Hacker News Reader

Comment by testing22321 | Hacker News Reader

>Launching only 26 Starlink v3 satellites is a disappointingly small number. That's about ~52t

Which makes it the third heaviest orbital payload in all of history.

Funny thing to be disappointed about.

I'm excited at the prospect of Starship landing on the moon. 100T payloads are maybe not required to make it happen, but probably are. For those of us who care about Artemis IV happening on schedule, being disappointed in a 52t payload capacity is very straightforward.

I'm not excited about more Starlink satellites.

Starlink payloads are the literally the path to making Starship human spaceflight ready. Starship has to launch dozens to hundreds of times to identify and fix low probability failures. Without frequent Starlink flights testing and debugging the vehicle, it would take far longer to build a safe and reliable Starship.

They're also highly profitable, and fund/subsidize future missions. Recall, Starship development was funded by Starlink.

The company is built around Golden Dome, not Moon/Mars

Ask your favorite AI about Michael D. Griffin and Pete Worden and their connection to SpaceX

100T payloads are not even remotely required.

The other moon lander NASA is going forward with has a tiny fraction of that, and there are plenty of people who think it’s better.

Launching at only half payload capacity is disappointing. Starlink is severely capacity constrained, SpaceX needs to get as many v3 sats as they can into orbit, instead of flying partial loads.

They are testing, learning and evolving the program, and they’re doing it in public so we’re lucky enough to get some inside tech details.

It continues to improve. Be patient.

I'm completely aware. But this is the third flight in a row with a half payload. If this trend continues, it's not a good sign for Starship block 3's performance capabilities.

“If this trend continues” about Falcon 1. About Falcon 9 landings, about Falcon 9 reuse, about starlink capacity, about starship launching at all, about the heat shield, about the catch, about the towers, about drone ship landings…….

That has been the narrative about every single step spacex has ever taken.

And you know what the trend is?

They are kicking fucking ass. Annihilating old space and the writing the game one incremental win at a time.

Yes, the trend is incredibly good.

Past wins are great, and I expect Starship to succeed. I’m sure block 4 will carry well over 100t.

Now the actual question: why is block 3 flying half loaded? You got a technical reason, or just vibes?

Everybody outside SpaceX is speculating on the reason.

I’m an Engineer, I don’t speculate.

You said:

> I’m an Engineer, I don’t speculate.

You also said:

> Yes, the trend is incredibly good.

So you do speculate. Just not when someone asks for a reason.

I’m looking at Past performance.

You’re making stuff up (your entire first post is 100% speculation)

I labeled my entire first post as speculation. What did I make up? Be specific.

Well, I have some bad news. Starship isn't following the Falcon 9 development philosophy.

Starship is literally a boondoggle project by a space company that was the new kid on the block and now has the same hubris as the old kids on the block.

Nothing about the Starship development process is remotely close or has any similarity to Falcon 9.

Starship SpaceX is "old space".

The Falcon 9 philosophy was as follows: Make it work, then push the envelope and learn from the failures.

The Starship philosophy: Let's set ourselves ambitious goals that push the envelope from the start. Partial success is a failure. The cathedral must be finished before we can launch the first customer payload.

Hint: SpaceX doesn't want to cannibalize their cash cow Falcon 9. Typical old company thinking.

> Hint: SpaceX doesn't want to cannibalize their cash cow Falcon 9. Typical old company thinking.

They've already stopped booking new Falcon 9 launches for customers.

If Starship succeeds, that will be about half an hour's worth of launch capacity in the early 30s.

I'm fully aware. But Starlink is blocked by today's Starship launch cadence and payload capacity. Pointing out Starship could handle this payload 5 years in the future isn't helpful.

All of Starlink's future ambitions are blocked by today's Starship.

Falcon 9 capacity over time went from 9,0000 kg expandable to LEO for v1, to 13,150kg for v1.1, to 22,800 kg for block 5 (17,500 kg reusable). Substantial gain.

So nothing to be disappointing about Starship. Raptor v4 is already on the roadmap, and more down the road. You can speculate all you want. I just don't understand why you have to be disappointed. That SpaceX doesn't just "move fast and break things"?

I’m not saying Starship won’t improve. My point is Starship block 3 is designed for ~60 v3 sats, and this flight will only do 26. This is the fourth flight in a row with a half payload. Every flight they make below full load delays the Starlink network.

The analogy you used (Falcon 9's payload growth) spans over 8 years. How long will it take Starship to start flying full payloads?

> How long will it take Starship to start flying full payloads?

As long as it takes. Doing the never-done-before generally doesn't come with a firm finish date.

I don't see you can be disappointed that the experimental test ships are deploying real production hardware in any amount.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com