Yeah, but still 40t to LEO with cheap rapid reusability (say 60 days, cheap engine replacement, some mass produced tiles) is still revolutionary, just not as revolutionary as Musk’s vision is. Imagine what research packages you can send to the outer planets with 40t budget from the effin LEO. Approximately infinite delta V with ion drives and fat solar cells.
I’m more concerned with payload bay doors than the spacecraft’s performance tbh.
But Starship does not currently seem to be on track to achieve cheap, rapid reusability.
I know that is what was promised, but I do wonder how many of Starship’s design goals the program needs to miss on before the general public starts to wonder if maybe goals are not the same thing as guarantees.
[−]JumpCrisscross · 2026-11-15 Sun 12:45 UTC ·
link
> Starship does not currently seem to be on track to achieve cheap, rapid reusability
What? Based on what? Starship has had two orbital flights ever. And they’ve gone pretty well.
They still don’t seem to have figured out how to reliably recover and reuse Superheavy. They did it a couple times in 2025, but it’s been over a year and quite a few flights since the last time they successfully caught one.
Raptor isn’t shaping up to be a sufficiently reliable engine. They are still having shutdowns and failures on every flight. That could be a huge problem for cheap and rapid reuse because it implies that quite a lot of inspection and refurbishment will be needed for every engine they re-fly. This was famously a major impediment to cheap reusability for the RS-25 and Shuttle, and they only had to worry about three of those per flight. Starship has 13 times as many engines to worry about, and those engines have thus far had a much higher failure rate.
And then they’ve also been having trouble with the thermal protection system, which seems to require a lot more refurbishment than what they had originally wanted. There have also been some kinks to work out in terms of its actual protection of the vehicle, which is a problem because even minor materials degradation due to thermal stress will limit the reusability of the upper stage.
I’m more concerned with payload bay doors than the spacecraft’s performance tbh.
I know that is what was promised, but I do wonder how many of Starship’s design goals the program needs to miss on before the general public starts to wonder if maybe goals are not the same thing as guarantees.
What? Based on what? Starship has had two orbital flights ever. And they’ve gone pretty well.
Raptor isn’t shaping up to be a sufficiently reliable engine. They are still having shutdowns and failures on every flight. That could be a huge problem for cheap and rapid reuse because it implies that quite a lot of inspection and refurbishment will be needed for every engine they re-fly. This was famously a major impediment to cheap reusability for the RS-25 and Shuttle, and they only had to worry about three of those per flight. Starship has 13 times as many engines to worry about, and those engines have thus far had a much higher failure rate.
And then they’ve also been having trouble with the thermal protection system, which seems to require a lot more refurbishment than what they had originally wanted. There have also been some kinks to work out in terms of its actual protection of the vehicle, which is a problem because even minor materials degradation due to thermal stress will limit the reusability of the upper stage.