6 ms·

What is the base of your theory? SpaceX has already gone through 4 prototypes in just 4 months, and the next one is being tested end of this month. By their roa

What is the base of your theory? SpaceX has already gone through 4 prototypes in just 4 months, and the next one is being tested end of this month. By their roadmap, even with some more test failures, they could still accomplish this and more in 2 years time.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> What is the base of your theory? The fact that SpaceX has missed every deadline Musk has ever set? They get some absolutely impressive and ground-breaking stuff done, but they don't do it on-time. I think they'll get to the Moon. I don't think they'll do it on the original schedule.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Their competitors have 10x the costs and don't get anything done on time either. This is normal for MIC contractors. They all underbid on their contracts and put their hand out for more money when the phony schedule slips.
  - aguyfromnb 7y ago
    >Their competitors have 10x the costs and don't get anything done on time either. SpaceX is a private company. Do you have a source for what their actual costs are for any of these projects? Musk has claimed all kinds of things relating to costs with his other public companies, and none of it has been true.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      I doubt it's 10x, but reuse of the first stage is highly likely to be saving them money. They were already undercutting companies like ULA heavily before reuse.
      - daxorid 7y ago
        ULA consistently ran a profitable business. You can afford to undercut profitable companies when you set OPM on fire.
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        ULA didn't lose very expensive government satellites with no explanation. In fact, there are no notable ULA launch failures. You get what you pay for: with ULA, your payload makes it to orbit/space every time. With SpaceX, there's a significant non-zero risk of losing your payload, and that risk discount is what lets SpaceX undercut ULA. (That risk discount is also why SpaceX has to severely undercut ULA; the economics from a customer perspective wouldn't work out if SpaceX were only a small discount from ULA prices.)
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        > ULA didn't lose very expensive government satellites with no explanation. Are you talking about Zuma? There's "no explanation" because it was a classified launch, and the indications we do have are that it was an issue with a Northrop Grumman payload adapter. ULA's perfect score is a bit of a cheat, as the rockets they launch were inherited. The first flight of the Delta IV Heavy, for example, was a partial failure... but happened before ULA's formation.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    "Other people have their own time slips" is a very true statement. "SpaceX will meet one of Musk's deadlines" is, thus far, not a statement I'd bet on coming true.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    Which competitors are you talking about? ISRO launches are cheaper than SpaceX RocketLab is in the same ballpark for a smallsat launch (when compared to the SX smallsat program, I realize there are other rideshare options that exist https://www.spacex.com/smallsat https://www.spacex.com/smallsat) Unfortunately ULA's launch cost calculator doesn't show final prices anymore (https://www.rocketbuilder.com/ https://www.rocketbuilder.com/), but they're now selling Atlas launches for under $100 million (their "ULA Value" numbers due to reduced schedule slip might be a bit generous but aren't any more egregious than how Tesla includes "potential savings" in the purchase price). Ariane launches are in the same neighborhood as ULA, perhaps a bit cheaper although they've had occassional schedule issues due to the geopolitical situation in their remote outpost of the EU.
    - nickik 7y ago
      You have no clue what you are talking about. The reality is ISRO and RocketLab play in a totally different market. Neither can compete against dedicated small sat launches from SpaceX. That is a fact that the CEO of RocketLab and many other small launcher CEO have admitted. And comparing those tiny rockets to Falcon 9 is a joke. ULA cheapest Atlas with no other extra service might be 100M$ but that gives a 60M$ Falcon 9. And just btw, ULA has no commercial flights anyway, and their military flights are much more expensive. That is not close by any definition. For the most part the only reason ULA has any flights at all, is because both NASA and DoD pick them to keep multiple providers in the market. Arianespace is not as cheap as ULA per rocket, maybe with Ariane 6 that will change. Ariane 5 costs 200M$ and launching one only makes sense if you can stack two big Geosats. 10x was wrong, but nobody is close in any practical sense.
      - Rebelgecko 7y ago
        > You have no clue what you are talking about. If you're going to make personal attacks, you should at least strive to be factually correct with your own claims. > ULA has no commercial flights anyway, and their military flights are much more expensive. That is not close by any definition. False. ULA has launched commercial flights in the past[1] and have more on their future manifest. It's true that their launches for the government are more expensive, but that is also the case with SpaceX's government launches: they charged about $90 million each for the most recent GPS-3 flights[2]. Since government payloads are typically uninsured, you also need to take that into account that higher premiums with SpaceX aren't reflected in those launch costs (because the risk is assumed by the gov directly) > And comparing those tiny rockets to Falcon 9 is a joke. Rocket Lab is winning contracts that would've previously gone to SpaceX (either directly or through a rideshare provider like Spaceflight (RIP)). They're targeting a different market but there is still some overlap. Pound for pound Rocketlab is still more expensive, but there's value in being able to choose your own orbit instead of being stuck with wherever your ridebuddies want to go. Anyone who has used Uber Pool or Lyft Line is familiar with this phenomenon. > Ariane 5 costs 200M$ (sic) No. An Ariane 5 costs around €100 million. Unless you got really unlucky with the exchange rate that isn't 200 million USD. > For the most part the only reason ULA has any flights at all, is because both NASA and DoD pick them to keep multiple providers in the market. I think that is unlikely. ULA would certainly have fewer flights if the DOD wasn't trying to ensure the viability of multiple EELV/NSSL launch vehicles, but they would definitely still have some. In particular the payloads that no other American launch vehicle is physically capable of delivering (e.g. when it comes to requirements like big fairing, and horizontal integration. There's also a number of orbits that a Falcon 9 can't hit with the sorts of heavy payloads that the IC likes to send via GTO or even direct to GEO-- it will be interesting to see how that changes now that the Heavy is certified) > 10x was wrong Agreed. It's hard to make a totally apples to apples comparison, but based off of recent awards[3] they are certainly within the same order of magnitude. ULA costs maybe 50% more, but it's hard to judge how the different launch providers affect the mission capabilities. e.g. if ULA is able to send something direct to GEO and get closer to the desired apogee, the bus might save a year's worth of propellant. For a constellation like SBIRS where each satellite costs just shy of $1 billion, another year of capability is nothing to sneeze at [1]: A random example here https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/jupiter-2.htm https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/jupiter-2.htm [2]: https://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1113835/spacex-awarded-contract-for-gps-iii-3-launch-services/ https://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1... [3]: https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-739-million-in-launch-contracts-to-ula-and-spacex/ https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-739-million-in-launch...
londons_explore 7y ago
The first ideas for starship seem to have started in 2012 (according to wikipedia). It's now 2020, and the craft hasn't even gotten close to orbit. There's no way they'll land on the moon in 2022.
- 1958325146 7y ago
  If we're talking about schedule slip: the schedule is a flyby of (not landing on) the moon in 2023 (not 2022). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DearMoon_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DearMoon_project
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    That article indicates a schedule slip on SpaceX's earlier moon plans from 2018, though.
    - gpm 7y ago
      That schedule change wasn't related to a schedule slip on starship, it was a decision to switch from a small mission (by number of people) using a falcon heavy and crew dragon to a bigger mission using starship. It might have been related to the schedule slippage on crew dragon though, considering they are just now ready to fly astronauts on crew dragon.
  - mr_toad 7y ago
    It’s questionable if they’ll ever consider landing a Starship on the moon. It would require multiple orbital tankers to give it enough fuel (unless it was a one way trip). And there is no possibility of ever manufacturing metholox on the moon.
- 101404 7y ago
  It's only half a year ago that they started to develop the prototype. In October last year, they switched to steel.
  - 7y ago

ceejayoz 7y ago

> What is the base of your theory? The fact that SpaceX has missed every deadline Musk has ever set? They get some absolutely impressive and ground-breaking stuff done, but they don't do it on-time. I think they'll get to the Moon. I don't think they'll do it on the original schedule.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Their competitors have 10x the costs and don't get anything done on time either. This is normal for MIC contractors. They all underbid on their contracts and put their hand out for more money when the phony schedule slips.
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  >Their competitors have 10x the costs and don't get anything done on time either. SpaceX is a private company. Do you have a source for what their actual costs are for any of these projects? Musk has claimed all kinds of things relating to costs with his other public companies, and none of it has been true.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    I doubt it's 10x, but reuse of the first stage is highly likely to be saving them money. They were already undercutting companies like ULA heavily before reuse.
    - daxorid 7y ago
      ULA consistently ran a profitable business. You can afford to undercut profitable companies when you set OPM on fire.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      ULA didn't lose very expensive government satellites with no explanation. In fact, there are no notable ULA launch failures. You get what you pay for: with ULA, your payload makes it to orbit/space every time. With SpaceX, there's a significant non-zero risk of losing your payload, and that risk discount is what lets SpaceX undercut ULA. (That risk discount is also why SpaceX has to severely undercut ULA; the economics from a customer perspective wouldn't work out if SpaceX were only a small discount from ULA prices.)
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        > ULA didn't lose very expensive government satellites with no explanation. Are you talking about Zuma? There's "no explanation" because it was a classified launch, and the indications we do have are that it was an issue with a Northrop Grumman payload adapter. ULA's perfect score is a bit of a cheat, as the rockets they launch were inherited. The first flight of the Delta IV Heavy, for example, was a partial failure... but happened before ULA's formation.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  "Other people have their own time slips" is a very true statement. "SpaceX will meet one of Musk's deadlines" is, thus far, not a statement I'd bet on coming true.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  Which competitors are you talking about? ISRO launches are cheaper than SpaceX RocketLab is in the same ballpark for a smallsat launch (when compared to the SX smallsat program, I realize there are other rideshare options that exist https://www.spacex.com/smallsat https://www.spacex.com/smallsat) Unfortunately ULA's launch cost calculator doesn't show final prices anymore (https://www.rocketbuilder.com/ https://www.rocketbuilder.com/), but they're now selling Atlas launches for under $100 million (their "ULA Value" numbers due to reduced schedule slip might be a bit generous but aren't any more egregious than how Tesla includes "potential savings" in the purchase price). Ariane launches are in the same neighborhood as ULA, perhaps a bit cheaper although they've had occassional schedule issues due to the geopolitical situation in their remote outpost of the EU.
  - nickik 7y ago
    You have no clue what you are talking about. The reality is ISRO and RocketLab play in a totally different market. Neither can compete against dedicated small sat launches from SpaceX. That is a fact that the CEO of RocketLab and many other small launcher CEO have admitted. And comparing those tiny rockets to Falcon 9 is a joke. ULA cheapest Atlas with no other extra service might be 100M$ but that gives a 60M$ Falcon 9. And just btw, ULA has no commercial flights anyway, and their military flights are much more expensive. That is not close by any definition. For the most part the only reason ULA has any flights at all, is because both NASA and DoD pick them to keep multiple providers in the market. Arianespace is not as cheap as ULA per rocket, maybe with Ariane 6 that will change. Ariane 5 costs 200M$ and launching one only makes sense if you can stack two big Geosats. 10x was wrong, but nobody is close in any practical sense.
    - Rebelgecko 7y ago
      > You have no clue what you are talking about. If you're going to make personal attacks, you should at least strive to be factually correct with your own claims. > ULA has no commercial flights anyway, and their military flights are much more expensive. That is not close by any definition. False. ULA has launched commercial flights in the past[1] and have more on their future manifest. It's true that their launches for the government are more expensive, but that is also the case with SpaceX's government launches: they charged about $90 million each for the most recent GPS-3 flights[2]. Since government payloads are typically uninsured, you also need to take that into account that higher premiums with SpaceX aren't reflected in those launch costs (because the risk is assumed by the gov directly) > And comparing those tiny rockets to Falcon 9 is a joke. Rocket Lab is winning contracts that would've previously gone to SpaceX (either directly or through a rideshare provider like Spaceflight (RIP)). They're targeting a different market but there is still some overlap. Pound for pound Rocketlab is still more expensive, but there's value in being able to choose your own orbit instead of being stuck with wherever your ridebuddies want to go. Anyone who has used Uber Pool or Lyft Line is familiar with this phenomenon. > Ariane 5 costs 200M$ (sic) No. An Ariane 5 costs around €100 million. Unless you got really unlucky with the exchange rate that isn't 200 million USD. > For the most part the only reason ULA has any flights at all, is because both NASA and DoD pick them to keep multiple providers in the market. I think that is unlikely. ULA would certainly have fewer flights if the DOD wasn't trying to ensure the viability of multiple EELV/NSSL launch vehicles, but they would definitely still have some. In particular the payloads that no other American launch vehicle is physically capable of delivering (e.g. when it comes to requirements like big fairing, and horizontal integration. There's also a number of orbits that a Falcon 9 can't hit with the sorts of heavy payloads that the IC likes to send via GTO or even direct to GEO-- it will be interesting to see how that changes now that the Heavy is certified) > 10x was wrong Agreed. It's hard to make a totally apples to apples comparison, but based off of recent awards[3] they are certainly within the same order of magnitude. ULA costs maybe 50% more, but it's hard to judge how the different launch providers affect the mission capabilities. e.g. if ULA is able to send something direct to GEO and get closer to the desired apogee, the bus might save a year's worth of propellant. For a constellation like SBIRS where each satellite costs just shy of $1 billion, another year of capability is nothing to sneeze at [1]: A random example here https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/jupiter-2.htm https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/jupiter-2.htm [2]: https://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1113835/spacex-awarded-contract-for-gps-iii-3-launch-services/ https://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1... [3]: https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-739-million-in-launch-contracts-to-ula-and-spacex/ https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-739-million-in-launch...

londons_explore 7y ago

The first ideas for starship seem to have started in 2012 (according to wikipedia). It's now 2020, and the craft hasn't even gotten close to orbit. There's no way they'll land on the moon in 2022.

1958325146 7y ago
If we're talking about schedule slip: the schedule is a flyby of (not landing on) the moon in 2023 (not 2022). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DearMoon_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DearMoon_project
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  That article indicates a schedule slip on SpaceX's earlier moon plans from 2018, though.
  - gpm 7y ago
    That schedule change wasn't related to a schedule slip on starship, it was a decision to switch from a small mission (by number of people) using a falcon heavy and crew dragon to a bigger mission using starship. It might have been related to the schedule slippage on crew dragon though, considering they are just now ready to fly astronauts on crew dragon.
- mr_toad 7y ago
  It’s questionable if they’ll ever consider landing a Starship on the moon. It would require multiple orbital tankers to give it enough fuel (unless it was a one way trip). And there is no possibility of ever manufacturing metholox on the moon.
101404 7y ago
It's only half a year ago that they started to develop the prototype. In October last year, they switched to steel.
- 7y ago