>>12174883(stream of conscious warning) I can't speak for terms of "are they better"; this question gets asked a lot on /sfg/ and no one ever really gives a concise answer. I can give my two cents though. Spaceplanes aren't necessarily intrinsically bad. The problem is, they are gliders after all, so the dead weight of an empty vehicle needs to be made as light as possible. This is even worse when you have heavy engines on the back that are useless that consume most of your mass budget, leaving very little weight available for things like crew compartments and their amenities (toilets, rooms, storage, etc. needs to be conserved.) With a "capsule" starship, such as Starship, engine weight isn't messing with your glide because, well, you aren't gliding- and you need those engines to land anyways. Also keep in mind that big delta wings weigh a lot too.
Let's put it this way: let's assume Starship was being made as a glider instead. It would be carrying large ass wings, and large ass raptor engines that all act as dead weight. This means less mass can be carried to orbit, and the interior would need to be made WAY lighter so you wouldn't have as nice of a ride. The only upside is that if something were to go wrong I guess you could still glide her in. An engine failure on starship, while unlikely, is a death sentence. And also remember that a lot of people shit on the shuttle, but something like Starship was NOT an option in the 70's (and really not an option even 10 years ago either). Had the shuttle been made with steel, or at least a modular heat shield that was safer and didn't require custom parts, it would have been way better. Spaceplanes aren't BAD, propulsive landing crafts are just better
