Since they had not (and still haven't) demonstrated raptor relight it was important
that they not actually go into orbit as without ability to control the reentry point it could be a big hazard on the ground.

If you watch the video the acceleration off the pad is quite robust, I believe they will have decent payload margins.

F9 Leo payload is 38Klbs with 1.21M gross take off.
For payload percentage of 3%.

150T /4900T = 3% with a higher ISP propellant combination.
100T/4900T is ~2%

Starship Dry mass/Loaded mass is 6%
F9 FT Dry/Loaded is 5.5%
So numbers seem reasonable. V2 of starship supposed to use thinner steel and be lighter.
I'd expect they will do as they did with F9 and expand capabilities as they go....

Don, their goal is efficiency, reducing cost of mass to orbit, etc

With this being the focus, they are doing an outstanding job, they're running a for-profit business model and they're tossing 34-engine'd boosters into the ocean, all with their R&D budget

Musk discussed the BFR as early as 2005, 19 years ago, which was the twinkle stage.

2012 was not a twinkle but actual real design work underway.

Starship names have evolved:

BFR (Big F***ing Rocket)
Mars Colonial Transporter
Interplanetary Transport System
BFR (again)
Starship (confusingly the entire thing or just the orbital stage)

Mike C.

Starship has to do a lot more than Falcon 9. Flacon 9 has a expended second stage which removes lots of fuel, equipment, and design considerations versus the Starship. An extra pound of Starship is like 7 to 8 lbs of takeoff mass.

Falcon 9 also had airing it dropped, Starship doesn't. That's extra mass to carry to orbit and bring down.

There is a reason why a fully reusable rocket doesn't exist yet, it compromises the payload capability to bring the stuff necessary to return everything to the ground.

Mike C.

Welll, they built something that went to space in less time than most people could certify a new ga airplane.

Sure, compare to Apollo. That was something like 5% of GDP. This is a single company.

Keep hating on Elon everyone. He keeps more things moving forward than all the haters combined

They also built the mfg system already to support this thing at scaled production. No one else even close on that.

Starship has to do a lot more than Falcon 9. Flacon 9 has a expended second stage which removes lots of fuel, equipment, and design considerations versus the Starship. An extra pound of Starship is like 7 to 8 lbs of takeoff mass.

Falcon 9 also had airing it dropped, Starship doesn't. That's extra mass to carry to orbit and bring down.

There is a reason why a fully reusable rocket doesn't exist yet, it compromises the payload capability to bring the stuff necessary to return everything to the ground.

Mike C.

Their rocket has not yet achieved orbit, or any certification.

The equivalent in GA would be a test flight, which happens fairly early in the development cycle.

SpaceX is definitely behind the schedule they wanted.


Advocates who call others haters are unnecessarily argumentative and polarizing. One can be supportive and critical at the same time. We have too much "us vs them" today and this is the kind of attitude that creates that.

Mike C.

None of which has been made public so far.


It doesn't take an idiot to notice the fuel gauges are nearing zero before the needs are over and that the payload bay appears to be empty in the video.

You statement is clearly excessive and wrong at the same time.

Mike C.

No no, BT's professional pessimist has clearly spotted issues from the graphics of a webcast that everybody at SpaceX has somehow missed. Just like G100UL, he knows better than everybody actually involved.

Chicken Little comes to mind.

They also talked about venting excess propellant prior to reentry.
I think it was said that was what contributed to the prior flight issue.

Furthermore, the “fuel gauges” presented for our enjoyment may not also include the Header Tanks which may be used for some of the on-orbit moves.

Who knows. Easy (and popular) to throw shade tho.

The period of the most wild expansion in space flight in my time.
Kids these days…. Will be in space frequently I bet.

None of which has been made public so far.


It doesn't take an idiot to notice the fuel gauges are nearing zero before the needs are over and that the payload bay appears to be empty in the video.

You statement is clearly excessive and wrong at the same time.

Mike C.

Not really.

https://www.spacex.com/media/starship_u ... ide_v1.pdf

I'm sure it needs a lot of revision, but SpaceX is quite open about its intended rocket performance.

As you might expect, the Falcon 9 User Guide is quite a bit more detailed:

https://www.spacex.com/media/falcon-use ... 021-09.pdf


They also invested heavily in driverless cars. How is that going?

A business plan doesn't assure rocket performance. Small errors in initial assumptions underlying the design architecture can create huge changes in the capability at the end. This is complex stuff with every small change compounding the weight problem.

Every so often, you see another SSTO (single stage to orbit) project come up. But they never seem to go anywhere, just too hard to make the math work. The Starship is bordering on that challenge with it being fully reusable.

Mike C.

Sounds like someone has a friend in the industry that doesn’t like Space-X.

Their rocket has not yet achieved orbit, or any certification.

The equivalent in GA would be a test flight, which happens fairly early in the development cycle.

SpaceX is definitely behind the schedule they wanted.


Advocates who call others haters are unnecessarily argumentative and polarizing. One can be supportive and critical at the same time. We have too much "us vs them" today and this is the kind of attitude that creates that.

Mike C.

Not driverless.

I brought up driverless cars as an example where Google invested a lot of money and things have not worked out. Therefore the theory postulated earlier that Google investment means things will work is wrong, there is no such assurance.


Very cool.

Now if they could only make aviation use financially reasonable. That would be a huge capability. Presently, I think it is about $250K for the equipment and $10K/month.


Put me down in the "it looks dorky" category on that one. I'm sure most of the advancements would work on a vehicle that had style better than what a 2 year old can do. The styling causes comical issues like the windshield wiper.

Starship is the hardest thing any of Musk's companies have ever done. It is an order of magnitude harder than Falcon 9. They are attempting to do things governments don't attempt.

Mike C.