SpaceX launched its sixth Starship rocket Tuesday, proving for the first time that the stainless steel ship can maneuver in space and paving the way for an even larger, upgraded vehicle slated to debut on the next test flight.

The only hiccup was an abortive attempt to catch the rocket's Super Heavy booster back at the launch site in South Texas, something SpaceX achieved on the previous flight on October 13. The Starship upper stage flew halfway around the world, reaching an altitude of 118 miles (190 kilometers) before plunging through the atmosphere for a pinpoint slow-speed splashdown in the Indian Ocean.

The sixth flight of the world's largest launcher—standing 398 feet (121.3 meters) tall—began with a lumbering liftoff from SpaceX's Starbase facility near the US-Mexico border at 4 pm CST (22:00 UTC) Tuesday. The rocket headed east over the Gulf of Mexico, propelled by 33 Raptor engines clustered on the bottom of its Super Heavy first stage.

A few miles away, President-elect Donald Trump joined SpaceX founder Elon Musk to witness the launch. The SpaceX boss became one of Trump's closest allies in this year's presidential election, giving the world's richest man extraordinary influence in US space policy. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was there, too, among other lawmakers. Gen. Chance Saltzman, the top commander in the US Space Force, stood nearby, chatting with Trump and other VIPs.

Elon Musk, SpaceX's CEO, President-elect Donald Trump, and Gen. Chance Saltzman of the US Space Force watch the sixth launch of Starship Tuesday. Credit: Brandon Bell/Getty Images

From their viewing platform, they watched Starship climb into a clear autumn sky. At full power, the 33 Raptors chugged more than 40,000 pounds of super-cold liquid methane and liquid oxygen per second. The engines generated 16.7 million pounds of thrust, 60 percent more than the Soviet N1, the second-largest rocket in history.

Eight minutes later, the rocket's upper stage, itself also known as Starship, was in space, completing the program's fourth straight near-flawless launch. The first two test flights faltered before reaching their planned trajectory.

A brief but crucial demo

As exciting as it was, we've seen all that before. One of the most important new things engineers wanted to test on this flight occurred about 38 minutes after liftoff.

That's when Starship reignited one of its six Raptor engines for a brief burn to make a slight adjustment to its flight path. The burn lasted only a few seconds, and the impulse was small—just a 48 mph (77 km/hour) change in velocity, or delta-V—but it demonstrated that the ship can safely deorbit itself on future missions.

With this achievement, Starship will likely soon be cleared to travel into orbit around Earth and deploy Starlink Internet satellites or conduct in-space refueling experiments, two of the near-term objectives on SpaceX's Starship development roadmap.

Launching Starlinks aboard Starship will allow SpaceX to expand the capacity and reach of its commercial consumer broadband network, which, in turn, provides revenue for Musk to reinvest into Starship. Orbital refueling enables Starship voyages beyond low-Earth orbit, fulfilling SpaceX's multibillion-dollar contract with NASA to provide a human-rated Moon lander for the agency's Artemis program. Likewise, transferring cryogenic propellants in orbit is a prerequisite for sending Starships to Mars, making real Musk's dream of creating a settlement on the red planet.

Artist's illustration of Starship on the surface of the Moon. Credit: SpaceX

Until now, SpaceX has intentionally launched Starships to speeds just shy of the blistering velocities needed to maintain orbit. Engineers wanted to test the Raptor's ability to reignite in space on the third Starship test flight in March, but the ship lost control of its orientation, and SpaceX canceled the engine firing.

Before going for a full orbital flight, officials needed to confirm that Starship could steer itself back into the atmosphere for reentry, ensuring it wouldn't present any risk to the public with an unguided descent over a populated area. After Tuesday, SpaceX can check this off its to-do list.

"Congrats to SpaceX on Starship's sixth test flight," NASA Administrator Bill Nelson posted on X. "Exciting to see the Raptor engine restart in space—major progress towards orbital flight. Starship’s success is Artemis' success. Together, we will return humanity to the Moon & set our sights on Mars."

While it lacks the pizzazz of a fiery launch or landing, the engine relight unlocks a new phase of Starship development. SpaceX has now proven that the rocket is capable of reaching space with a fair measure of reliability. Next, engineers will fine-tune how to reliably recover the booster and the ship and learn how to use them.

Acid test

SpaceX appears well on its way to doing this. While SpaceX didn't catch the Super Heavy booster with the launch tower's mechanical arms Tuesday, engineers have shown they can do it. The challenge of catching Starship itself back at the launch pad is more daunting. The ship starts its reentry thousands of miles from Starbase, traveling approximately 17,000 mph (27,000 km/hour), and must thread the gap between the tower's catch arms within a matter of inches.

The good news is that SpaceX has now twice proven it can bring Starship back to a precision splashdown in the Indian Ocean. In October, the ship settled into the sea in darkness. SpaceX moved the launch time for Tuesday's flight to the late afternoon, setting up for splashdown shortly after sunrise northwest of Australia.

The shift in time paid off with some stunning new visuals. Cameras mounted on the outside of Starship beamed dazzling live views back to SpaceX through the Starlink network, showing a now-familiar glow of plasma encasing the spacecraft as it plowed deeper into the atmosphere. But this time, daylight revealed the ship's flaps moving to control its belly-first descent toward the ocean. After passing through a deck of low clouds, Starship reignited its Raptor engines and tilted from horizontal to vertical, making contact with the water tail-first within view of a floating buoy and a nearby aircraft in position to observe the moment.

Here's a replay of the spacecraft's splashdown around 65 minutes after launch.

Splashdown confirmed! Congratulations to the entire SpaceX team on an exciting sixth flight test of Starship! pic.twitter.com/bf98Va9qmL

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) November 19, 2024

The ship made it through reentry despite flying with a substandard heat shield. Starship's thermal protection system is made up of thousands of ceramic tiles to protect the ship from temperatures as high as 2,600° Fahrenheit (1,430° Celsius).

Kate Tice, a SpaceX engineer hosting the company's live broadcast of the mission, said teams at Starbase removed 2,100 heat shield tiles from Starship ahead of Tuesday's launch. Their removal exposed wider swaths of the ship's stainless steel skin to super-heated plasma, and SpaceX teams were eager to see how well the spacecraft held up during reentry. In the language of flight testing, this approach is called exploring the corners of the envelope, where engineers evaluate how a new airplane or rocket performs in extreme conditions.

“Don’t be surprised if we see some wackadoodle stuff happen here," Tice said. There was nothing of the sort. One of the ship's flaps appeared to suffer some heating damage, but it remained intact and functional, and the harm looked to be less substantial than damage seen on previous flights.

Many of the removed tiles came from the sides of Starship where SpaceX plans to place catch fittings on future vehicles. These are the hardware protuberances that will catch on the top side of the launch tower's mechanical arms, similar to fittings used on the Super Heavy booster.

"The next flight, we want to better understand where we can install catch hardware, not necessarily to actually do the catch but to see how that hardware holds up in those spots," Tice said. "Today's flight will help inform 'does the stainless steel hold up like we think it may, based on experiments that we conducted on Flight 5?'"

Musk wrote on his social media platform X that SpaceX could try to bring Starship back to Starbase for a catch on the eighth test flight, which is likely to occur in the first half of 2025.

"We will do one more ocean landing of the ship," Musk said. "If that goes well, then SpaceX will attempt to catch the ship with the tower."

The heat shield, Musk added, is a focal point of SpaceX's attention. The delicate heat-absorbing tiles used on the belly of the space shuttle proved vexing to NASA technicians. Early in the shuttle's development, NASA had trouble keeping tiles adhered to the shuttle's aluminum skin. Each of the shuttle tiles was custom-machined to fit on a specific location on the orbiter, complicating refurbishment between flights. Starship's tiles are all hexagonal in shape and agnostic to where technicians place them on the vehicle.

"The biggest technology challenge remaining for Starship is a fully & immediately reusable heat shield," Musk wrote on X. "Being able to land the ship, refill propellant & launch right away with no refurbishment or laborious inspection. That is the acid test."

This photo of the Starship vehicle for Flight 6, numbered Ship 31, shows exposed portions of the vehicle's stainless steel skin after tile removal. Credit: SpaceX

There were no details available Tuesday night on what caused the Super Heavy booster to divert from its planned catch on the launch tower. After detaching from the Starship upper stage less than three minutes into the flight, the booster reversed course to begin the journey back to Starbase.

Then SpaceX's flight director announced the rocket would fly itself into the Gulf rather than back to the launch site: "Booster offshore divert."

The booster finished its descent with a seemingly perfect landing burn using a subset of its Raptor engines. As expected after the water landing, the booster—itself 233 feet (71 meters) tall—toppled and broke apart in a dramatic fireball visible to onshore spectators.

In an update posted to its website after the launch, SpaceX said automated health checks of hardware on the launch and catch tower triggered the aborted catch attempt. The company did not say what system failed the health check. As a safety measure, SpaceX must send a manual command for the booster to come back to land in order to prevent a malfunction from endangering people or property.

Turning it up to 11

There will be plenty more opportunities for more booster catches in the coming months as SpaceX ramps up its launch cadence at Starbase. Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX's president and chief operating officer, hinted at the scale of the company's ambitions last week.

"We just passed 400 launches on Falcon, and I would not be surprised if we fly 400 Starship launches in the next four years," she said at the Barron Investment Conference.

The next batch of test flights will use an improved version of Starship designated Block 2, or V2. Starship Block 2 comes with larger propellant tanks, redesigned forward flaps, and a better heat shield.

The new-generation Starship will hold more than 11 million pounds of fuel and oxidizer, about a million pounds more than the capacity of Starship Block 1. The booster and ship will produce more thrust, and Block 2 will measure 408 feet (124.4 meters) tall, stretching the height of the full stack by a little more than 10 feet.

Put together, these modifications should give Starship the ability to heave a payload of up to 220,000 pounds (100 metric tons) into low-Earth orbit, about twice the carrying capacity of the first-generation ship. Further down the line, SpaceX plans to introduce Starship Block 3 to again double the ship's payload capacity.

Just as importantly, these changes are designed to make it easier for SpaceX to recover and reuse the Super Heavy booster and Starship upper stage. SpaceX's goal of fielding a fully reusable launcher builds on the partial reuse SpaceX pioneered with its Falcon 9 rocket. This should dramatically bring down launch costs, according to SpaceX's vision.

With Tuesday's flight, it's clear Starship works. Now it's time to see what it can do.

Updated with additional details, quotes, and images.

Read full article

Comments

The Federal Communications Commission's plan to investigate and potentially regulate data caps is all but dead now, after President-elect Donald Trump's announcement that he will promote Commissioner Brendan Carr to the chairmanship role.

The FCC last month voted 3–2 to open a formal inquiry into how broadband data caps affect consumers and whether the commission has authority to regulate how Internet service providers impose such caps. The proceeding is continuing for now, as the FCC comment and reply comment deadlines are November 14 and December 2. You can view the docket here.

Broadband industry lobby groups knew they would face no possibility of data-cap regulation once Trump won the election. But they submitted their comments late last week, making the case that data caps are good for customers and that the FCC has no authority to regulate them—the same arguments that Carr made when he dissented from the vote to open an inquiry.

NCTA—The Internet & Television Association, representing cable firms including Comcast and Charter, told the FCC that what ISPs call "usage-based pricing" expands options for consumers and promotes competition and network investment. NCTA claimed that the offering of plans with data caps "reflects the highly competitive environment as providers seek to distinguish their offers from their competitors'."

Cable firms: Usage-based pricing does no harm

Data caps enable "innovative plans at lower monthly rates," the lobby group said. The NCTA also wrote:

Usage-based pricing is a widely accepted pricing model used not only for communications services, but also for the sale of many other categories of goods and services. Such consumption-based pricing equitably and efficiently ensures that consumers who use goods or services the most pay more than those that do not. Indeed, in the communications context, the notion that requiring very heavy users of a service to pay more than light users has long been determined to be a reasonable pricing structure. It would be economically unsound to prohibit broadband providers from engaging in usage-based pricing in the absence of any harm caused by such practices.

Carr and fellow FCC Republican Nathan Simington made similar arguments when they dissented from last month's vote to open an inquiry. Carr blasted what he called "the Biden-Harris Administration's inexorable march towards rate regulation," and said that "prohibiting customers from choosing to purchase plans with data caps—which are more affordable than unlimited ones—necessarily regulates the service rates they are paying for."

Many Internet users filed comments asking the FCC to ban data caps. A coalition of consumer advocacy groups filed comments saying that "data caps are another profit-driving tool for ISPs at the expense of consumers and the public interest."

"Data caps have a negative impact on all consumers but the effects are felt most acutely in low-income households," stated comments filed by Public Knowledge, the Open Technology Institute at New America, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, and the National Consumer Law Center.

Consumer groups: Caps don’t manage congestion

The consumer groups said the COVID-19 pandemic "made it more apparent how data caps are artificially imposed restrictions that negatively impact consumers, discriminate against the use of certain high-data services, and are not necessary to address network congestion, which is generally not present on home broadband networks."

"Unlike speed tiers, data caps do not effectively manage network congestion or peak usage times, because they do not influence real-time network load," the groups also said. "Instead, they enable further price discrimination by pushing consumers toward more expensive plans with higher or unlimited data allowances. They are price discrimination dressed up as network management."

Jessica Rosenworcel, who has been FCC chairwoman since 2021, argued last month that consumer complaints show the FCC inquiry is necessary. "The mental toll of constantly thinking about how much you use a service that is essential for modern life is real as is the frustration of so many consumers who tell us they believe these caps are costly and unfair," Rosenworcel said.

ISPs lifting caps during the pandemic "suggest[s] that our networks have the capacity to meet consumer demand without these restrictions," she said, adding that "some providers do not have them at all" and "others lifted them in network merger conditions."

ISPs: Pandemic doesn’t show caps are unnecessary

The NCTA tried to counter Rosenworcel's claim that the widespread lifting of data caps during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic shows that the caps aren't necessary.

"Because of the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and with so many people working and learning from home, broadband traffic during the pandemic surged between 30 percent and 50 percent across mobile and fixed networks," the NCTA wrote. "Recognizing this national emergency, cable and other providers paused data plans and took many other steps to ensure Americans stayed connected to the Internet."

The NCTA argued that the temporary lifting of caps "does not change the fundamental economics of usage-based pricing... Providers were able to suspend usage-based pricing temporarily during the pandemic, recognizing that this was an extraordinary circumstance and that eventually schools and workplaces would reopen."

The FCC also received opposition from USTelecom, wireless lobby group CTIA, and America's Communications Association (formerly the American Cable Association). USTelecom claimed that banning data caps would force ISPs to raise prices.

"Requiring all users to pay for unlimited data would raise prices for consumers who use little data," USTelecom wrote. "This difference in price could be the deciding factor in whether an individual can, or wants to, subscribe to broadband. Moreover, requiring flat pricing plans with unlimited data would effectively require those who use less data to subsidize those that use more."

Read full article

Comments

In the streaming world, Apple has a reputation for quality, thanks to its Apple TV hardware and Apple TV+ streaming service. The latter is best associated with original shows and movies surrounded by award buzz and critical acclaim. But despite that success, Apple's streaming service has hardly made a dent in the market at a time when interest in streaming services is bigger than ever.

Apple TV+ launched in 2019. Since then, the company has spent over $20 billion to build an impressive library of original content, Bloomberg reported earlier this year. Yet, despite a highly regarded library of shows and movies with big names in acting and directing, Apple TV+ only garnered 0.3 percent of US screen viewing time in June 2024, per Nielsen.

In July, Bloomberg aptly underscored how minimally competitive Apple TV+ is, writing: "Apple TV+ generates less viewing in one month than Netflix does in one day."

Apple doesn’t provide subscriber numbers for Apple TV+, but it's estimated to have 25 million subscribers. That would make it one of the smallest mainstream streaming services. For comparison, Netflix has about 283 million, and Prime Video has over 200 million. Smaller services like Peacock (about 28 million) and Paramount+ (about 72 million) best Apple TV+'s subscriber count, too.

Limited marketing efforts for Apple TV+

Apple TV+'s comparatively small library may be hindering its subscriber and viewership figures. Apple has about 259 shows and movies compared to Netflix’s approximately 18,000. And with Apple TV+'s content slate being buoyed by big Hollywood names, from Reese Witherspoon and Idris Elba to Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese, there's an argument that Apple TV+ has made such a small impact on streamers due to Apple's limited marketing efforts.

To put this into perspective, Apple spent $14.9 million on commercials for Apple TV+ in October 2019 versus $28.6 million on the iPhone, per iSpot.TV data cited by The New York Times. Online, Apple paid for 139 unique digital ads for Apple TV+ in October 2019 compared to 245 for the iPhone (about $1.7 million versus about $2.3 million), per data from advertising analytics platform Pathmatics cited by The Times.

Apple TV+ has fewer options than some competitors. But sometimes less is more. And Apple is reportedly looking at new ways to get more people familiar with its smaller but powerful content slate while being more budget-conscious.

Apple TV+ licensing movies

According to an unnamed “person familiar with the plans” Bloomberg spoke with this week, Apple is looking to license its movies to companies like foreign TV channels and marketplaces where people could rent or buy Apple TV+ original films. Apple is not currently planning to license its original series, Bloomberg reported.

Apple hired Maria Ines Rodriguez “to license its original productions to other companies, a strategy designed to increase sales from its film business and improve the visibility of its content," per Bloomberg. A job posting for the position that Rodriguez ended up taking called for an executive to “develop and implement a global strategy to enhance revenue for Apple TV+’s award winning original content off Apple platforms,” the publication noted. Rodriguez had prior stints at Disney, Hulu, and NBCUniversal.

Apple adopts more typical streaming strategies

Apple’s reported attempts to license movies is one of several strategies to grow viewership of its Apple TV+ content and is more aligned with industry practices.

For example, Apple TV+ is embracing bundles, which is thought to help prevent subscribers from canceling streaming subscriptions. People can currently get Apple TV+ from a Comcast streaming bundle.

And as of last month people can subscribe to and view Apple TV+ through Amazon Prime Video. As my colleague Samuel Axon explained in October, this contradicts Apple’s long-standing approach to streaming “because Apple has long held ambitions of doing exactly what Amazon is doing here: establishing itself as the central library, viewing, search, and payment hub for a variety of subscription offerings.” But without support from Netflix, “Apple's attempt to make the TV app a universal hub of content has been continually stymied,” Axon noted.

Something has got to give

With the broader streaming industry dealing with high production costs, disappointed subscribers, and growing competition, Apple, like many stakeholders, is looking for new approaches to entertainment. For Apple, that also reportedly includes fewer theatrical releases.

It may also one day mean joining what some streaming subscribers see as the dark side of streaming: advertisements. Apple TV+ currently remains ad-free, but there are suspicions that this could change, with Apple reportedly meeting with the United Kingdom’s TV ratings body recently about ad tracking and its hiring of ad executives.

Apple's ad-free platform and comparatively low subscription prices are some of the biggest draws for Apple TV+ subscribers, however, which would make changes to either benefit controversial.

But after five years on the market and a reported $20 billion in spending, Apple can't be happy with 0.3 percent of available streaming viewership. Awards and prestige help put Apple TV+ on the map, but Apple needs more subscribers and eyeballs on its expensive content to have a truly successful streaming business.

Read full article

Comments

During culinary school, I finally learned the secret to making a perfectly flaky pie crust: pie weights.

The weights hold the crust—store-bought or homemade—in place, and they help it maintain its crisp structure while par-baking or blind-baking, resulting in a perfectly even layer to house the filling (I’m partial to pecan). I’ve tried baking pie crusts with and without weights, and I’ve always noticed a stark difference.

With pie weights, the results are nearly always impeccable. The crust is smooth and even on the bottom and crisp along the edges. Plus, it remains flush with the baking dish on all sides. Meanwhile, crusts baked without pie weights often end up deflated or bubbled up in the center, which makes housing a pie’s precious filling nearly impossible. (Crumb crusts are the only exception, and I can usually get away with not using weights when baking a graham cracker crust.)

So when I heard that Erin Jeanne McDowell, a baking expert who wrote an entire cookbook dedicated to pies, launched a line of reusable silicone pie beans, I knew I had to test them.

To see what these spiffy new beans could do, I embarked on a baking bonanza. And thanks to their thoughtful design, I discovered they’re much more durable than any pie weights I’ve tried before, and they’re arguably more efficient than using regular ol’ beans to yield the perfect pie crust.

APOD: 2024 November 17 – LDN 1471: A Windblown Star Cavity What is the cause of this unusual parabolic structure? This illuminated cavity, known as LDN 1471, was created by a newly forming star, seen as the bright source at the peak of the parabola. This protostar is experiencing a stellar outflow which is then interacting with the surrounding material in the Perseus Molecular Cloud, causing it to brighten. We see only one side of the cavity -- the other side is hidden by dark dust. The parabolic shape is caused by the widening of the stellar-wind blown cavity over time. Two additional structures can also be seen either side of the protostar; these are known as Herbig-Haro objects, again caused by the interaction of the outflow with the surrounding material. What causes the striations on the cavity walls, though, remains unknown. The featured image was taken by NASA and ESA’s Hubble Space Telescope after an original detection by the Spitzer Space Telescope.