3 ms·

FH had the problem that it had a comparatively small fairing compared with an upper stage that's "only" okay-ish for deep space insertions, so you can neither p

FH had the problem that it had a comparatively small fairing compared with an upper stage that's "only" okay-ish for deep space insertions, so you can neither put really huge LEO payloads on it, nor can you give a deep space probe a really big kick stage to make up for the deficits of the upper stage. Starship solves all these issues: The upper stage is more fuel efficient, and it has more room for really big payloads and/or kickstages. > Won't someone make a fully reusable smaller launch vehicle that'll suit commercial needs? Half of the people tried went bankrupt already due to F9: It is already too big for most payloads, so it does a lot of rideshare missions that pool multiple smaller launches together. It's very hard to compete with that. So even if, for some reason, commercial customers don't really want to exploit the capabilites of Starship (ignoring the fact that multiple did already), SpaceX can again offer ride shares at a larger scale for F9-class payloads.

rtkwe 2y ago
Starship might honestly have a similar payload issue with the weird door design, the way it hinges up means you need a more complex release plan than most which just pop straight off the front of the booster. During the third test flight they also tested their weird side eject design for Starlink (or other flat pack style satellites) and the video looks like the door completely ripped itself apart.
- creshal 2y ago
  The door design isn't final yet, there's no point in whining about it. They need tankers and landers for NASA contracts short term (neither of which require payload deployment), anything else is a nice to have that can be tinkered with on the side until it works.
  - macintux 2y ago
    > The door design isn't final yet, there's no point in whining about it. Your first clause is correct, the second is unnecessarily hostile.
    - creshal 2y ago
      I'm just getting really irritated by the amount of concern trolling surrounding SpaceX. Everything they do "must" have a gotcha, because clearly they cannot be as far ahead of the competition as they daily prove to be.
      - mrandish 2y ago
        Yeah, I agree with you. Healthy skepticism is generally a good thing but now SpaceX has clearly demonstrated an unprecedented ability to solve a large number of insanely difficult problems. At some point, it becomes unreasonable to "yeah, but..." less difficult things like cargo doors.
        ordu 2y ago
        > Healthy skepticism is generally a good thing but now SpaceX has clearly demonstrated an unprecedented ability to solve a large number of insanely difficult problems. I'd add "again" into your sentence. They already did it before. Now they proved that they hadn't lost that ability yet.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    The door is a major issue to using super heavy to deliver other payloads which is a goal long term and the need for a heat shield on the bottom makes it hard to make it fully open towards the front. Kind of need to have this fairly well sorted from the beginning because new designs mean new testing and certification which are expensive.
    - creshal 2y ago
      No. That's the whole point of SpaceX's development model, testing done right is absurdly cheap.

rtkwe 2y ago

Starship might honestly have a similar payload issue with the weird door design, the way it hinges up means you need a more complex release plan than most which just pop straight off the front of the booster. During the third test flight they also tested their weird side eject design for Starlink (or other flat pack style satellites) and the video looks like the door completely ripped itself apart.

creshal 2y ago
The door design isn't final yet, there's no point in whining about it. They need tankers and landers for NASA contracts short term (neither of which require payload deployment), anything else is a nice to have that can be tinkered with on the side until it works.
- macintux 2y ago
  > The door design isn't final yet, there's no point in whining about it. Your first clause is correct, the second is unnecessarily hostile.
  - creshal 2y ago
    I'm just getting really irritated by the amount of concern trolling surrounding SpaceX. Everything they do "must" have a gotcha, because clearly they cannot be as far ahead of the competition as they daily prove to be.
    - mrandish 2y ago
      Yeah, I agree with you. Healthy skepticism is generally a good thing but now SpaceX has clearly demonstrated an unprecedented ability to solve a large number of insanely difficult problems. At some point, it becomes unreasonable to "yeah, but..." less difficult things like cargo doors.
      - ordu 2y ago
        > Healthy skepticism is generally a good thing but now SpaceX has clearly demonstrated an unprecedented ability to solve a large number of insanely difficult problems. I'd add "again" into your sentence. They already did it before. Now they proved that they hadn't lost that ability yet.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  The door is a major issue to using super heavy to deliver other payloads which is a goal long term and the need for a heat shield on the bottom makes it hard to make it fully open towards the front. Kind of need to have this fairly well sorted from the beginning because new designs mean new testing and certification which are expensive.
  - creshal 2y ago
    No. That's the whole point of SpaceX's development model, testing done right is absurdly cheap.