You are not logged in.
Starship 40 is already loaded on the semisubmersible ship FORTE and is now secured for transport back to Starbase.
Offline
Like button can go here
I see reports that static fires of the two Flight 14 stages have taken place. The launch is supposedly targeted for mid-September, and will be fully orbital. To include release of some operational Starlinks. Tower catches were not mentioned in the latest story that I saw.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
Offline
Like button can go here
SpaceX Faces Starship Dilemma: Starlink Revenue or Moonshot R&D?
NASA Needs a Different Starship
Each launch gives engineers another chance to test reliability, reentry and reuse, all of which are needed before humans can fly.
big under statement since cryogenic fuels are an issue for distance.
Offline
Like button can go here
That the last three flights have only ca. 44 tons payload raises the possibility this is V3’s payload capability. This possibility has been speculated about before online:
https://www.google.com/search?q=article … ons+to+LEO
If so, then SpaceX will need yet another iteration V4 to serve as the Artemis lander, as 44 tons is too small for the refueling plans, requiring 30 to 40 fueling flights for a single lunar landing mission.
And then are we sure V4 would actually get to the 100 tons point either?
Bob Clark
Last edited by RGClark (Yesterday 08:05:33)
Old Space rule of acquisition (with a nod to Star Trek - the Next Generation):
“Anything worth doing is worth doing for a billion dollars.”
Offline
Like button can go here
Obviously, GW is the guy for a reply, but I will offer this:
Query: "Did the Falcon 9 cargo capacity increase over time?"
Quote:
Copilot Search Branding
Like
Dislike
Falcon 9 Cargo Capacity Over Time
Yes — the Falcon 9’s cargo capacity has increased significantly from its first version in 2010 to the current Block 5 configuration.Original v1.0 (2010–2013)
LEO payload: ~10,400kg (22,900lb) when expendable
Wikipedia
WikipediaGTO payload: ~4,500kg (9,900lb)
Wikipedia
WikipediaPowered by 9× Merlin1C engines, with a launch mass of ~333,000kg.
This version was fully expendable, with no stage reusability.
v1.1 (2013–2016)
LEO payload: ~13,100kg (28,900lb)
Wikipedia
WikipediaGTO payload: ~4,800kg (10,600lb)
Wikipedia
WikipediaUpgraded to Merlin1D engines in an octaweb layout, longer tanks, and first attempts at first-stage landings.
Full Thrust (v1.2, 2015–2018)
LEO payload: ~22,800kg (50,300lb)
Wikipedia
WikipediaGTO payload: ~8,300kg (18,300lb)
Wikipedia
WikipediaIntroduced densified, sub-cooled propellants, increasing fuel load and performance.
Block5 (2018–present)
LEO payload: ~22,800kg (50,300lb)
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
+1GTO payload: ~8,300kg (18,300lb) expendable; ~5,500kg (12,100lb) when first stage lands
Wikipedia
WikipediaDesigned for rapid reuse, with improved engines, thermal protection, and grid fins.
Fairing recovery also reduces cost and increases effective payload.
Summary of growth
From v1.0 to v1.1: LEO capacity increased by ~30% (10.4ton → 13.1ton).
From v1.1 to Full Thrust: LEO capacity more than doubled (13.1ton → 22.8ton).
Block5 maintains the same LEO rating as Full Thrust but improves GTO performance when reusability is factored in.
Conclusion:
The Falcon 9’s cargo capacity has more than doubled in LEO since its debut, driven by engine upgrades, propellant densification, and structural improvements. The Block5 version now offers the highest LEO payload of any Falcon9 variant, while reusability and fairing recovery further enhance its operational efficiency
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
+2
.
So, nothing guaranteed, but there is hope.
Your argument against Starship would have been appropriate for Falcon 9 in the beginning, but it would have been a disgrace for comments such as yours to have killed Falcon 9 in its infancy.
Ending Pending :-)
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 08:42:30)
Be careful what you wish for.
Online
Like button can go here