SpaceX Starship Point-to-Point Claims; An In-depth Critical Analysis of Misconceptions
Neal Lachman
🇵🇸 | 🇺🇦 | CEO & Chief of Spacecraft Design | TitansSpace.com | Investor | Selene Mission | Crewed Mars Mission:2032 | Nuclear Propulsion | Normalizing Space Tourism | Spaceplanes | Space Stations
While the prospect of utilizing SpaceX's skyscraper-sized Starship for point-to-point cargo transportation and military applications may seem attractive, a critical analysis will show that numerous significant hurdles and limitations render these ambitions unlikely to materialize in the near future.
The claims made in articles like this and this do not explain why Starship's military application for point-to-point transport would be possible. They just repeat claims made by SpaceX without any critical analysis.
Most people don't understand the physics, engineering, and design behind the Starship. Most people don't realize, for example, that once a Starship violently lifts off into space in a ballistic trajectory, there is no way to control or maneuver it until it reenters near the arrival site, which can never be near a populated area.
The Tyranny of Starship's Many Potential Points of Failure
For more than 50 years, the Soviet N1's held the record for the most engines —30 in total— ignited on a single rocket. All four N1 missions -they weren't tests- failed catastrophically, but space enthusiasts all over the world rejoice to see the Starship, many claiming that we're entering a new phase of space exploration. The reality is, most people don't remember the N1, and they don't remember the disastrous ramifications of having 30 engines, let alone 33 as planned.
Those are 33 points of failure on the most dangerous mode of transportation ever invented.
Casey Handmer, an astrophysicist, was asked on Quora to answer the question, “What are the major causes of rocket failures?” Handmer lists many causes, from faulty software to fuel leak from a faulty valve, and from premature engine cut-off to unknown reasons.
Another answer, from James van Laak, a former Senior Project Manager at NASA, summarizes the problem with rockets succinctly: “Rockets are complex, operate at high stress, and are tightly weight constrained. This naturally leads to small margins and little room of error or under-performance.”
There are many known unknowns that can lead to mission failure, which is why meticulous planning and record-keeping, testing, trialing, and theorizing are part of the rocket design team's job. The most dangerous aspects, however, are the unknown unknowns, the issues that aren't even on our minds, that can wreak havoc and cause human deaths.
The Laws of Physics Don't Agree with Rockets
As Neal wrote in his July 2022 Critical Analysis of Rocket Launch Systems:
Clearly, a rocket launch is a sequence of controlled explosions. That sounds really cool, but what makes rockets awesome, fascinating, and powerful to see in action, also makes them most vulnerable, highly inefficient, and utterly dangerous.
All rockets, including the Starship, are at risk due to some well-known limitations, the most famous one being “The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation”.
NASA's Space Shuttle flight engineer Don Pettit provides the best summary of this equation, which was first coined in 1903 by Russian scientist Konstantin Tsoilkovsky who applied Newton's Third Law to rockets – a technology that wasn't available in the real world until WW2.
Pettit explains:
Tyranny is a human trait that we sometimes project onto Nature. This projection is a form of rationalization, perhaps a means to cope with matters that we cannot control. Such is the case when we invent machines to free us from the bounds of Earth, affecting our escape into space. If we want to expand into the solar system, this tyranny must somehow be deposed. Rockets are momentum machines. They spew gas out of a nozzle at high velocity causing the nozzle and the rocket attached to it to move in the opposite direction. Isaac Newton correctly defined the mathematics for this exchange of momentum in 1687. Conservation of momentum applied to a rocket was first done by Russian visionary and scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in 1903. All our rockets are governed by Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation. The rocket equation contains three variables. Given any two of these, the third becomes cast in stone. Hope, wishing, or tantrums cannot alter this result. Although a momentum balance, these variables can be cast as energies. They are the energy expenditure against gravity (often called delta V or the change in rocket velocity), the energy available in your rocket propellant (often called exhaust velocity or specific impulse), and the propellant mass fraction (how much propellant you need compared to the total rocket mass).
The violent escape from Earth's thick atmosphere -with the help of hundreds of tons of propellant- is a necessity for rockets, since, for the time being, there's no other way to go to space. Space Law blogger Alex Li, summarizes the physics behind it:
At its core, rocketry is highly dependent on Newton's three laws of motion. According to Newton's first law, a rocket will not move until acted upon by another force. A propellant can provide this impetus by creating a forward-moving propulsion force called thrust. Thrust is generated by the propellant in line with Newton's third law by, depending on the type of rocket engine, some form of reaction that causes mass to be expelled backward through a rocket's nozzle. How fast this rocket travels will depend on, as described by Newton's second law, the magnitude of the thrust created.
The laws of physics, along with many potential points of failure (human, technical, or material) make rocketry incredibly susceptible to catastrophe. No amount of risk analysis will ever be able to accurately predict the probable number of rocket accidents, mainly due to the unknown unknowns. Harry W. Jones writes in the introduction of his research paper for NASA Ames Research Center:
Before Challenger, management thought that the chance of an accident was 1 in 100,000. Afterwards, Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) found a roughly 1 in 100 chance of a Shuttle failure. The number of planned Shuttle flights was greatly reduced. Attempts were made to strengthen the NASA safety culture, but the Columbia tragedy, due to recurring but neglected ice damage to the heat shields, was again attributed to poor safety culture and the normalization of deviance. The second tragedy again confirmed the Shuttle's roughly 1 in 100 risk and the Shuttle program was ultimately terminated. Later launch designs reverted to the safer Apollo configuration, with a hardened capsule, launch abort escape, and the crew placed above the rocket tanks and engine. The ultimate cause of the Challenger tragedy was neglect of risk in Shuttle design.
As if things weren't bad enough in the case of relatively small vehicles that were carrying a small number of humans, the issue of risking the lives of 50 or -as Elon Musk plans for his Starships- 100 space travelers aboard potentially the world's most dangerous vehicle, will become a reason for project delays, and even cancellations of many ambitious space programs when just one accident will happen, and happen it will.
Human-Rating Standards
Before any spacecraft can carry humans on board, they need to go through a rigorous certification process. As per Wikipedia, for commercial spacecraft, “NASA Commercial Crew Program human-rating standards require that the probability of a loss on ascent does not exceed 1 in 500, and that the probability of a loss on descent did not exceed 1 in 500. The overall mission loss risk, which includes vehicle risk from micrometeorites and orbital debris while in orbit for up to 210 days, is required to be no more than 1 in 270. Maximum sustained acceleration is limited to 3g.”
Chapter 3, Technical Requirements for Human Rating, of NASA's Procedure Requirements concerns the launch abort requirements, which is —as of yet— completely lacking in the Starship design. Critics are wondering how and when Starship would get a human rating approval from NASA.
The Starship lacks (the design for) an abort and escape system, which is one of the main reasons why we don't believe it to become human-rated in the near future.
Probability of Rocket Failure
While certain errors can be smoothed out, and certain materials can be replaced after analysis, review, and evaluations, certain design issues are highly unlikely to change without a complete redesign/overhaul. This puts space travelers at high risk.
The safest rocket in history was the Delta II with a 98% mission success rate. NASA's own Space Shuttle had a 98.5 percent mission success rate with a 99.3 launch success rate; one shuttle exploded on reentry.
Let's suppose the Starship miraculously gets the human-rated certification, we'll be lucky if the Starship's failure rate is below two percent. We have to imagine the hypothetical situation of a Starship failure with people on board – no matter the number of people, 100, 50, or just 2, and it doesn't matter whether that occurs during the first or 100th mission or launch, a flight, or landing, it will force the entire crewed space travel industry to a grinding halt. How many rocket launch companies will survive such uncertain times?
When the Challenger disaster happened on January 28, 1986, the space shuttle program was shut down for almost three years. Its track record of nine successful prior missions didn't matter anymore at that point.
The combination of known unknowns, as much as a risk analysis allows, with the unknown unknowns caused by who-knows-how-many additional potential points of failures (e.g. viewing windows, belly-flop maneuvers for landing) of a Starship, will forever doom chemical rockets to the realm of highly unreliable and utterly unsafe vehicles – especially for humans.
Space Shuttle Flight Engineer, Don Pettit, cited above, stated in the same essay:
A veteran astronaut who has been to the Moon once told me, “Sitting on top of a rocket is like sitting on top of a Molotov cocktail”. I took his comment to heart by first weighing a bottle of wine, emptying the bottle, and weighing it again. Simple engineering analysis allowed me to estimate and compensate for the density difference between wine and gasoline (which, for this particular vintage, I am sure was not much different). A Molotov cocktail was measured to be 52% propellant. So sitting on top of a rocket is more dangerous than sitting on a bottle of gasoline!
Space travel beyond Earth's orbit for the masses, with the help of a chemical rocket like the Starship, will remain a fantasy for many years to come, most likely forever. Point-to-point transport with a rocket, whether the Starship or something similar, will also remain a fantasy.
Beyond the above-stated safety concerns in terms of Starship rocket design, we'd like to point out the following.
1. Technical Feasibility Concerns: While the Starship project is groundbreaking in terms of its scale and ambition, its applications for point-to-point transport rely on several assumptions regarding technical feasibility. For example, for military rapid deployment of troops and equipment, many complex logistical challenges are associated with such operations. It's crucial to recognize that military operations require stringent reliability, security, and adaptability standards, which do not align with the Starship technology.
2. Regulatory and Safety Issues: The articles discuss the potential for Starship to transport troops and cargo across the globe within minutes. However, such operations would necessitate regulatory approval from multiple countries, each with its own airspace and safety regulations. Given the stringent oversight and security concerns associated with military operations, obtaining the necessary clearances for Starship flights would be an arduous and time-consuming process. Additionally, ensuring the safety of personnel and equipment during rapid launches and landings poses significant challenges that have not been adequately addressed.
3. Cost Considerations: While the articles suggest that Starship could revolutionize military transportation by reducing costs and increasing efficiency, these claims overlook the substantial investment required to develop and maintain a fleet of spacefaring vessels. The Starship project itself has faced numerous setbacks and cost overruns, calling into question its viability as a cost-effective solution for military transport. Moreover, the expenses associated with building infrastructure for Starship operations, including launch pads and support facilities, would further inflate the total cost of implementation.
4. Strategic Implications: Deploying Starship for military applications raises important strategic considerations that have not been adequately explored in any analyses we've read. For instance, major reliance on a single transportation platform could leave military forces vulnerable to disruption or attack. Moreover, using a ballistic rocket like the Starship could exacerbate tensions between nations and destabilize geopolitical relations. These factors underscore the need for a comprehensive assessment of the strategic implications before proceeding with Starship's military integration.
5. Uncontrolled Ballistic Trajectory: One of the most concerning risks associated with using Starship for military applications is the rocket's uncontrolled ballistic trajectory during flight. Unlike conventional aircraft, which can adjust their course mid-flight, Starship's reliance on rocket propulsion leaves it susceptible to trajectory deviations caused by engine failures, guidance system malfunctions, or external factors such as atmospheric disturbances. In a military context, an uncontrolled ballistic trajectory could result in the loss of personnel, equipment, or even collateral damage to civilian populations or infrastructure. Mitigating this risk would require robust redundancy measures, advanced guidance systems, and real-time monitoring capabilities, all of which present formidable engineering challenges.
6. Critical Failure Potential: In addition to uncontrolled ballistic trajectories, Starship's military application is plagued by the potential for critical failures at various stages of operation. From launch pad malfunctions to in-flight anomalies and landing mishaps, the complex interplay of mechanical, electrical, and software systems leaves ample room for error. Any critical failure during a military mission could have catastrophic consequences, ranging from mission failure and loss of assets to loss of life. Moreover, the high-profile nature of military operations means that even minor technical glitches or delays could have significant strategic and political ramifications, undermining confidence in Starship's reliability and suitability for military applications.
7. Emergency Response and Contingency Planning: Given the inherent risks associated with spaceflight, effective emergency response, and contingency planning are essential components of any military operation involving Starship. However, every source I read fails to address how military forces would mitigate the consequences of a critical failure or emergency situation during flight. Rapid response capabilities, including search and rescue operations, medical evacuation procedures, and disaster recovery protocols, must be carefully coordinated and integrated into military planning efforts. Without robust contingency measures in place, the potential for loss of life and equipment in the event of a critical failure could outweigh the purported benefits of using Starship for military transport.
Recommended by LinkedIn
8. Public Perception and Political Fallout: Finally, the public perception of Starship's military applications and the political fallout resulting from any mishaps or incidents cannot be overlooked. While the technology may hold promise in theory, the reality of deploying a spacefaring vessel for military purposes could provoke controversy and opposition from various stakeholders, including advocacy groups, foreign governments, and the general public. Negative public sentiment and political backlash could undermine support for continued investment in Starship development and impede efforts to integrate it into military operations.
Alternative Solutions
It's essential to consider whether Starship represents the most practical solution for addressing military transportation needs. While its potential capabilities are impressive - if the Starship ever becomes operational in its current design, other emerging technologies, such as Titans Space's spaceplanes, will offer more immediate benefits with fewer technical and regulatory challenges. Investing in a diverse portfolio of transportation solutions could provide military planners with greater flexibility and resilience in the face of evolving threats.
To learn about the many military point-to-point applications of the Titans Spaceplanes, read this article.
While the concept of utilizing Starship for military point-to-point transport is undeniably intriguing, a critical analysis reveals significant obstacles that render its realization unlikely in the near term. Technical feasibility, regulatory hurdles, trajectory risks, cost considerations, strategic implications, and alternative solutions, all pose formidable challenges that must be addressed before Starship can become a viable option for military transportation. As such, it is unlikely that Starship will fulfill its purported military applications in the foreseeable future.
Further recommended reading
Subscribe to the Titans Space & Lunar Projects Newsletter on Linkedin.
Subscribe to the Titans Space & Lunar Projects Newsletter on Linkedin.
About Titans Space Industries
Titans Space Industries (TSI) is creating a streamlined Earth-to-lunar surface transport infrastructure with spaceplanes, space stations, spaceships, and dedicated lunar vehicles for landing and travel.
Titans Space intends to:
✓ Become the largest LEO and Lunar Space tourism company
✓ Become the largest Real Estate owner in Space and the Moon
✓ Become the largest Lunar commerce and mining company (from 2031 onwards)
TSI, a division of Titans Universe, comprises a vast portfolio of incredible, revolutionary space infrastructure that will allow safe and efficient end-to-end space transportation, including spaceplanes and space stations for space tourism, commercial, and industrial purposes, as well as for research, governments, and military usage.
Titans Space’s single-stage-to-orbit spaceplanes will facilitate orbital space flights for orbital cruises or going to Low-Earth Orbit, sub-orbital flights for zero-g space tourism flights, as well as ultra-fast point-to-point transportation for humans and cargo.
TSI's space tourism division is building the future of luxury space exploration with spaceplanes, spaceships, space stations, and lunar transport vehicles. TSI’s revolutionary LEO Space Station and Lunar Space Station will redefine humanity’s place amongst the stars, with lunar tourism, scientific research, and commercial mining applications, lunar factories, and lunar real estate.
About the Founding Team
TSI was founded by a group of 15 partners with a combined 450 years of business experience, representing investor interests in Titans Universe/TSI. They worked together on numerous projects for a combined 200+ years.
The founding team includes a 28-year-veteran space entrepreneur and satellite broadband pioneer, a PE fund manager who raised more than $6 billion in capital, a 40+ year rocketry and aerodynamics veteran, a 40+ year Space entrepreneur and activist, a Hall-of-Fame NBA basketball legend, a former Head of Business Development at Apple, a multi-billion-dollar business strategist, a former MD of KPMG NYC who advised on 100+ PE and M&A transactions, and the former CFO of a Formula One racing team and public listed companies.
Our Founding CEO, Neal S. Lachman is a serial entrepreneur with 35 years of investment, business, space, technology, and telecom experience. In 1992, he picked up the phone and started communicating with companies like PanAmSat. He has been a space entrepreneur since 1994/1995 when he and two of his brothers applied for and received three international digital satellite broadcast licenses.
Angel investor
7moDelta II no longer the most reliable. In mid 2021, SpaceX's Falcon 9 [v1.2] became the most reliable orbital launcher [rocket] ever, and its estimated reliability increases with each launch since.
We Settle Estates
8moIf we didn’t have naysayers, what oh what would we do? The New YorkTimes once claimed that it would take mankind 10 million years to learn to fly…two month before the Wright Brothers flew. There would never be flat TVs. And Electric Cars, don’t get me started on all of the battery problems that make them impossible. I am not a SPACEX engineer but then neither is this guy. Fortunately, Elon Musk is used to being told that it can’t be done just before he does it. If these critics weren’t such pathetic losers with IQ envy, they’d be laughable. Instead, they’re just sad. Right Forrest?