[powderpig]

I cannot believe that Spacex are planning to eventually make Starship human rated and yet there still won't be a launch escape system.

I can't see this ever being approved for human flight without major seeing changes.

Even if the design is fully proved out and works flawlessly, the reliability numbers behind the Raptor engine just aren't there yet.

[slyall]

From the same author ( Everyday Astronaut )

Why won’t Starship have an abort system? Should it?!

https://everydayastronaut.com/starship-abort/

Video Version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6lPMFgZU5Q

[MisterBiggs]

The plan for Artemis is to get Humans into space using SLS so I think we may be a long way before Starship needs to be human rated for launch. That being said I think we really need to be planning big and if there isn't a future where Humans are regularly going to space cheaply then there isn't much of a future in space at all and right now Starship is the only thing close to that capability.

The requirements for anything beyond a simple Moon base really are quite daunting but we will never get close without taking a much riskier approach to space than we are seeing now.

[kiba]

Airplanes don't have a launch escape system either, and a launch escape system is another rocket which in itself is also a safety hazard.

[avmich]

I'd actually propose to raise requirements so high that parachuted systems can't comply. I believe winged designs have inherent advantages in terms of safety.

You see, the failure modes are different with winged designs and active propulsion landing designs. Winged designs, in the extreme, can safely land with zero control after being pushed from orbit - in case of low Earth orbit, just decrease speed by about 200 m/s and that's it. Aerodynamic of the spacecraft can be designed so that the spacecraft will passively stabilize while going through atmosphere, and the terminal velocity could be low enough that even wheels deployment failure won't be lethal. That's not to mention designs where the parachute is opened on orbit, allows going slower through atmosphere and landing - vertically - with low speed (some information is here - https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6714639 ).

At the same time deploying parachutes is very much an active operation - failure of which costed Vladimir Komarov his life. Engine-supported landing was once considered in 1980s in USSR and declined on the grounds of safety; in comparison, Buran flew fully automatically on the first attempt. Today's systems are unquestionably better, but with engine failure there is little time or possibilities - unless something unusual would be invented - to compensate.

Comparing Dream Chaser and Crew Dragon, I'd definitely consider the first one as inherently safer design for landing.

[mr_toad]

Winged landing is never going to be practical on Mars.

[avmich]

Yeah, and on the Moon too. But I'm about landing on Earth - it's still going to be popular :) .

[raverbashing]

Yes, but neither is aerobraking in the same way it happens on Earth (as in the Starship maneuver)

[sorokod]

Ejection seats?

[nickik]

> Even if the design is fully proved out and works flawlessly, the reliability numbers behind the Raptor engine just aren't there yet.

The Raptor is very new engine, it will be mass manufactured at a large scale and will have 1000s of firings. That will prove the reliability eventually. They will also have redundancy on the vehicle.

[powderpig]

> I can't see this ever being approved for human flight without major seeing changes.

...major design changes.