[Zigurd]

> They seem to have constructed a rocket with 10x the payload to LEO of the one they used to put those 10k satellites in orbit

They seem to have constructed a rocket that consistently gets heavier and more complex and more expensive and farthrt behind schedule and hasn't demonstrated specified payload.

IOW it ain't better than falcon heavy.

[timschmidt]

I checked the publicly released stats over Starship's development, and this is what I found: compared with the initial ~5,000 t / ~73.5 MN concept, the latest V3-class Starship/Super Heavy is trending toward roughly 35%+ more loaded propellant mass and about 40% more maximum liftoff thrust if you use the FAA’s ~103 MN figure. Payload capability has also moved upward from the early 100+ t reusable LEO baseline to SpaceX’s current public claim of up to 150 t fully reusable and 250 t expendable.

When I plug those numbers into https://www.aerovia.org/tools/rocket-equation I get Delta-Vs in the 28k km/hr range right where I'd expect for orbit.

You got a different rocket equation?

[hackernudes]

Pretty sure they mean that Starship is not working reliably yet

[Zigurd]

Starship has never met claimed specs and capabilities. It is so far behind schedule that it won't meet specs in time to remain relevant. Which is a generous way of saying it never will.

[timschmidt]

It's always a good laugh when I run into some old comment or video talking like this about Falcon. Thunderfoot is a hoot.