[ehsankia]

SpaceX has had 165 launches in 2025 (although admittedly 75% of those were for Starlink...) Obviously bigger isn't more economical or sensical, and most cases are served just fine with the Falcons, but there are cases we need the big boy for, and it's good that someone is working on it and has made so much progress.

Obviously a semblance of a schedule is good to have, but realistically, that's not really how research works. Look at James Webb telescope, it was originally scheduled for 2007, and ended up launching 14 years later. It's still an amazing piece of engineer/science, and it's amazing that it's up there now, even if it was very late to it. It's much better to be late and successful than early and failing.

[estearum]

> but there are cases we need the big boy for, and it's good that someone is working on it and has made so much progress.

I am taking issue with this claim. Are there cases where the cost/benefit actually come out favorably for Starship as it is actually turning out? Are they cases anyone should actually care about beyond sci-fi fantasies (i.e. not "colonize Mars")?

[xiphias2]

Sure, I have crappy mobile reception a lot of times on my travels, so I'll be the first when finally Starship can launch satellites with antennas big enough so that my mobile phone can directly be used for internet access.

[leereeves]

Is SpaceX/Starlink actually planning to do that?

[xiphias2]

Yes, it's already working in US, but the current version is too slow.

Of course that's how they will make lots of money, not by rides to Mars.

[abofh]

No, but wasn't that a great use case?