3 ms·

> 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 a

> 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
        golf clap Yep, you’ve got nothing. Starship even borrows heavily from the shuttle program using a lifting body design etc.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        One last link for ya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
        Retric 1y ago
        I’d rather have a coherent debate, but I’ll take a laugh instead. At least have the dignity of walking away.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        I guess we're both laughing then! lol
      - tsimionescu 1y ago
        The difference here is that STS-1 achieved orbit and flew 37 times around the earth, while Starship flight 1 didn't even explode correctly after failing to keep its designated path. Starship has yet to achieve orbit, in fact, in 2025 - passing the 13 year mark of STS-1. And note that the actual shuttle that was launched in 1981, the Columbia, went on to conduct 27 more successful missions (until its tragic end many years later). So it was already successfully reusable from its first test flight (with the known caveats around cost of refurbishment).
        timschmidt 1y ago
        > with the known caveats around cost of refurbishment Only the orbiter was refurbishable (not fully and rapidly reusable like Starship - booster reuse was demonstrated today), which took 6 months, and cost $2 Billion per launch. The whole Starship development program is slated to cost about as much as 5 Shuttle launches.

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
      golf clap Yep, you’ve got nothing. Starship even borrows heavily from the shuttle program using a lifting body design etc.
      - timschmidt 1y ago
        One last link for ya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
        Retric 1y ago
        I’d rather have a coherent debate, but I’ll take a laugh instead. At least have the dignity of walking away.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        I guess we're both laughing then! lol
    - tsimionescu 1y ago
      The difference here is that STS-1 achieved orbit and flew 37 times around the earth, while Starship flight 1 didn't even explode correctly after failing to keep its designated path. Starship has yet to achieve orbit, in fact, in 2025 - passing the 13 year mark of STS-1. And note that the actual shuttle that was launched in 1981, the Columbia, went on to conduct 27 more successful missions (until its tragic end many years later). So it was already successfully reusable from its first test flight (with the known caveats around cost of refurbishment).
      - timschmidt 1y ago
        > with the known caveats around cost of refurbishment Only the orbiter was refurbishable (not fully and rapidly reusable like Starship - booster reuse was demonstrated today), which took 6 months, and cost $2 Billion per launch. The whole Starship development program is slated to cost about as much as 5 Shuttle launches.