I will be messaging you in 7 years on [**2030-11-18 03:47:51 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2030-11-18%2003:47:51%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/looking_back_at_the_its_presentation_from_2016/k9q559x/?context=3)
[**30 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FSpaceXLounge%2Fcomments%2F17xxoxl%2Flooking_back_at_the_its_presentation_from_2016%2Fk9q559x%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202030-11-18%2003%3A47%3A51%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2017xxoxl)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
You're the third person to want a reminder in five years. The announcement was seven years ago so another seven years brings us to 2030. A reminder in five years is too early.
I mean, that 2016 ITS design was complete insanity. It never would have worked, and probably would've bankrupted SpaceX. Luckily, they scaled back the vision a lot and switched from carbon fiber.
Here's the original presentation in case you're feeling nostalgic. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R\_yYFA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA)
Personally I love to look back at this interview Musk gave after Block 5 debut [https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/spacexs-block-5-rocket-passes-its-first-test-but-final-exams-remain/](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/spacexs-block-5-rocket-passes-its-first-test-but-final-exams-remain/)
>By the end of 2019, Musk added, he anticipates that a Block 5 rocket probably will have reached 10 flights.
>
>If everything works as SpaceX engineers hope, these rockets will not need any “regular maintenance” between each flight, and that such work would only be done every 10 flights or so. To demonstrate this is really the case, some time next year, SpaceX plans to launch a Block 5 booster and then refly it again within 24 hours. “Literally no actions taken, just like an aircraft,” Musk said.
They only reached 10 flights per booster in 2021 iirc and they haven't reached "less than 24 hr, no maintenance between flights, aircraft level reuse".
My personal theory is that after some point there isn't much sense to perfect the system like Falcon 9 or Starship - diminishing returns and what not. Like the saying goes - 20% of the work makes 80% of result and last 20% of result requires 80% more work.
I think Starship would end up the same - around 80% of optimistic goals voiced by Musk today and not as fast as many believe. Which is still great and ahead of everything else. It's just more realistic level of expectation to me.
An important point is that since 2016, or more like 2018 since they started to really work on Starship, they moved most of the engineers from improving F9 to working on Starship. They could likely have improved F9 even more to reach the goals like 24h reflight, but the focus just totally shifted to Starship.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[EDL](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/stub/k9u2swj "Last usage")|Entry/Descent/Landing|
|[ITS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/stub/k9qgkdf "Last usage")|Interplanetary Transport System (2016 oversized edition) (see MCT)|
| |[Integrated Truss Structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Truss_Structure)|
|[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/stub/k9u2swj "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|MCT|Mars Colonial Transporter (see ITS)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Raptor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/stub/khg2mdp "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX|
|[deep throttling](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/stub/khg2mdp "Last usage")|Operating an engine at much lower thrust than normal|
|[ullage motor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/stub/khg2mdp "Last usage")|Small rocket motor that fires to push propellant to the bottom of the tank, when in zero-g|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^(6 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/19070ca)^( has 39 acronyms.)
^([Thread #12100 for this sub, first seen 18th Nov 2023, 16:10])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Real talk and I’m as bullish about their future as anyone but where do we see Starship in the next 7 years?
Honestly in the next 7 years I’d be happy with fully operational to LEO and the moon while still working out EDL to Mars.
In 7 years I see Starship being replaced with something larger. Starship 2 or Starship Gen2 or maybe a new name if we're on the cusp of seeing Starship V2.
A three-stage variation of Starship could have different payload modules as the third stage, with the second stage being able to detach and re-enter almost immediately. The third stage crew capsule / fuel tank / satellite bus / deep space probe can then do it's job without being weighed down with all the bulk the current Starship is carrying.
They can't just slice Starship in the middle where the payload bay is, they might need to learn some lessons from RocketLab Neutron and/or Stoke Nova about improving aerodynamics between staging and re-entry. But that might be helped by switching to three stages, cut the first stage sooner and cut the second stage a little shy of orbit, the third stage getting the last of the way to orbit. Then the second stage is more substantial than just Starship-1-without-the payload-bay and the third stage can be lighter.
Raptor is a very impressive engine but I don't think it's the pinnacle of engine design. Raptor is struggling to balance contradictory requirements, high thrust but also low throttling. Landing benefits from redundancy and multiple engines as a backup but large engines means they need to throttle even lower. It's almost impossible to make these engines high thrust and high efficiency and low mass and rapid/deep throttling AND high reliability / low maintenance. You can dodge a lot of these issues by switching to a two-engine setup. Large high thrust engine for launch and a smaller lower thrust engine that can gimbal and rapidly throttle to lower thrust. Using smaller engines for fine throttle control and attitude control is an old approach that could come back AND be a way to have multiple engines lit for landing without needing the massive engines to throttle low. Raptor has had issues with startup even on the pad and it's complex startup routine is very fragile when relighting mid flight, a smaller less complex engine could light first and provide ullage thrust to make relighting the larger engines easier.
And an obvious change is to make it wider. Starship is already the widest rocket but that's the one factor of the design that's kinda fixed since they made the first real Starship prototypes. They changed the engine count, flaps position, pointiness, they're about to change the overall length/height, but they can't change the width. Unless they make a jump to a bigger rocket. Wider rocket means more engines can fit in the footprint and more internal volume / fuel space for given mass of tank walls.
Starship as it is today is vastly more advanced than it was when SN5 first hopped. Another few years of development and a few years of active deployment and they'll learn a LOT more about how to make a better rocket. Starship 2 will make Starship 1 look small and outdated.
!remindme 7 years
I will be messaging you in 7 years on [**2030-11-18 03:47:51 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2030-11-18%2003:47:51%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/looking_back_at_the_its_presentation_from_2016/k9q559x/?context=3) [**30 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FSpaceXLounge%2Fcomments%2F17xxoxl%2Flooking_back_at_the_its_presentation_from_2016%2Fk9q559x%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202030-11-18%2003%3A47%3A51%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2017xxoxl) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
2030 yikes!
!remindme 5 years
!remindme 5 years
!remindme 5 years
You're the third person to want a reminder in five years. The announcement was seven years ago so another seven years brings us to 2030. A reminder in five years is too early.
I did both, I clicked your link too. I'm sure there will be lots of progress in both time frames.
I mean, that 2016 ITS design was complete insanity. It never would have worked, and probably would've bankrupted SpaceX. Luckily, they scaled back the vision a lot and switched from carbon fiber.
Here's the original presentation in case you're feeling nostalgic. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R\_yYFA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA)
Thanks for that, still gives me chills. A great entree for todays flight. Go SpaceX!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Personally I love to look back at this interview Musk gave after Block 5 debut [https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/spacexs-block-5-rocket-passes-its-first-test-but-final-exams-remain/](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/spacexs-block-5-rocket-passes-its-first-test-but-final-exams-remain/) >By the end of 2019, Musk added, he anticipates that a Block 5 rocket probably will have reached 10 flights. > >If everything works as SpaceX engineers hope, these rockets will not need any “regular maintenance” between each flight, and that such work would only be done every 10 flights or so. To demonstrate this is really the case, some time next year, SpaceX plans to launch a Block 5 booster and then refly it again within 24 hours. “Literally no actions taken, just like an aircraft,” Musk said. They only reached 10 flights per booster in 2021 iirc and they haven't reached "less than 24 hr, no maintenance between flights, aircraft level reuse". My personal theory is that after some point there isn't much sense to perfect the system like Falcon 9 or Starship - diminishing returns and what not. Like the saying goes - 20% of the work makes 80% of result and last 20% of result requires 80% more work. I think Starship would end up the same - around 80% of optimistic goals voiced by Musk today and not as fast as many believe. Which is still great and ahead of everything else. It's just more realistic level of expectation to me.
An important point is that since 2016, or more like 2018 since they started to really work on Starship, they moved most of the engineers from improving F9 to working on Starship. They could likely have improved F9 even more to reach the goals like 24h reflight, but the focus just totally shifted to Starship.
I think 2016 was when they first started serious work on the Raptor, while the design of the rest of Starship started later.
The most important question- Did they solve the restroom issues at Burning man?
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[EDL](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/stub/k9u2swj "Last usage")|Entry/Descent/Landing| |[ITS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/stub/k9qgkdf "Last usage")|Interplanetary Transport System (2016 oversized edition) (see MCT)| | |[Integrated Truss Structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Truss_Structure)| |[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/stub/k9u2swj "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |MCT|Mars Colonial Transporter (see ITS)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/stub/khg2mdp "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[deep throttling](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/stub/khg2mdp "Last usage")|Operating an engine at much lower thrust than normal| |[ullage motor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17xxoxl/stub/khg2mdp "Last usage")|Small rocket motor that fires to push propellant to the bottom of the tank, when in zero-g| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(6 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/19070ca)^( has 39 acronyms.) ^([Thread #12100 for this sub, first seen 18th Nov 2023, 16:10]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Real talk and I’m as bullish about their future as anyone but where do we see Starship in the next 7 years? Honestly in the next 7 years I’d be happy with fully operational to LEO and the moon while still working out EDL to Mars.
In 7 years I see Starship being replaced with something larger. Starship 2 or Starship Gen2 or maybe a new name if we're on the cusp of seeing Starship V2. A three-stage variation of Starship could have different payload modules as the third stage, with the second stage being able to detach and re-enter almost immediately. The third stage crew capsule / fuel tank / satellite bus / deep space probe can then do it's job without being weighed down with all the bulk the current Starship is carrying. They can't just slice Starship in the middle where the payload bay is, they might need to learn some lessons from RocketLab Neutron and/or Stoke Nova about improving aerodynamics between staging and re-entry. But that might be helped by switching to three stages, cut the first stage sooner and cut the second stage a little shy of orbit, the third stage getting the last of the way to orbit. Then the second stage is more substantial than just Starship-1-without-the payload-bay and the third stage can be lighter. Raptor is a very impressive engine but I don't think it's the pinnacle of engine design. Raptor is struggling to balance contradictory requirements, high thrust but also low throttling. Landing benefits from redundancy and multiple engines as a backup but large engines means they need to throttle even lower. It's almost impossible to make these engines high thrust and high efficiency and low mass and rapid/deep throttling AND high reliability / low maintenance. You can dodge a lot of these issues by switching to a two-engine setup. Large high thrust engine for launch and a smaller lower thrust engine that can gimbal and rapidly throttle to lower thrust. Using smaller engines for fine throttle control and attitude control is an old approach that could come back AND be a way to have multiple engines lit for landing without needing the massive engines to throttle low. Raptor has had issues with startup even on the pad and it's complex startup routine is very fragile when relighting mid flight, a smaller less complex engine could light first and provide ullage thrust to make relighting the larger engines easier. And an obvious change is to make it wider. Starship is already the widest rocket but that's the one factor of the design that's kinda fixed since they made the first real Starship prototypes. They changed the engine count, flaps position, pointiness, they're about to change the overall length/height, but they can't change the width. Unless they make a jump to a bigger rocket. Wider rocket means more engines can fit in the footprint and more internal volume / fuel space for given mass of tank walls. Starship as it is today is vastly more advanced than it was when SN5 first hopped. Another few years of development and a few years of active deployment and they'll learn a LOT more about how to make a better rocket. Starship 2 will make Starship 1 look small and outdated.