4 ms·
It hasn't even flown yet. How can you compare an unproven rocket to a Boeing 747, which has millions of hours of proven flight hours on it with something that
by hsnewman 7y ago
It hasn't even flown yet. How can you compare an unproven rocket to a Boeing 747, which has millions of hours of proven flight hours on it with something that has none? I realize that the 747 has had failures over the time too, but I'd happily get on a Boeing 747 but would not get on a Spaceship until it's been flown several, if not 100's of times (without incident, as can be said for the 747).
- gpm 7y agoLack of fight history is not a design error.. Especially in the context of a spacecraft that is specifically designed to be able to quickly gain a long flight history (unlike every other spacecraft we've ever built).
- Robotbeat 7y agoBecause of engineering and analysis. I don't know where the anti-science "it's impossible to speak meaningfully about anything in the future that hasn't yet been built" idea came from in Internet rhetoric, but it's absolutely ridiculous.
- jarsj 7y agoIt's not designed for commercial air travel. Satellites, astronauts have a slightly higher risk threshold that exponentially reduces the provability factor.
- Lambdanaut 7y agoHe's comparing it using your own logic. The "fault" you found was that the design itself was fault. He showed that the inherent design of both the Boeing 747 and Starship both have that same "fault" regardless of how far along they are in proving flight-worthiness. Of course Starship has a lot of work to do, but your argument that because it lacks fin redundancy it has a faulty design is invalid.
- DennisP 7y agoIf they have multiple Starships each launching once a day, it won't take long to get a few hundred flights.
- AtlasBarfed 7y agoThey don't need to do human transport off the bat. I'm sure there's tons (literally) of package delivery to space that can be done to prove out the payload delivery and reliability.