Not necessarily superior, just designed to be reusable using totally different fuel. The Saturn 5 rockets were one and done. No concern to be reused, just maximum thrust for a short amount of time. Everything about the moon missions were designed to get them there and back one time per vehicle. Massive effort by many companies across the country.
It is definitely overly complicated to do the job the F1 did. Much of that is required due to the fuel the raptor uses. Which was chosen due to it being able to be produced, hopefully, on Mars. One is designed to be multi use using fuel that can be produced on mars and the other was designed to be used once and only once using a fuel that didn’t require as complicated an engine. Apples to oranges comparison.
Full flow staged combustion cycle is many times more complicated than the open gas generator cycle of the F1. Its not just the fuel - the space shuttle used an ox rich staged combustion engine in the RS25 and that is one of the most reliable engines ever flown (hydrolox). Overly complicated for the purpose of efficiency. But spacex has mastered both cycles (merlin is a gas gen cycle). The Starship is the next generation. Not just next gen of falcon 9, but next gen of any rocket propelled spaceship ever produced to date. Yes its an apples to oranges comparison, but I reiterate for those who think that the Starship is "inefficient" or uses the "wrong propellants" or "has too few stages"
Once perfected it will decrease the cost of tonnage to orbit by 99% and that is f#cking incredible.
Not necessarily superior, just designed to be reusable using totally different fuel. The Saturn 5 rockets were one and done. No concern to be reused, just maximum thrust for a short amount of time. Everything about the moon missions were designed to get them there and back one time per vehicle. Massive effort by many companies across the country.
Raptor is the most advanced rocket engine ever flown. Superior to the F1 in every possible metric
It is definitely overly complicated to do the job the F1 did. Much of that is required due to the fuel the raptor uses. Which was chosen due to it being able to be produced, hopefully, on Mars. One is designed to be multi use using fuel that can be produced on mars and the other was designed to be used once and only once using a fuel that didn’t require as complicated an engine. Apples to oranges comparison.
Full flow staged combustion cycle is many times more complicated than the open gas generator cycle of the F1. Its not just the fuel - the space shuttle used an ox rich staged combustion engine in the RS25 and that is one of the most reliable engines ever flown (hydrolox). Overly complicated for the purpose of efficiency. But spacex has mastered both cycles (merlin is a gas gen cycle). The Starship is the next generation. Not just next gen of falcon 9, but next gen of any rocket propelled spaceship ever produced to date. Yes its an apples to oranges comparison, but I reiterate for those who think that the Starship is "inefficient" or uses the "wrong propellants" or "has too few stages"
Once perfected it will decrease the cost of tonnage to orbit by 99% and that is f#cking incredible.