Starship Flight 6

[sullen rampart]

Lmao

Ships already have more flights than boosters

[plush crown]

they're not launching separately lmao

[gaunt mesa]

They will on the moon and mars

[plush crown]

individual vehicle flight numbers will go with the serial

[gaunt mesa]

That naming scheme still doesn’t make sense in my opinion though

[sullen rampart]

This is so dumb like then Falcon 9 boosters have like an extra 10 flights under their belts because of Grasshopper and F9R Dev 1

[plush crown]

Jesus christ that was never in the picture do you seriously want to call mars ascents and lunar ascents IFT??

what is the thinking here

[sullen rampart]

No, you see, they're UFT because they're not integrated flight tests anymore if they fly alone

[gaunt mesa]

I definitely don’t. Just wanted to mention how they can have different launch counts

[plush crown]

Until a vehicle returns to earth it is a part of the mission it launched as

we don't call any of the apollo ascents as a separate mission why the hell would we do that for starship

that's just ludicrously dumb

[gaunt mesa]

Hopefully that won’t be the case some day but currently I agree

[plush crown]

Individual vehicle flights have nothing to do with the total flight number

[valid comet]

no im not saying that those are Tests, but rather that that should be the nomenclature for actual flights

[plush crown]

that's associated with the specific vehicle

not the integrated stack

[burnt ridge]

https://tenor.com/view/on-fire-pizza-gif-6074641

[valid comet]

so if a starship launches to the moon, drops off some people, stays there for a while then returns some other people to earth, thatll still ocunt as the same launch?

[plush crown]

It is a part of the same mission it launched as correct

it is a flight that has not returned to earth

[sullen rampart]

What I don't understand is why lift offs of the ship or the booster on their own would count towards the launch tally of the full rocket

Like that's literally what was being proposed above

[valid comet]

if there was a launch tower built on Mars (i know its not needed, just using it as an example without needing to talk about Titan), and it launched, would that still be the same launch # bc its not returned to earth?

[sullen rampart]

I swear the same people that use IFT don't even know what the I on IFT means

[gaunt mesa]

Isn’t that what the space shuttle did with the ISS in one mission or am I misremembering?

[valid comet]

launches of the system, with a rocket like this id say its important to keep track of both parts

[sullen rampart]

Yeah the Shuttle did that most of the time

[valid comet]

difference is the shuttle doesnt launch from the iss, it detaches and does some orbital maneuvering

[sullen rampart]

And they will, for the individual vehicles, with their serial numbers. Just like they do with Falcon 9.

Oh my god y'all would have gone nuts with the Shuttle. Each SRB had 4 casings each and not all of them flew together on each flight when they were reused so how the hell would you go over with that?

[plush crown]

Okay so we can just call falcon 9 flights like 'booster flight 22 PY fairing flight 16 MY fairing flight 5' instead of the mission name of just starlink g7-12 or something (random example)

You see how this is like increasingly stupid right? Just call it the mission name and if there's no mission name it's just Flight # or if you're really just lazy abbreviate it to FLT#

[gaunt mesa]

Giant spreadsheet

[sullen rampart]

https://tenor.com/view/exactly-meme-gif-339571032222189743

[valid comet]

Starling 7-12, Falcon 9 flight 22:16:5

[plush crown]

Bro

[sullen rampart]

Just do like randomname and call it "the third Falcon launch at 05:00 UTC"

[valid comet]

also, thats not what im suggesting

[plush crown]

You want to keep track of individual vehicle flights as the full name

somehow

that is exactly what you have described else you have left out details

[sullen rampart]

Yes you are suggesting that we call each flight of each of the stages on their own as the launch of the full thing when it's not the case

[valid comet]

theres a difference between two rockets, one that launches independantly and another that launches as a stack and the stages of one vehicle that only launches as a stack

how would you number the lunar/martian ascents then?

[plush crown]

the vehicles do not fly independently from eachother on earth

[valid comet]

on earth

[plush crown]

that would be associated with the serial number

[plush crown]

that's a launch

a flight

[sullen rampart]

And even if they would, that's their flight tally, not the whole rocket's tally

[plush crown]

it does not become a new flight until it returns to earth

a new mission

[sullen rampart]

Like does it mean that Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 were actually two launches of the Saturn V?

[plush crown]

Exactly what I said earlier lol

[valid comet]

so starship launching to martian orbit to dock with a space station and then return to mars surface wouldnt count as a mission?

[sullen rampart]

Heck might as well include 9 and 10 given they did a fire in the hole ascent from the lunar module so that counts too right?

[valid comet]

no one launch of the saturn V, one from the LM

[sullen rampart]

That's a launch of THAT ship

lol

[sullen rampart]

Exactly!

That's what we're saying lmao

[gaunt mesa]

https://x.com/fccspace/status/1863941286979420374⠀

[valid comet]

so you wouldnt count the total number of ship launches?

[sullen rampart]

You're saying it's the SAME as counting it as another flight of Saturn V in this same comparison

[sullen rampart]

YES! We've literally told you, multiple times, that THAT's counted on the ship's flight tally

[plush crown]

That's a launch of that specific vehicle not the total tally

[valid comet]

you're saying the specific ship, not the total number of ship launches

[sullen rampart]

Just like with Falcon 9 boosters you see things like 1083-6... the 6 meaning it's flown 6 times

Oh my fucking god

[valid comet]

im talking about the total number of ship launches, not of each individual ship

[plush crown]

guys an astronaut actually is given a new mission every time they jump from the lunar surface

[sullen rampart]

But that's a whole different thing from what you said before!

[valid comet]

like if S432 and S534 each have 3 launches, the next launch would be S launch 7

no?????

[sullen rampart]

Wut

[plush crown]

what

[sullen rampart]

Math does not math there

[plush crown]

he's talking the total tally of two different ships I think

[valid comet]

3+3=6 so the next launch is launch #7

[sullen rampart]

You said if the booster and ship have different flights then the launch should be ship #whatever and booster #whatever

[plush crown]

that's not a launch from earth

[valid comet]

no? im saying if the total number of ship and booster flights are different

[plush crown]

only from earth is it counted

[sullen rampart]

🤷‍♂️

[plush crown]

it does not become a new flight or a new mission until it has returned

[valid comet]

.

if a ship is based on mars, and isnt planned to return

is it one mission????

[plush crown]

that has not returned to earth

that is part of the same flight

Besides once this shit becomes routine they're probably going to just give them flight numbers like they do with aircraft. that does NOT change the total launch count if it's an ascent from a body that is not earth

[valid comet]

"sure this plane has taken off from LAX and gone to JFK then flew 5 times from JFK to LDN and back, but its not returned to LAX so they're the same flight"

[plush crown]

No

It returned to earth all times

The ground

If you flew to a specific point in the sky get to that point and then land elsewhere that's still one flgiht

[valid comet]

so if a starship goes to mars, and stays there for 1-5 years, launching dozens if not hundreds of times to mars orbit and back, it only counts as one flight?

[plush crown]

it comes back to earth

[plush crown]

Why would it need to launch to orbit and back dozens of times in a 1-5 year span

That's both a huge waste of propellant but also you can simply land any cargo resupply directly

[valid comet]

or if it went Earth->Moon Surface->Mars Surface->Moon Surface->Earth Surface that would be one flight?

[plush crown]

Good news it'll never do that

starship architecture cannot support such a thing

[valid comet]

if they set up Marslink production there? or any sort of satelite production so they can be launched more than one time in 4 years?

[valid comet]

refuelling bases on each place??

[plush crown]

that does not change what I said

the starship architecture cannot support such a flight plan

[valid comet]

they already talk about using the Moon as a refuelling base for mars?

[plush crown]

does that change what I said at all

shocker, starship isn't some ultimate solution here

[valid comet]

what that they'll never use the moon as a staging post for mars missions?

when theyve talked about doing exactly that?

[plush crown]

never said that

[valid comet]

.

[plush crown]

Yes

That's far more than just earth -> moon -> mars

[valid comet]

the Lunar Gateway was planned to support both inbound and outbound interplanetary missions

extending it to a surface base removes a lot of complexity

[plush crown]

that is an even worse example because it lacks the capability to refuel the damn thing

much less dock to it entirely lol

[valid comet]

what im saying is they already plan for those missions, having a refuelling base on the surface or on-orbit isnt that much of a stretch

[plush crown]

it can pretty much only be on the surface

it would take roughly 42 launches to even send one full* depot to nrho

*full being full capacity minus the TLI and lunar orbit injection burns, which would take up like a fourth of the propellant capacity

[valid comet]

which makes my mission profile the one that itd be

you've literally worked through the options and settled on the one you were trying to discredit

[plush crown]

No

You're factoring only half the journey

[plush crown]

Whatever this is? No

[valid comet]

Earth surface -> Moon Surface Refuelling Base -> Mars Surface (with ISRU refuelling) -> Moon Surface Refuelling Base -> Earth Surface?

[plush crown]

But even if it could do that it would still be considered a single flight/mission

[plush crown]

Same deal

[valid comet]

despite 4 launches?? 1 of which is from a non-earth atmosphere and therefore has the aerodynamic elements for it to be called "flight"

[plush crown]

that is one full flight

one mission

[valid comet]

and if it stays on mars long enough for it to be used to launch satellites from a hypothetical "marslink" factory dozens of times?

launching and landing on mars multiple times to carry out other missions?

[plush crown]

then that would be the primary purpose of sending it to mars in the first place

so that is one mission

one flight

[valid comet]

what if they decided to make a starship on mars then, what then? does it never have a single flight?

because it never returns to earth

it never leaves earth

[plush crown]

they will never build a starship on mars

that is practically and logistically impossible

[valid comet]

lets say they did

or a starship-derived rocket

[plush crown]

we can't say what if they do if that is literally impossible

you can't do anything like that logistically on mars

[valid comet]

not literally impossible, mars is actually a place to do have manufacturing strategically, because its between the inner and outer planets, and if its a good place, then i wouldnt be surprised if they at least look into it

[plush crown]

there is not and will not be such an industry because of the lack of available materials and facilities. you could say oh just ship the materials there.

why? just build the fuckin thing on earth then and launch it to mars. It's literally superior in every way to not build spacecraft on mars

[valid comet]

especially if they end up actually managing to make a city there

[plush crown]

you cannot launch a city into space

you can launch a ship

why the hell would they do it

like there's literally no reason to it is a complete waste

it will never happen with starship or any other transfer vehicle

mars does not have such materials to begin with so there is no point in building something on mars with materials from earth when you could launch it from earth to begin with

[valid comet]

"lack of available materials"https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia04253-map-of-martian-iron-at-mid-latitudes/

[plush crown]

this is such a stupid argument you're having to draw into extreme hypotheticals to make your idea work

[plush crown]

please tell me where you can get all the exotic metals and specialized alloys

[valid comet]

because the entire mission statement of spacex is to make manned, self-sustaining colonies on other planets

[plush crown]

They already got ships from earth

You don't need to build more just launch more

[plush crown]

.

[valid comet]

make the factories and mining facilities on mars, theres the exact same elements

the only thing you'd be missing is oil and biological materials

[valid comet]

"extreme hypotheticals" i'm literally looking at SpaceX's prime mission

and there are actually benefits to manufacturing on mars

[plush crown]

you are talking about building ships on mars when we are not even out of the flight test phase

akin to the difference between starship block 3 and MCT, if not more

that's ludicrously dumb

[valid comet]

they're talking about launching dozens of times in the next 2 years, hundreds in the next 5, then launching the first unmanned mission in the next mars window, are they going to make that window? debatable, but are they going to try to get things in place to make the window? yes

[plush crown]

they aren't going to build ships on mars in 2026 if that's what you're suggesting

or the window after that

[valid comet]

of course not

[plush crown]

or the one after that

or the one after that

and so on

ESPECIALLY with starship

[valid comet]

the entire point of ship building on mars is to fill the gaps between windows, say they need a new prop depot because the current one got hit by a micrometeorite and is punctured and leaking, how would they do that? would they just have to make do with not being able to do missions back to earth or to the outer planets? or have manufacturing a new ship

[plush crown]

Earlier you were going on about starship derivatives or other mars vehicles...like what? We're talking specifically Starship here. Which is horribly unoptimized for mars travel. This is vehicle and program specific, not a general everyone. This is like focusing on a boeing 737, not every single aircraft to ever exist

[plush crown]

What does building a new ship off world have to do with a propellant depot being compromised

That will not be the only propellant depot to ever exist or something

[valid comet]

if a prop depot is compromised, that would effectively trap them on mars or restrict returns until a new one could be launched at the next window, for returns at the window after

[plush crown]

.

[valid comet]

say you have 3 depots in mars orbit, and one is compromised

now you have 2

[plush crown]

Yeah

that's called redundancy

You are not trapped

[valid comet]

and can launch only 2/3rds of the planned ships back to earth

[plush crown]

More ships already in space can quickly fill the missing one

The launch cadence would be high enough they could do such a thing on a whim

they would not be trapped at all lmao

[plush crown]

here's a very similar analogy very near and dear to us, this is literally just the starliner situation

it's not a huge problem at all

[valid comet]

i could see mars being a manufacturing centre for spacex and a few other companies, especially as its perfect for on-orbit spacecraft construction, due to the lower gravity, and if they have the manufacturing base, and for whatever reason they decide to build a starship (say the current number doesnt match the cadence needed) and it launches from mars, to mars orbit, then back to the surface, would that be a flight?

[valid comet]

except instead of 2 months, itd be 2 years

[covert fox]

IFT works for now. since they are always going to launch integrated, and they are still tests. then when a real payload mission happens it can start with a new number. SF1 for starship flight 1 or something

if they need to test a ship without the booster in the meantime then it will be SFT1 and booster without the ship them it's BFT1

[sullen rampart]

ROFL

[burnt ridge]

Lmfao

[plush crown]

[covert fox]

I mean when the cargo missions start no one's going to care about the flight itself. it will just be e.g. Starship Starlink Mission 5 using Ship 777 and Booster 666

[plush crown]

you guys do know they will get mission names right or

[tawdry kernel]

you guys do know every single one of you needs help

[covert fox]

right and wouldn't it just be Starlink Mission 5 or something nondescript?

[plush crown]

true yeah

[covert fox]

or y'know, Polaris Dusk or whatever

[plush crown]

it would be the shell designation but sure

[plush crown]

that is not the name of polaris 2

[covert fox]

is Polaris 2 already gonna be Starship? 👀

[plush crown]

does not change the ift/flt debate

[plush crown]

noone said that

that is an entirely different sentence you just made up

[covert fox]

I was thinking at about 3 would be Starship, hence Dusk

if 2 was Polaris Day or something and was still Falcon

[plush crown]

they're not calling it the times of day

no idea why everyone is so fixated on that

[tawdry kernel]

FLTS0006

[sullen rampart]

Polaris Noon

[plush crown]

dawn just means the beginning

the others will have their own names

they are not just the times of day

that is stupid

[covert fox]

anyway, for illustrative purposes, yeah there's no need to argue about Flight 21 vs IFT21 anymore since no one will care about the delivery vehicle. Starship will just work

[tawdry kernel]

we should do this

[covert fox]

and the missions will be Polaris or Starlink or whatever

[plush crown]

that last point is also debatable but for the terms of this argument sure

flight/flt is proper

[covert fox]

I mean we will care like we care about how many flights a Falcon booster gets used

but it's separate from the mission

[plush crown]

someone show this guy the randomname spreadsheet

[covert fox]

the wha-

[tawdry kernel]

oh boy

oh boy

[burnt ridge]

@trim narwhal You have been summoned

[woeful token]

This only allows for 9999 Starship launches

[valid comet]

not if its using base-unicode

cant wait for FLTS𝄂Í8█

[coarse sonnet]

what the FUCK happened here

[barren narwhal]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1293009167098839120/1295814776613769328/togif.gif

[real thunder]

"starship flight 6" uhm akchually this is like the 12th flight of starship

but the first 6 were unintegrated ||= segregated?||

[timid cedar]

https://tenor.com/view/saitama-saitama-prowler-saitama-prowler-meme-saitama-angry-gif-10752978218685695448

[plush crown]

autism

[halcyon kiln]

Yeah autism

Useless argument that doesn't matter

But hyperfixation correction autism

[keen osprey]

So SN6(?) is the real SFT-1

[real thunder]

sn8

[keen osprey]

SN6 hopped didn't it

Not high alt but still a hop

[real thunder]

it didnt even have a nosecone. its debatable if it was a starship

[keen osprey]

I mean SN8 didn't have TPS

[winged shore]

it did

[keen osprey]

Alright SN8 to orbit 2020

[burnt ridge]

lmao wut

[meager osprey]

oh my god this argument is still going

[jaunty shale]

starship chat is just arguments these days

easiest way to start an argument is to mention ift

sets everyone off

[halcyon kiln]

Ift

[sand trench]

yes, back in 2020 Crew Dragon IFAT

[sand trench]

@trim narwhal yo u got mentioned and in a funny way

[devout cave]

S52-5
that makes sense in my head

(that is an example)

[burnt ridge]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtsmOAhauNo

[barren narwhal]

spacex really couldn't push t-0 back a minute or two?

[short folio]

One could also argue many of the starship flights so far became disintegrated test flights at some point

[valid comet]

i mean they all did apart from IFT1

which kinda doesnt count because instead of dis-integrating, it disintegrated

[short folio]

Well that was the joke I was making. Many of them exploded or lost parts at some point. Disintegrated

[real thunder]

there is a difference between disintegration and unintegration

stage segregation

[coarse sonnet]

I'm going to disintegrate all of you stupid fucks if you don't stop yapping

[keen osprey]

https://tenor.com/view/nerd-cube-nerdcube-gif-25277654

[strong plank]

[sand trench]

[keen osprey]

[halcyon kiln]

[long summit]

[woeful token]

[burnt ridge]

[plush crown]

[river raft]

[opal harness]

[west tinsel]

[winged shore]

[brave elbow]

[barren narwhal]

[unkempt cradle]

[coarse sonnet]

[limpid nebula]

[sweet rampart]

[tawdry kernel]

[chrome adder]

[timid cedar]

[meager osprey]

[potent violet]

[covert fox]

[devout cave]

[stray crystal]

[sand trench]

[unkempt cradle]

[viral quartz]

[valid comet]

[burnt ridge]

[jaunty shale]

[winged shore]

[long summit]

[mystic cave]

[unkempt cradle]

[short folio]

[burnt ridge]

[carmine shard]

[teal shell]

[chrome adder]

[unkempt cradle]

[west tinsel]

[neat thunder]

[stray crystal]

[tidal glen]

[devout cave]

[keen osprey]

[valid comet]

[halcyon kiln]

[unkempt cradle]

[long summit]

[burnt ridge]

[brave elbow]

[tidal glen]

[devout cave]

[brave elbow]

[coarse sonnet]

[brave elbow]

[burnt ridge]

[west tinsel]

[stray crystal]

[teal shell]

[mystic cave]

❤️

[coarse sonnet]

[limpid nebula]

❤️

[mystic cave]

❤️ self

[burnt ridge]

❤️🚀

[keen osprey]

❤️

[devout cave]

❤️

[long summit]

❤️

[burnt ridge]

❤️

[long summit]

❤️

[keen osprey]

❤️

[carmine shard]

❤️

[long summit]

❤️

[strong plank]

❤️

[coarse sonnet]

💔

[burnt ridge]

❤️

[upbeat badge]

❤️

[burnt ridge]

💔

[tidal glen]

❤️

[teal shell]

❤️

[mystic cave]

❤️

[woeful token]

❤️

[valid comet]

❤️

[west tinsel]

❤️❤️

[burnt ridge]

❤️

[long summit]

❤️

[valid comet]

❤️ 💔

[opaque folio]

what the fuck happened here

[sand trench]

The :оsrexman: virus

[valid comet]

❤️

[west tinsel]

💔

[long summit]

❤️ 🌧️ 💔 🌧️

[barren narwhal]

➡️

[barren narwhal]

🚀➡️🛰️➡️🌌➡️🫳🪨➡️🌎➡️🔥➡️🪂➡️

[latent merlin]

➡️🪂➡️🔥➡️🌎➡️🫴🪨➡️ 🌌➡️🛰️➡️🚀

[real thunder]

🚪 🫱 🪝 🚙 🚪

[stray crystal]

💖👩‍🚀

[burnt ridge]

❤️

[chrome adder]

❤️

[real thunder]

[brave elbow]

♥️🦥

[valid comet]

❤️

[chrome adder]

❤️

[long summit]

[burnt ridge]

🧼

[opal coral]

[real thunder]

🔫

[burnt ridge]

☠️

[teal shell]

[tidal glen]

[woeful token]

🦇

[stray crystal]

🧜‍♀️

[valid comet]

[lucid pike]

[west tinsel]

🍑👏

[tidal glen]

👉👈

[winged shore]

[stray crystal]

🍑👏

[tidal glen]

👉👈

[opal coral]

(+)/2

[burnt ridge]

➡️🟰🏳️‍⚧️

[coarse sonnet]

➕ 💉 ➕ 🟰

[jaunty shale]

[real thunder]

[lucid pike]

🕷️

[strong plank]

👍💨🌌🟰 🫎.

[meager osprey]

[long summit]

[limpid nebula]

[strong plank]

[mystic cave]

We have come full circle

End the thread

[brave elbow]

@burnt ridge wants it to go on until the end of time.

[mystic cave]

Well to bad

[chrome adder]

❤️

[lucid pike]

🏳️‍🌈

[chrome adder]

❤️ ♻️

[woeful token]

❤️

[west tinsel]

🏳️‍⚧️ 🪟 🇮 🇦

[lucid pike]

🕷️

[chrome adder]

🕷️ 🩸

🕷️ 🪦

🇫🕷️

[lucid pike]

🪦 🕷️

[stray crystal]

🕷️2️⃣🍕⏲️

[chrome adder]

🕷️ 🕸️🚆

[covert fox]

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 🇱 🇾 🛩️

[chrome adder]

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇱 🇾🟰 🕷️

[chrome adder]

🐊

(Florida man)

[halcyon kiln]

This is still happening.?????

[devout cave]

no

[west tinsel]

no

[real thunder]

no

[jaunty shale]

no

[valid comet]

no

[burnt ridge]

no

[keen osprey]

no

[river raft]

no

[carmine shard]

no

[limpid nebula]

no

[meager osprey]

no

[sand trench]

nah

[stray crystal]

negatory

[valid comet]

nah

[long summit]

nah

[sand trench]

no

[unkempt cradle]

no

[winged shore]

no

[opal harness]

no