7 ms·

FH was 5 years+ behind schedule before it was built and launched. Starship already has multiple constructions going on, with multiple prototypes to test and mul

FH was 5 years+ behind schedule before it was built and launched. Starship already has multiple constructions going on, with multiple prototypes to test and multiple full-size vehicles planned quickly. In 2011, FH was supposed to have "arrival at launch site" by 2H 2012. It first launched in 2018 (after arriving at launch site in 2018 not 2012). The same level of delay would mean the first Starship does not reach orbit until ~2025. That seems crazy pessimistic and would be a dramatic departure from the otherwise normal delays faced by SpaceX. I think it's extremely unlikely that Starship would face FH-level delays. That would cancel the Starlink constellation, cede the space-internet game to others, hand the torch to BO or others working on large projects, and absolutely destroy morale at SpaceX. I just don't see it happening.

ethbro 7y ago
Minor: Boeing is BA, if that was the reference
- FredFS456 7y ago
  BO = Blue Origin
  - ethbro 7y ago
    That makes more sense!
justapassenger 7y ago
FH is "just" 3 F9 strapped together. Doing that took them more than 5 years than planned. Keeping that in mind, having 5 year delay on brand new design, using totally different materials, new engine, etc isn't far fetched.
- cryptoz 7y ago
  There is a quote somewhere (by Elon?) saying that FH is not "just" 3 F9s strapped together. A significant source of the slowdown for FH was the desire to not launch it without full reusability of all 3 stages and not to launch it without significant improvements (block 5 etc). Starship has none of those potential delays and has already solved most of the hard problems (as evidenced by the Hopper hopping already). Starship has all of the learnings and experience that FH and F9 didn't have. There will be delays, sure. But we won't be waiting 5+ years again for a single launch. Those days are over, and SpaceX is proving it. Some context, I haven't read this yet: https://www.quora.com/What-makes-SpaceXs-Falcon-Heavy-more-than-just-three-Falcon-9-rockets-strapped-together https://www.quora.com/What-makes-SpaceXs-Falcon-Heavy-more-t... Edit: > Keeping that in mind, having 5 year delay on brand new design, using totally different materials, new engine, etc isn't far fetched. The first full size Starship prototype is already built though (within ~2 years of initial announcement? Not behind schedule basically at all, so far?). IIRC for FH it was a ~5 year delay before SpaceX even starting construction on the first parts. The difference with Starship is staggering. The pace is dramatically faster, the risks are reduced up-front, and the tests are planned on a much shorter timeframe. We would frequently go 6 months to a year and hear no news at all about FH. There is news, updates and progress available to the public on an hourly or daily basis about the Starship progress. Night and day.
  - justapassenger 7y ago
    Hopper shows that engine works outside of test lab. That's great, but it's far far away from showing that they solved most of the hard problems. Experience from FH and F9 is useful, but it's a totally different type of spacecraft, with different use-cases, different materials, engines, cooling, etc. There's TONS of new stuff that they have to research, experiment, fail, try again, etc, until it's doing even 50% of what Elon promised.
    - cryptoz 7y ago
      Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. I thought Hopper was not about Raptor tests but about VTOL as well. The FH had to wait while F9 got down the vertical landing science and engineering (though a lot of tests, explosions, delays). StarHopper seems like it can use those learnings, and that was tested recently. The engine was already functioning on a test stand and mated to Hopper for static fires; the Hopper hop itself is testing the engine, sure, but also the complex math of doing a vertical landing with a gimballing engine, etc. The general space industry considered reusabable spacecraft that land vertically to be pretty much impossible until F9 and FH did it. But Hopper just does that casually, you don't bat an eye, you don't even comment that Hopper was testing a new rocket dynamics/physics for the math that (almost) only SpaceX has figured out. I just don't see the pessimism here. I've been watching SpaceX for 12+ years and I don't see any of the same issues plaguing them today as did in the past. New issues, but not the same ones. The new issues have dramatically smaller turnaround time to resolve. The days of 5-year SpaceX delays are over.
      - elif 7y ago
        I'm not sure I would call starship VTOL maybe vertical takeoff acrobatic landing? I'm sure falcon helped a lot, especially with control surface actuation resilliency, but I think they still have a lot to learn about this amazing new maneuver. They are building 4 partially functional prototypes to mess up and learn stuff fast.
      - justapassenger 7y ago
        > The general space industry considered reusabable spacecraft that land vertically to be pretty much impossible until F9 and FH did it. But Hopper just does that casually, you don't bat an eye, you don't even comment that Hopper was testing a new rocket dynamics/physics for the math that (almost) only SpaceX has figured out. VTVL isn't new. To do it you need ability to throttle engine and do trust vectoring - once you have that, it's "fairly" simple math and physics. SpaceX is first company that commercialized it, and huge props for that. No one cracked economy of it before (and it's not 100% sure that spacex did - no one saw their financials). > New issues, but not the same ones. The new issues have dramatically smaller turnaround time to resolve. We'll see, but I'm extremely sceptic about it. With F9/FH SpaceX did amazing but incremental improvements to current rocket technology. Starship has tons of uncharted territories.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- elif 7y ago
  The FH released did not have the payload capacity they originally intended. The mid-launch fuel bussing was critical to that, and abandoned. Instead they managed to squeeze out more thrust from the engines and make up some of the difference.
_ph_ 7y ago
The thing with the F9H is, that there was no real need for it for years, it almost got cancelled entirely. The F9 was improved to a point where it could do most missions which initially were thought to require a F9H. So the development of the F9H was done at a lower speed than if the business had depended on it. But as there seem to be some contracts requiring the F9H, they made it eventually. How often it will fly though, entirely depends on how quickly the Starship progresses.
maccam94 7y ago
FH got delayed because they kept improving the F9, so they didn't need the FH for many of the original target payloads. Some of the delay was due to technical issues, but changes to the F9 were significant over that time period. Starship has no dependencies on the Falcon stack.
- Rapzid 7y ago
  Another company would have rushed it out "on schedule" and have been stuck with the results forever. Delaying something until you need-need it can be a very good strategy ensuring the best possible final results at go-time if that avenue is available to you.
hadlock 7y ago
The center core of the Falcon Heavy has been described by Musk as effectively an entirely new rocket, due to the million pound lateral forces holding the three rockets together. It's not just three Falcon 9 strapped together.
- nickik 7y ago
  Yes but there is still a HUGE amount of communality between the systems.

ethbro 7y ago

Minor: Boeing is BA, if that was the reference

FredFS456 7y ago
BO = Blue Origin
- ethbro 7y ago
  That makes more sense!

justapassenger 7y ago

FH is "just" 3 F9 strapped together. Doing that took them more than 5 years than planned. Keeping that in mind, having 5 year delay on brand new design, using totally different materials, new engine, etc isn't far fetched.

cryptoz 7y ago
There is a quote somewhere (by Elon?) saying that FH is not "just" 3 F9s strapped together. A significant source of the slowdown for FH was the desire to not launch it without full reusability of all 3 stages and not to launch it without significant improvements (block 5 etc). Starship has none of those potential delays and has already solved most of the hard problems (as evidenced by the Hopper hopping already). Starship has all of the learnings and experience that FH and F9 didn't have. There will be delays, sure. But we won't be waiting 5+ years again for a single launch. Those days are over, and SpaceX is proving it. Some context, I haven't read this yet: https://www.quora.com/What-makes-SpaceXs-Falcon-Heavy-more-than-just-three-Falcon-9-rockets-strapped-together https://www.quora.com/What-makes-SpaceXs-Falcon-Heavy-more-t... Edit: > Keeping that in mind, having 5 year delay on brand new design, using totally different materials, new engine, etc isn't far fetched. The first full size Starship prototype is already built though (within ~2 years of initial announcement? Not behind schedule basically at all, so far?). IIRC for FH it was a ~5 year delay before SpaceX even starting construction on the first parts. The difference with Starship is staggering. The pace is dramatically faster, the risks are reduced up-front, and the tests are planned on a much shorter timeframe. We would frequently go 6 months to a year and hear no news at all about FH. There is news, updates and progress available to the public on an hourly or daily basis about the Starship progress. Night and day.
- justapassenger 7y ago
  Hopper shows that engine works outside of test lab. That's great, but it's far far away from showing that they solved most of the hard problems. Experience from FH and F9 is useful, but it's a totally different type of spacecraft, with different use-cases, different materials, engines, cooling, etc. There's TONS of new stuff that they have to research, experiment, fail, try again, etc, until it's doing even 50% of what Elon promised.
  - cryptoz 7y ago
    Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. I thought Hopper was not about Raptor tests but about VTOL as well. The FH had to wait while F9 got down the vertical landing science and engineering (though a lot of tests, explosions, delays). StarHopper seems like it can use those learnings, and that was tested recently. The engine was already functioning on a test stand and mated to Hopper for static fires; the Hopper hop itself is testing the engine, sure, but also the complex math of doing a vertical landing with a gimballing engine, etc. The general space industry considered reusabable spacecraft that land vertically to be pretty much impossible until F9 and FH did it. But Hopper just does that casually, you don't bat an eye, you don't even comment that Hopper was testing a new rocket dynamics/physics for the math that (almost) only SpaceX has figured out. I just don't see the pessimism here. I've been watching SpaceX for 12+ years and I don't see any of the same issues plaguing them today as did in the past. New issues, but not the same ones. The new issues have dramatically smaller turnaround time to resolve. The days of 5-year SpaceX delays are over.
    - elif 7y ago
      I'm not sure I would call starship VTOL maybe vertical takeoff acrobatic landing? I'm sure falcon helped a lot, especially with control surface actuation resilliency, but I think they still have a lot to learn about this amazing new maneuver. They are building 4 partially functional prototypes to mess up and learn stuff fast.
    - justapassenger 7y ago
      > The general space industry considered reusabable spacecraft that land vertically to be pretty much impossible until F9 and FH did it. But Hopper just does that casually, you don't bat an eye, you don't even comment that Hopper was testing a new rocket dynamics/physics for the math that (almost) only SpaceX has figured out. VTVL isn't new. To do it you need ability to throttle engine and do trust vectoring - once you have that, it's "fairly" simple math and physics. SpaceX is first company that commercialized it, and huge props for that. No one cracked economy of it before (and it's not 100% sure that spacex did - no one saw their financials). > New issues, but not the same ones. The new issues have dramatically smaller turnaround time to resolve. We'll see, but I'm extremely sceptic about it. With F9/FH SpaceX did amazing but incremental improvements to current rocket technology. Starship has tons of uncharted territories.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
elif 7y ago
The FH released did not have the payload capacity they originally intended. The mid-launch fuel bussing was critical to that, and abandoned. Instead they managed to squeeze out more thrust from the engines and make up some of the difference.

_ph_ 7y ago

The thing with the F9H is, that there was no real need for it for years, it almost got cancelled entirely. The F9 was improved to a point where it could do most missions which initially were thought to require a F9H. So the development of the F9H was done at a lower speed than if the business had depended on it. But as there seem to be some contracts requiring the F9H, they made it eventually. How often it will fly though, entirely depends on how quickly the Starship progresses.

maccam94 7y ago

FH got delayed because they kept improving the F9, so they didn't need the FH for many of the original target payloads. Some of the delay was due to technical issues, but changes to the F9 were significant over that time period. Starship has no dependencies on the Falcon stack.

Rapzid 7y ago
Another company would have rushed it out "on schedule" and have been stuck with the results forever. Delaying something until you need-need it can be a very good strategy ensuring the best possible final results at go-time if that avenue is available to you.

hadlock 7y ago

The center core of the Falcon Heavy has been described by Musk as effectively an entirely new rocket, due to the million pound lateral forces holding the three rockets together. It's not just three Falcon 9 strapped together.

nickik 7y ago
Yes but there is still a HUGE amount of communality between the systems.