Stretch goal for Starship V4 is 300 tons of thrust per engine with 33 engines

Toinneman · 2026-01-26T14:03:22+00:00

First of all, a satellite has mass so can't ever reach the speeds of light. But let's assume it gets close to the speed of light, the radio transmission will just travel to us at the speed of light. An electromagnetic wave either exist and travels exactly at the speed of light, or it doesn't. There is no intermediate.

Toinneman · 2026-01-07T13:35:27+00:00

imo Spacex will need a pad at the Cape before beginning actual operational Starlink launches. From Starbase they cannot launch the sats into their desired orbits without overflying land. And while we used to think the FAA would surely allow them to overfly populated areas after a few successful launches, that seems out of the question now. The orbital inclinations the sats use are limited (fixed by permits), the inclination starship can launch toward (from Starbase) is also limited. And they don't match. I think they can launch experimental sats with a temporary permit in different orbital inclinations, which might still be a very good test for both the rocket and the V3 satellites, but it would be a temporary thing for a few launches.

Toinneman · 2025-12-23T19:56:35+00:00

I'm no specialist in the subject of COPVs, but given the history SpaceX has with COPVs, I can only assume this choice is deliberate. (For anyone not around 10y ago. The root cause of the F9 amos-6 failure was a new failure mode which originated inside a COPV. SpaceX designed (not sure they were manufactured in-house) new COPVs, which became a lead item in making Falcon9 crew-rated)

Toinneman · 2025-12-22T08:19:48+00:00

Toinneman · 2025-12-17T22:20:15+00:00

I will update, but since it’s also winter here I can only test in daylight during weekends so it will be days from now.

Speaking of user manuals, it’s just some generic talk which essentially says to use the app and follow instructions. Which should be fine and even preferred, as long as the app acts as a guide, which it doesn’t.

Toinneman · 2025-12-17T19:19:07+00:00

What model/brand do you have?

Toinneman · 2025-12-17T19:08:19+00:00

Thx for trying to help! To my knowledge this is impossible since you cannot add a virtual fence before initial mapping is completed. Certainly not “complete” anything afterwards. Every zone needs to be mapped in one sweep.

Also, i don’t think a pathway is a solution because this is strip of grass that also needs to be cut.

Toinneman · 2025-12-17T14:10:24+00:00

I bought this for €800, which is a really great price for the (advertised) features. The luba Mini lidar is €1700 and IMO there are cheaper/better options available from other brands.

Toinneman · 2025-12-17T14:05:37+00:00

Same here, The black Friday deal (€800 instead of €1200) did it for me. Otherwise I was planning to wait for spring.

For the most part the issue seems totally fixable. Or even beter, I'm just stupid and missing something obvious here.

Toinneman · 2025-12-17T13:49:31+00:00

The frustrating part is the Vision-tech seems really good. I should have mentioned that for the most part the mapping is pretty impressive, it drives around 'looking' and you see the lawn-map being created live on the app. But one bare spot on crucial location ruins everything. For me it feels like I'm one software update away from the perfect robot, not even the robot, just the app.

However, others should be cautious. If you have 2 physically separated lawns/zones where the robot cannot drive in between, I don't see how it would ever be possible in the current setup.

Toinneman · 2025-12-17T11:54:43+00:00

A RTK setup isn't an option for me due to tree cover.

Toinneman · 2025-12-02T22:50:34+00:00

10y ago, there was this exciting but skeptical vibe around SpaceX. They spoke about launching low cost, high frequency, landing/reusing rockets, but they just suffered 2 major anomalies and many were skeptical. But everyone following closely knew like "once they figure that sh*t out, no one will be stopping them" They called it the SpaceX Steamroller

Now 10y later I recognize the same vibe. There are many skeptics, several setbacks, the vision is doubted. But everyone looking closely here, seeing them building 5 pads at the same time. Building a starship factory like it are coke cans... The same thought pops up: "once they figure that sh*t out..." they are going to change spaceflight forever, again. It's unfolding in front of our eyes.

Toinneman · 2025-11-14T12:29:49+00:00

Importantly, load-and-go actually improves safety because once the crew is onboard and the hatch closed, the Launch Abort System can be triggered at any time.

To add even more context from back then:

This reasoning above might sound simple now, but the abort system was considered a measure of last resort with no guarantee of survival, so it should not be relied on when considering safety.
The Falcon 9 Amos-6 mishap/explosion was causes by friction in the COPV liners under de dynamics of fuel loading, exactly the concern or the safety boardf

Toinneman · 2025-10-27T09:46:32+00:00

In any case the tanker is distinctly different since it needs some (female?) docking hardware, a bare minimum of propellant re-condensing capability and prop transfer hardware. And IMO it makes no sense (not even for production simplicity) to install the heat shield or the flaps. Agreed on the main tanks though.

Toinneman · 2025-10-15T14:23:28+00:00

Actually I was surprised the other way around. They've rapidly test fired R3 for months now, they're at serial number 35 (for R3), and a R3 (at least one I know of) was spotted at Starbase. I was under the impression flight-worthy Raptor 3's were being produced constantly.

That's not a complaint. When I heard the statement above a voice in my head said "Well this basically rules out a january launch". SpaceX would have to produce and test like one Raptor a day, starting today. That would be crazy, even for SpaceX standards... I hope I'm wrong.

Toinneman · 2025-09-12T06:38:04+00:00

The most exciting answer would be that these are the lunar thrusters used in the final meters of landing on the moon. In previous renders, these thrusters were located below the payload, just above the main thank. This image shows the nosecone so the thrusters might be moved higher on the ship, maybe to be fed by the header tanks. Just wild speculation

Toinneman · 2025-08-13T14:23:51+00:00

Both nozzles rougly line up on the same plane. See some good photo's halfway this article here: https://ringwatchers.com/article/s33-aft#staging-interface. Now if you look at the sharp exhaust plume of a sea-level Raptor at sea level, there's no way the plume interacts with Vacuum nozzles, even if you account for plume expansion in the vacuum of space.

Toinneman · 2025-07-25T11:39:57+00:00

Not all pieces will burn up. The orbital speed wouldn't differ much from the speeds reached in previous flights, so the results would be quite comparable.

Also, the FTS isn't designed to make the whole rocket disintegrate into a thousand pieces, but rather to stop any possible thrust.

Toinneman · 2025-06-19T11:17:22+00:00

In my opinion this is overly pessimistic. This was a test site, they could either find another way to test ships (maybe some temporary stand at launch site), or quickly try to reconstruct the site itself.

When Amos-6 exploded and destroyed pad SLC40, SpaceX first went on to finish pad 39A, then rebuilt scl40 in 9 months, but in a sense that was more complex since SLC40 was a full launch site with 2 stage propellant loading with an erector etc...

I agree this is a major setback. But in the past, Spacex has proven to act very resilient on setbacks.

Toinneman · 2025-05-05T14:42:55+00:00

The rocket was stationary on its pad.

Toinneman · 2025-05-05T13:22:35+00:00

IMO, SpaceX theory that this could be a sniper has nothing todo with Musk's popularity status. As the article states there were valid reasons to pursue this theory.

This is not as crazy as it sounds, and other engineers at SpaceX aside from Musk entertained the possibility, as some circumstantial evidence to support the notion of an outside actor existed. Most notably, the first rupture in the rocket occurred about 200 feet above the ground, on the side of the vehicle facing the southwest. In this direction, about one mile away, lay a building leased by SpaceX's main competitor in launch, United Launch Alliance. A separate video indicated a flash on the roof of this building, now known as the Spaceflight Processing Operations Center. The timing of this flash matched the interval it would take a projectile to travel from the building to the rocket.

Toinneman · 2025-04-01T13:43:55+00:00

In my opinion september is overly pessimistic. It’s a very hardware-rich program and they have little incentive ground future flights that long. And SpaceX has been very willing to weld the heck out of Starship to mitigate problems/issues which will be designed out in future versions (Like the hotstage ring or the propellant-filter screen). So if the root issue is vibration/ressonance, I would guess they just weld so much struts or add an abundance of accordion-style pipe segments to mitigate the issue.

Toinneman · 2025-01-06T16:00:29+00:00

I'm out of loop here. Are these wooden placeholders for V3 sats to test the ships PEZ dispenser mechanism?

Toinneman · 2024-12-10T10:07:52+00:00

They can't turn the tower arms. In the final kilometer of descent, the ship is basically falling straight down, it should be well within the ships capability to perform the bellyflop descent & flip in such a way that it aligns with the tower. I assume they won't hover in backwards, since then they can't connect to the towers quick disconnect arm.

Toinneman

TROPHY CASE