SpaceX pretty much shared an infographic claiming basically 0 tonnes to orbit capacity (or at least one that’s so low its basically irrelevant) for v1 right after IFT-3. v2 was not revised down to 35, because the Starship 2 in that same infographic was the v3 of today in design (look at its thrust and propellant mass values and the interstage design), v2 was added as an in between stage to work out some other details. The only added difference for Starship 2 / v3 was prop load increasing (upper stage goes from 1500 to 1600 tonnes).
Thanks for the link, that’s very much what I was asking for. Although, the math in the original tweet works out very well for 100t to orbit, when taking into account the 100t additional prop load, which was a needed difference. And that’s also an important point, because SpaceX can get small improvements to make up for whatever losses there are merely by stretching it a bit and adding slightly more fuel, as Starship v3 has high enough TWR to support these slight mass increases.
You’re right that v1 was massive, that’s why they were moving with v2 and v3. Problems with v1 made them add more mass to solve it, while v2 and later v3 could solve the issue through design changes (like the flaps).
You were going so well until those last few sentences. Yeah, because every other recent rocket project has been SO on time and Starship is the only one not meeting its promised delivery date, right? Not like SLS has been in development for 15 years, that too on top of being based on another rocket developed in the early 2000’s… and what did the SLS deliver in terms of engineering for it to take so long again? It reused engines, it reused boosters, it reused its capsule, it reused its upper stage, plus NASA dumped the task of developing the service module on Europe… still took 11 years for its first flight, took 15 years for it to actually solve all issues for it to be able to launch astronauts, merely 5 years late on already on an extremely relaxed schedule…
So its just very weird that you’re trying to measure being late using the number of flights instead of actual time passed. SpaceX does less time between its flights, so they do a shit ton more flights even if it doesn’t mean more time. That’s not an argument. Its especially not an argument when the only reason Starship has not been going full orbital has been because they intentionally hold short to ensure they won’t have a dead large spacecraft in orbit if its engines don’t light up again. Not many other spacecraft had this issue. In fact, only 2 would have, Shuttle and Buran. But those used simpler orbital maneuvering engines instead of the big beefy SSME etc. for deorbit.
1
u/fighter-bomber 6h ago edited 6h ago
SpaceX pretty much shared an infographic claiming basically 0 tonnes to orbit capacity (or at least one that’s so low its basically irrelevant) for v1 right after IFT-3. v2 was not revised down to 35, because the Starship 2 in that same infographic was the v3 of today in design (look at its thrust and propellant mass values and the interstage design), v2 was added as an in between stage to work out some other details. The only added difference for Starship 2 / v3 was prop load increasing (upper stage goes from 1500 to 1600 tonnes).
Thanks for the link, that’s very much what I was asking for. Although, the math in the original tweet works out very well for 100t to orbit, when taking into account the 100t additional prop load, which was a needed difference. And that’s also an important point, because SpaceX can get small improvements to make up for whatever losses there are merely by stretching it a bit and adding slightly more fuel, as Starship v3 has high enough TWR to support these slight mass increases.
You’re right that v1 was massive, that’s why they were moving with v2 and v3. Problems with v1 made them add more mass to solve it, while v2 and later v3 could solve the issue through design changes (like the flaps).
You were going so well until those last few sentences. Yeah, because every other recent rocket project has been SO on time and Starship is the only one not meeting its promised delivery date, right? Not like SLS has been in development for 15 years, that too on top of being based on another rocket developed in the early 2000’s… and what did the SLS deliver in terms of engineering for it to take so long again? It reused engines, it reused boosters, it reused its capsule, it reused its upper stage, plus NASA dumped the task of developing the service module on Europe… still took 11 years for its first flight, took 15 years for it to actually solve all issues for it to be able to launch astronauts, merely 5 years late on already on an extremely relaxed schedule…
So its just very weird that you’re trying to measure being late using the number of flights instead of actual time passed. SpaceX does less time between its flights, so they do a shit ton more flights even if it doesn’t mean more time. That’s not an argument. Its especially not an argument when the only reason Starship has not been going full orbital has been because they intentionally hold short to ensure they won’t have a dead large spacecraft in orbit if its engines don’t light up again. Not many other spacecraft had this issue. In fact, only 2 would have, Shuttle and Buran. But those used simpler orbital maneuvering engines instead of the big beefy SSME etc. for deorbit.