I've been a frequent critic of starship. But the significance of this milestone is clear: it's the first demonstration of a reusable upper stage of a rocket system since the space shuttle.
Part of the importance is due to the fact that while the space shuttle was a technical success in terms of being able to build and operate a reusable upper stage, it was hella expensive. It required a lot of expensive refurbishment between missions. Launch cadence had a fairly low upper bound. And it wasn't safe enough.
The true believers will claim that catching a starship upper stage marks a new era. It marks the possibility of a new era. It proves it is plausible that a vertical landing upper stage could possibly be a better approach than a space plane. But it hasn't proven any of that. There are about a dozen major milestones between here and actually having a rocket system that meets all of its claimed specifications, both technical and financial. Here's just one big hairy example: to fly manned missions, starship either needs to be redesigned to accommodate an escape system, or it needs to show a level of reliability and safety never previously achieved by a rocket.
In my estimation, it will take at least another five years to know what starship really can do and what it will cost.
And the Shuttle's escape system wasn't for use during launch. It was only usable in controlled flight, if they couldn't reach a runway. It was added after Challenger.
Yes, but broadly speaking that has been known pre-SpaceX. The DC-X was the first proof of concept, and SpaceX's wonderful engineering is another evolutionary step in that direction. In Musk's words, SpaceX is "Just continuing the great work of the DC-X program"
> SpaceX has pretty conclusively shown the Shuttle architecture (stage and a half, using LH2 at launch) was not the right choice.
The space shuttle was retired for a reason? This was already known. The only thing it shows is that with that knowledge, you can design something better. Hindsight 20/20 etc
[−]dreamcompiler · 2026-11-15 Sun 17:09 UTC ·
link
NASA knew the shuttle was not the right technical choice before it ever flew. But it was the only political choice they could get funded at the time.
[−]locknitpicker · 2026-11-15 Sun 15:12 UTC ·
link
> Part of the importance is due to the fact that while the space shuttle was a technical success in terms of being able to build and operate a reusable upper stage, it was hella expensive.
This is a complete apples to oranges comparison.
A more apt comparison would be the space shuttle being a kin to Vasco da Gama's discovery of the sea route to India. After that point, the concept was demonstrated and the challenge was in optimizing cost-savings of commercial endeavours.
I mean, orbital lift services have been a thing for how many decades?
How are you measuring "safe enough" in this context? My understanding is that the Shuttle didn't have programmatic probabilistic requirements for mission safety. Ie, they didn't use overall reliability estimates and instead relied on engineering judgement (which the Challenger report showed varied widely depending on who you interviewed). It's hard to make a claim on whether it was safe enough without explicitly defining the safety goal.
Early 1970s documents were given safety requirements of 1:20 flights being successful. [1] That's the closest I've found to an actual requirement, and the shuttle record falls well within that requirement. I do think such an early spec is not a good basis for final performance, though.
Shuttle started at 1:10 and ended with 1:90 chance of loss of crew. That was bad and got it canceled as soon as the station was built, and supposedly ISS was finished only because international obligations. The last mission to extend Hubble's life was almost canceled because the NASA admin thought it was too dangerous.
NASA wanted 1:270 (so just "3 times safer than shuttle at the end of the shuttle program") from commercial crew (i.e. SpaceX Crew Dragon and Boeing Starliner).
Current US law for commercial space works on consent: passengers sign a waiver saying they know it's dangerous, and then the company doesn't have to promise safety the way an airline does. The company is on the hook for debris and innocent bystanaders on the ground though.
SpaceX plan to fly Starship a lot and gain so much experience they can find and fix all problems and reach airline safety. At least private jet level of safety, at a start.
Right, those are historical numbers, not design specs. I was asking for the design spec. Ie, in order to say whether it was “safe enough” the historical numbers either exceed the requirement spec (or not), like what exists for CCP.
There are multiple layers of risk consent, from engineering, safety, medical, and crew, for NASA. Of those, I think crew are the least likely to say no because they tend to come from a very risk tolerant population.
>It's hard to make a claim on whether it was safe enough without explicitly defining the safety goal.
I don't think it's that hard. "We're not sure exactly how safe it is, and do not have any actual requirement that it meet any specific level of safety" is clearly not safe enough for manned flight. (At least not outside of war-time or other such times we're willing to take on extra risks)
Would you get on an elevator that has a weight limit listed as "hasn't fallen yet", "has only fallen that one time", or "did fall that one time, but not since the redesign". Would you trust millions of dollars of human training and several lives to such an elevator?
The question was what is “safe enough” threshold. If you say 3.9% isn’t, you need to define what is. The better way to count isn’t “what percent of crew” but “What percent of crew-events” because astronauts were often on multiple missions. That number is 1.64% (14 fatalities over 852 crew events) Maybe that meets your threshold, maybe not.
The point was that wasn’t explicitly defined up front…they seemed to have fallen into the same trap you did of “we’ll know it when we see it”. CCP has a loss of crew threshold requirement of 0.37%.
Fine. If you want an acceptable design parameter for expected deaths: 0%.
We do not design civilian, optional, exploratory space missions with a threshold for acceptable fatalities. There is no number of dead astronauts that we can accept as a design goal.
Unforeseeable fatalities can happen, but death rate should not be a predetermined design parameter.
> Here's just one big hairy example: to fly manned missions, starship either needs to be redesigned to accommodate an escape system, or it needs to show a level of reliability and safety never previously achieved by a rocket.
I bet there are lots of people willing to fly on Starship even if it had Falcon 9’s level of reliability even without an escape system.
I bet hundreds of people would volunteer. Look at the number of fatalities and non-fatal crashes involving FSD attention detection defeat devices. Brave test pilots every one of them.
F9’s escape system has never been needed thus far. It’s possible it’s a lot more reliable than we know.
Current (2026-11) FSD in “sloth” mode requires less attention (in software), and, having used it a fair bit myself, I would probably ride in it unsupervised. The Cybercab customers do.
I think it is obvious by now that Starship was not designed for manned missions and that it was designed to provide cheap launch capabilities for very large payload capacity.
Flight 13 launched 20 Starlink v3 sats for a total payload of 34,100 kg.
Flight 14 launched 26 Starlink v3 sats for a total payload of 44,330 kg.
It was originally designed for manned interplanetary missions, but then they (wisely) decided to pivot when it became clear that that wasn’t going to happen.
I have yet to be convinced that Starship’s payload capacity is actually a good thing, from a big picture perspective. It looks to me like a possible case of shouting, “I meant to do that!” after a pratfall. On a months-long trip to Mars, you need a vehicle that big for the sake of the human occupants. For launching Starlink, it’s less clear whether the ability to deploy so many satellites at once was worth the vehicle’s development costs. Perhaps it’s just inherited from an earlier iteration of the program that had different goals, and a more modest design would have been more economical. Worse, so far it seems like Starlink might be it. Most other use cases people have proposed for putting 40 tonnes in orbit on a regular cadence are the kind of highly speculative grasping at straws that accompanies any technically impressive solution in search of a problem.
Shuttle was supposed to be two different vehicles: a potentially reusable but a cheap unmanned heavy lift vehicle plus a small reusable manned shuttle.
A lot of the vision was actually around building orbital solar arrays (remember the microwave power plant from sim city 2000?) to resolve the oil crisis.
The oil crisis went away and the microwave arrays idea didn't make much progress and shuttle' budget got cut until they could only do one vehicle, so they tried to combine both and have a reusable heavy lift manned space glider.
But because the microwave arrays weren't going to happen nor was the earlier L1 space station idea (and skylab deorbited before shuttle's first launch) they had nowhere to shuttle anything to, so instead they just ended up with a heavy lift LEO launcher that had people onboard for some reason.
Ofc they eventually got the ISS as a destination, much later.
Just speculating, but the US Military has money burning a hole in their pocket and could be interested in putting 40 tons to orbit several times a month.
Manned missions have totally required an escape system of some sort. So when you know the rocket isn't going to make it, you can let the crew escape.
In it's current design, there's no way to do that. Which is also why starship can be a lander on the moon, but it's crew will board after it gets to orbit (for now, at least).
It was designed for human trips to and from Mars, redesigned for satellite launch, and a variant is currently being designed for long-signed NASA contracts for human flights to and from the Moon.
I still feel like I am living in the future when I see these catches, but that last flip to vertical it does as it decelerates looks like everyone would be leaving their lunch all round the inside of the rocket.
This was an orbital test, it circled the earth for almost 24 hours and returned to base.
[−]MattDamonSpace · 2026-11-15 Sun 16:12 UTC ·
link
Idk imo the hard part is catching the giant rocket, everything else is “known”
[−]burnerRhodov3 · 2026-11-15 Sun 16:41 UTC ·
link
exactly! They've demonstrated all of those problems already in both the falcon 9 and falcon heavy. They are planning 5+ variants of starship as i'm aware.
The reason the shuttle was so expensive and costly was because they used ablative cooling. SpaceX came up with some novel material produced entirely in house to make the heat shield hot swappable. They new this was a problem from the start and specifically designed this thing to be rapidly reusable, not just reusable in namesake.
Atleast, on elon time it's super easy to get these haters to eat their words. They are producing one of these every month, so he will see how fast they scale from here. Even if it takes a month to referb and put back on the pad, they are scaling exponetially pretty fast.
Shuttle didn't use ablative heatshields. They had to check - that is, detach, disassemble etc. - engines, which added to delays and costs.
[−]burnerRhodov3 · 2026-11-15 Sun 17:47 UTC ·
link
They used ablative materials at multiple spots on the shuttle, mainly in the a elevon gaps and around the nose. They also used carbon on carbon on all the wing edges, which is super expensive, but lasts a long time in theory but you have to scrap the whole section if it cracks.
I'd fly one to Mars tomorrow morning. I'm going to die some time, might as well conquer a dream.
Now, would I let my children fly on one? I'm hesitant now, and I'd like to see how they handle the flip maneuver with humans aboard. But no hard yes or no yet. Let's see how long it takes to become as reliable as the Falcon family - or the 747 family even as that is SpaceX's stated goal.
> to fly manned missions, starship either needs to be redesigned to accommodate an escape system, or it needs to show a level of reliability and safety never previously achieved by a rocket.
I assume they'll do the latter. If the vehicle is truly rapidly reusable, that's less crazy than it sounds. Just fly it 10,000 times and fix all the problems you find :) Escape systems are only really useful during launch anyway. The only way to protect the crew from a failure during reentry is reliability.
People are relatively small and precious. Why not keep Falcon 9 / Dragon for human-rated space flight, and rendezvous with the rest of the system in orbit?
that's not feasible for a mars trip or even a trip to the moon and back with real cargo. Even with starship you need many refueling flights for it to be possible. Not to mention the cost.
[−]Alive-in-2025 · 2026-11-15 Sun 18:47 UTC ·
link
Besides the fact that they're going to do a lot of those Falcon missions with the Starship, I think they actually are pulling the rug up behind them. They don't want to give a lot of launch capability to their future competitors.
[−]NitpickLawyer · 2026-11-15 Sun 17:26 UTC ·
link
> what starship really can do and what it will cost.
The previous flight launched 20 sats and that is the equivalent (in Starlink bandwidth) to 10x F9 launches.
This one launched 26 sats. That'd be 13x F9 launches in Starlink bw.
F9 internal cost is 20M$.
Starship stack is rumoured to cost ~100M$ to build.
If they can launch a stack once every month, they've already achieved more "capacity" for Starlink than their best year using F9s (last year). At half the price.
So that's already proven, even if nothing else works (i.e. reusability, etc). But of course they'll keep working the problem and make it work. They're also scaling at a crazy pace (3 more pads in various stages of readiness, plus even more planned in the next ~5 years). They've just finished the gigabay and they're planning even more in Louisiana.
Anything they do from here on out is "the cherry on top".
It has to hinge on opening up an entirely new economy in space. I certainly see the potential for mass-human spaceflight when access to space crosses the threshold prices that made commercial air travel possible.
Absolutely crazy that F9 with reuse is more expensive per sat capacity than a disposable starship, incredible what Raptor mass manufacturing has done to costs.
>to fly manned missions, starship either needs to be redesigned to accommodate an escape system, or it needs to show a level of reliability and safety never previously achieved by a rocket.
Starship doesn’t need a 1960's style launch escape system. The whole ship is the crew vehicle. If the booster fails, Starship separates and flies away on its own Raptors. That’s the plan SpaceX has stuck with for years. NASA requires high reliability and failure tolerance for crewed flights, not a regulatorily mandated escape system.
If you extrapolate the safety record of Falcon onto Starship, which seems conservative given that Starship is going to be their focus, it will be far safer than the Space Shuttle.
The Space Shuttle blew up 2 out of 135 flights, 1.5%. Falcon has 3 blow-ups out of 720+ flights. That's more than 20x as safe, and includes the aggressive/early R&D.
Starship is still being developed. Unless they go under somehow, it's going to be safer than the Space Shuttle by similar orders of magnitude.
> while the space shuttle was a technical success in terms of being able to build and operate a reusable upper stage, it was hella expensive
stop repeating this lie, please
shuttle costs per-launch were on falcon 9 level
the only reason for the cost was lack of payloads (!) to spread per-year costs
there's a reason why spaceX now gets far far FAR largest part of its income from Starlink and most most MOST of its launches are Starlink. It's sattelite company with launch side business
Huh, in what world is that true? SpaceX quoted $75 million to external customers per launch according to their IPO.
Shuttle launch costed $1.0 billion in 1992, or $2.41 billion today, inflation adjusted. That is without R&D cost.
Thus, average cost per flight including development costs and flights
through FY 1993 is $1.6 billion. Average cost per flight not including development costs or flights, up to FY
1992, is close to $1.0 billion. - [0]
How much was the maintenance, refurbishing cost for each launch? the cost of a new external tank for each launch was $52 million in 1992, or $120 million today - [1].
How much do you think they could get it down if they could launch more?
Finally, do you think NASA could fly 150 times annually even if there was demand, when it only flew 135 times in the shuttle's 30 year lifetime?
> to fly manned missions, starship either needs to be redesigned to accommodate an escape system, or it needs to show a level of reliability and safety never previously achieved by a rocket.
Falcon rockets don't seem to be exploding on ascent anymore, they're doing 2-3 launches per week now, no explosions in a decade.
Perhaps an escape system could be deployed from the dorsal side of Starship, too.
Given their track record of achieving the impossible, I wouldn't bet against SpaceX as they head towards commercial deployment of Starship.
> to fly manned missions, starship either needs to be redesigned to accommodate an escape system, or it needs to show a level of reliability and safety never previously achieved by a rocket.
What makes you think humans will be the primary passengers? My bet is they will send Optimus for the majority of "manned" missions, especially 5 years from now
Part of the importance is due to the fact that while the space shuttle was a technical success in terms of being able to build and operate a reusable upper stage, it was hella expensive. It required a lot of expensive refurbishment between missions. Launch cadence had a fairly low upper bound. And it wasn't safe enough.
The true believers will claim that catching a starship upper stage marks a new era. It marks the possibility of a new era. It proves it is plausible that a vertical landing upper stage could possibly be a better approach than a space plane. But it hasn't proven any of that. There are about a dozen major milestones between here and actually having a rocket system that meets all of its claimed specifications, both technical and financial. Here's just one big hairy example: to fly manned missions, starship either needs to be redesigned to accommodate an escape system, or it needs to show a level of reliability and safety never previously achieved by a rocket.
In my estimation, it will take at least another five years to know what starship really can do and what it will cost.
And even Space Shuttle wasn't a demonstration of that, since the propellant tankage (the largest volume of any stage) wasn't reusable.
SpaceX has pretty conclusively shown the Shuttle architecture (stage and a half, using LH2 at launch) was not the right choice.
[1] https://www.space.com/22432-reusable-dc-x-rocket-space-hall-...
The space shuttle was retired for a reason? This was already known. The only thing it shows is that with that knowledge, you can design something better. Hindsight 20/20 etc
This is a complete apples to oranges comparison.
A more apt comparison would be the space shuttle being a kin to Vasco da Gama's discovery of the sea route to India. After that point, the concept was demonstrated and the challenge was in optimizing cost-savings of commercial endeavours.
I mean, orbital lift services have been a thing for how many decades?
How are you measuring "safe enough" in this context? My understanding is that the Shuttle didn't have programmatic probabilistic requirements for mission safety. Ie, they didn't use overall reliability estimates and instead relied on engineering judgement (which the Challenger report showed varied widely depending on who you interviewed). It's hard to make a claim on whether it was safe enough without explicitly defining the safety goal.
Early 1970s documents were given safety requirements of 1:20 flights being successful. [1] That's the closest I've found to an actual requirement, and the shuttle record falls well within that requirement. I do think such an early spec is not a good basis for final performance, though.
[1] page 326: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19700005884/downloads/19...
Shuttle started at 1:10 and ended with 1:90 chance of loss of crew. That was bad and got it canceled as soon as the station was built, and supposedly ISS was finished only because international obligations. The last mission to extend Hubble's life was almost canceled because the NASA admin thought it was too dangerous.
NASA wanted 1:270 (so just "3 times safer than shuttle at the end of the shuttle program") from commercial crew (i.e. SpaceX Crew Dragon and Boeing Starliner).
Current US law for commercial space works on consent: passengers sign a waiver saying they know it's dangerous, and then the company doesn't have to promise safety the way an airline does. The company is on the hook for debris and innocent bystanaders on the ground though.
SpaceX plan to fly Starship a lot and gain so much experience they can find and fix all problems and reach airline safety. At least private jet level of safety, at a start.
There are multiple layers of risk consent, from engineering, safety, medical, and crew, for NASA. Of those, I think crew are the least likely to say no because they tend to come from a very risk tolerant population.
Whatever official spec that did or did not exist is irrelevant.
I don't think it's that hard. "We're not sure exactly how safe it is, and do not have any actual requirement that it meet any specific level of safety" is clearly not safe enough for manned flight. (At least not outside of war-time or other such times we're willing to take on extra risks)
Would you get on an elevator that has a weight limit listed as "hasn't fallen yet", "has only fallen that one time", or "did fall that one time, but not since the redesign". Would you trust millions of dollars of human training and several lives to such an elevator?
I think we can say that it wasn’t safe.
The point was that wasn’t explicitly defined up front…they seemed to have fallen into the same trap you did of “we’ll know it when we see it”. CCP has a loss of crew threshold requirement of 0.37%.
We do not design civilian, optional, exploratory space missions with a threshold for acceptable fatalities. There is no number of dead astronauts that we can accept as a design goal.
Unforeseeable fatalities can happen, but death rate should not be a predetermined design parameter.
I bet there are lots of people willing to fly on Starship even if it had Falcon 9’s level of reliability even without an escape system.
Current (2026-11) FSD in “sloth” mode requires less attention (in software), and, having used it a fair bit myself, I would probably ride in it unsupervised. The Cybercab customers do.
Flight 13 launched 20 Starlink v3 sats for a total payload of 34,100 kg.
Flight 14 launched 26 Starlink v3 sats for a total payload of 44,330 kg.
The Space Shuttle's max payload capacity was only 22,780kg (https://i.redd.it/8t8j1n4032lh1.png)
I have yet to be convinced that Starship’s payload capacity is actually a good thing, from a big picture perspective. It looks to me like a possible case of shouting, “I meant to do that!” after a pratfall. On a months-long trip to Mars, you need a vehicle that big for the sake of the human occupants. For launching Starlink, it’s less clear whether the ability to deploy so many satellites at once was worth the vehicle’s development costs. Perhaps it’s just inherited from an earlier iteration of the program that had different goals, and a more modest design would have been more economical. Worse, so far it seems like Starlink might be it. Most other use cases people have proposed for putting 40 tonnes in orbit on a regular cadence are the kind of highly speculative grasping at straws that accompanies any technically impressive solution in search of a problem.
A lot of the vision was actually around building orbital solar arrays (remember the microwave power plant from sim city 2000?) to resolve the oil crisis.
The oil crisis went away and the microwave arrays idea didn't make much progress and shuttle' budget got cut until they could only do one vehicle, so they tried to combine both and have a reusable heavy lift manned space glider.
But because the microwave arrays weren't going to happen nor was the earlier L1 space station idea (and skylab deorbited before shuttle's first launch) they had nowhere to shuttle anything to, so instead they just ended up with a heavy lift LEO launcher that had people onboard for some reason.
Ofc they eventually got the ISS as a destination, much later.
In it's current design, there's no way to do that. Which is also why starship can be a lander on the moon, but it's crew will board after it gets to orbit (for now, at least).
The reason the shuttle was so expensive and costly was because they used ablative cooling. SpaceX came up with some novel material produced entirely in house to make the heat shield hot swappable. They new this was a problem from the start and specifically designed this thing to be rapidly reusable, not just reusable in namesake.
Atleast, on elon time it's super easy to get these haters to eat their words. They are producing one of these every month, so he will see how fast they scale from here. Even if it takes a month to referb and put back on the pad, they are scaling exponetially pretty fast.
Even if they have to do that every flight, which I doubt, SpaceX can achieve a very high flight rate with relatively few Ships.
The whole “catch the giant rocket” thing is (was?) the hard part
Now, would I let my children fly on one? I'm hesitant now, and I'd like to see how they handle the flip maneuver with humans aboard. But no hard yes or no yet. Let's see how long it takes to become as reliable as the Falcon family - or the 747 family even as that is SpaceX's stated goal.
I assume they'll do the latter. If the vehicle is truly rapidly reusable, that's less crazy than it sounds. Just fly it 10,000 times and fix all the problems you find :) Escape systems are only really useful during launch anyway. The only way to protect the crew from a failure during reentry is reliability.
The previous flight launched 20 sats and that is the equivalent (in Starlink bandwidth) to 10x F9 launches.
This one launched 26 sats. That'd be 13x F9 launches in Starlink bw.
F9 internal cost is 20M$.
Starship stack is rumoured to cost ~100M$ to build.
If they can launch a stack once every month, they've already achieved more "capacity" for Starlink than their best year using F9s (last year). At half the price.
So that's already proven, even if nothing else works (i.e. reusability, etc). But of course they'll keep working the problem and make it work. They're also scaling at a crazy pace (3 more pads in various stages of readiness, plus even more planned in the next ~5 years). They've just finished the gigabay and they're planning even more in Louisiana.
Anything they do from here on out is "the cherry on top".
Are we ready to put passengers and NASA interplanetary missions on Starship? No.
Is SpaceX ready to count on Starship for replenishing or expanding their main moneymaking satellite fleet? Yes.
Starship doesn’t need a 1960's style launch escape system. The whole ship is the crew vehicle. If the booster fails, Starship separates and flies away on its own Raptors. That’s the plan SpaceX has stuck with for years. NASA requires high reliability and failure tolerance for crewed flights, not a regulatorily mandated escape system.
If you extrapolate the safety record of Falcon onto Starship, which seems conservative given that Starship is going to be their focus, it will be far safer than the Space Shuttle.
The Space Shuttle blew up 2 out of 135 flights, 1.5%. Falcon has 3 blow-ups out of 720+ flights. That's more than 20x as safe, and includes the aggressive/early R&D.
Starship is still being developed. Unless they go under somehow, it's going to be safer than the Space Shuttle by similar orders of magnitude.
stop repeating this lie, please
shuttle costs per-launch were on falcon 9 level
the only reason for the cost was lack of payloads (!) to spread per-year costs
there's a reason why spaceX now gets far far FAR largest part of its income from Starlink and most most MOST of its launches are Starlink. It's sattelite company with launch side business
Huh, in what world is that true? SpaceX quoted $75 million to external customers per launch according to their IPO.
Shuttle launch costed $1.0 billion in 1992, or $2.41 billion today, inflation adjusted. That is without R&D cost.
Thus, average cost per flight including development costs and flights through FY 1993 is $1.6 billion. Average cost per flight not including development costs or flights, up to FY 1992, is close to $1.0 billion. - [0]
How much was the maintenance, refurbishing cost for each launch? the cost of a new external tank for each launch was $52 million in 1992, or $120 million today - [1].
How much do you think they could get it down if they could launch more?
Finally, do you think NASA could fly 150 times annually even if there was demand, when it only flew 135 times in the shuttle's 30 year lifetime?
[0] - https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/1...
[1] - https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-93-115.pdf
Falcon rockets don't seem to be exploding on ascent anymore, they're doing 2-3 launches per week now, no explosions in a decade.
Perhaps an escape system could be deployed from the dorsal side of Starship, too.
Given their track record of achieving the impossible, I wouldn't bet against SpaceX as they head towards commercial deployment of Starship.
What makes you think humans will be the primary passengers? My bet is they will send Optimus for the majority of "manned" missions, especially 5 years from now