New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#2426 2026-11-07 07:34:26
- tahanson43206
- Moderator
- Registered: 2018-04-27
- Posts: 26,397
Re: Starship is Go...
This post is about the planned SpaceX launch planned for November 13th. The report by Google notes that FAA has not yet granted approval for the entire flight plan.
AI Overview
SpaceX is targeting Friday, November 13, 2026, for Starship Flight 15 from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas.
Key Launch Details
• Mission: Starship Integrated Flight Test 15
• Target Date: Friday, November 13, 2026
• Launch Site: Starbase (OLP-2), Boca Chica, Texas
• Announcement: Shared by SpaceX Vice President of Launch Kiko Dontchev at the UP.SummitWhat to Expect on Flight 15
• First-Ever Ship Catch Attempt: SpaceX plans to attempt to catch the Starship upper stage using the launch tower's mechanical "chopstick" arms.
• Dual Stage Recovery: In addition to catching the upper-stage ship, SpaceX aims to catch the Super Heavy booster (continuing the tower-catch method proven on previous flights).
• Payload: Expected to carry Starlink V3 satellites, following up on the orbital deployment milestones of Flight 14.
• Regulatory Status: The flight remains subject to final FAA licensing approval for the return-to-launch-site and upper-stage tower catch.
You can track updates and stream the test flight live on the SpaceX Official Website or read more about the mission via Teslarati's Starship Coverage.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
#2427 2026-11-07 08:26:16
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,315
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
Announcing such a demanding plan means SpaceX thinks they have solved the unreliability/relight problems with its Raptor-3 engines. They must convince the FAA of that to get their license. There are two risk areas related to engine reliability: (1) the booster catch, and (2) the ship fly-by/fly-past of Brownsville to reach the landing site.
I suspect without evidence that the new tower will be used to catch the booster, and the older tower the ship. They only have the two towers. Only the newer tower is compatible with a v.3 Superheavy booster, or so they have said.
The booster risk is a failure to ignite for the last-second touchdown burn they use. If that fails, it can only fall nearby. The risk is an out-of-control booster hitting the tower, or impacting close enough to damage it. People are at risk if it smacks a control bunker. Remember, the booster has reversed course and is coming in from over the Gulf of Mexico. It overflies nobody.
The ship risk is the powered avoidance maneuver as it lights up for the landing burn. Just aerodynamic control is not enough. It has to dodge around Brownsville to accomplish that without overflying the city. If these maneuvers and this burn do not function correctly, the ship could hit Brownsville, or a close-by population in Mexico (an international incident). This is driven by the ship's entry and descent path coming in moving eastward, over Mexico toward Brownsville. It must overfly people. While not large concentrations, there are lots of people living under that path.
Actually, when you think about it, the launch-and-landing facility during flight testing needs to be on an island in the ocean, like Kwajalein. Then most of these risks during flight testing "go away". Once the vehicle design settles, and it proves reliable enough to put into regular service, then the mainland sites become low-enough risk. But Kwajalein (or similar) would have required the factory to build the vehicles to be sited there! And they did not do that! Falcon-1 was flown from Kwajalein, if you'll recall. They will always need the factory at the launch/landing site, wherever it is, because these vehicles are so large! Quite unlike Falcon-1.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2026-11-07 08:31:42)
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
#2428 2026-11-08 10:05:49
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,315
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
I saw in a LinkedIn post by Steve Yoon of NASA that Flight 15 might take place Nov 13, if it flies per plan. We will see.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2026-11-09 10:30:37)
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
#2429 2026-11-08 19:49:18
Re: Starship is Go...
SpaceX has announced flight 15 will again only carry 26 Starlinks for a total mass of ca. 45 to 50 tons:
https://www.spacex.com/launches/starship-flight-15
This provides further evidence the max payload of the Starship V3 is indeed in that range. The reason is the importance of Starship reaching the 100 tons payload capacity for the Artemis lunar lander refueling role for NASA’s Artemis schedule means SpaceX would want to demonstrate it has this capability, even if meant just sending dummy mass.
Another reason why SpaceX would want to send up 60 Starlinks for ca. 100 tons payload instead of just 26 Starlinks for ca. 50 tons to orbit if it did have this capability, is because Starlink is the only profitable component of the SpaceX conglomerate of companies. Getting the most Starlinks to orbit it can maximize profit.
As a point of comparison Falcon 9 is sending up ca. 16 tons of the V2 versions of the Starlinks which amounts to 96% of the reusable payload capacity of the Falcon 9.
Bob Clark
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
#2430 2026-11-09 10:44:26
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,315
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
Bob:
This thing is still deep in developmental flight tests, not the final demonstration flight tests. The thing in most serious question is the engine relight capability. You know that. You have pointed at it before. So have I.
Until they demonstrate full engine reliability, and enough control of entry, descent, and landing to justify overflying people, it will STILL be deep in developmental flight tests, with the configuration subject to change AND the risk of a vehicle loss considered to be high!
And that last is why no sane person would even attempt to demonstrate full payload capability in a developmental flight test! Musk might want to do it, but SpaceX's engineers will not do that! They know better, young and inexperienced as they are. (Musk did not allow SpaceX to hire any engineer or technician over the age of 40-45 years.)
Why risk but a few Starlinks at a time on such a risky flight? That makes no sense, either! But if successful, they can make a little money off of those few.
Let's see if flight 15 shows they solved the engine relight problem, and that they can successfully divert Starship around Brownsville to land at Starbase. Plus the tower catches of BOTH stages! ALL those items are still in VERY serious question, never before having been done! The version-1 booster catches do not count here! This is a new variant of the booster that does not even fit the older tower at all! They MUST show that the new variant and the new tower both work! If they can!
Then (if successful in ALL those things, and NOT BEFORE !!!) it can proceed to the final demonstration tests, where a high payload capacity demonstration is FINALLY appropriate! That would be something they do as they move toward maybe man-rating, then operational use. And I might add, EVERY SINGLE VARIANT must go through this same process of developmental flight tests, followed by demonstration flight tests. Flight safety simply demands it!
You would appear to be picking on them unfairly about payload capacity, which suggests that you simply dislike them, and are looking for any excuse to say bad things about them. I've noticed that there are others out there who do that, even some within NASA, others in potential competitors. You should not be a part of that, whether you dislike them, or not! It does not become you!
Myself, I like SpaceX for what they have achieved and what they want to attempt, although I have come to despise Musk himself. I despise him for being the arrogant control freak, chronic breaker-of-the-rules, and political extremist, that he has so amply demonstrated himself to be, over the last 2 years. While SpaceX has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that reusability is the future of spaceflight, and demonstrated at least one way to do it.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2026-11-09 11:10:21)
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
#2431 Today 15:56:48
Re: Starship is Go...
You would appear to be picking on them unfairly about payload capacity, which suggests that you simply dislike them, and are looking for any excuse to say bad things about them. I've noticed that there are others out there who do that, even some within NASA, others in potential competitors. You should not be a part of that, whether you dislike them, or not! It does not become you!
My reasons for skepticism of their claims the V3 has 100 ton payload capacity come purely from logical deduction. After a flight SpaceX knows what the payload capacity of the V3 is. Note I mean now like what it could do on Friday on flight 15 if they so chose. I don’t mean when they increase the tank size and thrust level again.
Yet, they say nothing what that value is. NASA was so disenchanted with their progress they chose a direct competitor to them to offer a different lander. To get confidence from a major customer, NASA, they should put on their flight a payload mass to confirm they can do the required 100 ton payload level, even if it’s just dummy mass with no Starlinks. Note also SpaceX crows about every accomplishment they make. If they did reach the key 100 tons payload capacity you can believe they would be crowing about it.
There is also a mathematical reason for doubting Starship V3 actually reaches the 100 tons to LEO. Take a look at the progression in sizes the Starship V1 to V2 to V3 and the progression in Raptor thrust levels V1 to V2 to V3:
The small increases are calculated here:
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6af4b129c810819 … ticolor_v1
The increase is only incremental for both upgrades. The incremental upgrade from V1 to V2 gave only an incremental increase in payload from 15 tons to 35 tons. It is unreasonable to suppose another incremental increase from V2 to V3 would result in increase in payload by a factor 3 times larger. On the hand it would make sense for the increase in payload to again be incremental to be in the range of ca. 50 tons.
Bob Clark
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