3 ms·
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
by 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 agoNearly 50 year old technology is generally inferior to modern equivalents, that hardly an argument that Starship’s R&D process is going well.
- timschmidt 1y agoAgain, feel free to point to any rocket of the size and reusability of Starship which is further along in development or has developed faster. None exist.
- Retric 1y ago> Nearly 50 year old technology is generally inferior to modern equivalents < Feel free to counter the points being addressed rather than attack a straw man. Obviously if Starship was strictly worse there’d be no point in trying to develop it. Suggesting a modern preproduction car is better than a Fiat Argenta from the early 80’s isn’t a recommendation, same deal with Starship.