3 ms·

Pretty much the same problem the military has with their current sniffing around at Starship. Sure, you can deliver 100 tons of cargo to remote Syria in an hour

• simne 4y ago
  No, Starship, or to be more strict, Musk proposal is very different. First, already existing hardware have much less energy dense. Second, it's engines use another fuel, also much simpler to handle. Once I hear idea, to make for S-5 additional "zero" stage with displacement feed engines, and this would be necessary simplification, to make subject idea viable, but it never happen.
• simne 4y ago
  When Musk made Falcon 9, Russians said "it is the same as Zenit, only with very old engines". But in reality revealed, that to make re-usability with reactive landing, need extremely wide engine throttling diapason, because starting with very big weight and need max power, and landing empty, so need very little power. Musk solves this with 9 engines, so only 3 used on landing. Russian Zenit is incapable to make so little power to make reactive landing on main engines.