only the rocketship itself was caught.
Catching both of them in another mission would top this one.
yesterday at 9:54 PM
... especially if they reuse either part.
yesterday at 10:27 PM
I hope they can make significant progress before the socialists take over. They were practically begging for launch permits under Biden.
yesterday at 10:21 PM
It's just mostly newtonian physics ... nice job but not that impressive. With the right investments we could have done this decades ago.
yesterday at 10:24 PM
I want you to comment on the first commercial fusion reactor too, please
yesterday at 10:24 PM
A+ hacker news comment
yesterday at 10:35 PM
Nice! I wonder how the engineering involved here compares to the engineering behind manufacturing TSMC chips (including ASML machines, Zeiss optics etc.). Which is harder?
As it seems building rockets has historically been a capital intensive business with low profits and limited demand, so there just wasn't much competition in the space industry.
yesterday at 10:49 PM
Many countries are capable of space flight & deploying satellites.
Only a few companies in the world can manage the top-tier fab processes for modern chips.
Only one company in the world has successfully caught a rocket. *Edit: 2!
It's hard to directly compare, safe to say they are 2 of the pinnacle examples of modern human engineering.
yesterday at 11:00 PM
> Only one company in the world has successfully caught a rocket.
China did that too.
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/10/china/china-reusable-rock...
yesterday at 10:42 PM
I would say that they're orthogonal except for the requirement for exacting results and standards. Doing anything once is hard. Doing anything repeatably is hard^2.
yesterday at 10:40 PM
Chips are harder.
yesterday at 9:30 PM
Reusable stages is very neat, but seems a little crazy to pay the tyranny of the rocket equation twice. I heard one person say that carrying fuel to land over the whole flight means it takes 23x more launches to get an equivalent payload to orbit.
Using modern technology, couldn't disposable first stages be produced much more cheaply than during the space race?
How much of modern manufacturing disposable booster's cost would be fuel vs metal?
yesterday at 9:32 PM
I heard one person say that carrying fuel to land over the whole flight means it takes 23x more launches to get an equivalent payload to orbit.
I recommend talking with people who know more about spaceflight.
yesterday at 9:35 PM
Starship HLS is estimated to require 22 refueling launches to support 1 moon mission.
yesterday at 10:16 PM
OP, this is probably the source of the confusion. Some people are claiming that SpaceX will need 20+ refueling launches for human lunar landings. However, that's a very different claim than reusable rockets requiring 23x more launches just to carry the same amount of payload to Earth orbit.
yesterday at 9:53 PM
Without knowing how much it would take in expendable configuration, that doesn’t imply that it takes 23 times as many launches
yesterday at 9:41 PM
How is that even relevant? The Starship HLS launch won’t be landing the upper stage.
yesterday at 9:42 PM
> I recommend talking with people who know more about spaceflight.
Yes, because asking on HN if such people would be willing to answer obviously gets you downvotes and comments like this.
yesterday at 9:33 PM
It's not paying it twice. The rocket equation is about the ratio of the wet and dry mass, so for an expendable rocket you're always limited by the fact that there's an upper stage (and for the second stage the payload etc).
This is why SpaceX cares more about TWR for their engines than traditional rockets did. It goes from making a negligible difference to a huge component of how much fuel they need to keep for landing.
yesterday at 9:38 PM
This seems a little confused.
The 23x more launches figure comes from HLS (Nasa sponsored mission to the moon). They may well change the configuration of that anyway, but if you want to refuel in orbit, that's what it costs. It's hard to get fuel to orbit (or any sort of payload). Previous Moon missions haven't refueled anything, but they couldn't return anything heavy from the moon's surface, the vehicle got smaller and smaller as it went and many parts were left behind, so it's not comparable. You can be sure if it's cheaper to somehow do this mission with expendable boosters, they'll think about doing that.
On a normal mission just to earth orbit, there is one booster and one starship, and reusing the booster is more a question of why not save some money for a little more propellant use? The reususable booster doesn't contribute much extra weight, it uses little propellant for boostback and landing.
The booster also doesn't go all the way and you need a booster if you're going to reach orbit (due to that equation), so it doesn't take much to make it reusable. So all in all, why not make it reusable if you can? What would you save from using expendable ones?
yesterday at 9:31 PM
Fuel is so much cheaper than ships.
yesterday at 9:35 PM
But you need more ship to carry that fuel, which is exactly what the tyranny of the rocket equation refers to.
yesterday at 9:55 PM
Correct. Economics still work out pretty solidly in favor of reuse.
yesterday at 9:49 PM
This claim doesn't make sense to me, you need most of the fuel to escape gravity. Coming back is almost free.
yesterday at 10:02 PM
It costs less, but it is not free. The stages need to be designed to come back and that adds weight. Additionally you need some fuel, it is not all air breaking. And every bit of weight is really bad, because of the rocket equation.
Without internal figures no one can say what is ultimately financially better. Especially now that the development is a sunken cost.
yesterday at 11:31 PM
Yes, they should just parachute people out of planes, why reuse them thousands of times, carrying that extra fuel to land, they could go another few hundred miles.
The point is the ship and rockets are expensive vs fuel. Fly a Starship 100 times the cost is amortised over the flights and fuel+bit of refurb maintenance is tiny.
yesterday at 10:19 PM
If the fuel (+ oxidizer) ends up costing as much as 1% of the cost of launching a conventional single-use rocket then the people behind it will be very happy. That means that their rocket (+ cost of ground facilities + all the people prepping the rocket and monitoring the launch) is very cheap.
The fuel (+ oxidizer) is basically free compared to all the other costs.
yesterday at 9:34 PM
Those numbers don't make sense.
It doesn't take the same amount of fuel to land as it does to lift.
Speaking as a Kerbal Space program playing, internet commentor, It's probably <1% of the fuel to briefly counteract terminal velocity as it is to lift off and reach space.
yesterday at 9:54 PM
That 23x number is trivially refuted simply by looking at the fact that this flight delivered 52 tons of cargo to orbit. Could a similarly sized expendable rocket like the Saturn V deliver 1196 tons?
yesterday at 9:37 PM
How is it twice? Braking on the way down doesn't take nearly as much fuel as lift off so the "tyranny of the rocket equation" should be paid only once.
yesterday at 9:36 PM
"I heard one person say that carrying fuel to land over the whole flight means it takes 23x more launches to get an equivalent payload to orbit."
I don't think that this is the case when using the atmosphere to shed most of your velocity, which is what we do when landing on Earth. Propulsive braking would be another story, but you can avoid that on bodies that do have some atmosphere. In our proximity, only the Moon and Mercury would need propulsive braking, but Moon's gravity is low and Mercury is hard to visit anyway.
That said, once you use the atmosphere to cushion what is basically a fall, the weight of the necessary heat shield comes to the equation too.
yesterday at 9:34 PM
They use the atmosphere to brake, not fuel.
yesterday at 10:07 PM
That's like saying we shouldn't reuse airplanes after one flight because you'd have to fly it 23 times to have it pay for that reuse.
That's still 1000x cheaper than... building a new airplane every flight.
And anyway those numbers area about moon missions, not low earth orbit.
yesterday at 9:45 PM
Do we just look past the failed primary booster objective? (I didn't write the brief)
Edit: Yes, ignore that bit.
yesterday at 11:25 PM
We don't have to look past it. Musk said it failed because engine underperformance caused too little fuel margin. He added that they have upgrades due on future flights.
If they ran out of fuel with 50 tons of payload it certainly begs the question of whether they will get to the goal of 100 tons of payload even with upgrades.
They also had engine fail on boostback. Reliability has been a persistent problem, they'll have to fix it for refueling and manned operations.
yesterday at 9:55 PM
Booster catch has been done as has booster re-flight. The only remaining part of the full functionality that has not been proven out is ship reuse.
yesterday at 9:59 PM
I see.
"The booster’s primary objective on Flight 15 will be executing a successful launch, ascent, stage separation, boostback burn, and return to the launch site for catch. This will be the first return and catch attempt for a Super Heavy V3 booster." [1]
[1] https://www.spacex.com/launches/starship-flight-15
yesterday at 10:09 PM
Please go back to reddit
yesterday at 10:12 PM
From Wernher von Braun to Elon Musk... It seems we're living in a Mel Brooks movie (with the funny parts removed).
yesterday at 10:54 PM
von Braun just wanted to build rockets. He was a Nazi, yes, and he did Nazi things, but he would have been (and was) just as loyal to any other country that let him build rockets.
Musk, OTOH... joke's on us, he's into that shit.
yesterday at 11:08 PM
My understanding is that von Braun was fine with using slave labor to build the wartime rockets. He wasn't just some nerd totally detached from Nazi atrocities.
I don't know what Musk's real politics are, but at the moment at least there is no evidence that he is as bad as von Braun.
yesterday at 11:14 PM
> I don't know what Musk's real politics are
Really? That's pretty funny. Hilarious, actually, or sinister.
yesterday at 10:38 PM
bet they used lidar
(let's see who gets the joke)
seriously though, do we know the names of the engineers who made this possible or is it a secret?
yesterday at 10:45 PM
You could go to LinkedIn and look at people in the:
* structures
* propulsion
* avionics
* flight software
departments, because they all work together to make this happen, along with support from IT/SRE. The person most responsible for ensuring that it happens is Lars Blackmore[1], who was also the Responsible Engineer in charge of making sure Falcon 9 landed successfully
[1] - https://linkedin.com/in/lars-blackmore-78a237
yesterday at 9:29 PM
[flagged]
yesterday at 9:45 PM
[flagged]
yesterday at 9:51 PM