5 ms·

> It’s been in some level of development for well over a decade. Back in 2018 they changed the idea from using carbon composites to stainless steel and renamed

> It’s been in some level of development for well over a decade. Back in 2018 they changed the idea from using carbon composites to stainless steel and renamed the project Starship but in no way can you call it a fast process. How long did the last fully reusable superheavy lift rocket take to develop? There's never been one you say? Right. So you have no metric for measurement. The closest equivalent: SLS is flying hardware who's design originated in the 60s, and Blue Origin began development 24 years ago. Starship is developing at light speed by comparison to anything approaching it's size. Still think it's happening slowly? Feel free to build one yourself in less time. I'll wait.

Retric 1y ago
They’ve taken longer to develop Starship than NASA did with the Space Shuttle.
- timschmidt 1y ago
  Space shuttle development can be traced to the Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar ) which began in 1957, the MiG-105 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105 ) from 1965, and the Silbervogel project ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel ) from 1941. The space shuttle didn't fly until 1981. Try again.
  - Retric 1y ago
    I’m not sure you’ve really thought that argument through to it’s conclusion. > the MiG-105 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105 ) from 1965, and the Silbervogel project ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel ) from 1941. Starship can trace its development back to the 1920’s seeing as the team leveraged that research, if you’re going to use such a meaningless definition including USSR projects as a legacy here Starship loses simply because of the much later launch date.
    - timschmidt 1y ago
      > if you’re going to use such a meaningless definition including USSR projects as a legacy here So you're not even aware of how the shuttle was developed and are just making ill-informed assumptions. Got it.
      - Retric 1y ago
        I’m well aware of the link, but again Starship shares similar links with much older projects. We can trace them both down to liquid rocket propulsion, but one flew in 1980’s the other is still in R&D.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        > I’m well aware of the link Then why don't you tell us about it?
        Retric 1y ago
        > Then why don't you tell us about it? Because you’re obviously trying to deflect from a lost argument. Starship has clearly been mismanaged and nothing you’ve suggested has actually countered that core issue.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        Well, I've provided plenty of links and facts. You've provided your unique opinions, little else, and seem wholly unaware of the development history of these vehicles you claim to know better than rocket engineers about. Even if I use your example and timeline: Shuttle: 1968 (project announced) - 1981 (first launch): 13 years Starship: 2012 (project announced) - 2022 (first launch): 10 years Starship's several years ahead of Shuttle development. Hilarious conversation. Thanks for providing laughs for the evening.
        Retric 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- DoesntMatter22 1y ago
  Comparing a project by a private company to the most powerful government in world history is a little disingenuous
  - Retric 1y ago
    If we were comparing two projects in 2025 I would absolutely agree. Except SpaceX is spending ~2 billion dollars per year which on the surface is well below the space shuttle (though not that far), but modern aerospace projects have massive advantages over these early programs so simple inflation calculators don’t really capture the cost changes well.
    - DoesntMatter22 1y ago
      They are getting way more value than the space shuttle which wasn't very useful by comparison. Apples to oranges
      - Retric 1y ago
        How are defining value here? The shuttle flew well over 100 successful mission including infrastructure that’s still in use ISS, Hubble. Starship has 0 successful missions.

Retric 1y ago

They’ve taken longer to develop Starship than NASA did with the Space Shuttle.

timschmidt 1y ago
Space shuttle development can be traced to the Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar ) which began in 1957, the MiG-105 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105 ) from 1965, and the Silbervogel project ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel ) from 1941. The space shuttle didn't fly until 1981. Try again.
- Retric 1y ago
  I’m not sure you’ve really thought that argument through to it’s conclusion. > the MiG-105 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105 ) from 1965, and the Silbervogel project ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbervogel ) from 1941. Starship can trace its development back to the 1920’s seeing as the team leveraged that research, if you’re going to use such a meaningless definition including USSR projects as a legacy here Starship loses simply because of the much later launch date.
  - timschmidt 1y ago
    > if you’re going to use such a meaningless definition including USSR projects as a legacy here So you're not even aware of how the shuttle was developed and are just making ill-informed assumptions. Got it.
    - Retric 1y ago
      I’m well aware of the link, but again Starship shares similar links with much older projects. We can trace them both down to liquid rocket propulsion, but one flew in 1980’s the other is still in R&D.
      - timschmidt 1y ago
        > I’m well aware of the link Then why don't you tell us about it?
        Retric 1y ago
        > Then why don't you tell us about it? Because you’re obviously trying to deflect from a lost argument. Starship has clearly been mismanaged and nothing you’ve suggested has actually countered that core issue.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        Well, I've provided plenty of links and facts. You've provided your unique opinions, little else, and seem wholly unaware of the development history of these vehicles you claim to know better than rocket engineers about. Even if I use your example and timeline: Shuttle: 1968 (project announced) - 1981 (first launch): 13 years Starship: 2012 (project announced) - 2022 (first launch): 10 years Starship's several years ahead of Shuttle development. Hilarious conversation. Thanks for providing laughs for the evening.
        Retric 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
DoesntMatter22 1y ago
Comparing a project by a private company to the most powerful government in world history is a little disingenuous
- Retric 1y ago
  If we were comparing two projects in 2025 I would absolutely agree. Except SpaceX is spending ~2 billion dollars per year which on the surface is well below the space shuttle (though not that far), but modern aerospace projects have massive advantages over these early programs so simple inflation calculators don’t really capture the cost changes well.
  - DoesntMatter22 1y ago
    They are getting way more value than the space shuttle which wasn't very useful by comparison. Apples to oranges
    - Retric 1y ago
      How are defining value here? The shuttle flew well over 100 successful mission including infrastructure that’s still in use ISS, Hubble. Starship has 0 successful missions.