/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16045839
I was reflecting on this the other day and I realised I forgot the fourth option, which is no LES. The argument is basically that helicopters have black zones and no ejection seats (except that one Russian one) but we put up with them because they're useful and mishaps aren't that common. I don't think Starship will get near that degree of confidence, though, even if everything goes right and there are airline-style launches every few hours and no accidents once it enters production: rockets are bigger, more complicated, and fail in worse ways than helicopters, and fly less often. Also I can't see Nasa/the FAA approving it (despite these being the same bureaucracies that designed and greenlit the Shuttle). SpaceX might not even want to go with this option, even if it's actually sensible, due to the PR/regulatory hazard if something does go wrong.

Also, if we assume that the Starships that carry humans get expended up in space (and hence don't need to survive re-entry, and the biggest stress on them is at max Q which is mostly longitudinally compressive), the idea of not having a header tank and having the whole upper part of Starship separate and be the survivability unit starts to make a little bit of sense (to me, at least). Question there is if SpaceX will want to have this much variation in design and if the expendability is tolerable operationally.