5 ms·

39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No ne

by mabbo 9y ago

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. Someone better tell Elon.

WJW 9y ago
He is already reusing the launch vehicle used for unmanned launches so I don't see the problem.
mtgx 9y ago
I think you can make an exception when you haven't developed a new launch vehicle in 50 years, and NASA doesn't plan to launch a human mission until 2035, 15 years after SpaceX will start using its BFR for other types of missions.
- Rebelgecko 9y ago
  I believe NASA is currently planning on launching a manned mission in 2023 or so. There was a push to put humans on the first SLS launch (2019 or 2020) but I think that was motivated by political concerns.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    The whole SLS is entirely a political thing. NASA just announced a request for private Lunar capacity - currently, the requirements are the ability to deliver 10kg of NASA cargo to the Moon. So there's that. See: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=46b23a8f2c06da6ac08e1d1d2ae97d35&tab=documents&tabmode=list https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&i....
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
starpilot 9y ago
His advice predates all private spaceflight. Any launch vehicle was destined to be a sprawling, overbudget federal project back then. Not a lean, for-profit enterprise like Musk has developed.
- ravitation 9y ago
  The advice isn't any less relevant to private spaceflight.
gvb 9y ago
SpaceX has "affordable" under control, but not schedule. "SpaceX and Boeing spacecraft may not become operational until 2020" https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/new-report-suggests-commercial-crew-program-likely-faces-further-delays/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/new-report-suggests-...
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  SpaceX will possibly make that, more or less. Boeing might, less or more. I don’t think anyone seriously expects NASA’s schedule to happen.
  - gvb 9y ago
    The manned Dragon was supposed to fly in the 2nd quarter 2017, then delayed to 2018, now delayed to 2019+. https://newatlas.com/crew-dragon-delayed/46913/ https://newatlas.com/crew-dragon-delayed/46913/
323454 9y ago
Actually, I think SpaceX as a satellite launch company is living this advice as well as one could. You need at least one engine and one launch vehicle, so they built Merlin and Falcon. The rest of their LV development has been steady iterative improvements to those platforms. This strategy enabled them to achieve reusable boosters, because building sophisticated autonomous flight controls on top of a known, proven, reliable LV is much easier than doing it on top of a newly minted one. SpaceX as a Mars colonization venture on the other hand...
walrus01 9y ago
NASA insistence on the human-rating for their own commercial crew spaceflights greatly increases the cost. If I recall right two falcon 9 have been lost to accidents, one on the pad, another 150 seconds into the flight. But the overall ratio of rapid unscheduled disassemblies to successful flights is looking promising. Compare the predicted likelihood of fatalities with how many FAA licensed amateur/kit built "experimental" airplanes crash each year, killing their sole occupant pilots... The FAA seems to be relatively OK with that fatality rate, on an ongoing basis, but spacecraft are held to a much higher standard. If there had been a human in the very first Dragon flight carrying a wheel of cheese, years ago, they would have survived and had a nominal flight.
- octorian 9y ago
  I also wonder how many of NASA's own human launch vehicles would have actually passed the "human rating" requirements they're now applying to everyone else.
  - walrus01 9y ago
    Few, considering the 1+0 lack of redundancy for major life support systems on the Mercury, gemini and Apollo. Their test method seemed to be "fly it unmanned a couple times, if it didn't explode or lose pressure, put some people in it".
    - dvdkhlng 9y ago
      And don't forget the space shuttle which had a lot of possible single-point-of failures during launch and landing (e.g. no way to do a survivable launch abort during the first phase of flight; no way to survivably compensate asymmetric thrust when one booster were to fail; no way to shut down or eject boosters until burned empty; no way to perform ballistic reentry and landing when orbital control thrusters damaged).
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    Pretty much zero since the NASA cant even launch humans in space anymore.
hodgesrm 9y ago
Well, you need to develop at least one launch vehicle. (See #31. You can't get to the moon by climbing successively taller trees.)
trhway 9y ago
>Someone better tell Elon. actually he originally tried to buy Russian ICBM launch vehicles. Russia refused and that forced him to develop his own.
mikro2nd 9y ago
Or, translated into software-dev-ese: No New Frameworks. No New Frameworks. Whatever you do, DON'T write a new Framework.

by mabbo 9y ago

WJW 9y ago

He is already reusing the launch vehicle used for unmanned launches so I don't see the problem.

mtgx 9y ago

I think you can make an exception when you haven't developed a new launch vehicle in 50 years, and NASA doesn't plan to launch a human mission until 2035, 15 years after SpaceX will start using its BFR for other types of missions.

Rebelgecko 9y ago
I believe NASA is currently planning on launching a manned mission in 2023 or so. There was a push to put humans on the first SLS launch (2019 or 2020) but I think that was motivated by political concerns.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  The whole SLS is entirely a political thing. NASA just announced a request for private Lunar capacity - currently, the requirements are the ability to deliver 10kg of NASA cargo to the Moon. So there's that. See: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=46b23a8f2c06da6ac08e1d1d2ae97d35&tab=documents&tabmode=list https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&i....

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

starpilot 9y ago

His advice predates all private spaceflight. Any launch vehicle was destined to be a sprawling, overbudget federal project back then. Not a lean, for-profit enterprise like Musk has developed.

ravitation 9y ago
The advice isn't any less relevant to private spaceflight.

gvb 9y ago

SpaceX has "affordable" under control, but not schedule. "SpaceX and Boeing spacecraft may not become operational until 2020" https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/new-report-suggests-commercial-crew-program-likely-faces-further-delays/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/new-report-suggests-...

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
SpaceX will possibly make that, more or less. Boeing might, less or more. I don’t think anyone seriously expects NASA’s schedule to happen.
- gvb 9y ago
  The manned Dragon was supposed to fly in the 2nd quarter 2017, then delayed to 2018, now delayed to 2019+. https://newatlas.com/crew-dragon-delayed/46913/ https://newatlas.com/crew-dragon-delayed/46913/

323454 9y ago

Actually, I think SpaceX as a satellite launch company is living this advice as well as one could. You need at least one engine and one launch vehicle, so they built Merlin and Falcon. The rest of their LV development has been steady iterative improvements to those platforms. This strategy enabled them to achieve reusable boosters, because building sophisticated autonomous flight controls on top of a known, proven, reliable LV is much easier than doing it on top of a newly minted one. SpaceX as a Mars colonization venture on the other hand...

walrus01 9y ago

NASA insistence on the human-rating for their own commercial crew spaceflights greatly increases the cost. If I recall right two falcon 9 have been lost to accidents, one on the pad, another 150 seconds into the flight. But the overall ratio of rapid unscheduled disassemblies to successful flights is looking promising. Compare the predicted likelihood of fatalities with how many FAA licensed amateur/kit built "experimental" airplanes crash each year, killing their sole occupant pilots... The FAA seems to be relatively OK with that fatality rate, on an ongoing basis, but spacecraft are held to a much higher standard. If there had been a human in the very first Dragon flight carrying a wheel of cheese, years ago, they would have survived and had a nominal flight.

octorian 9y ago
I also wonder how many of NASA's own human launch vehicles would have actually passed the "human rating" requirements they're now applying to everyone else.
- walrus01 9y ago
  Few, considering the 1+0 lack of redundancy for major life support systems on the Mercury, gemini and Apollo. Their test method seemed to be "fly it unmanned a couple times, if it didn't explode or lose pressure, put some people in it".
  - dvdkhlng 9y ago
    And don't forget the space shuttle which had a lot of possible single-point-of failures during launch and landing (e.g. no way to do a survivable launch abort during the first phase of flight; no way to survivably compensate asymmetric thrust when one booster were to fail; no way to shut down or eject boosters until burned empty; no way to perform ballistic reentry and landing when orbital control thrusters damaged).
- ekianjo 9y ago
  Pretty much zero since the NASA cant even launch humans in space anymore.

hodgesrm 9y ago

Well, you need to develop at least one launch vehicle. (See #31. You can't get to the moon by climbing successively taller trees.)

trhway 9y ago

>Someone better tell Elon. actually he originally tried to buy Russian ICBM launch vehicles. Russia refused and that forced him to develop his own.

mikro2nd 9y ago

Or, translated into software-dev-ese: No New Frameworks. No New Frameworks. Whatever you do, DON'T write a new Framework.