5 ms·

Though I would very much like to see Starship succeed, it must be understood just how risky a project it is. Just having the rocket be able to work in Earth or

Though I would very much like to see Starship succeed, it must be understood just how risky a project it is. Just having the rocket be able to work in Earth orbit is a risky proposition, given its novel design and materials challenges. Add to that the many novel challenges returning Starship would entail, refueling in space, landing and taking off from Mars, setting up multi megawatts of solar, mining, methane production, etc. Consider that Falcon Heavy was something like 5 years late. That was doing something that had been done before, strapping rockets together to make a Heavy version. Starship is many times more ambitious, with any of the challenges I raised above likely to hit multi-year delays.

valuearb 6y ago
FH was done on a shoestring budget for a small market and nearly canceled when it became clear Starship was the better path. But I agree with you that Starship has some challenges, specifically proving it can handle re-entry, be easily refurbed between launches, and be easily refueled in low earth orbit. But Super Heavy is just a bigger Falcon 9, using the same landing technology. Even if a Starship Reusability falls short, it’s very clear that the combo is going to put bigger payloads than the the SLS into orbit at 1/20th the cost.
- thinkcontext 6y ago
  I agree they should look at putting Super Heavy into service before Starship. They could use a conventionally designed expendable upper stage, imagine how immense its payload capacity would be without having to lug the enormous Starship. It would allow them to fill out Starlink quickly and would open up the market for larger satellites sooner rather than later.
tomp 6y ago
> That was doing something that had been done before, strapping rockets together to make a Heavy version. That’s a common misconception - in fact, even SpaceX itself made this mistake! Musk said that making Heavy was almost as complex as designing a whole new rocket; which is also why they went with new next time (Starship) instead of incremental (Super Extra Heavy).
- thinkcontext 6y ago
  > in fact, even SpaceX itself made this mistake That was part of my point. They could be (re)making the mistake of making a promise of timelines before they understand the real difficulty of what they are trying to accomplish.

valuearb 6y ago

FH was done on a shoestring budget for a small market and nearly canceled when it became clear Starship was the better path. But I agree with you that Starship has some challenges, specifically proving it can handle re-entry, be easily refurbed between launches, and be easily refueled in low earth orbit. But Super Heavy is just a bigger Falcon 9, using the same landing technology. Even if a Starship Reusability falls short, it’s very clear that the combo is going to put bigger payloads than the the SLS into orbit at 1/20th the cost.

thinkcontext 6y ago
I agree they should look at putting Super Heavy into service before Starship. They could use a conventionally designed expendable upper stage, imagine how immense its payload capacity would be without having to lug the enormous Starship. It would allow them to fill out Starlink quickly and would open up the market for larger satellites sooner rather than later.

tomp 6y ago

> That was doing something that had been done before, strapping rockets together to make a Heavy version. That’s a common misconception - in fact, even SpaceX itself made this mistake! Musk said that making Heavy was almost as complex as designing a whole new rocket; which is also why they went with new next time (Starship) instead of incremental (Super Extra Heavy).

thinkcontext 6y ago
> in fact, even SpaceX itself made this mistake That was part of my point. They could be (re)making the mistake of making a promise of timelines before they understand the real difficulty of what they are trying to accomplish.