6 ms·

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

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.
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        > But that's a huge transition to make on the back of a program that hasn't proven its key value proposition yet. The article agrees! Author's point, as I read it, is that if NASA does not plan for the transition now, then by the time Starship "has proven its key value proposition", both NASA and its usual contractors will be out of the game, as a new breed of private companies takes over most of space activity. The author doesn't expect NASA to bet on Starship, but rather to at least make some internal noises and initial movements towards that transition - but he failed to find any indication of that for the past 2 years.
        prox 5y ago
        Exactly, the could keep a small budget aside already to do feasibility studies, along the lines of “instead of 50T a year, what and how do we approach the ability to shift 100,200T etc, to the moon?”
      - panick21_ 5y ago
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.

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.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      > But that's a huge transition to make on the back of a program that hasn't proven its key value proposition yet. The article agrees! Author's point, as I read it, is that if NASA does not plan for the transition now, then by the time Starship "has proven its key value proposition", both NASA and its usual contractors will be out of the game, as a new breed of private companies takes over most of space activity. The author doesn't expect NASA to bet on Starship, but rather to at least make some internal noises and initial movements towards that transition - but he failed to find any indication of that for the past 2 years.
      - prox 5y ago
        Exactly, the could keep a small budget aside already to do feasibility studies, along the lines of “instead of 50T a year, what and how do we approach the ability to shift 100,200T etc, to the moon?”
    - panick21_ 5y ago

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.