Starship will attempt a launch this Friday

SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy system is set for a second integrated test flight from Boca Chica, Texas, pending final FAA approval, with a primary launch window on November 17 and backup windows over the weekend. Commenters dissect what “success” means for this prototype-heavy program—suborbital trajectory, booster splashdown, and controlled Starship reentry rather than full orbit—while contrasting SpaceX’s rapid, iterative approach with slower, costlier government programs like NASA’s SLS. Alongside practical details on viewing locations, safety, and regulations, the thread weighs Starship’s potential to slash launch costs and enable large-scale space activity against environmental worries, space‑debris risks, and skepticism about billionaire-led space ambitions.

Launch timing, licensing & NOTAM details

  • FAA notice lists Starship Super Heavy Flight 2 from Boca Chica with a primary window on Nov 17, 13:00–17:20Z, backups on Nov 18–19.
  • “Z” is clarified as UTC (“Zulu”), so this is Friday morning US time.
  • Some confusion about weekend beach-closure limits; cited report says SpaceX gets a small number of weekend closures per year.
  • Several comments note the FAA launch license wasn’t yet posted at discussion time; SpaceX text says “pending final regulatory approval.”
  • Earlier environmental lawsuit and demands for risk analysis (e.g., “probability of hitting a shark”) are mentioned; outcome still pending in the thread.

Test objectives & Starship status

  • This is the second integrated flight test of booster + Starship.
  • Planned profile: near-orbital suborbital flight, booster splashdown in the Gulf, Starship reentry and uncontrolled impact near Hawaii.
  • Expectations: test pad upgrades (water deluge, armor), full engine ignition, staging, booster return and ocean “landing,” and high-altitude bellyflop; no reuse or recovery intended.
  • Starship will likely fly an “orbit that intersects Earth” rather than a closed orbit to avoid uncontrolled reentry risk.
  • Prior flight: cleared the tower, reached ~70 km, suffered engine issues, trajectory loss, failed staging, delayed flight termination, and major pad damage. Debate over whether it met pre-stated “test” goals.

Launch cadence, history & comparisons

  • Same day includes up to three SpaceX launches; discussion whether that’s a record for “major” or orbital-class rockets.
  • Historical comparisons span V‑2 volleys, WWII artillery rockets, modern conflicts, and NASA/Roskosmos multi-launch days, with most participants assuming “orbital” is the relevant category.

Viewing experience & local impacts

  • Best public viewing cited as Isla Blanca Park and South Padre Island beaches; expect big crowds and pre-dawn arrival.
  • Reports of extreme sound and vibration; mixed views on whether ear protection is essential at that distance, but widely recommended for kids.
  • Questions about air quality (PM2.5); consensus is that single launches at several miles distance pose negligible health risk, though the previous test scattered large debris multiple miles.

Broader significance, economics & risks

  • Many see Starship as a step-change: fully reusable, ~100–150 t to LEO, order-of-magnitude cost drops (vs Shuttle/SLS) enabling mass satellite deployment, stations, and eventual offworld bases.
  • Others question economic drivers beyond telecom, Earth observation, and limited tourism; worry about “mega-yacht in space” symbolism, privatization, and profit vs exploration.
  • Discussion of future industries: asteroid and lunar mining, microgravity manufacturing, lunar retirement communities, low‑g sports, and tourism—while acknowledging major unknowns.
  • Space debris and Kessler Syndrome raised; some argue Starlink’s low orbits and planned deorbiting greatly reduce long‑term debris risk; others remain uneasy about mass launches.

SpaceX vs NASA and other players

  • Thread contrasts SpaceX’s “build fast, test to destruction, iterate” approach with NASA’s slower, costlier SLS: single-shot success, legacy tech, heavy bureaucracy.
  • Starship’s Raptor engines and high-production factory model seen as a key competitive moat; commenters argue China and other agencies are still far behind in reusability and cadence.
  • Note that NASA’s Starship funding is for a lunar lander variant; core launch vehicle development is mostly privately financed, with milestone-based, fixed-price contracts.

Culture, politics & Musk

  • Large subthread debates whether Starship is noble exploration or billionaire vanity/profit project.
  • Many emphasize the contributions of thousands of engineers and NASA’s role as customer, not just Musk’s persona.
  • Long digressions cover Musk’s public behavior, Twitter/X, US politics, free speech, and culture-war issues; some say it dampens their enthusiasm, others deliberately separate the tech from the CEO.