[estearum]

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.

[ehsankia]

SpaceX 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]

> 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]

Sure, 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.

[leereeves]

Is SpaceX/Starlink actually planning to do that?

[xiphias2]

Yes, it's already working in US, but the current version is too slow.

Of course that's how they will make lots of money, not by rides to Mars.

[abofh]

No, but wasn't that a great use case?

[eagerpace]

There 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]

Starship 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]

You have to separate the two. There are no good options to 2028. It's just politics.

[estearum]

I don't know what "two" you're referring to, nor what politics.

[panick21_]

The 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]

They really don't though! Starship chose to structure the problem such that they require this groundbreaking several-things-never-before-done design.

[panick21_]

Then 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]

I'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!!

[Zigurd]

Starship is going for a fully reusable upper stage. Google "second system syndrome." This is engineering by fiat. It could easily take another 10 years for upper stage reusability to be demonstrated, and another 10 to make it reliable. And that's generous because it implies that other problems like in orbit refueling will get solved in parallel. How many starship problems have actually been solved in parallel?

I became a starship skeptic because I thought the project management was bullshit. Nothing I've seen changes in my mind about that.

[panick21_]

I hate the typical "second system syndrome" nonsense. People always only use that for things that fail, while in reality plenty of second systems are good, technically and/or commercially.

Starship has come as close to landing an upper stage as its possible on water, and from orbital velocity. That's already a huge accomplishment and the landing on land has also been demonstrated.

Problems are constantly being worked on in parallel. Transferring fuel between tanks in the Ship is literally something already tested and that's a big part of the validation of inter-ship fuel transfer. There was even a NASA contract about exactly that. There is parallel work on the launch site, ship the booster and the interior (this is just less visible but its being worked on as we can see from the contract).

Orbital refueling can continually be worked on even if some ships fail landings.

> It could easily take another 10 years for upper stage reusability

Or it could take less ...

And even so, if we ever want a serious moon base, an architecture like that is required. The tiny BlueOrigin lander might be ok for flags and footprints but not to deploy serious infrastructure.

[Zigurd]

The assertion that something like starship is required for a moon base is wild. Why would anyone want to have to rely on a rocket that needs multiple refueling missions before it can even start to go to the moon?

The whole starship project is the wrong way to get to the wrong goal.