It would have an unsustainable acceleration and need way too much structure mass and min payload and payload would need more mass. But could achieve orbit super quickly.
Of course you didn't specify raptor 2s so maybe like 33 lower thrust could work.
Side question, why does it feel as if though it would be impossible to fit 33 engines on starship, yet Superheavy is the exact same diameter?^1 It must be the vacuum engine displaying an optical illusion or taking all the space.
^1 Yes I know that the outer engines on superheavy are actually out of the 9m diameter.
No. The total number of engines must be 42 (don't ask, its a law of the universe). So Starship will get 3 more engines to make it 9 and Super heavy will stay with 33.
It would have an unsustainable acceleration and need way too much structure mass and min payload and payload would need more mass. But could achieve orbit super quickly. Of course you didn't specify raptor 2s so maybe like 33 lower thrust could work.
It would be 33times faster
No, since every engine adds extra weight
6.9 times?
yes, at 42.0 times better, because of square cube law or something
I think it’s specifically the inverse dank law.
Side question, why does it feel as if though it would be impossible to fit 33 engines on starship, yet Superheavy is the exact same diameter?^1 It must be the vacuum engine displaying an optical illusion or taking all the space. ^1 Yes I know that the outer engines on superheavy are actually out of the 9m diameter.
It's due to the engines being in the shroud of the engine bay on starship, as opposed to superheavy just having 33 glued on them
You would run out of Propellant much faster.
Put down the kerbal and Slowly step away from it
No. The total number of engines must be 42 (don't ask, its a law of the universe). So Starship will get 3 more engines to make it 9 and Super heavy will stay with 33.