5 ms·

No other rocket even in the planning stage comes close to Starship. No other rocket organization builds rockets the way SpaceX does. There just isn't a comparis

No other rocket even in the planning stage comes close to Starship. No other rocket organization builds rockets the way SpaceX does. There just isn't a comparison to what they're doing that justifies criticism that they're unsuccessful or doing it wrong. It's a different process. I'm not saying that Musk is perfect, or that you're doing this, but people like to fault this wildly ambitious projects for what they haven't achieved. But when they do work they have an outsized impact on the status quo. When Starship succeeds (and I believe it's just a matter of time whereas Tesla FSD is still an "if") it will revolutionize space travel in ways that seem sci-fi today. State-of-the-art today is building machines that cost billions of dollars and throw them away after using them one time!

tsimionescu 3y ago
You are making two assumptions. One explicitly, that Starship will work in anything resembling its current design and promised operational paramters. This is by no means as guaranteed as you make it out to be (it's very much an if, not a when). The promises of rapid reusability are very much up in the air, and the whole many-engine design is also not proven in the slightest yet. Secondly, you're assuming that reusable rockets are better than one-time use ones. While this may be true for certain kinds of missions, it is not at all clear for many others. Reusable rockets fundamentally will have lower payload for the same thrust, for the simple reason that they need fuel for the return stage. They will also need to be made from sturdier materials to survive reentry, which again limits their capacity.
- eagerpace 3y ago
  The first is a fair, but I'm not assuming that it has to work exactly as claimed. It's so far ahead of current tech that if it even marginally succeeds the stated objectives it will transform the industry. The second, I disagree, reusable is definitely better in every way. I'm sure there are edge cases where it needs to be proven or a particular mission, but no other machines are as costly and disposable. Rocket designs haven't evolved much over the last 50 years. Competitors all claim to want reusability but none of the major players are pursuing it seriously. Engine design and manufacturing is hilariously obsolete. NASA has become a jobs program instead of a innovator. I'm just happy to see a radical new approach to design, manufacturing and testing.
- avmich 3y ago
  I disagree with both. > One explicitly, that Starship will work in anything resembling its current design and promised operational paramters. We have a test flight behind us, which showed many tens of seconds of the stack flight. That's a big achievement validating the rocket architecture and general parameters. Frankly I'd assume we crossed equator in rocket development here, we're in completion stage more than developing. > This is by no means as guaranteed as you make it out to be (it's very much an if, not a when). You know, there are no physical laws which prevent Starship from working. SpaceX shows economics on their side. At this point it's not guaranteed that Starship will fly - because it's hard to predict the future - but it's a pretty safe bet that Starship can be made to fly. > The promises of rapid reusability are very much up in the air, and the whole many-engine design is also not proven in the slightest yet. There are many successful many-engine rockets. Soyuz has 5 engines but 32 nozzles firing at launch. Falcon Heavy has 27 separate engines. Saturn-I had 8, Falcon 9, Black Arrow 8 - the last one just 4-5 times less engines than Super Heavy. To say it's not proven in the slightest is bending the reality a bit too much. > Secondly, you're assuming that reusable rockets are better than one-time use ones. While this may be true for certain kinds of missions, it is not at all clear for many others. It's important however what those cases are. By now we have a good history of Falcon-9 launches, where for a number of years we have a substantial reduction of cost to orbit for a wide variety of payloads. So maybe - maybe - there are many other kinds of missions where reusability is a disadvantage, but those kinds are clearly in substantial minority. > Reusable rockets fundamentally will have lower payload for the same thrust, for the simple reason that they need fuel for the return stage. They will also need to be made from sturdier materials to survive reentry, which again limits their capacity. That's technically true, but arguing this is a bit like arguing that a car made for a single travel would be lighter and cheaper that the one made for repeated use. True, but quite irrelevant for most practical cases.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    > We have a test flight behind us, which showed many tens of seconds of the stack flight. As became apparent in the post mortems, the rocket lost its chosen flight path the moment it left the pad, probably due to the engine failures. It flew of course, but it was a failed launch from T+3 or so. The safety systems also failed to self-destruct the rocket on command - they thankfully did enough damage for the atmosphere to take care of the rest. Basically the launch only proved that the parts hold together and the engines produce enough lift. The engines themselves are still far too prone to failure (apparently this was using an older generation, so maybe that part is already fixed). > There are many successful many-engine rockets. Soyuz has 5 engines but 32 nozzles firing at launch. Falcon Heavy has 27 separate engines. Saturn-I had 8, Falcon 9, Black Arrow 8 - the last one just 4-5 times less engines than Super Heavy. To say it's not proven in the slightest is bending the reality a bit too much. You're right, I was exaggerating a bit. Still, my layman's understanding is that there is a fundamental difference between Falcon Heavy's multi booster design with 9 engines per booster, and Super Heavy's 33 engine design on a single booster. Maybe I'm wrong on this. > So maybe - maybe - there are many other kinds of missions where reusability is a disadvantage, but those kinds are clearly in substantial minority. As I understand it, the disadvantages start once you want to put large payloads beyond orbit. Starship's main goal is to put a payload on the moon (this is what the NASA funding is for) and for this purpose it is much worse than a traditional single use rocket: instead of a simple trip to the moon, the design is to launch to orbit, then do an additional 6 or so launches to refuel it while in orbit, and only then will it have enough power to fly to the moon. SpaceX is banking on the launch being so cheap with their hopes of rapid reusability that they can do 7+ launches of Starship for less than the cost of a more traditional mission. Falcon 9 definitely is not that cheap compared to other rockets, but perhaps Starship will indeed be.
whycome 3y ago
> No other rocket even in the planning stage comes close to Starship. Both my rockets and Starship have reached space the same number of times.
- verdverm 3y ago
  One fabricator has a track record and additionally tested their latest rocket more than zero times Also, Starship is beyond the planning stage
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  > Both my rockets and Starship have reached space the same number of times. Wouldn't it be more apples-to-apples to compare "all your rockets" to "all of SpaceX's rockets", or "all your superheavy-class rockets" to "all of SpaceX's superheavy-class rockets"?
  - whycome 3y ago
    Nah, I've only focused on super-heavy class in my napkin designs. I'm just facetiously pointing out that Starship hasn't launched yet. There could be major flaws. Someone else might have a better design brewing but with little to show for it. The irony is that Starship's design looks a lot more like the sci-fi futurism of the 50s - we're returning to it after testing out shuttle-style reusable vehicles.
ge96 3y ago
RIP SLS Yeah SpaceX is goat. Between starlink, self landing rockets and this, oh man.
imtringued 3y ago
>No other rocket even in the planning stage comes close to Starship. Okay, but SLS got close to the moon. It doesn't matter that it can't do a rendezvous with Starship, because it fulfilled its mission.

tsimionescu 3y ago

You are making two assumptions. One explicitly, that Starship will work in anything resembling its current design and promised operational paramters. This is by no means as guaranteed as you make it out to be (it's very much an if, not a when). The promises of rapid reusability are very much up in the air, and the whole many-engine design is also not proven in the slightest yet. Secondly, you're assuming that reusable rockets are better than one-time use ones. While this may be true for certain kinds of missions, it is not at all clear for many others. Reusable rockets fundamentally will have lower payload for the same thrust, for the simple reason that they need fuel for the return stage. They will also need to be made from sturdier materials to survive reentry, which again limits their capacity.

eagerpace 3y ago
The first is a fair, but I'm not assuming that it has to work exactly as claimed. It's so far ahead of current tech that if it even marginally succeeds the stated objectives it will transform the industry. The second, I disagree, reusable is definitely better in every way. I'm sure there are edge cases where it needs to be proven or a particular mission, but no other machines are as costly and disposable. Rocket designs haven't evolved much over the last 50 years. Competitors all claim to want reusability but none of the major players are pursuing it seriously. Engine design and manufacturing is hilariously obsolete. NASA has become a jobs program instead of a innovator. I'm just happy to see a radical new approach to design, manufacturing and testing.
avmich 3y ago
I disagree with both. > One explicitly, that Starship will work in anything resembling its current design and promised operational paramters. We have a test flight behind us, which showed many tens of seconds of the stack flight. That's a big achievement validating the rocket architecture and general parameters. Frankly I'd assume we crossed equator in rocket development here, we're in completion stage more than developing. > This is by no means as guaranteed as you make it out to be (it's very much an if, not a when). You know, there are no physical laws which prevent Starship from working. SpaceX shows economics on their side. At this point it's not guaranteed that Starship will fly - because it's hard to predict the future - but it's a pretty safe bet that Starship can be made to fly. > The promises of rapid reusability are very much up in the air, and the whole many-engine design is also not proven in the slightest yet. There are many successful many-engine rockets. Soyuz has 5 engines but 32 nozzles firing at launch. Falcon Heavy has 27 separate engines. Saturn-I had 8, Falcon 9, Black Arrow 8 - the last one just 4-5 times less engines than Super Heavy. To say it's not proven in the slightest is bending the reality a bit too much. > Secondly, you're assuming that reusable rockets are better than one-time use ones. While this may be true for certain kinds of missions, it is not at all clear for many others. It's important however what those cases are. By now we have a good history of Falcon-9 launches, where for a number of years we have a substantial reduction of cost to orbit for a wide variety of payloads. So maybe - maybe - there are many other kinds of missions where reusability is a disadvantage, but those kinds are clearly in substantial minority. > Reusable rockets fundamentally will have lower payload for the same thrust, for the simple reason that they need fuel for the return stage. They will also need to be made from sturdier materials to survive reentry, which again limits their capacity. That's technically true, but arguing this is a bit like arguing that a car made for a single travel would be lighter and cheaper that the one made for repeated use. True, but quite irrelevant for most practical cases.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  > We have a test flight behind us, which showed many tens of seconds of the stack flight. As became apparent in the post mortems, the rocket lost its chosen flight path the moment it left the pad, probably due to the engine failures. It flew of course, but it was a failed launch from T+3 or so. The safety systems also failed to self-destruct the rocket on command - they thankfully did enough damage for the atmosphere to take care of the rest. Basically the launch only proved that the parts hold together and the engines produce enough lift. The engines themselves are still far too prone to failure (apparently this was using an older generation, so maybe that part is already fixed). > There are many successful many-engine rockets. Soyuz has 5 engines but 32 nozzles firing at launch. Falcon Heavy has 27 separate engines. Saturn-I had 8, Falcon 9, Black Arrow 8 - the last one just 4-5 times less engines than Super Heavy. To say it's not proven in the slightest is bending the reality a bit too much. You're right, I was exaggerating a bit. Still, my layman's understanding is that there is a fundamental difference between Falcon Heavy's multi booster design with 9 engines per booster, and Super Heavy's 33 engine design on a single booster. Maybe I'm wrong on this. > So maybe - maybe - there are many other kinds of missions where reusability is a disadvantage, but those kinds are clearly in substantial minority. As I understand it, the disadvantages start once you want to put large payloads beyond orbit. Starship's main goal is to put a payload on the moon (this is what the NASA funding is for) and for this purpose it is much worse than a traditional single use rocket: instead of a simple trip to the moon, the design is to launch to orbit, then do an additional 6 or so launches to refuel it while in orbit, and only then will it have enough power to fly to the moon. SpaceX is banking on the launch being so cheap with their hopes of rapid reusability that they can do 7+ launches of Starship for less than the cost of a more traditional mission. Falcon 9 definitely is not that cheap compared to other rockets, but perhaps Starship will indeed be.

whycome 3y ago

> No other rocket even in the planning stage comes close to Starship. Both my rockets and Starship have reached space the same number of times.

verdverm 3y ago
One fabricator has a track record and additionally tested their latest rocket more than zero times Also, Starship is beyond the planning stage
BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
> Both my rockets and Starship have reached space the same number of times. Wouldn't it be more apples-to-apples to compare "all your rockets" to "all of SpaceX's rockets", or "all your superheavy-class rockets" to "all of SpaceX's superheavy-class rockets"?
- whycome 3y ago
  Nah, I've only focused on super-heavy class in my napkin designs. I'm just facetiously pointing out that Starship hasn't launched yet. There could be major flaws. Someone else might have a better design brewing but with little to show for it. The irony is that Starship's design looks a lot more like the sci-fi futurism of the 50s - we're returning to it after testing out shuttle-style reusable vehicles.

ge96 3y ago

RIP SLS Yeah SpaceX is goat. Between starlink, self landing rockets and this, oh man.

imtringued 3y ago

>No other rocket even in the planning stage comes close to Starship. Okay, but SLS got close to the moon. It doesn't matter that it can't do a rendezvous with Starship, because it fulfilled its mission.