Me when booster fails the boostback on flight 13 and accidentally kills the ship:

I hope so too, just need booster to successfully complete its boostback burn and landing burn. IF it does, i can see it happening in late august, early september.

2/10 Flight 13 – July 2026 (Starbase, Texas) Vehicles: Booster 20 (B20) Ship 40 (S40) – both Block 3 / V3. Mission: Suborbital / transatmospheric test flight with soft ocean landing for the ship. Key Goals: - Fix and validate Raptor 3 engine reliability and boostback performance after Flight 12 issues - Demonstrate improved ship coast and potential relight capability - Achieve controlled reentry and precise splashdown - Gather data to support FAA clearance for future flights 👇

While the first commercial tourism mission is on its way to the Mun, the Skipper 9R booster has successfully landed completing its all objectives In this short video you can view the flip maneuver, boostback burn, atmospheric glide, landing burn and soft touchdown

I don’t think R3 deserves an F simply because three engines gave up and one blew it guts up. Yes, it shouldn’t have happened, but they compensated quite decently during Ship ascent. I’d say A- for stack, E- (or F lol) for boostback, B( ) for Ship ascent, and A for Ship landing

Zack also used to say reuse was impossible, then when he realized it was possible he tried to say it would be unecomical due to needing to reserve fuel for boostback/landing. Until, someone explained the fuel use was nowhere near what he calculated due to atmospheric drag, etc.

He doesn't understand simple topics. He used to think rocket reuse would be uneconomical because you would need too much fuel for boostback and landing... thing is.. He forgot to take a number of things into account... like atmospheric drag for instance!🤭

When you got famous taking utility knives to phones you probably shouldn't comment on things like the thermals of Ai datacenters in space not working or the "wastefulness" of carrying boostback/landing fuel and how that makes reuse uneconomical.

He used to say reuse was going to be uneconomical also because he considered it "wasteful" to carry boostback and landing fuel. Then someone explained the concept of atmospheric drag and he realized the fuel need would not be as bad.

Yeah JerryRigEverything used to say that retaining fuel for landing/boostback was "wasteful" and that reuse would never be economical. Its not surprising we get this sort of analysis from a dude that uses utility knives to tear down phones.

He used to dismiss SpaceX reuse too calling retaining fuel for boostback/landing "wasteful". Then someone explained atmospheric drag to him.. he is not a good guy, he is a dude suffering from unearned arrogance!

He has BEEN full retard! He used to dismiss SpaceX reuse saying that retaining fuel for boostback/landing was WASTEFUL until someone explained to him that atmospheric drag greatly reduces the fuel requirements. This is the guy that does phone teardown with a utility knife FFS!🤦‍♂️

He also used to think reuse was impossible and that carrying excess fuel for boostback and landing was wasteful until someone explained the benefits of atmospheric drag to him.

He used to be dismissive of reuse and called SpaceX carrying the fuel needed for boostback and landings wasteful ....until he was reminded of atmospheric drag that is.🤭

Superheavy Delta-V is currently a significant unknown as we don't have numbers on the propellant needed for boostback and landing.

Super Heavy returns at lower speed → engines can handle the full job. Straight down, boostback landing burn. No need for aero-braking. Starship: Air does 90% of the work → flip to vertical → engines for final landing

Block 3 needs them because they need to relight 33 engines for the boostback, the FSS doesn’t exist anymore on Block 3.