2001 predicted we'd be permanently living in the moon with orbital space hotels two decades ago, and no one ever thought they were being unreasonable if we kept the same momentum as the 60s, so yes it's sad. But we have to take things for what they are and what spacex is doing is definitely progress.

I grew up in the 1980s. Back then, the year 2000 was a magical year where we'd have flying cars and live on the moon.

I've adjusted my expectations quite a bit due to the lack of mobility progress since then.

With the amount of money NASA was spending at the time, doing those things was not feasible.

A MASSIVE 30 story building that can land vertically isn't a huge feat?

vertical landing isn't new, either.

Yeah in some ways the Saturn program is the more amazing. Technology finally caught up to the amazing accomplishment of the Saturn rocket program, if that makes sense.

The Apollo program was indeed amazing. Government bureaucracy and mediocrity is responsible for 50 years of regression. What SpaceX is doing with Starship is also amazing on so many levels (Raptor engine, reusable, goal of Mars, etc).

Government bureaucracy also made the Apollo program.

What got in the way was politics.

What revived space tech was competition.

Politics and bureaucracy can plague private enterprise and competition can be had between or at the behest of government institutions.

It's not as simple as government bad, private good. In fact that simplification can be quite dangerous if it leads to the erosion of government as policy.

Isn't the current government bureaucracy paying for starship development?

Almost not at all... something like 50 million so far for a program whose costs are probably in the low billions. Mostly spacex is paying for it with its capital raises

Yeah, all I've heard is $53M for testing in-orbit refueling and $135M for developing the lunar lander version of Starship for the Artemis program.

SpaceX has received contracts worth over $10 billion from the DoD and NASA. Its estimated that they have over 60% of Government launch contracts.

That of course is biased towards the contracted projects, but still provides cashflow and leverage for capital.

No, government funding to hit work milestones is totally different than government bureaucracy attempting to actually do the work.

It can actually land. The Saturn V cost absurd amounts of money and used gigantic amounts of army of people.The Starship program also wants to solve many problem that the Saturn V or even Apollo didn't.

This is not true technic wise but true politics wise, or politically incorrect, you should not be downvoted.

Considering this can carry 100 people instead of 3, I'd say it's a pretty big deal.

The Saturn V can carry those 3 people way further, though.

Nope, cause it didn’t have a second stage they could refuel in orbit, a reusable second stage they could use as a tanker, or a reusable first stage that provides the cadence to do in orbit refueling.

Because of in-orbit refueling each Starship will land over ten times the payload on Mars as each Apollo mission landed on the moon.

Still, that is multiple Starships.

Also, the Saturn V came back. That requires quite a bit more delta v. Actually, going to the moon and back is not that far off a one way trip to Mars.

> Still, that is multiple Starships. [...] Also, the Saturn V came back.

Since we're nitpicking: The Saturn V didn't come back – the tiny command module came back, and it wasn't reusable. In fact, the only reusable part of the Saturn V were the astronauts.

> Actually, going to the moon and back is not that far off a one way trip to Mars.

You're moving the goalpost. This is getting ridiculous. What are you even arguing about? Starship + Super Heavy will be a much more capable rocket, superior to the Saturn V in almost every way. That doesn't detract from the incredible engineering of the Saturn V, which was developed 55 years earlier, in record time, with slide rules (!), and which first launched 10 years after the first artificial satellite (!!) That is impossible to beat, and there's no need for a pissing contest.

They are two completely different vehicles. One is made for a return mission, the other made is made for a one way mission, while the other is reusable.

That being said, that rocket alone isn't going to be more capable than the Saturn V in moving a payload around. It will be less capable. If you have many rockets then you'll have the capacity to move that payload around as a far as a Saturn V.

A single SuperHeavy can put a loaded Starship weighing roughly 360,000 total pounds into low earth orbit, SaturnV could only put 310,000 lbs total payload into low earth orbit.

There, is that the comparison you wanted?

> The Saturn V can carry those 3 people way further, though.

Saturn V: 3 people to the Moon; Starship: 100 people to Mars (unproven, of course). Mars is a little further than the Moon. Granted, that's with in-orbit refueling.

The Saturn V would be three people to the moon and back. Starship is 100 people more or less around GTO. Multiple starships are needed to go to Mars. It's a pretty ridiculous comparison.

Isn’t excluding comparisons that include refuelling, when contrasting a refuel-able and a non refuel-able vehicle, somewhat ridiculous? Starship is refuel-able , that’s one of its capabilities. Nobody on these vehicles going to Mars will care about you sitting there complaining that is doesn’t count.

Kinda reminds me of the argument that the Wright Bros didn't invent the airplane because a catapult was used to launch later models.

(Apparently the aircraft launched from an aircraft carrier aren't really airplanes, either!)

If you only care about one way travel then any refuealable vehicle technically has infinite delta v.

People on these vehicles going to Mars are mostly going to complain about not being able to go back, as any kind of return mission will be Non-reusable.

> People on these vehicles going to Mars are mostly going to complain about not being able to go back, as any kind of return mission will be Non-reusable.

What are you talking about? Starships will be refueled on Mars and will return back to Earth. Why shouldn't they be reusable after their return?

>If you only care about one way...

I care about actual practical capabilities and achievable mission profiles. What do you are about?

Getting to LEO is already halfway to anywhere in the Solar System, though. And then Starship can go back and land.

The Saturn V didn't come back with people did it? Just a small capsule splashing in the ocean

It shouldn't be (given the 50 years) but NO ONE else has done anything close to it.

Ask the engineers who built the N1 how hard it is.