SpaceX Super Heavy and Starship updates

[wakjak]

Time to dissolve spaceX and get rid of this dumb as crap company.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

 

Always enjoy Scott Manley's analysis of these RUDs.

 

[Xenon]

At least Starship Block 2 is consistent in failure.  They were lucky it was not the stack. That would have been really huge. 

[Som]

Meanwhile Honda just had a successful reusable rocket test, should be a thread about them and not this maniacal maniacs madness

https://interestingengineering.com/space/honda-stuns-world-with-reusable-rocket-launch

[DocM]

On 19/06/2025 at 11:24, Som said:

Meanwhile Honda just had a successful reusable rocket test, should be a thread about them and not this maniacal maniacs madness

https://interestingengineering.com/space/honda-stuns-world-with-reusable-rocket-launch

SpaceX Falcon 9 has over 500 orbital launches, the vast majority of them reused. They launch more frequently, more tonnage,  and for a lower price than any other space company or agency in the world. They also run the largest satellite communications network in the world, and are building and  launching the largest satellite networks for the US military and reconnaissance agencies with other partners. Only a few idiots here are unimpressed. 

------

Grok reports

"Starship Version 3 full stack measures ~150m in height (up from ~121m in V1) and retains a 9m diameter. Engine bay upgrades include 35 Raptor 3 engines on the booster (vs. 33 prior) and 9 on the ship (vs. 6), with redesigned plumbing for better fuel flow, heat shielding, and thrust vectoring."

Height: 492' 1.512"

Diameter: 29'  6.331"

 

 

 

 

Rocket engine primer & Raptor 3 test

 

Edited August 15, 2025 by DocM

[Som]

On 15/08/2025 at 00:27, DocM said:

SpaceX Falcon 9 has over 500 orbital launches, the vast majority of them reused. They launch more frequently and for a lower price than any other space company or agency in the world. Only a few idiots here are unimpressed. 

------

Grok reports

"Starship Version 3 full stack measures ~150m in height (up from ~121m in V1) and retains a 9m diameter. Engine bay upgrades include 35 Raptor 3 engines on the booster (vs. 33 prior) and 9 on the ship (vs. 6), with redesigned plumbing for better fuel flow, heat shielding, and thrust vectoring."

 

 

 

meh , I might care about SpaceX if its owner wasn’t a total bollocks but my petty side actually hopes he crashes harder than any rocket because he makes space travel impossible to admire.

[DocM]

On 14/08/2025 at 19:54, Som said:

meh , I might care about SpaceX if its owner wasn’t a total bollocks but my petty side actually hopes he crashes harder than any rocket because he makes space travel impossible to admire.

The financial side won't give you any hope. Tesla is worth $1 trillion, SpaceX $400 million and rapidly increasing. Some recent economic studies put SpaceX at $2-4 trillion by 2040. It frequently beats the estimates and is the largest privately held company. 

When thinking about this keep in mind that SpaceX is not run by Musk, it is run by company President Gwen Shotwell. As aerospace engineers go, she's an ace.

The Starbase General Manager is Kathy Lueders, formerly a NASA Associated Administrator Space Operations Mission Directorate  (in charge of the US human spaceflight program).

Who flies most of the astronauts? SpaceX's Dragon. They even fly Russian Cosmonauts and other International astronauts.

They  even rescued 2 astronauts when their broke down spaceship can't be trusted to bring them home

Edited August 15, 2025 by DocM

[DocM]

Grok update

[FloatingFatMan]

Here's a starship update for ya... The idiots at SpaceX can't even get Shuttle tech heat tiles right!  

 

[SALSN]

The shuttle tiles were a huge pain with enormous refurbishing costs, so SpaceX is deliberately not trying to copy the shuttle tech.

[FloatingFatMan]

On 21/08/2025 at 08:19, SALSN said:

The shuttle tiles were a huge pain with enormous refurbishing costs, so SpaceX is deliberately not trying to copy the shuttle tech.

And instead make something that, at its most basic, just won't work? 

How smart of them... To redesign something that NEVER failed, into something that will, and does, just completely fail... 

[SALSN]

On 22/08/2025 at 07:25, FloatingFatMan said:

And instead make something that, at its most basic, just won't work? 

How smart of them... To redesign something that NEVER failed, into something that will, and does, just completely fail... 

First of all, the starship has made it successfully through the atmosphere more than once
Second, it is still in development. SpaceX is doing an iterative approach to hardware development, which means they test and refine, so you can expect the systems to get better, just like how the falcon 9 booster has gone through a myriad of iterations ultimately taking it from an expendable booster to one that now can fly over 20 missions.

Third, the tiles of the shuttle did fail, twice, one time they got lucky and the shuttle survived, the other time not so much...

[FloatingFatMan]

On 22/08/2025 at 06:49, SALSN said:

First of all, the starship has made it successfully through the atmosphere more than once
Second, it is still in development. SpaceX is doing an iterative approach to hardware development, which means they test and refine, so you can expect the systems to get better, just like how the falcon 9 booster has gone through a myriad of iterations ultimately taking it from an expendable booster to one that now can fly over 20 missions.

Third, the tiles of the shuttle did fail, twice, one time they got lucky and the shuttle survived, the other time not so much...

The TILES never failed. In both incidences they were damaged by external impact.

And they're never going to "iterate" past the fundamental flaw of embedding steel plates INSIDE the tiles.  A material with a different heat expansion rate than the tile itself and which, as Thunderfoot clearly showed, damages the tiles from within.  NASA glues those tiles on for a REASON.

Then there's the water absorption issue, which can be fixed but should never have happened in the first place... 

Only fools "iterate" at a large scale like this.  Smart people shouldn't even NEED to iterate this basic stuff.  Thermal expansion and water absorption of materials is basic high school stuff ffs... I covered stuff like that when I was 11...

[SALSN]

On 22/08/2025 at 08:25, FloatingFatMan said:

The TILES never failed. In both incidences they were damaged by external impact.

And they're never going to "iterate" past the fundamental flaw of embedding steel plates INSIDE the tiles.  A material with a different heat expansion rate than the tile itself and which, as Thunderfoot clearly showed, damages the tiles from within.  NASA glues those tiles on for a REASON.

Then there's the water absorption issue, which can be fixed but should never have happened in the first place... 

Only fools "iterate" at a large scale like this.  Smart people shouldn't even NEED to iterate this basic stuff.  Thermal expansion and water absorption of materials is basic high school stuff ffs... I covered stuff like that when I was 11...

The tiles were damaged which lead to failure, so they failed, but sure their thermal properties were probably fine.

Iteration means if the current approach is not sound, then they will change it.

I'm not a domain expert on any of this stuff, but I would expect that SpaceX have a few of those that have ideas of how this is supposed to work that are not public, If not it is even more impressive that they have gotten as far as they have.

In any case, it is interesting how the fools are the ones dominating the launch industry, I think we must have different definitions of "fools".

[FloatingFatMan]

On 22/08/2025 at 07:47, SALSN said:

The tiles were damaged which lead to failure, so they failed, but sure their thermal properties were probably fine.

ANYTHING can fail if subjected to external damage.  SpaceX tiles, on the other hand, can fail from WITHIN because of major design flaws. That's a serious problem you can't fix without going back to the drawing board. NASA's original designs worked perfectly, but noooooo.... Musk and his crew know "better".

 

On 22/08/2025 at 07:47, SALSN said:

Iteration means if the current approach is not sound, then they will change it.

And competent engineers not only don't design stupidly from the outset, they also iterate at a small scale first. This applies to all kinds of engineering, physical, mechanical, nuclear, software. It's all engineering and it all has basic fundamentals that you follow.

 

On 22/08/2025 at 07:47, SALSN said:

I'm not a domain expert on any of this stuff, but I would expect that SpaceX have a few of those that have ideas of how this is supposed to work that are not public, If not it is even more impressive that they have gotten as far as they have.

In any case, it is interesting how the fools are the ones dominating the launch industry, I think we must have different definitions of "fools".

They're "dominating" because NASA has been seriously underfunded for decades. Plus, there's no way the public would stand for SpaceX's number of failures if it were NASA doing it; even though SpaceX is getting massive amounts public funding (without which it would have already gone bankrupt). Government entities don't generally get away with failing like private entities do.

 

[+rdlenk Subscriber²]

We are about 4 hours away from the open on the Starship test flight 10 window. Maybe it won't blow up this time! At least not until it is supposed to.

A fair amount of work went into solving the issues of the past flights, but not a ton to be honest. This flight and the next are still the "old" design and so we aren't even attempting to catch the booster. Main goals of flight 10 are to test some of the sat deployment mechanisms since we have been a tad unsuccessful at doing that the past three flights.  Should make for some pretty colors in any case.

[anthdci]

On 24/08/2025 at 20:06, rdlenk said:

We are about 4 hours away from the open on the Starship test flight 10 window. Maybe it won't blow up this time! At least not until it is supposed to.

A fair amount of work went into solving the issues of the past flights, but not a ton to be honest. This flight and the next are still the "old" design and so we aren't even attempting to catch the booster. Main goals of flight 10 are to test some of the sat deployment mechanisms since we have been a tad unsuccessful at doing that the past three flights.  Should make for some pretty colors in any case.

 

hopefully this one goes well. I do dislike these later launches with me being in the UK, 12.30am. Can't see me still being awake then. 

[LittleNeutrino Veteran]

 

[+thexfile Subscriber²]

SpaceX is now aiming to launch its Starship Flight 10 test mission on Monday (Aug. 25) at 7:30 p.m. EDT (2330 GMT) after a one-day delay.

https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/spacex-starship-flight-10-launch-what-time

[Xenon]

This should be interesting after the disaster that block 2 was. This is the first block 3 booster I think. 

[+thexfile Subscriber²]

It's another scrub-a-dub-dub for #10.

The next attempt may be Tuesday, Aug. 26.

[Xenon]

On 25/08/2025 at 20:10, thexfile said:

It's another scrub-a-dub-dub for #10.

The next attempt may be Tuesday, Aug. 26.

Cant control the weather. 

[+thexfile Subscriber²]

The heat tiles issue hasn't been solved, so most likely it would have burned up anyway. 

[+rdlenk Subscriber²]

Full success on Flight 10! It was a hell of a buildup for that. Flight 11 won't be far behind.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Congratulations SpaceX! What a flight!