Starship vs N1: Is Starship doomed to repeat history?

It's beyond wild that this guy who I have been watching for almost a decade has gone from wearing a silly flight suit to getting fitted for a real space suit. No one on youtube deserves it more than you!

This makes the Saturn 5 seem even more impressive from an engineering steandpoint. The fact that it was done in the 1960 is 🤯

Your thoughts on the Soviet program were extremely enlightening. Like many Americans, I thought the N1 was conceptually flawed, but now I agree with you that it is a pity the N1 rocket wasn’t allowed to fully mature.

Don't forget the vibration environments. Rocket motors make a lot of acoustic and structural vibration. Even today this is rather difficult to predict (probably the main reason SX flew was to capture these real environments to anchor their finite element models), but it was impossible to do back in the 1950's. Without understanding the physical vibration environment it is very hard to know if your components will not just shake apart.

N1 never succeeded but it actually proved a lot of concepts to be viable. It was also insanely cool and that engine family could've powered the soviets space rockets for decades.
Its really cool to see Starship and hope it succeeds. Really SpaceX is only doing something because other players became too complacent

As someone who watched the original Apollo lands as I kid I think that this is the most exciting project since. I still marvel at the regular booster landing and have every confidence that spaceX / starship will succeed

N1 was a brutal tragedy. They had three improved rockets assembled, when management changed and he ordered all of them destroyed. Hopefully, they managed to save some engines, and they fly to this day on Zenit

The more complex a system, the more points of failure that can lead to disaster. I'm amazed the N1 was able to accomplish so much. I was remembering the N1 while it was going up and once Starship went into the spin after a few engines either didn't fire or flickered out, it was a good thing that the difference in fuel and build allowed the Starship to stay together for so long and maybe not as much damage after it went boom. That poor launch pad.. {Just made it to 7:30 and nice to hear similar thoughts}

Tim, you've seriously earned your ride into space and a WHOLE lot of our appreciation for not just your knowledge but how you can spell it out in a way even those who are new to spaceflight (etc) can understand.

I dont think that the unreliability of the engines, in terms of them being some of the first was the major reason so many shut down during starship’s initial launch. I think it was *mostly* that they were bombarded with concrete as it lifted off, as seen by the HPU being destroyed along side them 😂

One thing the N1 has over Starship is those beautiful lattice-like interstage trusses. So stylish!

Thanks, Tim, great video! I was born a few years before Sputnik, and I've been on the edge of my seat for all of it! And thanks to SpaceX's vision and drive, I think I'll actually see the human spacefaring adventure get properly underway. I'm rooting for you and the team! ("Have Spacesuit, Will Travel!")

Wow it's kinda impressive they've only had two Merlin engine failures on ascent out of 228 launches with a total of 2052 engine-launches.

Incredible how far the aoviet space program was 50 years ago already, they really had passion about this.

Thanks for an objective view of both programmes. It's especially good to hear a thoughtful view of the N1 programme. Given the Soviet's practice of keeping boosters, the ISS might have looked very different today, if the N1 had been allowed to become operational.

Great and very informative video! I would love a video on Energia too, as i believe it had a lot of potential, that sadly never got used due to the fall of the soviet union. Especially the modulary, as there was plans for a even bigger rocket (Vulcan) by simply strapping on more energia boosters to the core.

Your videos have impeccable quality. Really just a joy to watch. Great job man! To you and your team!

I do think that however you simulate and engineer things in the lab, a real life test will always show something completely unexpected.
This is why, even though Indian space research organisation had GSLV and GSLV mk 3 as their most powerful Rockets, they still rely on PSLV for most of their important launches . It's because of this experience... That PSLV had a lot of launch experience, that made them do this.

At this time SpaceX has eight Falcon 9 boosters which have launched more than ten times. The two oldest boosters have been expended after 11 and 14 flights. Two have reached the current limit of 15 launches and are awaiting to be certified to twenty. Two others were launched for the 14th time in May 2023 while the last two launched for the 11th time in May 2023.

I agree that N1 would have worked if given the chance to iron out the issues. I also believe that Starship will succeed in being the transformative vehicle it is designed to be. Lunar Starship will probably not launch by 2025 (Jim Free is already preparing us for this) but it will launch, and will still be sooner than any other vehicle could have done it. I'm very much looking forward to seeing them demonstrate large-scale cryogenic refueling in orbit, since that's never been done before. Overall, it's a great time for space enthusiasts like us to be alive, and I know Tim will get his ride to the moon, and we are effectively all going with him!

I was thinking about the N1 the very first time I saw Starship. Hope they have better luck than Korolev.

Thank you for another great video! I agree that SpaceX will resolve all of the problems with the Starship. It might take a few years but they have a good deal of experience with the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. I look forward to seeing this huge ship sail!

You nailed it.
I think people in general doesn't have a clue what kind of engineering milestones those guys are doing since 2017 Falcon Heavy and with Starship. At the moment the only thing and philosophy that is keeping us as humans on the higher level to go one step beyond of exploring

The N1 rocket was destroyed not by engine failures, but by a complex control system from above (the rocket was controlled by the thrust of the engines), and hydraulic shocks in the fuel system caused by the resonance of a bunch of engines in one block.

The one thing not mentioned in the video. There has been some development in the past 55 years in fields of metallurgy, and production technology. This imho with computers makes for a vast difference in the probability of success of Starship.
Since I had just the one thing to add, you obviously made a great piece comparing 2 of the craziest rockets ever made.
Thanks Tim

Hello Tim, when I look at that cargo bay door of Starship, I have to wonder if the SpaceX engineers ever considered a vertical payload door opposed to the current horizontal door. You have to wonder just how much structural reinforcement has to be added to carry that stress load around that huge door. If the stresses collapse that door opening by even a fraction during launch, that door may not open or close. If I were to design it, I would attempt a vertical door as it is much easier to carry that stress load. The big takeaway would be if they could deploy the Starlinks in a vertical position. In my mind, I picture a multilevel dispenser similar to the old slide projector carousels. Preliminarily, I think you could actually dispense more satellites in this configuration if the mechanics work out.

Dear Tim:
As always, you've offered us much food for thought. I agree with your considered assessment (that SpaceX will likely manage to make Starship into a viable launch system). I also believe that the company and its engineers, managers and backers have the resilience that just didn't exist in the Soviet Union when the N-1 was being developed. Indeed, I would go further, by asserting that no other company on the planet is presently capable of doing this (although maybe that might change over the next five years).
The "Musk Factor" has obviously been a crucial part (the "magic", if you will) in all this. So, his untimely demise would be a blow.
But unlike Mr Korolev, Musk does not seem to be the main engineer behind the Starship. His ideas carry weight (obviously), but he operates in a completely different social and political context. Moreover, he has (apparently) made sure to put in place a flexible corporate framework--headed up by a well-regarded CEO, Gynne Shotwell.
It is worth remembering, as well, that SpaceX made its reputation on its own merits. Sure, NASA helped to finance the development of Falcon-9 and the Dragon capsule, but this support came in the context of a commercial space program development strategy that could have seen the rise of another company.. SpaceX succeeded on its own merits and has managed to attract many talented people because of its "iterative" corporate culture that enables it to do what many established firms in the US aerospace sector had previously thought was impossible.
Like you, I hope that we see an evolved, safe and reliable Starship system in regular use by the late 2020s... and barring some sort of global catastrophe, I think it is more likely than not.

Thanks for another excellent and informative video.
I'm curious about your view on why they went with a "one size fits all" solution. Especially, after the highly successful Falcon family architecture, which went from Falcon1 to Falcon9 to Falcon Heavy. Now, the Falcon9 is the space launch industry's number one workhorse. A similar architectural approach would have created a more cost effective and LESS COMPLEX next gen solution built around the Raptor. A center core with strap-on boosters, all re-usable, of course.
How long the complexity of the current approach is going to cause problems and stretch schedules out is an open question.
One last point, the majority of launch requirements could be met with just the center core. Just look at the number of Falcon9 launches compared to the Falcon Heavy.

Thanks for the awesome video! Minor note: when comparing the engines you mentioned the nk-15 utilises oxygen rich closed cycle but forgot to highlight that raptor 2 utilises the full flow staged combustion cycle.

I enjoy a bunch of different channels, but this is one of the few I actually look forward to.
Always excellent information presented in a fun and engaging manner.
Keep ‘em coming, Tim!

My main issue with the 'silly numbers of engines means you're more safe' approach is cascading failures. There are many engine failure modes that are localized, sure, but there are many engine failure modes that are nowhere near as contained. Consider e.g. an engine turbopump grenading - similar failure modes in aircraft are generally a case of 'pray that it doesn't hit another engine'.
And yes, there are approaches to help mitigate this somewhat... but again I come back to areospace. Uncontained engine failures happen, and by and large aircraft don't even _try_ to protect against high pressure turbine failures because the mass cost is prohibitive... and aerospace is far less weight-constrained than rocketry.

Nice one Tim! At this point SpaceX hasn't got the option of turning back. Too much at stake. Superheavy and Starship will make it to orbit and be a transformative technology as you say. If it will be in their current form/design time will tell. I hope sooner than later you'll be going live from the Moon.

Dear Tim... another masterpiece of explanation of difficult things! If anyone deserves his flight to space... it is you!! Mike, Germany

my understanding is that the early SpaceX engines were based on earlier Soviet engines so it is not surprising that they also adopted a similar design philosophy.

Only watched the first 1 minute (so far) but I'm guessing the Starship will fly better when the engines aren't burning launchpad rich. I can only imagine the rebound like spraying a pressure washer into a dirt patch and it flies back in your face lol.

I feel like they'll get to orbit pretty quickly, but it's the rapid reuse part that might get tougher. However, when they get it right there's nothing that will stop the system.

This video answers one of the main questions I had around Starship. Is it simply making the same mistake as The Soviet N1 and thus doomed to fail. I think that there is nothing inherently wrong about large numbers of smaller engines and look forward to seeing you complete your Moonflight shortly!

Your videos are so incredibly insightful and enjoyably. Well done

You are my reference with regards to factual and realistic reporting on this new exiting space era we are entering. Down to earth specific, relatable analysing and reporting of a most difficult field and topics so that the average interested Joe can understand. Most of all no BS straight unbiased very well researched view of the topic. Many many thumbs up for you.

In the aftermath of the Titan submersible incident, one has to appreciate how much testing Space X is doing.

Amazing footage! Great discussion. Way to go Tim.

Lots of great points. You mentioned lots of advantages of many small engines, but there's one that I don't think you included (unless you did and I missed it). Having small engines allowed commonality between lower and upper stages. If you have bigger engines, they will be too big for your stage, so you'll probably need to have dedicated engines for each stage, requiring additional development and testing.

This is a great video and presentation, so detailed and explaining all things so well! I believe we will see the next Starship launch soon and Starship reaching orbit this year already.

I truly believe they will make it work and make it work soon. They’ve proven themselves already and I don’t see their previous launch as a failure at all. I’m excited for the future!

Let's just say the N1 was too far ahead of its time and now Starship is just about time. It's not a matter of if but when it succeeds.

As a young adult, i really love your video and the way you bring complex information into the most basic principle that majority can understand. I have so many question about rocket and the subject is fascinating, i think it would be great if you did a video on the part of the starship rocket, like how much volume of oxygen they need to store in the rocket for them to survive the travel between earth and mars or like what inside of the starship rocket, what are the main part of it ? Thank you for this quality content and i hope you the best !

A lot to think about, and a lot of it I have already thought about.
Space x has stumbled in the past, and there is no guarantee they won't stumble again.
The high engine count has always been an issue for me, but has yet to prove as the biggest issue. Time will tell, we will just have to wait. But, maybe, it might not be all that bad of an idea to think towards a modified engine profile, perhaps start thinking about a large raptor 4 and solid boosters as an alternative, just saying. Just my thoughts. Keep us on our toes Tim, and keep bringing the good stuff !

Whatever achievements still to come, seeing the two boosters land together for the first time was a thing I'll remember for the rest of my life! 😲
The red & white Tintin Space Rocket finally becoming reality, I was so happy, excited and amazed - a real thing of beauty. 😛

Great work as always.
I’d love to see a vid on the limitations/failures of the space shuttle, and how starship will avoid these traps.

Once they catch and re-use a booster, I'll be onboard. I still think the amount of reuse they will achieve is not gonna be as great as hoped for. The biggest problem I see is that launch mount. It's a mashup of different techs that are untried. At least, untried in this amount of thrust at launch.

My guess is that it will take two - three years to become fully operational. I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to complete a full, cargo-carrying mission within in one - one-and-a-half years. Spaceship and super-booster are much more robust out of the gate than the N1 was plus, as you mentioned, there's a vast difference between 1960's technology and today. Also, by mass producing these while constantly refining and upgrading while doing so, means there will be many more opportunities to fly test vehicles to work bugs out of the system. Finally, the cost per unit is much, much less than the N1 was. I have no doubt that they will within a few years make as reliable as the Falcon 9 is now with the added bonus of being able to reply both parts of the rocket much more frequently than the F9 will ever be.

Thanks for the great video tim. Just one point against the larger number of starship engines: IF there is a failure mode of a single engine which can result in loss of mission, having 6x the number of engines increases the number of possible loss of mission scenarios. For example. Say theres a 0.5% probability of single engine failure mode causing loss of mission. With 5 engines, loss of mission probability is 2.5%. but with 30 engines that goes up to 14%.

Great video Todd. What improvement did you help Elon make involving thrusters with "hot gas" on the second stage? I didn't hear the end of that story.

Do you think SpaceX will ever try and replace the Merlin engines with raptor 2 or 3 on a falcon 9 just as a experiment? I would think if they have engine issues on the next starship TestFlight this would be a good testing bed for the problems that might occur with multiple raptors and multiple restarts during a mission. While I’m sure they won’t because of the redesigns due to different propellants but it would be cool to see just how much payload is possible.

I really enjoyed this video, Tim. You lend such style and sharp clarity to explaining the very complex history of spaceflight. Thanks so much from Down Under!

Maybe it's already being done, but I think it would be interesting if someone were to train an AI to analyze the existing video footage of flights and testing that is published by EA and others. That might provide interesting insights that Sapiens just can't discern, and potentially provide a marketable data set.

One thing I think has been overlooked, is that they have a bunch of boosters and Starships that are pretty much obsolete from significant improvements. So either scrap them of fly them for data. Either way they are getting scrapped so might as well get something out of them.

First time watching one of videos. Really excellent. Informative with good narrative and presentation. And you have a good voice for this type of work.

I think Starship will totally succeed, and in so doing will transform space flight forever.

Super nice and profound video! I appreciate those of your videos related to soviet programs so much man 👍

Such an informative video and a nice comparison to what has gone before. It's an incredible age we live in and it's exciting to see these developments come thick and fast.

@EverydayAstronaut I know Raptor doesn't have coaxial pumps (Merlin does). How difficult do you think it would be to make the pumps coaxial for Raptor? It would simplify and increase reliability on many other things, right?

Love your work in this video but that's expected. You have been very reliable yourself. And I'm excited to think that you most likely will travel to space and in the not to distant future. Having been one born to see human space travel begin it's amazing to think I may well live to see everyday people commonly travel to space. We've came to do such amazing things as we've mastered technology to solve the problems mankind alone could never solve. Now we see technology on the verge of taking over our role and taking us places only imagined. This is truly a time we humans will either become interplanetary or kill ourselves off. That's still an unanswered question. Anyway I'm eager to see you make your flight and flying with you will be the dreams of millions of us who watched as mankind feebly headed to space so many years ago. Just know that you will actually be powered by the dreams of myself and millions more who dared to believe it was possible. As Eugene said, " To boldly go where no man has gone before!" We've never met but we've shared the same dream.

From what I understood they used so many engines, because they couldn't attain stable combustion on larger engines due to the massive amounts of fuel being pumped. The F-1 engine solved this with an intricate injector plate that fed the fuel evenly into the combustion chamber. The Russians hadn't figured this out at the time and chose to use many smaller engines instead.
Edit - I wrote this at the beginning of the video before I saw you commented about it , oops

Not to mention that one of the reasons for N1 failing was pogo oscillation.

I can't wait for our Tim, Everyday Astronaut, to fly on a rocket! I'm so looking forward to it!

Good job Tim and kudos to your team. Just the right amount of tech without being overwhelming. Thank you kind sir, and thanks to your team

Youre a legend in the making tim. So cool to watch the development of the channel over the years. Cant wait for your show after dear moon!

Excellent history lesson on launch vehicle development and the engineering considerations therein. I tend to agree with you that SpaceX will ultimately be successful in making Super Heavy reliable and the Starship system work. I even believe they will get it working as a lunar lander, and they can even master on orbit refueling.
My only criticism is that they could have had a fewer problems if they had listened to the wisdom of launch pad development experts through the last 50 years of space history. Sometimes, Elon exhibits a real pigheaded stubborness as the the darker complement to his more positive determination to persist in the face of failures. That concrete rain was simply inexcusable when you consider it was easily foreseen by anyone with half a brain.
I also feel like the system AS PROPOSED, in good conscience, should never be man-rated, EVER. Putting passengers INSIDE the second stage on top of huge propellant tanks with no means of escape may not yield a disaster right away, but like the Shuttle, will one day kill an entire crew. With the Shuttle that was roughly 1 in every 100 flights. Because of that, one of NASA's ideas was to separate crew from cargo.
I would feel much better if there was a smaller Starship built purely to move passengers to orbit, (to dock with and load a bigger interplanetary Starship), that was specifically designed to be man-rated. It would include little escape capsules (somewhat like the ones on the B-58 Hustler supersonic bomber) for each passenger. These capsules could eject everyone in the case of a problem with the Starship during ascent. As we saw from the Shuttle Challenger, it is possible for the passenger cabin to remain intact under the most difficult conditions. So I think it is possible to engineer such capsules that could survive a disaster and have computer modes to bring the passenger onboard down under various flight situations. With proper shielding, it could even reenter the Earth's atmospere if the abort happened high enough.
Because the weight overhead of this system would cut into the usable payload of a Starship, that is why it has to be specifically made for getting people to orbit only, with maybe very limited cargo capacity. Then use bigger Cargo versions of Starship to put fuel, cargo, etc to orbit and to the depots, lunar and interplanetary vehicles. The interplanetary Starship for Mars flight could be bigger and even get to orbit carrying only cargo, and empty seats and cabins. It might even be able to carry more fuel and reduce the number of tanker flights required.
Using a more specialist approach could make each purpose-designed Starship more efficient and safe for its designed purpose.
But as proposed now, there is no way I would ride a Starship to orbit, and I worry for Jared and his crew and now you on the Blue Moon mission.

Also worth noting that thanks to the booster costs being lower and modern manufacturing practices the starship is likely much cheaper to produce than the N1, meaning there is less cost to doing test launches.

I think they might figure out how to do this. I also think that how they intend to run Starship missions is just WAY too complex of missions with way too many moving parts. Not only the Starship itself but the mission profiles. I really think that SpaceX has forgotten their roots and ended up going the more expensive way.
Sure they will figure out the engineering. It’s the business plan that I think is doomed.

I really would like to purchase the falcon 9 model, it looks amazing… unfortunately shipping to Europe is waaaaay too expensive

I just realized: If all goes well, Tim will literally become an everyday astronaut - he's going to actually fly in space, an everyday person actually flying in space. It's incredible!

Your narration on this video was excellent, very well paced and measured.

I think SpaceX is much closer than anybody thinks. Full, and capable Starship in a year. Had the launch pad been solid and had it not used hydraulic gimbals, that first flight may have been a wild success.

You are an inspiration for all of us! This video is amazing just like every other of yours! Right now we see humanity stepping forward to a new era, and I hope I will be able to see when the first human will reach Mars. I believe in starship :) (Greetings from Hungary)

Providing sources is a must for all youtube videos. Great work.

I definitely see starship being a success for unmanned missions. SpaceX has the resources to make it happen. However I don't see the current design ever being human rated by NASA. I think they will need a detachable crew module for abort and landings or some new design.

Another thing worth mentioning was that the Soviet's N1 program was short on both time and funding, things that SpaceX, to the contrary, has had plenty of.

SpaceX also has the advantage of riding on the shoulders of thousands of giants before them. The first starship launch has demonstrated that getting these behemoths safely into space is possible and will be as routine as Falcon 9s.

Great video. The N1 picked a design philosophy that was in many ways the worst of both worlds, disadvantaging it over other rocket designs. Have smaller, cheaper engines, allowing many to be built and iterate more quickly, but sorry you can't test fire them. Many first stage engines allowing for engine out capability, except throttle vectoring means you double any engine loss, negating that advantage.
The soviet bureaucracy was not known for being flexible and adaptive, but even so the N1 may have gotten to the moon if they'd been able to work on it longer. Real shame.
I think starship has a much brighter future. I think it's even at the point now where the unfortunate death of Elon Musk wouldn't kill it. It might possibly kill the self sustained martian city, or at least delay it by 50 years or so, but the rocket program has got momentum. Shotwell and Leuders and all the engineers and other personnel could see it through. I sincerely hope Elon gets his wish and is able to die on mars, and not from an excess of kinetic energy!

Hi Tim i am Engineer for air and space tech, but never worked in that area. Thanks for Your compendium of Soviet Rocket engines, for me a historical document. I do not agree politically with Elon, but he is an engineering genius. Tesla changed and prooved a new kind of cars. Same is with Falcon 9. The new standard is to sacrify some performance over reusability. Same will be with starship and Booster in a few Years. And to be honest, you know now much more on rockent engines than I ever could hope to learn on university. Ad Astra

Great information. I’m betting Starship will reach orbit on next attempt.

I've watched SpaceX carefully since their first successful orbital class launch, and studied the AGILE approach to iterative improvement used by SpaceX and Tesla. It's VASTLY DIFFERENT than NASA or the USSR program. They WILL succeed with Starship, and will come up with even bigger, more efficient ways to "slip the surly bonds of earth" - I'm super happy for your Tim! Keep up the great channel, and god speed on your own journey!

I would have loved to have heard a discussion of the complexity that high numbers of engines produce upstream like the fuel and oxidizer manifolds, valving, control issues, etc

Hi could you explain how hypergolic engines are kept cool as they cannot use cryogenic propellants for cooling. Many thanks, love your work

I remember when SpaceX could hardly make a weld that didn't warp. The early Starships looked like someone beat them with a hammer. Now, they have automated the process and crank out perfect segment rings like donuts.

Thanks Tim !! I really enjoy your in depth comparisons of the N1, Saturn 5 and Raptor...I've been following SpaceX since their inception. It became apparent from the start, they would outperform NASA by shear aggressiveness, determination, "no" government involvement but most importantly...Elon Musk's never looking back leadership and drive. Expecting the worst, learning from mistakes, soldiering on and turning SpaceX into what it is today. They are leaving NASA in the dust...NASA along with Boeing should abandon Artemis and Stareliner but more so, any attempt returning to the moon. It has become overly apparent, they both lack competency, leadership, technology at hand to be successful in any capacity. Cost overruns alone dictate they be shut down. Musk has unquestionably proved the efficiency and reliability of the private space industry and SpaceX...To say it has been stunning following success after success, would be quite an understate...

As you say, SLS does not have the luxury of failing. I suspect more effort needs to be made to test in simulation. I design simulation software and there just isn't enough investment in the field. Also, far too much bespoke software which is inevitably super expensive and cost inefficient (since the criteria for success de-emphasizes extensibility). I cannot speak for SpaceX in this regard, but I see no reason to believe they are doing any better in respect of simulation. Personally I am looking forward to SSTO with full return. I can only hope!

I would say cost is another reason why SLS can't afford to test in the real world and Starship can. Part of Starship's mantra is to be able to build many of them at low cost. Hence the high likelihood of loosing the first few in early tests doesn't risk total cancellation. Hell, low cost is why SpaceX can build stuff and not even bother to test it (we learned a ton from building it but so many ideas that came out of it that are going into the next iteration that little would be gained from testing a now obsolete design).

I feel like something that goes underappreciated with the whole philosophy of "test it early" is that it avoids you solving problems that don't actually exist. I've never met a good engineer who was an optimist, and a room full of us can convince each other that it just won't work without [X]. Would be a neat question to ask in your Elon interviews what things they've found over the years that fall in this category.

It would have been great to see the comparison to Saturn V engines, since this is not really apples to apples, the soviets developed those impressive engines quite a while ago, but i have no understanding of how much of a big deal those soviet engines were or how, generation by generation Rocket Science has been able to slowly improve.
In short, were the Soviet engines super advanced? or the gap between those two makes sense and is to be expected, hence a comparison to the Saturn V engines.

SpaceX seems to take an approach of testing individual components until they seem to be fine and then try it all out together and fix the problems caused by the integration

Great video buddy. What a time to be a space geek. I can't wait to see you ride the finished product to the moon.

The big difference between building 1 N1 a month or whatever, and starship, is the N1 was disposable. Each finished Starship (when it works) is there until it is decomissioned. The N1 was thrown away.

I think starship will ultimately become more successful and capable than what has been outlined to date. The real question is the timeline. To achieve orbit, probably within the year. To achieve re-entry and catching/land, 2-3 years. To become human rated for Lunar landing, 3 years. To become human rated for earth reentry and 100% reuse, 5+ years. Most of which is pretty aggressive admittedly, but I'm optimistic it will all eventually happen and more.

Living near Vandenberg Space Force Base I actually see how quick Space X puts things into space I used to see a launch every few months, now I see a launch every few weeks.. It's awesome every time...

My bet: It will take more than a year before we see Starship in orbit. But in 4 years we will have two Starship launches per quarter, and in 8 years on a weekly basis.

Feels like large-engine combustion instability could be moderated by including multiple fuel input lines and multiple oxidizer input lines. But maybe having multiple virtual thrusters within one combustion chamber would create even more instability because their interactions are too unpredictable. And what if one input line slowed or failed? At least with a single fuel input and single oxidizer input, if supply fails on one, you end up with no combustion and can turn off the working one. But when relying on a certain pattern of multiple injections, losing one injection could cause instability.

There appears to be no doubt that SpaceX will achieve the mundane reusability that Falcon has enjoyed! As for the many engine Q, I believe that was another success of the 1st mission that is little talked about & that is how well the engine monitoring system worked to shut down problem engines without them detonating & basically destroying the ship like the N1 engines did. Great job Tim, can't wait for your flight!