> I do not see this Starship and its mission profile ever being a human-rated system in this incarnation, ever.

May I know why ? And if the feat was done by NASA or China, would you change your conclusion?

mk_stjames 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It would not change my conclusion at all.

If you asked me if I wanted to return to earth on something that glides like a plane and lands on a runway with no propulsion... or a pressure vessel that needs it's engines to work perfectly to get you back to a single spot at the pad, within a few meters, to be 'caught', and if that doesn't happen, you hit the ground vertically and explode...

I know which one I'm taking. Yes I know the shuttle had no 'go-around' as a glider. But wings and wheels and a big runway in the desert.... versus the insane acrobatics of Starship...

We haven't seen how Starship would deal with crosswinds in the atmosphere being predicted wrong. What happens when it knows it is off course on the way down and can't make it back to the pad? If there where people onboard? I assume there would be a contingency where it just vents fuel and hits the ground and hopes to act as a crush-can at terminal velocity but I don't know how people survive that. By comparison, ditching the shuttle like a plane with an engine-out failure seems easy by comparison.

I am not demeaning the amazing achievement of the Starship and its booster and this ability to catch it and reuse it. I think that is indeed an amazing achievement that should be celebrated. But I don't see this as being a thing to put people on that can somehow be intrinsically safer than the Shuttle, just yet. These are just my basic opinions, I think they are opinions with some merit, and I don't feel that deserves downvotes.

	▲	emkoemko 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		that's not going to happen, Artemis is using Orion with parachutes to land in the ocean

▲

Retric 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Starship’s been in development for over two decades and the design keeps being changed and failing.

Soyuz has a very impressive record, Starship has been horrifically mismanaged by comparison. The falcon heavy flew 14 times and SpaceX is all in on a heavy launch vehicle because what? Even if they hit every target perfectly from now on it was a wasteful project.

	▲	xixixao 17 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The design changing and the development _failing to meet its stated deadlines_ is not a good argument for the system never working. Especially given we know the deadlines were unrealistic to begin with, yet significant milestones have been achieved in (deadline-ignoring) impressive time frame - like landing a second stage rocket from orbit within 8 years of development (by a private company, not a national effort).
	▲	bluescrn 14 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Falcon 9 had numerous landing failures early on. They're averaging over 2 successful launches+landings per week now, and it's so routine that nobody cares.

▲

echoangle 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The system architecture seems to be more fragile than simple capsules with parachutes or even the shuttle (which was already pretty dangerous). There’s no parachute, if you don’t hit the tower during landing you’re in a lot of trouble (unless they can soft-land the ship without the tower and without the bottom exploding?).

▲

xixixao 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

“the system is more complicated” is not a good argument for it never working.

A passenger airliner is vastly more complicated than a parachute, yet both work.

(You’re also in a lot of trouble if you don’t hit the runway in an airliner)

	▲	echoangle 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The problem isn’t “it’s more complicated” but more “if something goes wrong there’s not a lot you can do”. There’s basically no redundancy and a lot of single points of failure. Having two sets of Parachutes is a lot harder to screw up than a powered landing. With a normal capsule, you have multiple fuel tanks and redundant RCS thrusters so you’ll practically always be able to deorbit and land (since you also have redundant parachutes). If starship has a fuel leak, how are you going to land, even if you’re able to deorbit?