3 ms·
> So far I've seen them achieve everything they set out to achieve. That's not true. They've achieved parts of what they set out for, yes. The important parts,
by qayxc 5y ago
> So far I've seen them achieve everything they set out to achieve.
That's not true. They've achieved parts of what they set out for, yes. The important parts, too. But far from everything.
Just one example, because that irks me every time someone brings up nonsense like Starship point-to-point as a realistic option: SpaceX planned to achieve a turnaround time for F9 of 24 hours. So far, the best they could do is 27 days.
I won't get into why faster turnaround times are actually irrelevant for F9, but it goes to show that reality and plans don't always align even with SpaceX.
Now with regards to the turnaround time, people with be quick to point out that this beat the Shuttle record of 54 days, but then again the F9 in question wasn't a crewed mission and doesn't reuse its upper stage, so...
Another reason for healthy scepticism is the lack of cold hard numbers regarding the system. We cannot know the total system cost yet or the launch cost, because neither the final spec system nor its launch infrastructure exists. The number can also be very deceiving: the STS had an estimated $2000/kg to LEO goal and that was realistic back in he 1970s. Why? Because the calculation assumed ~50 launches per year and lots of cargo missions.
Instead, the shuttle launched only 4.5 times a year and the launch cost increased dramatically after the 1986 Challenger disaster and again after the 2003 Columbia accident due to safety procedures and maintenance.
In addition all launch facilities, infrastructure costs and R&D are priced into the Shuttle launch cost (e.g. total program cost divided by number of missions), which is impossible to do for Starship since we don't know the R&D or infrastructure costs.
Just throwing a number like $1000/kg into the ring is pretty meaningless as you need to provide context as well (number of launches per year, unit- and infrastructure costs, R&D costs, etc.). It's also important to keep in mind that this is the number SpaceX wants to achieve eventually, e.g. not with the first launch.
F9 launch costs haven't decreased either and NASA and the DoD in particular still pay a hefty premium compared to business customers. We'll see.
- smaddox 5y agoF9 launch costs haven't decreased for customers. That in no way implies they haven't decreased for SpaceX. Why would Space X reduce the cost for customers below what they are willing to pay?
- cromwellian 5y agoThey're not going to decrease them unless they have competitive. As it stands, every decrease is just more margin. As long as they keep winning contracts by being slightly cheaper than the competition, they can just pocket the benefits. Look, they've flown block 5 boosters 10 times with minimal refurbishment. Given the cost of Merlin engines, it's obvious they're saving money over expendable designs.
- skissane 5y ago> SpaceX planned to achieve a turnaround time for F9 of 24 hours. So far, the best they could do is 27 days. SpaceX's original plan was to further evolve F9. Then they decided to build Starship instead, at which point they decided to stop making any more than minor improvements to F9. If they hadn't decided to work on Starship, they probably would have made further improvements in F9 turnaround time, and other metrics. Citing they fact that they are now never going to deliver on their original objectives for F9 doesn't tell us anything about whether they can deliver on their objectives for Starship.
- jryle70 5y ago> SpaceX planned to achieve a turnaround time for F9 of 24 hours. So far, the best they could do is 27 days. They didn't plan to achieve this. It was an Elon's tweet when they only started recovering F9 booster, even before B5 (please correct me if I remember incorrectly). SpaceX can be anything, but they're still a business. There is no reason whatsoever for 24 hour turnaround for F9. First of all they have a fleet of eight F9 boosters. Boosters are waiting for payloads, not the other way around like in the past. Even with Starlink, 2021 cadence has only been a launch every 10 days so far, and with that SpaceX already put more payloads into space than everyone else combined in 2021, governments or commercials. Why invest in something with no return, just for bragging right? Second of all, and this is more important, F9 is the past, Starship is the future. Why invest in a dead end product when the future is such a game changer? They are on the cusp of launching SH/SS in the near term, according to Gwynne Shotwell just a few days ago.