> That's a misleading comparison, because we're not talking about some ancillary aspect of the design (like rubber tires). I think within the context of chemic

> That's a misleading comparison, because we're not talking about some ancillary aspect of the design (like rubber tires). I think within the context of chemical rockets, engines really are sorta ancillary! Not to the same extent as rubber tires (I used that extreme example just to make my point clear), but engines is just not where the large improvements in things we care about will come from. > More engines can also mean more chances for failure. Agreed. I wasn't arguing for either strategy since I don't know enough to have an opinion. I just wanted to point out that more engines was a plausible best strategy, depending on engineering details, and we shouldn't choose metrics that immediately disqualify it. > Regardless, the Falcon 9 Heavy also has substantially lower maximum thrust than the Saturn V. Agreed, Falcon 9 is not an example of an advance in total lift capacity, and total lift capacity is important. BFR/Starship may exceed Saturn V, but if so it will be a very slight edge which is not impressive after half a century. So I agree that this is not where the advances are happening. But, to pick another extreme example, the even older Spruce Goose was only recently dethroned in total wingspan, but this doesn't mean no dramatic advances in flight technology have occurred. > But that doesn't mean you get to relabel incremental improvements as revolutionary. abledon's original comment said "pushed the limits of spaceflight technology". I was the first person to use the vague word "revolutionary", and I immediately clarified what I meant: orders of magnitude improvement in metrics we care about. And I think the SpaceX tech, both completed and under development, really can lower mass-to-orbit prices by a factor of 100.