If your willing to spend the money, testing things in practice can be much quicker than planning everything out. They admitted that they didn’t expect it to reach orbit and that anything beyond the launchpad would be a success. I suspect that Elon pressured them to launch too early though.
The SLS is built using tried and tested technology, so it should have (and did) work, but due to (effectively) corruption it’s stupidly expensive per launch.
The falcon 9 was ‘impossible’ to re-use untill they did it. It’s now revolutionised the launch business. If they can do that again by doing the ‘impossible’ then it will have been worth it.
I do kinda agree with you on the lack of an escape system though, but if they can prove reliability on unmanned missions then it could work.
Yeah, making it reliable enough not to need an escape system is the goal. One of the original concepts was that in a stage 1 failure outside black zones (also, Starship on paper does a great job minimizing the black zones due to re-entry design), stage 2 will light up and go for a powered landing. A stage “explosion” is usually very energetic but more burny-energetic than explosive-energetic, because the fuel can’t efficiently mix, which should be within the tolerances of the upper stage.
Planes don’t need escape systems, and hopefully Starship can get into at least 5 nines of reliability, preferably more. It’s never going to be entirely safe (planes have an accident rate around 1 per million flights, not many of which are fatal), but there’s no reason to think that we couldn’t get to that safety level in time.
If your willing to spend the money, testing things in practice can be much quicker than planning everything out. They admitted that they didn’t expect it to reach orbit and that anything beyond the launchpad would be a success. I suspect that Elon pressured them to launch too early though.
The SLS is built using tried and tested technology, so it should have (and did) work, but due to (effectively) corruption it’s stupidly expensive per launch.
The falcon 9 was ‘impossible’ to re-use untill they did it. It’s now revolutionised the launch business. If they can do that again by doing the ‘impossible’ then it will have been worth it.
I do kinda agree with you on the lack of an escape system though, but if they can prove reliability on unmanned missions then it could work.
Yeah, making it reliable enough not to need an escape system is the goal. One of the original concepts was that in a stage 1 failure outside black zones (also, Starship on paper does a great job minimizing the black zones due to re-entry design), stage 2 will light up and go for a powered landing. A stage “explosion” is usually very energetic but more burny-energetic than explosive-energetic, because the fuel can’t efficiently mix, which should be within the tolerances of the upper stage.
Planes don’t need escape systems, and hopefully Starship can get into at least 5 nines of reliability, preferably more. It’s never going to be entirely safe (planes have an accident rate around 1 per million flights, not many of which are fatal), but there’s no reason to think that we couldn’t get to that safety level in time.