4 ms·
More bigger != more advanced != more economical != more sensical And anyway yes there are programs that are dependent on Starship working on a schedule. If it
by estearum 6mo ago
More bigger != more advanced != more economical != more sensical
And anyway yes there are programs that are dependent on Starship working on a schedule. If it doesn't work on schedule, those programs will advance without it and the Starship program will eventually fail.
- eagerpace 6mo agoThere are so many individual features in this program that have never been done or even attempted before. That's "Advanced" in my book. Yes, they attached it to an overly ambitious program that is rife with delays (and hubris) but the program started on its own, is the best path to making the 2028 landing happen (it won't), and on its own is incredible.
- estearum 6mo agoStarship is at this point probably not even the best path to making a 2028 landing happen. How many of those things that have never been done/attempted before sit downstream of poor strategic decisions?
- eagerpace 6mo agoYou have to separate the two. There are no good options to 2028. It's just politics.
- estearum 6mo agoI don't know what "two" you're referring to, nor what politics.
- panick21_ 6mo agoThe alternative to Starship needs to solve many of the same problem and is from a less proven company. If they can do it, great but I don't think its more likely.
- estearum 6mo agoThey really don't though! Starship chose to structure the problem such that they require this groundbreaking several-things-never-before-done design.
- panick21_ 6mo agoThen tell me how to land 100t on the moon or mars without solving any of these problems. Even if you want to put less then that on the moon, anything but a tiny lander still needs refueling and reusable launch.
- estearum 6mo agoI'm perfectly comfortable with not landing 100t of material on either the moon or Mars. Have yet to hear any compelling argument for why we should except that ermygoerrdd sci-fi!!!11!!
- panick21_ 6mo agoBecause a base for humans needs lots of cargo and large areas to live in ...
- estearum 6mo agoOh! We need a base because we need a base. Okay that solves it.
- panick21_ 6mo agoOk I misunderstood your argument. The fact is, its the governments planned to build a base. If your opinion is that instead we should build a base at the bottom of the ocean, you are correct, Starship is not a good engineering solution. In fact, anything not in space wouldn't be ideal. But that's a political choice, and Moon base is what NASA and congress are working towards.
- 6mo ago
- ehsankia 6mo agoSpaceX has had 165 launches in 2025 (although admittedly 75% of those were for Starlink...) Obviously bigger isn't more economical or sensical, and most cases are served just fine with the Falcons, but there are cases we need the big boy for, and it's good that someone is working on it and has made so much progress. Obviously a semblance of a schedule is good to have, but realistically, that's not really how research works. Look at James Webb telescope, it was originally scheduled for 2007, and ended up launching 14 years later. It's still an amazing piece of engineer/science, and it's amazing that it's up there now, even if it was very late to it. It's much better to be late and successful than early and failing.
- estearum 6mo ago> but there are cases we need the big boy for, and it's good that someone is working on it and has made so much progress. I am taking issue with this claim. Are there cases where the cost/benefit actually come out favorably for Starship as it is actually turning out? Are they cases anyone should actually care about beyond sci-fi fantasies (i.e. not "colonize Mars")?
- xiphias2 6mo agoSure, I have crappy mobile reception a lot of times on my travels, so I'll be the first when finally Starship can launch satellites with antennas big enough so that my mobile phone can directly be used for internet access.