Bimfred

It's hard to tell, but I don't think it's from IFT-6. The banana cam gave us a view inside the payload bay and the reinforcing structures look a little different.

I believe the truss that the banana is strapped to is the same as the one running along the lower edge of the OP image. But if you look at the reinforcements noseward, the OP shows a closer arrangement of three ribs with cross-braces in-between, whereas the IFT-6 image shows more regularly spaced ribs with no extra bracing. The ribs themselves look different, with a uniform line along the entire inner side in the OP, and a shallower middle segment on OFT-6. The OP's low resolution makes it difficult to tell, but I think it's also missing a lot of the lengthwise stringers that SpaceX added on the later ships.

EDIT: I may be talking out of my ass. Had a look at IFT-3 and the view towards the payload door shows the same reinforcing structures as IFT-6. So it's possible that the OP image is from farther up the payload bay, the ribs we're seeing are reinforcing the flap hinges, an area that's not visible in the banana cam. We didn't get a payload bay view for flights 4 and 5, so can't compare those.

EDIT 2: The OP image is definitely farther up the payload bay, looking at the hinge area that we didn't see in other bay views. There's no telling whether or not it's from the 6th flight, based on the publicly available images.

They shouldn't try to land their reusable rocket as early as possible? Kinda not conducive to the whole idea of being reusable, don't you think?

The production lines are shut down and any custom tooling has had its materials reclaimed to make other things. The institutional knowledge, the little bits that never got written down in the blueprints or manufacturing instructions, it's all gone. The people who worked on that rocket and its components are dead or have been working on something else for the last 50 years. How well would you remember some little tidbit of information that you last needed half a lifetime ago?

People love bringing up that Starship was supposed to be doing round trips to the Moon and Mars by now, but when has anything space ever been on budget, in time, and working perfectly on the first try? Every new launch vehicle takes longer and more money than initial optimistic predictions state. Damn near every probe and telescope is years over deadlines and often a significant percentage of first estimates over budget.

I dunno, looks like the ankles should have good range of motion. If it's enough to be able to plant both feet flat on the surface, I think it'll be at least acceptable at standing poses.

The design is dope, but the HG kit is gonna be absolute sticker hell. Or they might just abandon the idea of color accuracy without paints entirely. Those dabs of yellow all over the place, the trim on the torso, pretty much all of the head that isn't red or white.

Right now? Effectively infinity dollars. Or Euros. Or Dongs. Regardless of the currency used, really. The only operational launch vehicles that have the diameter and payload capabilities to put up modules of comparable size are the SLS and Vulcan Centaur. Everything else comes up short in size, payload, or both. But getting the modules up there is only step 1, they also need to be attached. For the ISS, the Shuttle's Canadarm was used to actually assemble the station in its early stages. Nothing currently operational has that capability.

Of upcoming launch vehicles, New Glenn and Starship are both capable enough in both size and payload. But of all the options, only Starship could be equipped with something like Canadarm. Starship is an orbiter with a payload bay. Everything else's second stage is just engines, tanks and a payload adapter for simply deploying something into orbit.

You might ask "Why not design the modules to dock and assemble the station autonomously?" It's a valid question, but it comes down to two things: complexity and mass. Every module would need its own full suite of guidance and control systems. And they'd be used only when a module is maneuvering to meet with the rest of the station. That's a lot of mass wasted on something that only gets used once, mass that could've been put into making the module itself bigger. There's also the issue of any leftover propellants and their residues on the module exteriors. It's practically inevitable that some residue from the thrusters will end up on the connecting surfaces of the modules. A lot of the common orbital maneuvering propellants are toxic as fyuck and you don't want any of it near unprotected people. And any residue could interfere with getting a firm seal between modules.

Another thought is to put something like Canadarm on the first module, but that also wouldn't really work. Soon as it tries to move a second module into position, the two nearly equivalent mass objects would start tumbling around the common center of gravity, putting the entire proto-station into an uncontrolled spin on several axes. Stopping it would require, once again, thrusters.

Because if you launch something from Earth, you inherit the Earth's orbital speed around the Sun. At that point, whatever you launched will just continue to orbit the Sun. It takes less energy to accelerate to a solar system exit trajectory than it does to scrub off all of the excess velocity and end up on a trajectory that intersects the Sun.

Even the Stream version doesn't require Steam. You can just run the executable. A few folks over on Reddit claim they've given the game to their friends just by copying the files from an external drive.

Most of the Falcon 9 launches are for Starlink and are paid for by SpaceX themselves. How is that "the government subsidizing them"? If you want to argue that they're using money they got from NASA to fund those launches, is your plumber feeding their family from you subsidizing their life?

There's two main benefits: faster reuse and more payload to orbit.

A Falcon 9 landing on a drone ship needs to be transported back to shore. That's multiple days before the engineers even get their hands on it to prepare for the next flight. The design goal of Starship is to launch a Ship into orbit, return to the tower, be restacked, refuelled and launched again in the same day. Will they actually get it to the point where that's possible? Remains to be seen. Until now, they had no way to see what real stresses a Starship booster goes through in a flight. They're gonna rip this one apart down to the spacers in its bolts to examine it. With the flight and physical inspection data, they'll make what improvements they can to the already built boosters and design future boosters to be more resilient. SpaceX has, by now, a well proven track record of doing what others think is insane to even attempt. If anyone can launch the same rocket twice in a day, there's no one better to give it a try.

The increased payload comes from not having the mass of the landing legs. The Falcon's landing legs weigh several tons. Starship, being 3x the diameter and 10x the mass, would need titanic landing legs. That's a lot of tonnage you won't be taking to orbit. Catching on the tower means that all but a fraction of the landing hardware's mass isn't on the rocket itself. As an additional benefit, the landing hardware needs to be built only once. Every Falcon has its own landing legs, but every Starship they ever build could land on the one tower they have now. That won't be the case, they're planning to build multiple towers, but the sentiment remains the same.

Well, off the top of my head, the main issues are going to be the sleds, the rails and how much they allow to reduce the mass of the plane itself.

Accelerating the sled with something other than the vehicle's main engines makes the most sense. Otherwise you've just overcomplicated a runway and end up back in the pit of spaceplane-style SSTOs. So assuming they're gonna boost the sled, how? I don't think liquid engines have the yeet to get up to a worthwhile speed on the rather short rail. Solid boosters? They have yeet, but once you've lit them, you can't really turn them off and that leaves you with woefully few abort options between ignition and launch. Electromagnetic? Getting enough yeet is a matter of enough (and big enough) capacitors, but the rail erosion is going to be worse from the sheer waste heat. And any attempt at recovery of the sleds will require the rails to be extended to decelerate them. Cause you'll want to get the vehicle going as fast as possible, within the limits of what the structure and payload (alive or inert) can handle. But once you've done that, you're not gonna hard stop the sled and reasonably expect to recover anything but twisted metal and composites.

The other question is how much is it gonna help in reducing the vehicle's mass? The friction from doing even Mach 1 near sea level means the vehicle has to be reinforced to handle it, maybe even require active cooling of the hull. So that's going to cut into whatever extra payload mass they'd get from the launch speed. And the vehicle's engines will still need to work damn hard to climb up the well, in which case low Mach numbers aren't going to do much and might actually be counterproductive thanks to the high drag.

My most insane, pie in the sky, they'll-never-try-this idea? The rail is angled up a mountainside at about a 45 degree angle. Electromagnetically accelerated, it's basically a huge Gauss cannon and the sled yeets off with a 4g acceleration. By the time it reaches the end, it's going at about Mach 1.5, at an altitude of 2-3km, at which point the vehicle lights its engines and disconnects from the sled (Spinlaunch has shown that fraction of a second precise release is possible). The plane continues to ascend, the sled just fucking runs off the rail and coasts to peak altitude, then deploys parachutes to descend back to the ground. But this is an entirely unreasonable idea. Construction and maintenance would be ludicrously complicated and harried by environmental concerns. The energy required would probably be comparable to that of a small town. There's way too much risk of the sled colliding with the plane at the end of the rail, not to mention the parachute descent. On the other hand, goddamn, it would be awesome!

The skepticism is reasonable. The theoretical principles are sound and there's a lot of math (done by actual scientists and engineers, as well as sci-fi writers) to show that, in some form, it would work. But this is a huge undertaking that's never really been tried before, so no one really knows how difficult (and expensive) building and operating it is going to be. Honestly, I expect this to fall apart before they begin high altitude suborbital tests of the rail launch system. On the other hand, it's such wonderful sci-fi shit that I can't help but root for them. If they can secure the funding to continue developing this, it's gonna be fascinating!

The rail launch is going to be interesting. Presumably, the sled is separately accelerated, to give the vehicle a little kick and save propellant. It won't be much, even a 4g acceleration would only get it up to roughly Mach 1.5 before it runs out of rail, but it's not nothing either. And unless the sleds are single-use, they'll need to decelerate them somehow.

But man, bring it on! The premise of initially accelerating a vehicle on a rail or launch loop, before the vehicle's own engines kick in, is probably the closest we can get to SSTO from Earth. At least without using nuclear propulsion.