Saying a suborbital flight is a partial orbit is like saying a cessna can partially achieve hypersonic velocities
Starship reached over 26000km/h, it had enough energy to be in orbit if it was in a circular orbit. The orbit was intentionally left eccentric enough that the perigee was within the atmosphere, so that a deorbit burn was not required.
This is a cessna going mach 4.99 and you’re being pedantic enough to say it was not hypersonic.
I agree with the rest of what you say though. As fun as it is to watch, Starship is over budget and behind schedule. Elon has over promised (pronounced “lied to get government subsidies”) on timelines and capabilities so much that it may jeopardize the Artemis program. Which makes me mad.
I fell asleep after making my original comment, but you are correct that the velocities and altitude achieved are indicative of something capable of achieving orbit.
So for that, thank you for the correction.
I will caveat that with: We still have literally no idea what this things LEO payload capacity is.
Up until a few months ago, Musk was saying its 100 tons. Then he says its more like 50 tons, and we’re gonna make Starship+Booster 2 and 3, 2 will be capable of 100 tons, 3 will be even more.
so much that it may jeopardize the Artemis program.
Which means he’s successfully cornered the market and he hasn’t even launched his product yet! What a great billionaire, I’m sure he’s a great fit for a government position.
You’re being pedantic enough to say it was not hypersonic
That’s not what OP was saying at all. He/she was pointing out calling the $100 in your pocket a “partial $1000” is just silly. So instead of saying “partial orbit” , the author should have I stead said “sub-ortial flight”. Their words, not mine - although I do agree. The tendency for journalists to over-exaggerate anybody’s claims is infuriating.
My point is that this flight wasn’t $100 out of $1000. It was $999 out of $1000. If the engines burned for a couple of seconds longer, it would have been a stable orbit. But their intended orbit was eccentric and had a low perigee, so that it would reenter after half an orbit.
Are we talking about the same flight I watched today? It made it through re-entry and made a controlled, powered, soft splash down exactly where it was supposed to.
It was a suborbital flight. They never accelerated to the orbital speed, hence the apogee was ballistic and upon “reentry”, the vehicle only experienced negligible heatup.
A real atmospheric reentry from orbit is the biggest technological challenge in return vehicles, and they still have to do that with Starship
Starship reached over 26000km/h, it had enough energy to be in orbit if it was in a circular orbit. The orbit was intentionally left eccentric enough that the perigee was within the atmosphere, so that a deorbit burn was not required.
This is a cessna going mach 4.99 and you’re being pedantic enough to say it was not hypersonic.
I agree with the rest of what you say though. As fun as it is to watch, Starship is over budget and behind schedule. Elon has over promised (pronounced “lied to get government subsidies”) on timelines and capabilities so much that it may jeopardize the Artemis program. Which makes me mad.
I fell asleep after making my original comment, but you are correct that the velocities and altitude achieved are indicative of something capable of achieving orbit.
So for that, thank you for the correction.
I will caveat that with: We still have literally no idea what this things LEO payload capacity is.
Up until a few months ago, Musk was saying its 100 tons. Then he says its more like 50 tons, and we’re gonna make Starship+Booster 2 and 3, 2 will be capable of 100 tons, 3 will be even more.
So far its proven payload capacity is ‘banana’.
=/
Which means he’s successfully cornered the market and he hasn’t even launched his product yet! What a great billionaire, I’m sure he’s a great fit for a government position.
That’s not what OP was saying at all. He/she was pointing out calling the $100 in your pocket a “partial $1000” is just silly. So instead of saying “partial orbit” , the author should have I stead said “sub-ortial flight”. Their words, not mine - although I do agree. The tendency for journalists to over-exaggerate anybody’s claims is infuriating.
My point is that this flight wasn’t $100 out of $1000. It was $999 out of $1000. If the engines burned for a couple of seconds longer, it would have been a stable orbit. But their intended orbit was eccentric and had a low perigee, so that it would reenter after half an orbit.
The hardest part of a real orbit is not burning up on re-entry. They skipped that part so far, for their most fragile rocket.
Are we talking about the same flight I watched today? It made it through re-entry and made a controlled, powered, soft splash down exactly where it was supposed to.
It was a suborbital flight. They never accelerated to the orbital speed, hence the apogee was ballistic and upon “reentry”, the vehicle only experienced negligible heatup. A real atmospheric reentry from orbit is the biggest technological challenge in return vehicles, and they still have to do that with Starship