3 ms·
Starship doesn't even exist yet. Note: neither Booster 7, nor Booster 8, or Ship 20 and 24 for that matter, are even close to being anything that could be cons
by rocket_surgeron 4y ago
Starship doesn't even exist yet.
Note: neither Booster 7, nor Booster 8, or Ship 20 and 24 for that matter, are even close to being anything that could be considered "Starship" by even the most generous observer.
Even if B7/S24 do launch in a test flight they are so far removed from anything that could potentially be in the far future an operational and usable spacecraft that they resemble "starship" the same way a wooden mockup of an airplane resembles an actual airplane.
An object being the same general shape and dimensions of something doesn't make that object the "something".
At least SLS exists and has problems that can be, perhaps, probably at tremendous expense, fixed.
- joe-collins 4y agoIn 20 years, I've seen SpaceX start from scratch and develop and launch the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy, and nail propulsive landings on Earth. Since it's members joined forces to form ULA 15 years ago, I've watched them launch the same machines they've been using since 2002. I have a lot more faith that SpaceX will launch something new than that ULA will get anything done.
- skissane 4y agoHow much is B7/S24 missing compared to an operational vehicle? Artemis 1 doesn't have the configuration of a fully operational vehicle either. Artemis 1's Orion doesn't have a fully functioning life support system, launch abort system, or docking system – and probably is missing other components too. To compare apples to apples – SLS (without Orion), to just the components of Starship/SuperHeavy which form part of launch vehicle proper (as opposed to payload) – what is Starship/SuperHeavy actually missing?