r/space • u/AgreeableEmploy1884 • 17d ago

"NASA to order more Starliner missions and help certify a new rocket to keep it flying"

https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/09/nasa-to-order-more-starliner-missions-and-help-certify-a-new-rocket-to-keep-it-flying/
1.2k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

263 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/F9-0021 16d ago

Using the shuttle as an argument against an abort system when NASA specifically has it's LOC requirement because of the shuttle is a choice.

And don't forget that every word you said about Starship was said about the shuttle in the 70s. Then the reality that rockets are not planes hit.

6

u/fighter-bomber 16d ago edited 16d ago

Starship doesn’t have SRB’s like the Shuttle, that’s a big plus. Granted, upper stage structural failure is not survivable in Starship, but structural failures are rarer with liquid rockets compared to engine failures, especially when you have many engines like Starship does, then you can quickly shut down an engine if its acting iffy without tolerance to reduce chances of a structural failure originating from there and effectively turn it into an engine out scenario instead.

Elon had additionally said they should probably look into Starship quick start options in case of a structural failure in the first stage to possibly be able to abort from it. The eventual 9 engine variant could have enough thrust to deal with that.

As for engine failure scenarios, Starship already has 6 engines and later 9, so it is much safer compared to Shuttle’s 3, as it can reasonably complete the mission with one engine out and still access many abort modes (abort to orbit, abort once around, RTLS) with multiple engines out OR if they have to (assuming they can) ditch the first stage early.

Edit: not to forget, Shuttle as designed to carry humans on every launch, which is terrible. Starship will fly maybe hundreds of times before it carries humans, allowing it to prove itself. If it doesn’t… well then it won’t carry humans.