39 ms·

People want to see 100% success in all things. But that isn't very economical. Compare the SLS to Starship. SLS has had a 100% success rate. One launch, one su

• Kapura 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • mbernstein 3y ago
    The fail fast part should be finished before humans board it - the idea is to speed up development before that milestone and iterate rapidly.
  • Diederich 3y ago
    The described methodology has worked very well for the Falcon 9 stack, and it's carried quite a few humans safely to orbit. Iteration is key here. Nobody is talking about putting a human on Starship until it's quite reliable.
• cryptoegorophy 3y ago
  How much did starship cost?
  • LeonM 3y ago
    Not known, as SpaceX is a private company, and the rocket is still being developed. But I'd say a whole lot less than $2B per launch ;-)
    • shadowgovt 3y ago
      You touch upon an interesting advantage that private space engineering has that, depending on one's attitude on the topic, may or may not be fair. NASA has to do everything in the public eye and their process reflects this. Private enterprise is allowed to hide information, which implies they are allowed to massage information. (... this probably says unfortunate things about the nature of governance by public sentiment that it's best not to think about over-much if one is super-fond of democracies as engines of progress...)
      • s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Some things are transparent. The SLS has spent 23.8 billion in nominal dollars so far. SpaceX has received about 9.8 Billion total investment, which puts an upper limit on operating losses.
        • shadowgovt 3y ago
          $9.8 billion legally-obligated-disclosable total investment. The disclosure requirements for NASA are stricter than for private industry (and there may also be an apples-to-oranges question on auditing and accounting: if NASA grants a company $500 million to do R&D, and that company turns around and pays its staff and fabrication costs with that money, is that a billion of expenditure on the SLS project or $500 million?).
          • s1artibartfast 3y ago
            I agree there are some Apples to oranges comparisons issues. For example, you would want to add pure R&D grants to the SpaceX total. I don't follow your NASA example though. We know the NASA/government spend amount for the SLS (23.8 billion). We don't need to speculate on if there is double counting of government spend and contractor spend.
      • nordsieck 3y ago
        > NASA has to do everything in the public eye and their process reflects this. Private enterprise is allowed to hide information, which implies they are allowed to massage information. That would be a good point if we were talking about NASA vs Blue Origin. But SpaceX is arguably building more in the open than NASA.
  • emilecantin 3y ago
    They're still designing it, and learning to build it (building the "machine that builds the machine"). They've already scrapped booster 4 / ship 20 without even a test flight. Today's rocket was a byproduct of what they're actually working on, so it's hard to pin a price on it. I'd guess a few million dollars in engines, and a few hundred thousand in steel? This is all stuff they would've needed to find a way to dispose of anyway; the next booster in line (B9) already has hundreds of improvements. Among these are improvements to thrust vector control and engine shielding, both of which were involved in the issues with today's flight.
  • dingosity 3y ago
    Well... the US tax-payer spent $2.9B for a starship or two. Or to be more accurate, there's a contract between NASA and SpaceX to deliver a Lunar Lander Starship variant (NextSTEP-2, Appendix H, Option A.) Last year it was upgraded to Option B which (I think) calls for a beefed-up Starship that can perform multiple lunar missions. I'm sure they're not just dumping 2.9B in Elon's bank account (I mean... if they did he would just buy back all the Tesla stock) but there are a series of milestones that need to be met for the government to release the next chunk of funds. I don't know if NASA published the exact milestones, but maybe "not exploding on the launch-pad" was enough to release the next block of funds.
  • dingosity 3y ago
    Elon says Starship launches will get down to $10M per launch within 2-3 years. But he also said we would have our CyberTrucks by now, so... ymmv. https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starship-rocket-update-flight-cost-million-2022-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-starship-ro... By comparison, Falcon Heavy costs about $62M per launch, but Gwynne Shotwell predicted they can shave 40% off that price tag when they start re-using heavies. https://spacedotbiz.substack.com/p/is-starship-really-going-to-revolutionize https://spacedotbiz.substack.com/p/is-starship-really-going-... But Elon has supposedly said the TDC (total development cost) of the Starship is projected to be 2-10 billion. [I found this at the Daily Mail website, so take it with as large a grain of salt as you wish.] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11994755/What-time-SpaceX-Starship-launch-today.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11994755/Wha... If it costs $10B to build one and $10M per launch and you get 10 launches per vehicle, that's $1.1B per launch if you amortize the development costs. But if it takes $2B to build one and $2M per launch and you get 10 launches, then it's only $220M per launch. But if you build five operational starships that each have 10 launches each, things start to get downright affordable. So if the question is how much has SpaceX spent on the Starship to date? I don't know that's public info. If the question is how much will they spend on development, the answer is $2B-$10B (though that's from the Daily Mail.) If the question is how much will each launch cost (including amortizing development costs)? It could be as cheap as $42M. Or depending on how much of the $2.9B from NASA they're able to apply to previous development costs... who knows!? They could make $1.6M per launch as long as the GSA doesn't audit them too closely. There's a myth in US government purchasing that competition drives costs down, and that's probably true for commodities. But Starship class super-heavy-launch vehicles aren't commodities. There's a TREMENDOUS amount of cost (both opportunity cost and dollars) associated with fiscal oversight of large projects. The hope has always been that when Blue Origin built something to compete, it would bring total costs down. I am skeptical.
    • enslavedrobot 3y ago
      They literally have another booster/starship ready to go. The project cost may be 2-10B but the individual launch vehicles will cost less than 200M$ each. The design targets 10$/kg to orbit.
  • brookst 3y ago
    There is no answer to this. If you hang the entire R&D plus materials cost for Starship on this one launch, it's a huge amount. If you consider this as R&D that will be amortized over decades of launches, not that much. It's the same math that gets you the military buying $5000 hammers: it all depends how you allocate fixed costs across units.
• sidibe 3y ago
  The way I'm hearing it was not a failure but an unbelievable smashing success. No one expected the rocket to get to the launchpad, much less off of it. The second stage was not expected to be reached at all, it's cool that they even tried. Greatest test launch of all time. From what I've read this morning if the test flight had worked all the way it would be like man on moon levels of good.
  • brookst 3y ago
    Eh, if SpaceX had genuinely not expected the rocket to get off the launch pad, they would not have launched it. I expect their math was something like: 95% chance of enough engines lighting to launch 90% chance of clearing launch pad 60% chance of making 60 seconds of flight 30% chance of 2nd stage separation 15% chance of re-entry
    • starfallg 3y ago
      I did sense a bit of sarcasm in the GP post. Not sure if you did too?
      • brookst 3y ago
        I didn't, but that's probably on me. Sigh.
• pohl 3y ago
  Well said. On the other hand, the SLS — having a launch escape system and not requiring sophisticated acrobatics in order to reach land safely — is totally the ship I'd rather be on.
  • the_third_wave 3y ago
    I suspect SpaceX will have to add something resembling an escape system before the thing gets "man-rated". That system could also be used to protect the passengers in case of a failed landing. It will add weight and thus lower the carrying capacity but they seem to have enough margin to allow for such an addition. They already have the header tanks in the top of Starship, adding a number of escape engines and some explosive bolts to separate the nose cone from the rest of the ship should be doable. Add some parachutes to make the thing land at a survivable speed and you're done - beer coaster calculation style that is.
    • dingosity 3y ago
      I think they're using the Starship to go from Gateway Station to lunar surface. So you could add an escape system, but where would you escape to?
      • ceejayoz 3y ago
        No spacecraft (except the ISS) has a post-launch escape vehicle. Lunar Starship isn't really in-scope for a launch escape system.
        • singleshot_ 3y ago
          Mercury. Apollo.
          • ceejayoz 3y ago
            If you're counting the capsule itself, Starship qualifies too. If you're talking about the launch escape tower, that's for during launch. It's gone by the time you reach orbit, leaving you in the same scenario of Lunar Starship in the event of a failure; in space, but no way to get down.
• ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago
  The test was a massive success. So happy to see starship clear the towers. The largest rocket ever built, larger than the Saturn V. Are you kidding me?
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    If I'm tasked with recording test data for x, y, and z and I only record x, is that a success? Now I need to launch another to try for the y, and z. Edit: What would an unsuccessful test look like then?
    • dzader 3y ago
      yes, it is.
    • kortex 3y ago
      If you are planning on several y and z anyways, absolutely. On the most recent SmarterEveryDay video on encasing a Prince Rupert's drop in glass, sculptor Cal Breed talks about the moment when a process fails. He could stop there and restart, saving some time, but instead all the pressure is off, and he "makes as many mistakes as possible" for the rest of the build. Quote is towards the end, but the whole vid is worth a watch. https://youtu.be/C1KT8PS6Zs4 https://youtu.be/C1KT8PS6Zs4 https://www.calbreed.com/ https://www.calbreed.com/
      • dingosity 3y ago
        Adjacent to this discussion is the "All Up Testing" concept from the Saturn era. The conservative testing strategy was to test each component individually, then put them together and test them as a system. All up eschewed this conservative approach, testing everything that was ready. It's only marginally germane to this discussion, but a great historical note since other commenters are comparing the Starship with the Saturn V. http://heroicrelics.org/info/all-up/all-up-flight-testing.html http://heroicrelics.org/info/all-up/all-up-flight-testing.ht...
    • sidibe 3y ago
      You are very brave or didn't read the room :) I think this could have been more successful
• baja_blast 3y ago
  The technological developments in the 60s/70s in aerospace never cease to amaze me. The SR-71, X-15, Saturn 5 rocket all developed when computers were less powerful than the NES yet they achieved things that no one else has been able to accomplish since (although I am sure there these have been surpassed via classified Skunk Works).
  • dingosity 3y ago
    They also had a lot more money (adjusted for inflation) and didn't have to worry about updating their code to the latest version of python.
  • ChrisBland 3y ago
    NASA's budget peaked in 1964–66 when it consumed roughly 4% of all federal spending. I wish we were spending this much on science now
  • giantrobot 3y ago
    > they achieved things that no one else has been able to accomplish since These sorts of statements are infuriating. You're dropping all of the context of past achievements (budget, political will, design goals, need, etc) and then castigating modern engineers. The SR-71, X-15, and Saturn V achieved their design goals. There's no modern need to go back and re-achieve those goals. The SR-71 is an amazing plane. When it was originally built there was a need for a reconnaissance plane that could fly high enough and fast enough to evade Soviet high altitude air defense systems. In the intervening years reconnaissance satellites have obviated that need. Outside of a few other tasks there's not much need for a Mach 3+ manned aircraft. Even for the tasks where one is useful the SR-71 still exists. That's not to say a replacement couldn't be built today. In fact many believe one exists in the form of the rumored Aurora. It's just ridiculous to make assertions about "no one" being able to accomplish those projects today. If NASA or the DOD put out an RFP and had a budget for a modern X-15 it could definitely be built.
• perihelions 3y ago
  Interesting thought: Starship just expended more engines on a *test* (39?) than I believe the entire SLS program has budgeted through the end of the 2020's (16 from shuttle + 18 new = 34?). edit: Never mind, it's slightly less – see the comment below correcting me. The SLS program has 40, not 34, RS-25's.
  • nordsieck 3y ago
    It's 16 + 6 (part of the restart contract) + 18 = 40. And that doesn't count the 2nd stage which, for 10 flights, should be 3 * 1 + 7 * 4 = 31 RL-10s. But yeah - a very different architecture.
  • kortex 3y ago
    Yep. And they are trying to get Raptor 2 to less than $2M a pop (iirc). The "cattle not pets" of rocket science.
    • perihelions 3y ago
      SLS is at $100 million apiece and has no realistic path forward for improving that. Fail-and-iterate was never even an option for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25#Space_Shuttle_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25#Space_Shuttle_program ("contract extension to manufacture 18 additional RS-25 engines, with associated services, for $1.79 billion")
    • cdash 3y ago
      I think they are actually below the $2M mark already and the actual goal is to get to 250k per engine (At least for non gimbal sea-level engines).
    • chasd00 3y ago
      Raptor2 also is being upgraded with things like electric gimbaling vs hydraulics. I think that was a hydraulic unit at the bottom of super heavy that exploded a few sec after lift off. So... electric gimbaling it is then. ;)
  • HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
• sandworm101 3y ago
  >> People want to see 100% success in all things. But that isn't very economical. That sounds logical, but isn't really a thing in aerospace/space. Complicated high-energy systems have thousands of failure points. So to have any chance of success each failure point needs to be engineered below, by way of example, a 0.0001% chance of failure. That costs lots of money. But say one decides to accept more risk for less cost. Ok. So you switch from 0.0001 to 0.001 failure rates. You risk is now 10-fold higher at each failure point, but with thousands of failure points adding up you are now essentially doomed. And you haven't saved anything. The cost of 0.001 components isn't fundamentally different than the 0.0001 components were. SpaceX can save money though different business practices, by trimming people/money/contracts/compliance and such, but if you look at their rockets they are not fundamentally any less-perfect than anyone else's. They cannot afford to be. This is why rocket failures, like aircraft failures, are taken so seriously. There is an extremely fine line between "works ever time" and "never worked twice" with very little money to be saved between the two. Across many areas, risk-v-cost math never really happens. It is either go or no go. Take CPU production. Intel spends billions at each of hundreds of fabrication step to push down miniscule error rates because any of a million errors can destroy a chip. There is no money to be saved by allowing any one process to become less than as perfect as it can possibly be. A detected slip from 0.0001 to 0.001 at any step would result in an entire fab being shut down in order to diagnose the problem. The marginal savings of a less-than-perfect process isn't worth the exponential increase in the risk of total system failure.
  • mabbo 3y ago
    I'm not proposing something, I'm describing it. This is what SpaceX is doing, and it's quite successful. And you can look all the way back to their little hopper version of the Falcon 9 and see that this strategy has been the key to them undercutting the launch market significantly. My prediction: SpaceX will have a 5th 100% successful launch of Starship before the SLS has a 5th successful launch. They'll just have ten not-100%-success launches before then.
    • bumby 3y ago
      >My prediction: SpaceX will have a 5th 100% successful launch of Starship before the SLS has a 5th successful launch. They'll just have ten not-100%-success launches before then. I'm not the best way to frame this is "first one to a single successful launch". Reliability matters when you're dealing with high-risk scenarios, so a better measure is "probability of a given launch being successful".
• rhacker 3y ago
  Yikes, what's the chance just enough rockets will cause the next one to crash and blow up in Miami?
  • Denvercoder9 3y ago
    Zero, given that the launch corridor doesn't pass over land, and all rockets are equipped with a Flight Termination System that blows up the rocket if it deviates from that corridor.
    • rhacker 3y ago
      Cool, thanks for letting me know.
• bumby 3y ago
  >"Fail fast" applies to more than just software. Yes, but let's not take the analogy too far. For people who work in safety-critical design (including software), it takes a different mindset than what is often prevalent in silicon valley. When the stakes are high, you don't really want to "move fast and break things". You can actually see this in SpaceX. In development when stakes are relatively low (e.g., no payload or passengers), the risk threshold is high. But they start taking a more measured approach when that risk starts to ratchet up. The danger being, advocates of one approach don't always know when/how to transition to the other.
  • shinryuu 3y ago
    I think it's a matter of failing in a safe environment. Clearly that's what space x is doing. They fail spectularly, but they do so within the confines of a safe environment. For the real launch they've already mapped out the failure modes and are able to prevent them when it really matters.
    • bumby 3y ago
      I've worked in aerospace. The organizations (both public and private) would all claim to fail "within the confines of a safe environment". One small BS detector is when there's some unplanned/unmitigated test outcome that gets characterized as a "test anomaly" rather than being transparent about the details. >they've already mapped out the failure modes and are able to prevent them when it really matters This remains to be seen. The shuttle also had all their failure modes mapped out. As did CST-100. Yet massive failures still occurred.
      • cdash 3y ago
        It doesn't remain to be seen. SpaceX has done this already with the Falcon rocket.
        • bumby 3y ago
          That...doesn't follow because F9 and Starship are different systems. Mercury and Gemini both had good track records. Apollo and Shuttle, not so much. Put differently, how much would you be willing to bet that their FMEA has caught literally every failure mode possible?
• smrtinsert 3y ago
  Move fast and break things said my doctor. jackiechan.png
• localplume 3y ago
  100% success matters when you need to hit a launch window for interplanetary transit. or when you have spacecraft that are integrating sensors from dozens of commercial and academic partners. 100% success matters when rockets are actually launching payloads. what is the evidence that this fail fast method is superior to the already tried and tested method? everyone just assumes that. the differences between spx starship and SLS go far beyond just that method anyway so you cannot possibly compare
  • burnished 3y ago
    Your comment was dead when I got to it - I disagree with your words but vouched because I think being skeptical is valuable (terms and conditions may apply, etc). I can't personally attest to this but another commenter mentioned that this was what the soviets did as part of a space race with a smaller budget. You should note that success rate is crucial once you are in production and ready to go - judging overall success against that bar while developing and testing is nonsense. Finally - I think everyone learns faster by trying more things and making more mistakes? I wouldnt blame you for wanting to see that studied - kind of a neat question after all - but it seems like you are assuming one method or another was picked because it was superior as opposed to a reality of material constraints. I feel like if NASA had budget for blowing up more rockets to prove/disprove points that they would be doing so. Actually now that I say it out loud I can't imagine anyone choosing 'not rocket'.
• samstave 3y ago
  I loved the fact that in the video, the staff clapped when the thing exploded... Where in the past, people would be like "OH NO!!" -- but the crew knew how much data they got out of that launch. I wonder how stripped down the starship was though in an effort to save costs in the event such as this RUD. I would love a piece of the shrapnel from the exploded device though... Hopefully they get those pieces and auction them off.
  • dingosity 3y ago
    I suspect they were told "if we get off the ground, it's a success." Elon's been saying similar things over the last week.
    • samstave 3y ago
      Which is rightly, awesome... They just launched an 11 million pound firecracker.... It would be AWESOME if elon included actual fireworks which would go off in the event of a RUD to add some fabulousness to such events. In fact, all the devices that are stripped out for these test launches should be replaced with their equivalent weights in fireworks. Detonate them when possible during a RUD to allow for more spectacle!
      • mkaic 3y ago
        This is a fantastic idea, I'm sure the FAA will be thrilled when SpaceX asks them for permission to turn their rocket into a disneyland night-time spectacular orbital missile!
      • lutorm 3y ago
        actual fireworks There's something called FTS. Said fireworks were responsible for todays RUD... ;-)
        • samstave 3y ago
          Explain plz
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• running101 3y ago
  SLS to Starship is not a good comparison. If all starship had to do was fly into space it would have succeeded.
• smiley1437 3y ago
  Parable of the Pots - Quantity leads to quality https://austinkleon.com/2020/12/10/quantity-leads-to-quality-the-origin-of-a-parable/ https://austinkleon.com/2020/12/10/quantity-leads-to-quality... [A] ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the “quantity” group: fifty pound of pots rated an “A”, forty pounds a “B”, and so on. Those being graded on “quality”, however, needed to produce only one pot — albeit a perfect one — to get an “A”. Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the “quantity” group was busily churning out piles of work – and learning from their mistakes — the “quality” group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay.
  • jungturk 3y ago
    This parable elegantly explains how McDonald's came to offer the world's best hamburger.
    • pixl97 3y ago
      Just remember that being best doesn't matter... being 'good enough' is. McD's never tried to build the best burger, they built one of the best supply chains in the world. SpaceX doesn't have to build the best rocket, in whatever that means, it just needs not to blow up and allow its cargo to reach space. If you build lots or burgers or lots of rockets its highly likely you'll reach and pass 'good enough'.
      • jungturk 3y ago
        I was just poking that the parable ignores that the iterative side also requires an additional element - a target state to converge to over time, whatever that may be - repetition isn’t sufficient.
• de6u99er 3y ago
  I wonder how quickly they can iterate?
  • s1artibartfast 3y ago
    They have two more ships built and two under construction. I think the iteration time could be driven by the (1) condition of the launch pad (2) the cause of S24 destruction.
  • chasd00 3y ago
    they have a booster and starship outside the hangers waiting to go but the pad is going to need a lot of work.
• ftxbro 3y ago
  [flagged]
• shmatt 3y ago
  Daily Mail (UK) and NY Post (US) are quoting the cost of this launch as $3B
  • recursive 3y ago
    This isn't really credible. The Daily Mail also quotes Musk: > Musk has said the entire program will cost anywhere from $3 billion to $10 billion. These can't both be true.
• ChancyChance 3y ago
  Same thing with NASA. There are countless mashups of NASA foibles. SpaceX is the same, just for profit.
• panick21_ 3y ago
  > But it costs $2B per launch The initial launches are gone be more like 5 billion. Its pure fantasy that it will go to $2 billion anytime soon.
• fivestarman 3y ago
  starship will always be a failure built on lies. just youtube 'starship debunked'.
  • recursive 3y ago
    I searched the phrase on youtube. It's mostly stuff about this launch. You'll need to be more specific.
    • fivestarman 3y ago
      common sense skeptic
• sixothree 3y ago
  I'm not sure why people need to be reminded of this. This isn't a reply to anyone making complaining about the lack of success. It comes off as fanboyism.
  • kahrl 3y ago
    Who are "people?"
• NovaDudely 3y ago
  >> Plus, it's stealing pieces of the Space Shuttle, which was developed in the 70s over a long period of time. That is not always a bad thing. I mean you typed this on a computer running an ISA that started in the 70's or 80's. Maybe 90's if you are on PowerPC ;)
• PaulHoule 3y ago
  NASA did so many studies where they tried to put together Space Shuttle parts to make ‘low cost’ rockets (saving development expenses) but whatever they came up with was terribly expensive since those parts were expensive and that didn’t matter if it was a rocket with a cluster of 4 SSMEs or a rocket that strapped on 3 of the solid rocker booster. You’d think NASA would have read their own studies and given up rather than proceed on the predictable Artemis boondoggle.