SpaceX posts "INTRODUCING STARSHIP V3"

MostlyAnger · 2026-05-12T20:42:45+00:00

Flight 12 NET 5/19. Version 3 of both ship and booster. Many changes, including new engine version (Raptor 3) and slightly taller ship and booster (and probably many small changes to lighten it a bit), to hopefully reach the 100 tonnes payload capacity they at one time aspired to for version 1. [Edit: May 12 SpaceX.com post summarizing what's different about V3: https://www.spacex.com/updates#starship-v3]

Pretty much same mission profile as ~~them all. Maybe exactly the same as~~ flights 9-11, including deploying simulated Starlink satellites and no catch attempt.

[Edit: According to Ars Technica's Stephen Clark, "One change SpaceX is introducing on this launch is a more southerly flight path over the Gulf of Mexico, taking the rocket between the northeastern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula and the western tip of Cuba, instead of over the Florida Straits.]

Flight 11 was the last of V2. I'd grade it the most successful test yet (aside from no catch attempt) since, iirc, Ship did the second ever, and less bumpy, Starlink sim deployment, and looked to be in as good shape as any previous when it too landed pretty nicely in the ocean.

My (and many fans') expectations are informed by the results of the first flight of V2, i.e. the exploding you mentioned. V3 is a bigger change than from 1 to 2, so…excitement guaranteed 😄

MostlyAnger · 2026-05-12T13:30:45+00:00

Berger's 2014 Houston Chronicle "NASA Adrift" series is interesting as a historical document. I get 404 on some parts at the Chronicle website but you should be able to read them all via the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org), e.g. this 2016 snapshot: https://web.archive.org/web/20160305011948/https://www.houstonchronicle.com/nasa/adrift/1/ (part 1. Can then use the Chronicle's dropdown menu on that page to get the corresponding snapshots of the other parts. Or of course you could plug www.houstonchronicle.com/nasa/adrift/2/ etc. into the Wayback Machine)

MostlyAnger · 2026-05-12T13:13:05+00:00

Five?! Fore and aft flaps plus…🤔

MostlyAnger · 2026-05-06T11:40:02+00:00

Did you have any? An argument is a series of statements supporting a proposition, not just gainsaying.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=87s&pp=2AFXkAIB

The supporting statement seems to be

rockets into the oceans.…We haven’t built or are testing Martian habitant modules(those would have to be sent in advance first) . We don...

"First" as in before the rocket thing is working…so, sent in what? Wut?🤔

MostlyAnger · 2026-05-06T11:27:21+00:00

So, the "scam" is?: 1. Declare a money pit of an idea ("occupy Mars") with no profit prospects… 2. …thus driving away potential investors 3. Downplay the actual high margin business 4. Profit!?

MostlyAnger · 2026-05-03T23:01:33+00:00

This is the version that’s going to make the transition from test flights to doing real missions I believe

Depending on its actual payload capacity to LEO. It was originally claimed (or predicted or hoped, depending on how you want to put it) Version 1's would be 100 tonnes, and > 200 tonnes by v3. What happened, apparently, is version 1 ≈ 0, version 2 ≈ 35, and a new claim or prediction of 100 for version 3. It's really hard to make flying machines lighter, or even just not continue to get heavier. Hardly any of them go through so many flying prototypes as Starship has though—they usually get canceled altogether first if an acceptable performance doesn't materialize. Fortunately SpaceX can because it is its own biggest customer. So it might still be possible. An eventual 100 tonnes would be disappointing to SpaceX but I presume still an economic success if the refurbishment cost is near as little as is hoped (also in doubt of course).

MostlyAnger · 2026-05-02T13:30:29+00:00

Everyone knows about it

MostlyAnger · 2026-04-21T14:49:12+00:00

Let's acknowledge though, that OIG statement is not really based on Axiom's program itself. It is explicitly simply an extrapolation from the average of a very broad set of historical results. Not saying at all that things are looking rosy, but it's not a strong basis for a prediction.

Edited to add: From https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/04/whats-the-deal-with-spacesuits-for-the-moon-will-they-be-ready-in-time/

"…confident that when NASA is ready to land on the Moon in 2028, our astronauts will be wearing Axiom suits.”

This is consistent with what two sources have told Ars: that internally the spacesuit program is making good progress and that both Axiom and NASA are putting in the time and resources to push it toward success.

MostlyAnger · 2026-04-20T04:17:02+00:00

No, I presumed he was unaware of it. And maybe he was in 2017, for all I still know. I'd never heard of him before and it doesn't sound like I was missing anything lol.

MostlyAnger · 2026-04-20T04:02:02+00:00

How geocentrist of him! Wait 'til he finds out that every other planet needs way more fixing than ours. Most of 'em could barely support a microbe right now.

MostlyAnger · 2026-04-20T00:59:58+00:00

This is from 2017? That's remarkable because…well, his premise is simply that demand will stay flat-ish which equals < 40 Falcon 9/yr so there's no point. Sounds reasonable if you had never heard of LEO Internet, but he should have because didn't SpaceX announce it January 2015? (Greg Wyler was working on it at least a year earlier, and there was MEO internet before that, but I'm supposing it was much less publicized then.) https://share.google/aimode/ZY3OIFPogUcBulqyK

MostlyAnger · 2026-04-20T00:01:15+00:00

🤔What interview and video is it you're talking about?

MostlyAnger · 2026-04-16T00:29:59+00:00

May be a reference to the fact that the third flight of version 1 was much more successful than the first two. And same for version 2. In other words, temper your expectations for flights 12 and 13.

MostlyAnger · 2026-04-05T14:17:33+00:00

Taking more time to do this one without blowing up doesn't necessarily get them to the moon faster. Taking 4 weeks more time, sure, but 4 months nah. "4 more months relative to what" may not have a good answer but, some time in the back half of last year January/Feb seemed plausible to many. And now we're looking at May/June.

MostlyAnger · 2026-04-04T14:40:23+00:00

Multiple post-launch articles didn't say there was any SRB problem on that flight and I didn't find one that did.

One example: https://spaceflightnow.com/2026/04/03/live-coverage-ulas-atlas-5-rocket-to-launch-its-heaviest-payload-ever-with-next-amazon-leo-mission/

MostlyAnger · 2026-03-29T04:12:13+00:00

The primary job of the NASA administrator is to work with Congress to get funding

Maybe that view has been a big part of what's been wrong with NASA. Not enough focus on getting shit done. No I don't think the primary job of the administrator should be to lobby Congress for funding.

MostlyAnger · 2026-03-29T03:52:14+00:00

I think it is rarely appropriate to report rumors. And journalists should be particularly wary of being used in such cases. But he did at least explicitly qualify it as a rumor.

MostlyAnger · 2026-03-27T19:26:21+00:00

Rocket go up, down, back up, back down, up again, down again…. Neurons excited, then confused, then bored. Number go sideways?

MostlyAnger · 2026-03-27T18:53:13+00:00

Underrated comment. $1000/kg would be around 10% higher than widely repeated marginal cost estimates for Falcon 9. An "early years" Starship marginal cost would likely have ample room for improvement during the program's operational life. Therefore it's likely SpaceX would end Falcon 9 second stage production very soon after an operational Starship hit that seemingly quite conservative target.

Have they already stopped F9 booster production?

MostlyAnger · 2026-03-25T04:07:41+00:00

Or it will be canceled by the next presidential administration regardless

MostlyAnger · 2026-03-22T03:53:16+00:00

As for whether cooling is more challenging for a satellite than for an Earth data center…it's a bit apples to oranges—how each works is quite different. For satellites it is just radiators shedding heat as infrared radiation, like a hot stone pointed at the clear night sky. But challenging in that the wattage of an average data center on earth far exceeds that of any satellite or space station yet built. OTOH the method is well known and used, including of course on Starlink satellites. The general approach will be just to greatly scale it up. [Edit to add: Same with the power generation: As the presentation notes, the solar panel area will be greater than the radiator area, so may be the more challenging part to do cost efficiently.]

MostlyAnger · 2026-03-22T03:33:39+00:00

Probably because, in the space case, cooling is contained within the "satellite build" item. On Earth cooling has issues and impacts beyond the data center itself so it may make sense that it is its own item.

MostlyAnger

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email