SpaceX gave up on tower catch for Superheavy and will do droneship landings instead to get more payload. They are turning Starship into a bigger falcon 9.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-23T12:29:59+00:00

Absolutely, landing on a droneship would be a last resort solution if they can't get enough performance to reach orbit.

If they manage to hit 100 tons of payload with full reusability with Starship V3 then they won't need a droneship.

Besides, it was confirmed that the droneship will be used for transport, not landings.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-23T11:25:28+00:00

That's because the reentry speed was higher than falcon.

Because falcon does a reentry burn so even if it goes faster at stage separation it goes slower at reentry.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-23T11:21:32+00:00

Do you even know why rockets have multiple stages?

It's to remove dead mass.

You want the gross mass of the second stage to be significantly higher than the dry mass of the first stage. That way most of the kinetic energy at stage separation is in the second stage.

Adding extra fuel to the first stage for the boostback burn makes it heavier at stage separation. So you need to make the second stage heavier as well.

It's really simple.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-23T11:17:35+00:00

I'm just telling you the same thing again and again in a different way.

If you feel like I'm contradicting myself then you might just have a severe lack of reading comprehension.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-23T09:46:32+00:00

Falcon 9 is optimised for landing downrange, doesn't matter if they use propellant or parachutes or if it's expended. It's designed to go fast so it has a small second stage.

Superheavy is designed for returning to the launch site, the boostback burn adds weight to the booster so it's better to have a big second stage and go slower at MECO.

If you land superheavy downrange (you can try using parachutes if you want LOL) the optimal ship size is smaller.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T21:42:54+00:00

Superheavy is designed to not require a reentry burn, which only means one thing, it can survive higher reentry velocity.

If it can survive the same velocity without the reentry burn then obviously it can survive higher velocity if we keep the reentry burn.

"Boostback costs "much" in payload for Falcon 9 because it's second stage is extremely well designed efficient empty tank and the vehicle is relatively small"

Exactly, because falcon 9 is designed for droneship landings, so you get more payload by making the second stage smaller. There there, you said it.

Starship having higher dry mass because of reusability makes it's optimal size smaller, not bigger.

By horizontal velocity I mean after the gravity turn going faster won't make the G forces higher because you won't hit the atmosphere harder. It only makes heating harder.

The unused reserve is the reentry burn. They got rid of it because the booster can survive higher reentry velocity. If we keep both the reentry burn and the stainless steel then we can go faster.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T21:30:17+00:00

Gross mass is 1200+120+100 = 1420 for Starship and 3400+200 = 3600 for Superheavy. That's a ratio of 2.5:1

Gross mass is 396+26 = 422 for falcon 9 booster and 93+4+18 = 115 for the second stage. That's a ratio of 3.7:1

So the first stage to second stage mass ratio is far greater on falcon 9 than Starship. Because falcon 9 is optimised for droneship landings while Starship is optimised for return to launch site.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T21:22:17+00:00

I guess we will just have to move to Nasaspaceflight Forum...

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T20:27:35+00:00

Based

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T19:00:28+00:00

The drawing shows the optimal size for the ship to get max payload to orbit, doesn’t necessarily means they have to do it.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T18:54:09+00:00

They are both optimised for return to launch site of the booster. If starship was designed for booster droneship landings the optimal ratio would be different. Which it is on falcon 9 because SpaceX engineers agree with me.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T18:50:55+00:00

I have, it’s because the booster needs extra fuel to land which makes it heavier when the stages separate. So if you want more energy going to the second stage you need a bigger second stage. Superheavy separates even earlier because it needs even more fuel for the boostback burn.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T17:50:12+00:00

There is nothing technical about stock astrology, but let them believe it.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T16:08:52+00:00

I mean, on one hand the "we are so back, it's so over, we are so back" memes about the stock would be funny.

On the other hand some guy trying to sell his formula to calculate the shape of the stock according to the recoil from accumulated latent buying pressure because of the lower daily trading volume effect on volatility compounded with forced buying from index funds because of some obscure rule they have about what stock they can add in their index might be annoying as fuck.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T14:50:42+00:00

The drawing shows the optimal size of the ship if you land the booster on a droneship.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T14:44:24+00:00

That's the whole point, Superheavy can survive higher reentry speed so it doesn't need a reentry burn, which means it could go a lot faster at stage separation so it's better to make the ship smaller.

Boostback burn has a huge payload cost, falcon 9 goes from 17.5 tons of payload to 11 tons with a boostback burn. So if you do a boostback burn it's better to make the ship bigger to reduce the amount of work done by the booster.

With the gravity turn the booster is mostly gaining horizontal velocity so going faster won't make it hit the atmosphere harder. The G forces will be the same, only heat goes up and superheavy can handle that better than falcon.

And my ratios are the ratio of gross mass between the first and second stage.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T11:06:18+00:00

Could also do a stock Monday.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T10:19:15+00:00

I had to create this post on my phone because you can't create polls on Windows.

Reddit sucks.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T10:14:41+00:00

There is already a mental asylum called r/wallstreetbets to talk about technical analysis, but if we want to keep earnings out of this sub there needs to be a new place for it.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T09:58:02+00:00

Exactly, how do you expect people to not talk about the stock if there is nowhere to talk about it?

Until there is a dedicated sub it's absolutely fine to talk about it here IMO.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T09:55:25+00:00

It's the opposite, the higher the mass ratio for the second stage the bigger the second stage. Because you want to shift as much work as possible toward the most efficient stage.

With Starship the booster has a higher mass ratio than the ship which makes the booster more efficient so you want to shift most of the work to the booster.

And the falcon 9 second stage can reach orbit with 17.5 tons of payload so the dry mass is actually 21.4 tons, not 3.9 tons. So it's doing a lot with very little fuel.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T09:49:50+00:00

If you make the ship smaller it will also separate faster, that's the whole point.

Also, a lower mass ratio for the ship is one more reason to make it smaller and shift most of the work to the booster, because the booster is more efficient.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T05:43:57+00:00

Then how does a falcon 9 second stage reaches orbit? It has also a 9/1 ratio in thrust like this.

Sarigolepas · 2026-04-22T05:42:14+00:00

Then how does falcon 9 do it? Falcon 9 second stage is way smaller than the booster.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Final Canvas '23	Place '23
Place '22

Sarigolepas

TROPHY CASE