5 ms·
Given spacex, this one hasn't aged well "39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1)
by gabia 6y ago
Given spacex, this one hasn't aged well
"39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule:
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles."
- yetihehe 6y agoIt wasn't "on shedule". Also, those launch vehicles were already old and proven (multiple times even!) when they launched humans.
- JonnyaiR 6y agoNot quite, spacex changed quite a few things every launch or at least every version, that's why the first falcon 9 is very different compared to one from today. The one carrying humans is called block 5 of the full thrust version (version 1.2).
- qayxc 6y agoThat's not what they meant - SpaceX didn't develop a Falcon 9M or Falcon X for the crew vehicle is the key here.
- Isamu 6y agoAgreed, the entire point of Starship development is to make a new human space program (to Mars) affordable.
- dwighttk 6y agoI think that one is a round about way of saying “a new human space program will never be affordable or on schedule”
- zaphoyd 6y agoI had the opposite thought. SLS/Artemis is a “new human space program” that includes a new launch vehicle and it is hopelessly unaffordable and off schedule. SpaceX developed one of the most affordable human launch systems ever made, in a reasonable amount of time, by using their pre-existing cargo launch vehicle. Even Boeing will likely have Starliner, which also uses an existing workhorse launcher, flying humans before SLS launches anything.
- rozab 6y agoSLS reuses almost everything (with modifications) from the shuttle program. These are 40 year old designs. Falcon Heavy reused a 10 year old design (Falcon 9). edit: If we count back to the first successful propulsive landing, the technology was only 5 years old. Falcon Heavy had been planned since way back in 2005.
- larrydag 6y agoI think the only thing reused is the engines. Granted that is a lot of the engineering. https://everydayastronaut.com/sls-vs-starship/ https://everydayastronaut.com/sls-vs-starship/
- FlyMoreRockets 6y agoMy math shows the technology to be 22 years old. DC-X: First flight (and first successful propulsive landing) 18 August 1993 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X "In December 2015, a Falcon 9 accomplished a propulsive vertical landing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTVL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTVL Not mentioned in the above link was an amateur group developing VTVL tech around the San Francisco bay area in the 90's. IIRC, it was EPRS. FWIW, they also invented a multi-rotor platform to test their conrol system that evolved into the modern drone. http://www.erps.org http://www.erps.org
- valuearb 6y agoDon’t forget that SpaceX Grasshopper flew DC-X like tests in 2012. Not first by any means, but first for SpaceX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_prototypes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_prototypes
- FlyMoreRockets 6y agoValid point. Also, if one wants to stretch the envelope, Harold Graham, flying the Bell Rocket Belt, performed the first rocket powered landing, April 20th, 1961 at Bell Aerospace, upstate New York. This development footage opens with that flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxmxbMdToR4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxmxbMdToR4
- shakow 6y agoSpaceX was neither affordable nor on schedule. If you wanted someone up there cheaply and on time 5 years ago, you should just buy a seat on a Soyuz. However, #39 doesn't say “don't ever develop new launch vehicles”, rather “don't develop new launch vehicles if staying in budget and on timeline is your priority”.
- valuearb 6y agoFalcon 9 is the most affordable launch system in history. It’s saved NASA billions through ISS cargo launches. And developing their crewed launches has been over a billion dollars cheaper than Boeing, and successfully launched years earlier.
- marcosdumay 6y agoAll of spacex work is on launch vehicles, so I disagree, you are just reading it wrong.
- valuearb 6y agoAlso Cargo and Crew Dragons.
- Rebelgecko 6y agoAnd a large satellite constellation
- dotancohen 6y agoSpaceX did not develop a new launch vehicle for a human space program. SpaceX developed two new reusable launch vehicles for transfering cargo, whilst not cutting the corners that could not be cut if it were used for a human space program. Then when it came time to put humans on it, it already had a legacy. Starship, however, is in fact designed for humans. But it is not part of a "human space program", rather it is a multi-purpose vehicle. It is yet to be seen towards which human space programs it will be applied, but even with the Artemis bid many aspects of Starship were clearly designed without the Artemis bid as a specific target.
- HALtheWise 6y agoNotably, SpaceX did not develop the Falcon 9 as part of their human spaceflight program, and it was in fact not rated for carrying humans for many years. They instead developed their launch vehicle as part of a standalone "launch vehicle program" then later committed to building a human spaceflight program on top of their existing rocket. Starship _is_ being developed as part of a human spaceflight program, and we have yet to see whether this violation of Akins Laws will be justified.
- benlivengood 6y agoStarship is intended to be a dual-purpose cargo and human flight vehicle and Falcon 9 + Dragon were iteratively improved through many cargo launches before Dragon 2 for human flight. What has likely changed is that there is sufficient demand for cargo flights to bootstrap an affordable human flight program on top of it.