Nick Stevens GraphicsSo, lets see if I got this right.
Saturn V, 13 launches, 100% success rate.
SpaceX Starship, 9 launches, 0% success rate.
Seems to me that Nazi rocket engineers are not what they used to be...
David Fleetwood - RG Admin@Nick_Stevens_graphics This is something that has been bothering me a lot. People keep treating SpaceX like a success, but within 20 years of the US space program we'd landed on the moon. SpaceX is 20 years in and can't even reliably build a rocket that gets into orbit.
Roger Moore@reflex @Nick_Stevens_graphics
That isn't really true. The Falcon 9 has been so successful at launching Starlink satellites that people are seriously worried about LEO getting too crowded. It's only the ultra heavy Starship that's having problems.
That isn't really true. The Falcon 9 has been so successful at launching Starlink satellites that people are seriously worried about LEO getting too crowded. It's only the ultra heavy Starship that's having problems.
@VATVSLPR @Nick_Stevens_graphics You mean the one that's comparable to what NASA historically was launching? That's the one that's having problems?
@reflex @Nick_Stevens_graphics
No. The one that's comparable to existing launch systems- except that it's reusable- has been working great. Maybe too well in the sense that they're sending up so many satellites that people are seriously talking about Kessler Syndrome. It's only their new system that's designed to be bigger than Saturn V that's having problems.
No. The one that's comparable to existing launch systems- except that it's reusable- has been working great. Maybe too well in the sense that they're sending up so many satellites that people are seriously talking about Kessler Syndrome. It's only their new system that's designed to be bigger than Saturn V that's having problems.
@VATVSLPR @Nick_Stevens_graphics I just looked it up and Saturn V had 12 successful launches, 1 partial but non critical failure, and started operation in 1967. So I guess it's safe to say that despite all the advantages of starting a program today, Musk has yet to catch up with what NASA was capable of in 1967.
Not much of a flex, honestly. Looks a lot like the Soviet N1 based on track record.
@Nick_Stevens_graphics @VATVSLPR Yeah, Saturn V was more expensive as a program but it demonstrates that you get what you pay for compared to the current launch everything and see what does not blow up model.
@reflex @Nick_Stevens_graphics
I agree that SpaceX needs to do more debugging on the ground rather than just hoping everything works right with the next launch. I think they were a lot more methodical with the Falcon series, which makes me think they're under pressure from above to perform now! Now! Now! That said, the success of the Falcon series should serve as an indication of how well SpaceX can perform when they're working at top efficiency.
I agree that SpaceX needs to do more debugging on the ground rather than just hoping everything works right with the next launch. I think they were a lot more methodical with the Falcon series, which makes me think they're under pressure from above to perform now! Now! Now! That said, the success of the Falcon series should serve as an indication of how well SpaceX can perform when they're working at top efficiency.
@VATVSLPR @Nick_Stevens_graphics Honestly to me it looks more like the Falcon is a significantly lower challenge, and that the talent needed scales higher than linearly with the size/complexity of the rocket.
Musk and many people in tech pull off the low hanging fruit and then assert that the difficult parts will inevitably solved because they got the low hanging fruit done easily.
@reflex @Nick_Stevens_graphics
It's probably true that Starship is more challenging than Falcon was, but SpaceX is going about it worse, too. They were very methodical about Falcon, doing all the kinds of intermediate tests you'd expect good engineers to do. I suspect there's management pressure to get Starship functioning ahead of SLS for political and business reasons, and that's forcing the engineers to be more reckless than they might prefer to be.
It's probably true that Starship is more challenging than Falcon was, but SpaceX is going about it worse, too. They were very methodical about Falcon, doing all the kinds of intermediate tests you'd expect good engineers to do. I suspect there's management pressure to get Starship functioning ahead of SLS for political and business reasons, and that's forcing the engineers to be more reckless than they might prefer to be.
@reflex @Nick_Stevens_graphics
Not that Saturn V was immune to political pressure! The whole Apollo Program was a gigantic political exercise, and there was a lot of pressure to make it work on schedule. I think the main thing that protected it was that a catastrophic failure in full view was seen as a greater risk than letting the schedule slip.
Not that Saturn V was immune to political pressure! The whole Apollo Program was a gigantic political exercise, and there was a lot of pressure to make it work on schedule. I think the main thing that protected it was that a catastrophic failure in full view was seen as a greater risk than letting the schedule slip.
@VATVSLPR @Nick_Stevens_graphics My general feeling about SpaceX is that the more involved Elon is the worse things get. Falcon was developed when he was mostly focused on Tesla. Now he's bored with Tesla and is busy blowing shit up at SpaceX.
@reflex @Nick_Stevens_graphics
I definitely agree with that one. Everything I've read says Elon is a terrible manager, and all of his companies spend a lot of time distracting him so the competent people can do their jobs. For example, the Cybertruck was Elon's personal project, and I think they let him do it to distract him from the rest of the company.
I definitely agree with that one. Everything I've read says Elon is a terrible manager, and all of his companies spend a lot of time distracting him so the competent people can do their jobs. For example, the Cybertruck was Elon's personal project, and I think they let him do it to distract him from the rest of the company.
@VATVSLPR @Nick_Stevens_graphics I've heard that from a couple former engineers at his company. I know Tesla has a team to basically keep him distracted and out of the way.
@VATVSLPR @Nick_Stevens_graphics I mean that statement is part of why it had to succeed. Blowing up rocket after rocket would have discredited the US during the cold war.
simonbp@reflex @VATVSLPR @Nick_Stevens_graphics There was also the (frequently overlooked) factor that a lot of the people involved in Falcon 9 were fresh off the Delta IV and Atlas V design processes. So, they had some intuition about what was appropriate for a vehicle with similar performance.
A lot of the issues with Starship seem to be failures of modeling, overconfidence with CFD/FEA that you could have for a smaller vehicle, but are fatal for something considerably larger.
Saturn V didn't have that option, and so they went to ridiculous lengths, like building the full vehicle dynamic test stand. One wonders if it would've been cheaper to build a similar one for Starship years ago than to keep losing vehicles to small problems.
@simonbp @VATVSLPR @Nick_Stevens_graphics Yeah, Musk is obsessed with 'cheap' as the first sales point rather than getting it right and then iterating to bring costs down. Which is pretty stupid, honestly, he set expectations he didn't need to early on to get contracts by just vastly undercutting others.