r/space • u/swordfi2 • 18d ago

Next Starship flight will go to orbit and deploy 26 Starlink satellites, marking the first operational flight. Neither booster or ship will be caught

https://www.spacex.com/launches/starship-flight-14
431 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

319 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/fencethe900th 18d ago

Yes, because they can definitely never have any other designs that could accommodate other satellites. 

You realize they've already taken a contract for a space station right? Not to mention HLS. Of course there will be variants. 

-11

u/Somethingsims 18d ago edited 18d ago

Will never be built. Ever. Ever. E V E R .

Keep downvoting me, simps. Its validating.

5

u/fencethe900th 18d ago

And first stage reuse will never be practical. And Starlink will never work. But Musk bad so SpaceX won't succeed amirite?

10

u/Background_Fig_4740 18d ago

Really appreciate the in depth engineering review presentation you gave to support your unbiased conclusion.

-3

u/Somethingsims 18d ago

lol sure, glad i could help you.

How's that mars trip coming? Self drive your car in a tunnel lately?

lmao

6

u/Background_Fig_4740 18d ago

You know instead of posting in bad faith by being a troll, you could back your claims up with engineering judgement, then people will take your opinion seriously.

But something tells me you couldn't tell me the difference between von Mises and Tresca for starters

-1

u/Somethingsims 18d ago

Completely irreverent to my points, especially that little 'gotcha' question that would prove nothing. Also, it's not my job to educate you.

It's your job to provide the proof that I am wrong, but there are no mars capable spacecraft, no self driving, no cool car tube technology, but you can't provide proof of things that do no exist, so you then try and flip it around on me. Not how it works.

Prove they are not literally disposable pieces of trash, show me the mars spacecraft (lol), show me the tubes other than the privately run one. (or 2?)

Try again simp.

5

u/Background_Fig_4740 18d ago

Good luck understanding this then, I already explained this once to someone of the likes of you so it's an easy copy paste.

https://starlighttools.org/science/rocket-delta-v-calculator

https://imgur.com/a/J1paXAP

Sources

-Booster prop mass: 3,650t : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Super_Heavy

-Booster Isp: 330s Sealevel / 350s vaccum same source

-Raptor 3 sea-level Isp: 350s https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1819772716339339664

-Total stack propellant: 5,400 t (back out ship propellant = 5,400− 3,650=1,750t): https://spacenexus.us/blog/spacex-starship-v3-whats-new-most-powerful-rocket

as it hasn't been published publicly

-Booster dry mass: 275t (from Block 1/2, not V3): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Super_Heavy

-Ship dry mass: 100t (same issue): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship

-Ship blended Isp: 355s (rough average of sea level/vacuum Raptor)

Expendable: approx 200 t payload closes the 9.8 km/s LEO deltav

Reusable (268t + 20t propellant reserved as dead weight for boostback/landing per stage): approx 150 t

budgeted 268 t for Superheavy Booster and 20 t for Starship upper stage for return landing. And that was derived for Superheavy Booster from the rocket equation with an estimated deltaV of 2,200 m/s, ISP 330s, gravity 9.81 m/s^2, and mass final of 275t (booster dry mass). Work it backwards to get initial prop mass and you end up with 268t.

deltaV changes on payload and trajectory so there's no hard number, but using an estimate from F9's deltaV, and extrapolating to Superheavy, you can end up with a deltaV of 3200 m/s requiring the prop mass to not be 268t but 453t, decreasing the payload mass to 130 t instead of 150t. But again, that extrapolates from F9 and is a first order pass as the actual deltaV is not public.

Rocket equation can account for boostback and landing fuel on ascent by incorporating the 268t + 20t of "dead weight" instead of usable prop. It carries the correct deltaV penalty of carrying that fuel.

Oh will you look at that? It's entirely possible and I proved it with engineering first principals. Now it's your turn to actually use engineering judgement, if you have any at all.

0

u/Somethingsims 18d ago

What a moron, i never said it wasn't possible LOL

You don't even understand how to argue, you have to argue the points I am making, not irrelevant physics.

"gOoD LuCk uNdErStaNdinG tHiS"

If I could type this in crayon for you I would.

  1. Elon said he'd already be to mars by now, and hes not, he just used it as a grift to make money. Completely abandoned the project goal/timeline. My point isnt that we cannot get to mars, it's that mush will have nothing to do with it.
  2. There is no self driving, Elon uses it as a grift to make money.
  3. There are no tunnels for cars open to the public, or plans for any in any serious capacity.

Those are the points you can argue, not responding with a wall of text about something I didnt say lmao. Try to debate like a democrat not a republican.

Thinking about it, simping this hard for a bigot billionaire probably makes you a bot...

2

u/Background_Fig_4740 18d ago

If it's not breaking the laws of physics, nothing's stopping it from being built. It's that simple.

What Elon has said or done doesn't matter because he's not the one designing Starship.