Do you think Space Shuttle landing is equivalent because you like all the extra weight and complexity of a landing gear, or because you like having to build a giant runway?
There weren't too many runways available to use as backups given size requirements, so I assume if/when they start doing human starship launches they will have multiple chopstick towers and therefore have near-equivalent emergency backup capability.
> if/when they start doing human starship launches
I don't think this is happening with the current design. If there's a human version of Starship, it would have to have meet some safety standards. Namely abort options on launch and safe failure modes on return. I can see a Starship with a classic pod on top, but no way this design carries humans from/to earth.
Ah, TIL. But still, even private company (or their high paying customers) wouldn't want to take the risk. And using proven design for humans might be easier than to solve all safety issues with the whole Starship.
Also, they still have to solve non-starlink cargo deployment too I think?
Space Shuttle was a compromised design from the beginning. They originally wanted the Space Shuttle booster to also have wings and return to launch site (with a crew!). But they couldn't afford to develop two new vehicles, so they compromised by making the external tank as cheap as possible and adding solid rockets (which led to the Challenger disaster).
But their biggest mistake was having the engines on the orbiter (so they could be recovered) but not the fuel tank. That meant the orbiter had to hang on the side of the external tank, which made it vulnerable to foam strikes (leading to the Columbia disaster).
Landing with wings is aesthetically pleasing (compared to tower catches) but consider the waste: You have to boost the weight of the wings, landing gear, etc. all the way to orbit and then bring it all the way back. It's much more efficient to just bring fuel and use that for landing. And if your guidance is accurate enough, a pinpoint landing means you can land on the launch tower and not worry about landing legs.
For the shuttle there was also a lot of interference from the Airforce, which forced them to have a massive payload bay, so AF could launch and service their big Keyhole satellites (and possibly snatch Soviet ones in one orbit without warning).
Then there was pressure to make use of solid propellants to amortize their use with military uses, not to mention pushing for Shuttle carrying all payloads for the US.
This together created the dangerous and expensive design tHat was STS.
People give the USAF shit about influencing the shuttle specs, given the capability was never used...
... but a lot of those were set in 1968 - 73, when relationships between the US and Soviet Union were very different than the late 80s.
Given the development and operational timelines, it wasn't a bad bet to cover needing that military capability, had things turned out differently between the two superpowers.
[−]literalAardvark · 2026-11-15 Sun 11:52 UTC ·
link
> given the capability was never used
I don't think the period is entirely declassified? If it ever will be
Challenger blew because the joint was designed to always be in compression--but it went into tension during the twang. After the headlines they paid attention and fixed it.
Congress insisted on the boosters to be made in other districts distant from the launch sites, so they were forced to make them in segments instead of a single continuous tube welded together permanently.
The risky thing about solids is that you cannot abort them. Once they light, there is no turning them off.
Shuttle always started the main engines for a few seconds (wasting fuel) to make sure the engines worked before lighting the solids. But there were many engine-out scenarios after the solids were lit that would result in loss-of-crew.
There are some ways of turning off solid motors - you cen blow off side panels to drop the pressure inside and either stop combustion or make the thrust negligible.
But tjis was IIRC used on single stick ICBMs and won't be really applicable for anything more delicate.
Solids or no, there were a lot of engine-out scenarios that would cause loss of crew. There were substantial parts of the flight where the orbiter wouldn't have the energy to reach a runway.
And the whole dispersed engine system of the Shuttle made any sort of engine out quite dangerous due to imbalanced thrust. When the engines are all right next to each other it's much more resilient against the failure of one, but the Shuttle would be in trouble if it lost any of it's three legs.
I'm not a huge fan of perchlorate based mixtures like the SRBs. Perchlorate ion is kind of interesting in that it behaves a bit, but not exactly, like iodine. Biochemically, it means thyroid attempts to process it like iodine but fails. In adults that's reversible, but in children it can cause permanent developmental issues.
Incidentally, presence of perchlorates is also one of the main concerns with martian soil.
At least a hydrogen or methane explosion is quite clean, even cleaner than kerosene.
It wasn't actually the Airforce, it was a group of consultants at the white house who forced it. But even without that, many of the bad choices had already been made by then.
> Then there was pressure to make use of solid propellants
As far as I remember the decision was based on development costs (like most decisions).
I tend to think that for human rated flights it may be possible to give it a parachute just in case powered descent is not possible for any reason as a precaution for a belly flop water landing with parachute assist. The flaps are already there too so maybe just increase their size is possible for a glidable descent? We're entering a size class for the vehicle that makes some outside the box stuff possible without sacrificing too much in terms of payload capacity.
The space shuttle was aerodynamic for a very specific reason - they had to do a mission (that never happened) where they would launch, deploy a spy satellite into a specific polar orbit, and return back to Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in a single orbit. The result was a requirement for a lot of cross range, which needed large wings that hurt its performance a spacecraft.
Starship doesn't have that - and so it can be much more optimized for it's purpose. It's basically tanks with a cargo bay and control surfaces, while the shuttle had to toss it's tanks away every flight.
IIRC this could also snatch a satellite using the same profile, with no warning.
Also some in the Soviet leadership were very scared the shuttle could carry nukes clandestinely, then during an ostensibly routine mission change inclination using its wings and decapitate Moscow with no prior warning.
Well, of course they are. But you can dip into the atmosphere at an angle, use it to change your inclination, then boost back to orbit (using the OMS in Shuttles case). Sure, you need to do it just right to not loose too much speed or even burn up due to overheating.
But if you could pull it off (and Soviets apparently beleived it was possible) you have an unique capability not really available to regular satellites l, where low orbit quick plane changes are basically impossible with any realistically available delta-v.
[−]somenameforme · 2026-11-15 Sun 02:25 UTC ·
link
There's many objections to this, but a major one is that the entire vision for Starship is Mars and other terrestrial bodies. If you create something optimized for Earth, you have to start over from scratch for another planet. And vice versa if you create something specialized for another planet.
An adaptable retropulsive landing system, by contrast, is fit for duty just about anywhere. In the long run you'd just need the atmospheric/planetary specs, a flat hard surface somewhere, and it'd be able to come down on it safely.
Seems like the same design principles that goes into Starship could create a version with more aerodynamic surface.
Is the idea that Starhship will be considered safe enough for human crews?
Of course, being able to land on runways gave the Space Shuttle more choices for emergency landings than needing a chopsticks catcher.
That said, the Space Shuttle holds records for the most humans killed in spaceflight, and the most expensive cost per kilogram to LEO.
I don't think this is happening with the current design. If there's a human version of Starship, it would have to have meet some safety standards. Namely abort options on launch and safe failure modes on return. I can see a Starship with a classic pod on top, but no way this design carries humans from/to earth.
Space Shuttle was a compromised design from the beginning. They originally wanted the Space Shuttle booster to also have wings and return to launch site (with a crew!). But they couldn't afford to develop two new vehicles, so they compromised by making the external tank as cheap as possible and adding solid rockets (which led to the Challenger disaster).
But their biggest mistake was having the engines on the orbiter (so they could be recovered) but not the fuel tank. That meant the orbiter had to hang on the side of the external tank, which made it vulnerable to foam strikes (leading to the Columbia disaster).
Landing with wings is aesthetically pleasing (compared to tower catches) but consider the waste: You have to boost the weight of the wings, landing gear, etc. all the way to orbit and then bring it all the way back. It's much more efficient to just bring fuel and use that for landing. And if your guidance is accurate enough, a pinpoint landing means you can land on the launch tower and not worry about landing legs.
Then there was pressure to make use of solid propellants to amortize their use with military uses, not to mention pushing for Shuttle carrying all payloads for the US.
This together created the dangerous and expensive design tHat was STS.
... but a lot of those were set in 1968 - 73, when relationships between the US and Soviet Union were very different than the late 80s.
Given the development and operational timelines, it wasn't a bad bet to cover needing that military capability, had things turned out differently between the two superpowers.
I don't think the period is entirely declassified? If it ever will be
Given they launch in full view of many people, not from behind a fake mayan temple in the middle of the rain forrest.
Challenger blew because the joint was designed to always be in compression--but it went into tension during the twang. After the headlines they paid attention and fixed it.
Shuttle always started the main engines for a few seconds (wasting fuel) to make sure the engines worked before lighting the solids. But there were many engine-out scenarios after the solids were lit that would result in loss-of-crew.
But tjis was IIRC used on single stick ICBMs and won't be really applicable for anything more delicate.
And the whole dispersed engine system of the Shuttle made any sort of engine out quite dangerous due to imbalanced thrust. When the engines are all right next to each other it's much more resilient against the failure of one, but the Shuttle would be in trouble if it lost any of it's three legs.
Incidentally, presence of perchlorates is also one of the main concerns with martian soil.
At least a hydrogen or methane explosion is quite clean, even cleaner than kerosene.
> Then there was pressure to make use of solid propellants
As far as I remember the decision was based on development costs (like most decisions).
Starship doesn't have that - and so it can be much more optimized for it's purpose. It's basically tanks with a cargo bay and control surfaces, while the shuttle had to toss it's tanks away every flight.
Also some in the Soviet leadership were very scared the shuttle could carry nukes clandestinely, then during an ostensibly routine mission change inclination using its wings and decapitate Moscow with no prior warning.
Until each side accumulated enough ICBM nukes that it was clear mutually-assured destruction would dominate.
Wings are useless in a vacuum.
But if you could pull it off (and Soviets apparently beleived it was possible) you have an unique capability not really available to regular satellites l, where low orbit quick plane changes are basically impossible with any realistically available delta-v.
An adaptable retropulsive landing system, by contrast, is fit for duty just about anywhere. In the long run you'd just need the atmospheric/planetary specs, a flat hard surface somewhere, and it'd be able to come down on it safely.