SpaceX

TomcatViP said:
regarding the Space suits:
Suits will follow the same trend as do our other outfits: fashion! This is why (and sorry to repeat myself again) the androgyne trend is as unpractical as it is unproductive, IMOHO. With tailored suits (start already with gender specific ones), a turnover could be as quick as attracting new space tourist recruits. Even more if the suits are personals (hence gifted over at the end of the mission) and customizable.
Click to expand...
And again:

Italian fashion house Prada on Sunday unveiled the inner-layer garment set to be worn by NASA astronauts heading into space, underscoring the brand’s push to be the first major luxury player to make inroads in the space industry.
Click to expand...

https://nypost.com/2026/06/07/busin...a-as-luxury-group-pushes-into-space-industry/
 
I'm curious how many flights SpaceX will ultimately push F9 boosters up to before Starship takes over and starts sucking up all the Starlink payloads. Fifty flights per booster? Sixty?
 
BlueAbyssal said:
I'm curious how many flights SpaceX will ultimately push F9 boosters up to before Starship takes over and starts sucking up all the Starlink payloads. Fifty flights per booster? Sixty?
Click to expand...
Being more narrow reduces slosh hazards perhaps.

Ellie reporting
https://phys.org/news/2026-06-science-fiction-musk-lofty-spacex.html
https://phys.org/news/2026-06-spacex-key-moments-starship-megarocket.html


For those who want to opt out
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/11/business/spacex-ipo-investing.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/13/opinion/spacex-stock-ipo-ai.html
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-06-09/heres-how-musks-spacex-ipo-could-crash-your-401k

For those who want in
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2026/06/is-echostar-a-way-to-get-spacex-at-80-113-per-share.html
 
Last edited:
BlueAbyssal said:
I'm curious how many flights SpaceX will ultimately push F9 boosters up to before Starship takes over and starts sucking up all the Starlink payloads. Fifty flights per booster? Sixty?
Click to expand...
Interesting question. With 35 the new max I'd be inclined to say they probably won't go past 40. F9 is still in low rate production so with an already forecast lower number of F9 launches over the next couple of years I don't think it will reach 50 or 60. I wonder and does anyone know if SpaceX themselves realistically ever expected to reach 35 for a single booster?
 
Ozair said:
Interesting question. With 35 the new max I'd be inclined to say they probably won't go past 40. F9 is still in low rate production so with an already forecast lower number of F9 launches over the next couple of years I don't think it will reach 50 or 60. I wonder and does anyone know if SpaceX themselves realistically ever expected to reach 35 for a single booster?
Click to expand...
I'll bet they push for 50. Falcon 9 is going to be flying for a long time. You don't always need a Starship.
 
Sferrin said:
I'll bet they push for 50. Falcon 9 is going to be flying for a long time. You don't always need a Starship.
Click to expand...
Once the get second stage recovery going, a Starship flight is going to cost less than a F9 flight. This is the counterintuitive part, most of the cost of a F9 flight is expending the second stage. Even though Starship is huge next to a F9, it will be the cheaper vehicle to launch once they can reliably get both stages back. While a lot of payloads could fit a F9, it will just make more sense to launch them alone in the cavernous bay of a Starship and then return it back home, than it would to expend a F9 upper stage.

... Alternatively, if possible, launch them together with other stuff as a rideshare on Starship. Or, even better, use some competing, smaller, fully reusable vehicle such as the Stoke one. Either way, once Starship is reliable, there will be no room in the market for F9.
 
I believe that Falcon 9 fleet manage to 50 Flights each, they got routine,
despite success of operational Starship, the Falcon 9 will stay operational for while.
Either for manned NASA missions to ISS (until 2030) or following new Station.
other side the Military that use reliable launch System like Falcon 9

Once Starship is consider operational save and accepted by NASA & Military
Then Falcon 9 / Heavy is phase out
 
Tuna said:
... Alternatively, if possible, launch them together with other stuff as a rideshare on Starship. Or, even better, use some competing, smaller, fully reusable vehicle such as the Stoke one. Either way, once Starship is reliable, there will be no room in the market for F9.
Click to expand...
I largely agree, with the single exception of Dragon missions to smaller space stations that may not be able to handle the forces that a spacecraft the size of Starship docking with them entails.
 
Tuna said:
Once the get second stage recovery going, a Starship flight is going to cost less than a F9 flight. This is the counterintuitive part, most of the cost of a F9 flight is expending the second stage. Even though Starship is huge next to a F9, it will be the cheaper vehicle to launch once they can reliably get both stages back. While a lot of payloads could fit a F9, it will just make more sense to launch them alone in the cavernous bay of a Starship and then return it back home, than it would to expend a F9 upper stage.

... Alternatively, if possible, launch them together with other stuff as a rideshare on Starship. Or, even better, use some competing, smaller, fully reusable vehicle such as the Stoke one. Either way, once Starship is reliable, there will be no room in the market for F9.
Click to expand...
But will Starship be able to reach all orbits that Falcon 9 can? Thinking of West coast launches specifically. Or anything above LEO really. Only way Starship reaches there is with a refuel or a 3rd stage. I guess, with the correct front end, maybe Starship could launch multiple "kick stages" for taking satellites to higher orbit (kind of like Neutron does).
 
Sferrin said:
But will Starship be able to reach all orbits that Falcon 9 can? Thinking of West coast launches specifically. Or anything above LEO really. Only way Starship reaches there is with a refuel or a 3rd stage. I guess, with the correct front end, maybe Starship could launch multiple "kick stages" for taking satellites to higher orbit (kind of like Neutron does).
Click to expand...
In principle polar orbits, Vandenberg’s bread and butter, can be accessed from Florida*. There are limitations though. To access said orbits with a tug is possible but will require significant energy. Starship is intended to launch ~21 tons to GTO without refueling, and with additional propellant, a hundred tons to orbits beyond Mars.
NMaude said:
What about launching space-probes to the outer-planets?
Click to expand...
Depends on the need. One could either stage off Starship with no trouble, or down the line when larger masses are required, refuel a Starship and send it out carrying cargo. There are a fair number of papers already discussing how to use Starship for science.

*https://www.floridatoday.com/story/...kets-may-fly-new-path-toward-poles/975027001/
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
What about launching space-probes to the outer-planets?
Click to expand...
There several option:
Either Starship carry third stage + probe in payload bay (with big doors)
or SpaceX build Space-Tug refuel by Starship what dock the Probe on it.
Starship bring the probe to the Moon, were it launch by Hyperloop.
 
That may be true, but you can also find wealthy people who are buying a bunch of stock and intend to hold onto it for a long time. I think anyone hoping for short-term gains should probably avoid buying SpaceX stock, myself.
 
A big prediction made here:
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/12/cnb...otwell-speaks-with-cnbcs-morgan-brennan-.html

„….
BRENNAN: On Mars. When do we get there, do we have a million people that want to go there?

SHOTWELL: I’m sure there’s at least that many amount– that many folks that want to go there. Wow I’m so bad at predicting timelines. Maybe 2040? 2035? 2040? Yeah.“

In a totally unrelated news story:
https://phys.org/news/2026-06-overconfident-leader-rational-sycophant-veteran.html

„…
The past and present are rife with examples of advisers convincing leaders of the benefits of launching an ill-advised war, or downplaying the risks of a potentially fatal flaw in the design of a car or spacecraft.

Meanwhile, there has been no shortage of aides who seek to simply flatter their bosses to curry favor, rise in the ranks or bask in their glow.

On the surface, there would appear to be miles of real estate between these loyal lieutenants. Yet new research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences from veteran game theorists at the University of Michigan reveals that both groups qualify as sycophants—and the actions of those in the first camp may lead to more catastrophic outcomes in an interconnected world.

Both tell leaders what they want to hear. But where traditional sycophants offer praise mainly to keep in their leaders' good graces, rational sycophants do so based on explicit cost-benefit calculations.“
 
Last edited by a moderator:
publiusr said:
A big prediction made here:
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/12/cnb...otwell-speaks-with-cnbcs-morgan-brennan-.html

BRENNAN: On Mars. When do we get there, do we have a million people that want to go there?

SHOTWELL: I’m sure there’s at least that many amount– that many folks that want to go there. Wow I’m so bad at predicting timelines. Maybe 2040? 2035? 2040? Yeah.

In a totally unrelated news story:
https://phys.org/news/2026-06-overconfident-leader-rational-sycophant-veteran.html

The past and present are rife with examples of advisers convincing leaders of the benefits of launching an ill-advised war, or downplaying the risks of a potentially fatal flaw in the design of a car or spacecraft.

Meanwhile, there has been no shortage of aides who seek to simply flatter their bosses to curry favor, rise in the ranks or bask in their glow.

On the surface, there would appear to be miles of real estate between these loyal lieutenants. Yet new research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences from veteran game theorists at the University of Michigan reveals that both groups qualify as sycophants—and the actions of those in the first camp may lead to more catastrophic outcomes in an interconnected world.

Both tell leaders what they want to hear. But where traditional sycophants offer praise mainly to keep in their leaders' good graces, rational sycophants do so based on explicit cost-benefit calculations.
Click to expand...
Again, misinformation and uninformed nonsense

Shotwell is not ajn "advisor", she is a leader. She is the President of SpaceX.
 
current state of Launch Pad one

HKqwOTBWEAAeQE6
 
Combined with their monthly revenue from Starlink, Anthropic, and Google, they should have no trouble affording all their large projects simultaneously. They really are increasingly America’s space program.
 
So what qualifies a country to be officially called “a space faring national”?

It says the ability to launch into space but it should be percentage of a countries GDP or measured in trillions of economic impact. We are alive at the time of one of the most consequential humans to ever exist.
 
publiusr said:
A big prediction made here:
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/12/cnb...otwell-speaks-with-cnbcs-morgan-brennan-.html

„….
BRENNAN: On Mars. When do we get there, do we have a million people that want to go there?

SHOTWELL: I’m sure there’s at least that many amount– that many folks that want to go there. Wow I’m so bad at predicting timelines. Maybe 2040? 2035? 2040? Yeah.“
Click to expand...


To take the comments seriously I think 2040 is too early for a million people on Mars. Some napkin calculations...

There are four Mars windows open between 2032 and 2040, August 2033, October 2035, December 2037 and February 2040. Initial projections were that a Starship could take up to 100 people to Mars but that seems overly optimistic. If we cut that down to a still very optimistic 2/3 that number, so approx 66 people per Starship, then 1000 Starships all launching and traveling to Mars within the two to three week launch window we get 66000 people on Mars. They have to eat something and live somewhere so that probably means at least half again the number of Starships, so another 500, that need to transport supplies, equipment and structures to Mars. These cargo Starships will go unmanned so can take the slow way there and back.

Not sure on the feasibility of Starship taking off and coming home from the Martian Surface but we can be again optimistic and say half of all Starships take the slow unmanned return journey back to Earth and can be used again for the next Martin window.

Hence
- window one gets 66000 people there (1000 Starships)
- window two gets 99000 people there (500 reused Starships and 1000 new Starships)
- window three gets 115000 people there (750 reused Starship and 1000 new Starships)
- window four gets 123759 people there (875 used Starships and 1000 new Starships)

That is just over 400k people there in 8 years which would be a monumental feat, more than the Oregon trail across a comparable timeframe and would be one of the greatest permanent migrations of people in human history.

Obviously a lot of assumptions go into that figure. To get to 1 million people you can up the number per Starship and increase the number of Starships that travel as well as those that return. The factor not considered is the number of Starship refuelling flights and Starship depots required to fill up and top off all those Starships travelling to mars from Earth... That alone, baring some radical change in the numbers, makes moving that many people probably impossible. If there were 50k people on Mars in 2040 I would consider that an incredible feat!
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
To take the comments seriously I think 2040 is too early for a million people on Mars. Some napkin calculations...

That is just over 400k people there in 8 years which would be a monumental feat, more than the Oregon trail across a comparable timeframe.
Click to expand...
And they could walk.

400k in 8 years—that’s a better definition of misinformation than what gets aimed at me.

I doubt you could get that many people to Mars in 8 years even if an airline sprouted anti-gravity and impulse drives and could fly there starting TODAY.

You are far better at math than me, so—just for funsies—let’s imagine a STARGATE appeared in Grand Central Station….with its counterpart in a Mars lava tube with colonies and rails already magically in place.

I am thinking a fictional STARGATE as a rail tunnel might struggle with a million in eight years.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom