SpaceX launches Starship megarocket on 11th test flight

Mission Reaction & Presentation

• Commenters widely regard Flight 11 as a “smashing success,” with a notably clean profile for both booster and ship.
• Many praise the livestream: clearer technical explanations, better visuals, and playful touches (e.g., “crunchwrap” tiles jokes).
• Several describe these launches as personally inspiring and morale-boosting, especially compared to earlier decades with little visible progress.

Orbital vs. (Near-)Suborbital Trajectory

• Some question why Starship is still not doing full orbital missions.
• Others explain current flights are intentional near-orbital / “transatmospheric” trajectories: up to ~98–100% orbital speed but with a steep path to ensure reentry over oceans and avoid long-lived debris.
• Discussion covers debris risk corridors (Caribbean, Africa), targeted splashdown near Australia, and how failure timing affects where hardware falls.
• Rationale given for delaying a true orbit: stabilize engines (especially V3), improve tile retention, and be ready for controlled deorbit and possible “catch” tests.

Reuse, Heat Shield, and Remaining Technical Hurdles

• Booster reuse is seen as largely demonstrated (reflown Block 2 boosters and engines), though only a few times so far.
• Upper-stage reuse is viewed as the hard part: tile losses, flap heating damage, and the gap between surviving once vs. rapid turnaround.
• Commenters stress that overall success still depends on:
  • Reliable full-stack reuse
  • Turnaround time and cost
  • Long-term reliability across many flights
  • Whether marginal cost beats building new vehicles

Timelines, Artemis, and Economics

• Critical voices argue Starship is behind its early promises: reduced payload versus initial claims, missed lunar timelines, and no completed orbital insertion yet.
• They question whether orbital refueling and many tanker flights will make lunar missions complex and possibly not cheaper than SLS once realistic launch costs are applied.
• Counterarguments emphasize:
  • Much lower development cost versus Apollo/Shuttle/SLS
  • NASA knowingly chose a high-risk, high-payoff HLS path under tight budgets
  • Multiple Starship configurations (e.g., non-reentry HLS variants) and shared challenges with other landers needing refueling.
• Several note that even with impressive engineering, commercial viability (A380/Concorde analogy) is not guaranteed.

Why Go to Space? Philosophical Debate

• Pro-space commenters cite communications, navigation, medical research, species survival, resource access, and inspiration.
• Skeptics respond that many benefits are incremental or overstated, and that justifying exploration with vague possibilities feels weak.
• Others frame space capability as strategic (military and geopolitical), as well as inherently exploratory, even if near-term payoffs are uncertain.

Shifting Sentiment & Aesthetics

• Some observe dramatic swings in public/online sentiment: from assumed inevitability, to “hubris,” back to optimism after two good flights.
• A recurring theme is that “the last 20%” (true rapid reuse and economics) remains non-trivial.
• A few note they still find Saturn V more elegant; Starship is admired more for capability than looks.