11

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: SpaceX/Elon Making 10,000 Starships a Year?

« Last post by Vultur on Today at 06:56 pm »

Look what's happening this very week on ISS.  Is a Starship big enough to take a hospital, diagnostic and treatment equipment and supplies with it?

Going to Mars (or near Earth asteroids or anything beyond the Moon, etc) is medically dangerous, yeah. There won't be a quick way back to Earth's medical resources. I don't think that's a reason not to do it, though - it's just acceptance of risk.

I think that's a very dangerous and very foolish thing to do, and I'll tell you why.  Think about what highly-visible catastrophes have done to industries in the past.  It can take decades to recover, if they ever do.  Having a bunch of settlers go to Mars and very visibly get sick and/or die along the way could set back human spaceflight for decades in the eyes of the public.  Whole generations could shun the entire endeavor, even if it's done in a less foolhardy way.

I would actually disagree, for a couple of reasons...

- Medical issues of this sort won't kill a hallway competently planned mission. Mars involves very long trips, you *have* to plan for the mission succeeding even if you lose a person. One person dying of a medical issue that could have been treated on Earth doesn't mean a failed mission

- This risk is inherent in any exploration. There's that famous case of a South Pole overwintering doctor who had to treat herself. IMO, if exploration has value at all, lack of access to civilization's medical resources are not a reason not to do it

- If we're talking about settlement as opposed to exploration, "the eyes of the public" don't really matter. Settlement won't be government funded. The only opinions that will matter will be those running space companies and those who want to go. The general public will never want to go to Mars anyway.

- Industries that get killed by flashy disasters are industries that weren't going anywhere anyway (I don't think the Hindenburg killed airships, heavier than air planes did). Early commercial airliners had some really nasty disasters too. So did steamships. So did lots of things.

12

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: SpaceX/Elon Making 10,000 Starships a Year?

« Last post by meekGee on Today at 06:52 pm »

Look what's happening this very week on ISS.  Is a Starship big enough to take a hospital, diagnostic and treatment equipment and supplies with it?

Going to Mars (or near Earth asteroids or anything beyond the Moon, etc) is medically dangerous, yeah. There won't be a quick way back to Earth's medical resources. I don't think that's a reason not to do it, though - it's just acceptance of risk.

I think that's a very dangerous and very foolish thing to do, and I'll tell you why.  Think about what highly-visible catastrophes have done to industries in the past.  It can take decades to recover, if they ever do.  Having a bunch of settlers go to Mars and very visibly get sick and/or die along the way could set back human spaceflight for decades in the eyes of the public.  Whole generations could shun the entire endeavor, even if it's done in a less foolhardy way.

The Titanic didn't kill off shipping, even the Hindenburg didn't finish off blimps,  and no plane crash stopped commercial aviation.  We can talk about trains too.

The reasearch we have on 0g argues we have to expedite the transit.  There's no research on whether 0.1g during transit helps. There's no research about long duration 0.4g.

There's good anecdotal evidence that settlement will have a death toll. We'll try to minimize it, but not at the expense of not going.

Not everyone has to go, only those that choose to.

13

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink group 6-98 : CCSFS SLC-40 : 14 January 2026 (18:08 UTC)

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 06:52 pm »

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/2011524352127484273

SpaceX
@SpaceX
Falcon 9 launches 29 @Starlink satellites from Florida

14

Live Event Section - Latest Space Flight News / Re: NASA Administrator to Make X-Plane Announcement at Reagan National Media Event

« Last post by Hog on Today at 06:48 pm »

NASA 836, shown up-thread, is used both as a chase plane and a test aircraft. Here it is shown with a Navy AIM-54 Phoenix missile. The Phoenix was a long-range missile on the F-14 Tomcat, but has been retired from service for a long time now. I don't know why that they were doing here. Just because it was carrying the missile doesn't mean it launched it.

AIM-54 Phoenix was retired in 2004 with the F-14 Tomcat retiring in 2006.  NASA received a number of AIM-54 missiles to act as hypersonic test articles.  NASA posted a bunch of AIM-54 data on the website, but was later asked to take it down.
edit:  It should be noted that the "missile" shown is a CATM-54C and with its blue ring markings is an inert part.  CATM=Captive Air Training Missile.. CATM have the same size, shape, weight and balance of the actual missile, with no explosives/prop.

15

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9/Crew Dragon : Crew-11 : KSC LC-39A : 1 August 2025 (15:43 UTC)

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 06:47 pm »

Coverage starts 2:15 AM ET January 15

16

ISS Section / Re: Expedition 74 thread

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 06:47 pm »

All posts regarding the return of Crew-11, from undocking to splashdown and recovery, are required to be posted to the SpaceX Dragon thread.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61690.msg2750937#msg2750937

17

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9/Crew Dragon : Crew-11 : KSC LC-39A : 1 August 2025 (15:43 UTC)

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 06:46 pm »

Coverage starts at 4:45 PM ET

18

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Starship Artemis Contract & Lunar Starship

« Last post by xvel on Today at 06:46 pm »

In June, at most, the first orbital flight may take place, absolutely nothing more. Orbital refueling this year is not certain.

*if* Flight 12 goes well, Flight 13 could potentially happen before June.

It's also maybe possible that the first orbital Starship will loiter and become the "target" for the first transfer demo?

I agree it's definitely not certain, but there's a lot of pressure to try as soon as possible.

I'd like to think this'll happen but question an extended loiter. IIRC, one goal of the first falcon heavy was to demonstrate a 6 hour loiter capability, which suggests that loiter is a whole world unto itself.


What's needed for loiter?  What comes to mind is keeping batteries charged and keeping enough propellant aboard for all expected attitude control and maneuvering plus a reentry burn in case transfer doesn't work. All that and everything has to still work.


Whatever the loiter limits are, the turnaround has to be faster. The new pad is untried. NOBODY knows how fast it can turn around. Could be anything from 12 hours to 12 weeks.


A second operating pad sure would be handy.

New pad is certainly designed for much faster turnaround than old one, there is no question about that, the question is whether it will work the first time, because it does not look like the assembly and testing are going smoothly, the same applies to vehicles.
As of now there is no evidence that there will be much flying this year nor that the flights will be very successful.

19

NASASpaceflight.com and NSF Forum Site Rules/News / Re: NASASpaceflight.com and NSF Forum Bug Reports

« Last post by Chris Bergin on Today at 06:44 pm »

Looks like it's resolved now.

20

SpaceX General Section / Re: Starlink : Markets and Marketing

« Last post by seb21051 on Today at 06:43 pm »

Ryanair rules out equipping planes with Musk's Starlink internet

Reuters
Wed, January 14, 2026 at 3:43 a.m. PST
1 min read

Not really surprising, when you ask Gemini about their practices: I especially liked their standing-room only proposal, paying extra for a paper boarding pass, and the proposed charging for toilet use ideas. If they ever do offer something like this, expect them to charge through the nose for the privilege. You pays your money and you takes your poison.

Ryanair is infamous for its ultra-low fares achieved through strict cost-cutting, leading to numerous passenger complaints about extra fees for everything, minimal legroom, poor seat comfort, cramped cabins, and notoriously strict (often costly) baggage rules, coupled with a reputation for poor customer service, charging for basics like printing boarding passes, using toilets (proposed), and flying into remote airports, all under the management of its provocative CEO known for controversial ideas and aggressive marketing.

Key Infamous Aspects:

Baggage Fees: Extremely tight restrictions and high charges for anything beyond a small personal item, with many complaints about surprise costs at the airport.

Hidden & Extra Charges: Passengers face fees for printing boarding passes at the airport, seat selection, priority boarding, and even using the toilet (previously proposed).

Poor Onboard Experience: Cramped seating, minimal legroom, and no complimentary food or drinks (everything is for purchase).

Customer Service & Staff Treatment: Accusations of rude service, treating staff poorly (incentivized by quick turnarounds), and a general "penny-pinching" attitude.

Remote Airports: Often uses smaller, less convenient airports far from the city center, adding travel time and cost.

Provocative Marketing & CEO: CEO Michael O'Leary's controversial stunts (like the "fat tax" or standing-room-only ideas) and aggressive social media presence generate headlines, sometimes overshadowing service issues.

Boarding & Delays: Complaints about chaotic boarding processes, long walks to gates, and delays impacting connections.

Why It's So Infamous (and Still Popular):

Despite the criticism, Ryanair's core promise of extremely cheap flights makes them accessible for millions, transforming European travel, even while they lead surveys for customer dissatisfaction.