Starship is Go...

Void · 2025-09-21 09:16:28

I feel that your post requires significant response. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/us/p … -race.html Quote:

U.S. Is Losing Race to Return to Moon, Critics Say, Pointing at SpaceX
The company’s Starship rocket, which has suffered a series of recent test explosions, is still years away from being ready for the mission, former NASA executives say.

Blue Origin got even more money, I believe, for the same responsivity, and yet where is their lander "Ready to go?".

The SpaceX Starship rocket has exploded during three of its four recent tests, and its current version can carry only a fraction of its promised payload into orbit.Credit...Meridith Kohut for The New York Times

New Glen is to be able to lift 45 tons to LEO. So, exactly why does SpaceX have to exceed that immediately, now?
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/com … 8_greater/

Broken promise? Not yet. The claim is that Version 3 will be able to lift 100+ tons to LEO, there is only one Version 2 left.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/c … sed_specs/ Image Quote: current-starship-2-and-starship-3s-proposed-specs-via-elons-v0-ik3pfxudgwsc1.jpeg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=da6be20e6755e66f7414a0667e8a8edfb86ed7a8

If the specs in the above diagram are lies, as to be half as good as claimed then V3.0 is to be 100+ But it says 200+

Do you have another source of specs that is more accurate?

Listen to this article · 10:39 min Learn more
Share full article
reporter headshot515
Eric Lipton
By Eric Lipton
Reporting from Washington
Sept. 20, 2025
Elon Musk has a history of making promises to rapidly deliver technological breakthroughs, only for them to end up taking longer than predicted or to fail to materialize.
Among these are his promises for fully autonomous self-driving cars or tunnels under Los Angeles to solve traffic congestion. Now some federal government officials worry that his pledges for landing astronauts on the moon will suffer similar delays.
That is why one of the largest federal contracts Mr. Musk has ever secured is now under intense scrutiny: a multibillion agreement with NASA for this crewed mission to the moon, the first in more than five decades.
Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.
Eric Lipton is a Times investigative reporter, who digs into a broad range of topics from Pentagon spending to toxic chemicals.
See more on: U.S. Politics, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, SpaceX, Elon Musk
Read 515 Comments
Share full article
reporter headshot515
Related Content
Site Index
Site Information Navigation
© 2025 The New York Times Company
NYTCoContact UsAccessibilityWork with usAdvertiseT Brand StudioPrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyTerms of ServiceTerms of SaleSite MapHelpSubscriptionsYour Privacy Choices

The USA already went to the Moon landed and brought people back.

What does is mean to land on the Moon? If China lands on the Moon, (And they already have), what claims does that give them. I would say that they are a legitimate player, and should be respected for their accomplishments.

If a lander from SpaceX, Blue Origin, Other from the "West" landed on the Moon, what does that give to those who sent it?

Perhaps we could send it with humanoid robots, and they could plant a flag and do a dance. Maybe we could send dead people and have the robots wheel them around on the surface of the Moon in wheelchairs. Would that make us owners? Actually SpaceX should consider that as a business opportunity. Starship Mausoleums on the Moon.

OK, we want live people and to bring them back safely. But that still requires China and others to share with us. And there are multiple sites on the Moon that related to polar deposits, and also the possible Platnum Family metals.

Frankly, I would love for Blue Origins lander to be boosted with SpaceX Superheavy, and I think some other booster elements.

That would take the pressure off of SpaceX, and place the maximum responsibility onto Blue Origin.

Doing that then it would be sensible to land a HLS Starship on the Moon prior to that with Robots, and maybe some Urns, with extra supplies. And to have the robots check out the area prior to the Blue Origin Lander arriving.

We have a lot of cards; we just haven't been playing them right.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think historically there has been a process of "Churn".

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r … /churning/
Quote:

What is Churning?
Churning can be defined as the practice of executing trades for a customer’s investment account by a broker or brokerage firm for the sole purpose of generating commission from the account. It occurs when a broker engages in excessive buying and selling of securities in a customer’s account that is unnecessary to fulfill the customer’s investment goals.

Churning is perhaps done with government money streams, in order to facilitate parasitic leakage from process to benefit parasites.

It is very likely a way to extract wealth to create greater amounts of "White Collar Bloat". A job program. Not all bad, as it does distribute opportunity for true talent to rise, and be acquired by actually productive entities like SpaceX, but
there porcine gluttony has already been served endless amounts of gravy.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/porcine
Quote:

porcine
[pawr-sahyn, -sin]

Phonetic (Standard)
IPA
adjective
of or relating to swine.
resembling swine; hoggish; piggish.

The advocates of "Churn" see actual accomplishment as a prelude to the end of the gravy train.

You should be pleased. SpaceX and Blue Origin capabilities will almost certainly eventually be adoptable by some method to Europe.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-09-21 09:55:28)

RGClark · 2025-09-28 00:36:17

The total number launches of Starship for the lunar mission with all the refuelings has been cited as from 10 to 20. But since SuperHeavy/Starship is twice the size of the Saturn V this is the equivalent to 20 to 40 launches of the Saturn V for a single Moon mission.

Bob Clark

SpaceNut · 2025-09-28 08:09:23

Yet man made it with just the 1 launch which begs to question going bigger does it make sense.

https://www.mnealon.eosc.edu/RocketSciencePage1.htm

It seems so long ago that we started this topic. in 2018 with estimates of cargo, refueling and more and it makes no sense to get to orbit with a ship that only has fuel to land back on earth.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads … manual.pdf

GW Johnson · 2025-09-28 09:36:05

I've said it before and I will say it again: it is too early to be criticizing a design for low payload while it is still in experimental flight test. To do so ignores the changes that will come from the results of those tests. And it ignores other changes that will come from deployed experience.

History has multiple examples. The early models of the B-17 ("Fortress I", prototype model-299 and B-17A through B-17D) had no power gun turrets and no tail gun position. Yet it had about the same range and payload as the later models that did have better self protection ("Fortress II", B-17E, B-17F, and especially B-17G with the chin turret). Fortress I could not have flown missions from England into Germany, the Germans would have simply shot all of them from the sky. Losses were high enough with Fortress II because of a lack of long range fighter escort, but acceptable enough for the bombing campaign to succeed.

If you want to criticize a design, criticize one that has supposedly entered service, with demonstrable shortfalls. Such as SLS Block 1 that has already flown a "real" mission. It is "bigger" than a Saturn-5 in terms of launch thrust, yet with Orion as its payload, cannot reprise Saturn-5's lunar mission performances. Why? Precisely because it was cobbled-together of repurposed Shuttle components and factories for political pork purposes, instead of being purposely designed to return to the moon.

As for Starship/Superheavy, the outcome remains to be seen. It is still deep in experimental flight test. Yet if the payload to LEO projections come true, one can easily estimate a realistic number of tanker missions to refuel a Starship on orbit for any deep space mission, lunar or interplanetary! Let's say Starship finally ends up with a 1300 metric ton propellant capacity (something NOT YET KNOWN FOR SURE). Lets say the payload-to-LEO capacity ends up in the 100-200 metric ton range. At 100 tons, it would take 13 such flights to completely refill a Starship on orbit in LEO. If 150 tons, 8.67 ~ 9 flights (you must round up, not down). If 200 tons, 6.5 ~ 7 flights.

For it to take 20 such flights would imply a payload capacity of only 65 metric tons. For it to take 40 such flights would imply that the payload capacity is only 32.5 metric tons. The bird is still in experimental flight test, and is still undergoing major design changes between tests. Only 4 have made it back from orbit so far, and all of them had problems. None have yet been recovered at all, which will make a huge difference in solving those major problems.

With the bird still that experimental, why on Earth would any sane person be trying to fly those experimental missions all as max-payload capacity demonstration missions? That makes absolutely no sense at all!

First, you make the bird survivable at all (they've done that 4 times now, but with major problems still remaining to be solved). Then you make it recoverable for real "scratch and sniff" evaluations after landing. Then you fix as many problems as you can solve. Then, finally, you start loading it up to see what it might be capable of carrying!

Trying to project what the bird might carry in the future from what it has been carrying on highly-experimental test flights is just utter nonsense!

One more thing: this bird is fully reusable, unlike all previous vehicles with the exception of the Falcon-9/-Heavy. And first stages are far easier to recover, while second stages are really, really hard to recover! It should surprise no one that developing a reusable orbital craft will take far longer than any expendable ever developed before.

The ratio of real time to Musk time is only about 3, demonstrated so during the all-expendable Falcon-1 development. An effort that nearly drove them bankrupt with the first 3 flights in a row all failures. It took a little longer to make Falcon-9 fly, because they were already wanting to re-use the booster. That just reflects what I said in the previous paragraph. And making Falcon-Heavy out of Falcon-9 took a bit longer than it should have, because they did not anticipate at the outset just how bad the structural problems would really be.

So, the apparent ratio of real time to Musk time nearer 6+ actually reflects his fundamental bad guess ratio of 3, compounded by the unanticipated troubles of doing reusability when no one else had ever done it before. And make no mistake, we all share the same bad guess time ratio at one value or another. That is just because we are human.

Actually, I am surprised and pleased by the progress they actually have made toward Starship/Superheavy. It cannot really support a lunar mission in the next year or two, because it will simply take longer than that to get all the bugs out and get started demonstrating a reliable track record in deployed operation to LEO. You have to do that, before flying people in it. Much less landing people on the moon in some variant that is still today just a paper design.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-09-28 10:00:14)

SpaceNut · 2025-09-28 15:44:16

Another SpaceX Test Gone Wrong - Here's Why Metal Tiles Aren't Going To Work

AA1Nt7Kr.img?w=768&h=431&m=6

From the outset, SpaceX's tenth Starship test flight in late August looked like a near-perfect success. The massive rocket had a clean launch from Starbase, sailed smoothly into space, and guided itself to a splashdown in the Indian Ocean within a mere few feet of its target. It's the kind of accuracy that would have seemed impossible only a few years ago.
But once the replay videos began circulating, engineers were swift to spot something concerning. The sleek stainless steel sides of the Starship weren't gleaming silver anymore, having been replaced with streaks of a rusty orange hue. Elon Musk later explained that the color came from three experimental metallic tiles that had oxidized during reentry. While SpaceX had hoped for a different result, they noted that some tiles were intentionally removed to test the vehicle's response, and in turn they have now gained valuable data that will help improve the next iteration of the Starship.
Although the mission can still be considered a success, especially when you factor in how many SpaceX rockets have exploded this year, the lesson still hits hard. If Starship is ever going to fly people to orbit, let alone try to go to the Moon or Mars, it needs a heat shield that works every time and can be used again. And right now, that piece of the puzzle is still missing.
Bill Gerstenmaier, a former NASA veteran who is now in charge of build and flight reliability at SpaceX, summed up the result in a straightforward way: "The metal tiles... didn't work so well." Luckily, the problem wasn't a disaster, as the Starship's stainless-steel hull held up. However, the tiles rusted quickly in the high-oxygen, high-temperature environment of reentry. While it may have suffered some serious burns, at least it didn't go up in flames like the previous SpaceX Starship which exploded in June 2025.
The result is not exactly surprising when you consider that NASA played with the same idea in the 1970s, with those tests never making it past the lab. The space shuttle instead relied on 24,000 notoriously fragile ceramic tiles that were the only thing that stood between the orbiter and obliteration. SpaceX is now testing a new "crunch wrap" material to better seal gaps between tiles, having already shown signs of promise on the most recent flight in the form of darker spots against the surrounding burnt white metal.
Metal tiles promised simplicity, but the flight proved they're more complicated than initially believed. They may resist cracks and chips better than ceramic, but if they can't survive the most critical part of the mission, they're a dead end.
The patches of white residue where heat seeped through gaps, eroding the protective layer beneath. Engineers have been quick to identify potential remedies to the patches of white residue where heat seeped through gaps, eroding the protective layer beneath. SpaceX now aims to seal the tiles using the new "crunch wrap" approach, which will basically wrap each tile so they interlock more securely, fixing the weak spot without adding the complexity of traditional gap fillers.
That's what Flight 11, expected as soon as October, is meant to prove. If it works, Starship will take another step toward true reusability. Beyond that, SpaceX plans to roll out the upgraded "V3" Starship with improved Raptor engines and refined shielding. Only once that vehicle flies will we know if Musk's dream of a massive stainless steel rocket that can launch, land, and relaunch in quick succession is realistic. SpaceX's ambitions now hinge on perfecting a heat shield that can comfortably handle reentry again and again. Until that problem is solved, Mars and the Moon remain firmly out of reach.

RGClark · 2025-09-29 08:40:12

My irritation at the approach SpaceX is taking to the Starship lunar missions is that it stems not from any engineering reasons. In fact, it doesn't even stem from any logical reason. It stems solely from the Elon's idea that the Starship must be the Be-All-End-All for ALL of spaceflight:

Elon Musk @elonmusk
Once Starship is flying frequently with real payloads next year, then SpaceX will probably deliver >95% of total Earth payload to orbit, despite others, especially China, continuing to grow.

In 2027, maybe as high as 98%.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1969988976259092692

Thus, the starship must not admit of any added stage atop it, nor even any in its huge payload bay. And it itself must be the stage that lands at any destination such as the Moon or Mars.

So, in order to maintain this, there arises the idea to do multiple refuelings to allow the entire Starship to be delivered to any of the mission destinations.

But using staging of progressively smaller stages to reach far destinations has been a basic principle of spaceflight since the principle was first recognized by Tsiolkovsky over a hundred years ago. Then Elon is ignoring basic principles of spaceflight engineering in following his approach.

Apollo using staging used the 3,000 ton gross mass Saturn V to deliver a tiny, in relative terms, 15 ton gross mass lunar lander, a factor of 1/200th the launch vehicle size, in a single launch. SpaceX in contrast wants to use a 6,000 ton gross mass vehicle to deliver a 2,000 ton gross mass lander, i.e., one that's 1/3rd the size of the entire launch vehicle, necessitating multiple launches and multiple refuelings to do it.

Superheavy/Starship is twice the size of the Saturn V and should have twice the capability of Saturn V in a single launch just by using staging. Instead it is multiple times worse needing the equivalent of 20 to 40 Saturn V launches to accomplish the same thing Saturn V did with just one.

Bob Clark

GW Johnson · 2025-09-29 09:40:22

Starship/Superheavy is primarily a freighter from the surface of the Earth to low Earth orbit, and back, being reusable, and needing no refueling for those missions. You have to remember what it really is; and even Elon needs to remember that. (I agree with you about his arrogance, he is very definitely NOT an engineer.)

However, given refueling while in low Earth orbit, it does offer the possibility of being a freighter to other destinations, pretty much anywhere in the Solar system, if time-of-travel is not an issue. The faster it has to get there, the more propellant it must use, and the smaller the payload it can carry, simple as that. But, these would be one-way trips, until and unless a propellant manufacturing capability can be established at those destinations!

The advantage of using Starship in that role has absolutely nothing to do with payload fraction or launches per mission or any of the other traditional measures. It is that one (!!!) vehicle can perform multiple roles, if you are willing to pay the cost, primarily in tanker flights for that refueling on orbit. You DO NOT have to develop a new vehicle for each of those missions. And that is unlike anything we have ever seen before!

That is perhaps not what we really need for going back to the moon at small mission scale, I agree. If true, then that is a bad NASA management decision, plain and simple. Blue Origin is too busy trying to make its New Glenn fully operational to be able to get its lunar landers ready in time, either. Which is why I think the possibility of a manned US lunar landing in 2026-2028 is utter BS.

If getting to the moon quickly is the real goal, they should send an uprated Dragon (the one with the bigger trunk that holds the propellant for deorbiting the ISS) to low lunar orbit with a Falcon Heavy, and maybe the smaller demo Blue Origin lander to that same low lunar orbit with another Falcon Heavy or a New Glenn, after doing a crash effort to get the lander flightworthy in time.

All this nonsense about a Gateway station in that weird extended (and unstable) halo orbit about the moon, plus that other nonsense of an overweight Orion and an under-powered service module atop a $4B+ per launch SLS block 1, that cannot even send that Orion into low lunar orbit other than as a 1-way suicide trip, THOSE are why our moon mission plan is fundamentally fatally flawed.

I could say those are ALL very bad NASA management decisions, except that it would not be true! All of that was mandated for political pork purposes, by powerful Senators in whose states the plants are located which built the space shuttle.

The real culprit for all these bad decisions is Congress.

But I will also say that Musk did not help matters by misbehaving so badly for Trump. He pretty much ruined his reputation as a human being, doing all those evil things he did. And THAT is really why Tesla sales have cratered in Europe!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-09-29 09:43:08)

SpaceNut · 2025-09-29 10:03:04

Still not seeing why lift capability in the 100, 150 or even 200 mT is something that we truely need if we can not afford to pay for it once we are there. This is the Nasa habbit of throwing things away once its up there no matter what its size is.
Next is the shape of what can be lofted to orbit since is based on the lifter and stage to bring it there.

GW Johnson · 2025-09-29 12:13:59

Spacenut:

Look at it this way. If there were still in existence the Apollo CSM and LM, that entire cluster could fit within the cargo bay of an operational Starship, and be within its anticipated payload capability to LEO. We still do not have a good figure for the cost of a Starship/Superheavy launch, but whatever it finally proves to be, it will be way less than the cost of a Saturn-5, and truly way-to-hell-and-gone less than an SLS (which even makes a Saturn-5 look cheap)!

We could put some sort of Centaur upper stage with an appropriately scaled-up set of propellant tanks into another Starship cargo bay, and send it to LEO to be docked with the Apollo CSM/LM cluster. That scaled-up (slightly) Centaur could put that cluster into the lunar transfer orbit from LEO (doing what the S-IVB did before), and the service module of the CSM has enough dV capability to enter low lunar orbit with the LM, and to return from lunar orbit without the LM. That reprises any of the Apollo missions. You lose the Centaur and the LM, and eventually you lose the service module. But you DO NOT lose a Saturn-5! And you did it with two Starships from LEO without any refueling.

Wanna do it even better? Leave the LM in lunar orbit for the next mission, but modified for refueling in orbit. Substitute a Dragon and the ISS-deorbit trunk with the extra propellant, for the Apollo CSM. Make sure the modified Centaur is just big enough to fetch along propellant tanks for the LM's left in lunar orbit. Do the same mission as before, except refuel and reuse the lander on subsequent missions (maybe 1 or 2 more). All you throw away is the trunk and the extra propellant tanks that refueled the LM in lunar orbit. But you must send a loaded lower LM stage with each subsequent mission!

Wanna do it even better than that? Use the smaller 1-stage Blue Origin lander instead of the old 2-stage Apollo LM. Landing from low lunar orbit requires a lower dV than from that idiotic halo orbit. That way, the smaller Blue Origin lander can carry even more payload down, and maybe even back up, from the lunar surface. Refuel it with the tanks sent for each mission after the very first one that put it there in low lunar orbit. Just make sure your modified Centaur stage can do trans-lunar injection with the Dragon, the bigger trunk for it, and the Blue Origin smaller lander. You still only need two unrefueled Starships to launch the Centaur, and the Dragon/trunk/small Blue Origin lander cluster, to LEO. You throw away only the trunk and the lander refuel tanks. The Blue Origin lander will likely have a longer service life being re-used, than the old Apollo lander ever might have had. Probably much more than 2 missions.

Now think about a third Starship, one that is at least partly refueled in LEO. Use it as a tug to reach the perigee speed of the transfer orbit to and from the moon (just barely under Earth escape at LEO altitude). If you match with the Centaur stage, you can recover it and bring it back to LEO for refuel and re-use. A fourth such Starship could do the same thing to retrieve the big trunk from the Dragon (and maybe even the lander refuel tanks), for refuel and reuse based in LEO. Now, you throw away nothing except maybe the lander refuel tanks! Although, it would help to have a propellant depot and vehicle assembly space station in LEO!

Not even Musk has proposed using Starship as a tug to retrieve returning-from-the-moon things to LEO. But now I have!

And if you do the tug departure thing using yet another partly-refueled Starship, you don't even need the modified Centaur stage!

It's all about thinking outside the usual boxes. Not even Musk does THAT!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-09-29 12:30:26)

GW Johnson · 2025-09-30 09:46:56

Spacenut:

Here's best notion I've been able to come with yet. Use the Dragon with the bigger trunk, and use a refuelable version of Blue Origin's smaller lander prototype as the LM. I'm not sure, but I think the Blue Origin lander designs were to be 1-stage in order to be reusable. I also think they were going to use LOX-LH2 propellants in order to make 1-stage reusability happen.

Then we need a scaled-up Centaur with the anti-boiloff gear installed, because we are going to use it as a reusable tug, and we need about a 2 week stage lifetime. The lunar trajectory is a 3-body-disturbed ellipse to the moon at its apogee, and LEO at its perigee. The period is about 10 days. If you do not burn for capture at the moon, you will return to LEO, where you can burn to recover there.

Transport the Dragon/big trunk fully loaded with one Starship freighter to LEO, transport the reworked Centaur fully loaded to LEO with another Starship freighter to LEO. After that, you only need to send up propellants for them, and more Dragons with the big trunks. All with Starship freighters to LEO. No big tanker refill flights

Use the modified Centaur to put the loaded Dragon-big trunk/Blue Origin LM onto the lunar trajectory, then detach and let the modified Centaur come back, where it burns unladen to recover into LEO, requiring very little remaining propellant to do so. Thay's about a 3 km/s dV fully laden and another 3 km/s unladen. I am assuming the big trunk has enough propellant to put the whole cluster into low lunar orbit (dV ~ 1 km/s), and to get back onto the trajectory to come home without the lander (another ~1 km/s at a lighter mass), which lander is left in lunar orbit. The trunk is lost and the Dragon makes a direct free return.

The next mission does not need another lander, just the propellant tanks by which to refuel the one left in lunar orbit. All you need are those tanks, and another Dragon with a big trunk. You are out one trunk per mission, and the lander refuel tanks. The Dragon capsule is reusable a few times. Nothing else! Two Starship/Superheavy launches for the first mission, maybe only 1 per mission after that. But no more than 2.

If you can figure out how to use the modified Centaur as a tug, You can course-correct not to make a free entry return with the Dragon/big trunk, but to stay on the ellipse instead. The tug can retrieve you, but that will require another 10 day trip around the ellipse. That's the cost of not losing the Dragon (which is actually reflyable after entry) and the big trunk (which cannot survive entry). Dragon currently has 2 weeks life support for up to a crew of 7. Smaller crews could ride for a longer duration.

If you capture into polar instead of equatorial orbit at the moon, the dV to capture is higher, perhaps double. That would require a really big trunk for Dragon. But that does put the south pole within reach. You capture into an extended equatorial ellipse, instead of low circular. Then you do the 90 degree plane change at its apogee where speeds are low. Then you finally enter low circular polar. There will be a rendezvous budget for rendezvous and dock with the lander, on subsequent missions.

Of course, there is nothing reliable as a cost estimate per launch of Starship/Superheavy. But even if that is $100M per launch, you are looking at no more than $200M per mission in launch costs to go back to the moon. SLS might be able to put these clusters into low lunar orbit with one launch, and it might not, but the price using it is supposedly past $4B per launch.

I'd say my idea not only saves beaucoup launch cost money, but it also saves on mission hardware costs by reusing nearly everything. How could it NOT be a far better idea? Its only fault is that we are not using hardware made in former shuttle-item plants in the states of powerful senators. Which is why under the current government operating procedures, nothing better than SLS will ever be done by NASA.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-09-30 09:52:53)

tahanson43206 · 2025-10-03 06:04:04

AI Overview
Yes, the SpaceX Starship flight test is targeting October 13, 2025 for its eleventh test flight. The launch is scheduled for the afternoon in Central Time from Starbase in Texas.
Key details:
What: Starship Flight 11
When: October 13, 2025, with the launch window opening at 6:15 p.m. CT.
Where: Starbase, Texas.
How to watch: A live webcast will be available on the SpaceX website, X account, and X TV app about 30 minutes before launch.
Important Note: As with all SpaceX test flights, this date is tentative and subject to change based on various factors, including regulatory approval and readiness.

RGClark · 2025-10-04 06:11:27

NASA and the military brass are becoming increasingly disenchanted with the SpaceX progress on the Starship HLS lunar lander. Eric Berger in an article discussed some possible alternative options being offered that NASA could use to beat or match China in getting back to the Moon. The one deemed most likely would use Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mk1 cargo lander instead as a manned lander:

How America fell behind China in the lunar space race—and how it can catch back up.
Thanks to some recent reporting, we've found a potential solution to the Artemis blues.
ERIC BERGER – OCT 2, 2025 7:30 AM |
“Here comes the important part. Ars can now report, based on government sources, that Blue Origin has begun preliminary work on a modified version of the Mark 1 lander—leveraging learnings from Mark 2 crew development—that could be part of an architecture to land humans on the Moon this decade. NASA has not formally requested Blue Origin to work on this technology, but according to a space agency official, the company recognizes the urgency of the need.”
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/10/h … h-back-up/

This plan would not need any refueling launches, unlike the larger Blue Moon Mk2 manned lander. I’m puzzled though by the statement in the article it would use “multiple” Mk1’s. Presumably that would take multiple New Glenn launches?

I had suggested it might be doable using a single Blue Moon Mk1 launched on a single New Glenn. This though would require New Glenn reaching its intended payload capacity of 45 tons reusable, 60+ tons expendable:

Could Blue Origin develop a lander for Artemis III?
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/s/DjyRJUVC2E

Bob Clark

Void · 2025-10-04 12:00:51

This is good. Put some of the responsibility onto Blue Origin.

Probably it would be good to have a minimized human lander as speculated on for MK-1?

It is actually somewhat idiotic to land the Lunar Starship and then use it to lift humans to Lunar orbit and then abandon it. It can be done but it is Totally Stupid!

Once it is on the Lunar Surface it can be made into a shelter using Lunar resources. So, if you have a heavy delivery of cargo with Lunar Starships, and have a minimized lander/launcher transport for humans, at that point the Orion Capsule has some good use.

But eventually an upgraded Dragon that could be used, can be launched to orbits by less costly means would make sense.

The Stubby Starship concept could have merit.

From my point of view, a Starship could be created where you leave the Cargo/Cabin in LEO, to become Space Station structure, and the "Locomotive" could have a small Dragon Based, cabin put on to it, then that could be used for transit directly from LEO to the Moons surface. Then that could be used to transfer humans back to Lunar Orbit.

This could strongly reduce the number of fills needed to access the Moon.

You just add more consumables. The attached Dragon might have a heat shield, but maybe better not to do that but to have a Dragon or Orion in Lunar orbit for the return to Earth.

It really is totally wrong for NASA and others to use SpaceX as their whipping boy, when much of the fault lies with them for hot thinking this though better before this. SpaceX is the one that is more on the ball than is Blue Origin. Not that I fault Blue Origin though. I bless them for their efforts as well.

Ending Pending

A Dragon-Starship Hybrid method:

While in orbit during a solar flare it should be possible to point the Locomotive at the sun to try to protect the humans in the Dragon.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-10-04 12:19:47)

SpaceNut · 2025-10-04 15:28:02

Starship's fully reusable cargo capacity to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is up to 150 metric tons (330,000 lbs), with a design target of over 100 tons to Mars and the Moon. The vehicle's block design aims to increase this capacity over time, with Block 2 aiming for 100-150 tons and Block 3 targeting 200 tons.
Capacity by Block (LEO):
Block 1: Aimed for approximately 100 tons.
Block 2: Designed to carry 100-150 tons to LEO.
Block 3: Targeted to carry up to 200 tons to LEO.
Key Factors for Capacity:
Full Reusability: The design focuses on full reusability, impacting overall capability.
Orbital Refueling:
Starship is designed to be refueled in orbit, allowing it to carry more payload to other destinations like Mars.
Expended Configuration:
When not fully reusable, Starship is projected to carry even larger loads, potentially 250+ tons to orbit.
Cargo Configuration:
Starship can be configured for a variety of payload types and can autonomously deploy them to Earth, Lunar, or Martian surfaces.
The height of the full Starship stack, consisting of the Super Heavy booster and the Starship upper stage, varies by block, with recent versions like the Block 2 being around 404 feet (123.1 meters) tall and larger versions like Block 4 reaching approximately 466 feet (142 meters). The height of the two stages are: Block 2, the upper Starship spacecraft, is 171 feet (52.1 meters) tall, and the Super Heavy booster is 232 feet (71 meters) tall.
Full Starship Stack Height by Block
Block 1: Approximately 398 feet (121.3 meters).
Block 2: Around 404 feet (123.1 meters).
Block 3: About 408 feet (124.4 meters).
Block 4: Approximately 466 feet (142 meters).
Component Heights
Starship spacecraft (Ship): The 171-foot upper stage.
Super Heavy booster: The 232-foot first stage.
These measurements represent the integrated launch system, not just the spacecraft or the booster alone, and are subject to change as the system continues to be developed

edit:
its about the volume shape between the blocks that means problems for the cargo we would want.
Block 1 is just 23 m tall with the internal diameter of 9 M but is the cylinder to where it arcs
Block 2 they are striving for 52 m for that same 9 m diameter.

These make and placement of moon equipment to fit a fresh design to make use of the internal volume.

Void · 2025-10-04 19:51:59

Quote from #2212 (RGClark):

I had suggested it might be doable using a single Blue Moon Mk1 launched on a single New Glenn. This though would require New Glenn reaching its intended payload capacity of 45 tons reusable, 60+ tons expendable:

Should Lunar Starship be ready in time my dream would be that it be set up that it could land on the Moon and then in an emergency lift the humans up to the Orion. But the preference could be to have a minimal lander perhaps per Blue Origin that could take primary responsibility for Lunar Orbit(Orion)<>Lunar Surface.

So, then the Lunar Starship ready in Lunar Orbit, then to land it without crew.

If it lands successfully then the Blue Origins lander can also land by it.

The crew from the Blue Origins Lander can move to the Lunar Starship and begin setting up the starting of a base.

Then the Blue Origins Lander can move the humans to the Orion for a return trip.

If the Blue Origins Lander cannot launch back to orbit then ideally the crew can return to the Lunar Starship and launch it to the Orion. In that case the Lunar Starship is then expended.

It would be preferred not to expend the Lunar Starship but to leave it on the surface of the Moon. Of course boil off will be a concern if the crew does not leave soon enough.

If the Starship is left behind on the Lunar Surface then a process should consume the residual Methane and Oxygen in the tanks to produce H20 and CO2 which perhaps can be stored.

Certainly, the water will be a welcome resource, and the CO2 might be useful as well.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-10-04 19:59:38)

SpaceNut · 2025-10-12 07:14:22

Minimal landers would be label it a sorty mission with little act of being of permanance. What ever Nasa does needs to hold that as its primary mission in the steps to make a path for mans outward journey to the stars eventually but to planets along the way.

Using the Starship as a lifter means altering the items we have to fit a new form and fit to use it for orbital assembly. It is limited with the starship specifications listed in post #2214 above.

It might be easier to alter the starship to being a disposable second stage with new items attached at that point.

GW's space tug

A Centaur space tug is a modern adaptation of the Centaur rocket upper stage, designed to serve as a versatile in-space vehicle for transporting payloads to various destinations. Its design leverages the heritage of the Centaur stage, which has a long history as a high-energy, high-performance rocket component.
The newest version, Centaur V, is the upper stage for United Launch Alliance's (ULA) Vulcan rocket and incorporates significant upgrades for greater performance and endurance. Core design features High-energy cryogenic propellants: Centaur uses liquid hydrogen ($LH_{2}$) and liquid oxygen ($LO_{2}$) as propellants. This combination provides a high specific impulse, making it highly efficient for missions requiring significant changes in velocity (delta-v), such as moving from low Earth orbit (LEO) to geosynchronous orbit (GEO) or on interplanetary trajectories.
RL10 engines:
The stage is powered by highly reliable RL10 engines, originally developed by Pratt & Whitney and now by Aerojet Rocketdyne. The number of engines can vary; for example, the Atlas V used single-engine (SEC) or dual-engine (DEC) Centaur variants, while the Centaur V on Vulcan uses two RL10 engines.
Restart capability:
Centaur engines are designed to be restarted in space. This feature is crucial for complex missions that require multiple burns to achieve the final desired orbit or trajectory, such as deploying a payload in a geosynchronous transfer orbit and later circularizing the orbit.
Pressure-stabilized structure:
A defining characteristic of the Centaur is its thin-walled, stainless-steel structure. The tanks maintain their structural rigidity through internal pressurization from the propellants and inert gas, essentially functioning as a "steel balloon." This design reduces the stage's overall weight, maximizing the performance-to-weight ratio.
Common bulkhead:
The Centaur's liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks are separated by a common, insulated bulkhead. This design further improves mass efficiency but requires precise engineering to maintain thermal separation between the cryogenic propellants.
Centaur V enhancements
The latest Centaur V, developed by ULA for the Vulcan rocket, includes several upgrades that allow it to act as a more capable space tug compared to its predecessors.
Increased energy and endurance:
The Centaur V offers 2.5 times the energy and 450 times the endurance of the older Common Centaur, allowing for more complex maneuvers and longer mission durations.
Enhanced electronics and subsystems:
The vacuum-tube-based avionics have been replaced with a modern, fault-tolerant solid-state system. Electromechanical actuators also replace the older hydraulic system for engine steering.
Larger diameter:
The Centaur V was developed by bringing forward design elements from the canceled Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage (ACES) program, including a wider 5.4-meter diameter. This increases propellant capacity and allows for larger payloads.
Space tug applications
The Centaur's advanced capabilities make it suitable for a variety of "space tug" missions beyond simply acting as a rocket's final stage.
Interplanetary missions:
For decades, Centaur stages have launched probes to every planet in the solar system and beyond, including the Surveyor lunar landers, Voyager probes, and New Horizons.
Satellite delivery:
Centaur can deliver communications, navigation, and national security satellites directly into their final orbits, such as geosynchronous orbit, after being deployed into a lower orbit by a larger launch vehicle.
Multi-manifesting:
The endurance and restartability of the modern Centaur V allow it to deploy multiple satellites into different orbits on the same mission, which can enable more cost-effective launches for rideshare customers.
In-space logistics:
In addition to transporting payloads, Centaur can be adapted for tasks like reboosting platforms, storing and transferring propellants to other vehicles, and conducting independent scientific missions. Historical context The concept of a Centaur-derived space tug has been explored for decades. Studies in the 1970s and 1980s proposed using a reusable Centaur with the Space Shuttle, though this was canceled for safety reasons after the Challenger disaster. Nevertheless, the heritage, high performance, and continuous evolution of the Centaur design solidify its role as a premier high-energy upper stage and space tug

tahanson43206 · 2025-10-12 08:10:03

For Space re Post #2216...

https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 28#p234828

What was your source for the post? That was NOT a quote form GW Johnson. The header above the post implies it was.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2025-10-12 09:08:10

I have actually looked at the Centaur as a possible small space tug. There is a larger version, but it still features the common bulkhead between the LOX and LH2 tanks. Though that is an insulated bulkhead, it still limits the stage life to several hours or maybe a day or so, which is too short to be a useful tug. The periods of the elliptic capture and departure orbits are the best part of a week long.

I really like the steel balloon approach to lighter weight, which depends critically upon control of tank pressure with both evaporation and appropriate venting. I also greatly admire the reliability of the RL-10 engines. Put those together in a scaled-up stage that has separated LOX and LH2 tanks, with anywhere from 2 to 5 RL-10 engines, and cover those tanks with low-density insulation and a very reflective outer foil layer, and you would have a LOX-LH2-powered tug with a stage life long enough to serve as a tug: more than a week or so. Without adding cryocooler equipment, which is not all that heavy, but not all that light either.

SpaceX does not face quite the same stage life problem with its Starship, because the LOX and LCH4 temperatures are not very far apart. They are already doing pressure control of evaporation and venting. But they are not relying upon the inflated balloon approach for strength. At that size scale they cannot, and they also must make this thing a survivable reentry craft, plus land the thing. Centaur does none of those things. SpaceX's design is similar to monocoque construction, with frames and stringers. Their stage life is long enough that a Starship could be a very large space tug. It would have to be fitted for external docking features in one way or another, though.

You would choose a large tug when flinging a large craft into interplanetary space. You would use a small tug (like my conceptual Centaur variant) when flinging a small craft into interplanetary space. The tug (of either size) takes you from LEO speed to just under escape, so that your interplanetary craft need add only a little more to get fully beyond escape to the c3 needed for its mission. The tug (whichever it is) stays on the extended ellipse, and burns (unladen!) back into LEO about a week or so later, then must rendezvous with "something". The unladen burns need not much propellant, despite the large LEO-entry dV (rendezvous budgets are small), precisely because it is unladen (very much lighter in nonpropulsive weight).

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-10-12 09:13:56)

SpaceNut · 2025-10-12 10:21:17

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Space re Post #2216...
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 28#p234828
What was your source for the post? That was NOT a quote form GW Johnson. The header above the post implies it was.
(th)

AI generated is centaur rocket stage human rated and even when reviewed again a respose might not generate the same answer.

co pilot generate

Yes, the Centaur upper stage has been human-rated for specific missions, notably as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program with the Atlas V rocket.
The Centaur upper stage, developed by United Launch Alliance (ULA), has a long history of use in launching satellites and interplanetary probes. For human spaceflight, however, it required significant modifications and rigorous certification to meet NASA’s safety standards.
?? Human-Rating the Centaur for Crew Missions
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program required launch vehicles to be human-rated to safely carry astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS).
ULA adapted the Atlas V rocket with the Centaur upper stage to support Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner capsule. This configuration underwent extensive review and testing to meet NASA’s NASA-STD-8719.26 human-rating standards.
Key upgrades included:
Redundant systems for propulsion and avionics.
Enhanced structural integrity to withstand crewed launch dynamics.
Safety protocols for abort scenarios and crew protection.
? Shuttle-Centaur Legacy and Safety Concerns
In the 1980s, NASA explored using a Shuttle-Centaur configuration to launch heavy payloads like the Galileo and Ulysses probes. This version of Centaur was designed to be carried inside the Space Shuttle and deployed in orbit.
However, after the Challenger disaster in 1986, concerns about the risks of carrying cryogenic fuel inside the Shuttle led to the cancellation of Shuttle-Centaur missions. This highlighted the challenges of human-rating high-energy upper stages.
?️ What Human-Rating Really Means
Human-rating involves more than just reliability—it includes designing for crew survivability, fault tolerance, and mission assurance.
The Centaur’s adaptation for crewed missions reflects a broader shift in spaceflight toward reusable, modular, and safety-focused systems.
If you're curious about how Centaur compares to other human-rated upper stages or want to explore its role in future missions, I’d be happy to dive deeper.

AI Overview
Space tugs can use a variety of fuels, including liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen for high-efficiency chemical engines, non-toxic "green" propellants like nitrous oxide for smaller thrusters, and propellants for electric propulsion like xenon or argon. Nuclear thermal propulsion uses a liquid propellant, most often hydrogen, heated by a nuclear reactor to generate thrust, and some high-efficiency systems use propellants like hydrogen and oxygen for power generation.
Chemical propulsion
Liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen:
A very efficient option for high-thrust chemical rockets, though liquid hydrogen is difficult to store long-term due to "boil-off".
RP-1 (kerosene), hydrazine, or nitrogen tetroxide (NTO):
These are less efficient than liquid hydrogen/oxygen but are "earth-storable" and don't suffer from the same long-term boil-off issues.
Green propellants:
Non-toxic alternatives to hydrazine are being developed, such as nitrous oxide-based fuels, which are used in smaller thrusters on some space tugs.
Electric and nuclear propulsion Nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP):
This concept uses a nuclear reactor to heat a liquid propellant (like hydrogen) to a very high temperature and expel it through a nozzle at high velocity, providing high thrust and efficiency.
Electric propulsion:
These thrusters are highly fuel-efficient but produce very low thrust, making them suitable for long, slow maneuvers rather than rapid changes in velocity. Examples of propellants include xenon, argon, or even bismuth.
Fuel cells:
Hydrogen and oxygen can be used in fuel cells to generate electricity for other onboard systems, which can then be used by electric propulsion or other equipment

SpaceNut · 2025-10-12 14:59:15

SpaceX plans to launch 11th Starship test flight in Texas as early as Monday

SpaceX said in a statement that the launch window will open at 6:15 p.m. CDT on Monday as the rocket prepares to launch from the company's Starbase compound in Texas.
SpaceX revealed that the booster used for the upcoming flight previously flew during the eighth test flight. It will lift off with 24 reused Raptor engines and attempt to land in the Gulf of Mexico rather than return to the launch site.
The primary test objective of this launch, SpaceX said, is to demonstrate a unique landing burn engine configuration planned to be used on the next generation Super Heavy rocket.
During the descent, SpaceX plans to fire 13 engines at the start of the landing burn before switching to five to steer the rocket. That's more than the three engines used in earlier tests. The new setup is meant to give the rocket more control and serve as a backup if any engines shut down.

5ebe2aec4b3de337739c5c1278ea5e73

SpaceNut · 2025-10-13 15:54:44

web view https://www.space.com/space-exploration … ch-webcast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31KE1XY32SE

3fdb6f59dbb28549cc95cc71f2be9923

NASA is counting on Starship, a 400-foot-tall, super-heavy-lift rocket and spaceship system, to put its first astronauts on the moon under a $4.2 billion contract. Though the U.S. space agency has its own rocket and spaceship, Starship is expected to ferry the crew from lunar orbit to the moon's surface for the last leg of the journey.

SpaceX says refueling its Starship in space won't be scary

Why does NASA want a propellant depot in space?
NASA and commercial partners are interested in space fuel stations because they could allow spacecraft to travel longer and farther into the solar system. Future missions could use ice on the moon to make propellant by splitting water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. If engineers can figure out how to store super-cold liquids in space, whether they are launched from Earth or produced somewhere else, it could make a long-term stay on the moon possible and even support distant missions to Mars.
NASA has invested $370 million in over a dozen U.S. companies to develop the technology needed to store and transfer rocket fuel in space. That funding includes $53 million for SpaceX to demonstrate a propellant transfer, from tanker to ship, in orbit.
The U.S. space agency has chosen to use private vendors for moon landers to buy down the technical risks and costs of the Artemis program, which seeks to use the moon as a springboard for eventual missions to Mars. SpaceX was the first selected, and Blue Origin, billionaire Jeff Bezos' rival space company, was awarded the contract for Artemis V, a crewed mission slated for no earlier than 2029.

images-3.fill.size_1400x788.v1705009837.webp

tahanson43206 · 2025-10-14 10:17:14

This is one of many reports sure to appear about today's successful test flight:

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/science/arti … 29337.html

Space
SpaceX launches giant Starship rocket for moon and Mars on 11th test flight (video)
Mike Wall
Mon, October 13, 2025 at 8:58 PM EDT
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
SpaceX Starship Flight 11 liftoff.
Credit: SpaceX
That's two in a row for Starship.
SpaceX's Starship , the biggest and most powerful rocket ever built, aced a suborbital test flight today (Oct. 13), following up on a similar success in late August.
Today's mission, which lifted off from SpaceX's Starbase site in South Texas, was the 11th overall test flight for the Starship program. It was also the final launch of the current version of the giant vehicle, which will soon be replaced by an even larger variant. And this swan song was a memorable one.
"Let 'em hear it, Starbase!" SpaceX spokesperson Dan Huot said during the company's launch webcast today, as employees at the site cheered the test flight's successful conclusion. "What a day!"
a giant silver rocket launches with a wetland and the sea behind it
SpaceX's 11th Starship megarocket launches on a test flight from Starbase, Texas, on Oct. 13, 2025. | Credit: SpaceX
Starship Die Cast Rocket Model Now $47.99 on Amazon.
If you can't see SpaceX's Starship in person, you can score a model of your own. Standing at 13.77 inches (35 cm), this is a 1:375 ratio of SpaceX's Starship as a desktop model. The materials here are alloy steel and it weighs just 225g.View Deal
A rocket for the moon and Mars
SpaceX is developing Starship to help humanity settle Mars, a long-held dream of company founder and CEO Elon Musk. Indeed, Musk, the world's richest man, has said he established SpaceX back in 2002 primarily to help our species set up shop on the Red Planet.
The moon is also in Starship's sights: NASA chose the vehicle to be the first crewed lander for its Artemis program, which aims to put boots on the moon for the first time since the Apollo era. If all goes to plan, Starship will land astronauts near the lunar south pole for the first time on the Artemis 3 mission, which is scheduled to launch in 2027.
Musk was on hand Monday evening to watch the Starship Flight 11 launch in person. But not from launch control.
"This is really the first time I'm going to be outside and watching the rocket," Musk said during a brief cameo on SpaceX's launch livestream. "It's going to be much more visceral."
Image 1 of 6
A split view of a rocket leaving Earth behind as another rocket stage drops away
Image 2 of 6
A giant booster fires its engines to land before splashing down in the ocean
Image 3 of 6
Flat satellites inside a giant rocket in space
Image 4 of 6
Flat satellites exit a giant rocket in space
Image 5 of 6
A winged silver Starship surrounded by red hot plasma during reentry on Flight 11.
Image 6 of 6
The engines of a SpaceX Starship surrounded by red hot plasma during reentry on Flight 11 with the Earth visible below.
Starship's secret sauce is its envisioned ability to loft incredibly large payloads with mind-boggling frequency. The vehicle is capable of carrying 165 tons (150 metric tons) to the final frontier, and both of its stages — the Super Heavy booster and an upper stage known as Starship, or Ship for short — are designed to be fully and rapidly reusable.
SpaceX plans to bring both Super Heavy and Ship back to the pad after each flight, catching them with the launch tower's "chopstick" arms. This strategy — which SpaceX has demonstrated three times to date with Super Heavy, though not yet with Ship — will allow superfast inspection and reflight, potentially allowing Starship to launch multiple times per day from a single site, according to Musk.
Today's launch, by coincidence, occurred on the one-year anniversary of SpaceX's first historic catch of a Super Heavy booster, on the Starship Flight 5 test flight.
The current iteration of the vehicle, known as Version 2, stands about 403 feet (123 meters) tall fully stacked. But future variants will be even bigger: Version 3 will be roughly 408 feet (124.4 m) tall, and a "Future Starship" that Musk teased in a May 2025 presentation will tower a whopping 466 feet (142 m) above the ground.
"Future Starship" is likely Version 4, which Musk later said is expected to debut in 2027. V4 will have a total of 42 Raptor engines — three more than the V2 and V3 variants. (The extra three will go on Ship, giving the upper stage nine engines.)
Test flight setbacks — and a bounceback
These are quite ambitious plans, and this summer they seemed even more so. On three straight test launches — Flight 7 in January, Flight 8 in March and Flight 9 in May — SpaceX lost Ship prematurely.
On Flights 7 and 8, the upper stage exploded less than 10 minutes after liftoff, sending debris raining down on parts of the Caribbean. On Flight 9, Ship broke apart upon reentry to Earth's atmosphere.
SpaceX lost another Ship in June, this time at Starbase: The vehicle that was being prepped for Flight 10 exploded on the test stand, forcing the company to press another Ship into service.
But that replacement upper stage performed well, as did its Super Heavy partner: Flight 10, which launched on Aug. 26, was a complete success. The booster came back to Earth as planned for a splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico about 6.5 minutes after liftoff, and Ship did the same in the Indian Ocean an hour later.
Ship also managed to relight one of its Raptors in space, demonstrating an ability that will be crucial for future missions to the moon and Mars. The vehicle also deployed some payloads — eight dummy versions of SpaceX's Starlink satellites, which were released on the same suborbital trajectory as that of Ship.
Flight 11 repeated those successes today.
The final flight of Starship V2
A split screen of the landing of Starship Flight 11 from Ship 38 on the left, with a view of the landing in the Indian Ocean from a buoy on the right.
This split screen shows the landing of Starship Flight 11 from Ship 38 on the left, with a view of the landing in the Indian Ocean from a buoy on the right. | Credit: SpaceX
Flight 11's main goals were the same as those of Flight 10 — bring Super Heavy down in the Gulf and do the same with Ship off the coast of Western Australia, after an in-space Raptor relight and the deployment of eight more dummy Starlinks.
There were a few twists, however. For example, SpaceX employed a new landing burn strategy with Super Heavy today, trying out an engine configuration that will be used by the next-gen version of the booster.
"Super Heavy will ignite 13 engines at the start of the landing burn and then transition to a new configuration with five engines running for the divert phase," SpaceX wrote in a Flight 11 mission description. "Previously done with three engines, the planned baseline for V3 Super Heavy will use five engines during the section of the burn responsible for fine-tuning the booster’s path, adding additional redundancy for spontaneous engine shutdowns."
Flight 11 also marked the second-ever reflight of a Super Heavy: This same booster also conducted Flight 8, ending its duties that day with a return to Starbase and a chopsticks catch. SpaceX changed out just nine of its 33 Raptors ahead of today's flight, meaning that 24 of them were flight-proven.
The company tweaked Ship a bit as well, to gather data that could aid its future trips back to Earth. For example, SpaceX removed heat-shield tiles to stress-test certain "vulnerable areas" of the upper stage.
And, "to mimic the path a ship will take on future flights returning to Starbase, the final phase of Starship’s trajectory on Flight 11 includes a dynamic banking maneuver and will test subsonic guidance algorithms prior to a landing burn and splashdown in the Indian Ocean," SpaceX wrote in the mission description.
All of this went to plan on Flight 11, which kicked off with a launch from Starbase at 7:23 p.m. EDT (2323 GMT; 6:23 p.m. local Texas time). It was the final liftoff from the site's first orbital launch pad before it's overhauled to get ready for the Starship V3 variant.
"Among many other things, we're installing a new orbital launch mount, a new flame trench system, and upgrading the chopsticks for future catches," Jake Berkowitz, a SpaceX lead propulsion engineer, said during today's launch webcast. "So until that's complete, we'll be running launches from Pad 2, which will be online very soon."
Super Heavy and Ship separated about 2.5 minutes into flight today, and the booster made its pinpoint splashdown in the Gulf four minutes after that.
"Congrats to the whole SpaceX team," Berkowitz said after the huge booster hit the water. "That was incredible!"
Related Stories:
— Starship and Super Heavy explained
— Starship Mars rocket met 'every major objective' on epic Flight 10 test launch, SpaceX says
— What's next for SpaceX's Starship Mars rocket after Flight 10 success?
Ship deployed the eight payloads over a six-minute stretch that began about 19 minutes after liftoff, when the vehicle was 119 miles (192 kilometers) above Earth. The vehicle also aced its brief Raptor relight, which occurred just under 38 minutes after launch.
Ship then made its own return to Earth, surviving the intense heat of reentry despite the selective heat shield tile-stripping. The vehicle aced its banking maneuver, then splashed down in the Indian Ocean a little over 66 minutes after liftoff.
And it was a pinpoint landing, occurring within view of a buoy-mounted camera that SpaceX set up beforehand. The dramatic imagery memorializes the successful sendoff for Starship V2, which now cedes the spotlight to its even bigger successors.
"We promised maximum excitement," Berkowitz said toward the end of today's launch webcast. "And Starship delivered!"

(th)

GW Johnson · 2025-10-14 10:22:36

I saw the news story that Starship/Superheavy flew successfully yesterday (Monday), and I went and watched the video of it on SpaceX's website today (Tuesday). It looked to me like they met every objective and suffered less damage than the last flight.

I saw one engine that failed to light for the Superheavy boostback burn, but it lit up for the landing burn.

I did see the heating discoloration on the Starship rear flap trailing edges from the reflected jet blast of the hot staging, but I did not see actual sheet metal damage there, this time. And I saw nothing suggesting any plasma leakage through the rear flap hinge lines, so whatever they did to stop that, seems to have worked.

I didn't see much in the way of pieces coming loose during entry, but I saw lots of small bits coming off as it hit the dense air just before and during its landing burn and splashdown. I did not see a view of the heat shield as it touched down, although I thought I heard words to the effect that such coverage was actually obtained.

All in all, it looked like it got through in even better shape than the last time. Supposedly the next one will be v3 Starship with the Raptor-3 engines. It's pretty close to time for trying to recover them at launch site. They'll learn a lot more, and more quickly, from real hardware with which to do "scratch and sniff" tests, after the flights.

Kudos, SpaceX! You did it again!

GW

GW Johnson · Yesterday 09:30:33

Update on post 2223 just above:

I saw in today's "Daily Launch" email newsletter from AIAA with a similar very positive assessment of Flight 11. It had a link to a longer Ars Technica article. I looked at that article. About the only new piece of information is that the "crunch wrap" variation of installing heat shield tiles seems to have solved the gap flow problem.

It may be a while before they fly the next one. That will be a version 3 ship with Raptor-3 engines. Who knows what they will do to the booster. They are rebuilding test stands and launch pads for the newer versions. That work is currently ongoing.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (Yesterday 09:32:40)

tahanson43206 · Yesterday 09:46:13

This is a follow up to GW Johnson's #2224

I asked Google about "crunch wrap"... If someone can discover the nature of "crunch wrap" it would be a welcome addition to this topic.

For the SpaceX Starship, the "crunch wrap" heat shield solution appeared to work well during a recent test flight. The material was used to fill the gaps between the rocket's ceramic heat shield tiles, preventing super-heated plasma from reaching the stainless steel hull during atmospheric reentry.
Key details from recent test flights:
Flight 10 Findings: During this flight in August 2025, engineers tested the "crunch wrap" in a limited capacity. They determined it was effective at sealing tile gaps, especially when compared to a different experimental metallic tile design that oxidized and failed.
Flight 11 Implementation: Following the successful test on Flight 10, SpaceX decided to use the "crunch wrap" material more extensively on Flight 11 in October 2025.
Flight 11 Results: Preliminary analysis after Flight 11's successful reentry and splashdown suggested the heat shield change worked well.
The "crunch wrap" technique is an attempt to create a simpler, more reliable sealing method for the heat shield compared to the gap fillers used on the Space Shuttle, which were complex and sometimes came loose during flight.

(th)_

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#2201 2025-09-21 09:16:28

Re: Starship is Go...

#2202 2025-09-28 00:36:17

Re: Starship is Go...

#2203 2025-09-28 08:09:23

Re: Starship is Go...

#2204 2025-09-28 09:36:05

Re: Starship is Go...

#2205 2025-09-28 15:44:16

Re: Starship is Go...

#2206 2025-09-29 08:40:12

Re: Starship is Go...

#2207 2025-09-29 09:40:22

Re: Starship is Go...

#2208 2025-09-29 10:03:04

Re: Starship is Go...

#2209 2025-09-29 12:13:59

Re: Starship is Go...

#2210 2025-09-30 09:46:56

Re: Starship is Go...

#2211 2025-10-03 06:04:04

Re: Starship is Go...

#2212 2025-10-04 06:11:27

Re: Starship is Go...

#2213 2025-10-04 12:00:51

Re: Starship is Go...

#2214 2025-10-04 15:28:02

Re: Starship is Go...

#2215 2025-10-04 19:51:59

Re: Starship is Go...

#2216 2025-10-12 07:14:22

Re: Starship is Go...

#2217 2025-10-12 08:10:03

Re: Starship is Go...

#2218 2025-10-12 09:08:10

Re: Starship is Go...

#2219 2025-10-12 10:21:17

Re: Starship is Go...

#2220 2025-10-12 14:59:15

Re: Starship is Go...

#2221 2025-10-13 15:54:44

Re: Starship is Go...

#2222 2025-10-14 10:17:14

Re: Starship is Go...

#2223 2025-10-14 10:22:36

Re: Starship is Go...

#2224 Yesterday 09:30:33

Re: Starship is Go...

#2225 Yesterday 09:46:13

Re: Starship is Go...

Board footer