6 ms·

As someone who has worked on NASA contracts pretty much my whole career, you're quite right. Starship is still extremely unproven. If you look at the history of

As someone who has worked on NASA contracts pretty much my whole career, you're quite right. Starship is still extremely unproven. If you look at the history of rockets, mayyyybe 1 in 5 that make it to an orbital launch debut (which is like 1 in 50 paper rockets) in turn make it to commercial rollout. The author's claim that the potential benefits of Starship are not understood by NASA is cringeworthy naive. Everyone at NASA is rooting for SpaceX but they have been burned many times by the promises of the next shiny rocket: DC-X, VentureStar, NASP, Ares, SLS, hell even the shuttle despite its "success" only fulfilled a small fraction of the desired results. Makes me wonder how old the author is.

JulianMorrison 5y ago
It seems a little unfair to compare a program with flying test vehicles and production already in progress, with flying Powerpoints that got cancelled because you can't make a cryogenic hydrogen tank out of scrith.
prox 5y ago
This would be true perhaps if this wasn’t SpaceX. They already moved the goalpost with Falcon And I don’t think the author wrote what you said. His main point was that not one of NASA’s powerpoints even as much acknowledges that something like Starship might come round. The new constraints by Starship are a game changer.
- ARandumGuy 5y ago
  Past success does not guarantee future success. And when you're dealing with space travel, which is inherently expensive and extremely dangerous, then you can't afford to buy into any hype.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    If it was just 'hype' why did NASA select them for HLS? They had all the data and they officially declared it was very doable and that SpaceX had a path to get there. So its ok to plan for it but pretend it only exists for that one thing they contracted if for, and ignore if for everything else.
    - ncallaway 5y ago
      > So its ok to plan for it but pretend it only exists for that one thing they contracted if for, and ignore if for everything else. No one here is saying "NASA should ignore Starship for everything else". I'm saying that NASA isn't "failing to understand" Starship when they don't push all their chips to the middle of the table on Starship. You can't use the fact that NASA was willing to make a $2.9B bet on Starship as evidence that they should have been willing to go all-in on Starship. It'd be like saying if you wager me $1,000 on an outcome, then you should also be willing to bet your house on it. That's not how risk works! Would I personally like to see NASA continue to evaluate and select Starship for future programs? Yes! Would I personally like to see NASA start kick off early concept-phase work for payloads that would be enabled by Starship? Yes! Do I think that NASA decided not to completely re-orient everything that they do around Starship right now means they don't understand Starship? No! Of course not! It means there's too much risk right now around doing that.
      - panick21_ 5y ago
        The point is that you have to start to think differently. Not just have the same circle of programs, selecting a launcher and on. You need to fundamentally rethink how you approach space. And there is little evidence of that happening, specially from a leadership standpoint.
        ncallaway 5y ago
        Sure. And my point is that, for an organization like NASA (which is basically our government's "approach to space") "fundamentally rethinking how you approach space" is basically saying: "fundamentally transform everything about how the organization operates". Which, if Starship delivers on its promises (and I'm quite optimistic and hopeful that it will!), then NASA will have to fundamentally transform everything about how the organization operates. But that's a huge transition to make on the back of a program that hasn't proven its key value proposition yet. I'm happy for NASA to wait the extra 2-3 years for Starship to prove that it can deliver on its promises, before NASA commits to a reorganization and restructuring at such a fundamental level. If NASA commits to such a restructuring now, and in 2 years we learn that Starship's economic dream fails to materialize and the program ends up as an improvement (but an ordinary one) over Falcon 9. NASA how has to unwind all of that organization restructuring and program development. It seems...wise to me for NASA to wait a handful of years to see Starship prove itself before committing to such a transition.
  - JulianMorrison 5y ago
    If they were trying something genuinely new - like falling out of orbit and making a propulsive upright landing of a wingless booster - then some skepticism would be justified. But what's new in Starship?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Propulsive landing of an orbital stage is pretty new. (You can make an argument for Soyuz's just-before-landing rockets, but it wouldn't be a fair one.)
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        > Propulsive landing of an orbital stage is pretty new. It is, but those are largely separate features. Each half of that combo has been done, and combining them doesn't cause any massive engineering conflicts.
        macintux 5y ago
        No one has, to my knowledge, de-orbited a spacecraft ready to launch again immediately, which is where Musk thinks Starship is headed. That’s a big jump.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        That is, yes, but jumping that hurdle doesn't really matter if the landing is propulsive or not.
      - JulianMorrison 5y ago
        Okay, I'll grant you that. Not a huge step from what they already do, but it is a step.
        macintux 5y ago
        Given the uncertainty around heat tiles (and the impact on rapid turnaround) plus the sheer size of the rocket, it seems like a huge step to this ignorant observer.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  > His main point was that not one of NASA’s powerpoints even as much acknowledges that something like Starship might come round That's just not true, though. NASA awarded the HLS program solely to SpaceX as a Starship lander. The Source Selection Statement of that program (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-...) discusses the benefits and drawbacks of Starship in good detail. It seems wild to claim that NASA doesn't acknowledge that Starship might come around, when they're paying SpaceX specifically for the Starship program, for moon landings with Starship in 2024 (I think we all know that date will slip, but that's the official plan).
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Author mentions HLS contract, but their argument is that it's not taking any advantage of economies offered by Starship. It's like a 10th century trader took an offer to use modern long-haul trucks at a fraction of what they pay for horse and cart transport, but failed to update the business to take advantage of the improved range, speed, reliability and cargo capacity. The argument is potent particularly because space mission architectures are designed primarily around constraints of the space launch systems, so choosing Starship as the launch vehicle seems to merit a large expansion in scope, if not total redesign of the program.
panick21_ 5y ago
> The author's claim that the potential benefits of Starship are not understood by NASA is cringeworthy naive. > Makes me wonder how old the author is. The author works for JPL. > Starship is still extremely unproven. If you look at the history of rockets, mayyyybe 1 in 5 that make it to an orbital launch debut (which is like 1 in 50 paper rockets) in turn make it to commercial rollout. How many of these had 10+ prototypes fly and had a dedicate launch site near to complete? How many had a working next generation engine for there first and second stage? How many were designed by companies that had already developed the largest rocket in the world? > burned many times by the promises of the next shiny rocket: DC-X, VentureStar, NASP, Ares, SLS, Non of those were even remotely close. DC-X was a sub-orbital technology demonstrator. Even had it been successful it would have been nothing more. NASP is another technology demonstrator. VentureStar was far, far away. Comparing it to Starship is just not accurate. It was basically almost delusional to think it would ever happen. And many people even back then were very skeptical of a SSTO Spaceplane. And beyond that politically it getting the needed funding was also not gone happen. Ares, SLS are basically just warmed up shuttle concepts. These are designed to keep contractors employed, not to solve the problem. They no potential to solve anything.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  >The author works for JPL. As a software person. JPL employs over 5000 people. The vast majority of them don't have knowledge of the sort of systems and business dynamics relevant to the matter of NASA using Starship.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    > The vast majority of them don't have knowledge of the sort of systems and business dynamics relevant to ... If experience from private sector is any indication, that's usually question of caring. It's not hard to gain such insight from the inside - but you need to walk around a bit, talk to people outside of your team, and most importantly, pay attention.
- spacemark 5y ago
  Jeez dude, these were just random programs off the top of my head to illustrate industry distrust of launch vehicle promises. My comment wasn't meant to initiate a debate but offer the perspective of someone who is quite literally writing proposals about launch vehicle selection for NASA missions. But hey, you can read Wikipedia, so... In any case to those reasonable out there, don't worry. If SpaceX can prove reliable launch to orbit and deliver on their promises, change will come. It's kind of silly to write articles about how everyone should change the way they operate NOW because change is coming. Of course it's coming, everyone accepts it's likely, and things will move quickly once it does and is proven. What more do the fanboys want!?
hindsightbias 5y ago
Maybe not everyone. JSC community strongly opposed much of the ISS rework (they were designing something that required 40 hours of spacewalks a week), opposed Shuttle C (which seemed completely illogical given the work base), and as far as projects like DC-XA... I was in Bldg. 30 watching its amazing flight and when it caught fire and fell over, the combined contractor and MCC staff cheered and broke out in applause. Perhaps it's changed, but not sure how relevant many of them would be in a Starship world.

JulianMorrison 5y ago

It seems a little unfair to compare a program with flying test vehicles and production already in progress, with flying Powerpoints that got cancelled because you can't make a cryogenic hydrogen tank out of scrith.

prox 5y ago

This would be true perhaps if this wasn’t SpaceX. They already moved the goalpost with Falcon And I don’t think the author wrote what you said. His main point was that not one of NASA’s powerpoints even as much acknowledges that something like Starship might come round. The new constraints by Starship are a game changer.

ARandumGuy 5y ago
Past success does not guarantee future success. And when you're dealing with space travel, which is inherently expensive and extremely dangerous, then you can't afford to buy into any hype.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  If it was just 'hype' why did NASA select them for HLS? They had all the data and they officially declared it was very doable and that SpaceX had a path to get there. So its ok to plan for it but pretend it only exists for that one thing they contracted if for, and ignore if for everything else.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    > So its ok to plan for it but pretend it only exists for that one thing they contracted if for, and ignore if for everything else. No one here is saying "NASA should ignore Starship for everything else". I'm saying that NASA isn't "failing to understand" Starship when they don't push all their chips to the middle of the table on Starship. You can't use the fact that NASA was willing to make a $2.9B bet on Starship as evidence that they should have been willing to go all-in on Starship. It'd be like saying if you wager me $1,000 on an outcome, then you should also be willing to bet your house on it. That's not how risk works! Would I personally like to see NASA continue to evaluate and select Starship for future programs? Yes! Would I personally like to see NASA start kick off early concept-phase work for payloads that would be enabled by Starship? Yes! Do I think that NASA decided not to completely re-orient everything that they do around Starship right now means they don't understand Starship? No! Of course not! It means there's too much risk right now around doing that.
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      The point is that you have to start to think differently. Not just have the same circle of programs, selecting a launcher and on. You need to fundamentally rethink how you approach space. And there is little evidence of that happening, specially from a leadership standpoint.
      - ncallaway 5y ago
        Sure. And my point is that, for an organization like NASA (which is basically our government's "approach to space") "fundamentally rethinking how you approach space" is basically saying: "fundamentally transform everything about how the organization operates". Which, if Starship delivers on its promises (and I'm quite optimistic and hopeful that it will!), then NASA will have to fundamentally transform everything about how the organization operates. But that's a huge transition to make on the back of a program that hasn't proven its key value proposition yet. I'm happy for NASA to wait the extra 2-3 years for Starship to prove that it can deliver on its promises, before NASA commits to a reorganization and restructuring at such a fundamental level. If NASA commits to such a restructuring now, and in 2 years we learn that Starship's economic dream fails to materialize and the program ends up as an improvement (but an ordinary one) over Falcon 9. NASA how has to unwind all of that organization restructuring and program development. It seems...wise to me for NASA to wait a handful of years to see Starship prove itself before committing to such a transition.
- JulianMorrison 5y ago
  If they were trying something genuinely new - like falling out of orbit and making a propulsive upright landing of a wingless booster - then some skepticism would be justified. But what's new in Starship?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Propulsive landing of an orbital stage is pretty new. (You can make an argument for Soyuz's just-before-landing rockets, but it wouldn't be a fair one.)
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > Propulsive landing of an orbital stage is pretty new. It is, but those are largely separate features. Each half of that combo has been done, and combining them doesn't cause any massive engineering conflicts.
      - macintux 5y ago
        No one has, to my knowledge, de-orbited a spacecraft ready to launch again immediately, which is where Musk thinks Starship is headed. That’s a big jump.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        That is, yes, but jumping that hurdle doesn't really matter if the landing is propulsive or not.
    - JulianMorrison 5y ago
      Okay, I'll grant you that. Not a huge step from what they already do, but it is a step.
      - macintux 5y ago
        Given the uncertainty around heat tiles (and the impact on rapid turnaround) plus the sheer size of the rocket, it seems like a huge step to this ignorant observer.
ncallaway 5y ago
> His main point was that not one of NASA’s powerpoints even as much acknowledges that something like Starship might come round That's just not true, though. NASA awarded the HLS program solely to SpaceX as a Starship lander. The Source Selection Statement of that program (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-...) discusses the benefits and drawbacks of Starship in good detail. It seems wild to claim that NASA doesn't acknowledge that Starship might come around, when they're paying SpaceX specifically for the Starship program, for moon landings with Starship in 2024 (I think we all know that date will slip, but that's the official plan).
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Author mentions HLS contract, but their argument is that it's not taking any advantage of economies offered by Starship. It's like a 10th century trader took an offer to use modern long-haul trucks at a fraction of what they pay for horse and cart transport, but failed to update the business to take advantage of the improved range, speed, reliability and cargo capacity. The argument is potent particularly because space mission architectures are designed primarily around constraints of the space launch systems, so choosing Starship as the launch vehicle seems to merit a large expansion in scope, if not total redesign of the program.

panick21_ 5y ago

> The author's claim that the potential benefits of Starship are not understood by NASA is cringeworthy naive. > Makes me wonder how old the author is. The author works for JPL. > Starship is still extremely unproven. If you look at the history of rockets, mayyyybe 1 in 5 that make it to an orbital launch debut (which is like 1 in 50 paper rockets) in turn make it to commercial rollout. How many of these had 10+ prototypes fly and had a dedicate launch site near to complete? How many had a working next generation engine for there first and second stage? How many were designed by companies that had already developed the largest rocket in the world? > burned many times by the promises of the next shiny rocket: DC-X, VentureStar, NASP, Ares, SLS, Non of those were even remotely close. DC-X was a sub-orbital technology demonstrator. Even had it been successful it would have been nothing more. NASP is another technology demonstrator. VentureStar was far, far away. Comparing it to Starship is just not accurate. It was basically almost delusional to think it would ever happen. And many people even back then were very skeptical of a SSTO Spaceplane. And beyond that politically it getting the needed funding was also not gone happen. Ares, SLS are basically just warmed up shuttle concepts. These are designed to keep contractors employed, not to solve the problem. They no potential to solve anything.

p_j_w 5y ago
>The author works for JPL. As a software person. JPL employs over 5000 people. The vast majority of them don't have knowledge of the sort of systems and business dynamics relevant to the matter of NASA using Starship.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > The vast majority of them don't have knowledge of the sort of systems and business dynamics relevant to ... If experience from private sector is any indication, that's usually question of caring. It's not hard to gain such insight from the inside - but you need to walk around a bit, talk to people outside of your team, and most importantly, pay attention.
spacemark 5y ago
Jeez dude, these were just random programs off the top of my head to illustrate industry distrust of launch vehicle promises. My comment wasn't meant to initiate a debate but offer the perspective of someone who is quite literally writing proposals about launch vehicle selection for NASA missions. But hey, you can read Wikipedia, so... In any case to those reasonable out there, don't worry. If SpaceX can prove reliable launch to orbit and deliver on their promises, change will come. It's kind of silly to write articles about how everyone should change the way they operate NOW because change is coming. Of course it's coming, everyone accepts it's likely, and things will move quickly once it does and is proven. What more do the fanboys want!?

hindsightbias 5y ago

Maybe not everyone. JSC community strongly opposed much of the ISS rework (they were designing something that required 40 hours of spacewalks a week), opposed Shuttle C (which seemed completely illogical given the work base), and as far as projects like DC-XA... I was in Bldg. 30 watching its amazing flight and when it caught fire and fell over, the combined contractor and MCC staff cheered and broke out in applause. Perhaps it's changed, but not sure how relevant many of them would be in a Starship world.