3 ms·
I don't know why you are being downvoted. Launchpad related damage is not a property of the rocket. Space X has launched smaller rockets that have damaged the l
by imtringued 4y ago
I don't know why you are being downvoted. Launchpad related damage is not a property of the rocket. Space X has launched smaller rockets that have damaged the launch pad.
So having a launchpad failure is like having the mission fail in its entirety because you can't build a better rocket to fix the problem, you need a better launchpad.
What I am trying to say is that there was nothing standing in the way of a successful Starship launch. The engines were known to work. The booster was known to work. The second stage was known to work. All they did was put it together and test stage separation. This should have been the moment where it became obvious that Starship will be ready for Artemis 3.
The first Starship Prototype was launched in 2019. If you assume that they started development in 2018 (Musk has proto starship slides as early as 2011), then it is actually as much behind as SLS, which had to delay its planned launch after five years.
- panick21_ 4y ago> I don't know why you are being downvoted. Because a launch is a launch, successful or not. Claiming they are behind SLS is kind of crazy. SLS was supposed to launch in 2017 initially. SLS was a creation of a 2011 Congress Act and of course SLS did not develop any of its own engines and is reusing lots of exiting parts and infrastructure. SLS also had absolutely gigantic amount of money when eating about 2.5 billion $ a year for 10+ years and will eat much much more before its first operational flight. SpaceX in comparison was not able to spend even 1/4 for most of Starships development, by now they are getting into the billions per year but that took a while. SLS is also just a far simpler design, basically a slightly adopted Detla 4 Upper Stage, while Starship is basically highly complex new reusable upper stage design.