China's Space Program Thread II

[nativechicken]

There is not much stopping SpaceX from developing a more conventional, expendable second stage -- i.e.: to aim for reusability only for the first stage of Starship (Super Heavy), which in turn will enhance the useful payload to orbit in terms of mass and volume.

Putting it another way, the excess focus and critique of Starship (second stage) should not obscure the more real and significant potential in the first stage/Super Heavy, and the current course of development allows the US and SpaceX significant ability to pivot and integrate a more conventional second stage to Super Heavy.

I’m aware of all the points you’ve made, and so are the authorities in the United States. In fact, there have been people consistently offering relevant suggestions to Musk and SpaceX all along.

The question is, from 2020 to the present, has Musk taken any action to prepare for these issues?

There are now rumors that NASA is looking to buy out some of Starship’s designs, paying SpaceX to customize an expendable upper stage. There’s even talk of a shortened Starship HLS variant—essentially, one without the large second-stage propellant tanks. But for now, these are all just rumors; it’s even uncertain whether NASA will remain involved.

As for the idea of that shortened Starship HLS variant, it was actually something a Russian aerospace scientist had been advocating for years. Then, when he posted about it on NSF (Nasaspaceflight.com), his post was instantly deleted, preventing any discussion from even starting.

 

[Jason_]

You are fundamentally ignorant of the technology. Starship’s payload bay is an enclosed design (and what you call a fairing is actually the internal volume of the spacecraft itself). The larger the volume, the more constrained the payload deployment is, as this is limited by the dimensions of the payload bay door.

Wait, did you actually say "the larger the volume, the more constrained the payload deployment is"? Can you hear what you are saying?

The real problem with Starship right now is that this storage space is integrated with and inseparable from the second stage. For any payload to be deployed, it must exit through a door. Considering the need for reusability, the current design for the door has a maximum area of approximately 8x6 meters or 8x7 meters. An 8-meter height is roughly the minimum length required to deploy a heavy geosynchronous satellite (which are >6m long).

8*6/7m is huge and sufficient for at least 95% of all payload to orbit. Satellites can also be designed to fit this constraint if necessary.

Furthermore, as a heavy-lift launch vehicle, Starship’s payload bay volume is actually the smallest in its class.

Starship and the SLS block 1 are the only heavy-lift launch vehicles in existence and Starship>>>SLS block 1.

The SLS Block 2 (130t to LEO) has a payload bay volume of 1,800 m³.

SLS Block 2 doesn't exist and probably never will.

The CZ-9 (150t to LEO) is projected to have a payload bay volume of 2,100-2,400 m³, and could even reach 2,800-3,000 m³ for LEO missions.

CZ-9 doesn't exist now and when it is developed its going to look a lot like Starship.

Let me also tell you this: even the improved Starship, the original v3 version with a height of over 150 meters, would only have a payload bay volume of 1,200-1,400 m³. The latest v4, with a height of only 142 meters, will likely have a volume of just 1,100-1,200 m³. Other variants have even smaller payload bays than the v1/v2 versions.

In other words, literally the largest volume in the world.

In my eyes, Starship is essentially the worst heavy-lift rocket design ever conceived. You don’t understand the requirements of rocket design, which is why you can’t see that Starship is a deformed piece of junk with grotesquely imbalanced metrics. But most of the professionals in China and the U.S. who truly understand aerospace design get it. It’s just that these experts are routinely attacked (by Musk’s fans who use Falcon 9 as a weapon), so they mostly keep quiet now.

Is that why every time CZ-9 gets an update, it looks more and more like the Starship? Is that why the frontrunners of Chinese space launch industry are all aiming for methalox full-flow staged combustion engines and fully reusable first and second stages in their future plan?

If you truly understood spacecraft, you would know that a good design is a synthesis of multiple parameters. Starship only excels in one metric: one-time payload capacity. It also has a good metric for reusability (low cost). All other spacecraft metrics are abysmal to an absurd degree. For example, if there were a metric for payload deployment capability, all currently visible versions of Starship are inferior to Falcon 9. And that is frankly ridiculous.

If you truly understood spacecraft, you would know that multiple parameters are not equally important. Cost per kg to orbit/reusability>everything else. This is why Falcon 9 launches 90% of all payload into orbit and single-handedly saves the US space industry.

This is why I say it’s a specialized-purpose rocket, not a general-purpose one. You clearly don’t understand the problems China encountered with the CZ-2/CZ-3 series, where adapting one type of rocket for one class of payload was incredibly inefficient.

You are the only person to say this because it is ret*rded.

Just look at Starship now: isn’t it a case where one class of payload requires a specific variant of the rocket?

No, its very clear that once Starship becomes operational, it can launch almost any class of payload, and likely more types of payloads than any other singular class of rocket by virtual of its size, lift capacity and availability.

If you still don’t understand this, I don’t care to elaborate further.

You didn't elaborate at all. In fact, you provided literally zero evidence to back up your argument other than inventing fake metrics like "specialized-purpose vs general-purpose rocket." Perhaps that is because by actually relevant metrics like cost per kg to orbit, turn-around time, max payload to LEO, max payload dimension, etc, the Starship is truly revolutionary (once fully developed).

I’ll just say that Western de-industrialization has gone on for so long that you’ve forgotten how to evaluate engineering and assess risk. Meanwhile, those of us in China can only chuckle to ourselves while reading the Chinese translations of various Western textbooks from the industrial peak of the 1960s-90s that fill our libraries.

I'm sure I understand everything much better than you. And who the f*ck are you to "evaluate engineering and assess risk" anyway? Recognized Chinese authorities on aerospace like Cute Orca very much see Starship as a game changer.

 

[Nx4eu]

You are fundamentally ignorant of the technology. Starship’s payload bay is an enclosed design (and what you call a fairing is actually the internal volume of the spacecraft itself). The larger the volume, the more constrained the payload deployment is, as this is limited by the dimensions of the payload bay door.

The real problem with Starship right now is that this storage space is integrated with and inseparable from the second stage. For any payload to be deployed, it must exit through a door. Considering the need for reusability, the current design for the door has a maximum area of approximately 8x6 meters or 8x7 meters. An 8-meter height is roughly the minimum length required to deploy a heavy geosynchronous satellite (which are >6m long).

Furthermore, as a heavy-lift launch vehicle, Starship’s payload bay volume is actually the smallest in its class.

The SLS Block 2 (130t to LEO) has a payload bay volume of 1,800 m³.
The CZ-9 (150t to LEO) is projected to have a payload bay volume of 2,100-2,400 m³, and could even reach 2,800-3,000 m³ for LEO missions.
Let me also tell you this: even the improved Starship, the original v3 version with a height of over 150 meters, would only have a payload bay volume of 1,200-1,400 m³. The latest v4, with a height of only 142 meters, will likely have a volume of just 1,100-1,200 m³. Other variants have even smaller payload bays than the v1/v2 versions.

In my eyes, Starship is essentially the worst heavy-lift rocket design ever conceived. You don’t understand the requirements of rocket design, which is why you can’t see that Starship is a deformed piece of junk with grotesquely imbalanced metrics. But most of the professionals in China and the U.S. who truly understand aerospace design get it. It’s just that these experts are routinely attacked (by Musk’s fans who use Falcon 9 as a weapon), so they mostly keep quiet now.

If you truly understood spacecraft, you would know that a good design is a synthesis of multiple parameters. Starship only excels in one metric: one-time payload capacity. It also has a good metric for reusability (low cost). All other spacecraft metrics are abysmal to an absurd degree. For example, if there were a metric for payload deployment capability, all currently visible versions of Starship are inferior to Falcon 9. And that is frankly ridiculous.

This is why I say it’s a specialized-purpose rocket, not a general-purpose one. You clearly don’t understand the problems China encountered with the CZ-2/CZ-3 series, where adapting one type of rocket for one class of payload was incredibly inefficient. Just look at Starship now: isn’t it a case where one class of payload requires a specific variant of the rocket?

If you still don’t understand this, I don’t care to elaborate further. I’ll just say that Western de-industrialization has gone on for so long that you’ve forgotten how to evaluate engineering and assess risk. Meanwhile, those of us in China can only chuckle to ourselves while reading the Chinese translations of various Western textbooks from the industrial peak of the 1960s-90s that fill our libraries.

Not entirely fair to use CZ-9 as it doesn't exist and won't exist until 10 years out from now at the very least, mid 2030s to 2040s. Is it not possible for SpaceX to redesign starship for maximum payload delivery to LEO in the time it takes for CZ-9 to enter usable service? The Super heavy booster platform seems to have a lot of potential if although the starship is somewhat flawed. SpaceX is currently able to rapidly redesign and introduce improvements of the platform. The super heavy booster and starship architecture is an innovation that China seems to be following, with the complete CZ-9 redesign. So I don't quite understand the statement of it being the worst thing ever conceived.

 

[gelgoog]

LOX/LH2 would have been much better for the second stage. The LOX/Methane combination has relatively low Isp. They are already designing different smaller Raptor engines for Starship's second stage anyway. Might as well switch fuel.

 

[nativechicken]

Wait, did you actually say "the larger the volume, the more constrained the payload deployment is"? Can you hear what you are saying?

8*6/7m is huge and sufficient for at least 95% of all payload to orbit. Satellites can also be designed to fit this constraint if necessary.

Starship and the SLS block 1 are the only heavy-lift launch vehicles in existence and Starship>>>SLS block 1.

SLS Block 2 doesn't exist and probably never will.

CZ-9 doesn't exist now and when it is developed its going to look a lot like Starship.

In other words, literally the largest volume in the world.

Is that why every time CZ-9 gets an update, it looks more and more like the Starship? Is that why the frontrunners of Chinese space launch industry are all aiming for methalox full-flow staged combustion engines and fully reusable first and second stages in their future plan?

If you truly understood spacecraft, you would know that multiple parameters are not equally important. Cost per kg to orbit/reusability>everything else. This is why Falcon 9 launches 90% of all payload into orbit and single-handedly saves the US space industry.

You are the only person to say this because it is retarded.

No, its very clear that once Starship becomes operational, it can launch almost any class of payload, and likely more types of payloads than any other singular class of rocket by virtual of its size, lift capacity and availability.

You didn't elaborate at all. In fact, you provided literally zero evidence to back up your argument other than inventing fake metrics like "specialized-purpose vs general-purpose rocket." Perhaps that is because by actually relevant metrics like cost per kg to orbit, turn-around time, max payload to LEO, max payload dimension, etc, the Starship is truly revolutionary (once fully developed).

I'm sure I understand everything much better than you. And who the f*ck are you to "evaluate engineering and assess risk" anyway? Recognized Chinese authorities on aerospace like Cute Orca very much see Starship as a game changer.

I have answered most of your questions many times in this thread and related ones. I won’t repeat myself, so please review my previous posts.

To address this here: China’s Long March 9 (CZ-9) is designed to deploy ultra-large payloads of 30x10 meters in diameter (featuring deployable structures). It is planned to meet the requirements of a Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) station in Geostationary Orbit (GEO), with a total length exceeding 1km and a mass of 10,000-20,000 tons.

China recognizes the value of Starship because constructing such a super-spacecraft, larger than 1km, will require hundreds of heavy-lift rocket launches, and the construction must be completed within two years. Therefore, a low-cost, reusable, and efficient heavy-lift launch vehicle is essential.

However, China’s current goal for a heavy-lift rocket is phased. The first phase focuses only on first-stage reusability. There are no short-term plans for a second-stage reusable design. This is because the fully reusable heavy rocket is intended to support the construction of the SBSP station, which is planned for around 2050. Consequently, China’s current design for a fully reusable heavy-lift rocket is meant to support a project 25 years into the future.

Let me tell you this: China’s fully reusable heavy-lift rocket hasn’t even begun to discuss payload bay designs yet. All private sources know this is a massive design pitfall. There isn’t a concrete solution yet (if it can’t deliver a single 30x10m payload to orbit, it’s useless).

So I will tell you clearly: China’s CZ-9 heavy-lift rocket will not directly participate in deep space flight. It is merely a vehicle for escaping Earth’s atmosphere. The Chinese are not so foolish as to build something like that to fly into deep space, let alone to colonize Mars.

Of course, there are also plenty of civil aerospace companies in China that are just trying to dupe investors. They support this narrative because, frankly, capital is foolish. The fools in China’s capital markets believe in Starship, so these companies parrot the same talking points. Anyway, when it comes time to actually do the work and they can’t deliver, or when they see SpaceX fall into the trap, the demand will naturally disappear. For someone running a business, as long as they get the funding, that’s all that matters. Who cares what they end up producing?

 

[nativechicken]

Not entirely fair to use CZ-9 as it doesn't exist and won't exist until 10 years out from now at the very least, mid 2030s to 2040s. Is it not possible for SpaceX to redesign starship for maximum payload delivery to LEO in the time it takes for CZ-9 to enter usable service? The Super heavy booster platform seems to have a lot of potential if although the starship is somewhat flawed. SpaceX is currently able to rapidly redesign and introduce improvements of the platform. The super heavy booster and starship architecture is an innovation that China seems to be following, with the complete CZ-9 redesign. So I don't quite understand the statement of it being the worst thing ever conceived.

I’m not sure when the Long March 9 will be ready, but the official line has always been a first flight around 2030. I’m curious myself. I believe that after the major redesign, the CZ-9 will likely be delayed by 5 years, pushing it from 2030 to 2035, but I don’t know why the official stance remains 2030.

I’ve said it many times: Starship’s problem isn’t technology, but its design philosophy. If it were adjusted to use an expendable upper stage, all its problems would essentially disappear. But Musk won’t change it, and that leaves everyone frustrated.

Starship has a multitude of problems, and there are so many jaw-dropping moments throughout its project execution that I could write tens of thousands of words on the various stories and details. Most people are oblivious to these details, but when you share them with people who actually work in the aerospace industry, they are horrified, because these operations are normally non-compliant.

For example, the development history of the vertical methane fuel tanks at the Starship launch base is just mind-boggling. You marvel at how SpaceX could be so reckless, and the details would lead you to have extreme distrust in the company’s R&D process.

Starship isn’t leading in anything. You have to understand the design differences between the CZ-9 and Starship and grasp why the CZ-9 is designed the way it is to truly understand why Starship’s design is so poor. If you understand the many principled differences in Chinese and American aerospace design, you’ll see that this approach is a result of inertia, or even a missing category of technology (a chronic issue with American rockets).

These points are too granular to discuss here, and frankly, I’ve mentioned them in my previous posts, but most people don’t understand.

For instance, the control of the entire rocket’s length-to-diameter ratio, the design of the payload system, and the fact that Chinese rocket systems almost always consider a scalable three-stage design, whereas the U.S. has basically moved on from three-stage rockets (and this has a huge impact).

This is why Starship seems so bizarre now. We’ll have to wait for a reference system—namely, the CZ-9—to come out. Then, you’ll see what Western professionals have to say. It’s like the professional commentary on China’s sixth-generation fighter jet; how it was viewed initially is very different from how it’s viewed now.

Let me just give you one small detail: the length of the first and second stages of the Starship v4. That design is a joke. Look closely at the CZ-9’s design. Its first and second stages are far smaller than Starship’s v1. The height of the CZ-9’s second-stage tank isn’t even greater than its diameter. Can you stop and think for a moment about why the Chinese designed it this way?

For those who think China just copied Starship’s design, consider that Chinese people have the world’s highest average IQ, and that Musk’s companies employ a large number of high-level Chinese and ethnic Chinese designers, including green card holders. You need to understand why the CZ-9’s second stage only needs to carry 600 tons of propellant, while Musk’s Starship second stage is at 1,200 tons now, with plans to increase it to 2,000 tons.

China’s national-level aerospace designers laugh when they see the height of Starship’s second stage…

 

[Nx4eu]

I’m not sure when the Long March 9 will be ready, but the official line has always been a first flight around 2030. I’m curious myself. I believe that after the major redesign, the CZ-9 will likely be delayed by 5 years, pushing it from 2030 to 2035, but I don’t know why the official stance remains 2030.

I’ve said it many times: Starship’s problem isn’t technology, but its design philosophy. If it were adjusted to use an expendable upper stage, all its problems would essentially disappear. But Musk won’t change it, and that leaves everyone frustrated.

Starship has a multitude of problems, and there are so many jaw-dropping moments throughout its project execution that I could write tens of thousands of words on the various stories and details. Most people are oblivious to these details, but when you share them with people who actually work in the aerospace industry, they are horrified, because these operations are normally non-compliant.

For example, the development history of the vertical methane fuel tanks at the Starship launch base is just mind-boggling. You marvel at how SpaceX could be so reckless, and the details would lead you to have extreme distrust in the company’s R&D process.

Starship isn’t leading in anything. You have to understand the design differences between the CZ-9 and Starship and grasp why the CZ-9 is designed the way it is to truly understand why Starship’s design is so poor. If you understand the many principled differences in Chinese and American aerospace design, you’ll see that this approach is a result of inertia, or even a missing category of technology (a chronic issue with American rockets).

These points are too granular to discuss here, and frankly, I’ve mentioned them in my previous posts, but most people don’t understand.

For instance, the control of the entire rocket’s length-to-diameter ratio, the design of the payload system, and the fact that Chinese rocket systems almost always consider a scalable three-stage design, whereas the U.S. has basically moved on from three-stage rockets (and this has a huge impact).

This is why Starship seems so bizarre now. We’ll have to wait for a reference system—namely, the CZ-9—to come out. Then, you’ll see what Western professionals have to say. It’s like the professional commentary on China’s sixth-generation fighter jet; how it was viewed initially is very different from how it’s viewed now.

Let me just give you one small detail: the length of the first and second stages of the Starship v4. That design is a joke. Look closely at the CZ-9’s design. Its first and second stages are far smaller than Starship’s v1. The height of the CZ-9’s second-stage tank isn’t even greater than its diameter. Can you stop and think for a moment about why the Chinese designed it this way?

For those who think China just copied Starship’s design, consider that Chinese people have the world’s highest average IQ, and that Musk’s companies employ a large number of high-level Chinese and ethnic Chinese designers, including green card holders. You need to understand why the CZ-9’s second stage only needs to carry 600 tons of propellant, while Musk’s Starship second stage is at 1,200 tons now, with plans to increase it to 2,000 tons.

China’s national-level aerospace designers laugh when they see the height of Starship’s second stage…

First block CZ-9 for mid-late 2030s, early 2040s. Full reuse for mid-late 2040s. So timeline wise, very far out from now. Overall closer to 15 years away from now. I think It's a bit premature for Chinese rocket engineers to be laughing at SpaceX. Who knows what SpaceX will be doing 15-20 years from now. Starship is again rapidly iterating and as we speak they are improving the system.

I think what matters right now is starship is in the flight hardware testing stage, while CZ-9 is barely on paper. With how fast SpaceX has been jumping through upgrades on all fronts. I think from a layman's understanding, it is so incredibly premature to talk about the CZ-9's capabilities in respect to what's happening on the ground and in the air as we speak.

To give a rough comparison to something air force fans may understand, this sounds like Indian nationalists talking about how great the AMCA mk2 will be, 5.5 gen fighter jet. Best 5th gen in the world, except it's unlikely the competition will just remain stagnant. J-20 flies now, AMCA mk2 is nothing. J-20 will not remain stagnant for the next 15 years for the AMCA mk2 to be confidently better by those 15 years pass.

 

[gelgoog]

CZ-9 is kind of pointless anyway. It is CZ-10 which I am interested in.

 

[ZachL111]

A Long March 3B/E lifted off today, delivering the Gaofen-14-02 satellite (a mapping satellite) into planned orbit. This is the tenth Long March 3B/E this year to launch. According to information, China is trying to produce at least one Long March 3A variant rocket per month. This was the 603rd Long March launched, in addition to being the 67th launch this year from China.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1982336762275058079

Below is a photo of the launch and the mission patch.

 

[nativechicken]

Wait, did you actually say "the larger the volume, the more constrained the payload deployment is"? Can you hear what you are saying?

Can’t you grasp the concept of an enclosed payload bay and what a payload bay door is for?

I give you a 15x6 meter space telescope. You tell me, how do you deploy this thing into space from Starship’s current payload bay?

Let me tell you how SpaceX does it: they say, “Don’t deploy it. Just install it inside our payload bay.”

So, a 15-meter space telescope is mounted inside a 70-meter-long second stage, where the entire rear section is almost completely useless. It’s all dead weight. Every orbital maneuver requires a massive amount of propellant. And on top of that, it’s cryogenic propellant, which is not suitable for long-term in-space storage.

There is so much you fail to comprehend. Why don’t you go ask a genuine space payload professional if this is considered good engineering practice?

8*6/7m is huge and sufficient for at least 95% of all payload to orbit. Satellites can also be designed to fit this constraint if necessary.

The payload that China’s CZ-9 can deploy in a single launch is basically the size of the American Skylab from the last century. It can handle something 25-35 meters long and 10 meters in diameter. Below that size, you’re looking at a mass of around 90 tons.

Do you understand? Your ability to release a single payload of 8x7x7 meters can, at most, handle a mass of about 50 tons (if it’s a giant satellite filled with propellant; if it’s a space station crew module, the mass might only be 20 tons). A payload bay of Starship’s scale is what I call a “high-density payload” bay. Falcon 9’s payload bay is also quite small; it can only carry a regular satellite of 8-10 tons, and it only gets up to around 20 tons when it’s packed with Starlink v1 satellites. Do you get it now?

But in actual space deployment, there aren’t that many 100-ton payloads. Most are 30x10 meter deployable structures or space station modules, within 100 tons, or even under 50 tons. This is why you don’t understand when I say Starship’s payload bay is too small. It can only launch high-density payloads or fluid payloads.

Starship’s current capability to launch a payload (and deploy it into space) is actually inferior to that of Falcon 9, New Glenn, or Vulcan.

Starship and the SLS block 1 are the only heavy-lift launch vehicles in existence and Starship>>>SLS block 1.

I can give you one single, devastating argument: Ask Starship to handle a mission to launch the Orion spacecraft right now. You think it can do it?

It can’t. And it’s not because the payload capacity on paper is insufficient. It’s because Starship’s enclosed second-stage design is incapable of deploying the Orion spacecraft along with its integrated launch abort and propulsion systems.

So, do you get it now? Looking only at payload capacity metrics is meaningless. You have to look at what the vehicle can actually do.

This is why a host of professionals are urgently advising Musk to start developing an expendable upper stage immediately. Otherwise, Starship’s real, effective contribution to American spaceflight will be far less than that of Blue Origin’s New Glenn, or even SpaceX’s own Falcon 9.

Right now, Falcon 9 can launch payloads for the U.S. and global commercial customers. But Starship can’t launch anything except for small scientific payloads like CubeSats.

This is the reality that every aerospace professional knows. It’s a reality you refuse to acknowledge or comprehend.

SLS Block 2 doesn't exist and probably never will.

This is because Boeing is hopelessly incompetent. The issue is one of execution, not rocket design.

The blame can only be placed on Boeing for hiring too many Indians into their upper management and driving out the Chinese.

CZ-9 doesn't exist now and when it is developed its going to look a lot like Starship.

In reality, their design philosophies are completely different. It’s just that most people here can’t see it.

Actually, just by comparing the size of the first- and second-stage propellant tanks, you can understand the two design concepts.

China’s CZ-9 is designed as a three-stage rocket, downward-compatible to a two-stage configuration, optimized for high orbits while兼顾 low Earth orbit. Starship is a two-stage rocket, and even then, it’s essentially just a low Earth orbit vehicle.

The fully reusable CZ-9 is a long-term project (at this stage, it’s essentially a preliminary study). It’s highly unlikely that it will fly unless the core problem of deploying large payloads to and from space is solved. (China has many options for second-stage reuse, and validating these technologies doesn’t need to be done on a 10-meter heavy-lift rocket).

To understand the evolution of the CZ-9 design philosophy, you must first look at the Saturn V heavy-lift rocket and one of its design configurations (an unrealized blueprint): the clustered version of Saturn V. The Long March 9 has always followed this line of thinking.

You can insist that China copied Starship, but I can’t be bothered to argue. As I’ve said, those who truly understand rockets look at the design philosophy and thought process—not the appearance. You can’t even grasp the differences in external appearance, so to me, your discussions about rockets are on the same level as saying “a car has four wheels.”

You fundamentally don’t understand the difference between a three-stage and a two-stage rocket, nor the difference between a clustered Saturn V and a stick version of Saturn V. Your understanding of the Energia rocket and the Space Shuttle system is also superficial; you mostly fail to comprehend the differences beyond their appearance.

Not to mention, why does Starship v1’s second stage need 1,200 tons of propellant, while China’s CZ-9’s second stage only carries 600 tons? Only when you understand why CZ-9 is willing to have a second stage with just 600 tons of propellant can you grasp why China’s true top-tier experts do not approve of Starship’s design (the general internal structure of CZ-9 is publicly available and officially endorsed, representing official approval of a small second-stage design).

If you can’t sort through these issues, you will never understand why I say Starship is a poorly designed system.

To put it in perspective: China’s premise for a 100-ton LEO payload is a total launch mass of 4,400 tons. Starship, at 5,000 tons, still hasn’t achieved a 100-ton LEO payload capability.

In other words, literally the largest volume in the world.

In fact, when Saturn V launched Skylab, its payload capability exceeded that of Starship. The concept of Starship’s payload bay volume is an anomaly—it is the volume of a closed payload bay. Everyone else’s payload bays can open completely. They can launch a single payload that nearly fills the entire bay volume.

You can choose to conflate the volume of a closed payload bay with actual payload deployment capability, but that’s your choice. Unfortunately, that doesn’t change the professional consensus across the entire industry: Starship’s current practical payload capability for general-purpose satellites is effectively zero.