2 ms·

Nope, cause it didn’t have a second stage they could refuel in orbit, a reusable second stage they could use as a tanker, or a reusable first stage that provide

Nope, cause it didn’t have a second stage they could refuel in orbit, a reusable second stage they could use as a tanker, or a reusable first stage that provides the cadence to do in orbit refueling. Because of in-orbit refueling each Starship will land over ten times the payload on Mars as each Apollo mission landed on the moon.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Still, that is multiple Starships. Also, the Saturn V came back. That requires quite a bit more delta v. Actually, going to the moon and back is not that far off a one way trip to Mars.
- adwn 6y ago
  > Still, that is multiple Starships. [...] Also, the Saturn V came back. Since we're nitpicking: The Saturn V didn't come back – the tiny command module came back, and it wasn't reusable. In fact, the only reusable part of the Saturn V were the astronauts. > Actually, going to the moon and back is not that far off a one way trip to Mars. You're moving the goalpost. This is getting ridiculous. What are you even arguing about? Starship + Super Heavy will be a much more capable rocket, superior to the Saturn V in almost every way. That doesn't detract from the incredible engineering of the Saturn V, which was developed 55 years earlier, in record time, with slide rules (!), and which first launched 10 years after the first artificial satellite (!!) That is impossible to beat, and there's no need for a pissing contest.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    They are two completely different vehicles. One is made for a return mission, the other made is made for a one way mission, while the other is reusable. That being said, that rocket alone isn't going to be more capable than the Saturn V in moving a payload around. It will be less capable. If you have many rockets then you'll have the capacity to move that payload around as a far as a Saturn V.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      A single SuperHeavy can put a loaded Starship weighing roughly 360,000 total pounds into low earth orbit, SaturnV could only put 310,000 lbs total payload into low earth orbit. There, is that the comparison you wanted?

sudosysgen 6y ago

Still, that is multiple Starships. Also, the Saturn V came back. That requires quite a bit more delta v. Actually, going to the moon and back is not that far off a one way trip to Mars.

adwn 6y ago
> Still, that is multiple Starships. [...] Also, the Saturn V came back. Since we're nitpicking: The Saturn V didn't come back – the tiny command module came back, and it wasn't reusable. In fact, the only reusable part of the Saturn V were the astronauts. > Actually, going to the moon and back is not that far off a one way trip to Mars. You're moving the goalpost. This is getting ridiculous. What are you even arguing about? Starship + Super Heavy will be a much more capable rocket, superior to the Saturn V in almost every way. That doesn't detract from the incredible engineering of the Saturn V, which was developed 55 years earlier, in record time, with slide rules (!), and which first launched 10 years after the first artificial satellite (!!) That is impossible to beat, and there's no need for a pissing contest.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  They are two completely different vehicles. One is made for a return mission, the other made is made for a one way mission, while the other is reusable. That being said, that rocket alone isn't going to be more capable than the Saturn V in moving a payload around. It will be less capable. If you have many rockets then you'll have the capacity to move that payload around as a far as a Saturn V.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    A single SuperHeavy can put a loaded Starship weighing roughly 360,000 total pounds into low earth orbit, SaturnV could only put 310,000 lbs total payload into low earth orbit. There, is that the comparison you wanted?