3 ms·

While it‘s awesome to finally see the JWST finally come to close to launch after all those years, now it‘s a close race between it and SpaceX Starship that coul

While it‘s awesome to finally see the JWST finally come to close to launch after all those years, now it‘s a close race between it and SpaceX Starship that could have taken the 6.5 meter mirror up to space in one whole piece in its 9m diameter belly rather than having to do all the miraculous origami that took two decades to develop in the first place…

minikites 5y ago
I wouldn't trust any payload on a SpaceX ship given their track record.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  That's how space travel development works. It doesn't take off; it crashes; it explodes; it fails to land; it works. From then on pretty much, it works.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    What is that based on? How do you distinguish launch systems that just don't work well? Everything works in the end? That would make engineering much easier and less stressful!
    - lazide 5y ago
      I’m unaware of any launch system that gets many tries at failures - it either gets what needs to be done relatively quickly or it gets cancelled. The number of tries you get is usually single digits. Everyone fails a few times at a minimum.
- Me1000 5y ago
  The Falcon 9 has had 126 missions so far and only 2 of those were failures. It's not a perfect record, but it's pretty decent. And presumably SpaceX has learned from those failures. Compare that to the Ariane 5 rockets (which will actually be launching the James Web Space Telescope) which has had 109 launches, and 5 of them ended in failure. I'm just going to assume you're referring to Starship's various explosions. It's far too early in the Starship development cycle to draw any kind of conclusions about it's reliability. Starship is a prototype. It's a completely new vehicle with completely new engines, and they're building it with the expectation that the early versions are going to blow up. It's like saying Falcon 9 is unreliable because their early "grasshopper" prototype (for testing landing) exploded and at times. Also probably a good idea to note that these explosions all happened during their landing attempt, so in theory any payload onboard would have already been deployed. It's just the vehicle that would be lost. Of course they're still so early in the development cycle that Starship hasn't even attempted an orbital flight yet. I get that it's weird watching these very early prototypes blow up so spectacularly and publicly, but that's the development model SpaceX has chosen. And we're not used to watching rockets being built and tested so out in the open. Personally I think it's exciting watching the progress they're making.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > the Ariane 5 rockets (which will actually be launching the James Web Space Telescope) which has had 109 launches, and 5 of them ended in failure I just read that they had one failure, though I can't find it. Does anyone have any reliable data (i.e., not Wikipedia)?
    - mhio 5y ago
      http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html The notes for the failures are at the bottom.
- caconym_ 5y ago
  Falcon 9 (and Heavy) has not experienced any kind of mission failure since 2016, the latter period accounting for (if I'm counting right) 69% of its total launches including the Amos-6 pad failure (which did not actually launch). Its actual failure rate is 1.5%. It's not a track record that deserves any more derision than its contemporaries. Doing so in such vague terms just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, which goes double if you're thinking not of F9, but rather of those big shiny rockets they've been blowing up in Boca Chica recently. That (Starship) is a development program.
- relativ575 5y ago
  SpaceX launched three crews to the ISS within the last 12 months. In other words, they are trusted with payload with the highest caliber. How can a comment be that ignorant yet presented in such a confident tone?
wolverine876 5y ago
SpaceX has nothing to do with this. Their rocket has zero demonstrated capability for this mission.
jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
While I'm rooting for SpaceX with Starship, lets be clear: they're still trying to get hovering grain silo versions working. Meanwhile JWT is ready to go. If it's a race one side has already won rather emphatically.
- caconym_ 5y ago
  Actually, they're well beyond the "grain silos" by now. They've successfully demonstrated the "bellyflop" landing maneuver from a terminal velocity fall, and now they're (credibly) trying to launch a full prototype Starship stack to orbit within the next few months. Wiki says JWST is planned to launch by this November, so I think there is a decent chance Starship beats it into space. That won't be a production-ready vehicle, and launching anything valuable on it (let alone something like the JWST) would be certifiable, but let's give credit where it's due.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
    I know where SpaceX is. Elon does have a clear history of being overly optimistic about timelines. There's a zero percent chance they'll have a vehicle ready by the JWT launch date that could launch it instead, even if they get to orbit by then. This is not a race. As I said I'm a SpaceX fan, but I am not a fan of every single space topic being derailed by "but what about SpaceX?" as if they're the only company doing things meaningful in the industry. They're the super cool new kid on the block, but there's still a lot more out there that doesn't deserve to constantly be lampooned for not being SpaceX.
    - caconym_ 5y ago
      > I know where SpaceX is. I mean, Musk may be famous for his "optimistic" timelines, but you completely misrepresented their progress. "Still trying to get hovering grain silo versions working" is not remotely accurate. That's the only point of my previous comment: give credit where it's due, as I said. I agree with most or all of the other things you've said in this subthread.

minikites 5y ago

I wouldn't trust any payload on a SpaceX ship given their track record.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago
That's how space travel development works. It doesn't take off; it crashes; it explodes; it fails to land; it works. From then on pretty much, it works.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  What is that based on? How do you distinguish launch systems that just don't work well? Everything works in the end? That would make engineering much easier and less stressful!
  - lazide 5y ago
    I’m unaware of any launch system that gets many tries at failures - it either gets what needs to be done relatively quickly or it gets cancelled. The number of tries you get is usually single digits. Everyone fails a few times at a minimum.
Me1000 5y ago
The Falcon 9 has had 126 missions so far and only 2 of those were failures. It's not a perfect record, but it's pretty decent. And presumably SpaceX has learned from those failures. Compare that to the Ariane 5 rockets (which will actually be launching the James Web Space Telescope) which has had 109 launches, and 5 of them ended in failure. I'm just going to assume you're referring to Starship's various explosions. It's far too early in the Starship development cycle to draw any kind of conclusions about it's reliability. Starship is a prototype. It's a completely new vehicle with completely new engines, and they're building it with the expectation that the early versions are going to blow up. It's like saying Falcon 9 is unreliable because their early "grasshopper" prototype (for testing landing) exploded and at times. Also probably a good idea to note that these explosions all happened during their landing attempt, so in theory any payload onboard would have already been deployed. It's just the vehicle that would be lost. Of course they're still so early in the development cycle that Starship hasn't even attempted an orbital flight yet. I get that it's weird watching these very early prototypes blow up so spectacularly and publicly, but that's the development model SpaceX has chosen. And we're not used to watching rockets being built and tested so out in the open. Personally I think it's exciting watching the progress they're making.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > the Ariane 5 rockets (which will actually be launching the James Web Space Telescope) which has had 109 launches, and 5 of them ended in failure I just read that they had one failure, though I can't find it. Does anyone have any reliable data (i.e., not Wikipedia)?
  - mhio 5y ago
    http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html The notes for the failures are at the bottom.
caconym_ 5y ago
Falcon 9 (and Heavy) has not experienced any kind of mission failure since 2016, the latter period accounting for (if I'm counting right) 69% of its total launches including the Amos-6 pad failure (which did not actually launch). Its actual failure rate is 1.5%. It's not a track record that deserves any more derision than its contemporaries. Doing so in such vague terms just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, which goes double if you're thinking not of F9, but rather of those big shiny rockets they've been blowing up in Boca Chica recently. That (Starship) is a development program.
relativ575 5y ago
SpaceX launched three crews to the ISS within the last 12 months. In other words, they are trusted with payload with the highest caliber. How can a comment be that ignorant yet presented in such a confident tone?

wolverine876 5y ago

SpaceX has nothing to do with this. Their rocket has zero demonstrated capability for this mission.

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago

While I'm rooting for SpaceX with Starship, lets be clear: they're still trying to get hovering grain silo versions working. Meanwhile JWT is ready to go. If it's a race one side has already won rather emphatically.

caconym_ 5y ago
Actually, they're well beyond the "grain silos" by now. They've successfully demonstrated the "bellyflop" landing maneuver from a terminal velocity fall, and now they're (credibly) trying to launch a full prototype Starship stack to orbit within the next few months. Wiki says JWST is planned to launch by this November, so I think there is a decent chance Starship beats it into space. That won't be a production-ready vehicle, and launching anything valuable on it (let alone something like the JWST) would be certifiable, but let's give credit where it's due.
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  I know where SpaceX is. Elon does have a clear history of being overly optimistic about timelines. There's a zero percent chance they'll have a vehicle ready by the JWT launch date that could launch it instead, even if they get to orbit by then. This is not a race. As I said I'm a SpaceX fan, but I am not a fan of every single space topic being derailed by "but what about SpaceX?" as if they're the only company doing things meaningful in the industry. They're the super cool new kid on the block, but there's still a lot more out there that doesn't deserve to constantly be lampooned for not being SpaceX.
  - caconym_ 5y ago
    > I know where SpaceX is. I mean, Musk may be famous for his "optimistic" timelines, but you completely misrepresented their progress. "Still trying to get hovering grain silo versions working" is not remotely accurate. That's the only point of my previous comment: give credit where it's due, as I said. I agree with most or all of the other things you've said in this subthread.