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?).
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?
There are plenty of flat stretches all over the world: in Arizona, Kansas, West Siberia, Mongolia, all over Sahara, Egypt, Sudan, north of Argentina, etc, etc. There's no need for more than several dozen km. If a out-of-fuel Starship can still maneuver with its rudders, it can likely slow down enough for a rough landing.
As of the ocean, given low waves and the airspeed of say 200 km/h, most likely the craft will withstand it if it has withstood the reentry. At least one Starship demonstrated some limited seaworthiness.
Watch the videos of airliners veering off the runway onto flat ground which wrecks the airplane. The landing gear is designed for flat hard runways, not soft bumpy ground.
An airliner has layers upon layers of safety redundancies.
There are multiple flight computers. Practically every essential sensor has copies. Oxygen generation, ram air turbine, life jackets, inflated boats. Onboard radar. TCAS. The airplane itself glides. Then there are thousands of procedural rules and regulations for safe operation.
A system like starship that relies on precise active propulsion has no such room for error.
You've clearly padded your list to look more negative because your last sentence only applies to the glide part... Starship obviously has the same redundant flight computers and sensors and radar and TCAS and will have thousands of procedures for safe operation.
I was responding to the parent, explaining the layers of safety in an airliner.
And you missed the point. The airplanes wings give it a passive way to glide down. Parachutes also give a passive way for a capsule to fly down. Starship has no such system, either the propulsion works or the rocket just falls out of the sky. There are thousands and thousands of different ways that the propulsion can get screwed up.
Launch vehicles with capsules have redundant escape systems. If the vehicle during ascent is malfunctioning the crew can escape and safely land. In starship the crew will just blow up and die.
Starship is NOT man rated so let’s see what SpaceX comes up with. But one cannot ignore the glaring issues with the design.
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)
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?
There aren't many flat stretches of land.
As of the ocean, given low waves and the airspeed of say 200 km/h, most likely the craft will withstand it if it has withstood the reentry. At least one Starship demonstrated some limited seaworthiness.
But during landing? You can't send another ship to rescue the crew that is aboard another Starship that just failed being caught.
There are multiple flight computers. Practically every essential sensor has copies. Oxygen generation, ram air turbine, life jackets, inflated boats. Onboard radar. TCAS. The airplane itself glides. Then there are thousands of procedural rules and regulations for safe operation.
A system like starship that relies on precise active propulsion has no such room for error.
And you missed the point. The airplanes wings give it a passive way to glide down. Parachutes also give a passive way for a capsule to fly down. Starship has no such system, either the propulsion works or the rocket just falls out of the sky. There are thousands and thousands of different ways that the propulsion can get screwed up.
Launch vehicles with capsules have redundant escape systems. If the vehicle during ascent is malfunctioning the crew can escape and safely land. In starship the crew will just blow up and die.
Starship is NOT man rated so let’s see what SpaceX comes up with. But one cannot ignore the glaring issues with the design.