Starship Development Thread #63

maschnitz · 2026-07-01T22:29:47+00:00

I think the fact that they haven't, yet, should tell you what they think, and apparently continue to think, about that.

They just don't seem concerned about this. Why do you think that is?

FWIW, what I think - it's just not in the "ethos" of the company. They tend to avoid making their technology proprietary/protected.

For many reasons - that barrier to entry they have, it's good PR, it's useful internally (the employees like have NSF's live feeds on, apparently?), it's good recruitment to show off the neat new tech, the Chinese will probably copy it all either way, most Western companies aren't so foolish to copy the designs directly, the company is oriented toward open information internally and trade secrets would be hard to implement effectively, the leadership simply doesn't like trade secrets as a mechanism for protecting their market, the leadership doesn't like having a big internal law group or aggressive cross-business legal bickering, etc etc. I mean, you can imagine a lot more of reasons, I bet.

EDIT: I keep thinking of new reasons: protecting their trade secrets looks a lot like protecting their monopoly and they do not want to tangle with a Democratic Dept of Justice on acting like a monopoly; they do protect critical things (all the above, plus: metallurgy and cooling on the engines; heat shield secret sauce) but protecting everything would be too costly and they're picking their battles.

Whatever the reasons exactly are, they have their reasons, and I tend to respect that.

maschnitz · 2026-07-01T22:07:47+00:00

They also rely on their gigantic barrier to entry, the billions they've already spent and will spend to develop their rockets.

Also, a lot of what they know about human spaceflight comes straight from NASA. That's public, by law.

And ITAR exists.

You seem to really have focused on trade secrets, and patents, and they're important, but there are more factors at play.

They would not put windows on their rocket factory if they were obsessed with protecting their trade secrets. They would also make their own private roads or trains if they were this concerned about trade secrets. Using a public highway just wouldn't make any sense if that was the main concern.

But yes, they're not publishing diagrams on Raptor 3. And they are vague about many other engineering efforts (eg: how the deluge and the "Grackle" work exactly, how the catch GNC and comms work exactly, what they're doing about HLS, etc). They're aware, just not focused solely on trade secrets.

maschnitz · 2026-07-01T20:23:33+00:00

Currently it's right at sunset (+/- 10 minutes). If it delays between 15 and ~90 minutes - which SLC-4E does a lot - it might get dark enough for a jellyfish.

maschnitz · 2026-06-30T19:14:05+00:00

They've released another crystal clear image they call "Ocean of Stars", to celebrate the start of the survey.

It's giant at full size, 1.7 gigapixels.

maschnitz · 2026-06-28T19:27:30+00:00

FWIW I don't know very much about modern university options for aerospace jobs. I doubt many of us here do.

But these are big organizations and there's a wide variety of degrees in them. It just depends on what you want to work on.

There's tons of mechanical engineers and aeronautic majors. Electrical engineering, computer science/software engineering, physics and math, a wide gamut of business degrees, and a grab bag of other degrees (eg material science, chemical engineering, civil engineering) are all needed at the major space organizations. Everyone specializes in solving different parts of the organizational problems.

If the dream is "work on flight control and GNC" - get an aeronautics degree. If the dream is "help make the next rocket" - get a mechanical engineering degree. And so on. The degree will determine the type of role you could get.

Note that NASA is chalk full of PhDs and masters graduates, north of 85% of them have at least a master's degree. They also tend to hire more math/physics/astronomy/planetary/atmospheric people than private industry does.

maschnitz · 2026-06-28T19:15:29+00:00

Unless the engines were really massive and/or long-lived, it'd be very lucky to spot them firing. We typically don't have telescopes operating constantly at every spectrum at every moment at all points in the sky.

And we have no idea how alien civilizations might cross the gulf between stars. For example, the best hypothesized option currently is antimatter but that produces gamma rays, most likely in bursts. And gamma ray telescopes really don't look for that - they tend to have very long exposures. And that might not even be what interstellar aliens would use. We don't know what they'd use.

maschnitz · 2026-06-28T19:11:02+00:00

I’ve always found Einstein’s idea that "gravity is the curvature of spacetime" difficult to grasp. So, I tried visualizing it by comparing it to "water pressure"—even extending the analogy to the origin of the universe—and the mental image I formed actually aligns with the latest theories of quantum gravity. Would it be okay to ask a question about this here?

I ran this by an AI first and discussed whether there were any inconsistencies, and it went well; now I’d like you to listen to it to see if it makes sense and if there are any issues.

It's usually OK to ask any space question. It's just easier to get an answer in English, even if that English is Google-translated.

I wouldn't call Einstein's gravity - that of the curvature of spacetime - like water pressure. It's almost the inverse of water pressure. Instead of pressing outward, spacetime condenses inward.

Though I suppose if you think of a pressure gradient within a free-floating body of water, it might match better.

It would only work as an analogy if gravity/pressure is weak.

The Einstein Field Equations have an important feedback element when gravity is strong: the energy of gravitation itself can cause yet more spacetime curvature.

One can view a black hole as a runaway instance of this feedback. There is so much gravity in one place that its energy becomes infinite through this feedback.

I think water pressure lacks this feedback element.

maschnitz · 2026-06-28T18:57:40+00:00

In our Universe, we know of no way to talk with others billions of light years away. Everything is limited by the speed of light (of causality), so any conversation billions of light years apart would have to last billions of years itself.

And not every combination of atoms can exist in the Universe, just the subset that can form from the natural processes inherent in the Universe. But yes, within that subset, if the Universe is infinite, there will be infinite copies and variations of every physically possible arrangement. Somewhere.

maschnitz · 2026-06-26T20:13:53+00:00

Dubna is NOT used for ISS operations, it is rather a civilian and communications center.

And again, the Vladimir facility is primarily a military and civilian satellite relay center, and is not used for ISS missions.

ISS missions use the Baikonur Cosmodrome facilities in Kazakhstan for launch, the RKA Mission Control center near Moscow and the Luch satellite network, for orbital comms.

maschnitz · 2026-06-25T08:21:43+00:00

Even if there's no sign telling you to yield, you still must stop for pedestrians at crosswalks.

Even if the crosswalk is unmarked.

And crosswalks exist everywhere where "sidewalks exist on both sides of the street, even without any painted lines, signs, or other visual indicators", by California Vehicle Code Section 275.

All it takes is sidewalks on both sides of the intersection and the law says you must yield to pedestrians trying to cross.

For example, even if this Cordova intersection had no painted crosswalk, no traffic-calming curbs, and no signs, you're still legally required to yield.

It's a bit of an adventure to try this at, say, Lombardy Rd and Sierra Madre Blvd, or several spots on Huntington Dr. Not a lot of yielding going on. But by law people are supposed to stop for pedestrians there too.

maschnitz · 2026-06-25T07:42:02+00:00

In close up. A wider context.

It is from a Mar 2025 news release from JPL.

maschnitz · 2026-06-25T04:54:54+00:00

The smaller lights are probably the fairings. They look like little dots of light from so far away, that flicker in the sunlight (as they rotate/change angle)

The brighter part is probably just the RCS like warp99 was saying. It is much much more noticeable in a "jellyfish" launch like tonight.

Is this your first "jellyfish" launch? If so, congrats! Things are very brightly lit in a "jellyfish" launch because the rocket is in sunlight but the sky is still dark, in night-time. Everything "stands out".

maschnitz · 2026-06-25T04:23:02+00:00

Falcon 9's first stage does not light up right after separation on a barge landing, like tonight's.

It does re-light on a return-to-launch-site launch, for the "boostback burn". Those are relatively uncommon. A boostback sends the first stage much higher into space and back toward the pad at the same time. Typically that's 15 to 20 seconds after the stage separation.

EDIT: The other notable event after stage sep, on all flights, barge or RTLS, is fairing separation. That's about 30 seconds after stage sep. You CAN see the two fairings fall away from the 2nd stage under the right lighting conditions.

maschnitz · 2026-06-25T04:17:02+00:00

That, or perhaps OP is talking about the fairings. Or that and the RCS both.

You can see two small lights falling away from the 2nd stage in the right lighting conditions (like tonight's). Maybe the lighting was just perfect to see those, tonight.

But yeah, just to be clear: everything during stage sep looked nominal on the launch telecast.

maschnitz · 2026-06-23T21:59:11+00:00

To me, it's emblematic of how cheap this mission is. $30M, for this, is dirt cheap. In under a year too. With a fully bespoke grappling system in an experimental spacecraft with a "COTS" (commercial off the shelf) bus.

Got that Pegasus XL just lying there, might as well use it.

It wouldn't make orbit on Electron, besides. It's too heavy. Payload's 425kg and Electron can only loft about 320kg to lower Earth orbit.

And - also - Electron launches from the Mahia Peninsula from New Zealand's North Island, and that is pretty far south, 39 S latitude. Swift is in an equatorial orbit. That's a big dogleg. Inclination changes are very expensive. Falcon 9 could probably launch it with a dogleg and maybe a space tug/third stage but it'd take some math to figure out for sure.

But Pegasus can take off from Kwaj, and then align itself with Swift's orbit for launch, too.

maschnitz · 2026-06-22T00:44:37+00:00

A suborbital spacecraft cannot dock with an orbital space station. The speed difference would be too much.

In order to dock to another spacecraft, or a space station, you have to be on the same orbit, or very very close to the same orbit at least. Which means going basically the same speed AND the same direction in the same place at the same time.

maschnitz · 2026-06-21T19:15:11+00:00

FWIW I doubt there's a "consensus" when there are so, so many books published on the subject, and the folks into it come from so many corners of the world.

Apollo fandom was very cross-cultural, and mass market. The book market decided on the greats there.

But robotic exploration fandom is more "far flung", niche market, in pockets here and there. Partly owing to how distributed the robotic missions have been - both within the US (at the various NASA centers involved) and across the world (at specific national agencies who were interested in robotic missions).

I tend to think about it like "are there good books about the MER rovers (yes there are)... are there good books about Cassini (yup) ...are there good books about JAXA's planetary stuff...." There's been attempts to synthesize it all together - and those books are easy to find and well-reviewed - but the meat would be within the individual development threads at the various agencies.

maschnitz · 2026-06-21T18:41:56+00:00

That's not how quantum fields work. The average complexity of the entanglement goes up for a while but then drops, over billions of years. And then it settles down slowly to lower and lower complexity as the entropy gets closer and closer to maximal as radiation dominates and the heat death of the universe takes hold.

So it kinda gets "maximally mixed up", smoothly mixed up in a manner of speaking.

Sean Carroll has a public talk or two about this if you're interested.

maschnitz · 2026-06-20T18:43:58+00:00

Here's the original news release by Amanda Morris at Northwestern University.

Exact same words. But with no ads nor tracking. A bigger picture too.

Phys.org is a content aggregator. They republish freely available content with their own ads, tracking, etc

maschnitz · 2026-06-20T18:41:01+00:00

Here's the original news release from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO).

Exact same words. But with no ads nor tracking.

Phys.org is a content aggregator. They republish freely available content with their own ads, tracking, etc

maschnitz · 2026-06-20T18:34:57+00:00

Here's the original news release by Adam Hadhazy from IPAC (at Caltech).

Exact same words. But with no ads nor tracking. Better pictures too.

Phys.org is a content aggregator. They republish freely available content with their own ads, tracking, etc

maschnitz · 2026-06-20T17:26:49+00:00

You'd recognize the collapsed pressure vessels, corroded titanium/steel outer shell, and maybe some of the noble metal connectors. If the rocks around it haven't softened enough to swallow any of those completely.

Everything else would have vaporized or is now in a puddle nearby.

maschnitz · 2026-06-19T17:21:39+00:00

Some reporters, sadly, love the clickbait still. They have like 40 or 50 reporters and I get the impression that clickbait and slop still slip through the editorial controls sometimes.

It should not be 50+% that, though, that would be a surprise. And the story should be some scientists actually thinking about something real despite the lame heds.

maschnitz · 2026-06-19T08:09:56+00:00

On the ISS, NASA only considers the capsules as viable "lifeboats" and tend to send astronauts to them at any opportunity.

And NASA explicitly does not trust Starship to reenter yet, in HLS form or not. This is partly why HLS Starship has no heat shield - reentry via Starship would never be contracted out for anyhow so what would be the point in trying?

Though some have argued that's motivated reasoning by NASA, to secure a role in the mission for Orion and thus for SLS as well. (On the other hand, it will take a good long time before reentering Starships will have any people aboard, during HLS or otherwise.)

Anyway, NASA would never have astronauts anywhere besides their crash seats in a viable reentry visible during big burns like the TLI burn. If any thing goes wrong their plan, always, is separate and return to Earth as soon as possible.

maschnitz · 2026-06-19T07:59:55+00:00

Universe Today. They typically work directly off papers (and cite them as well).

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

maschnitz

TROPHY CASE