They can probably get them to orbit now. Raptor V1 works in the sense that you light it the first time and everything goes pretty much according to plan. The only hiccup with V1 has been landing, and they've even managed to get around that (twice). Biggest question is whether or not they can land a Booster.

Elon's whole concern here is needing a rapid launch cadence, and as fast as they can build these starships, they can't build them that fast, and moreover, the capital cost would be a lot more than what it costs to just refurbish a V1 after landing. But if you're burning up on re-entry, it doesn't really matter what kind of engine you have. I think he's going after the wrong issue here.

Shell 4 block 3 is going up next. They are definitely proceeding with F9 launches thru 2021.

A lot of this is frustration I think on Musk's part that he was too hands off on Raptor 2.0 production development, probably. They basically fired the guy in charge of that, and then he wants to push the engineering team (he prides himself on hiring/managing engineering teams) on production.

I dunno why Starlink 2.0 satellites are 'dependent on Starship' per se or how this very valuable subsidiary of Starship is 'financially weak' but whatever.

Quote:

---

But, while SpaceX has launched about 1,700 Starlink satellites to orbit so far, Musk said the first version of the satellite "is financially weak." The company has been steadily growing Starlink's user base, with about 140,000 users paying for service at $99 a month.

Earlier this year SpaceX outlined improvements for the second version of the satellite, with Musk saying in his email that "V2 is strong" but can only be launched effectively by its Starship rockets.

To date SpaceX has launched Starlink satellites with its Falcon 9 rockets, but Musk outlined that those rockets do not have the mass or volume needed to effectively deploy the second-generation satellites.

That means the success of the Raptor engine program is also critical to the long-term financial stability of SpaceX's Starlink service, which Musk has talked about spinning off in an IPO.

Notably, SpaceX is currently ramping up production of its Starlink antennas "to several million units per year," Musk said in the email, but those will be "useless otherwise" if Raptor does not succeed.

---

SpaceX has a tremendous ability to raise capital as needed. Elon, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin aren't gonna lose money on the company, let alone watch it go bankrupt. Posting this from a reddit thread which I think is fair (supports above comment);



He wants hawthorne working through the holidays. Good luck with that, but I bet he gets his wish, basically. Despite the 'environment' he has like a 90 percent approval rating at SpaceX, which for a 'character' like him is pretty incredible.

Well the main question I have is how would launching every two weeks be possible if the FAA is only approving 5 launches per year?

TexAgs91 said:

---

Well the main question I have is how would launching every two weeks be possible if the FAA is only approving 5 launches per year?

---

They just need to launch 20 Starships at a time

TexAgs91 said:

---

Well the main question I have is how would launching every two weeks be possible if the FAA is only approving 5 launches per year?

---

Yeah, it's a completely absurd statement, it's a vision, not reality. One day they might get there, but not for months. That's an insane pace, I doubt they have the manpower for it.

I assume they'd launch offshore on one of the oil rigs they bought.

nortex97 said:

---

Shell 4 block 3 is going up next. They are definitely proceeding with F9 launches thru 2021.

A lot of this is frustration I think on Musk's part that he was too hands off on Raptor 2.0 production development, probably. They basically fired the guy in charge of that, and then he wants to push the engineering team (he prides himself on hiring/managing engineering teams) on production.

I dunno why Starlink 2.0 satellites are 'dependent on Starship' per se or how this very valuable subsidiary of Starship is 'financially weak' but whatever.

Quote:

---

But, while SpaceX has launched about 1,700 Starlink satellites to orbit so far, Musk said the first version of the satellite "is financially weak." The company has been steadily growing Starlink's user base, with about 140,000 users paying for service at $99 a month.

Earlier this year SpaceX outlined improvements for the second version of the satellite, with Musk saying in his email that "V2 is strong" but can only be launched effectively by its Starship rockets.

To date SpaceX has launched Starlink satellites with its Falcon 9 rockets, but Musk outlined that those rockets do not have the mass or volume needed to effectively deploy the second-generation satellites.

That means the success of the Raptor engine program is also critical to the long-term financial stability of SpaceX's Starlink service, which Musk has talked about spinning off in an IPO.

Notably, SpaceX is currently ramping up production of its Starlink antennas "to several million units per year," Musk said in the email, but those will be "useless otherwise" if Raptor does not succeed.

---

SpaceX has a tremendous ability to raise capital as needed. Elon, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin aren't gonna lose money on the company, let alone watch it go bankrupt. Posting this from a reddit thread which I think is fair (supports above comment);



He wants hawthorne working through the holidays. Good luck with that, but I bet he gets his wish, basically. Despite the 'environment' he has like a 90 percent approval rating at SpaceX, which for a 'character' like him is pretty incredible.

---

Working in aerospace I hear more negative than positive about working there from former employees. People get burned out quick, although the company does have some 5-10 year veterans that seem to like it, they are the minority, and probably the minority of teams and roles there. I'm sure the work is a lot of fun initially and easy to get consumed by it, so good for younger workers. And there is some sense of prestige and pride that must come with it for some workers. Biggest red flag is that a lot of managers there seem to be inexperienced with only 3-5 years of experience, so don't have people or leadership skills yet to effectively run a team, so I bet a lot of it is just taking orders from Musk and passing them down. I phone interviewed for a few rounds and with a hiring manager who was 3 years out of school, definitely was not a fit. Over the years I've also been ghosted by SpaceX recruiters that have contacted me on linkedin and set up a time for a call, then they are a no show and stop replying to emails or calls. The company is a bit low on professionalism due to the young workforce. SpaceX is successful despite all of that because they let the engineers run free and don't have the bureaucracy that old aerospace has.

bmks270 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Well the main question I have is how would launching every two weeks be possible if the FAA is only approving 5 launches per year?

---

Yeah, it's a completely absurd statement, it's a vision, not reality. One day they might get there, but not for months. That's an insane pace, I doubt they have the manpower for it.

---

Probably, in 12 months this is true. But is it unrealistic to set as a notional objective, if they do hit a cadence of 3-4 launches a quarter within a year? Musk has a long history of unrealistic near-term projections as far as production/milestones. Just ask all of the Tesla truck owners, or $30K model 3 drivers. Despite the cash flow/production woes, Tesla sure never went bankrupt/share price never crashed (at least, not yet). I suppose if oil really hits 200 bucks in the next couple years then perhaps the stock price will finally make sense to me (LOL).

As for manpower, they are insistent on getting to a marginal refurbishment/check out process for SH/Starship between launches. Yes, tiles falling off...but if they do get close to the time goals I don't know that manpower would be a limitation, but perhaps fuel, especially if offshore (which will take at least a year to build once/if BC is a success).

RE: the atmosphere, I think you do see some of that accurately, I have no idea/no experience. I would note though that if talking to former employees, one tends to get an invariably negative feedback loop/cycle. They are big enough, too, that there have to be a few levels of managers, not just Elon and program managers beneath nowadays.

If a severe global recession were to dry up capital availability / liquidity while SpaceX was losing billions on Starlink & Starship, then bankruptcy, while still unlikely, is not impossible.

GM & Chrysler went BK last recession.

“Only the paranoid survive.” – Grove

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 30, 2021

I can't see them completely backing themselves in a corner to the point of bankruptcy... Elon is smarter than that. Makes me wonder if they're prepping for a partially reusable starship, and trying to get the public used to the possibility

Interesting he is staying on that narrative/message right now.

Again, I don't see it as probable/likely by any means at all, but it is an interesting message to deliver/reinforce. I guess he is also the type who might foresee a significant possibility of a massive protracted global recession/depression, especially looking at steel/energy prices.

IMHO, if SpaceX does wind up going thru Chapter 11/bankruptcy (in just a year or two), we will probably be sitting around 25-35% unemployment with rampant inflation, some huge wars brewing, and astronomical further government power grabs/evolution away from the US Constitution, so that is a horrible thing to ponder.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

I can't see them completely backing themselves in a corner to the point of bankruptcy... Elon is smarter than that. Makes me wonder if they're prepping for a partially reusable starship, and trying to get the public used to the possibility

---

I think another consideration is that even without re-usability, the starship will be able to deliver 300t to LEO. Surely Musk could sell that kind of capacity to NASA.

How many non-reusable starships could you build and launch for what the STS costs?

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

Probably the only thing really at risk here is Starlink. And if I'm honest, Elon's biggest problem isn't Raptor, it's the tiles that keep falling off every time they light the engines or vent S20. That dog ain't gonna hunt when it comes time to re-enter the atmosphere, and is probably the more serious of the issues they face. They have the ability to refurb Raptor V1 at a shockingly quick rate if they need to get by until V2 is ready.

---

Elon has stated multiple times that the TPS tiles individually are not critical point of failure with Starship. Stainless steel is naturally resistant to heat and reflective by nature. The TPS tiles as a system is still necessary to transport temperature-sensitive cargo and people as well as protect avionics, but if they lose tiles during launch it shouldn't result in complete failure. In theory there wouldn't be a disintegration event like Columbia as that TPS system was critical and had no margin for failure since the airframe was aluminum. There are still some concerns but I do not think this is as big of a problem as you suggest. These are things we will learn after the first orbital test flight takes place.

Can't wait.

To expand on the criticality, I know at least one Shuttle reentry had a missing thermal tile but still survived. The only reason was that it was over an antenna which was a thicker piece of metal exposed to the heat. Columbia of course did not have that luck.

I wonder if starship's steel is similar to that situation. The orbiter that survived is said to have been the most damaged spacecraft to ever land safely. But they did survive.

Decay said:

---

To expand on the criticality, I know at least one Shuttle reentry had a missing thermal tile but still survived. The only reason was that it was over an antenna which was a thicker piece of metal exposed to the heat. Columbia of course did not have that luck.

I wonder if starship's steel is similar to that situation. The orbiter that survived is said to have been the most damaged spacecraft to ever land safely. But they did survive.

---

The shuttle had tons of missing and damaged tiles over the course their lives, the foam strike issue was always a major deal, it was just ignored because there had never been a strike in a critical area.

The criticality of any TPS tile depends on its location on Starship, as well as the angle of attack taken during reentry. And while stainless is certainly better at high temp than aluminum, you can't tell me that losing a tile near the centerline between the flaps isn't concerning. Or on one of the aerocovers near the flap hinge. The melting point for austenitic stainless (which is what they're using if I remember correctly) is roughly 1400 C. The Shuttle supposedly saw temps up to 1600 C. At ~3.5 mm wall thickness…you'll have a problem in seconds.

I'm sure they've done lots of analysis, but simulations are only as good as the assumptions made when setting them up. This will remain my biggest fear until we actually see a couple make it through in one piece.

Malachi Constant said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

I can't see them completely backing themselves in a corner to the point of bankruptcy... Elon is smarter than that. Makes me wonder if they're prepping for a partially reusable starship, and trying to get the public used to the possibility

---

I think another consideration is that even without re-usability, the starship will be able to deliver 300t to LEO. Surely Musk could sell that kind of capacity to NASA.

How many non-reusable starships could you build and launch for what the STS costs?

---

Yep. I've been saying since starship was announced in this form, and at times spacex has teased at times, that there would likely be a variant built with an expendable upper stage. Blunt ended, with a traditional clamshell fairing, tonnage aside, the fairing volume would be unrivaled.

Makes sense now why musk is sitting on my starlink deposit since February.

Okay I had a thought. Spacecraft that exclusively use aero braking to decelerate (aka once they do a deorbit burn, they're terminal and can't slow down anymore) are facing a certain amount of heat in reentry.

Compare that to Falcon 9 stage 1, which does a deorbit burn, but essentially for the opposite reason - it's coming down regardless and they do a burn timed just right to slow it down before it hits thicker atmosphere and burns up because it's going too fast. Then of course it does the suicide landing burn.

Do we know if starship does any of that, to slow its entry or is it entirely aero braking? They may not face 1600 degrees in that case.

But I'll admit my impression is that it's all aero, with those little flaps. I don't think we've seen any indication starship will enter like Falcon 9 right?

Right.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

The criticality of any TPS tile depends on its location on Starship, as well as the angle of attack taken during reentry. And while stainless is certainly better at high temp than aluminum, you can't tell me that losing a tile near the centerline between the flaps isn't concerning. Or on one of the aerocovers near the flap hinge. The melting point for austenitic stainless (which is what they're using if I remember correctly) is roughly 1400 C. The Shuttle supposedly saw temps up to 1600 C. At ~3.5 mm wall thickness…you'll have a problem in seconds.

I'm sure they've done lots of analysis, but simulations are only as good as the assumptions made when setting them up. This will remain my biggest fear until we actually see a couple make it through in one piece.

---

The higher melting point of 304L SS vs Aluminum is just one of a multitude of factors that decrease the probability of failure in the case of a tile missing.

Stainless reaches half of its mechanical strength at around 700C compared to aluminum at 200C. The shear strength and modulus is three times higher. The tensile strength is over two times higher. So mechanically superior. The specific heat capacity for stainless is less than half of that of aluminum but that is a stat on a per unit mass basis. The density of stainless is over 3 times that of aluminum. So it takes longer for the unprotected portion of the stainless surface to heat up than the same unit area of aluminum. Couple that with stainless having a little more than one tenth of the thermal conductivity compared to aluminum and a significantly lower thermal expansion characteristics and you have tremendously decreased the odds of failure.

Remember metal does not simply melt when it is exposed to temperatures above it's melting point, it melts when the material itself reaches those temps. That takes time. Much longer for stainless.

Also consider that the max temperature exposure during re-entry is not as important as how long the vehicle is exposed to these temperatures.

I also understand the surface loading of the cylindrical body of starship is less than that of the shuttle even though they are the same dry mass. Starship also has a larger horizontal projection due to its size compared to the shuttle. It lends itself to experience a greater deceleration during descent.

There is no telling whether or not we will see shuttle like re-entry temperature exposure or more but it seems as though it will experience a shorter duration of this intense heat and the spacecraft is better suited to handle intense heat. As it is designed now, the TPS system is not seamless or sealed up like it was on STS. There is space between the tiles and just behind them as well. There is a thermal blanket system that is sufficient to protect the small exposed seams between the tiles. Elon has even spoken about cryogenic purges around and near seals and important systems that have thermal vulnerabilities.

Like I posted before, there is a lot to learn. Elon has mentioned that there will be sensors and thermal cameras placed on the inside of the ship to monitor heat on every point of starship during this first orbital test flight.

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

The criticality of any TPS tile depends on its location on Starship, as well as the angle of attack taken during reentry. And while stainless is certainly better at high temp than aluminum, you can't tell me that losing a tile near the centerline between the flaps isn't concerning. Or on one of the aerocovers near the flap hinge. The melting point for austenitic stainless (which is what they're using if I remember correctly) is roughly 1400 C. The Shuttle supposedly saw temps up to 1600 C. At ~3.5 mm wall thickness…you'll have a problem in seconds.

I'm sure they've done lots of analysis, but simulations are only as good as the assumptions made when setting them up. This will remain my biggest fear until we actually see a couple make it through in one piece.

---

The higher melting point of 304L SS vs Aluminum is just one of a multitude of factors that decrease the probability of failure in the case of a tile missing.

Stainless reaches half of its mechanical strength at around 700C compared to aluminum at 200C. The shear strength and modulus is three times higher. The tensile strength is over two times higher. So mechanically superior. The specific heat capacity for stainless is less than half of that of aluminum but that is a stat on a per unit mass basis. The density of stainless is over 3 times that of aluminum. So it takes longer for the unprotected portion of the stainless surface to heat up than the same unit area of aluminum. Couple that with stainless having a little more than one tenth of the thermal conductivity compared to aluminum and a significantly lower thermal expansion characteristics and you have tremendously decreased the odds of failure.

Remember metal does not simply melt when it is exposed to temperatures above it's melting point, it melts when the material itself reaches those temps. That takes time. Much longer for stainless.

Also consider that the max temperature exposure during re-entry is not as important as how long the vehicle is exposed to these temperatures.

I also understand the surface loading of the cylindrical body of starship is less than that of the shuttle even though they are the same dry mass. Starship also has a larger horizontal projection due to its size compared to the shuttle. It lends itself to experience a greater deceleration during descent.

There is no telling whether or not we will see shuttle like re-entry temperature exposure or more but it seems as though it will experience a shorter duration of this intense heat and the spacecraft is better suited to handle intense heat. As it is designed now, the TPS system is not seamless or sealed up like it was on STS. There is space between the tiles and just behind them as well. There is a thermal blanket system that is sufficient to protect the small exposed seams between the tiles. Elon has even spoken about cryogenic purges around and near seals and important systems that have thermal vulnerabilities.

Like I posted before, there is a lot to learn. Elon has mentioned that there will be sensors and thermal cameras placed on the inside of the ship to monitor heat on every point of starship during this first orbital test flight.

---

Plus stainless looks cool

Decay said:

---

Okay I had a thought. Spacecraft that exclusively use aero braking to decelerate (aka once they do a deorbit burn, they're terminal and can't slow down anymore) are facing a certain amount of heat in reentry.

Compare that to Falcon 9 stage 1, which does a deorbit burn, but essentially for the opposite reason - it's coming down regardless and they do a burn timed just right to slow it down before it hits thicker atmosphere and burns up because it's going too fast. Then of course it does the suicide landing burn.

Do we know if starship does any of that, to slow its entry or is it entirely aero braking? They may not face 1600 degrees in that case.

But I'll admit my impression is that it's all aero, with those little flaps. I don't think we've seen any indication starship will enter like Falcon 9 right?

---

The Falcon 9 does three burns during re-entry. Boost-back or deorbit burn to slow it down, the second re-entry burn decelerates but also acts as a shield as the exhaust gasses from the rocket are lower temperature than the plasma it would be exposed to without the second burn. So it's a gaseous insulator and active cooling system of sorts. Lol. The third being the hoverslam landing burn.

The Starship second stage will perform a de orbit burn but it will not re-enter like the Falcon 9. It will used aerodynamic drag as you guessed. The superheavy will perform a boost back and re-entry burn similar to Falcon 9. I also understand it will perform a landing burn sequence long enough and well enough for the tower to catch it. That's gonna be fun to watch.

The Falcon 9 has a small heat shield on the bottom doesn't it? I think I read Superheavy won't go as high as the Falcon 9 first stage so I don't think it will need it.

Falcon 9 isn't reentering from orbit either( nor is super heavy) and the heating/aero forces are drastically different.

That is correct but the re entry burn still acts as a thermal mitigation technique but nowhere near the magnitude of an orbital descent.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

The Falcon 9 has a small heat shield on the bottom doesn't it? I think I read Superheavy won't go as high as the Falcon 9 first stage so I don't think it will need it.

---

They just installed a shield on the bottom of the superheavy above the engine nozzles but I am not sure this is for re entry or the insane amount of undirected heat caught under the launch table with no flame diverter. The amount of energy released by 29-33 raptor engines is unprecedented.

This thread is fun today.

Honest question for people who k ow how to calculate it( cause I'm just...guessing).

The only other rocket to ever approach this scale and explode was the N1. It's explosion on the pad created the largest non nuclear detonation history.... would this be a larger detonation? I'm not sure how much different the kerosene vs the methane explosion would be.

TAMUallen said:

---

Makes sense now why musk is sitting on my starlink deposit since February.

---

I played with the sign up page using my address last month and it was of course happy to move forward but promised coverage/service in late 2022 for Frisco, basically.

It's not easily modeled. Methane has a similar combustion efficiency as TNT and methane has 10x the energy content of TNT. Factors like detonation velocity are what determines damage potential. I've seen some analysis that suggests that the detonation velocity of well mixed methane is 1/4x the same amount of TNT. I think the biggest reason why you won't see an explosion like the N1 is that the fuel type, Kerosene at room temperature mixes very quickly with air as compared with cryogenic liquid methane. Elon has said that it would be more like a giant fireball than an explosion on his tour interview with Tim Dodd. But estimates on the N1 mishap indicate that the N1 only blew 6% of its fuel load in that detonation but confidence on those numbers is low. But we obviously do not want to see happen on the launch site anywhere near that scale.

Don’t waste your money on that silly Apple Cloth, buy our whistle instead!

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 1, 2021

Bigger than those MOABs we dropped on the bad guys in the desert?

Eric Berger will have a piece out soon;

yes. coming soon.

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) December 1, 2021

Teslarati had one already on the 'bankruptcy' threat;

Quote:

---

First and foremost, can there be any truth to Musk's claim that SpaceX could go bankrupt because of an unspecified "Raptor production crisis [and disaster]?" Put simply, not really. Musk's argument is simple enough. According to his estimations, the first-generation (V1) Starlink satellite internet constellation is "financially weak by itself," which has led SpaceX to develop a much larger, more advanced second-generation (V2) Starlink satellite and constellation that the company's existing "Falcon [rockets have] neither the [payload] volume nor mass to orbit" to launch. To efficiently launch the Starlink V2 constellation, then, Musk says SpaceX needs Starship to be operational.

Up to that point, nothing in Musk's email implies that a "Raptor production crisis" could pose any serious harm to SpaceX beyond annoying delays. More than two years ago, Musk believed that Raptor V1.0 already cost less than $1M to produce. As of 2021, SpaceX (again per Musk) is completing an average of one Raptor engine every two days and currently has 35 functional engines installed on Starship and Super Heavy booster prototypes in Boca Chica, Texas. Already, at a rate of one engine every 48 hours, SpaceX's Raptor production capabilities are theoretically strong enough to fully outfit a significant Starship fleet.

Both stages of Starship are designed to be rapidly and fully reusable and absolutely need to be to efficiently and rapidly launch SpaceX's Starlink V2 constellation.

In theory, a production capacity of ~180 Raptors per year should allow SpaceX to outfit a fleet of three Super Heavies (99 engines) and 13 Starships (72 engines). Even if Super Heavy booster reuse is initially no faster than Falcon (~1 launch per month) and Starship reuse is no faster than Dragon (~3 launches per year), that fleet would be able to launch at least 36 times per years.

Even if SpaceX's former propulsion executives somehow pulled the wool over Musk's eyes, tricking him into seeing engines that just weren't there and hiding hundreds of millions of dollars in secret cost overruns from the company's own accountants, an annual run rate of 100 Raptor engines at a cost of $5 million each would still be able to power a fleet of six reusable ships and two boosters capable of ~20 launches per year.

Musk says that SpaceX will only face the risk of bankruptcy if it "cannot achieve a Starship flight rate of at least once every two weeks next year" equivalent to 26 launches annually. Again, being deceived for years would be a terrible look but nothing described above appears to have any chance of bankrupting SpaceX. However, the CEO also says that SpaceX "is spooling up" one or several factories to produce "several million" Starlink user terminals (dishes) per year in a process that "will consume massive capital [and assumes] that [Starlink V2 satellites] will be on orbit to handle the bandwidth demand." He even goes as far as to say that those millions of terminals "will be useless otherwise."

Once again, while what he describes is an undeniable hurdle for SpaceX, the company is making a choice to "consume massive capital" to "spool up" Starlink dish factories before the constellation capacity needed to take advantage of those dishes has been secured. SpaceX doesn't need to make such a massive investment so quickly when it could instead split that money with Starship, ensure that Starship and Raptor and Starlink V2.0 satellites are ready or close to ready for routine launches, and then invest heavily in dish production.

For example, just this month, SpaceX raised almost $350M from investors that have a practically bottomless appetite for SpaceX investments. Combined, by the end of the year, SpaceX will have likely raised more than $2.3B in 2021 alone. Valued at more than $100 billion, the company could as a last resort feasibly raise double-digit billions in one fell swoop with an IPO. Put simply, the only way SpaceX could ever go bankrupt in the near term would be by consciously letting itself drown in a sea of life preservers.

This is not to say that SpaceX doesn't have numerous massive challenges ahead of it, nor is it to say that its fundraising potential is truly limitless. Investors could eventually become disillusioned. It's entirely possible that it will take SpaceX years longer than Musk expects to begin routine Starlink V2.0 launches with Starship. Environmental approvals alone could easily preclude more than five orbital Starship launches in 2022 and potentially prevent regular (i.e. biweekly) launches well into 2023. But the fact of the matter is that unless Elon Musk is telegraphing signs that the rest of the company's finances are a house of cards, the odds of SpaceX actually going bankrupt anytime soon are vanishingly small. In reality, he's likely just attempting to (for better or worse) instill some amount of fear and panic in SpaceX employees to encourage them to work more hours and take fewer days off.

---

The above makes a lot of sense to me. Rumor in the comments is interesting that chopstick recovery attempt might happen with booster 5. If they do 'lose' (aka blow up) 5 or so of those, probably some massive damage will be done to the launch tower they built in that process (to say nothing of the risk of a RUD on launch at the tower). The timeline to get to launching SH so quickly next year seems very challenging, though I really think the raptor production issues are probably not as big a deal as he is making out in that letter.

OnlyForNow said:

---

Bigger than those MOABs we dropped on the bad guys in the desert?

---

Allegedly yes, the one that blew on the pad is supposed to be the biggest non nuke explosion .