The highs and lows of SpaceX have been interesting to watch. I have to wonder though if, at least partially, some of their recent troubles are partially because people are loosing passion for their mission. You can definitely see it in the reporting, and some of the comments here, that there is less willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt and while that is far from a technical measure, passion is a big part of what makes a team get through things and continue to make progress. I know for my own part there was a time where I was looking for positions at SpaceX purely because I wanted to be apart of what was going on but now you couldn't pay be enough to join them. If your key people start thinking of things as just a job instead of a world changing opportunity then your rapid iteration cycle can go from 'this is brilliant and gets things done fast so I better try harder' to 'this is stupid and I am putting in my minimum hours to get paid'.
I think more likely is that the bones of the people working there are being ground to dust as Musk demands more and more from them faster and faster. You can only do so much so fast before things start going south hard.
It's amazing how underappreciated or cared about morale is in the corporate world.
"How happy are people at this company?" is a non-negligible performance differentiator.
Yet somehow CEOs seem blindsided when everyone at a company hates it and is mailing it in. (Probably because they're only listening to the management chain, which is concealing the problem)
Amazon was pretty notorious for poor culture and high employee turnover yet the company performance has been stellar. Covid-era twitter clearly cared a ton about employee morale but the product stagnated.
I find it's often the opposite causality, IE the success/trajectory of the company is the primary component that determines morale. An increasing stock price makes employees happy.
Amazon's stock price is great, sure. But I don't think their products are particularly inspired. There's a huge disconnect between how good a product is and how much money it prints. On the far end of the spectrum you have products like Oracle, SAP, IBM, etc which, despite being objectively shit, still somehow print. And then on the other side you have truly inspired stuff that is built by people who care, like (early) SpaceX, Anthropic, (early) Apple, etc. It's kind of hard (imo) to not see the difference between these two ends of the spectrum.
I think that product quality and money printing ability do eventually converge, but it can take decades to get there. The slow trickle of talent leaving the company causes the product decay over time, but there's a ton of inertia in the meantime.
Perhaps it would have been even more stellar with happier people.
There is a very bizarre and persistent belief that you can't be successful without grinding, being miserable, and abusing both employees and customers.
I would never want to work for an Elon, but I understand the allure. Like most of us, I'm giving a solid ~75% effort most days, just punching the clock. My work life balances is fine. I have time for my family and hobbies, etc. It's a nice, steady way to live. But every once in awhile, circumstances will conspire to provide me with hard work with an aggressive, drop-dead delivery date. It makes me mad at first--there are things I'd rather do than work, after all--but there is something to be said for letting go and locking the fuck in for a week of 14 hour a days. It feels good. It doesn't feel like work. It's a drug. It keeps me high until midnight, but makes me sleep like a rock. It makes me sleep like a rock, but has me springing out of bed 5 hours later! I feel like I'm the master of the universe. I'm impervious to stress. Even that's not quite right. It's not just that I'm immune to stress, it's that I start to feed off of it. I welcome it.
And then d-day comes and it's over. The impetus is gone. And every single time, I try to hang on to it. I give myself new projects and fake deadlines. I force myself to get up early and stay up late, but the moment that magic is gone, those things become... work. And like I said, there are things I would rather do than work.
I think a lot of Elon's success stems from his mastery of this "lock in" phenomenon. He is (or at least was) able to induce it in himself to drive himself harder than normal people do. He is able to induce the same state in his workforce as by setting bold and inspiring goals and setting absurd deadlines.
This is not a secret, btw. Nobody goes to SpaceX without understanding that they're signing up to work double the hours for way less than double the pay. For many, this sounds like a nightmare. If you're a young single guy looking to lock the fuck in, to take on huge responsibilities and grow in the company of some of the smartest, hardest working people on earth, it sounds positively amazing.
I think they're also doing things that are very, very hard, but they set the expectations very, very high.
Hard things fail from time to time. When you aim for something really at the edge of human enginuity, it might work or it might not, and if it works, it will probably still be a close call.
But somehow years ago already SpaceX and it's followers convinced everyone that Starship will definitely happen. And it still might, but if it does, I still think it will be a rocky road.
I would say SpaceX has been extraordinarily lucky for years (not in the sense that they fluked it, but rather that they achieved so much and made it look easy), and this is just reversion to the mean.
Not just hard things, but much harder than they've done before.
Note that Booster appears to be coming along pretty well. But Ship, which has a much, much more difficult mission profile than Falcon 9, is really struggling, because going to orbit and back is far more difficult than going most of the way to orbit and back. (Please forgive the abstraction - I don't have the relative numbers at hand.)
There are still people who have basic professionalism and desire to improve their skills, regardless of the vision they buy into or don't buy into. Motivation only goes so far, and in my humble opinion, unless Space X hiring was special in some way, the people who build space rockets are not the kind of people who underperform because they no longer buy the story. They just quit and excel elsewhere.
I could imagine that Musk's political escapades have driven away a lot of people.
SpaceX may also have lost Musk as the referee who makes quick decisions and keeps things moving forward. I think people like Thorvalds, Gates, Jobs and Musk are a superpower for organizations. Their decisions may not always be perfect but at least a decision is made so people can proceed. Otherwise you end up with the usual committee decisions that take forever and are mostly driven by internal politics and not about the product.
Not just that but he aggressively fires people for little or nothing, spontaneously rescinds outstanding offers, fires contractors, initiates hiring freezes, cancels bonuses and throws up Nazi salutes on national television.
So I’ve heard working for him can present challenges.
I guess the moral of the story is, dice rolls can be surprisingly useful, but when the dice stops being a dice and becomes its own reactionary camp inside the committee, the optics can get surprisingly di...
That isn't an instant process. Someone who has been working at SpaceX for 5 years and is excited about Starship might have reached a tipping point where they can no longer ignore their boss's behavior, but also they are conflicted about abandoning Starship.
I think what SpaceX has accomplished is awesome and extremely impressive, but because of Elon Musk, I hope that some other company will one day leapfrog them and push SpaceX into oblivion.
Von Braun went from burning through Jewish slave labor to build super weapons to Hitler to hosting TV specials on space travel with Walt Disney in Orlando Florida. Are we going to see the reverse progression with Elon?
Von Braun was just a geek who passionately wanted to work on rockets. He didn't worry much about what payloads they would carry or whom they would land on, just as people working at Meta or Palantir don't sweat those sorts of details. He wasn't so much immoral as amoral.
As it happened, the only people willing to pay von Braun to build rockets were Nazis, so (shrug) Nazis it was. If the Americans had recruited him in the 1930s, he would have become a loyal American and a credit to his adopted country, just as he ended up doing after the war. If Stalin had been willing to sponsor him, well, he'd have raised the red banner and become a loyal Communist.
There was never any point in prosecuting von Braun as a Nazi, or even thinking of him as one. Treating him as a war criminal, even though he technically was one, would have been a pointless, performative waste of badly-needed talent, like destroying captured V2s instead of studying them.
Elon Musk? He has no such excuse. Musk can be anything, do anything, say anything. He came to America early and made his fortune doing things that a lot of us respected and even envied him for. Then he chose to attach his name to far-right causes, throw Nazi salutes, and do the Kraft durch Freude dance at Trump rallies. Turned out Musk didn't care about building rockets or going to Mars quite so much as he cared about being an immature asshole. In that sense he took a path diametrically opposite that of Wernher von Braun.
So, yeah, if I worked for SpaceX, I wouldn't exactly bust my ass to make the leader's vision happen after losing trust in the integrity of said leader. I'd simply leave and find employment elsewhere, leaving behind people with fewer options.
Yup. I have not experienced anything nearly this serious with a CEO, but I have had company leadership say and do very stupid things that reduced my focus on the corporate mission. Fortunately, they do still occasionally provide me with interesting puzzles (and they still pay me).
I used to be a huge elon fan, watched spacex rocket development daily, livestream all of the launches, watched many of his interviews, very impressed by tesla, selfdriving, starlink, optimus, neuralink.. he came off as a very skilled engineer.
however..
when he started spamming political misinformation on twitter i had to block him. very concerned he was burnt out and brainwashed into into politics. the nazi salute, then making nazi jokes about it, was just insane.
doge is a joke, he lost the plot.
now i barely check updates on whats happening at starbase, cheer on when the rockets explode, couldn't care less about tesla.. it's a real shame. all that great work by thousands of talented people in his companies..
he needs to resign from everything and go hide under a rock for a few years until he finally gets into orbit and burns up on rentry.
No, he did not. I still can't believe people bought his BS so easily - "it must be true, because he said it!" No, it isn't, never was, never will be. And I don't even care about that salute - Musk lost all his credibility around 2015 when he promised self-driving cars (coming next year! for the past 10 years, and counting), then by lying about the Solarcity roof tiles (and basically committed fraud for which he didn't go to prison - go figure).
It is also quite dehonestating to those _real_ engineers working for Tesla or Spacex, who actually know their stuff. It was them who made Musk possible, not the other way around.
> all that great work by thousands of talented people in his companies..
DOGE is not a joke. DOGE is the modern equivalent of an enclosure act - privatisation of state data for private profit and political leverage, some of which will be wielded by hostile countries.
And Musk was personally responsible - not just for that atrocity, but for poisoning the world's leading progressive social media site, for being complicit in the neutering of countless world-leading science projects, for defunding basic research at NASA and firing hundreds of employees with solid achievements and genuine passion for space science, for gutting the FAA, and so on.
I cannot say enough unkind things about the man. The fact that he has any kind of following at all after the last year is both shocking and disappointing.
Same happened for me. It started with the Thai cave rescue and his submarine where it showed that he is a big attention whore. From then on he seemed to lose his mind.
I still have to respect Starlink, accelerating adoption of EVs and the work SpaceX does. His businesses have reshaped several industries big time. It takes a lot of courage and insight to pull this off.
When he baselessly accused a hero rescue driver of a terrible crime and then refused to back down (if it’s not true sue me for defamation) then hid behind a technicality… yeah that’s the end.
That’s the behavior of a childish bully shithead not a leader. I can’t believe people still think he’s the man to lead the companies he runs.
Children need heroes to look up to, I’m glad that children of right wingers can look up to him but who do children of left wingers have to look up to? Jeff Bezos is hardly inspiring.
You think Jeff "All WaPo opinion articles must focus on personal liberties and free markets" Bezos is a left-winger? lol.
You must have missed the part where he got divorced and then predictably shifted hard right.
(Being credibly accused of being a sex pest is the only thing more powerful than divorce when it comes to putting men on the right-wing-shift pipeline).
Pathetic one while at it. He didn't start it from "attention" posture, and the jacket wasn't the kind designed for a salute(of that kind or not). Not to be a Nazi, but I bet that doing would have made even lots of them walk away.
Please get out of your bubble. It’s affecting your perception of reality. I recommend reading the book “they thought they were free” - before it’s too late (for those around you)
It wasn't under a Nazi, it was Nazis only. Until Lyndon Johnson destroyed it, there was only them. But they were no immature manchilds as Elon, they were known to be excellent engineers and managers.
this is a pretty bad take. if you don't think that elon's antics don't colour the decisions of his employees or companies that could sign deals with his companies then you're really quite oblivious.
few people want a loud, extremist man, in bed with one of the most polarising figures of our time who seems quite unstable ranting at all hours of the night, especially when his company isn't delivering. politics is everything, you cannot divest from it.
He's done the same asinine antics his entire career - friends at early-days at Tesla corroborate the identical on the spectrum nonsense that conveniently is now all over mass media. The only difference is back then he was saying batshit things that were on-canon for feel good progressives.
This is the same thing as twitter folding in like 3 days when he did those grand layoffs; arguments entirely grounded in feels of the aformentioned group.
An alternative explanation is that they are trying to push the design of Starship to its limits.
All the failures have happened with Starship v2, where the ambition is to put 100 tons to Low Earth Orbit. The previous design, Starship v1, was only (theoretically) capable of lifting 80 tons.
20 tons is a huge difference, basically what Falcon 9 can lift when launched in expendable mode.
With this one, given the seething hatred for Musk these days, I wouldn't rule out sabotage.
It's not the most likely cause, but in a world where people have been torching Tesla dealerships, I'm sure there's a lot of people now who really want to see Starship fail.
I think you're drawing a VERY long bow here. That's a long hustle, to work in a field where you'd get to be an intimate part of the launch control process at a company that is going to be very selective on who it hires because it can be, security clearances, and then be able to do this.
No, it's rocketry. Sometimes things go boom when they're that volatile to begin with.
The program looks similar to the Soviet N1 program, in scale, testing and failures. Korolyov was in hurry to get to the moon, and tried to assemble everything and test in actual flight. After 4 failed test flights, the program was scrapped.
This approach had worked with the R7 rocket (the Sputnik and Gagarin's booster, predecessor of Soyuz). But at this larger scale, it seems things break apart much easier if not properly tested in parts.
There are definitely some parallels, but it is not the same in many regards. For example the N1 was severely hampered by engine availability - Glushko wanted to push his hypergolic rockets and engines and refused to build an engine like he did for the R7. So they had to pick something else & ended up with far too many (for that time) not very reliable NK-15 engines.
Also compared to Super Heavy & Starship, they had more stages (4 vs 2) and most importantly, were not able to test the stages separately - which was possible for the Saturn V & IIRC all its stages exploded on the test stand at least once.
Both Super Heavy and Starship can be tested separately & Starship exploded during such testing, without taking the rest of the rocket with it, like N1 regularly did - including demolishing the super expensive launch pad during at least one occasion.
We did accidentally torch the Apollo 1 crew in their capsule.
My fav Apollo-era fuckup is when they tested the launch abort system. The test went bad, but was 100% successful in demonstrating it worked. Heh. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DpdKxv9WINY
Over on the nuclear side there was SL1, which AFAICT is probably the answer to the question "why doesn't the US Army have its own nuclear systems?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOt7xDKxmCM .
"Explode until you figure it out" served Falcon 9 well.
I'm inclined to see Constellation/SLS/Orion/etc. as at least as wasteful as the explosions, at least so far. Which one wins out will depend on the end results.
While "explode until you figure it out" worked well on the Falcon 9, it was a lot of taxpayer money to develop a rocket system primarily used to launch their own product at this point - not delivering on price-points they claimed
I might be a little bitter that NASA doesn't get that money instead.
Sure, even with Falcon 9 many found it iffy to have so many engines - but it turned out fine. Hopefully modern control hardware and QA can handle also 30+. :)
Due to the scaling laws of rocketry, it should be easier to make a huge rocket. You can afford to have proportionally bigger safety margins on everything.
I suspect that Musks desire to have everything reusable has severely eaten into those margins though. I personally think he'd have been better off making only the first stage ('booster') reusable for the first few years, which then lets you develop more things in parallel later (the first landers can be on mars whilst you're still figuring out second stage reusability)
Historically this hasn't _really_ been the case; the N1, of course, was a bit of a disaster, this one seems to be similar. Saturn V worked, but had a number of near-misses over a small number of launches. Beyond those, nothing in the super-heavy category has enough launches to draw conclusions.
Full reuse can be anywhere from more expensive to multiple orders of magnitude cheaper, thus could rather than would.
Questions like rate of successful launches, amount of payload sacrificed, etc really change the economics of the whole process. If the total payload is worth 1 billion a moderately more expense launch with higher success rate can be cheaper.
If you didn't want to go to mars, you wouldn't be making starship at all.
It's pretty clear there is barely enough commercial launch demand for falcon 9 (it already has ~100% of the non-foreign launch market, and there isn't a huge amount of price elasticity), so no reason at all to develop starship, apart from humans in space.
The first goals of Starship are putting a human on the Moon (this is what the US government is paying SpaceX for) and decreasing cost-to-orbit (primarily for SpaceX's own use with Starlink). Falcon 9 simply can't fly to the moon, it doesn't have the power. Also, both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are still too expensive for Starlink to make a good profit.
Mars is at best a long term goal for Starship, and far more likely to be just a nice story that Musk uses to motivate his engineers and investors.
Everything about the design of Starship, from the fuel choice, to the size, aerobraking capability, to vertical landing system says this is a rocket designed to land and return from Mars.
It’s a terrible design for anything else, because it can barely get beyond LEO without in-orbit refuelling.
None of the competing rockets (e.g. New Glenn) resemble Starship in the slightest, because none of them are intended to fly to Mars.
There are several other use cases that Starship is well optimized for. Not surprisingly it's also fairly optimal for building large LEO constellations, It's a little bit large for the current Starlink satellite size, but if the Starlink satellites get significantly larger and more capable, Starship will be fairly optimal.
Given SpaceX's business, it seems safe to assume that Starlink was a design goal with at least a similar priority to the Mars goal.
Another use case it'd work fabulous for would be a LEO space hotel business.
Finally, it's also a great rocket for any use case that involves returning large masses, even if the return is from higher than LEO. Yes, it'll be a thirsty beast requiring many refuelling trips, but the tyranny of the rocket equation makes it hard to do any better. If you want to return dozens of tons from the moon or elsewhere you'd be hard pressed to do better than Starship.
Any large fully-reusable rocket basically fits those goals, but methane might not be ideal for the second stage, if you don't intend to refuel on Mars. Hydrogen has better ISP, so your mass budget isn't so tight. It's also six times better as a coolant, so if you want to try SpaceX's original plan of using evaporative cooling in place of heavy tiles, it'll work better. Blue Origin and Stoke Space both use a methane first stage, hydrogen second stage. (Stoke Space has planned evaporative cooling from the start, Blue Origin put in a patent application for their version later.)
Then again, Musk is also big on reusing components as much as possible, so he might have opposed multiple fuels on principle.
> Hydrogen has better ISP, so your mass budget isn't so tight.
You need much larger tanks, so the mass advantage is pretty much completely eliminated. Hydrogen engines generally have much lower thrust for a given size too. Falcon9 or Starship style staging is infeasible with a hydrogen second stage. Rockets that use hydrogen for their second stage separate a lot higher and faster than Falcon9/Starship to make up for this reduced thrust. This makes Falcon/Starship style 1st stage recovery impossible.
Hydrogen would be great for a 3rd stage. If you want it to be recoverable, design a third stage that fits within the Starship enclosure. This would be a fabulous way to do small BEO missions without requiring a whole bunch of refueling.
How are you distinguishing Falcon/Starship style recovery? Blue Origin actually attempted first-stage propulsive recovery with their first orbital test, with a hydrogen second stage. (It didn't work, but neither did SpaceX's first attempt.)
Yes, "impossible" was unreasonable hyperbole on my part.
Blue Glenn stages much higher and further than Falcon; it's caught much further off shore. More significantly, it doesn't have a return to launch site option like Falcon does and Starship always uses.
One of my favorite science fiction threads is the ulta rich building personal homes in LEO, and creating a service industry as a result. I find it more believable than colonizing Mars for altruism.
Disagree. Falcon 9 is likewise not hydrolox. Hydrolox unquestionably gives you the most payload going the farthest for a booster of a given size. But why is booster size even in the equation?
For most purposes the customer does not care one iota about the booster, they are interested in the cost per kg to get where they are going. For low orbit hydrolox imposes more handling nightmare costs than it saves in amount of rocket, it is not the fuel of choice unless you're trying to impress.
(Now, things change considerably when you looking at deep space. But methalox or even kerolox fueled in orbit still beats hydrolox fueled on the ground. And hydrolox is much less storable--your rocket costs weight, necessary to reach orbit but once you're up there a smaller engine means less wasted mass. The only advantage to a bigger engine is Oberth and that is only truly relevant if you either care about time (Apollo took an inefficient path for this reason), or because you are going to carry velocity into deep space. Look at the flight path of the Webb. The booster flew higher than the maximum efficiency path because the deep space stage was puny. It wasn't powerful enough to circularize normally, the telescope fell back quite a bit before the engine had built up enough velocity to stay up. But it was worth wasting some energy on that in order to not lift as much engine away from the Earth.)
With the possible exception of the fuel choice, all of the others are requirements for a recoverable rocket that needs to land back safely on Earth. Mars and Earth are not that different, so anything that helps you land and take back off easily from Earth also help with Mars.
You could do it with F9 it would just be assembled in orbit over multiple launches like one of the original moon mission profiles instead of single launch (that's also essentially the profile of the Moon and Mars missions in Starship except you're 'just' refueling the ships instead of assembling a larger vessel).
He was named after the title of the ruler of Mars in a novel written by Wernher von Braun, so ultimate goal for him has to be Mars.
Settlement on Mars is out of one gravity well into another, so it's not clear if it's the best first location of a extraterrestrial human territory - Moon might be easier and more reasonable.
So the camp is split between Moon and Mars, and Musk has to be on Mars.
Mars is a desolate wasteland, and the Moon is an airless desolate wasteland.
There is zero chance of building a self-sustaining base on either within the next fifty years, and probably within the next century.
It's not a freight problem, it's an ecology problem. Designing a life support system that is stable and self-correcting and isn't in danger of running out of some essential raw material or element isn't just an unsolved problem, it's a barely considered problem.
Ironically - or perhaps not - it would be much easier to create a self-sustaining population of machines on Mars and/or the Moon than any project that relies on incredibly complex and messy human biochemistry.
> Ironically - or perhaps not - it would be much easier to create a self-sustaining population of machines on Mars and/or the Moon than any project that relies on incredibly complex and messy human biochemistry.
I don't think that's even ironic. It's the only viable path.
It should be like: robots keep 3D printing and launching giant capsule parts into L1/L2, which are to be robotically welded with captured asteroid inside so that the inside can be filled with all sorts of minimum viable tools until it's good enough to host life, and then interested life on Earth can choose to inhabit them.
We are not going to be welding space sailboats in an Apollo suits on Lunar surface and taking breaks on space prefab shacks. That just is not going to work.
> Designing a life support system that is stable and self-correcting and isn't in danger of running out of some essential raw material or element isn't just an unsolved problem, it's a barely considered problem.
Earth science closed loop ecologists since the 60s would like a word with you...
And how many closed loop ecologies functioned for any significant length of time without constant resouces and parts from outside being put in? Not to mention without lead times of 9+ months on those supplies, and not having to worry about large pressure differences and leaks, radiation, or extremely abrasive enviroments?
IIRC in Evolution civilisation collapses in the near future after some massive volcanic event and the few survivors revert to feral hunting apart from a few cryogenically preserved soldiers who all get very depressed about the situation and then die. Or something like that. Not sure how this is relevant to Mars.
If Starship is basically fully reusable (he's insisting on absolutely no refurbishment, that could be relaxed a bit) then the cost per flight for Starship would be well below the cost per flight for Falcon 9. As you say, there's little price elasticity, the cost savings would go in his pocket.
To be fair, there is now a thorough understanding and computing capability for doing statistical failure analysis. They are not doing this at random. And SpaceX is NOT testing everything in actual flight. See engine testing, pressure testing, static fires, massive instrumentation (tests including flights with gathering data as the primary objective) - all as evidence of that. And they have commented on the wide availability of hardware - currently arriving faster than the capability to try and launch it. So, no, not similar.
Aside from the fact that both were the largest rockets in their time there's literally NOTHING in common between these 2 programs.
Government-run vs private-run (partially govt-bankrolled). Single use vs fully reusable. Moon vs Mars. Traditional development vs iterative ("hardware heavy") development. There's just no parallels whatsoever.
Will the result be the same? We'll see. But the history says don't bet against Elon.
Btw N1 was a failure arguably due to Korolev's death, not his ineptness.
I don't think so. For starters, they test a lot in SpaceX. N1 had ablative engines, which could not be test-fired on Earth. They could only test them by launching the entire stack and hoping that it would go into the orbit.
The current wave of problems is likely caused by optimizations in the v2 of the rocket. Starship v1 was very conservatively built and mostly worked. They are trying to squeeze extra 25 per cent of payload capacity from v2 (from 80 to 100 tons on LEO), and they are running into the edges of multiple envelopes.
Raptor v2 BTW seems fine, the main issues are around the plumbing that feeds propellant into the engines.
I think you can see the cracks opening, for example unless I've missed it they haven't managed to open the little satellite door successfully on any of these flights.
N1's problem was having that many engines at all. R7 is a "Heavy" design and doesn't cross feed everything like N1 or SH do while also having fewer engines. Those are probably big differences.
Those first two with engine failures you mentioned were caused by contamination issues inside the vehicle, solved by adding filtration systems. Those last two were on the second stage so no comparison to the N1 with its massive numbers of engines and the ninth flight you mentioned wasn't even an engine failure.
Scott Manley observes the breach was in the cargo section, and not at the PEZ dispenser door. It appeared to split longitudinally. There are header tank downcomer lines that might fit that bill.
The part that I found interesting was ~"Anyone can build a bridge, but it takes an engineer to just barely build a bridge. That's what Starship V2 is, a mass and complexity reduction. Maybe they took away too much."
The problems with Starship make the Saturn V and STS programs even more impressive. However, I still don't get the rationale of building a rocket with such a large payload. The rocket equation will always force you to build an absolute monster compared to a series of smaller rockets. Even worse if you have to haul up a massive orbiter each time. No wonder that small/medium sized rockets (Soyuz, Atlas, Ariane, Falcon 9,...) have always been the most successful.
A larger rocket mitigates the effects of the rocket equation.
The wet (loaded with propellant) to dry (empty of propellant) mass ratio is determined via the rocket equation to be the exponential of delta V divided by exhaust velocity.
Certain parts of the rocket, such as the external tank structure, scale sub-cubically with the rocket's dimension, as do aerodynamic forces; whereas payload and propellant mass scale cubically.
Hence if the rocket is smaller than a critical threshold size, the requisite vehicle structures are too large relative to its propellant capacity to permit the required wet:dry mass ratio to achieve the delta V for orbit.
At exactly this size, the rocket can reach orbit with zero payload.
As the rocket increases in size beyond this threshold, it is able to carry a payload which is increasingly large relative to the rocket's total mass.
This is also why no hobby rockets get to orbit. Even a 1 gram payload to low earth orbit is beyond what a human-sized rocket can manage due to the way rockets don't scale downwards well.
Smallest orbital anything so far is 31ft(9.54m) long, 20in(54cm) wide, 2.9t/2.6t(2600kg?), does 9lbs(4kg) to random-ish LEO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-520
How does this compare to the cube-square law scaling effects applied to propeller- and wing-lifted vehicles like quadcopters/helicopters and RC aircraft/jumbo jets? Or even the squat shape of a housefly that zigs and zags through the air like an acrobat compared to the ponderous lift-off of a large goose?
I understand vaguely that those operate and scale based on the area (a square function of their length) of their lifting surfaces, and are pulled down by their mass (a cube function of their length).
A little Estes toy rocket lifts off the pad much more aggressively (in the blink of an eye!) than a full size rocket...
They are almost entirely unrelated. When trying to leave the gravity well of a planet, the atmosphere is only a dragging force acting to reduce your thrust. It might be proportional to the surface area of the vehicle, but likely not - I think it's only proportional to the surface area of the "nose" of the rocket. But what's certain is that it's strictly a force that hinders you - in a rocket, all of your thrust comes from the engines, you don't get any boost from the air.
However, even if you're taking off of a planet with no atmosphere, you still have a huge force to deal with - you need to maintain an acceleration to exit the gravity well of the planet, and you need to burn fuel for that. But you also have to carry the fuel you'll burn with you, so the more fuel you have, the more fuel you'll need - this is what the rocket equation codifies.
> But you also have to carry the fuel you'll burn with you, so the more fuel you have, the more fuel you'll need
Isn't this the entire point of using methane as fuel so that they can build a gas station once they get there so that return fuel is not required to be considered in this equation?
I'm not talking about fuel that you need to get back, we're still at the "leaving Earth" case. The point is that you need, say, 1000 tons of fuel to leave the Earth. Your rocket then will weigh [weight of empty rocket] + [weight of payload] + 1000 tons. And it is this mass that the engines will have to push while ascending. Of course, the fuel gets spent as you ascend - by the time you reach orbit, your rocket is now 1000 tons lighter.
The refueling idea is so that for example you don't need to carry the fuel needed to get to the moon or Mars all in one rocket. You just need to carry enough to get to the refueling orbit - which is much less.
The toys have to be aggressive. You have less than three feet worth of launch rail--by the time the rocket clears the rail it must be going fast enough that the fins make it stable. Meanwhile, it's light, overengineering the body to take a high g load is trivial.
An orbital class rocket--taking that kind of g load is going to break it (just look at the payload specs for the Falcon Heavy--its maximum permitted payload is well below it's performance to low orbit. You load it up to what the engines can do, it breaks. The only use case is when it's going farther than low orbit.) And an orbital class rocket has active steering rather than fins, it doesn't need to be booking it to be stable.
> Our satellite launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California (USA) on Jan 14, 2025. The rocket mission is a Transporter, and SAT GUS was dropped off in low-Earth orbit at about 375 miles above the surface of our pale blue dot.
Added to that, Full-flow stage combustion engines are bigger, heavier, and more expensive, but are way more efficient. So a bigger rocket is the only option to get one of those onboard, and helps with taking more mass to orbit because they are more efficient than other options.
I don't believe there's any performance advantage for full-flow, which SpaceX alone is attempting. The only point is to lower the combustion temperature inside the turbines, at the expense of (much) higher flow rates through those turbines, in order to increase their lifespan.
(There's a large difference between staged combustion generally and gas-generator engines, which throw away performance by dumping fuel out of the turbine exhaust).
Since the temperature limit of available materials is the fundamental limitation (even after making custom high-temp alloys), this allows them to maximize mechanical power from the turbopumps, which raises performance.
We might imagine a conservative FFSC design which accepts very low temperatures in exchange for making it easy (low R&D cost) to reach high longevity. Raptor is not a conservative design, so it requires more R&D to achieve that longevity.
But you also have a limit on the other side: going extreme to make the point, we haven't managed to build a mile-tall building yet, and a rocket that size would be a nightmare to engineer (while perhaps technically possible -- you might have to scale up another 10x or 20x to make it physically impossible).
So there's some sort of curve, zero at both ends, between overall rocket size and the payload to orbit. The question is where Starship sits on that curve, and to your point it seems likely that it's looking good on that metric alone.
But then you have another curve that I think starts small and increases near-monotonically, which is the complexity/likelihood-to-fail factor to the size of the rocket. It's (relatively) easy to launch a toy rocket, (fairly) simple to build a missile-sized sub-orbital rocket, difficult to build a small-to-medium orbital rocket, and apparently very difficult to build a Saturn/N-1/Starship-sized rocket. More props to the crazy '60s team that pulled it off.
> So there's some sort of curve, zero at both ends, between overall rocket size and the payload to orbit.
This doesn't follow. Engineering complexity is not a limit on payload to orbit, it is a fundamentally different parameter. Yeah building a mile tall rocket would be hard, but it would get a shit ton of payload to orbit. There is no maximum beyond which making a bigger rocket starts to reduce your payload to orbit.
> But then you have another curve that I think starts small and increases near-monotonically, which is the complexity/likelihood-to-fail factor to the size of the rocket. It's (relatively) easy to launch a toy rocket, (fairly) simple to build a missile-sized sub-orbital rocket, difficult to build a small-to-medium orbital rocket, and apparently very difficult to build a Saturn/N-1/Starship-sized rocket.
Complexity does not increase with size, people just become more risk averse with size. Toy rockets fail all the time, just nobody really cares. No one would bet the lives of multiple people and hundreds of millions of dollars on a successful toy rocket launch. If complexity increases, it is with capability. If you want to land on the moon, you need something a bit more advanced than a hobby rocket. There is no reason to believe a floatilla of physically smaller rockets capable of achieving any given mission will be less complex in aggregate than a single physically larger rocket.
Even more impressive to me is the fact that Saturn V did in a single launch with 1969 technology, what we're now proposing to do with 10-15 Starship launches (each as large as a Saturn V) and an additional SLS launch for Orion return capsule. What's more, the US had orbital launch expereince of just 3 years (Explorer 1 in 1958) when the Apollo program began, and 8 years later they were on the moon. Perhaps web development is not the only thing that is susceptible to bloat.
Starship was designed from the very beginning to land humans on Mars and it is correctly sized for that. It's apples-and-oranges to compare its design to Apollo.
(edits:) It's clearly not ideal for a short lunar landing, considered in isolation. But: what else would you do? Whatever you build, it would land on the moon perhaps once, and never again. Would you, being in charge, design a one-off vehicle for one or two moon landings—spend that R&D budget, in that way? That's not cheaper than 15 Starship launches; it's considerably costlier. (But the Apollo engineers didn't need to worry about this; it's was their express remit to spend $200 billion on one-off designs that would never be used again).
And: I hope no one suggests the "just make a unique lunar Starship variant that's simply a bit smaller". There's no "simply" resizing things in engineering. Recall that the last time Starship's length was altered by 2 meters, new mechanical resonances appeared, and it blew up three times in a row. Any "one-off" change for lunar landings is a less-tested, less-understood machine you'd be putting human lives on.
> Whatever you build, it would land on the moon perhaps once, and never again.
But it would also never land on Mars, so it would be a waste to build it for that. Build it for what it will actually spend its life doing.
Not saying SpaceX won't go to Mars, but if/when they do it will likely be several rocket generations later and possibly with specialized rockets, with a significant portion of it being one-time-use as you ain't returning.
Even if it does go to Mars there are some major warts on the design. When you land you're 35-40 meters or so up in the air so there's a whole other elevator assembly needed just to get people out of the rocket to the ground.
We've been hoisting people and cargo up/down with pulleys and cables for thousands of years. This seems like the smallest obstacle Starship has to face.
We’ve been opening and closing doors for even longer and yet it has still posed a challenge for SpaceX when dealing with the payload door on Starship. Space makes even trivial things hard.
The satellite door is completely different from what they'll need for MarsShip, that's even larger and has to function as an airlock. None of what they're trying to do now matters for the Mars door.
That's a lot of certainty for something that hasn't even been designed yet.
The outside door needn't be part of the airlock. It's certainly big enough to have an internal airlock leading to depressurized internal space.
The things that make a door that tests fine on Earth break in orbit are likely to be things that need fixing for a similar door on Mars. They won't be all the same challenges, but some will absolutely be shared.
A smaller purpose build lander that doesn't need the fuel capacity for the entire journey would be significantly shorter and could be wider too. That would get it significantly closer. Enough that a simple ladder would be viable so they aren't reliant on a winch/elevator.
So you're suggesting something similar to the Apollo LEM that will land, and carry enough fuel to return to orbit to dock with something that will contain enough fuel that will return to Earth?
Wouldn't that make the mission unfeasible because it requires ISRU of return fuel?
I completely forgot about this. Current aerodynamics and heat shielding are optimized for Earth reentry. They may have to significantly rethink the design for Mars. What they land on Mars will likely be very different from what we see today.
Whenever my Volkswagen car software glitches I can't help but to observe it was done by a 6000 people strong development team vs 600 in Apollo programme within similar timeframe. The latter had vastly more primitive hardware, tools and younger programming culture available too.
And some serious financial capital working on enabling technologies. NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of US GDP. Even considering that this was 1960s GDP and they weren't standing on the shoulders of 100 years of automobile development or decades of previous launches, NASA got (and needed) a lot more resources than car manufacturers or newspace companies
Funding as percent of GDP is a meaningless metric. You need to adjust for inflation, but funding as a percent of GDP was some weird argument made to try to explain why modern NASA has become relatively ineffectual, but it has no meaningful connection to reality.
The Apollo Program cost a total of $183 billion, inflation adjusted, over 12 years. That's about $15 billion a year. NASA's budget has been for the past 40 years has been $20-$30 billion a year. Even the 'burst funding' wasn't particularly extreme relative to what they now regularly receive. The highest their budget ever was was in 1966 in $57 billion (inflation adjusted) dollars.
To visualize the absurdity of this argument imagine somebody claiming that Uganda funding a space program for $5 billion is receiving some serious financial capital, because that happens to be 10% of their GDP. $5 billion is $5 billion, regardless of your GDP. Ok technically there's PPP calculations, but that doesn't apply to the discussion here.
I mean, I was responding to a thread implying that the Apollo programme had access to fewer resources than Volkswagen firmware updates...
Obviously percentage of GDP isn't an ideal multiplier for reasons you've mentioned, but then inflation indexed mainly to mass produced common consumer goods tends to significantly underestimate the increase in cost over time of running complex operations involving the world's smartest and most on-demand minds and an almost unfathomably large number of subcontractors. Either way, NASA's overall budget is half that of the 1960s in regular inflation adjusted dollars, and whilst its current research and satellite/ISS maintenance maybe aren't as exciting as the first lunar landing, they're not obviously dramatically lower cost (the %GDP argument gets brought up nearly as often to suggest the Apollo programme wasn't worth it...)
Sat in a lecture theatre with NASA's last chief economist using both metrics earlier this week. Although those slides were looking at cumulative funds spent on Robert Goddard's programme, which was about the size of a largish Series A using the inflation metric or Series B using the GDP adjustment. Whether that's value for money or not depends on whether you're considering being the father of modern rocketry more impressive than sending a handful of moderately complex 16U Cubesats or rideshares or note that the actual rockets were no more sophisticated than some student projects, I guess...
NASA's modern budget isn't eaten up by satellite and ISS maintenance, it's eaten up by pork/corruption like the SLS. The SLS was already largely obsoleted by the Falcon Heavy 7 years ago. And Starship will make it look like a 13inch black and white CRT (with a million dollar price tag) in the era of cheap 80" bendy flat screens. Artemis is a similar story. Artemis simply isn't going to work. The entire project is filled with unrealistic handwaving.
Yet NASA continues to cheerlead for these things. I briefly thought NASA might right their heading under Bridenstine but then at some point he suddenly just did a hard 180. It seems every man has his price. He eventually just turned into another Boeing cheerleader (and his new found rubber stampage is a big part of why that Boeing monstrosity left astronauts stranded on the ISS) and went straight from out of office to a high level advisory gig for some MIC company which is almost certainly just a laundered paycheck.
It's not just infotainment though. We had all instruments blanked out on a motorway. Granted not as terrifying as with Apollo 13 but we had 3 people onboard too.
If something were to happen to Apollo, the blast radius would be limited to those 3 people. If something happens to your car with 3 people onboard while travelling down the motorway, the blast radius could affect other cars with their people onboard. This would make the failure even more spectacular having unsuspecting civilians affected vs 3 highly trained volunteers for mission. All this to say that I think we are way underplaying "it's just a car" type of thoughts here
Car software is, perhaps counterintuitively, doing a lot more than the Apollo software did. Just think about the computers available at the time and how much memory they didn't have.
Apollo project software was controlling the stages of Saturn V flight vehicle, orbital and lander modules, and ground systems. So no, it was not doing less than a family SUV Javacsript blob; certainly not 10x less. And most of the things it did were mission critical.
All isolated systems or sensors that simply notify humans or providing them with basic calculations. The MP3 and entertainment systems on modern cars are orders of magnitude more complex. Again, you don't have to take my word for it, just look at the memory available at the time.
Computers in Apollo programme controlled most of the function with minimal human involvement in the loop. The dynamic systems were orders of magnitude more complex than what you find in a modern vehicle.
Also I can assure you no-one at Cariad had to write an MP3 decoder. And speaking of sensor control, my car (on its 4th year now) still fails to unfold the mirrors once in a while.
We also have huge, orders of magnitude advances in tooling and process since mid-1960s. For starters you don't have to weave your program into magnetic core fabric by hand.
You know the saying about OSHA rules "they're written in blood"?
That's what happens with most domains. At first people don't know the dangers and can go fast and loose: surgery, radioactive material, planes, cars, trains, rockets. Then people start losing their lives or part of their bodies to "easily preventable accidents". So some rules are enacted. Decade after decade, accident after accident, more rules, more red tape: things cost more, take more time. But you get a lot less victims.
So yeah, with a good budget and in a less strict country you could get something to the moon in no time. And potentially many people' parts all over your launchpads too.
Not to mention that before natural gas people used to light and heat their homes with coal gas/town gas, which was basically carbon monoxide. Yes, that highly poisonous thing that binds better to hemoglobin than oxygen molecules. So you could get poisoned and then still explode.
>Saturn V did in a single launch with 1969 technology,
for up to 0.8% US GDP per year. Today that would be $200B/year, pure spent. Where is Space X today is making, ie. it has a revenue, $15B/year.
>Perhaps web development is not the only thing that is susceptible to bloat.
similarly - web dev today can be done on $300 laptop by any schmuck. Even simple programming back then required a computer which cost a lot, and it was an almost academic activity.
Total lunar effort from 1960-1973, adjusted for 2024 USD: $326 billion
Launch vehicle costs (Saturn V): $113 billion
I think this is what should be compared against the total Starship program cost starting from 2020 until such time it completes 6 lunar landings (not counting SLS or other costs).
Sure, but spacex are building on the shoulders of what came before. Easy to save 200bn on research and development if someone else has already paid for it and shares the results for free.
This is true, but also a bit trivial to observe. Even the Primitive Technology channel, which usually starts with mud and clay, builds on knowledge of other people.
The value added is interesting. For example, both the Merlin and the Raptor family of engines. These are some fine engines, and they are remarkably cheap and reusable.
I love this quote from Gwynne Shotwell when asked how they achieved that no government has: "The first is that we're kind of standing on the shoulders of giants."
> for up to 0.8% US GDP per year. Today that would be $200B/year, pure spent. Where is Space X today is making, ie. it has a revenue, $15B/year.
The likes of SpaceX are reporting costs in the range of $15B/year because NASA front loaded the cost of trailblazing launch technology half a century ago, with the technology available half a century ago.
Let's not fool ourselves into believing the likes of SpaceX are reinventing the wheel.
Also, those $15B are buying a fraction of the capabilities of SaturnV, and while SaturnV was proven effective and reliable 50 years ago, here we are discussing yet another "anomaly". Perhaps half these "anomalies" wouldn't exist if they weren't lean'ed into existence?
To be fair, they're also doing launches at a pace NASA could only have dreamed of back then. In 2024 SpaceX had 134 launches, we're far into the Space Shuttle program before Nasa had made that in total.
I wonder what "tons of payload to orbit" vs "dollars budget" would look like for Saturn era NASA vs Current SpaceX.
No doubt they're standing on the shoulders of giants, but let's not forget that they've helped transform the "go to space"-business.
Starship hasn't had a mission yet that I'm aware of. I love the Saturn V but I don't think this is a fair comparison. Just because your software didn't compile first try doesn't mean it's bad. Those two vehicles fundamentally have different approaches to development and that's fine.
> Starship hasn't had a mission yet that I'm aware of.
Then you will agree that comparing an unproven launcher which seems to be far far away from being able to fulfill a similar role is a very silly endeavour, let alone talk about it as a vast improvement which just so happens to blow up.
I don’t think it’s _that_ silly, there are plenty of cases where comparisons are useful. SpaceX’s development approach is radically different from traditional aerospace, but it’s clearly working for them. A bunch of Falcon 9s blew up too, and now it’s one of the most reliable and frequently used launch platforms in history. Why would you expect Starship to follow a completely different trajectory?
Actually, this version 2 of Starship was explicitly designed for lower the dry mass of the vehicle. It seems like SpaceX is exploring the lower limit on acceptable mass, and thus strength, of the Starship. This is a development program, after all.
This comparison doesn't make sense, the USD 200B/year was to invent the capabilities, do trailblazing work on something that needed to be proven even feasible as a concept, to do fundamental/foundational work, not to productionalise technology.
I'd expect SpaceX to do much more now than NASA in the 60s if granted USD 200B/year, considering they are already standing on the shoulders of giants.
Testing on the ground and problems with what most people would call the payload (Apollo 1 & 13), sure.
But we're comparing to SpaceX launches. Plenty of Raptor engines have blown up on the ground too.
There were 13 Saturn V's launched and all of them basically performed their mission (Apollo 6 being a bit of an exception) with 0 rapid unplanned disassemblies...
It's not unreasonable to suggest that most of specifically rocket and spacefaring technology SpaceX uses now was introduced by someone else. Their main achievement is reusability and adjacent technical solutions.
The grandparent comment was pointing out that it cost NASA 200bn, and spaceX 15bn.
The parent comment pointed out that spaceX are actually saving money because they already got what nasa spent 200bn on.
My comment pointed out that they aren't just saving money by using NASAs tech, but tech from the Soviet Union as well - suggesting that their savings are far beyond just 200bn R&D
Not sure about parent poster, but to be fair NASA built on German WWII rocket/missile development, and Canadian know how after the collapse of Avro Canada.
How many billions was that?
This sort of "they're just building on" talk is weird to me, and not really relevant.
What SpaceX has accomplished is astonishing, and no belittling of their accomplishments should be tolerated.
Because in NASAs case it was "the stuff that came before" + 200b (or whatever the fantasy figure truly is).
Its unfair to say spaceX did what NASA did on a smaller budget (which is what the comment that kicked off this thread implied) because they DIDNT do what NASA did, and instead got "the stuff that came before" + "the stuff that NASA spent 200b on" + "the stuff from other sources that also cost billions" + the 15b that they actually spent to get where they are.
How can you disagree with that? You may think this discussion is silly - but its DIRECTLY as a response to someone implying that spaceX are achieving what NASA did with less money: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44316227
> This sort of "they're just building on" talk is weird to me, and not really relevant.
Not really. You're not talking about technology. You're debating the economics behind it. You're seeing naive fanboys praising SpaceX's costs for the likes of Starship by comparing them to the cost of the SaturnV project, arriving at the simplistic conclusion that Starship is cheaper. This is like comparing your cheap Android phone as being far cheaper than a 1950s UNIVAC. And when the silliness of this specious reasoning is called out, your reaction is to downplay it as "not really relevant"?
That said, you're upset that I said comparing costs isn't relevant? Isn't that the case you're making right now, that the costs cannot be compared, therefore aren't relevant in this discussion?
My tact on non-relevance, is that saying "it was built on another program's tech!" is not relevant, because everything meets that criterion. For example, as I said, the Saturn was built on decades of German research, including war time research during WWII, into rockets. Saturn's US development costs were a fraction of overall rocket research done by the Germans!
So if upthread is going to argue "but it's all built on the Saturn, and free knowledge!", then the same argument can be carried further back, thus negating this argument. Why?
Thats the whole point for this entire thread. Pointing out that you CANT compare the costs of spaceX with NASA because spaceX is building on NASAs (and others) achievements.
Maybe you need to go back and reread this entire thread rather than suggesting others do so.
Well there are many reasons as to why - i just gave a single example. I don't see why you don't think prior knowledge has any value, but I guess you are entitled to your opinion.
I never even hinted that prior knowledge has no value. Not once.
Instead, I said it is an impossible thing to compare, for everything is built upon another. In fact, everything is built upon a myriad of other things.
Really, both the Heavy and the Saturn cost about the same. That's because they both depend upon the entire sum of human knowledge and research, to be built.
A billion trillion trillion trillion in today's dollars of knowledge gained and experience honed, over millions of years. So what if one cost a billion trillion trillion trillion, and another cost a billion trillion trillion trillion + a few billion more. The difference is meaningless, and not even worth considering.
And then there's the whole "how much is new" argument, and there's new knowledge aplenty thanks to SpaceX.
I really don't get these arguments. People seem to really love to denigrate the effort, the excellent results. It's beyond bizarre. And worse, mock because test flights, expected to possibly go sideways, do?
So weird.
"Hi, I'm going to see if this will work. It'll probably explode. But if it does, I'll learn something"
What a ridiculous point of view.Do you know how many anamolies nasa had on the way to make the Saturn 5? Orders of magnitudes more blow ups than Space x has ever had
You are comparing "sending a small crew for a few days on the Moon ASAP for propaganda purposes" with "setting up a permanent outpost on the Moon".
Do you know the McMurdo permanent Antarctica base is costing us far more than the dogs, sleds, and tents of Admundsen and Shackleton? Incredible, isn't it?
Starship is “the program to build a permanent base in the moon”. It’s not even the only vehicle involved in the moon program. It’s a rocket designed to take astronauts from moon orbit to the moon’s surface. The astronauts will actually fly to the moon in SLS.
So far it’s proved incapable of being launched, attaining orbit, and returning to earth as designed. That’s without a payload.
It has no life support system built and is literally years behind schedule.
Rather than making progress it is being redesigned on the fly to mitigate fundamental problems with its capability which Musk laughs off as “moving fast and breaking things”.
The problem is we aren’t moving fast at all.
The rocket is a disaster. Saturn V was better by an order of magnitude and likely cheaper if you consider how much fundamental work went into creating it which is now easy to buy off the shelf.
Comparing the programs while ignoring the fact that hobbiest regularly reach the Karman line is deceitful.
Starship is doing this on easy mode and it’s failing.
> Starship is doing this on easy mode and it’s failing.
But this 'easy mode' is still so incredibly hard that nobody else will even attempt it.
I'd love to see some serious competition emerge in the reusable rocket space, but SpaceX is far, far ahead with Falcon 9 being an incredible success, even if the Starship project may be headed for failure. Nobody reports on 100+ successful Falcon 9 launches/landings in a year, those are now mundane. But a small number of Starship failures - test flights of an experimental vehicle - become big news, mostly because they involve spectacular explosions.
It seems that Starship may be too big to 'fail fast', mostly because of the visual spectacle of those failures.
The 'easy mode' is incredibly hard at least partly in terms of nobody else having the capability to finance it (with the possible exception of two superpowers and Jeff Bezos)
But yeah, I tend to agree that whether it ultimately succeeds or not, blowing Starship up is a "fail fast" strategy because they have the money (and the reputational capital from successful Falcon 9 launches) to learn from their mistakes that way, and not many others do. Much as the waterfall approach of big space projects gets derided, there's a reason entities that can't take the reputational hit of visibly blowing stuff up on a regular basis do it that way...
IMO calling it "easy mode" really misses the mark. If you ever get the chance to hear directly from the engineers working on Starship, I think you’d come away with a deeper appreciation for the scale and complexity of what they’re building. The solutions they work on go far beyond "just" launching a rocket.
> Saturn V was better by an order of magnitude and likely cheaper if you consider how much fundamental work went into creating it which is now easy to buy off the shelf.
One year of Saturn V development cost the same as the entire Starship program so far. One launch cost 20-30x more than the projected cost of a Starship launch.
It is also said that it’s simply impossible to rebuild a Saturn rocket. Not only you can’t “buy components off the shelf” because they simply don’t exist anymore, even if you had all the component blueprints (which we don’t, they were lost to time), the manufacturing know-how is long gone.
Starship was developed from scratch. SpaceX developed their own engines, their flight control surfaces are novel, the rocket structure and materials are novel, the entire approach is different. Yes, our modern electronics industry makes it “easier” but this is like saying Porsche is playing in easy mode because of the Ford Model T.
> You are comparing "sending a small crew for a few days on the Moon ASAP for propaganda purposes" with "setting up a permanent outpost on the Moon".
No, OP is comparing a launcher that worked reliably (it's in the history books) with a launcher which never performed a mission and is reporting "anomalies".
Many Saturn V stages blew up on test stands as well (its also in the history books) and some flight were very much on the edge of success. It was also not trying to make the whole system reusable and economicaly sustainable (just check when the last Saturn V flight was - if it was sustainable it would be still flying, right ?).
I don't think GP meant 10-15 Starships missions needed to carry the same payload, but 10-15 test launches necessary before it's ready for real. I think the Saturn V had only two test flights before it took people around the moon.
No, GP is referring to the refuelling missions that will be required to put Starship on the moon and bring it back.
Which as the person you're replying to is point out isn't really a fair comparison because Starship and Saturn V deliver vastly different amounts of mass to and from the moon despite the mission being only to ferry some people there for a few days.
If Starship ends up flying to the moon it effectively enables the landing of a lunar base that could be occupied for years at a time with sufficient resupply of food and the right equipment for extraction of water/oxygen from the moon.
The Saturn V as amazing as it was could never have brought that much equipment to the moon in a cost effective manner.
Significant parts of the Saturn V (including the S-IVB 3rd stage, and the instrument unit which controlled the entire stack) were previously flight tested in Saturn IB launches.
> That's complete nonsense. 10-15 Starship launches would land a lander that can carry like 100tons of payload orbit.
The burning question that I have now is whether a Starship explosion during lunar testing will be visible from Earth. I sure hope they would do it during a new moon too for maximum effect.
The shuttle was a deathtrap. It had inadequate abort modes and a launch process that practically guaranteed minor (until it wasn't) damage to the heat shield during launch.
Sure, the Saturn V and STS were much less safe than smaller rockets. Still, they blew up an awful lot less than other rockets of their size like N1 or Starship.
Cost equivalency ignores the R&D and decades of scientific progress and advancements in tooling capability. The prices of materials have shifted, but designing and manufacturing a precise propulsion system with modern CAD and simulation tools is a lot cheaper than the hand work hundreds of people used to be doing to verify much simpler engine designs. Precision machining and tools to inspect metal fatigue and imperfections have also come a long way.
Of course commercial rockets are always going to be as shoddy as they can get away with rather than as good as possible, but if it still takes SpaceX or Boeing as much money to build a rocket as it did back in the Saturn V days, they're doing something wrong.
"First all-up S-II stage, assembled between 1963 and 1965. Completed several engine tests at the Mississippi Test Facility (now the Stennis Space Center). Destroyed by accidental LH2 tank overpressurization during pressure testing May 28, 1966[7][6]"
"The S-II program was beset with problems and delays. NASA had planned on North American making an S-II stage, S-II-D, for dynamic testing but the order for that stage was cancelled in early 1965 in favor of using the structural static test stage, S-II-S, as a combined static/dynamic test stage; that stage was renamed to S-II-S/D. Unfortunately, the S-II-S/D stage was destroyed during testing, leaving S-II-F to take on the added role of dynamic testing and being redesignated as S-II-F/D."
I though all of the Saturn V stages were destroyed during testing at least once but it looks like I remembered it wrong. :)
I recall reading the engines blew up in testing, the rockets on the pad, on and on. And why wouldnt it?
No one has ever built a plane, or even a car without breakage during testing. The very idea is absurd. There's a whole profession called "test pilot".
I don't know why anyone would suggest otherwise.
I'm sure there are links aplenty, but the absurd suggestion here would be building a rocket and having zero incidents of failure. That beyond weird. That's what needs a "do you have a link" question.
> I recall reading the engines blew up in testing, the rockets on the pad, on and on. And why wouldnt it?
You're recalling wrong, or you were reading nonsense. Lots of engines were destroyed in testing (particularly before computer modelling, this was basically how rocket engines were _developed_), but no, no Saturn V ever exploded on the pad. Prior to this incident, the most-impressive on-pad boom was one of the N1s.
No fully assembled Saturn V ever failed, though a few of them had near-misses.
Well we're discussing testing only here, so are you sure none explpded on a test a
pad?
It's a weird debarc point to discuss non testing craft vs testing. And "fully assembled", when spacex is flying non-final builds on purpose, using a different test methodology.
Does Starship have launch abort boosters? Seems infeasible with the amount of fuel and mass on it since it also serves as a second stage, but maybe they solved that somehow?
DearMoon was supposed to launch 2022, passenger space service between LA and Ridhya by 2028 (announced in 2018 and they said it was on track for 2028 still several years later). They said it would be around the price of business class air travel and be in full commercial operation by then. That might have been after they started adding "aspirationally" to most Musk company statements following some lawsuits.
Well the military purpose was why the Shuttle was so crappy. The original design was smaller and meant to sit on top of its rocket. This would have probably prevented loss of crew in both of the instances where shuttle failed.
Shuttle regularly launched spy sats and was designed to grab an enemy one in a single orbit mission. Also Soviets believed it would nuke Moscow by sudden plane change via its wings & build their own version as a result.
The bombing of the Soviet Union was to happen via polar launch. The wings were there not for plane change, rather for cross range landing after the single orbit polar mission.
The Space Shuttle never had a combat mission, in the sense that it was never used to drop bombs via polar orbit over the Soviet Union. But of course it had tens of military missions, the Shuttle launched many department of defense satellites.
There's also many advantages to being able to lift something large/heavy in one go, rather than smaller payloads that need to be unfolded (like JWST) or assembled in space, which can drastically increase the development costs.
I suggest you read up on the rocket equation again. There is a massive difference between payload mass fraction and payload. The latter scales linearly with respect to the total mass.
That's the problem. Building a heavier rocket is much harder than building a lighter one (see explosion above). So why not send a few lighter ones instead of a heavy one? This is what the launch market has concluded for a long time.
Let’s assume starship works out and they come up with a nifty wide-opening payload door solution, one of the advantages will be payload volume as well as mass - the JWST’s main mirror would have fit inside without being folded (although the heat shield would not have).
Disagree. The overall Starship system's problems are obviously in Starship, not in the Super Heavy booster. The latter is far heavier. But it only has to do 2 things well - sub-orbital launch, and sub-orbital precision return. And the launch tower's chopsticks give it a lot of help with the latter.
Vs. the Starship has to do far more things - all of them mission-critical - while being ruthlessly optimized for weight.
Falcon 9 is by no means small or even medium. In the history of rockets its quite a large and powerful rocket. And so is Ariane 5. Not sure what you are referencing with Ariane, I guess Ariane 1-4 were small.
So far in history, we didn't have enough to launch. If the volume we launch increases then a larger rocket flying often is helpful.
We are at the peak of what a rocket the size of Falcon 9 can do. If you want full re-usability, the size helps you out quite a bit.
And hauling the 'orbiter' into 'orbit' is only wasteful if you can't reuse it. I would argue what's actually wasteful is throwing the second stage in the ocean, even when it costs minimum 10million $, and likely more.
What Saturn V and the Shuttle were trying to do pales in comparison to what the design goals of Starship are. If you were trying to repeat what those vehicles were doing you would've designed the launch vehicle significantly different.
Compared to Starship, Falcon 9 may look like a medium rocket, but it is actually quite big, and Falcon Heavy is bona fide a heavy launcher, not just a hype-name.
I think its premature to blame this on Raptor. At least, I couldn't see anything suggesting the static fire was imminent, so my money would be on "anything but the engines" over "the engines". At least with what we know so far.
But SpaceX's brand of rocket development is certainly exciting
That's what it seems like to me too. From the slo-mo video, it looks like one of the propellant tanks (likely the methane tank on the top) burst open, spilled a lot of the propellant and then caught fire. Engines are unlikely to be the culprit here. Interestingly, there seems to be a crack or a gap already on the surface, along which the tank bursts open when the accident occurs.
So that's 3 issues in the last 2 flights and one static fire, all different, all with different root causes, all catastrophic. Block 3 will be a different vehicle, should they just skip Block 2 (scrap however many they already built) and move on to Block 3?
In the spacex subreddit there are comments claiming that key engineers have left the company because of differences with leadership/culture. Not sure how credible those are, but spacex has had suspiciously many failures recently.
It’s not even just a binary state of an engineer being there or not. The morale and general attitude of the environment can cause engineers still there to just not have their hearts in it.
I think about the countless engineering success stories I’ve read where you can tell the people involved were just living and breathing the problem.
It's hard to tell whether key engineers were the differences between success and failure but Comparably lists SpaceX’s Retention Score as an A– grade, placing it in the top 15% of similarly sized companies based on employee feedback. Additionally, SpaceX boasts an Employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS) of +25, placing it in the top 25% among peer companies
comparably.com.
Sounds impressive, sure. Question is how much weight do you put into survey stats like those given Musk's extensive history of things like buying the influence he wants, putting his thumbs on the scales of his truth-bot, getting generous valuations based on hype and stories, knowing about "those vote counting computers" (Trump's own words), ruthlessly firing anyone who disagrees with him, etc etc etc.
Then again, they are launching tons of rockets, and any cult leader has his followers, so what do I know...
Not to say that Musk's been particularly endearing lately - but what would the normal turnover in an engineering-centric company the size of SpaceX be?
Especially with how hot the field is these days. I suspect "key" SpaceX engineers do not lack for lucrative offers.
We haven't really seen any problems with the engines themselves, so much as the plumbing that has try to keep them fed through radical changes in the rocket's orientation.
I don't necessary think its a problem with the engine as such. The problem seems much more to get the fuel to the right place in the right pressure at all parts of flight.
If an engine blows up, because its pulling in bubbles, its not the engines fault.
I think Raptor 2 has a few issues still but as we can see on the booster, the can perform fine for what most rocket engines have to do.
That seems like a poor example given how many failed attempts to land something on Mars that took place before they got to designs that would get it right in the first go.
The Viking landers were the first attempt by the US to land on Mars. The Soviets actually soft-landed first on their second try but the lander failed after transmitting one corrupted image. There were certainly many failed Mars missions by various countries, but the Vikings at least got it right on the first go.
Yeah, this is a remarkably good score - for comparison Europe is at 0 out of 2. :P
The first one [1] actually landed but failed to send back any data (kinda like the soviet example) due to deployment failure.
But the second one will at least have an impact on future generations, with people being confused why there are two Shiaparelli[2] craters on Mars. ;-)
Important to note that it exploded "prior" to the planned test. That seems really really bad to me, and potentially even dangerous. It's one thing if a test fails -- tests are somewhat expected to fail occasionally. It's very very bad if it catastrophically fails before the test even starts.
The whole thing is a test. The risk of huge explosions starts when they load it with fuel, not when they fire the engines. There are risks even before that, like electrical fires or structural failures.
It's easy to make structures that don't fail: just make them 5x stronger than anticipated max loads.
Sadly, this would make a rocket too heavy to reach orbit. So they end up being 1.1x stronger than anticipated loads. And it's hard to exactly anticipate loads. Vibration can add to a peak load, and it's notoriously hard to model how much vibration might happen. SpaceX rockets are filled with cryogenic methane at -160C, which causes everything it touches to shrink which creates forces between the parts that get cold and the parts that don't. A rocket-sized tank contracts by inches, but has to be supported by the structure around it. A single support member that doesn't move the right way can cause a fracture. So it's actually a hard problem.
There are is a way[1] how to gate a spacecraft 5x stronger (basically on the level of battleship style steel plate) to orbit - and then to Titan and back. The propulsion method just has some unfortunate side effect when launching from earths surface. Still it should work just fine & might come in as a handy option handy in an emergency.
This was a entire ship (not just an engine), and nobody was hurt or killed. Is this a major or minor setback for SpaceX? Rapid unscheduled disassemblies may look spectacularly bad but may be par for the course during testing (in order to push things to their limits to learn where they break) - curious to learn how bad this one is.
In normally run project, it would be pretty big. As you would need to do proper analysis just what failed and how. And then decide, design and implement needed fixes. With SpaceX engineering culture who knows...
In "normal" project a serious misshap of this kind often ends the project - see how the DC-X VTVL rocket testbed fell over due to one landing leg not extending, ending the whole project. Nothing related to what was being tested or developed and it ended the whole project.
As a result we got booster landings delayed by 20 years - and SpaceX would also not get there with Falcon 9 if they would call it quit after spcetacular failures (see Falcon 9R test bed).
I think those were available off the shelf at thet time ? Not sure what else would be suitable in early 90s, provided you did not build your own like basically all modern rocket companies since then.
Armadillo Aerospace (and many others, a decade or two ago) showed that rocket engines could be developed and built quickly and cheaply. The cost is in the optimization.
Choosing a hydrogen engine (which only really makes sense for upper stages) also means you need a hydrogen tank... a cryogenic hydrogen tank. They chose to make such a tank with a weird shape that fit the unnecessarily weird shape of their prototype. I think the major cost of getting their craft repaired (or more realistically, having a new one built) was to build a new custom hydrogen tank.
Crazy, when they didn't need anything optimized/complicated for testing launch and landing.
Also wild that they went with an F/A-18 accelerometer/gyro package. The first commercial mass market MEMS accelerometer was introduced in 1991 and was in volume production in 1993. I mean, they had to pick something and the ADXL50 wasn't ready yet (and they would still have had to design a 3-axis solution around it if it were), so I don't blame them for that (expensive) decision.
I do very much blame them for the choice of the RL-10, though. And for going immediately to such a large size -- that's the same thing as saying "we plan on not making any mistakes".
I agree, but still - what could they have used that was not "build your own engine" ? They seemed to have preferred (or maybe were forced to ?) use off the shelf hardware, even if sub-optimal.
The only engines that were not hypergolic & used kerolox were those used on the Atlas rockets or on the Deltas. Not sure if they had the necessary throttling range and other characteristics. I guess now I need to find some sort of a biography from someone working on the DC-X project. :D
As for Armadillo Aerospace - their efforts were admirably and I really enjoyed watching their progress. And they did manage to get a working engine. :)
It's a gigantic setback. Most directly, it will delay their launches for a good time while they repair and rebuild the site. But it also shows some kind of severe design flaws if this can happen even with no engines running.
This could be a "simple" production error (think "cracked pipe") which can be fixed with more effective monitoring of the construction, and not a major design flaw.
It might be someone forgot a wrench somewhere for what we know.
A simple error like that should be caught before you fill the rocket with methane and liquid oxygen. If a simple error gets through to this point your procedures are bad, which is a big problem for a complex rocket with many parts that could have simple errors.
Obviously it's not trivial, since they already flew a few spaceships and rockets, but it could be an edge case not considered until now which can still be fixed, rather than a "well, it turned out to be impossible to fly a rocket with this design".
Beyond whatever design or production issues caused this particular anomaly there will also be the delays due to the fact they just blew up a lot of ground support equipment.
The error itself is probably easily fixed. Usually the bigger the effects, easier to fix.
The real problem is the damaged infrastructure. They don't have several launch towers in the pipeline like they have Starships. This is a "pause and rebuild" scenario, with the wait time much harder to parallelize with something else. Whatever time they spend until they have the second launch tower functional, I'd bet about half of it will be an overall addition to the whole project.
The test site is severely damaged, and they don't have another one. It took what ,6 months to rebuild the launch tower after IFT-1? And it wasn't destroyed, just damaged, on the test site the tanks and pipes and all the rest are right near the vehicle so I see a lot of destruction.
So what, 6 to 9 months while they repair/build new test site(s)?
Might as well cut the losses and scrap Block 2 altogether, and move on to Block 3.
So then we'd have to assume that the error was not a 'simple' one. Which is a lot harder to find and fix, almost by definition.
I mean, look, this isn't a good sign for spacex. Whatever problem there is, clearly it's hard to find and fix. Could be some alloy, could be some pressure sensor, could be the whole management chain. Who knows yet.
Scenario 1 is Starship is run as competently as Falcon 9. If this is true, then basic errors won't have escaped the QA process, just as they don't for Falcon 9, the safest rocket ever flown. So, we would conclude that the issue must have been a complex one that eluded the competent QA process.
Second scenario, Starship is not run as competently as Falcon 9. That is also a huge problem, because it's very hard to fix people and procesa problems in general.
> This could be a "simple" production error (think "cracked pipe") which can be fixed with more effective monitoring of the construction, and not a major design flaw.
Good luck trying to get launch insurance for that without a full root cause and proof in double triplicate that this has been fixed.
Are you going to put you payload on one of those, a payload that will take 3 years to rebuild, and might end the company?
Starship has never carried a real payload, so insurance is irrelevant. Nobody will be putting billion dollar satellites on it until (if) it has been flight proven.
Might actually not be a design flaw, just a leak due to rushed production. But these should be caught BEFORE the thing blows up and causes X million worth of damage.
It's going to be a relatively minor setback. Biggest issue will be pad repair time. Starships is still in development and has been going boom pretty regularly, though not before launch usually! The investigation of the cause will be interesting. Given the current political context it's probably going to be AMOS-6 ramped up exponentially.
AMOS-6 was a pretty similar situation where a rocket exploded prior to a static-fire, and in fact is the reason that static fires are done without payloads, though Starship would not yet have a payload. The difficult to explain nature of the explosion, alongside some quite compelling circumstantial evidence, caused a theory of sabotage (sniping an exact segment of the rocket) to become widespread. Of course the cause here could be more straight forward to pin down - we'll know a lot more in a few days!
In terms of losing a ship, probably not too bad. The ground equipment might take a bit longer to replace, and they will probably want to understand what happened here before continuing.
Or, as you suggest, this was a more stressing test than usual, but I doubt they'd do that with a complete ship like this.
The fact that they didn't even make it to the test seems really bad. It's one thing for a test to fail. It seems downright dangerous if it fails before the test even started.
What's really vexing to me is how spacex refuses to build a triple stage rocket. Their 'reusability' adds a significant amount of mass in terms of heatshield and in terms of fuel margins for landing. Using additional stages benefits them more than saturn V. They likely thought they could get away with two stages and have them both return to the launch site, one the short way, the other the long way around. But the exclusion of a multi stage reusable architecture means that their empty mass fraction becomes a linchpin in bringing anything into orbit.
No wonder there's a v2 and v3 with much, much larger fuel tanks and less payload.
They need something that can land on Mars and return with a crew. Or something that can put a very large payload on Mars.
A three stage rocket is something you’d use for one-way missions with smaller payloads, or for putting something in GEO. Starship just isn’t optimised for those missions.
>They need something that can land on Mars and return with a crew
>A three stage rocket is something you’d use for one-way missions with smaller payloads
The only succesfull human spacecraft that landed on another body and taken off again used a three stage rocket to deliver a three stage lander,
The Command and Service Module(CSM) which brought the two stages into low lunar orbit
The Lunar Lander (LM) contained a descent stage and an ascent stage, the descent stage was used as a platform for the ascent stage.
To say that three stage rockets are just for one way missions is silly, especially considering that more stages enable larger payloads. We've yet to see whether SpaceX's two stage solution will actually be any good. I also do not expect a single stage to the surface of the moon and back to Low Lunar Orbit to be very usefull. Any mars mission will likely follow the exact apollo staging plan.
A third stage with the current Starship design would have to be under 100 tonnes and the payload would be small. It would have to do all the work of injecting into a transfer orbit, landing on Mars, and returning. It’s hard to imagine such a small craft getting all the way to Mars, with a crew, and returning them.
Starship is just not a good design for pushing a third stage into a transfer orbit by itself. It’s totally dependent on the idea of in-orbit refuelling and refuelling on Mars. Once you refuel it, the game changes completely.
It’s also not a workable solution for landing on the Moon without refuelling for the same reasons. In some ways the Moon is more problematic because you can’t manufacture methalox on the Moon.
Depending on your mission profile, there are more ways how to get to the Moon and possibly back - the Surveyor space probes did direct ascent without entering lunar orbit & massive burn with an embedded solid rocket engine just before landing.
The soviet plan (if they actually managed to get the N1 to work) was to take the upper stage of that rocket all they way to the Moon (fueled by kerolox BTW) and use it for the final braking burn of the LK lander[1], before eecting the stage to crash on the surface while the lander used its engine for soft landing.
And then the lander would launch directly to lunar orbit using the same (or backup) engine, not dropping any stages, just the landing legs. This was forced by the much lower carrying capacity of the N1. There was just one cosmonaut landing as a result, with another one in the "lunar Souyuz" staying in lunar orbit. So just 2 people versus 3 in Apollo. And there was not even a hatch between the two modules & the cosmonaut was supposed to spacewalk (!) between the two before landing and after meeting back with the Soyuz spacecraft.
So if you can realistically do a single stage to landing & orbit on a body, I'm sure it will be the preferred option going forward, it has a significant benefits.
The more fuel economic way long term is break the mission into parts and reuse vehicles; single ship from surface to Lunar orbit, dock and transfer to a staged lander at a station and take the up and down. Taking Starship all the way to the surface wastes a tremendous amount of fuel hauling around the mass to get back home and through to landing safely.
Long term definitely like this! BTW, this exact sequence can be seen at the start of the Space Odyssey movie, with the main character traveling from Earth to Moon.
The full and rapid reuseability is the ultimate goal.
Make rocket launches as frequent and routine as commercial plane flights. Whether they use it for Mars or Moon on Earth-to-Earth or anything in between is irrelevant, this will revolutionize entire industries.
Just look at the share of Falcon 9 comparing to all other launch providers, and that one is only half-reuseable. If they manage to get the StarShip right this will be a game changer.
I guess one issue with that is that the second stage will land far from the launch site. In theory if it has sea level engines for landing, it could fly back though (after refueling).
If you have a good specific https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse , and you can get decent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_ratio s in your lower stages, then 2 stages are definitely the way to go to LEO. Every stage over 2 adds a load of weight (more engines, structure, etc.), lots of ground system/support complexity, and a whole 'nother stage separation worth of failure modes.
A triple stage rocket when you're trying to do reuse is actually a negative. The second stage needs significant heat shielding as a result which drastically eats into the size of the upper stage and your ultimate payload.
Unsustainable rate of failures due to the associated costs. SpaceX might have to go public to capture funding opportunities, which would inevitably result in more accountability toward ensuring successful flight development. When the execution of their tech works it is highly impressive. Track record of success rate proven by the Falcon program. Does anyone have the numbers on how much these ships cost each? I've seen estimates of $100 million for a full Starship stack.
I doubt they’d need to go public. Regardless of your views on Elon, he’s consistently raised billions privately whenever needed. Even without Starship, SpaceX seems cash-flow positive and profitable thanks to Starlink and Falcon 9. It’s simpler to ask private investors to back his R&D efforts when they’re investing in an already profitable company excluding the R&D. Going public might echo Tesla’s early days, when profitability of the company as a whole wasn’t guaranteed.
Yeah, $100M is the estimate I have seen. Which actually makes their current track record seem very sustainable compared to SLS which has spent on the order of $4B per launch. This is the first unequivocal failure this year. Aspects of the previous flight failed but proving the booster can be reused was a significant milestone. And they can afford a dozen more of these launches while still being significantly cheaper than SLS.
In spaceflight, an anomaly is an anomalous outcome compared to what was expected. The severity of the anomaly varies. Typically, if the world outside of the organization hears about an anomaly, it was severe enough to cause a Loss of Mission (LOM) or Loss of Vehicle (LOV). Internally, when things behave anomalously, they're referred to as off-nominal, and are subject to internal investigations to determine the cause.
This is a _very_ off-nominal outcome and the investigation will absolutely involve outside organizations and halting the program during the investigation until the investigation completes with a sufficient determination of faults and accompanying remediation plans.
There's a comment above that gives Loss of Vehicle (LOV) as an example of a more specific term. Sure "anomaly" is a known technical term, but it's also ambiguous and buries the lede.
Was able to reverse to about -1:49:00 to see it "live". But probably this relative timestamp was only current then. In any case, that was a massive explosion
Unfortunately just on Twitter, haven't seen much elsewhere yet. But the link seems to work.
The frame of the video has a burnt in clock in the top left corner though, so if you get that to be about 11:01:50 PM CDT you'll be at the point of the explosion.
Has the media coverage become more selectively focussed on the failures, or has the success rate of their move-fast-and-break-things approach really fallen off the last ~6-12 months?
You can't be serious. The wording of every article is in worst way possible while completely ignoring crashes from competitors - i.e. European Space Agency's launch in Norway, lunar landers being lost or even that sub-space Blue Origin all-female flight with such cringe slogan (Taking Up Space) that it's been edited from wiki.
I'm not pinning anything. I'm commenting on why SpaceX failures get more press than SpaceX successes. If it bleeds it leads is the way it's always been. And I'd be remiss to point out that there's /more/ appetite for it in the case of SpaceX because of feelings towards Musk.
Although I feel like SpaceX's successes (many of which have been truly remarkable, like the booster catches) get plenty of press themselves, you make a fair point. I apologize for taking your previous comment in bad faith. :)
Sure but I also remember watching a number of very impressive launches, landings, etc "firsts". Recently I don't recall any of these, and this was watching SpaceX direct streams on their site.
So looking back to the Falcon 9, there were only 4 failures to complete orbital objectives across 503 launches and one of those was only a partial failure (main payload delivered successfully, but the secondary payload was not due to a single-engine failure). These failures were not consecutive (4th, 19th, what would have been the 29th and 354th). Now apart from the first launch or two (COTS Demo Flight 1 had some useful payload, but still seemed pretty disposable) these all had real payloads so they were less experimental than these Starship test flights.
If we compare to the propulsive landing campaign for the Falcon 9 1st stage it's a bit more favorable. The first 8 attempts had 4 failures, 3 controlled splashdowns (no landing planned) and 1 success. I think in general it felt like they were making progress on all of these though. Similarly for the Falcon 1 launches they had 3 consecutive failures before their first success, but launch 2 did much better than launch 1. Launch 3 was a bit of a setback, but had a novel failure mode (residual first stage thrust resulted in collision after stage separation).
Starship Block 2 has had 4 consecutive failures that seem to be on some level about keeping the propellant where it's supposed to be with the first 2 failures happening roughly in the same part of the flight and this 4th one happening during pre-launch testing.
They are failing more but they are also succeeding more and the successes aren't recognized as successes. The previous Starship blew up but the Booster successfully launched and landed two flights in a row, and that was in the same two flights both of which were viewed as failures because the Starship blew up.
Even if Starship turns out to be a dumb idea the super heavy booster already seems like it might outperform SLS as a reusable heavy-lift stage.
Here's a framegrab showing what looks like the initial visible release of gas (before it becomes a big fireball), near the top where the arrow points: https://i.ibb.co/qYrn4vSf/image.png
In that image, you can see a white horizontal line on the heat shield, slightly below the point where the tank bursts. That was already there when the longer video clip starts. The tank later bursts along that line, even before the spilled propellant (which I assume is methane) catches fire. In fact, that line seems to be breaking apart even before the crack from the top reaches that point. However, the failure from the top might have propagated to that line out of our view, underneath the heat resistant tiles.
The crack propagation indicates that the line was a weak point on the structure. However, I'm surprised that it was already there. It's too early to make a reliable guess. But if I were to hazard one, I would say that the tank had too much pressure, well ahead of the explosion.
The earlier Starships were just manually welded steel. Is still so? If any failed weld can lead to a catastrophe like this, how would you guarantee the quality of each weld without going into nuclear power plant construction level of costs?
> The earlier Starships were just manually welded steel. Is still so?
I don't know if they use manual welding or robotic welding. But robotic welding is well established and is justified for the volumes of work that SpaceX carries out. What is more difficult is to avoid vertical weld seams on its cylindrical segments. I'm yet to encounter a roll forged cylinder that big, especially with stainless steel. (Disclaimer: I have no direct experience with industrial metalworking)
> If any failed weld can lead to a catastrophe like this, how would you guarantee the quality of each weld without going into nuclear power plant construction level of costs?
That is done using Non-destructive testing (NDTs). The usual methods are high-energy X-ray imaging, ultrasound testing (UT) and dye penetration testing (DP). These methods are usually reliable in catching such faults - even for machinery that's in use. For example, turbine blades in a jet engine.
Updated: As the other commenter pointed out, robotic welding doesn't ensure elimination of defects. The robotic process is more consistent and therefore reduces the defects. But uncontrollable random variations can still cause defects that could fail later. The only way to eliminate them (almost) entirely is to identify them with NDT and rectify them as long as the defects are within a certain tolerance limit.
NDT also will detect a range of defect shapes/sizes. The structural design also probably defines the maximum acceptable size of defects. That critical size depends on analysis that basically asks "what size of defect could we see, and be confident a defect smaller than this size won't grow sufficiently during operation, to a size that would challenge the structure or leakage etc requirements".
With this being metal, small defects tend to grow over time- called metal fatigue. This all depends on the stress in the material which depends on a lot of things: fluid flows and pressures, temperatures (and temperature differences and rates of change), vibrations (structural or induced by fluid flow), etc etc.
Mechanical engineering at this level is very complex! So many of these things boil down to probability distributions of each process involved. I don't know how "close to the edge" the design is, but this is the kind of thing you have to do when optimizing for weight.
> The structural design also probably defines the maximum acceptable size of defects. ... what size of defect could we see, and be confident a defect smaller than this size won't grow sufficiently during operation
Very much so! I have seen hardware being accepted and rejected on the basis of those limits. There were also cases where medium sized defects were reworked and rectified after careful assessments and reviews.
> With this being metal, small defects tend to grow over time- called metal fatigue
The tank and feedline welds don't cycle too often. But that also makes it very critical in reusable rockets. It may fly fine ten times and then show up unexpectedly.
> I don't know how "close to the edge" the design is
That's the fun part! As you suspect, they have ridiculously low structural margins in order to optimize for mass. What it means is that many physical phenomena that you don't usually worry too much about (when margins are splendid), suddenly turn into critical issues. Then you're off to doing doing materials research and other scientific studies, instead of doing just design and engineering (rocket engineering suddenly becomes rocket science. literally!). I've seen cases where the engineers were forced to study the algorithms used by finite element analysis software used for structural simulations. It can get that 'close to the edge'!
These tests are applicable only to manufacturing or service-time defects. Pipelines can still break in the dynamic environment of spaceflight. Such problems are design problems, not manufacturing defects.
I guess how much of a setback this is will be determined by how much damage is there on the facilities and the nature of the cause of the explosion(do they need to re-work the next 6 already being assembled so it doesn't happen again?).
A couple years ago, I happened to overhear a conversation at lunch between two men I gathered were SpaceX engineers. (They were talking very loudly, so it was difficult not to listen in.) Rather than discuss the mission of the company, or anything that showed passion for their job, they instead spent most of the lunch talking about how they were making “day in the life” TikToks and were trying to increase their follower counts, then about how they would drive 150+mph to Vegas since they could afford any speeding ticket if they got pulled over. Really struck me as a red flag for the company that their employees were much more concerned about their own social status than anything they were working on. I suppose incidents like this may well be the result of these attitudes becoming commonplace.
I really don't get people who be like "Lets undermine all humanity's progress because I don't like Elon Musk". Don't know if you are so stupid or so cynical, but I'm sorry for you anyway.
The pad might actually have less damage than one might assume; that explosion started at the top. The bottom parts of the pad will mostly have heat & fire damage, but not explosion?
(It'll still be fucked, I just wouldn't expect a crater?)
With the Amos explosion on Falcon 9 IIRC the issue was with burning kerosene seeping into the pad, damaging it quite a bit. Both methane and liquid oxygen should burn or evaporate before really pooling on the pad infrastructure, so there could really be less damage.
Still, there was probably more energy stored in the Starship propelants than in the Falcon 9 case.
I'm not so sure. The biggest explosion I saw in the video was right at the base. I think that the liquid methane spilled and fell to the ground. Probably the oxygen tank also burst by that time, spilling LOX right into the path of the falling liquid methane - creating a nice mixture of methane and oxygen right at the base, ready to explode.
I'm imagining Elon like Jeff Bridges in Iron Man, shouting at his team, "The Apollo program built a heavy lifter rocket in the sixties, with a box of scraps!"
Sure, but Elon's (SpaceX really) isn't trying to build a heavy lift rocket (they already have one in the Falcon Heavy, and technically even the Falcon 9 in expendable mode) they're trying to build a fully reusable vehicle, and you need a rocket the size of Starship to have enough margin to afford the hardware for reuse on the vehicle.
They're referring to the dialogue by Obadiah Stane in Iron man. But it's also appropriate in some sense if you consider how they made the carbon dioxide scrubber in-flight in Apollo 13.
I agree that they were well funded. But the designs were complete genius. They were exceptionally clever with the use of rudimentary technologies they had at the time. One of my favorites is how they used an Archimedes spiral in celestial attitude determination. It isn't too farfetched to say that they used scraps to build the program - they just MacGyvered through every challenge they faced.
They were extremely clever but I strongly object to characterizing the program as “scrappy”.
They were doing beyond bleeding edge stuff with zero compromise. They didn’t settle. They just kept inventing until they had the capability they needed. Then they moved on to making the next impossible thing possible.
The Apollo Guidance Computer used the first integrated circuits. Like, literally the first batches manufactured went into the AGC. 2/3 of the national supply of a brand new technology is not “scraps”.
They went to the absolute limit of what was technologically possible then and is not technologically possible today. I understand that’s the reason for the Iron Man reference but it just doesn’t work here. The 1960s were not the stone age. Apollo was thousands of Tony Starks with the full backing of the United States. Not a couple guys in a cave fighting for their lives.
Btw - has anyone thought how fully reusable starship eith those launch costs would revolutionize warfare. Being able to drop 50-60 tons of explosive from orbit for the cost of 1-2 million dollars while being untouchable is something I am sure that is at least part of current us military wet dreams.
They're pitching something similar to the US military. The proposal is to use the Starship (the spacecraft alone without the Super Heavy booster) as a suborbital personnel/cargo carrier. Personally though, I'm a bit skeptical about the whole concept. And they're certainly not untouchable. At least 3 other nations have the ability to knock them out in space. And 2 of them are hostile towards the US.
Pretty bad: it blew up on the pad before the static fire test even started. I can’t imagine this provides much in the way of useful information, and it looks like the pad was completely destroyed as well.
> I can’t imagine this provides much in the way of useful information
I can't really comprehend this statement, since it appears, in a spectacular fashion, that there's some useful information to be learned involving the top half of the ship, especially the flammable bits that you can see burst out before igniting. A rocket ship isn't just its engines, it's a system, with all the bits of it being not only useful, but entirely necessary.
You're very clearly mistaken. I can tell you, with a very reasonable estimate, how much the information is worth: one launch cost + ground infrastructure, in cold hard cash, multiplied by the number of times the flawed design/process will cause it to reoccur.
I see that comments mentioning the 'move fast and break stuff' philosophy are downvoted quickly here. While I don't have any direct knowledge of the Starship design and the SpaceX work culture, I do have years of experience in both the launch vehicle industry as well as the software industry. I feel that the concerns with this approach are dismissed too easily. It's true that SpaceX has been an industry disruptor and a trend setter, especially with the Falcon series launchers. But Falcon and Starship are two fundamentally different vehicles and the success of one doesn't guarantee the success of the other. And there may be good reasons why the Starship is struggling when the Falcon 9 became a success that's unlike any before.
To start with, Falcon 9 and Starship may share some technologies. But they use different engines, engine cycles, propellants, structural materials and dynamics and even manufacturing processes. SS and Falcon are more dissimilar than any other two launchers I've seen from a single company. There are a lot of design data and procedures that you simply can't carry over from one to the other. The only thing you can realistically carry over is the zealousness with which the design and production quality is enforced. But problems like the repeated failure of the Starship fuel lines raise questions about that zealousness. (In my experience, a traditional space industry facing such issues during the development phase would simply throw out the propellant circuit design and start from scratch, paying more attention to its structural integrity. Frankly, I've seen worse. But that approach is present in the Raptor design. Look how different v1, v2 an v3 are.)
I think everyone here knows that the 'move fast and break things' culture has its roots in the agile development methodology from the silicon valley. Meanwhile, the traditional space development methodology has its roots at NASA. It's even more rigorous than the waterfall methodology used in the software industry, with numerous levels of elaborate reviews for designs, test plans, tests results, integration, schedules, status and even the documentation. From what I understood, the agile methodology is optimized to maximize revenue in a project where the underlying tech stack is reasonably well understood and proven. But it's a poor match for a project where the costs, stakes, complexity, subsystem interdependence, uncertainty in subsystem reliability and lack of engineering margins are all very high. Space launcher is the poster child of such projects. Agile is not even suitable for software projects where you're developing something novel and complex.
The main problem with Agile is the 'let's push to production and see what fails' approach. I'm aware that there are elaborate QA procedures to augment the methodology. But the project is much more tolerant to QA failures. Unlike that, you can't simply leave a flaw in a launcher or its subsystem design and hope to resolve it later. Such flaws are technical debts that will stay hidden for a while and then fail spectacularly on a random day, like the holes in a Swiss cheese. Remember that subsystem interdependence is very high. Failures cascade in ways you couldn't have dreamt of. And the required corrections are elaborate, costly, time consuming and often spanning multiple subsystems. The only reasonable way to manage so much uncertainty is to design meticulously for all foreseeable failures from the start, validating those assumptions at every step of the way (This is why they sometimes throw away faulty designs entirely). And that takes a lot of time and focus. The current approach of 'we will launch in one month to make up for this failure' makes me a bit uncomfortable.
I'm not trying to dismiss SpaceX's approach outright. The biggest aspect of any launcher development is the management of complexity and uncertainty. Perhaps they will find a good way to do that without slowing down. They sure have a lot of smart and hardworking employees. But if I were asked to manage one again, I will choose the NASA style again over the agile style. I'm not smart enough to manage with any other method, the level of uncertainties and complexities I expect from a mid-heavy launcher design, much less something like the Starship. Remember that the management culture was one of the hottest topics in the investigation of the Challenger disaster. Perhaps it's a good idea to revisit the findings of that investigation, as well as the venerable and effective Apollo design philosophy.
Thanks for such a deep explanation, especially for those of us who know nothing about launching space rockets.
> Remember that the management culture was one of the hottest topics in the investigation of the Challenger disaster. Perhaps it's a good idea to revisit the findings of that investigation, as well as the venerable and effective Apollo design philosophy.
IIUC, the goal of SpaceX's "Agile" approach to lower the costs of putting payloads into orbit via launch vehicle reuse by amortizing the R&D and equipment cost over multiple profitable launches. They are searching for the cheapest route to achieve large payload space launches.
NASA's goal in the Apollo program was to spend whatever was necessary in order to match and surpass the Soviets' accomplishments. While I don't doubt they were scrappy when necessary, I suspect that the reputational cost of repeated failures (to the country and individuals) was such that it was worth investing time into "getting it right". When fatal failures happened, it was treated as a national disaster and the dead are today considered heroes: https://www.nasa.gov/mission/apollo-1/
Today nobody would even consider risking their lives (nor be asked to) in the way that the Apollo astronauts did, perhaps because the goals (for profit or the mars-fantasy) are considered to be less virtuous.
Perhaps the quality control doesn't need to be as high when you perceive there is less at stake and you can just do it again and again (until the money runs out). That's not to say that this approach won't eventually work, but the motivations and guiding narrative seem to be really different than in the past.
> IIUC, the goal of SpaceX's "Agile" approach to lower the costs of putting payloads into orbit via launch vehicle reuse by amortizing the R&D and equipment cost over multiple profitable launches.
An issue that's deeply intertwined with reusability is reliability. We put absolute emphasis on reliability with expendable launchers. But if you think about it, this is even more paramount in the case of reusable launchers. Hardware tends to degrade overtime, increasing the chance of triggering any design or manufacturing flaws. Expendable launchers need to contend with this only once and for a short time. Reusable launchers have to deal with it over several flights, several structural and thermal cycles (causing fatigue cracks) and a large accumulated operating time. Periodic maintenance can eliminate some flaws - but not design flaws. Launchers also tend to be very sensitive to design flaws, due to the very low engineering margins available. So, there is a bigger incentive here to get it right in the first try itself. (For example, consider the fact there are fewer entities with the capability to build the common turbofan engine than to build a rocket engine.)
Another point is that the agile methodology banks on one particular behavior of software. They rarely degrade over time (unless you manage to leak resources wildly). This makes it amenable to rapid trials, failures and corrections. The cost of experimentation is also minimal, since you don't lose hardware in the process. But in hardware projects, many flaws show up only after an extended period of testing. The trials and corrections are also costly and strenuous.
> They are searching for the cheapest route to achieve their goals.
You may have realized by now what I'm trying to convey. I'm not sure if the agile method is the cheapest route in space tech.
> An issue that's deeply intertwined with reusability is reliability. We put absolute emphasis on reliability with expendable launchers. But if you think about it, this is even more paramount in the case of reusable launchers. Hardware tends to degrade overtime, increasing the chance of triggering any design or manufacturing flaws.
Presumably this was all well understood from history/experience before they applied Agile approaches to space launch. What changed that made this a plausible way to proceed? Some fundamental breakthrough or just Musk's deep pockets?
> What changed that made this a plausible way to proceed? Some fundamental breakthrough or just Musk's deep pockets?
I don't think anything changed fundamentally. Honestly, the design methodology for any engineering project would evolve organically to be similar to NASA's methodology as its complexity grows. Despite how it looks, Falcon 9 is actually a very conservative design that doesn't depart much from this philosophy. They did everything possible to keep the complexity low and reliability high. Merlin is a simple open cycle engine utilizing pintle injectors. The propellant combination was well known. The vehicle materials and structures were similar to traditional designs. Pneumatic systems were favored in place of pyro systems to improve reusability. Even the vertical landing technology (VTOL) was demonstrated in the 1990s (although Falcon is the first one to land vertically after reentry). The designers were industry veterans utilizing NASA's help. And they took a long time to perfect the basic technologies and had already nailed the basic platform design by the time they started experimenting rapidly with high production rates and landing. Switching to agile mode wasn't a big problem at that stage.
Starship on the other hand, was very unconventional from the word go. Stainless steel structures, methane as fuel, full-flow staged combustion cycle engines with near-limit chamber pressures, cartwheel separation maneuver (which they ultimately abandoned in favor of hot staging, with a lot of ongoing issues), use of sea-level engines in space (on the second stage), the belly-down reentry and the final belly-flop maneuver by the starship, etc. There are more than a dozen things in there that nobody has tried before. It just seems like they have too many things on their plate. Musk's deep pockets did play a big role here. But I'm going to avoid speculating on it.
If you spend your own money sure why not, I couldn't agree more, but it's the taxpayer's.
This very same individual was until recently trying to highlight frivolous government spending, surprisingly coming up short, obviously it'd be very cynical of me to suggest even a hint of hypocrisy let alone a conflict of interest so I'll leave it.
It's fairly clear that v2 has some problems and that SpaceX have not got to the bottom of them. It's not clear whether that's a series of small things of which this is (perhaps) the last, or something systemic where solving one problem moves the problem further along the chain.
But on the other hand, this is a test programme and while I'm sure nobody at SpaceX is sanguine about this particular explosion, their philosophy is still leaning towards more-frequent higher-risk tests.
An explosion of this kind with SLS would be a catastrophe for that programme. For Starship it's a setback - but seems very unlikely to derail the programme in the same way. The costs of an individual Starship are dramatically lower than those for an SLS second stage.
The prize that SpaceX are reaching for is full reusability; achieving it would allow them to totally dominate the launch industry for at least a decade. It's worth a few detonations.
I think a lot of commentators are drawing too much pleasure from seeing Musk fail at his hobby (and, fair, he's a total areshole, I'm enjoying that a little too) to put this particular failure in its proper perspective. Now, if they have another failure or two, or particularly if they have similar failures with v3 then it will start to look like they might have a bigger problem - but for now this is just part of the price you pay for rapid iteration.
NASA astronauts continue to regularly fly on Crew Dragon missions with the next one (Crew-9) scheduled for August 2025, suggesting professional astronauts maintain confidence in SpaceX's human-rated vehicles despite development issues with Starship.
SpaceX supporters can only call this "moving fast, breaking stuff" for so long as the entire program regresses in on itself in terms of milestones. This was never easy, but the Falcon program sure made it look so.
Falcon also was hard. They had a few failures and nearly went bankrupt in the process of successfully launching for the first time.
> the entire program regresses in on itself in terms of milestones.
The alternative would be looking at the competing programs from Boeing, Blue Origin, etc. It's not like they are hitting their milestones particularly well with their more traditional waterfall approach. The point of rapid iteration is that it is an inherently open ended process that has no milestones other than to launch the next iteration within weeks/months of the previous one. Which they have been doing fairly consistently.
If SpaceX gets starship in a launcheable and recoverable state, they'll still have many years of competing against competitors that have to rely on single launch vehicles exclusively. They would be very early to market. And there's a decent chance they might start nailing things with a few more launches.
They didn't regress like starship has though... they literally just went from orbit to controlled landing in ocean and catching the booster on a fork to the ships blowing up in orbit or not making it there and the boosters aborting the catch for a controlled landing offshore or blowing up as well.
Now they have regressed to blowing up on the pad during static testing.
Seems very different to me than the Falcon story, 100%. Granted, they had luck too.
I wonder if astronauts will be excited to be the first to ride on the Starship given the statistics. Obviously they aren't going to be too keen on the Starliner but that didn't blow up.
Considering NASA has a 50 percent loss rate on their space shuttles and SpaceX hasn't lost anyone yet I don't think it's a problem.
I'm surprised that people are losing their minds over a few explosions as if the US government didn't blow up hundreds of rockets in order to get a working product.
That's a wonderful way to bend stats to make a point i.e. to compare probability of failure of one flight to probability of eventual loss of one craft that might last many flights.
The risk angle is that this isn't about national security or a government enterprise. This is commercial - you can't spend your money if you're dead.
And then when they disabled safety checks it just worked.
How can you be confident that, given the circumstance, their lower-cost competitor, the one pushing iterative startup style move fast approach, has the same extensive safety checks AND had zero hardware bugs in 10 or so years?
Which one do I want to ride? Soyuz? Or maybe upgraded Starliner?
I don't want to listen to the maddening tictictictictic sound[1] on Dragon doing best it can to deorbit by mashing H key, or experience human excrement contamination problem[2] caused by toilet system becoming autonomously unassembled. Soyuz with intact main engines don't seem to have those kinds of problems[3], only spinal injury risks in ballistic modes.
Dragon V2 is a Tesla rocket, after all. In hindsight, why would have it not been one, and how could have it ever been a good thing? Sure, Starliner practically died and rebooted during docking with the ISS, which is surely extremely dangerous, but when it comes to Dragon V2, they had proper kaboom during ground testing.
Tell me, which human spacecraft in past 20 years had a full on explosion, and why should I want to be on it?
LOL okay. Well you do what's best for you. I'll do what works and doesn't involve going to Russia or Flying on Starliner which literally left the last Astronauts stranded.
It's not a regression every flight. The last flight was pretty successful. You are acting as is this isn't an unprecedented launch vehicle. Even if they lost 20 in a row, as long as they get there that's all that matters. Space X has shown how well things work once they get something working.
Traditional non-SpaceX US launch companies does not seem very conpetent at the moment.
But there seems to be a lot of progress in reusable launcher development outside the US, mainly in China and apparently also among Japanese car manufacturers!
If Bezos made a bridge building company, I'd expect it to use something similar to waterfall. That's not to say it is right for rockets, but it is a different domain than software.
At the risk of being a bit Polly-Anna-ish this might be a good thing in the medium term for the project. If this has the same root cause as the in-flight failures of v2, they at least have a chance to analyse the failed components directly instead of having to infer purely from instrumentation what happened.
The highs and lows of SpaceX have been interesting to watch. I have to wonder though if, at least partially, some of their recent troubles are partially because people are loosing passion for their mission. You can definitely see it in the reporting, and some of the comments here, that there is less willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt and while that is far from a technical measure, passion is a big part of what makes a team get through things and continue to make progress. I know for my own part there was a time where I was looking for positions at SpaceX purely because I wanted to be apart of what was going on but now you couldn't pay be enough to join them. If your key people start thinking of things as just a job instead of a world changing opportunity then your rapid iteration cycle can go from 'this is brilliant and gets things done fast so I better try harder' to 'this is stupid and I am putting in my minimum hours to get paid'.
> because people are losing passion for their mission.
Or perhaps they are losing people with the passion for the mission.
I think more likely is that the bones of the people working there are being ground to dust as Musk demands more and more from them faster and faster. You can only do so much so fast before things start going south hard.
It's amazing how underappreciated or cared about morale is in the corporate world.
"How happy are people at this company?" is a non-negligible performance differentiator.
Yet somehow CEOs seem blindsided when everyone at a company hates it and is mailing it in. (Probably because they're only listening to the management chain, which is concealing the problem)
Is this actually true?
Amazon was pretty notorious for poor culture and high employee turnover yet the company performance has been stellar. Covid-era twitter clearly cared a ton about employee morale but the product stagnated.
I find it's often the opposite causality, IE the success/trajectory of the company is the primary component that determines morale. An increasing stock price makes employees happy.
Amazon's stock price is great, sure. But I don't think their products are particularly inspired. There's a huge disconnect between how good a product is and how much money it prints. On the far end of the spectrum you have products like Oracle, SAP, IBM, etc which, despite being objectively shit, still somehow print. And then on the other side you have truly inspired stuff that is built by people who care, like (early) SpaceX, Anthropic, (early) Apple, etc. It's kind of hard (imo) to not see the difference between these two ends of the spectrum.
I think that product quality and money printing ability do eventually converge, but it can take decades to get there. The slow trickle of talent leaving the company causes the product decay over time, but there's a ton of inertia in the meantime.
Perhaps it would have been even more stellar with happier people.
There is a very bizarre and persistent belief that you can't be successful without grinding, being miserable, and abusing both employees and customers.
What if that's not true?
An increasing stock price makes employees with stock happy.
Generally, morale is a variable but the coefficient to apply to it is also different from company to company.
I would never want to work for an Elon, but I understand the allure. Like most of us, I'm giving a solid ~75% effort most days, just punching the clock. My work life balances is fine. I have time for my family and hobbies, etc. It's a nice, steady way to live. But every once in awhile, circumstances will conspire to provide me with hard work with an aggressive, drop-dead delivery date. It makes me mad at first--there are things I'd rather do than work, after all--but there is something to be said for letting go and locking the fuck in for a week of 14 hour a days. It feels good. It doesn't feel like work. It's a drug. It keeps me high until midnight, but makes me sleep like a rock. It makes me sleep like a rock, but has me springing out of bed 5 hours later! I feel like I'm the master of the universe. I'm impervious to stress. Even that's not quite right. It's not just that I'm immune to stress, it's that I start to feed off of it. I welcome it.
And then d-day comes and it's over. The impetus is gone. And every single time, I try to hang on to it. I give myself new projects and fake deadlines. I force myself to get up early and stay up late, but the moment that magic is gone, those things become... work. And like I said, there are things I would rather do than work.
I think a lot of Elon's success stems from his mastery of this "lock in" phenomenon. He is (or at least was) able to induce it in himself to drive himself harder than normal people do. He is able to induce the same state in his workforce as by setting bold and inspiring goals and setting absurd deadlines.
This is not a secret, btw. Nobody goes to SpaceX without understanding that they're signing up to work double the hours for way less than double the pay. For many, this sounds like a nightmare. If you're a young single guy looking to lock the fuck in, to take on huge responsibilities and grow in the company of some of the smartest, hardest working people on earth, it sounds positively amazing.
tl;dr: It's a feature, not a bug.
The missing component in the above is making sure that one is compensated for giving their all.
Because there's a lot of things that are given up when doing that.
And ultimately, no leader is responsible for ensuring someone's compensation matches their effort. That's on everyone's own shoulders to demand.
I think they're also doing things that are very, very hard, but they set the expectations very, very high.
Hard things fail from time to time. When you aim for something really at the edge of human enginuity, it might work or it might not, and if it works, it will probably still be a close call.
But somehow years ago already SpaceX and it's followers convinced everyone that Starship will definitely happen. And it still might, but if it does, I still think it will be a rocky road.
I would say SpaceX has been extraordinarily lucky for years (not in the sense that they fluked it, but rather that they achieved so much and made it look easy), and this is just reversion to the mean.
Not just hard things, but much harder than they've done before.
Note that Booster appears to be coming along pretty well. But Ship, which has a much, much more difficult mission profile than Falcon 9, is really struggling, because going to orbit and back is far more difficult than going most of the way to orbit and back. (Please forgive the abstraction - I don't have the relative numbers at hand.)
There are still people who have basic professionalism and desire to improve their skills, regardless of the vision they buy into or don't buy into. Motivation only goes so far, and in my humble opinion, unless Space X hiring was special in some way, the people who build space rockets are not the kind of people who underperform because they no longer buy the story. They just quit and excel elsewhere.
I could imagine that Musk's political escapades have driven away a lot of people.
SpaceX may also have lost Musk as the referee who makes quick decisions and keeps things moving forward. I think people like Thorvalds, Gates, Jobs and Musk are a superpower for organizations. Their decisions may not always be perfect but at least a decision is made so people can proceed. Otherwise you end up with the usual committee decisions that take forever and are mostly driven by internal politics and not about the product.
Not just that but he aggressively fires people for little or nothing, spontaneously rescinds outstanding offers, fires contractors, initiates hiring freezes, cancels bonuses and throws up Nazi salutes on national television.
So I’ve heard working for him can present challenges.
I guess the moral of the story is, dice rolls can be surprisingly useful, but when the dice stops being a dice and becomes its own reactionary camp inside the committee, the optics can get surprisingly di...
No, I'll show myself out.
That isn't an instant process. Someone who has been working at SpaceX for 5 years and is excited about Starship might have reached a tipping point where they can no longer ignore their boss's behavior, but also they are conflicted about abandoning Starship.
Well, equity vesting can be one reason to stick around and underperform
Yeah I'm sure they could walk out the door and get a job at the other rocket company across the street.
This is what happened to Google.
I think what SpaceX has accomplished is awesome and extremely impressive, but because of Elon Musk, I hope that some other company will one day leapfrog them and push SpaceX into oblivion.
I don't know, but if I saw my boss do a Nazi Salute, I would definitely lose passion.
Indeed, though rocket engineers have historically not been particular sticklers on that score.
Von Braun went from burning through Jewish slave labor to build super weapons to Hitler to hosting TV specials on space travel with Walt Disney in Orlando Florida. Are we going to see the reverse progression with Elon?
Von Braun was just a geek who passionately wanted to work on rockets. He didn't worry much about what payloads they would carry or whom they would land on, just as people working at Meta or Palantir don't sweat those sorts of details. He wasn't so much immoral as amoral.
As it happened, the only people willing to pay von Braun to build rockets were Nazis, so (shrug) Nazis it was. If the Americans had recruited him in the 1930s, he would have become a loyal American and a credit to his adopted country, just as he ended up doing after the war. If Stalin had been willing to sponsor him, well, he'd have raised the red banner and become a loyal Communist.
There was never any point in prosecuting von Braun as a Nazi, or even thinking of him as one. Treating him as a war criminal, even though he technically was one, would have been a pointless, performative waste of badly-needed talent, like destroying captured V2s instead of studying them.
Elon Musk? He has no such excuse. Musk can be anything, do anything, say anything. He came to America early and made his fortune doing things that a lot of us respected and even envied him for. Then he chose to attach his name to far-right causes, throw Nazi salutes, and do the Kraft durch Freude dance at Trump rallies. Turned out Musk didn't care about building rockets or going to Mars quite so much as he cared about being an immature asshole. In that sense he took a path diametrically opposite that of Wernher von Braun.
So, yeah, if I worked for SpaceX, I wouldn't exactly bust my ass to make the leader's vision happen after losing trust in the integrity of said leader. I'd simply leave and find employment elsewhere, leaving behind people with fewer options.
Ref: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro&t=17s
Turns out skillset usually trumps justice, as long as you're willing to make the right post-hoc mea culpas.
Yup. I have not experienced anything nearly this serious with a CEO, but I have had company leadership say and do very stupid things that reduced my focus on the corporate mission. Fortunately, they do still occasionally provide me with interesting puzzles (and they still pay me).
I used to be a huge elon fan, watched spacex rocket development daily, livestream all of the launches, watched many of his interviews, very impressed by tesla, selfdriving, starlink, optimus, neuralink.. he came off as a very skilled engineer.
however..
when he started spamming political misinformation on twitter i had to block him. very concerned he was burnt out and brainwashed into into politics. the nazi salute, then making nazi jokes about it, was just insane.
doge is a joke, he lost the plot.
now i barely check updates on whats happening at starbase, cheer on when the rockets explode, couldn't care less about tesla.. it's a real shame. all that great work by thousands of talented people in his companies..
he needs to resign from everything and go hide under a rock for a few years until he finally gets into orbit and burns up on rentry.
> he came off as a very skilled engineer.
No, he did not. I still can't believe people bought his BS so easily - "it must be true, because he said it!" No, it isn't, never was, never will be. And I don't even care about that salute - Musk lost all his credibility around 2015 when he promised self-driving cars (coming next year! for the past 10 years, and counting), then by lying about the Solarcity roof tiles (and basically committed fraud for which he didn't go to prison - go figure).
It is also quite dehonestating to those _real_ engineers working for Tesla or Spacex, who actually know their stuff. It was them who made Musk possible, not the other way around.
> all that great work by thousands of talented people in his companies..
Exactly.
DOGE is not a joke. DOGE is the modern equivalent of an enclosure act - privatisation of state data for private profit and political leverage, some of which will be wielded by hostile countries.
And Musk was personally responsible - not just for that atrocity, but for poisoning the world's leading progressive social media site, for being complicit in the neutering of countless world-leading science projects, for defunding basic research at NASA and firing hundreds of employees with solid achievements and genuine passion for space science, for gutting the FAA, and so on.
I cannot say enough unkind things about the man. The fact that he has any kind of following at all after the last year is both shocking and disappointing.
Same happened for me. It started with the Thai cave rescue and his submarine where it showed that he is a big attention whore. From then on he seemed to lose his mind.
I still have to respect Starlink, accelerating adoption of EVs and the work SpaceX does. His businesses have reshaped several industries big time. It takes a lot of courage and insight to pull this off.
That’s when I burned my Elon fan club card.
When he baselessly accused a hero rescue driver of a terrible crime and then refused to back down (if it’s not true sue me for defamation) then hid behind a technicality… yeah that’s the end.
That’s the behavior of a childish bully shithead not a leader. I can’t believe people still think he’s the man to lead the companies he runs.
Children need heroes to look up to, I’m glad that children of right wingers can look up to him but who do children of left wingers have to look up to? Jeff Bezos is hardly inspiring.
You think Jeff "All WaPo opinion articles must focus on personal liberties and free markets" Bezos is a left-winger? lol.
You must have missed the part where he got divorced and then predictably shifted hard right.
(Being credibly accused of being a sex pest is the only thing more powerful than divorce when it comes to putting men on the right-wing-shift pipeline).
Not too long ago the left wingers had Musk to look up to.
I mean, in general, idolizing billionaires isn't really the "left wing" thing to do.
The pattern "I used to be [...] fan, but|however|... because of [...] I'm not anymore" is like em dash in the world of propaganda.
Or, wild idea, people change their opinions based on new information. The propagandist monsters!
Or, more generally, if your boss's post on X make him sound like an insufferable asshole that has no self control.
One benefit of being quiet is that people may assume you're more competent than you are.
If you're loud, that collapses into a more realistic appraisal.
> Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
-- Most likely not Abraham Lincoln.
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
Pathetic one while at it. He didn't start it from "attention" posture, and the jacket wasn't the kind designed for a salute(of that kind or not). Not to be a Nazi, but I bet that doing would have made even lots of them walk away.
Apollo worked out fine, so might not be much of a problem. /s
[flagged]
Please get out of your bubble. It’s affecting your perception of reality. I recommend reading the book “they thought they were free” - before it’s too late (for those around you)
Do you have a link? I’m always down for a good book. Here are a few you might be interested in: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/189903.books_for_escapis...
grab it before it's banned: https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.htm
I guess Elon isn't inspiring quite like he used to.
Working for a nazi, isn't very inspiring
Well, it does have a proven track record in the American space industry.
https://xkcd.com/984/
Somehow I missed that one, and the alt text was an amazing 2000s reference.
NASA teams under a nazi were pretty performant, just for saying.
Nah he was apolitical. His job was to make the rockets go up. Where they come down was some other guy's problem.
It wasn't under a Nazi, it was Nazis only. Until Lyndon Johnson destroyed it, there was only them. But they were no immature manchilds as Elon, they were known to be excellent engineers and managers.
[flagged]
this is a pretty bad take. if you don't think that elon's antics don't colour the decisions of his employees or companies that could sign deals with his companies then you're really quite oblivious.
few people want a loud, extremist man, in bed with one of the most polarising figures of our time who seems quite unstable ranting at all hours of the night, especially when his company isn't delivering. politics is everything, you cannot divest from it.
He's done the same asinine antics his entire career - friends at early-days at Tesla corroborate the identical on the spectrum nonsense that conveniently is now all over mass media. The only difference is back then he was saying batshit things that were on-canon for feel good progressives.
This is the same thing as twitter folding in like 3 days when he did those grand layoffs; arguments entirely grounded in feels of the aformentioned group.
An alternative explanation is that they are trying to push the design of Starship to its limits.
All the failures have happened with Starship v2, where the ambition is to put 100 tons to Low Earth Orbit. The previous design, Starship v1, was only (theoretically) capable of lifting 80 tons.
20 tons is a huge difference, basically what Falcon 9 can lift when launched in expendable mode.
But this was an explosion on the pad. Something leaked or something broke while not under flight stress.
We also have that Falcon 9 that blew in space due to a leak.
I think they're skimping on quality control.
This is what I have read so far:
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/1lfayba/em_update_o...
So yeah, a QC problem, it seems.
With this one, given the seething hatred for Musk these days, I wouldn't rule out sabotage.
It's not the most likely cause, but in a world where people have been torching Tesla dealerships, I'm sure there's a lot of people now who really want to see Starship fail.
I think you're drawing a VERY long bow here. That's a long hustle, to work in a field where you'd get to be an intimate part of the launch control process at a company that is going to be very selective on who it hires because it can be, security clearances, and then be able to do this.
No, it's rocketry. Sometimes things go boom when they're that volatile to begin with.
Sabotage of a SpaceX rocket, on their own pad?
Long bow bro.
The program looks similar to the Soviet N1 program, in scale, testing and failures. Korolyov was in hurry to get to the moon, and tried to assemble everything and test in actual flight. After 4 failed test flights, the program was scrapped.
This approach had worked with the R7 rocket (the Sputnik and Gagarin's booster, predecessor of Soyuz). But at this larger scale, it seems things break apart much easier if not properly tested in parts.
There are definitely some parallels, but it is not the same in many regards. For example the N1 was severely hampered by engine availability - Glushko wanted to push his hypergolic rockets and engines and refused to build an engine like he did for the R7. So they had to pick something else & ended up with far too many (for that time) not very reliable NK-15 engines.
Also compared to Super Heavy & Starship, they had more stages (4 vs 2) and most importantly, were not able to test the stages separately - which was possible for the Saturn V & IIRC all its stages exploded on the test stand at least once.
Both Super Heavy and Starship can be tested separately & Starship exploded during such testing, without taking the rest of the rocket with it, like N1 regularly did - including demolishing the super expensive launch pad during at least one occasion.
Starship seems to explode much more taking everything with it - not just parts on a launch stand
The Soviet program had plenty of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe
I know. I thought we (the USA) were supposed to be better than them. We were with the Apollo program
We did accidentally torch the Apollo 1 crew in their capsule.
My fav Apollo-era fuckup is when they tested the launch abort system. The test went bad, but was 100% successful in demonstrating it worked. Heh. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DpdKxv9WINY
Getting to Apollo involved a lot of big booms, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8
Over on the nuclear side there was SL1, which AFAICT is probably the answer to the question "why doesn't the US Army have its own nuclear systems?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOt7xDKxmCM .
"Nuclear water hammer" is definitely cringe-inducing.
My point is once we launched that was never a failure. Yes, there were deaths, which is horrible.
But we learned and improved fast.
Now that we have decades of rocket knowledge, we shouldn't be wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on giant explosions
"Explode until you figure it out" served Falcon 9 well.
I'm inclined to see Constellation/SLS/Orion/etc. as at least as wasteful as the explosions, at least so far. Which one wins out will depend on the end results.
I'd also note Apollo 13 was definitely a failure.
While "explode until you figure it out" worked well on the Falcon 9, it was a lot of taxpayer money to develop a rocket system primarily used to launch their own product at this point - not delivering on price-points they claimed
I might be a little bitter that NASA doesn't get that money instead.
NASA paid to get cargo and people up. Every other provider discarded the first stage.
NASA also got much cheaper launches out of it. They’re just fine.
> So they had to pick something else & ended up with far too many (for that time) not very reliable NK-15 engines.
I mean, I would note that the first stage of this has 33 engines (N1 had 30, Saturn V had 5).
Sure, even with Falcon 9 many found it iffy to have so many engines - but it turned out fine. Hopefully modern control hardware and QA can handle also 30+. :)
Due to the scaling laws of rocketry, it should be easier to make a huge rocket. You can afford to have proportionally bigger safety margins on everything.
I suspect that Musks desire to have everything reusable has severely eaten into those margins though. I personally think he'd have been better off making only the first stage ('booster') reusable for the first few years, which then lets you develop more things in parallel later (the first landers can be on mars whilst you're still figuring out second stage reusability)
Historically this hasn't _really_ been the case; the N1, of course, was a bit of a disaster, this one seems to be similar. Saturn V worked, but had a number of near-misses over a small number of launches. Beyond those, nothing in the super-heavy category has enough launches to draw conclusions.
There’s little need for big rockets, falcon heavy has flown 11 times including the initial test flight Feb 2018.
Going fully reusable may change that equation, but first stage reuse probably isn’t enough to make the program even close to worthwhile.
Full reusability would totally change the game. It'd be an order-of-magnitude cost reduction. Maybe even 2 orders of magnitude (cost per kg to orbit)
Full reuse can be anywhere from more expensive to multiple orders of magnitude cheaper, thus could rather than would.
Questions like rate of successful launches, amount of payload sacrificed, etc really change the economics of the whole process. If the total payload is worth 1 billion a moderately more expense launch with higher success rate can be cheaper.
you still thinking the mars line is anything more than musk's latest FSD or hyperloop distraction/hype story?
If you didn't want to go to mars, you wouldn't be making starship at all.
It's pretty clear there is barely enough commercial launch demand for falcon 9 (it already has ~100% of the non-foreign launch market, and there isn't a huge amount of price elasticity), so no reason at all to develop starship, apart from humans in space.
The first goals of Starship are putting a human on the Moon (this is what the US government is paying SpaceX for) and decreasing cost-to-orbit (primarily for SpaceX's own use with Starlink). Falcon 9 simply can't fly to the moon, it doesn't have the power. Also, both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are still too expensive for Starlink to make a good profit.
Mars is at best a long term goal for Starship, and far more likely to be just a nice story that Musk uses to motivate his engineers and investors.
Everything about the design of Starship, from the fuel choice, to the size, aerobraking capability, to vertical landing system says this is a rocket designed to land and return from Mars.
It’s a terrible design for anything else, because it can barely get beyond LEO without in-orbit refuelling.
None of the competing rockets (e.g. New Glenn) resemble Starship in the slightest, because none of them are intended to fly to Mars.
There are several other use cases that Starship is well optimized for. Not surprisingly it's also fairly optimal for building large LEO constellations, It's a little bit large for the current Starlink satellite size, but if the Starlink satellites get significantly larger and more capable, Starship will be fairly optimal.
Given SpaceX's business, it seems safe to assume that Starlink was a design goal with at least a similar priority to the Mars goal.
Another use case it'd work fabulous for would be a LEO space hotel business.
Finally, it's also a great rocket for any use case that involves returning large masses, even if the return is from higher than LEO. Yes, it'll be a thirsty beast requiring many refuelling trips, but the tyranny of the rocket equation makes it hard to do any better. If you want to return dozens of tons from the moon or elsewhere you'd be hard pressed to do better than Starship.
Any large fully-reusable rocket basically fits those goals, but methane might not be ideal for the second stage, if you don't intend to refuel on Mars. Hydrogen has better ISP, so your mass budget isn't so tight. It's also six times better as a coolant, so if you want to try SpaceX's original plan of using evaporative cooling in place of heavy tiles, it'll work better. Blue Origin and Stoke Space both use a methane first stage, hydrogen second stage. (Stoke Space has planned evaporative cooling from the start, Blue Origin put in a patent application for their version later.)
Then again, Musk is also big on reusing components as much as possible, so he might have opposed multiple fuels on principle.
> Hydrogen has better ISP, so your mass budget isn't so tight.
You need much larger tanks, so the mass advantage is pretty much completely eliminated. Hydrogen engines generally have much lower thrust for a given size too. Falcon9 or Starship style staging is infeasible with a hydrogen second stage. Rockets that use hydrogen for their second stage separate a lot higher and faster than Falcon9/Starship to make up for this reduced thrust. This makes Falcon/Starship style 1st stage recovery impossible.
Hydrogen would be great for a 3rd stage. If you want it to be recoverable, design a third stage that fits within the Starship enclosure. This would be a fabulous way to do small BEO missions without requiring a whole bunch of refueling.
How are you distinguishing Falcon/Starship style recovery? Blue Origin actually attempted first-stage propulsive recovery with their first orbital test, with a hydrogen second stage. (It didn't work, but neither did SpaceX's first attempt.)
Yes, "impossible" was unreasonable hyperbole on my part.
Blue Glenn stages much higher and further than Falcon; it's caught much further off shore. More significantly, it doesn't have a return to launch site option like Falcon does and Starship always uses.
One of my favorite science fiction threads is the ulta rich building personal homes in LEO, and creating a service industry as a result. I find it more believable than colonizing Mars for altruism.
Not altruism
Disagree. Falcon 9 is likewise not hydrolox. Hydrolox unquestionably gives you the most payload going the farthest for a booster of a given size. But why is booster size even in the equation?
For most purposes the customer does not care one iota about the booster, they are interested in the cost per kg to get where they are going. For low orbit hydrolox imposes more handling nightmare costs than it saves in amount of rocket, it is not the fuel of choice unless you're trying to impress.
(Now, things change considerably when you looking at deep space. But methalox or even kerolox fueled in orbit still beats hydrolox fueled on the ground. And hydrolox is much less storable--your rocket costs weight, necessary to reach orbit but once you're up there a smaller engine means less wasted mass. The only advantage to a bigger engine is Oberth and that is only truly relevant if you either care about time (Apollo took an inefficient path for this reason), or because you are going to carry velocity into deep space. Look at the flight path of the Webb. The booster flew higher than the maximum efficiency path because the deep space stage was puny. It wasn't powerful enough to circularize normally, the telescope fell back quite a bit before the engine had built up enough velocity to stay up. But it was worth wasting some energy on that in order to not lift as much engine away from the Earth.)
With the possible exception of the fuel choice, all of the others are requirements for a recoverable rocket that needs to land back safely on Earth. Mars and Earth are not that different, so anything that helps you land and take back off easily from Earth also help with Mars.
You could do it with F9 it would just be assembled in orbit over multiple launches like one of the original moon mission profiles instead of single launch (that's also essentially the profile of the Moon and Mars missions in Starship except you're 'just' refueling the ships instead of assembling a larger vessel).
That's a great summary.
Starship was started long before the US government spent any money on it. And Starlink is what pays for Starship development.
He was named after the title of the ruler of Mars in a novel written by Wernher von Braun, so ultimate goal for him has to be Mars.
Settlement on Mars is out of one gravity well into another, so it's not clear if it's the best first location of a extraterrestrial human territory - Moon might be easier and more reasonable.
So the camp is split between Moon and Mars, and Musk has to be on Mars.
Mars is a desolate wasteland, and the Moon is an airless desolate wasteland.
There is zero chance of building a self-sustaining base on either within the next fifty years, and probably within the next century.
It's not a freight problem, it's an ecology problem. Designing a life support system that is stable and self-correcting and isn't in danger of running out of some essential raw material or element isn't just an unsolved problem, it's a barely considered problem.
Ironically - or perhaps not - it would be much easier to create a self-sustaining population of machines on Mars and/or the Moon than any project that relies on incredibly complex and messy human biochemistry.
> Ironically - or perhaps not - it would be much easier to create a self-sustaining population of machines on Mars and/or the Moon than any project that relies on incredibly complex and messy human biochemistry.
I don't think that's even ironic. It's the only viable path.
It should be like: robots keep 3D printing and launching giant capsule parts into L1/L2, which are to be robotically welded with captured asteroid inside so that the inside can be filled with all sorts of minimum viable tools until it's good enough to host life, and then interested life on Earth can choose to inhabit them.
We are not going to be welding space sailboats in an Apollo suits on Lunar surface and taking breaks on space prefab shacks. That just is not going to work.
> Designing a life support system that is stable and self-correcting and isn't in danger of running out of some essential raw material or element isn't just an unsolved problem, it's a barely considered problem.
Earth science closed loop ecologists since the 60s would like a word with you...
And how many closed loop ecologies functioned for any significant length of time without constant resouces and parts from outside being put in? Not to mention without lead times of 9+ months on those supplies, and not having to worry about large pressure differences and leaks, radiation, or extremely abrasive enviroments?
The fact that a perfect solution hasn't been found doesn't mean that nothing has been (or is being) studied.
The entire point of Biosphere 2 was to run a closed system for long enough to discover unexpected causes of failure.
Aka science.
Biosphere and Biosphere 2 have entered the chat.
You should read the novel Evolution but Stephen Baxter and find out what happens next with Mars.
IIRC in Evolution civilisation collapses in the near future after some massive volcanic event and the few survivors revert to feral hunting apart from a few cryogenically preserved soldiers who all get very depressed about the situation and then die. Or something like that. Not sure how this is relevant to Mars.
Baxter's fiction tends to take the line of "what we think of as humans will be very short lived on a galactic time scale, but life will be around".
Isn't there a degree of market creation that happens when there are big price drops though?
What sort of technologies become enabled when putting things in space gets cheaper?
Really enjoyed the contrast in this submissions two months ago, which characterizes SpaceX as very popular, but for bigger deeper launches, ULA still bring the go to name. https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/a-key-spacex-competito... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43640049
If Starship is basically fully reusable (he's insisting on absolutely no refurbishment, that could be relaxed a bit) then the cost per flight for Starship would be well below the cost per flight for Falcon 9. As you say, there's little price elasticity, the cost savings would go in his pocket.
There are other scaling laws at play as well. Defects that are not addressed by design safety margins.
To be fair, there is now a thorough understanding and computing capability for doing statistical failure analysis. They are not doing this at random. And SpaceX is NOT testing everything in actual flight. See engine testing, pressure testing, static fires, massive instrumentation (tests including flights with gathering data as the primary objective) - all as evidence of that. And they have commented on the wide availability of hardware - currently arriving faster than the capability to try and launch it. So, no, not similar.
Aside from the fact that both were the largest rockets in their time there's literally NOTHING in common between these 2 programs.
Government-run vs private-run (partially govt-bankrolled). Single use vs fully reusable. Moon vs Mars. Traditional development vs iterative ("hardware heavy") development. There's just no parallels whatsoever.
Will the result be the same? We'll see. But the history says don't bet against Elon.
Btw N1 was a failure arguably due to Korolev's death, not his ineptness.
I don't think so. For starters, they test a lot in SpaceX. N1 had ablative engines, which could not be test-fired on Earth. They could only test them by launching the entire stack and hoping that it would go into the orbit.
The current wave of problems is likely caused by optimizations in the v2 of the rocket. Starship v1 was very conservatively built and mostly worked. They are trying to squeeze extra 25 per cent of payload capacity from v2 (from 80 to 100 tons on LEO), and they are running into the edges of multiple envelopes.
Raptor v2 BTW seems fine, the main issues are around the plumbing that feeds propellant into the engines.
> N1 had ablative engines, which could not be test-fired on Earth
Why can't they be? NASA seems to test them on Earth. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960007443/downloads/19...
Thats enough to put a fully loaded Abrahams tank (with crew) into orbit…
It's an Abrams tank.
An Abrahams tank would be one designed to carry the Holy Hand Grenade.
:)
Looking at the recent world developments, we seem to be in the stage of Abrahamic missiles already.
Being a fan of railways, I tend to compare to electric locomotives. The heaviest Vectrons are about 90 tons, and they would fit into the payload bay:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vectron_(locomotive)
Now that would be high-speed rail.
I think a steam locomotive would be even cooler - first steps to Galaxy Express. ;-)
For example 2 of the legendary JGR Class 8620 (nicknamed hachiroku) Japanese steam locomotives could be comfortably launched to orbit in 90 tons. :)
Why not a whale to make the Douglas Adams trope a reality?
Not again...
I've never taken a whale somewhere so far.
I think you can see the cracks opening, for example unless I've missed it they haven't managed to open the little satellite door successfully on any of these flights.
N1's problem was having that many engines at all. R7 is a "Heavy" design and doesn't cross feed everything like N1 or SH do while also having fewer engines. Those are probably big differences.
N1 was much simpler in a lot of ways though than what Starship is trying to do. There also aren't engine problems like the N1 had.
I don't think the comparisons are very apt.
The parts are not what are failing. It's the overall system.
At least the first, second, eighth and ninth launch attempts of this one failed in whole or in part due to engine failure.
Those first two with engine failures you mentioned were caused by contamination issues inside the vehicle, solved by adding filtration systems. Those last two were on the second stage so no comparison to the N1 with its massive numbers of engines and the ninth flight you mentioned wasn't even an engine failure.
High quality, slow motion video: https://x.com/dwisecinema/status/1935552171912655045
That makes it look pretty clearly like one of the fuel vessels overpressured and ruptured.
Scott Manley observes the breach was in the cargo section, and not at the PEZ dispenser door. It appeared to split longitudinally. There are header tank downcomer lines that might fit that bill.
https://youtu.be/0C_L-qgHsE0?t=299
The part that I found interesting was ~"Anyone can build a bridge, but it takes an engineer to just barely build a bridge. That's what Starship V2 is, a mass and complexity reduction. Maybe they took away too much."
It was one of the COPVs (nitrogen, I think).
id be curious what causes the ignition of all the fuel in a breach like this.
Thanks for this! here's the live stream from the team: https://youtu.be/WKwWclAKYa0?t=6989
Pro-tip: On YouTube the [.] and [,] keys step individual frames on paused video.
The problems with Starship make the Saturn V and STS programs even more impressive. However, I still don't get the rationale of building a rocket with such a large payload. The rocket equation will always force you to build an absolute monster compared to a series of smaller rockets. Even worse if you have to haul up a massive orbiter each time. No wonder that small/medium sized rockets (Soyuz, Atlas, Ariane, Falcon 9,...) have always been the most successful.
A larger rocket mitigates the effects of the rocket equation.
The wet (loaded with propellant) to dry (empty of propellant) mass ratio is determined via the rocket equation to be the exponential of delta V divided by exhaust velocity.
Certain parts of the rocket, such as the external tank structure, scale sub-cubically with the rocket's dimension, as do aerodynamic forces; whereas payload and propellant mass scale cubically.
Hence if the rocket is smaller than a critical threshold size, the requisite vehicle structures are too large relative to its propellant capacity to permit the required wet:dry mass ratio to achieve the delta V for orbit.
At exactly this size, the rocket can reach orbit with zero payload.
As the rocket increases in size beyond this threshold, it is able to carry a payload which is increasingly large relative to the rocket's total mass.
This is also why no hobby rockets get to orbit. Even a 1 gram payload to low earth orbit is beyond what a human-sized rocket can manage due to the way rockets don't scale downwards well.
Smallest orbital anything so far is 31ft(9.54m) long, 20in(54cm) wide, 2.9t/2.6t(2600kg?), does 9lbs(4kg) to random-ish LEO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-520
How does this compare to the cube-square law scaling effects applied to propeller- and wing-lifted vehicles like quadcopters/helicopters and RC aircraft/jumbo jets? Or even the squat shape of a housefly that zigs and zags through the air like an acrobat compared to the ponderous lift-off of a large goose?
I understand vaguely that those operate and scale based on the area (a square function of their length) of their lifting surfaces, and are pulled down by their mass (a cube function of their length).
A little Estes toy rocket lifts off the pad much more aggressively (in the blink of an eye!) than a full size rocket...
>A little Estes toy rocket lifts off the pad much more aggressively (in the blink of an eye!) than a full size rocket...
If you really want to, you can reach Mach 10 (~3300 m/s) with a 8 meter long 3500 kg missile in 5 seconds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)
All of that in the lower atmosphere with the missile heat shield glowing white hot. :)
They are almost entirely unrelated. When trying to leave the gravity well of a planet, the atmosphere is only a dragging force acting to reduce your thrust. It might be proportional to the surface area of the vehicle, but likely not - I think it's only proportional to the surface area of the "nose" of the rocket. But what's certain is that it's strictly a force that hinders you - in a rocket, all of your thrust comes from the engines, you don't get any boost from the air.
However, even if you're taking off of a planet with no atmosphere, you still have a huge force to deal with - you need to maintain an acceleration to exit the gravity well of the planet, and you need to burn fuel for that. But you also have to carry the fuel you'll burn with you, so the more fuel you have, the more fuel you'll need - this is what the rocket equation codifies.
> But you also have to carry the fuel you'll burn with you, so the more fuel you have, the more fuel you'll need
Isn't this the entire point of using methane as fuel so that they can build a gas station once they get there so that return fuel is not required to be considered in this equation?
I'm not talking about fuel that you need to get back, we're still at the "leaving Earth" case. The point is that you need, say, 1000 tons of fuel to leave the Earth. Your rocket then will weigh [weight of empty rocket] + [weight of payload] + 1000 tons. And it is this mass that the engines will have to push while ascending. Of course, the fuel gets spent as you ascend - by the time you reach orbit, your rocket is now 1000 tons lighter.
ahh, I misread the part I quoted. doh!
The refueling idea is so that for example you don't need to carry the fuel needed to get to the moon or Mars all in one rocket. You just need to carry enough to get to the refueling orbit - which is much less.
The toys have to be aggressive. You have less than three feet worth of launch rail--by the time the rocket clears the rail it must be going fast enough that the fins make it stable. Meanwhile, it's light, overengineering the body to take a high g load is trivial.
An orbital class rocket--taking that kind of g load is going to break it (just look at the payload specs for the Falcon Heavy--its maximum permitted payload is well below it's performance to low orbit. You load it up to what the engines can do, it breaks. The only use case is when it's going farther than low orbit.) And an orbital class rocket has active steering rather than fins, it doesn't need to be booking it to be stable.
Most of the aggressiveness of a toy rocket is the smaller length. Orbital class rockets are literally the size of skyscrapers.
I'd posit that Mark Rober just used a hobby rocket to put that selfie satellite into orbit. Perhaps he's the first?
He used a commercial rideshare program.
> Our satellite launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California (USA) on Jan 14, 2025. The rocket mission is a Transporter, and SAT GUS was dropped off in low-Earth orbit at about 375 miles above the surface of our pale blue dot.
https://space.crunchlabs.com/
Can you identify the rocket he used? Because from what I saw, I’m pretty sure it was a F9.
Added to that, Full-flow stage combustion engines are bigger, heavier, and more expensive, but are way more efficient. So a bigger rocket is the only option to get one of those onboard, and helps with taking more mass to orbit because they are more efficient than other options.
I don't believe there's any performance advantage for full-flow, which SpaceX alone is attempting. The only point is to lower the combustion temperature inside the turbines, at the expense of (much) higher flow rates through those turbines, in order to increase their lifespan.
(There's a large difference between staged combustion generally and gas-generator engines, which throw away performance by dumping fuel out of the turbine exhaust).
Since the temperature limit of available materials is the fundamental limitation (even after making custom high-temp alloys), this allows them to maximize mechanical power from the turbopumps, which raises performance.
We might imagine a conservative FFSC design which accepts very low temperatures in exchange for making it easy (low R&D cost) to reach high longevity. Raptor is not a conservative design, so it requires more R&D to achieve that longevity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twnZYPdFgbU
But you also have a limit on the other side: going extreme to make the point, we haven't managed to build a mile-tall building yet, and a rocket that size would be a nightmare to engineer (while perhaps technically possible -- you might have to scale up another 10x or 20x to make it physically impossible).
So there's some sort of curve, zero at both ends, between overall rocket size and the payload to orbit. The question is where Starship sits on that curve, and to your point it seems likely that it's looking good on that metric alone.
But then you have another curve that I think starts small and increases near-monotonically, which is the complexity/likelihood-to-fail factor to the size of the rocket. It's (relatively) easy to launch a toy rocket, (fairly) simple to build a missile-sized sub-orbital rocket, difficult to build a small-to-medium orbital rocket, and apparently very difficult to build a Saturn/N-1/Starship-sized rocket. More props to the crazy '60s team that pulled it off.
> So there's some sort of curve, zero at both ends, between overall rocket size and the payload to orbit.
This doesn't follow. Engineering complexity is not a limit on payload to orbit, it is a fundamentally different parameter. Yeah building a mile tall rocket would be hard, but it would get a shit ton of payload to orbit. There is no maximum beyond which making a bigger rocket starts to reduce your payload to orbit.
> But then you have another curve that I think starts small and increases near-monotonically, which is the complexity/likelihood-to-fail factor to the size of the rocket. It's (relatively) easy to launch a toy rocket, (fairly) simple to build a missile-sized sub-orbital rocket, difficult to build a small-to-medium orbital rocket, and apparently very difficult to build a Saturn/N-1/Starship-sized rocket.
Complexity does not increase with size, people just become more risk averse with size. Toy rockets fail all the time, just nobody really cares. No one would bet the lives of multiple people and hundreds of millions of dollars on a successful toy rocket launch. If complexity increases, it is with capability. If you want to land on the moon, you need something a bit more advanced than a hobby rocket. There is no reason to believe a floatilla of physically smaller rockets capable of achieving any given mission will be less complex in aggregate than a single physically larger rocket.
The failure modes of a mile-tall rocket would be spectacular. The sort of spectacular you want to be several hundred miles away from.
Even more impressive to me is the fact that Saturn V did in a single launch with 1969 technology, what we're now proposing to do with 10-15 Starship launches (each as large as a Saturn V) and an additional SLS launch for Orion return capsule. What's more, the US had orbital launch expereince of just 3 years (Explorer 1 in 1958) when the Apollo program began, and 8 years later they were on the moon. Perhaps web development is not the only thing that is susceptible to bloat.
Starship was designed from the very beginning to land humans on Mars and it is correctly sized for that. It's apples-and-oranges to compare its design to Apollo.
(edits:) It's clearly not ideal for a short lunar landing, considered in isolation. But: what else would you do? Whatever you build, it would land on the moon perhaps once, and never again. Would you, being in charge, design a one-off vehicle for one or two moon landings—spend that R&D budget, in that way? That's not cheaper than 15 Starship launches; it's considerably costlier. (But the Apollo engineers didn't need to worry about this; it's was their express remit to spend $200 billion on one-off designs that would never be used again).
And: I hope no one suggests the "just make a unique lunar Starship variant that's simply a bit smaller". There's no "simply" resizing things in engineering. Recall that the last time Starship's length was altered by 2 meters, new mechanical resonances appeared, and it blew up three times in a row. Any "one-off" change for lunar landings is a less-tested, less-understood machine you'd be putting human lives on.
> Whatever you build, it would land on the moon perhaps once, and never again.
But it would also never land on Mars, so it would be a waste to build it for that. Build it for what it will actually spend its life doing.
Not saying SpaceX won't go to Mars, but if/when they do it will likely be several rocket generations later and possibly with specialized rockets, with a significant portion of it being one-time-use as you ain't returning.
Even if it does go to Mars there are some major warts on the design. When you land you're 35-40 meters or so up in the air so there's a whole other elevator assembly needed just to get people out of the rocket to the ground.
We've been hoisting people and cargo up/down with pulleys and cables for thousands of years. This seems like the smallest obstacle Starship has to face.
We’ve been opening and closing doors for even longer and yet it has still posed a challenge for SpaceX when dealing with the payload door on Starship. Space makes even trivial things hard.
Sure. But they gotta fix the door, either way.
Winching stuff out of said open door seems like a much, much easier task.
The satellite door is completely different from what they'll need for MarsShip, that's even larger and has to function as an airlock. None of what they're trying to do now matters for the Mars door.
That's a lot of certainty for something that hasn't even been designed yet.
The outside door needn't be part of the airlock. It's certainly big enough to have an internal airlock leading to depressurized internal space.
The things that make a door that tests fine on Earth break in orbit are likely to be things that need fixing for a similar door on Mars. They won't be all the same challenges, but some will absolutely be shared.
On another planet as their only way on or off of the spacecraft is a whole different level of risk.
Everything's a risk nine months from Earth.
A hatch with a winch (or two!) seems likely to be one of the smaller ones.
What viable alternative design would not have this constraint?
A smaller purpose build lander that doesn't need the fuel capacity for the entire journey would be significantly shorter and could be wider too. That would get it significantly closer. Enough that a simple ladder would be viable so they aren't reliant on a winch/elevator.
So you're suggesting something similar to the Apollo LEM that will land, and carry enough fuel to return to orbit to dock with something that will contain enough fuel that will return to Earth?
Wouldn't that make the mission unfeasible because it requires ISRU of return fuel?
I completely forgot about this. Current aerodynamics and heat shielding are optimized for Earth reentry. They may have to significantly rethink the design for Mars. What they land on Mars will likely be very different from what we see today.
Whenever my Volkswagen car software glitches I can't help but to observe it was done by a 6000 people strong development team vs 600 in Apollo programme within similar timeframe. The latter had vastly more primitive hardware, tools and younger programming culture available too.
The Apollo programme had some serious human capital. The best minds aren't working on infotainment. (EDIT: not car infotainment, anyway...)
And some serious financial capital working on enabling technologies. NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of US GDP. Even considering that this was 1960s GDP and they weren't standing on the shoulders of 100 years of automobile development or decades of previous launches, NASA got (and needed) a lot more resources than car manufacturers or newspace companies
Funding as percent of GDP is a meaningless metric. You need to adjust for inflation, but funding as a percent of GDP was some weird argument made to try to explain why modern NASA has become relatively ineffectual, but it has no meaningful connection to reality.
The Apollo Program cost a total of $183 billion, inflation adjusted, over 12 years. That's about $15 billion a year. NASA's budget has been for the past 40 years has been $20-$30 billion a year. Even the 'burst funding' wasn't particularly extreme relative to what they now regularly receive. The highest their budget ever was was in 1966 in $57 billion (inflation adjusted) dollars.
To visualize the absurdity of this argument imagine somebody claiming that Uganda funding a space program for $5 billion is receiving some serious financial capital, because that happens to be 10% of their GDP. $5 billion is $5 billion, regardless of your GDP. Ok technically there's PPP calculations, but that doesn't apply to the discussion here.
I mean, I was responding to a thread implying that the Apollo programme had access to fewer resources than Volkswagen firmware updates...
Obviously percentage of GDP isn't an ideal multiplier for reasons you've mentioned, but then inflation indexed mainly to mass produced common consumer goods tends to significantly underestimate the increase in cost over time of running complex operations involving the world's smartest and most on-demand minds and an almost unfathomably large number of subcontractors. Either way, NASA's overall budget is half that of the 1960s in regular inflation adjusted dollars, and whilst its current research and satellite/ISS maintenance maybe aren't as exciting as the first lunar landing, they're not obviously dramatically lower cost (the %GDP argument gets brought up nearly as often to suggest the Apollo programme wasn't worth it...)
Sat in a lecture theatre with NASA's last chief economist using both metrics earlier this week. Although those slides were looking at cumulative funds spent on Robert Goddard's programme, which was about the size of a largish Series A using the inflation metric or Series B using the GDP adjustment. Whether that's value for money or not depends on whether you're considering being the father of modern rocketry more impressive than sending a handful of moderately complex 16U Cubesats or rideshares or note that the actual rockets were no more sophisticated than some student projects, I guess...
NASA's modern budget isn't eaten up by satellite and ISS maintenance, it's eaten up by pork/corruption like the SLS. The SLS was already largely obsoleted by the Falcon Heavy 7 years ago. And Starship will make it look like a 13inch black and white CRT (with a million dollar price tag) in the era of cheap 80" bendy flat screens. Artemis is a similar story. Artemis simply isn't going to work. The entire project is filled with unrealistic handwaving.
Yet NASA continues to cheerlead for these things. I briefly thought NASA might right their heading under Bridenstine but then at some point he suddenly just did a hard 180. It seems every man has his price. He eventually just turned into another Boeing cheerleader (and his new found rubber stampage is a big part of why that Boeing monstrosity left astronauts stranded on the ISS) and went straight from out of office to a high level advisory gig for some MIC company which is almost certainly just a laundered paycheck.
Several lives, national pride, and a new human frontier was riding on Apollo, but not VWs infotainment.
It's not just infotainment though. We had all instruments blanked out on a motorway. Granted not as terrifying as with Apollo 13 but we had 3 people onboard too.
If something were to happen to Apollo, the blast radius would be limited to those 3 people. If something happens to your car with 3 people onboard while travelling down the motorway, the blast radius could affect other cars with their people onboard. This would make the failure even more spectacular having unsuspecting civilians affected vs 3 highly trained volunteers for mission. All this to say that I think we are way underplaying "it's just a car" type of thoughts here
ouch
Obligatory bruised_blood comic: https://x.com/iamdevloper/status/1072503943790497798/photo/1
Car software is, perhaps counterintuitively, doing a lot more than the Apollo software did. Just think about the computers available at the time and how much memory they didn't have.
Apollo project software was controlling the stages of Saturn V flight vehicle, orbital and lander modules, and ground systems. So no, it was not doing less than a family SUV Javacsript blob; certainly not 10x less. And most of the things it did were mission critical.
All isolated systems or sensors that simply notify humans or providing them with basic calculations. The MP3 and entertainment systems on modern cars are orders of magnitude more complex. Again, you don't have to take my word for it, just look at the memory available at the time.
Computers in Apollo programme controlled most of the function with minimal human involvement in the loop. The dynamic systems were orders of magnitude more complex than what you find in a modern vehicle.
Also I can assure you no-one at Cariad had to write an MP3 decoder. And speaking of sensor control, my car (on its 4th year now) still fails to unfold the mirrors once in a while.
We also have huge, orders of magnitude advances in tooling and process since mid-1960s. For starters you don't have to weave your program into magnetic core fabric by hand.
That's okay, as it is more than made up for by the lack of memory by the car's operators
You know the saying about OSHA rules "they're written in blood"?
That's what happens with most domains. At first people don't know the dangers and can go fast and loose: surgery, radioactive material, planes, cars, trains, rockets. Then people start losing their lives or part of their bodies to "easily preventable accidents". So some rules are enacted. Decade after decade, accident after accident, more rules, more red tape: things cost more, take more time. But you get a lot less victims.
So yeah, with a good budget and in a less strict country you could get something to the moon in no time. And potentially many people' parts all over your launchpads too.
> At first people don't know the dangers and can go fast and loose: surgery, radioactive material, planes, cars, trains, rockets
Gas pipework: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR486zloao0
Not to mention that before natural gas people used to light and heat their homes with coal gas/town gas, which was basically carbon monoxide. Yes, that highly poisonous thing that binds better to hemoglobin than oxygen molecules. So you could get poisoned and then still explode.
>Saturn V did in a single launch with 1969 technology,
for up to 0.8% US GDP per year. Today that would be $200B/year, pure spent. Where is Space X today is making, ie. it has a revenue, $15B/year.
>Perhaps web development is not the only thing that is susceptible to bloat.
similarly - web dev today can be done on $300 laptop by any schmuck. Even simple programming back then required a computer which cost a lot, and it was an almost academic activity.
This seems off. According to this: https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo (or in more detail: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTKMekJW9F8Z... )
Total lunar effort from 1960-1973, adjusted for 2024 USD: $326 billion
Launch vehicle costs (Saturn V): $113 billion
I think this is what should be compared against the total Starship program cost starting from 2020 until such time it completes 6 lunar landings (not counting SLS or other costs).
Or, for the year that Starship actually lands on the moon, compare against the Saturn V launch vehicle costs for 1969, inflation adjusted: $5.9 billion. See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTKMekJW9F8Z...
Single Starship stack is <$100m so they are less than 1% in.
Sure, but spacex are building on the shoulders of what came before. Easy to save 200bn on research and development if someone else has already paid for it and shares the results for free.
This is true, but also a bit trivial to observe. Even the Primitive Technology channel, which usually starts with mud and clay, builds on knowledge of other people.
The value added is interesting. For example, both the Merlin and the Raptor family of engines. These are some fine engines, and they are remarkably cheap and reusable.
oh sure, no doubt - and the universe before that, etc. but here the baseline set by the comment i responded to was "whatever nasa spent 200b on".
I love this quote from Gwynne Shotwell when asked how they achieved that no government has: "The first is that we're kind of standing on the shoulders of giants."
Source: https://youtu.be/Dar8P3r7GYA?si=RHZ8lWFYKrd7qQhy&t=321
% GDP isn't an inflation adjustment.
0.8% US GDP in 1969 would be about 8B/yr today. Very different answer
US GDP 2024 is $29T. Thus 0.8% is $230B.
Expense scales with inflation, not GDP, which is the point.
> for up to 0.8% US GDP per year. Today that would be $200B/year, pure spent. Where is Space X today is making, ie. it has a revenue, $15B/year.
The likes of SpaceX are reporting costs in the range of $15B/year because NASA front loaded the cost of trailblazing launch technology half a century ago, with the technology available half a century ago.
Let's not fool ourselves into believing the likes of SpaceX are reinventing the wheel.
Also, those $15B are buying a fraction of the capabilities of SaturnV, and while SaturnV was proven effective and reliable 50 years ago, here we are discussing yet another "anomaly". Perhaps half these "anomalies" wouldn't exist if they weren't lean'ed into existence?
To be fair, they're also doing launches at a pace NASA could only have dreamed of back then. In 2024 SpaceX had 134 launches, we're far into the Space Shuttle program before Nasa had made that in total.
I wonder what "tons of payload to orbit" vs "dollars budget" would look like for Saturn era NASA vs Current SpaceX.
No doubt they're standing on the shoulders of giants, but let's not forget that they've helped transform the "go to space"-business.
> To be fair, they're also doing launches at a pace NASA could only have dreamed of back then.
That's like comparing how many containers Maersk moves today with how much sea cargo was moved back in the age of discovery.
Also, Saturn V worked and fulfilled it's mission, whereas Starship blows up.
Starship hasn't had a mission yet that I'm aware of. I love the Saturn V but I don't think this is a fair comparison. Just because your software didn't compile first try doesn't mean it's bad. Those two vehicles fundamentally have different approaches to development and that's fine.
> Starship hasn't had a mission yet that I'm aware of.
Then you will agree that comparing an unproven launcher which seems to be far far away from being able to fulfill a similar role is a very silly endeavour, let alone talk about it as a vast improvement which just so happens to blow up.
I don’t think it’s _that_ silly, there are plenty of cases where comparisons are useful. SpaceX’s development approach is radically different from traditional aerospace, but it’s clearly working for them. A bunch of Falcon 9s blew up too, and now it’s one of the most reliable and frequently used launch platforms in history. Why would you expect Starship to follow a completely different trajectory?
Apollo had plenty of failures during testing, including one that killed three astronauts.
I’m sure if the government gives SpaceX 200B a year to build a more reliable starship they can do it without blowing them up.
Actually, this version 2 of Starship was explicitly designed for lower the dry mass of the vehicle. It seems like SpaceX is exploring the lower limit on acceptable mass, and thus strength, of the Starship. This is a development program, after all.
This comparison doesn't make sense, the USD 200B/year was to invent the capabilities, do trailblazing work on something that needed to be proven even feasible as a concept, to do fundamental/foundational work, not to productionalise technology.
I'd expect SpaceX to do much more now than NASA in the 60s if granted USD 200B/year, considering they are already standing on the shoulders of giants.
Well sure, but they don’t have 200b a year. They’re doing more with (much) less.
> Saturn V worked
Its impressive how ignorant HN is about how many failures the S5 had during testing, falling for cold war propoganda at full speed
Testing on the ground and problems with what most people would call the payload (Apollo 1 & 13), sure.
But we're comparing to SpaceX launches. Plenty of Raptor engines have blown up on the ground too.
There were 13 Saturn V's launched and all of them basically performed their mission (Apollo 6 being a bit of an exception) with 0 rapid unplanned disassemblies...
> NASA front loaded the cost
Not even just NASA. SpaceX are building on technologies that originated from both sides of the iron curtain (and beyond)
Heck, fundamentally it's building on Iron Age technology, which is thousands of years old.
How far back is the "start" of history in this telling, and (more importantly) why?
It's not unreasonable to suggest that most of specifically rocket and spacefaring technology SpaceX uses now was introduced by someone else. Their main achievement is reusability and adjacent technical solutions.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The grandparent comment was pointing out that it cost NASA 200bn, and spaceX 15bn.
The parent comment pointed out that spaceX are actually saving money because they already got what nasa spent 200bn on.
My comment pointed out that they aren't just saving money by using NASAs tech, but tech from the Soviet Union as well - suggesting that their savings are far beyond just 200bn R&D
Not sure about parent poster, but to be fair NASA built on German WWII rocket/missile development, and Canadian know how after the collapse of Avro Canada.
How many billions was that?
This sort of "they're just building on" talk is weird to me, and not really relevant.
What SpaceX has accomplished is astonishing, and no belittling of their accomplishments should be tolerated.
Because in NASAs case it was "the stuff that came before" + 200b (or whatever the fantasy figure truly is).
Its unfair to say spaceX did what NASA did on a smaller budget (which is what the comment that kicked off this thread implied) because they DIDNT do what NASA did, and instead got "the stuff that came before" + "the stuff that NASA spent 200b on" + "the stuff from other sources that also cost billions" + the 15b that they actually spent to get where they are.
How can you disagree with that? You may think this discussion is silly - but its DIRECTLY as a response to someone implying that spaceX are achieving what NASA did with less money: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44316227
> This sort of "they're just building on" talk is weird to me, and not really relevant.
Not really. You're not talking about technology. You're debating the economics behind it. You're seeing naive fanboys praising SpaceX's costs for the likes of Starship by comparing them to the cost of the SaturnV project, arriving at the simplistic conclusion that Starship is cheaper. This is like comparing your cheap Android phone as being far cheaper than a 1950s UNIVAC. And when the silliness of this specious reasoning is called out, your reaction is to downplay it as "not really relevant"?
So it sounds like we should be comparing Starship and Heavy to SLS?
Read the comment I'm replying to. Now read mine.
That said, you're upset that I said comparing costs isn't relevant? Isn't that the case you're making right now, that the costs cannot be compared, therefore aren't relevant in this discussion?
My tact on non-relevance, is that saying "it was built on another program's tech!" is not relevant, because everything meets that criterion. For example, as I said, the Saturn was built on decades of German research, including war time research during WWII, into rockets. Saturn's US development costs were a fraction of overall rocket research done by the Germans!
So if upthread is going to argue "but it's all built on the Saturn, and free knowledge!", then the same argument can be carried further back, thus negating this argument. Why?
Because it makes the Saturn cost trillions.
> costs cannot be compared
Thats the whole point for this entire thread. Pointing out that you CANT compare the costs of spaceX with NASA because spaceX is building on NASAs (and others) achievements.
Maybe you need to go back and reread this entire thread rather than suggesting others do so.
And I'm negating that, because the "built on" argument makes no sense for the reasons specified.
Simultaneously, I am also using my same logic to argue that you cannot compare costs due to my reasoning.
I agreeing with the point (you can't compare costs) while disagreeing as to why.
Well there are many reasons as to why - i just gave a single example. I don't see why you don't think prior knowledge has any value, but I guess you are entitled to your opinion.
I never even hinted that prior knowledge has no value. Not once.
Instead, I said it is an impossible thing to compare, for everything is built upon another. In fact, everything is built upon a myriad of other things.
Really, both the Heavy and the Saturn cost about the same. That's because they both depend upon the entire sum of human knowledge and research, to be built.
A billion trillion trillion trillion in today's dollars of knowledge gained and experience honed, over millions of years. So what if one cost a billion trillion trillion trillion, and another cost a billion trillion trillion trillion + a few billion more. The difference is meaningless, and not even worth considering.
And then there's the whole "how much is new" argument, and there's new knowledge aplenty thanks to SpaceX.
I really don't get these arguments. People seem to really love to denigrate the effort, the excellent results. It's beyond bizarre. And worse, mock because test flights, expected to possibly go sideways, do?
So weird.
"Hi, I'm going to see if this will work. It'll probably explode. But if it does, I'll learn something"
<boom>
hahaha it exploded you suck
I don't get it.
What a ridiculous point of view.Do you know how many anamolies nasa had on the way to make the Saturn 5? Orders of magnitudes more blow ups than Space x has ever had
Not to mention the comparable Soviet N1 rocket never launching successfully before being canceled.
Remind me exactly how the Saturn V rocket returned to its launch pad?
You are comparing "sending a small crew for a few days on the Moon ASAP for propaganda purposes" with "setting up a permanent outpost on the Moon".
Do you know the McMurdo permanent Antarctica base is costing us far more than the dogs, sleds, and tents of Admundsen and Shackleton? Incredible, isn't it?
This is an inane comparison.
Starship is “the program to build a permanent base in the moon”. It’s not even the only vehicle involved in the moon program. It’s a rocket designed to take astronauts from moon orbit to the moon’s surface. The astronauts will actually fly to the moon in SLS.
So far it’s proved incapable of being launched, attaining orbit, and returning to earth as designed. That’s without a payload.
It has no life support system built and is literally years behind schedule.
Rather than making progress it is being redesigned on the fly to mitigate fundamental problems with its capability which Musk laughs off as “moving fast and breaking things”.
The problem is we aren’t moving fast at all.
The rocket is a disaster. Saturn V was better by an order of magnitude and likely cheaper if you consider how much fundamental work went into creating it which is now easy to buy off the shelf.
Comparing the programs while ignoring the fact that hobbiest regularly reach the Karman line is deceitful.
Starship is doing this on easy mode and it’s failing.
> Starship is doing this on easy mode and it’s failing.
But this 'easy mode' is still so incredibly hard that nobody else will even attempt it.
I'd love to see some serious competition emerge in the reusable rocket space, but SpaceX is far, far ahead with Falcon 9 being an incredible success, even if the Starship project may be headed for failure. Nobody reports on 100+ successful Falcon 9 launches/landings in a year, those are now mundane. But a small number of Starship failures - test flights of an experimental vehicle - become big news, mostly because they involve spectacular explosions.
It seems that Starship may be too big to 'fail fast', mostly because of the visual spectacle of those failures.
The 'easy mode' is incredibly hard at least partly in terms of nobody else having the capability to finance it (with the possible exception of two superpowers and Jeff Bezos)
But yeah, I tend to agree that whether it ultimately succeeds or not, blowing Starship up is a "fail fast" strategy because they have the money (and the reputational capital from successful Falcon 9 launches) to learn from their mistakes that way, and not many others do. Much as the waterfall approach of big space projects gets derided, there's a reason entities that can't take the reputational hit of visibly blowing stuff up on a regular basis do it that way...
> The astronauts will actually fly to the moon in SLS
The program that was paused pending new NASA director, and has burned more money than SpaceX without a single (usable) launch?
I’m making things up out of memory here, but suffice to say SLS does not have my confidence.
IMO calling it "easy mode" really misses the mark. If you ever get the chance to hear directly from the engineers working on Starship, I think you’d come away with a deeper appreciation for the scale and complexity of what they’re building. The solutions they work on go far beyond "just" launching a rocket.
I know right, I think people just spitting on bullshit
I have much respect to this guys that works in here that really pushing the innovation beyond the limit
reusable rocket is the future if you want permanent present in space, there is no way you throw rocket for only 1 launch
> Saturn V was better by an order of magnitude and likely cheaper if you consider how much fundamental work went into creating it which is now easy to buy off the shelf.
One year of Saturn V development cost the same as the entire Starship program so far. One launch cost 20-30x more than the projected cost of a Starship launch.
It is also said that it’s simply impossible to rebuild a Saturn rocket. Not only you can’t “buy components off the shelf” because they simply don’t exist anymore, even if you had all the component blueprints (which we don’t, they were lost to time), the manufacturing know-how is long gone.
Starship was developed from scratch. SpaceX developed their own engines, their flight control surfaces are novel, the rocket structure and materials are novel, the entire approach is different. Yes, our modern electronics industry makes it “easier” but this is like saying Porsche is playing in easy mode because of the Ford Model T.
It's hard to compare costs when one rocket works and the other doesn't. If Starship never works then the cost is a bit irrelevant.
I propose my own imaginary rocket. It costs $0 but it doesn't exist. Totally beats the Saturn V on cost!
[flagged]
have no idea why the replacement plan isn't launching orion on falcon 9 heavy and rendezvousing with orion on dragon
I'm going to guess you don't actually know anything about SLS or rockets at all.
How are the astronauts supposed to get on lunar soil on SLS?
Nice one. Now do SLS.
> You are comparing "sending a small crew for a few days on the Moon ASAP for propaganda purposes" with "setting up a permanent outpost on the Moon".
No, OP is comparing a launcher that worked reliably (it's in the history books) with a launcher which never performed a mission and is reporting "anomalies".
Many Saturn V stages blew up on test stands as well (its also in the history books) and some flight were very much on the edge of success. It was also not trying to make the whole system reusable and economicaly sustainable (just check when the last Saturn V flight was - if it was sustainable it would be still flying, right ?).
Launched reliably... 12 times.
> Launched reliably... 12 times.
Was it required to launch more?
How many moon missions did Starship fulfilled? It seems 50 years ago SaturnV launched 12 times more than Starship.
Reliable statistics require a minimum of 30 samples.
> what we're now proposing to do with 10-15 Starship launches
That's complete nonsense. 10-15 Starship launches would land a lander that can carry like 100tons of payload orbit.
Saturn V landed 15000kg on the moon, but most of that isn't payload.
But of course with Saturn V you are throwing away a rocket that cost 1 billion $ or more per launch.
You are comparing 'thing lands on moon' to 'things lands on moon' without any nuance.
But you are right Apollo was insane in how fast it was done.
I don't think GP meant 10-15 Starships missions needed to carry the same payload, but 10-15 test launches necessary before it's ready for real. I think the Saturn V had only two test flights before it took people around the moon.
No, GP is referring to the refuelling missions that will be required to put Starship on the moon and bring it back.
Which as the person you're replying to is point out isn't really a fair comparison because Starship and Saturn V deliver vastly different amounts of mass to and from the moon despite the mission being only to ferry some people there for a few days.
If Starship ends up flying to the moon it effectively enables the landing of a lunar base that could be occupied for years at a time with sufficient resupply of food and the right equipment for extraction of water/oxygen from the moon.
The Saturn V as amazing as it was could never have brought that much equipment to the moon in a cost effective manner.
refuelling makes a lot of sense in the long terms
also military (space force)
Significant parts of the Saturn V (including the S-IVB 3rd stage, and the instrument unit which controlled the entire stack) were previously flight tested in Saturn IB launches.
> That's complete nonsense. 10-15 Starship launches would land a lander that can carry like 100tons of payload orbit.
The burning question that I have now is whether a Starship explosion during lunar testing will be visible from Earth. I sure hope they would do it during a new moon too for maximum effect.
SpaceX is currently spending around $100m per launch for 'things that don't get into orbit', never mind land on the moon.
So yes, I suppose that is more inefficient, in a way.
First, you don't have any idea what those numbers actually are.
Second, SpaceX has consistently shown lower development cost then anybody else. Starship is expensive its likely cheaper then New Glenn.
Remember, Ariane 6, a marginal upgrade over Ariane 5 with only a new upper stage engine cost 6 billion $.
And SpaceX is already at much higher launch rates and manufacturing rates for thing like engines. SpaceX is investing into mass production already.
The rationale was "Occupy Mars". https://in.mashable.com/science/85790/elon-musks-dream-to-oc...
> STS programs
The shuttle was a deathtrap. It had inadequate abort modes and a launch process that practically guaranteed minor (until it wasn't) damage to the heat shield during launch.
Classic example of https://danluu.com/wat/ --- the normalization of deviance.
STS crews were lucky that only two of the things got violenly disassembled.
Sure, the Saturn V and STS were much less safe than smaller rockets. Still, they blew up an awful lot less than other rockets of their size like N1 or Starship.
> Still, they blew up an awful lot less than other rockets of their size like N1 or Starship.
I think the only reasonable comparison would be after cost equivalency. The Starship has a long way to go, to catch up.
Cost equivalency ignores the R&D and decades of scientific progress and advancements in tooling capability. The prices of materials have shifted, but designing and manufacturing a precise propulsion system with modern CAD and simulation tools is a lot cheaper than the hand work hundreds of people used to be doing to verify much simpler engine designs. Precision machining and tools to inspect metal fatigue and imperfections have also come a long way.
Of course commercial rockets are always going to be as shoddy as they can get away with rather than as good as possible, but if it still takes SpaceX or Boeing as much money to build a rocket as it did back in the Saturn V days, they're doing something wrong.
If you use that as an argument any comparison becomes meaningless by default.
Many Saturns blew up during testing. Starship is still in testing.
Your arguments are strange, a mirage concocted to fit a narrative of denigration and darkness. You mock with zeal, yet have no point to the mocking.
Always with the mocking, you cause an ache which cannot be balmed. Cease, I pray you. Stop these machinations, this mad canter.
Falcon was built the same way. It blew up many times too, explosions aplenty. Now it is the most successful lift on the planet.
Would love to read about Saturn V explosions during testing. Have a link?
The Saturn V second stage (S-II) has at least two examples listed as destroyed during testing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-II
"First all-up S-II stage, assembled between 1963 and 1965. Completed several engine tests at the Mississippi Test Facility (now the Stennis Space Center). Destroyed by accidental LH2 tank overpressurization during pressure testing May 28, 1966[7][6]"
and
"Destroyed in test stand September 29, 1965"
Also described here: http://heroicrelics.org/ussrc/s-ii/index.html
"The S-II program was beset with problems and delays. NASA had planned on North American making an S-II stage, S-II-D, for dynamic testing but the order for that stage was cancelled in early 1965 in favor of using the structural static test stage, S-II-S, as a combined static/dynamic test stage; that stage was renamed to S-II-S/D. Unfortunately, the S-II-S/D stage was destroyed during testing, leaving S-II-F to take on the added role of dynamic testing and being redesignated as S-II-F/D."
I though all of the Saturn V stages were destroyed during testing at least once but it looks like I remembered it wrong. :)
I recall reading the engines blew up in testing, the rockets on the pad, on and on. And why wouldnt it?
No one has ever built a plane, or even a car without breakage during testing. The very idea is absurd. There's a whole profession called "test pilot".
I don't know why anyone would suggest otherwise.
I'm sure there are links aplenty, but the absurd suggestion here would be building a rocket and having zero incidents of failure. That beyond weird. That's what needs a "do you have a link" question.
> I recall reading the engines blew up in testing, the rockets on the pad, on and on. And why wouldnt it?
You're recalling wrong, or you were reading nonsense. Lots of engines were destroyed in testing (particularly before computer modelling, this was basically how rocket engines were _developed_), but no, no Saturn V ever exploded on the pad. Prior to this incident, the most-impressive on-pad boom was one of the N1s.
No fully assembled Saturn V ever failed, though a few of them had near-misses.
Well we're discussing testing only here, so are you sure none explpded on a test a pad?
It's a weird debarc point to discuss non testing craft vs testing. And "fully assembled", when spacex is flying non-final builds on purpose, using a different test methodology.
> Well we're discussing testing only here, so are you sure none explpded on a test a pad?
Yes! I am sure! That did not happen!
Early development of Saturn V rocket engines involved destructive testing, but a whole rocket would not have been involved at that point.
Here's some later ground testing of final engines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rP6k18DVdg
Engines during testing, sure, but did a Saturn V ever sit fully fueled on a pad, and explode?
A fully fueled starship stack hasn't exploded either. Yesterday's anomaly was a failure of just the upper stage.
No Saturn V ever blew up on the pad.
Upvote for phrasing.
> It had inadequate abort modes
Does Starship have launch abort boosters? Seems infeasible with the amount of fuel and mass on it since it also serves as a second stage, but maybe they solved that somehow?
Starship doesn't currently have launch abort modes
Nor does it have any crew / passenger cargo.
DearMoon was supposed to launch 2022, passenger space service between LA and Ridhya by 2028 (announced in 2018 and they said it was on track for 2028 still several years later). They said it would be around the price of business class air travel and be in full commercial operation by then. That might have been after they started adding "aspirationally" to most Musk company statements following some lawsuits.
Also, both Saturn V and the Space Shuttle were dual-purpose programs - they had military goals on top of the scientific ones.
Well the military purpose was why the Shuttle was so crappy. The original design was smaller and meant to sit on top of its rocket. This would have probably prevented loss of crew in both of the instances where shuttle failed.
Eventually Starship will also be bid for military programs.
And Saturn V never had a military mission, neither had Shuttle.
Shuttle regularly launched spy sats and was designed to grab an enemy one in a single orbit mission. Also Soviets believed it would nuke Moscow by sudden plane change via its wings & build their own version as a result.
That sounds military enough for me.
The bombing of the Soviet Union was to happen via polar launch. The wings were there not for plane change, rather for cross range landing after the single orbit polar mission.
Interesting - I was never sure about the exact mechanism m, just that the orbital speed & lift provided by wings were part of it. :)
The Space Shuttle never had a combat mission, in the sense that it was never used to drop bombs via polar orbit over the Soviet Union. But of course it had tens of military missions, the Shuttle launched many department of defense satellites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Department_of_Defense...
> However, I still don't get the rationale of building a rocket with such a large payload
Operations cost. They are sublinear on payload/size. At least this is what Space X/Musk seem to go for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dumb_booster
There's also many advantages to being able to lift something large/heavy in one go, rather than smaller payloads that need to be unfolded (like JWST) or assembled in space, which can drastically increase the development costs.
Note that Saturn several stages on the test stand like this.
I suggest you read up on the rocket equation again. There is a massive difference between payload mass fraction and payload. The latter scales linearly with respect to the total mass.
That's the problem. Building a heavier rocket is much harder than building a lighter one (see explosion above). So why not send a few lighter ones instead of a heavy one? This is what the launch market has concluded for a long time.
This is a long but great video from Destin that goes over this in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN...
Destin’s arguments make sense if we want to redo Apollo. They break down if we’re trying to make repeated missions into deep space more economical.
>So why not send a few lighter ones instead of a heavy one? This is what the launch market has concluded for a long time.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4J9uvhJQM0Let’s assume starship works out and they come up with a nifty wide-opening payload door solution, one of the advantages will be payload volume as well as mass - the JWST’s main mirror would have fit inside without being folded (although the heat shield would not have).
> Building a heavier rocket is much harder ...
Disagree. The overall Starship system's problems are obviously in Starship, not in the Super Heavy booster. The latter is far heavier. But it only has to do 2 things well - sub-orbital launch, and sub-orbital precision return. And the launch tower's chopsticks give it a lot of help with the latter.
Vs. the Starship has to do far more things - all of them mission-critical - while being ruthlessly optimized for weight.
Falcon 9 is by no means small or even medium. In the history of rockets its quite a large and powerful rocket. And so is Ariane 5. Not sure what you are referencing with Ariane, I guess Ariane 1-4 were small.
So far in history, we didn't have enough to launch. If the volume we launch increases then a larger rocket flying often is helpful.
We are at the peak of what a rocket the size of Falcon 9 can do. If you want full re-usability, the size helps you out quite a bit.
And hauling the 'orbiter' into 'orbit' is only wasteful if you can't reuse it. I would argue what's actually wasteful is throwing the second stage in the ocean, even when it costs minimum 10million $, and likely more.
What Saturn V and the Shuttle were trying to do pales in comparison to what the design goals of Starship are. If you were trying to repeat what those vehicles were doing you would've designed the launch vehicle significantly different.
Compared to Starship, Falcon 9 may look like a medium rocket, but it is actually quite big, and Falcon Heavy is bona fide a heavy launcher, not just a hype-name.
I think it’s interesting that SpaceX is struggling so much with the shift to a full flow staged combustion engine using liquid methane.
We knew from the Soviet that it was going to be really hard but after the successful flights I thought they had it in the bag.
We might be touching on the limits of SpaceX constant tweaking fail fast approach.
I think its premature to blame this on Raptor. At least, I couldn't see anything suggesting the static fire was imminent, so my money would be on "anything but the engines" over "the engines". At least with what we know so far.
But SpaceX's brand of rocket development is certainly exciting
That's what it seems like to me too. From the slo-mo video, it looks like one of the propellant tanks (likely the methane tank on the top) burst open, spilled a lot of the propellant and then caught fire. Engines are unlikely to be the culprit here. Interestingly, there seems to be a crack or a gap already on the surface, along which the tank bursts open when the accident occurs.
So that's 3 issues in the last 2 flights and one static fire, all different, all with different root causes, all catastrophic. Block 3 will be a different vehicle, should they just skip Block 2 (scrap however many they already built) and move on to Block 3?
I think they requires Raptor 3 engines & they are apparently still finishing their development.
So might as well use up the remaining Starship 2 & Raptor 2 inventory in destructive testing (both intentional and emergent).
In the spacex subreddit there are comments claiming that key engineers have left the company because of differences with leadership/culture. Not sure how credible those are, but spacex has had suspiciously many failures recently.
It’s not even just a binary state of an engineer being there or not. The morale and general attitude of the environment can cause engineers still there to just not have their hearts in it.
I think about the countless engineering success stories I’ve read where you can tell the people involved were just living and breathing the problem.
It's hard to tell whether key engineers were the differences between success and failure but Comparably lists SpaceX’s Retention Score as an A– grade, placing it in the top 15% of similarly sized companies based on employee feedback. Additionally, SpaceX boasts an Employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS) of +25, placing it in the top 25% among peer companies comparably.com.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/spacex/culture/seattle
https://www.comparably.com/companies/spacex/enps
U.S. tech companies are notorious for high turnover and SpaceX doesn't seem particularly bad.
Sounds impressive, sure. Question is how much weight do you put into survey stats like those given Musk's extensive history of things like buying the influence he wants, putting his thumbs on the scales of his truth-bot, getting generous valuations based on hype and stories, knowing about "those vote counting computers" (Trump's own words), ruthlessly firing anyone who disagrees with him, etc etc etc.
Then again, they are launching tons of rockets, and any cult leader has his followers, so what do I know...
There was a seriously sour grapes quality to that comment thread. I wouldn't give it too much weight without hearing from actual SpaceX employees.
Not to say that Musk's been particularly endearing lately - but what would the normal turnover in an engineering-centric company the size of SpaceX be?
Especially with how hot the field is these days. I suspect "key" SpaceX engineers do not lack for lucrative offers.
There's a high quality slow motion video available [1] that shows the problem was almost certainly a failed pressure tank, not the engines.
[1] https://x.com/dwisecinema/status/1935552171912655045
Well that video makes it very clear: the problem is the front fell off, and a bit too enthusiastically.
Is the front supposed to fall off?
Did they use cardboard derivatives?
Let's wait for the engineers to confirm that isn't supposed to happen.
Maybe they should engineer them so that the front doesn't fall off
Unfortunately, that neccesarily increases the risk that the back falls off.
There's something strangely beautiful about this video, similar to the Hindenburg video perhaps, so much detail everywhere
The earlier Starship tests looked more promising. But when it looked like they were making real progress it got much worse again with Starship V2.
I like the idea of hardware-rich development, but it seems they might have fiddled too much here or maybe just tried to go too fast.
We haven't really seen any problems with the engines themselves, so much as the plumbing that has try to keep them fed through radical changes in the rocket's orientation.
v1 Starships were working just fine and even managed to make a soft splashdown.
The problems all started with v2.
Sure, but AFAIK the V1 design just wasn't mass effective for the goals of the program - eq. lifting usable payload & being fully reusable.
Still in hindsight, a couple more flights to test the improved heat shield could help move that are forward & reduce some of the unknowns.
Too many Vs
so whats the differences
I don't necessary think its a problem with the engine as such. The problem seems much more to get the fuel to the right place in the right pressure at all parts of flight.
If an engine blows up, because its pulling in bubbles, its not the engines fault.
I think Raptor 2 has a few issues still but as we can see on the booster, the can perform fine for what most rocket engines have to do.
If the task is difficult, what other approach is there?
There are rovers on Mars already that landed on the first try. The approach was rigorous planning and study with the highest standards.
It doesn't mean the approach SpaceX is taking isn't valuable in some contexts, but it's certainly not the only method.
That seems like a poor example given how many failed attempts to land something on Mars that took place before they got to designs that would get it right in the first go.
The Viking landers were the first attempt by the US to land on Mars. The Soviets actually soft-landed first on their second try but the lander failed after transmitting one corrupted image. There were certainly many failed Mars missions by various countries, but the Vikings at least got it right on the first go.
The rocket booster landing of mars rover also hasn’t been tried before.
NASA’s first attempt to land on Mars was successful. I count 11 total attempts with one failure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars
Yeah, this is a remarkably good score - for comparison Europe is at 0 out of 2. :P
The first one [1] actually landed but failed to send back any data (kinda like the soviet example) due to deployment failure.
But the second one will at least have an impact on future generations, with people being confused why there are two Shiaparelli[2] craters on Mars. ;-)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_2 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiaparelli_EDM
Infinitely more fun to witness though.
Important to note that it exploded "prior" to the planned test. That seems really really bad to me, and potentially even dangerous. It's one thing if a test fails -- tests are somewhat expected to fail occasionally. It's very very bad if it catastrophically fails before the test even starts.
The whole thing is a test. The risk of huge explosions starts when they load it with fuel, not when they fire the engines. There are risks even before that, like electrical fires or structural failures.
[flagged]
It's easy to make structures that don't fail: just make them 5x stronger than anticipated max loads.
Sadly, this would make a rocket too heavy to reach orbit. So they end up being 1.1x stronger than anticipated loads. And it's hard to exactly anticipate loads. Vibration can add to a peak load, and it's notoriously hard to model how much vibration might happen. SpaceX rockets are filled with cryogenic methane at -160C, which causes everything it touches to shrink which creates forces between the parts that get cold and the parts that don't. A rocket-sized tank contracts by inches, but has to be supported by the structure around it. A single support member that doesn't move the right way can cause a fracture. So it's actually a hard problem.
There are is a way[1] how to gate a spacecraft 5x stronger (basically on the level of battleship style steel plate) to orbit - and then to Titan and back. The propulsion method just has some unfortunate side effect when launching from earths surface. Still it should work just fine & might come in as a handy option handy in an emergency.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall
It's clearly not the only way they know how to conduct tests, or none of their rockets would have ever left the pad.
Something like this has also happened to Falcon 9 before.
This was a entire ship (not just an engine), and nobody was hurt or killed. Is this a major or minor setback for SpaceX? Rapid unscheduled disassemblies may look spectacularly bad but may be par for the course during testing (in order to push things to their limits to learn where they break) - curious to learn how bad this one is.
In normally run project, it would be pretty big. As you would need to do proper analysis just what failed and how. And then decide, design and implement needed fixes. With SpaceX engineering culture who knows...
In "normal" project a serious misshap of this kind often ends the project - see how the DC-X VTVL rocket testbed fell over due to one landing leg not extending, ending the whole project. Nothing related to what was being tested or developed and it ended the whole project.
As a result we got booster landings delayed by 20 years - and SpaceX would also not get there with Falcon 9 if they would call it quit after spcetacular failures (see Falcon 9R test bed).
They were incredibly crazy to use the RL-10 hydrogen engine for the supposedly cheap prototype flights.
I think those were available off the shelf at thet time ? Not sure what else would be suitable in early 90s, provided you did not build your own like basically all modern rocket companies since then.
Armadillo Aerospace (and many others, a decade or two ago) showed that rocket engines could be developed and built quickly and cheaply. The cost is in the optimization.
Choosing a hydrogen engine (which only really makes sense for upper stages) also means you need a hydrogen tank... a cryogenic hydrogen tank. They chose to make such a tank with a weird shape that fit the unnecessarily weird shape of their prototype. I think the major cost of getting their craft repaired (or more realistically, having a new one built) was to build a new custom hydrogen tank.
Crazy, when they didn't need anything optimized/complicated for testing launch and landing.
Also wild that they went with an F/A-18 accelerometer/gyro package. The first commercial mass market MEMS accelerometer was introduced in 1991 and was in volume production in 1993. I mean, they had to pick something and the ADXL50 wasn't ready yet (and they would still have had to design a 3-axis solution around it if it were), so I don't blame them for that (expensive) decision.
https://qringtech.com/TryMe/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Histo... https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/obso...
I do very much blame them for the choice of the RL-10, though. And for going immediately to such a large size -- that's the same thing as saying "we plan on not making any mistakes".
I agree, but still - what could they have used that was not "build your own engine" ? They seemed to have preferred (or maybe were forced to ?) use off the shelf hardware, even if sub-optimal.
The only engines that were not hypergolic & used kerolox were those used on the Atlas rockets or on the Deltas. Not sure if they had the necessary throttling range and other characteristics. I guess now I need to find some sort of a biography from someone working on the DC-X project. :D
As for Armadillo Aerospace - their efforts were admirably and I really enjoyed watching their progress. And they did manage to get a working engine. :)
It's a gigantic setback. Most directly, it will delay their launches for a good time while they repair and rebuild the site. But it also shows some kind of severe design flaws if this can happen even with no engines running.
I think you're extrapolating too much.
This could be a "simple" production error (think "cracked pipe") which can be fixed with more effective monitoring of the construction, and not a major design flaw.
It might be someone forgot a wrench somewhere for what we know.
A simple error like that should be caught before you fill the rocket with methane and liquid oxygen. If a simple error gets through to this point your procedures are bad, which is a big problem for a complex rocket with many parts that could have simple errors.
that's why I put "simple" in quotes.
Obviously it's not trivial, since they already flew a few spaceships and rockets, but it could be an edge case not considered until now which can still be fixed, rather than a "well, it turned out to be impossible to fly a rocket with this design".
Beyond whatever design or production issues caused this particular anomaly there will also be the delays due to the fact they just blew up a lot of ground support equipment.
The error itself is probably easily fixed. Usually the bigger the effects, easier to fix.
The real problem is the damaged infrastructure. They don't have several launch towers in the pipeline like they have Starships. This is a "pause and rebuild" scenario, with the wait time much harder to parallelize with something else. Whatever time they spend until they have the second launch tower functional, I'd bet about half of it will be an overall addition to the whole project.
> They don't have several launch towers in the pipeline like they have Starships.
They didn't lose a launch tower. It happened at a site only used for static fire tests.
(And they kinda do have several launch towers in the pipeline...)
The test site is severely damaged, and they don't have another one. It took what ,6 months to rebuild the launch tower after IFT-1? And it wasn't destroyed, just damaged, on the test site the tanks and pipes and all the rest are right near the vehicle so I see a lot of destruction.
So what, 6 to 9 months while they repair/build new test site(s)?
Might as well cut the losses and scrap Block 2 altogether, and move on to Block 3.
I worry that the current "favorable" FAA environment is leading to a regression in their engineering quality honestly.
There's a simple fault, and then there's the question of why did it happen anyway?
If your space program has "simple" errors, then you are incompetent. These have to be stomped out beforehand. Is this amateur hour?
Starship is not yet operational. It is in development. This is “before hand”.
Falcon 9 seems pretty competently run.
So then we'd have to assume that the error was not a 'simple' one. Which is a lot harder to find and fix, almost by definition.
I mean, look, this isn't a good sign for spacex. Whatever problem there is, clearly it's hard to find and fix. Could be some alloy, could be some pressure sensor, could be the whole management chain. Who knows yet.
But we very much do know this isn't a good sign.
> So then we'd have to assume that the error was not a 'simple' one.
Why?
Scenario 1 is Starship is run as competently as Falcon 9. If this is true, then basic errors won't have escaped the QA process, just as they don't for Falcon 9, the safest rocket ever flown. So, we would conclude that the issue must have been a complex one that eluded the competent QA process.
Second scenario, Starship is not run as competently as Falcon 9. That is also a huge problem, because it's very hard to fix people and procesa problems in general.
I see, thanks for explaining!
> This could be a "simple" production error (think "cracked pipe") which can be fixed with more effective monitoring of the construction, and not a major design flaw.
Good luck trying to get launch insurance for that without a full root cause and proof in double triplicate that this has been fixed.
Are you going to put you payload on one of those, a payload that will take 3 years to rebuild, and might end the company?
Starship has never carried a real payload, so insurance is irrelevant. Nobody will be putting billion dollar satellites on it until (if) it has been flight proven.
Might actually not be a design flaw, just a leak due to rushed production. But these should be caught BEFORE the thing blows up and causes X million worth of damage.
It's going to be a relatively minor setback. Biggest issue will be pad repair time. Starships is still in development and has been going boom pretty regularly, though not before launch usually! The investigation of the cause will be interesting. Given the current political context it's probably going to be AMOS-6 ramped up exponentially.
AMOS-6 was a pretty similar situation where a rocket exploded prior to a static-fire, and in fact is the reason that static fires are done without payloads, though Starship would not yet have a payload. The difficult to explain nature of the explosion, alongside some quite compelling circumstantial evidence, caused a theory of sabotage (sniping an exact segment of the rocket) to become widespread. Of course the cause here could be more straight forward to pin down - we'll know a lot more in a few days!
> "is the reason that static fires are done without payloads"
And also (IIRC) the reason Starship abandoned helium COPV tanks and switched to autogenous pressurization.
Hey, what do you know, it was a COPV again!
https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1lf8huf/preli... ("Preliminary data suggests that a nitrogen COPV in the payload bay failed below its proof pressure...")
It’s not COPV
There’s no way it’s COPV
It was COPV
(Adapted from https://www.cyberciti.biz/humour/a-haiku-about-dns/)
In terms of losing a ship, probably not too bad. The ground equipment might take a bit longer to replace, and they will probably want to understand what happened here before continuing. Or, as you suggest, this was a more stressing test than usual, but I doubt they'd do that with a complete ship like this.
The fact that they didn't even make it to the test seems really bad. It's one thing for a test to fail. It seems downright dangerous if it fails before the test even started.
Plus the rocket is reusable, right? No reason to freak out. /s
What's really vexing to me is how spacex refuses to build a triple stage rocket. Their 'reusability' adds a significant amount of mass in terms of heatshield and in terms of fuel margins for landing. Using additional stages benefits them more than saturn V. They likely thought they could get away with two stages and have them both return to the launch site, one the short way, the other the long way around. But the exclusion of a multi stage reusable architecture means that their empty mass fraction becomes a linchpin in bringing anything into orbit.
No wonder there's a v2 and v3 with much, much larger fuel tanks and less payload.
They need something that can land on Mars and return with a crew. Or something that can put a very large payload on Mars.
A three stage rocket is something you’d use for one-way missions with smaller payloads, or for putting something in GEO. Starship just isn’t optimised for those missions.
>They need something that can land on Mars and return with a crew >A three stage rocket is something you’d use for one-way missions with smaller payloads
The only succesfull human spacecraft that landed on another body and taken off again used a three stage rocket to deliver a three stage lander,
The Command and Service Module(CSM) which brought the two stages into low lunar orbit The Lunar Lander (LM) contained a descent stage and an ascent stage, the descent stage was used as a platform for the ascent stage.
To say that three stage rockets are just for one way missions is silly, especially considering that more stages enable larger payloads. We've yet to see whether SpaceX's two stage solution will actually be any good. I also do not expect a single stage to the surface of the moon and back to Low Lunar Orbit to be very usefull. Any mars mission will likely follow the exact apollo staging plan.
A third stage with the current Starship design would have to be under 100 tonnes and the payload would be small. It would have to do all the work of injecting into a transfer orbit, landing on Mars, and returning. It’s hard to imagine such a small craft getting all the way to Mars, with a crew, and returning them.
Starship is just not a good design for pushing a third stage into a transfer orbit by itself. It’s totally dependent on the idea of in-orbit refuelling and refuelling on Mars. Once you refuel it, the game changes completely.
It’s also not a workable solution for landing on the Moon without refuelling for the same reasons. In some ways the Moon is more problematic because you can’t manufacture methalox on the Moon.
Depending on your mission profile, there are more ways how to get to the Moon and possibly back - the Surveyor space probes did direct ascent without entering lunar orbit & massive burn with an embedded solid rocket engine just before landing.
The soviet plan (if they actually managed to get the N1 to work) was to take the upper stage of that rocket all they way to the Moon (fueled by kerolox BTW) and use it for the final braking burn of the LK lander[1], before eecting the stage to crash on the surface while the lander used its engine for soft landing.
And then the lander would launch directly to lunar orbit using the same (or backup) engine, not dropping any stages, just the landing legs. This was forced by the much lower carrying capacity of the N1. There was just one cosmonaut landing as a result, with another one in the "lunar Souyuz" staying in lunar orbit. So just 2 people versus 3 in Apollo. And there was not even a hatch between the two modules & the cosmonaut was supposed to spacewalk (!) between the two before landing and after meeting back with the Soyuz spacecraft.
So if you can realistically do a single stage to landing & orbit on a body, I'm sure it will be the preferred option going forward, it has a significant benefits.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-LOK
The more fuel economic way long term is break the mission into parts and reuse vehicles; single ship from surface to Lunar orbit, dock and transfer to a staged lander at a station and take the up and down. Taking Starship all the way to the surface wastes a tremendous amount of fuel hauling around the mass to get back home and through to landing safely.
Long term definitely like this! BTW, this exact sequence can be seen at the start of the Space Odyssey movie, with the main character traveling from Earth to Moon.
That's the long term NASA plan under the Gateway name. A little lunar orbit permanent station to replace the ISS.
The full and rapid reuseability is the ultimate goal.
Make rocket launches as frequent and routine as commercial plane flights. Whether they use it for Mars or Moon on Earth-to-Earth or anything in between is irrelevant, this will revolutionize entire industries.
Just look at the share of Falcon 9 comparing to all other launch providers, and that one is only half-reuseable. If they manage to get the StarShip right this will be a game changer.
I guess one issue with that is that the second stage will land far from the launch site. In theory if it has sea level engines for landing, it could fly back though (after refueling).
Starship has 3 sea level engines for landing + 3 vacuum optimized engines.
Yes. My "if" could have been a "since it probably".
If you have a good specific https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse , and you can get decent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_ratio s in your lower stages, then 2 stages are definitely the way to go to LEO. Every stage over 2 adds a load of weight (more engines, structure, etc.), lots of ground system/support complexity, and a whole 'nother stage separation worth of failure modes.
A triple stage rocket when you're trying to do reuse is actually a negative. The second stage needs significant heat shielding as a result which drastically eats into the size of the upper stage and your ultimate payload.
Unsustainable rate of failures due to the associated costs. SpaceX might have to go public to capture funding opportunities, which would inevitably result in more accountability toward ensuring successful flight development. When the execution of their tech works it is highly impressive. Track record of success rate proven by the Falcon program. Does anyone have the numbers on how much these ships cost each? I've seen estimates of $100 million for a full Starship stack.
I doubt they’d need to go public. Regardless of your views on Elon, he’s consistently raised billions privately whenever needed. Even without Starship, SpaceX seems cash-flow positive and profitable thanks to Starlink and Falcon 9. It’s simpler to ask private investors to back his R&D efforts when they’re investing in an already profitable company excluding the R&D. Going public might echo Tesla’s early days, when profitability of the company as a whole wasn’t guaranteed.
Except past Elon didn't do Nazi salutes and was clearly spiraling on drugs. Past performance doesn't imply future performance.
SpaceX does well: "He's not even running SpaceX, it's all Shotwell!"
SpaceX does bad: "He's spiraling out of control on drugs!"
Yeah, $100M is the estimate I have seen. Which actually makes their current track record seem very sustainable compared to SLS which has spent on the order of $4B per launch. This is the first unequivocal failure this year. Aspects of the previous flight failed but proving the booster can be reused was a significant milestone. And they can afford a dozen more of these launches while still being significantly cheaper than SLS.
Why is this called "anomaly"? It's "exploded".
In spaceflight, an anomaly is an anomalous outcome compared to what was expected. The severity of the anomaly varies. Typically, if the world outside of the organization hears about an anomaly, it was severe enough to cause a Loss of Mission (LOM) or Loss of Vehicle (LOV). Internally, when things behave anomalously, they're referred to as off-nominal, and are subject to internal investigations to determine the cause.
This is a _very_ off-nominal outcome and the investigation will absolutely involve outside organizations and halting the program during the investigation until the investigation completes with a sufficient determination of faults and accompanying remediation plans.
It normally doesn't explode of course!
The linked tweet literally says "it blew up", though. "Anomaly" is just a word used in rocket science lingo that makes for a funnier headline.
> It normally doesn't explode of course!
Well…
I always like BFRC as a euphemism
The space industry people have been saying this since 1997: https://youtu.be/z_aHEit-SqA?si=N6-PtezdsOhsv63O
Delta 2 rocket exploded during launch, raining flaming debris everywhere and the announcer says we had an anomaly
It was slightly more fiery than a mere "observation", hence "anomaly".
It underwent rapid unscheduled disassembly.
The explosion was an anomaly.
In engineering, there is a preference for accurate terminology
There's a comment above that gives Loss of Vehicle (LOV) as an example of a more specific term. Sure "anomaly" is a known technical term, but it's also ambiguous and buries the lede.
lol, it's an euphemism. don't drag engineering into this.
livestreaming with the ongoing firefighting stil live https://www.youtube.com/live/WKwWclAKYa0?feature=shared
Was able to reverse to about -1:49:00 to see it "live". But probably this relative timestamp was only current then. In any case, that was a massive explosion
This is a clip of just the explosion: https://x.com/i/status/1935548909805601020
Unfortunately just on Twitter, haven't seen much elsewhere yet. But the link seems to work.
The frame of the video has a burnt in clock in the top left corner though, so if you get that to be about 11:01:50 PM CDT you'll be at the point of the explosion.
Super slow motion clip.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1lf3g...
Has the media coverage become more selectively focussed on the failures, or has the success rate of their move-fast-and-break-things approach really fallen off the last ~6-12 months?
If it bleeds it leads. Also a bunch of people are cheering Musk's failures, so anything along those lines gets even more clicks.
It's silly to try to pin this on media bias or Musk haters when the fact is that every Starship launched in 2025 has exploded.
You can't be serious. The wording of every article is in worst way possible while completely ignoring crashes from competitors - i.e. European Space Agency's launch in Norway, lunar landers being lost or even that sub-space Blue Origin all-female flight with such cringe slogan (Taking Up Space) that it's been edited from wiki.
I'm not pinning anything. I'm commenting on why SpaceX failures get more press than SpaceX successes. If it bleeds it leads is the way it's always been. And I'd be remiss to point out that there's /more/ appetite for it in the case of SpaceX because of feelings towards Musk.
Although I feel like SpaceX's successes (many of which have been truly remarkable, like the booster catches) get plenty of press themselves, you make a fair point. I apologize for taking your previous comment in bad faith. :)
Sure but I also remember watching a number of very impressive launches, landings, etc "firsts". Recently I don't recall any of these, and this was watching SpaceX direct streams on their site.
They are testing V2 of Starship so it provides more opportunity for this sort of thing, not entirely a linear progression.
So looking back to the Falcon 9, there were only 4 failures to complete orbital objectives across 503 launches and one of those was only a partial failure (main payload delivered successfully, but the secondary payload was not due to a single-engine failure). These failures were not consecutive (4th, 19th, what would have been the 29th and 354th). Now apart from the first launch or two (COTS Demo Flight 1 had some useful payload, but still seemed pretty disposable) these all had real payloads so they were less experimental than these Starship test flights.
If we compare to the propulsive landing campaign for the Falcon 9 1st stage it's a bit more favorable. The first 8 attempts had 4 failures, 3 controlled splashdowns (no landing planned) and 1 success. I think in general it felt like they were making progress on all of these though. Similarly for the Falcon 1 launches they had 3 consecutive failures before their first success, but launch 2 did much better than launch 1. Launch 3 was a bit of a setback, but had a novel failure mode (residual first stage thrust resulted in collision after stage separation).
Starship Block 2 has had 4 consecutive failures that seem to be on some level about keeping the propellant where it's supposed to be with the first 2 failures happening roughly in the same part of the flight and this 4th one happening during pre-launch testing.
They are failing more but they are also succeeding more and the successes aren't recognized as successes. The previous Starship blew up but the Booster successfully launched and landed two flights in a row, and that was in the same two flights both of which were viewed as failures because the Starship blew up.
Even if Starship turns out to be a dumb idea the super heavy booster already seems like it might outperform SLS as a reusable heavy-lift stage.
Starship has yet to experience a successful launch in 2025.
This version (Block 2) has never had a successful launch.
The explosion starts at the upper part of starship, not the engine bay.
Yes, on 0.25x speed it is visible that a large leak quickly sprung up, like something burst, about where the top of the methane tank and exploded.
Here's a framegrab showing what looks like the initial visible release of gas (before it becomes a big fireball), near the top where the arrow points: https://i.ibb.co/qYrn4vSf/image.png
In that image, you can see a white horizontal line on the heat shield, slightly below the point where the tank bursts. That was already there when the longer video clip starts. The tank later bursts along that line, even before the spilled propellant (which I assume is methane) catches fire. In fact, that line seems to be breaking apart even before the crack from the top reaches that point. However, the failure from the top might have propagated to that line out of our view, underneath the heat resistant tiles.
The crack propagation indicates that the line was a weak point on the structure. However, I'm surprised that it was already there. It's too early to make a reliable guess. But if I were to hazard one, I would say that the tank had too much pressure, well ahead of the explosion.
The earlier Starships were just manually welded steel. Is still so? If any failed weld can lead to a catastrophe like this, how would you guarantee the quality of each weld without going into nuclear power plant construction level of costs?
> The earlier Starships were just manually welded steel. Is still so?
I don't know if they use manual welding or robotic welding. But robotic welding is well established and is justified for the volumes of work that SpaceX carries out. What is more difficult is to avoid vertical weld seams on its cylindrical segments. I'm yet to encounter a roll forged cylinder that big, especially with stainless steel. (Disclaimer: I have no direct experience with industrial metalworking)
> If any failed weld can lead to a catastrophe like this, how would you guarantee the quality of each weld without going into nuclear power plant construction level of costs?
That is done using Non-destructive testing (NDTs). The usual methods are high-energy X-ray imaging, ultrasound testing (UT) and dye penetration testing (DP). These methods are usually reliable in catching such faults - even for machinery that's in use. For example, turbine blades in a jet engine.
Updated: As the other commenter pointed out, robotic welding doesn't ensure elimination of defects. The robotic process is more consistent and therefore reduces the defects. But uncontrollable random variations can still cause defects that could fail later. The only way to eliminate them (almost) entirely is to identify them with NDT and rectify them as long as the defects are within a certain tolerance limit.
NDT also will detect a range of defect shapes/sizes. The structural design also probably defines the maximum acceptable size of defects. That critical size depends on analysis that basically asks "what size of defect could we see, and be confident a defect smaller than this size won't grow sufficiently during operation, to a size that would challenge the structure or leakage etc requirements".
With this being metal, small defects tend to grow over time- called metal fatigue. This all depends on the stress in the material which depends on a lot of things: fluid flows and pressures, temperatures (and temperature differences and rates of change), vibrations (structural or induced by fluid flow), etc etc.
Mechanical engineering at this level is very complex! So many of these things boil down to probability distributions of each process involved. I don't know how "close to the edge" the design is, but this is the kind of thing you have to do when optimizing for weight.
> The structural design also probably defines the maximum acceptable size of defects. ... what size of defect could we see, and be confident a defect smaller than this size won't grow sufficiently during operation
Very much so! I have seen hardware being accepted and rejected on the basis of those limits. There were also cases where medium sized defects were reworked and rectified after careful assessments and reviews.
> With this being metal, small defects tend to grow over time- called metal fatigue
The tank and feedline welds don't cycle too often. But that also makes it very critical in reusable rockets. It may fly fine ten times and then show up unexpectedly.
> I don't know how "close to the edge" the design is
That's the fun part! As you suspect, they have ridiculously low structural margins in order to optimize for mass. What it means is that many physical phenomena that you don't usually worry too much about (when margins are splendid), suddenly turn into critical issues. Then you're off to doing doing materials research and other scientific studies, instead of doing just design and engineering (rocket engineering suddenly becomes rocket science. literally!). I've seen cases where the engineers were forced to study the algorithms used by finite element analysis software used for structural simulations. It can get that 'close to the edge'!
X-ray weld inspection is standard in the pipe fitting industry. Even with automation you wouldn't bet your rocket on "probably okay".
Pipelines still break from time to time.
These tests are applicable only to manufacturing or service-time defects. Pipelines can still break in the dynamic environment of spaceflight. Such problems are design problems, not manufacturing defects.
There is one closeup slow motion
https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1lf3g...
Any idea if their Prufrock tunnel boring machine (or sections of it) could fit within starship?
Also I imagine some version of the cybertruck would be used as a moon buggy. Any idea on how many could fit inside starship?
So apparently SpaceX is building many of those all the time and the latest spotted one in development is Starship 42: https://starship-spacex.fandom.com/wiki/Ship_42_(S42)
I guess how much of a setback this is will be determined by how much damage is there on the facilities and the nature of the cause of the explosion(do they need to re-work the next 6 already being assembled so it doesn't happen again?).
They cant seem to match launch cadence to ship progression. This will most certainly set them back a few more weeks beyond the end of this month.
Likely longer as this was the only test site for Starship and there will hopefully be an FAA investigation.
It didn't fly, so there will be no FAA investigation.
Is the FAA going to wait around till it does the same in flight?
I think that's the only thing they can do.
The FAA only cares about things that have FAA licenses. A static test fire is not FAA licensed so there won't be any FAA investigation.
Doesn't mean much if there's a design or production flaw. Having lots of flawed Starships on standby isn't really useful.
A couple years ago, I happened to overhear a conversation at lunch between two men I gathered were SpaceX engineers. (They were talking very loudly, so it was difficult not to listen in.) Rather than discuss the mission of the company, or anything that showed passion for their job, they instead spent most of the lunch talking about how they were making “day in the life” TikToks and were trying to increase their follower counts, then about how they would drive 150+mph to Vegas since they could afford any speeding ticket if they got pulled over. Really struck me as a red flag for the company that their employees were much more concerned about their own social status than anything they were working on. I suppose incidents like this may well be the result of these attitudes becoming commonplace.
Oh wow, what a hearsay.
I really don't get people who be like "Lets undermine all humanity's progress because I don't like Elon Musk". Don't know if you are so stupid or so cynical, but I'm sorry for you anyway.
The pad might actually have less damage than one might assume; that explosion started at the top. The bottom parts of the pad will mostly have heat & fire damage, but not explosion?
(It'll still be fucked, I just wouldn't expect a crater?)
With the Amos explosion on Falcon 9 IIRC the issue was with burning kerosene seeping into the pad, damaging it quite a bit. Both methane and liquid oxygen should burn or evaporate before really pooling on the pad infrastructure, so there could really be less damage.
Still, there was probably more energy stored in the Starship propelants than in the Falcon 9 case.
I'm not so sure. The biggest explosion I saw in the video was right at the base. I think that the liquid methane spilled and fell to the ground. Probably the oxygen tank also burst by that time, spilling LOX right into the path of the falling liquid methane - creating a nice mixture of methane and oxygen right at the base, ready to explode.
Yeah I'm just speculating, there's no actual data yet anyway. Random other shit might've cascade failed too, so…
I'm imagining Elon like Jeff Bridges in Iron Man, shouting at his team, "The Apollo program built a heavy lifter rocket in the sixties, with a box of scraps!"
Sure, but Elon's (SpaceX really) isn't trying to build a heavy lift rocket (they already have one in the Falcon Heavy, and technically even the Falcon 9 in expendable mode) they're trying to build a fully reusable vehicle, and you need a rocket the size of Starship to have enough margin to afford the hardware for reuse on the vehicle.
[flagged]
They're referring to the dialogue by Obadiah Stane in Iron man. But it's also appropriate in some sense if you consider how they made the carbon dioxide scrubber in-flight in Apollo 13.
I understand the reference. It just doesn’t work with the famously well funded and resourced Apollo program.
I agree that they were well funded. But the designs were complete genius. They were exceptionally clever with the use of rudimentary technologies they had at the time. One of my favorites is how they used an Archimedes spiral in celestial attitude determination. It isn't too farfetched to say that they used scraps to build the program - they just MacGyvered through every challenge they faced.
They were extremely clever but I strongly object to characterizing the program as “scrappy”.
They were doing beyond bleeding edge stuff with zero compromise. They didn’t settle. They just kept inventing until they had the capability they needed. Then they moved on to making the next impossible thing possible.
The Apollo Guidance Computer used the first integrated circuits. Like, literally the first batches manufactured went into the AGC. 2/3 of the national supply of a brand new technology is not “scraps”.
They went to the absolute limit of what was technologically possible then and is not technologically possible today. I understand that’s the reason for the Iron Man reference but it just doesn’t work here. The 1960s were not the stone age. Apollo was thousands of Tony Starks with the full backing of the United States. Not a couple guys in a cave fighting for their lives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C_L-qgHsE0 for some early analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71AwkBt3_ts
Could have been worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlQkeKa4IKg
Chinese static fire accidentally becomes not-static.
Looks like a production defect. Will be interesting to see what QA process failed.
It looks like a fuel tank had a leak.
Biggest reusable explosion machine?
Well, it clearly says "Static fire"
I don't think that was very "static"
Maybe it's time to consider a smaller Starship
Move fast and break huge things
Btw - has anyone thought how fully reusable starship eith those launch costs would revolutionize warfare. Being able to drop 50-60 tons of explosive from orbit for the cost of 1-2 million dollars while being untouchable is something I am sure that is at least part of current us military wet dreams.
They're pitching something similar to the US military. The proposal is to use the Starship (the spacecraft alone without the Super Heavy booster) as a suborbital personnel/cargo carrier. Personally though, I'm a bit skeptical about the whole concept. And they're certainly not untouchable. At least 3 other nations have the ability to knock them out in space. And 2 of them are hostile towards the US.
It costs more than 1-2 million. $70million for a falcon 9 launch
Internal cost to SpaceX is estimated to be $15 million for Falcon 9.
It seems starship still has a long way to go.
(obligatory dad-joke) It seems like parts of this one went pretty far!
Pretty bad: it blew up on the pad before the static fire test even started. I can’t imagine this provides much in the way of useful information, and it looks like the pad was completely destroyed as well.
> looks like the pad was completely destroyed
Importantly this was a test pad a few miles away, not the main launch pad.
Probably could use more than one launch pad with the tank farms centrally located and protected.
They are finishing another pad on the launch site & the explosion happened on a separate test site from the main launch site.
> I can’t imagine this provides much in the way of useful information
I can't really comprehend this statement, since it appears, in a spectacular fashion, that there's some useful information to be learned involving the top half of the ship, especially the flammable bits that you can see burst out before igniting. A rocket ship isn't just its engines, it's a system, with all the bits of it being not only useful, but entirely necessary.
There is useful information in that "there is a possible leak at the top." But there are much cheaper ways to find that out.
However, that is absolutely not what they were testing for. Whatever the test's purpose, this failed to actually test it.
This most likely points to a leak somewhere. So there isnt much valuable information to be learned here. They weren't able to test much.
What they were hoping to test never got started.
You're very clearly mistaken. I can tell you, with a very reasonable estimate, how much the information is worth: one launch cost + ground infrastructure, in cold hard cash, multiplied by the number of times the flawed design/process will cause it to reoccur.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Rapid unplanned disassembly.
Hopefully the ground equipment is not too damaged (unlikely) and block 3 has more success.
I'm pretty sure it's over for that launch pad for a very long time.
That wasn't a launch pad - that was a test stand used to test the Startship proper without the rest of the system.
I see that comments mentioning the 'move fast and break stuff' philosophy are downvoted quickly here. While I don't have any direct knowledge of the Starship design and the SpaceX work culture, I do have years of experience in both the launch vehicle industry as well as the software industry. I feel that the concerns with this approach are dismissed too easily. It's true that SpaceX has been an industry disruptor and a trend setter, especially with the Falcon series launchers. But Falcon and Starship are two fundamentally different vehicles and the success of one doesn't guarantee the success of the other. And there may be good reasons why the Starship is struggling when the Falcon 9 became a success that's unlike any before.
To start with, Falcon 9 and Starship may share some technologies. But they use different engines, engine cycles, propellants, structural materials and dynamics and even manufacturing processes. SS and Falcon are more dissimilar than any other two launchers I've seen from a single company. There are a lot of design data and procedures that you simply can't carry over from one to the other. The only thing you can realistically carry over is the zealousness with which the design and production quality is enforced. But problems like the repeated failure of the Starship fuel lines raise questions about that zealousness. (In my experience, a traditional space industry facing such issues during the development phase would simply throw out the propellant circuit design and start from scratch, paying more attention to its structural integrity. Frankly, I've seen worse. But that approach is present in the Raptor design. Look how different v1, v2 an v3 are.)
I think everyone here knows that the 'move fast and break things' culture has its roots in the agile development methodology from the silicon valley. Meanwhile, the traditional space development methodology has its roots at NASA. It's even more rigorous than the waterfall methodology used in the software industry, with numerous levels of elaborate reviews for designs, test plans, tests results, integration, schedules, status and even the documentation. From what I understood, the agile methodology is optimized to maximize revenue in a project where the underlying tech stack is reasonably well understood and proven. But it's a poor match for a project where the costs, stakes, complexity, subsystem interdependence, uncertainty in subsystem reliability and lack of engineering margins are all very high. Space launcher is the poster child of such projects. Agile is not even suitable for software projects where you're developing something novel and complex.
The main problem with Agile is the 'let's push to production and see what fails' approach. I'm aware that there are elaborate QA procedures to augment the methodology. But the project is much more tolerant to QA failures. Unlike that, you can't simply leave a flaw in a launcher or its subsystem design and hope to resolve it later. Such flaws are technical debts that will stay hidden for a while and then fail spectacularly on a random day, like the holes in a Swiss cheese. Remember that subsystem interdependence is very high. Failures cascade in ways you couldn't have dreamt of. And the required corrections are elaborate, costly, time consuming and often spanning multiple subsystems. The only reasonable way to manage so much uncertainty is to design meticulously for all foreseeable failures from the start, validating those assumptions at every step of the way (This is why they sometimes throw away faulty designs entirely). And that takes a lot of time and focus. The current approach of 'we will launch in one month to make up for this failure' makes me a bit uncomfortable.
I'm not trying to dismiss SpaceX's approach outright. The biggest aspect of any launcher development is the management of complexity and uncertainty. Perhaps they will find a good way to do that without slowing down. They sure have a lot of smart and hardworking employees. But if I were asked to manage one again, I will choose the NASA style again over the agile style. I'm not smart enough to manage with any other method, the level of uncertainties and complexities I expect from a mid-heavy launcher design, much less something like the Starship. Remember that the management culture was one of the hottest topics in the investigation of the Challenger disaster. Perhaps it's a good idea to revisit the findings of that investigation, as well as the venerable and effective Apollo design philosophy.
Thanks for such a deep explanation, especially for those of us who know nothing about launching space rockets.
> Remember that the management culture was one of the hottest topics in the investigation of the Challenger disaster. Perhaps it's a good idea to revisit the findings of that investigation, as well as the venerable and effective Apollo design philosophy.
IIUC, the goal of SpaceX's "Agile" approach to lower the costs of putting payloads into orbit via launch vehicle reuse by amortizing the R&D and equipment cost over multiple profitable launches. They are searching for the cheapest route to achieve large payload space launches.
NASA's goal in the Apollo program was to spend whatever was necessary in order to match and surpass the Soviets' accomplishments. While I don't doubt they were scrappy when necessary, I suspect that the reputational cost of repeated failures (to the country and individuals) was such that it was worth investing time into "getting it right". When fatal failures happened, it was treated as a national disaster and the dead are today considered heroes: https://www.nasa.gov/mission/apollo-1/
Today nobody would even consider risking their lives (nor be asked to) in the way that the Apollo astronauts did, perhaps because the goals (for profit or the mars-fantasy) are considered to be less virtuous.
Perhaps the quality control doesn't need to be as high when you perceive there is less at stake and you can just do it again and again (until the money runs out). That's not to say that this approach won't eventually work, but the motivations and guiding narrative seem to be really different than in the past.
Thanks for the reply!
> IIUC, the goal of SpaceX's "Agile" approach to lower the costs of putting payloads into orbit via launch vehicle reuse by amortizing the R&D and equipment cost over multiple profitable launches.
An issue that's deeply intertwined with reusability is reliability. We put absolute emphasis on reliability with expendable launchers. But if you think about it, this is even more paramount in the case of reusable launchers. Hardware tends to degrade overtime, increasing the chance of triggering any design or manufacturing flaws. Expendable launchers need to contend with this only once and for a short time. Reusable launchers have to deal with it over several flights, several structural and thermal cycles (causing fatigue cracks) and a large accumulated operating time. Periodic maintenance can eliminate some flaws - but not design flaws. Launchers also tend to be very sensitive to design flaws, due to the very low engineering margins available. So, there is a bigger incentive here to get it right in the first try itself. (For example, consider the fact there are fewer entities with the capability to build the common turbofan engine than to build a rocket engine.)
Another point is that the agile methodology banks on one particular behavior of software. They rarely degrade over time (unless you manage to leak resources wildly). This makes it amenable to rapid trials, failures and corrections. The cost of experimentation is also minimal, since you don't lose hardware in the process. But in hardware projects, many flaws show up only after an extended period of testing. The trials and corrections are also costly and strenuous.
> They are searching for the cheapest route to achieve their goals.
You may have realized by now what I'm trying to convey. I'm not sure if the agile method is the cheapest route in space tech.
> An issue that's deeply intertwined with reusability is reliability. We put absolute emphasis on reliability with expendable launchers. But if you think about it, this is even more paramount in the case of reusable launchers. Hardware tends to degrade overtime, increasing the chance of triggering any design or manufacturing flaws.
Presumably this was all well understood from history/experience before they applied Agile approaches to space launch. What changed that made this a plausible way to proceed? Some fundamental breakthrough or just Musk's deep pockets?
> What changed that made this a plausible way to proceed? Some fundamental breakthrough or just Musk's deep pockets?
I don't think anything changed fundamentally. Honestly, the design methodology for any engineering project would evolve organically to be similar to NASA's methodology as its complexity grows. Despite how it looks, Falcon 9 is actually a very conservative design that doesn't depart much from this philosophy. They did everything possible to keep the complexity low and reliability high. Merlin is a simple open cycle engine utilizing pintle injectors. The propellant combination was well known. The vehicle materials and structures were similar to traditional designs. Pneumatic systems were favored in place of pyro systems to improve reusability. Even the vertical landing technology (VTOL) was demonstrated in the 1990s (although Falcon is the first one to land vertically after reentry). The designers were industry veterans utilizing NASA's help. And they took a long time to perfect the basic technologies and had already nailed the basic platform design by the time they started experimenting rapidly with high production rates and landing. Switching to agile mode wasn't a big problem at that stage.
Starship on the other hand, was very unconventional from the word go. Stainless steel structures, methane as fuel, full-flow staged combustion cycle engines with near-limit chamber pressures, cartwheel separation maneuver (which they ultimately abandoned in favor of hot staging, with a lot of ongoing issues), use of sea-level engines in space (on the second stage), the belly-down reentry and the final belly-flop maneuver by the starship, etc. There are more than a dozen things in there that nobody has tried before. It just seems like they have too many things on their plate. Musk's deep pockets did play a big role here. But I'm going to avoid speculating on it.
lol
Now they can't even load propellant. They're going backwards!
yes they're so far behind the competition like boeing... spacex is only doing... checks notes.... 90% of all mass to orbit these days
In 2020 Elon said they'd build 100 Starships a year, last year (2024) he said they would build 1 per day.
I have to ask if the world needs 365 $100mm fireworks each year.
Well, you can make things yourself worth 365 x 100 million and decide to use them for something else.
Fortunately, the rules in well-functioning societies do not allow anyone other than the owner of something to decide how it should be used.
If you spend your own money sure why not, I couldn't agree more, but it's the taxpayer's.
This very same individual was until recently trying to highlight frivolous government spending, surprisingly coming up short, obviously it'd be very cynical of me to suggest even a hint of hypocrisy let alone a conflict of interest so I'll leave it.
Do you have to ask?
[flagged]
It's an explosion. It would be an anomaly if it happened rarely
A starship static fire (seems to even be pre-"fire") explosion is very rare.
[dead]
[dead]
Anomaly?
The thing detonated from the top down... that was spectacular. Anomaly doesn't really describe that very well.
"rapid unscheduled disassembly"
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
What are they wrong about?
It's fairly clear that v2 has some problems and that SpaceX have not got to the bottom of them. It's not clear whether that's a series of small things of which this is (perhaps) the last, or something systemic where solving one problem moves the problem further along the chain.
But on the other hand, this is a test programme and while I'm sure nobody at SpaceX is sanguine about this particular explosion, their philosophy is still leaning towards more-frequent higher-risk tests.
An explosion of this kind with SLS would be a catastrophe for that programme. For Starship it's a setback - but seems very unlikely to derail the programme in the same way. The costs of an individual Starship are dramatically lower than those for an SLS second stage.
The prize that SpaceX are reaching for is full reusability; achieving it would allow them to totally dominate the launch industry for at least a decade. It's worth a few detonations.
I think a lot of commentators are drawing too much pleasure from seeing Musk fail at his hobby (and, fair, he's a total areshole, I'm enjoying that a little too) to put this particular failure in its proper perspective. Now, if they have another failure or two, or particularly if they have similar failures with v3 then it will start to look like they might have a bigger problem - but for now this is just part of the price you pay for rapid iteration.
[flagged]
NASA astronauts continue to regularly fly on Crew Dragon missions with the next one (Crew-9) scheduled for August 2025, suggesting professional astronauts maintain confidence in SpaceX's human-rated vehicles despite development issues with Starship.
[flagged]
SpaceX supporters can only call this "moving fast, breaking stuff" for so long as the entire program regresses in on itself in terms of milestones. This was never easy, but the Falcon program sure made it look so.
Falcon also was hard. They had a few failures and nearly went bankrupt in the process of successfully launching for the first time.
> the entire program regresses in on itself in terms of milestones.
The alternative would be looking at the competing programs from Boeing, Blue Origin, etc. It's not like they are hitting their milestones particularly well with their more traditional waterfall approach. The point of rapid iteration is that it is an inherently open ended process that has no milestones other than to launch the next iteration within weeks/months of the previous one. Which they have been doing fairly consistently.
If SpaceX gets starship in a launcheable and recoverable state, they'll still have many years of competing against competitors that have to rely on single launch vehicles exclusively. They would be very early to market. And there's a decent chance they might start nailing things with a few more launches.
They didn't regress like starship has though... they literally just went from orbit to controlled landing in ocean and catching the booster on a fork to the ships blowing up in orbit or not making it there and the boosters aborting the catch for a controlled landing offshore or blowing up as well.
Now they have regressed to blowing up on the pad during static testing.
Seems very different to me than the Falcon story, 100%. Granted, they had luck too.
They literally left astronauts stranded on the space station
I wonder if astronauts will be excited to be the first to ride on the Starship given the statistics. Obviously they aren't going to be too keen on the Starliner but that didn't blow up.
Considering NASA has a 50 percent loss rate on their space shuttles and SpaceX hasn't lost anyone yet I don't think it's a problem.
I'm surprised that people are losing their minds over a few explosions as if the US government didn't blow up hundreds of rockets in order to get a working product.
That's a wonderful way to bend stats to make a point i.e. to compare probability of failure of one flight to probability of eventual loss of one craft that might last many flights.
The risk angle is that this isn't about national security or a government enterprise. This is commercial - you can't spend your money if you're dead.
"Stranded" then landing with 3 good parachutes, vs "excitement guaranteed" and literally exploding
Boeing stranded them. Space X rescued them. Which company do you think they trust more
And then when they disabled safety checks it just worked.
How can you be confident that, given the circumstance, their lower-cost competitor, the one pushing iterative startup style move fast approach, has the same extensive safety checks AND had zero hardware bugs in 10 or so years?
Which one has been successfully sending astronauts to space for years now and which one stranded them?
Which one do you think the astronauts want to ride on?
Which one do I want to ride? Soyuz? Or maybe upgraded Starliner?
I don't want to listen to the maddening tic tic tic tic tic sound[1] on Dragon doing best it can to deorbit by mashing H key, or experience human excrement contamination problem[2] caused by toilet system becoming autonomously unassembled. Soyuz with intact main engines don't seem to have those kinds of problems[3], only spinal injury risks in ballistic modes.
Dragon V2 is a Tesla rocket, after all. In hindsight, why would have it not been one, and how could have it ever been a good thing? Sure, Starliner practically died and rebooted during docking with the ISS, which is surely extremely dangerous, but when it comes to Dragon V2, they had proper kaboom during ground testing.
Tell me, which human spacecraft in past 20 years had a full on explosion, and why should I want to be on it?
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADFlgu-3GgU
2: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/01/tech/spacex-crew-dragon-t...
3: https://youtu.be/fr_hXLDLc38?t=298
LOL okay. Well you do what's best for you. I'll do what works and doesn't involve going to Russia or Flying on Starliner which literally left the last Astronauts stranded.
You might want to expand your comment to make it clear that the astronauts were 'stranded' by the Boeing Starliner and not by SpaceX Falcon/Dragon
Falcon/Dragon = Successful program, never had the problems Starship has had
Starship = regressing every flight.
This isn't hard to parse man.
It's not a regression every flight. The last flight was pretty successful. You are acting as is this isn't an unprecedented launch vehicle. Even if they lost 20 in a row, as long as they get there that's all that matters. Space X has shown how well things work once they get something working.
Traditional non-SpaceX US launch companies does not seem very conpetent at the moment.
But there seems to be a lot of progress in reusable launcher development outside the US, mainly in China and apparently also among Japanese car manufacturers!
Boeing is waterfall but with top managers skipping steps all the time to make the bosses and shareholders happy short-term.
Is Blue Origin following waterfall? Why would the founder of Amazon follow the polar opposite strategy of the rest of his businesses?
If Bezos made a bridge building company, I'd expect it to use something similar to waterfall. That's not to say it is right for rockets, but it is a different domain than software.
At the risk of being a bit Polly-Anna-ish this might be a good thing in the medium term for the project. If this has the same root cause as the in-flight failures of v2, they at least have a chance to analyse the failed components directly instead of having to infer purely from instrumentation what happened.