7 ms·

This is definitely the wisdom of ages, but some points do show some age. 39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space progra

by avmich 3y ago

This is definitely the wisdom of ages, but some points do show some age. 39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles. Recent SpaceX developments, Starship in particular, put some doubts on this one.

idlewords 3y ago
Let's put this comment in the comment cellar for a few years, to fully develop the tannins, and then see how it has aged. Starship progress is a little ways away from proving this adage wrong.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  It could be argued that Dragon has already proven this wrong. Falcon 9 was developed in the form it was specifically to launch Dragon. SpaceX's original next rocket was going to be a Falcon 5 until they got the Dragon contract from NASA. Yes, the original Dragon was a cargo vehicle rather than a human spaceflight vehicle, but both Falcon 9 and Dragon were developed with the intention of eventually human rating.
  - inamberclad 3y ago
    Both were late, and I wouldn't say that Falcon was built expressly for humans. It spent a decade proving itself before it flew with people. That's not a _new_ launch vehicle.
    - avmich 3y ago
      > Both were late What was the "determined" date to have them ready? How do you know they were late? Judging by Elon's estimates? > I wouldn't say that Falcon was built expressly for humans You know of course that requirements for the rocket to launch people are different from the rocket to launch only cargo? There were cases when non-human-rated rocket became human rated (at least Proton), but these days it's better to plan ahead, like teams working on Arian-5 (and also Dream Chaser, not a rocket) do. I'd assume Flacon-9 developed from the beginning in such a way so at least human-rating would be possible - if not built-in already. > It spent a decade proving itself before it flew with people. That's not a _new_ launch vehicle. I'd agree regarding Falcon-9. Starship is another story.
      - inamberclad 3y ago
        > What was the "determined" date to have them ready? How do you know they were late? Judging by Elon's estimates? Crew Dragon was approximately 3 years late, from the original planned launch date of 2017 to the actual date of 2020. Given that the contract for the missions were awarded in 2014, it's a miracle that things have proceeded at the pace they have. > You know of course that requirements for the rocket to launch people are different from the rocket to launch only cargo? I'm well aware of the differences. I work in this industry. That said, SpaceX made the wise decision to cut their teeth and prove their design on cargo first. That's not a new launch vehicle by definition. They were launching rockets regularly for years before they put people on the pointy end. Most other human-rated rockets in recent history have _only_ launched humans. I'm neglecting older, converted ICBMs like Redstone and Titan. The only standout from this list is probably Soyuz (the R-7 derivative launch vehicle), which has been kept going through sheer inertia. > I'd agree regarding Falcon-9. Starship is another story. I suspect that Starship will be years behind schedule before it even launches cargo. I suspect that it will miss NASA's planned lunar landing date, but it won't be at fault because other parts of the program will suffer even worse schedule slips. I understand that people are hopeful that this really will revolutionize spaceflight, and I count myself in that group too! Reality has a way of intruding eventually though. I want SpaceX to build, fly, and trash as many unmanned Starships as it takes to make it reliable. That will cause some level of delay because they'll find something new in the testflights that will necessitate a redesign before it kills someone.
        bryanlarsen 3y ago
        Congress didn't pay SpaceX the agreed upon amounts for the first 3 years of the contract, and Crew Dragon was 3 years late. Coincidence?
        inamberclad 3y ago
        If a manned spaceflight program proceeded to its first flight on time, the universe might just implode.
        dylan604 3y ago
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      A decade is a short period of time by human-rated-spaceflight standards.
      - hannasanarion 3y ago
        So? Falcon wasn't a human spaceflight program during that time, and it was also over-schedule and over-budget anyway. The advice isn't "no new launch vehicles should ever be invented ever", it's "if you want your human spaceflight program to be on time and on budget, don't include a new launch vehicle in the plan"
        avmich 3y ago
        > The advice isn't "no new launch vehicles should ever be invented ever", it's "if you want your human spaceflight program to be on time and on budget, don't include a new launch vehicle in the plan" And that advice is being questioned. Starship aims at cost reduction which can't reasonably be achieved by incremental improvements to the status quo. The "on time" part with Starship is what was formally promised to NASA with the Moon landing vehicle. This may - probably will - slip, but I currently doubt it will slip a lot. Other times regarding Starship are in the realm of estimates or wishful statements. The "on budget" part is something which I doubt even SpaceX accountants may answer - just as software engineers have troubles answering the time - and therefore budget - of a system to be delivered. The law shows its age. On the other hand, it never claimed to be an absolute truth.
      - tonyarkles 3y ago
        I mean… yes and no. The Apollo program started in 1961, had the first manned flight in 1968, and landed on the moon in 1969. Gemini started in 1961 and had two people in ‘65. Don’t get me wrong, I’m perpetually impressed by the things SpaceX is doing, but don’t let the fact that the rest of the industry has slowed down significantly convince you that SpaceX is moving faster than anyone ever has before.
        themadturk 3y ago
        For what it's worth, the Apollo program only had one bespoke launch vehicle, the Saturn V. Mercury used the Redstone (for sub-orbital flights) and Atlas, and Gemini the Titan, all of which were developed as ballistic missile platforms.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Starship progress is a little ways away from proving this adage wrong Yeah, and will perennially be so
Zandikar 3y ago
Err, what? Keyword there: "New". SpaceX still faces large costs and delays in developing new launch vehicles, including starship, which is delayed and unfinished btw, so no matter how you try to spin it, Starship is not (currently) a good example of SpaceX being an exception to the adage. Artermis 3 isn't exactly cheap afterall, and if you don't know what that is but know what Starship is, that proves the adage this one is refering to: > 39[a]. Any exploration program which "just happens" to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program. The whole point of these two adages is that reusing an existing design is better than a new one. SpaceX's REUSABLE rockets are great for a number of reasons yes, but by definition, those are not NEW launch vehicles. And when they were new, well, lots of delays and setbacks and costs as they kept accidentallying rockets trying to land them. Not a slight against SpaceX btw, that's part of rocket science and innovation, but again, not cheap or quick. If anything, SpaceX's entire business model is EMBRACING that adage, not disproving it or an exception to it. EDIT: clarified
- avmich 3y ago
  > The whole point of these two adages is that reusing an existing design is better than a new one. Yes, and that's put in doubt. Starship aims to improve on previous designs - in terms of affordability, that is, making human flights cheaper. This cheapness can't be realized with existing designs, so a new design becomes better in that regard. > SpaceX's REUSABLE rockets are great for a number of reasons yes, but by definition, those are not NEW launch vehicles. I don't know how good definition can exclude reusable rockets from being new. Was Shuttle ever new? Delta Clipper? Reusable Falcon-9? Falcon Heavy? I think this is not a good definition, if, according to it, reusable rockets can't be new. > And when they were new, well, lots of delays and setbacks and costs as they kept accidentallying rockets trying to land them. Do you know the difference between designing and using? In software it's rather clear, and nobody would expect a half-written program to function according to specs. Neither it's the case in aerospace - while Falcon reusability was being designed and tested, nobody should expect it to perform flawlessly as when used "in production". Not cheap, agree (actually, quite cheap by aerospace standards, but still not some typical household-sized money), but I'd argue that was rather quick - just a few years to put reusable first stage into production starting from announcing the idea and building the first "Grasshopper". So, while 39[a] may stand here, your comment doesn't provide a good justification to it. > If anything, SpaceX's entire business model is EMBRACING that adage, not disproving it or an exception to it. SpaceX benefited immensely from using proven solutions, but the results they are showing are still disproving the idea of this law. The ambitions of SpaceX are high compared to the rest of the world launching industry, but so are the results, and we also have genuine "firsts", like putting the reusable first stage into production, or flying reusable spacecrafts to space station, TKSes and Shuttles notwithstanding. Let me try to explain again my main point: SpaceX aims to make human spaceflight significantly cheaper, and the opinion is that it can't be done without radical redesign from scratch. It was attempted several times in the past, with e.g. Shuttle and Energiya, and it still isn't done today, but if you want to risk being put on the "you're currently here" list of SpaceX achievements(1), which were doubted and then happened, I'd at least propose you to think from the basic assumptions and find out why SpaceX won't actually achieve cheaper human spaceflight this time. (1) In Russian that list looked like this before reusable Falcon: https://meduza.io/impro/0ZWeCgCXA4nsWv7dj7CHbSIrsURgOh-qpiUhdRz0Hd8/resizing_type:fit/width:1300/height:0/enlarge:1/quality:95/aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWR1/emEuaW8vaW1hZ2Uv/YXR0YWNobWVudHMv/aW1hZ2VzLzAwMi8y/NTIvNzExL29yaWdp/bmFsL1dTX00xV2FW/VkRIWWRwUUp0bHlL/R0EucG5n.webp https://meduza.io/impro/0ZWeCgCXA4nsWv7dj7CHbSIrsURgOh-qpiUh...
inamberclad 3y ago
That's still going to be late and over-budget.
- avmich 3y ago
  Late comparing to what? Maybe SpaceX will not make it ready for NASA's return to the Moon flights as it was planned. However those dates don't look too serious to me - what's the justification for them? I suspect they were specified fully understanding they can easily slip right. Over-budget - what's the planned budget? I suspect Elon Musk himself doesn't have pre-approved specific budget to develop Starship, which makes sense, as e.g. it's rather hard to pinpont. As for the overall idea for how much Starship development would cost - how do you know it's missed already or going to be missed?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 3y ago
    So, it's not late because the dates weren't serious to begin with?
    - yellowapple 3y ago
      You can't be behind schedule and over budget if you have neither a schedule nor a budget. rollsafe.jpg
    - avmich 3y ago
      Yes, there weren't a lot of "formal" dates so far with Starship, the agreement to use it for Artemis Moon landing is one of exceptions. No dates - not late.
bryananderson 3y ago
Falcon 9 (plus Dragon) is the definitive counterexample. The jury on Starship remains out.
- avmich 3y ago
  I'd consider development of Crew Dragon to be rather fast - because, in the condition of a private development, it wasn't done before. Comparing to other spacecraft developments, in late 1950-s there was a race, USA vs. USSR, to put a man in space "soonest", and it took Soviets ~3.5 years from the launch of the Sputnik to send Gagarin to orbit. So, just a few short years... and a large government backing. Still, given that Crew Dragon was developed by a private company and is quite modern judging by performance, I think it's a good result.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Compare the budget of SpaceX to NASA's up to and through Mercury. NASA's experience was one of something never having been done before compared to the experience of SpaceX seeing many others doing it just needing to tweak the formula to make it affordable. Also, without NASA's burden of being a government pork/jobs program rather than being a streamlined process
    - avmich 3y ago
      You may underestimate the complexities and pace of development at SpaceX. And it can similarly be said that NASA's Mercury program was built on the shoulders of previous achievements in parachutes, heat shield, control etc. SpaceX does use the experience gained in the industry over half a century with a lot of efforts, but that doesn't mean they don't push the progress with their own work.
  - bryananderson 3y ago
    I think the difference between the “private” development of Dragon and the “government” development of Mercury is exaggerated. Like Dragon, the Mercury capsule was (mostly) designed and (entirely) built by a private contractor, McDonnell Aircraft. Like Mercury, Dragon was designed and built with input and strict oversight from NASA, including a contingent permanently on-site with the contractor. NASA always had total visibility and the final say on everything. There are some important differences in the contracting models of the two programs, but a lot of the “private”/“commercial” framing of the ISS crew/cargo programs is just leftover vibes from the 2000s when ”harnessing the dynamic private sector” was the way to frame a new program that you wanted to get funded.
GuB-42 3y ago
SpaceX never done a human space program, they are purely about making launch vehicles that, after they have seen substantial development, are taken into consideration by NASA for a human space program. Furthermore, Starship is not a launch vehicle in the context of Artemis, it is to be used as a lander. The launcher that will launch humans is still SLS (which fits point 39 perfectly). And SpaceX never was on schedule. Starship development is seriously impressive, but the planned first launch for "BFR" was 2022, and we only got an expectedly failed test flight in 2023. We have absolutely no idea about when it will launch its first payload. Probably not before 2024. The first manned mission (which is not a full manned launch) is planned for 2025 (2 manned launches originally planned for 2024), and is extremely unlikely to make it by that time. Still excellent by space standards, but doesn't contradict point 39.
- yellowapple 3y ago
  > SpaceX never done a human space program, they are purely about making launch vehicles that, after they have seen substantial development, are taken into consideration by NASA for a human space program. Crew Dragon is not a launch vehicle.
- sagarkamat 3y ago
  SpaceX is literally US's only domestic way to send humans to ISS right now
hliyan 3y ago
I think this comment is an artifact of its time, kind of like Knuth's "premature optimization" or Spolky's "never, ever rewrite from scratch". They are mostly valid under the circumstances the author uttered them, but by no means universally applicable, and certainly not to be turned into religious commandments. P.S. any engineer who counters my request to take perf into consideration with "premature optimization is the root of all evil" is immediately asked to complete the remainder of the quote. Failing to do so usually results in me ejecting the person from the meeting!

by avmich 3y ago

idlewords 3y ago

Let's put this comment in the comment cellar for a few years, to fully develop the tannins, and then see how it has aged. Starship progress is a little ways away from proving this adage wrong.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
It could be argued that Dragon has already proven this wrong. Falcon 9 was developed in the form it was specifically to launch Dragon. SpaceX's original next rocket was going to be a Falcon 5 until they got the Dragon contract from NASA. Yes, the original Dragon was a cargo vehicle rather than a human spaceflight vehicle, but both Falcon 9 and Dragon were developed with the intention of eventually human rating.
- inamberclad 3y ago
  Both were late, and I wouldn't say that Falcon was built expressly for humans. It spent a decade proving itself before it flew with people. That's not a _new_ launch vehicle.
  - avmich 3y ago
    > Both were late What was the "determined" date to have them ready? How do you know they were late? Judging by Elon's estimates? > I wouldn't say that Falcon was built expressly for humans You know of course that requirements for the rocket to launch people are different from the rocket to launch only cargo? There were cases when non-human-rated rocket became human rated (at least Proton), but these days it's better to plan ahead, like teams working on Arian-5 (and also Dream Chaser, not a rocket) do. I'd assume Flacon-9 developed from the beginning in such a way so at least human-rating would be possible - if not built-in already. > It spent a decade proving itself before it flew with people. That's not a _new_ launch vehicle. I'd agree regarding Falcon-9. Starship is another story.
    - inamberclad 3y ago
      > What was the "determined" date to have them ready? How do you know they were late? Judging by Elon's estimates? Crew Dragon was approximately 3 years late, from the original planned launch date of 2017 to the actual date of 2020. Given that the contract for the missions were awarded in 2014, it's a miracle that things have proceeded at the pace they have. > You know of course that requirements for the rocket to launch people are different from the rocket to launch only cargo? I'm well aware of the differences. I work in this industry. That said, SpaceX made the wise decision to cut their teeth and prove their design on cargo first. That's not a new launch vehicle by definition. They were launching rockets regularly for years before they put people on the pointy end. Most other human-rated rockets in recent history have _only_ launched humans. I'm neglecting older, converted ICBMs like Redstone and Titan. The only standout from this list is probably Soyuz (the R-7 derivative launch vehicle), which has been kept going through sheer inertia. > I'd agree regarding Falcon-9. Starship is another story. I suspect that Starship will be years behind schedule before it even launches cargo. I suspect that it will miss NASA's planned lunar landing date, but it won't be at fault because other parts of the program will suffer even worse schedule slips. I understand that people are hopeful that this really will revolutionize spaceflight, and I count myself in that group too! Reality has a way of intruding eventually though. I want SpaceX to build, fly, and trash as many unmanned Starships as it takes to make it reliable. That will cause some level of delay because they'll find something new in the testflights that will necessitate a redesign before it kills someone.
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        Congress didn't pay SpaceX the agreed upon amounts for the first 3 years of the contract, and Crew Dragon was 3 years late. Coincidence?
        inamberclad 3y ago
        If a manned spaceflight program proceeded to its first flight on time, the universe might just implode.
      - dylan604 3y ago
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    A decade is a short period of time by human-rated-spaceflight standards.
    - hannasanarion 3y ago
      So? Falcon wasn't a human spaceflight program during that time, and it was also over-schedule and over-budget anyway. The advice isn't "no new launch vehicles should ever be invented ever", it's "if you want your human spaceflight program to be on time and on budget, don't include a new launch vehicle in the plan"
      - avmich 3y ago
        > The advice isn't "no new launch vehicles should ever be invented ever", it's "if you want your human spaceflight program to be on time and on budget, don't include a new launch vehicle in the plan" And that advice is being questioned. Starship aims at cost reduction which can't reasonably be achieved by incremental improvements to the status quo. The "on time" part with Starship is what was formally promised to NASA with the Moon landing vehicle. This may - probably will - slip, but I currently doubt it will slip a lot. Other times regarding Starship are in the realm of estimates or wishful statements. The "on budget" part is something which I doubt even SpaceX accountants may answer - just as software engineers have troubles answering the time - and therefore budget - of a system to be delivered. The law shows its age. On the other hand, it never claimed to be an absolute truth.
    - tonyarkles 3y ago
      I mean… yes and no. The Apollo program started in 1961, had the first manned flight in 1968, and landed on the moon in 1969. Gemini started in 1961 and had two people in ‘65. Don’t get me wrong, I’m perpetually impressed by the things SpaceX is doing, but don’t let the fact that the rest of the industry has slowed down significantly convince you that SpaceX is moving faster than anyone ever has before.
      - themadturk 3y ago
        For what it's worth, the Apollo program only had one bespoke launch vehicle, the Saturn V. Mercury used the Redstone (for sub-orbital flights) and Atlas, and Gemini the Titan, all of which were developed as ballistic missile platforms.
coldtea 3y ago
>Starship progress is a little ways away from proving this adage wrong Yeah, and will perennially be so

Zandikar 3y ago

Err, what? Keyword there: "New". SpaceX still faces large costs and delays in developing new launch vehicles, including starship, which is delayed and unfinished btw, so no matter how you try to spin it, Starship is not (currently) a good example of SpaceX being an exception to the adage. Artermis 3 isn't exactly cheap afterall, and if you don't know what that is but know what Starship is, that proves the adage this one is refering to: > 39[a]. Any exploration program which "just happens" to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program. The whole point of these two adages is that reusing an existing design is better than a new one. SpaceX's REUSABLE rockets are great for a number of reasons yes, but by definition, those are not NEW launch vehicles. And when they were new, well, lots of delays and setbacks and costs as they kept accidentallying rockets trying to land them. Not a slight against SpaceX btw, that's part of rocket science and innovation, but again, not cheap or quick. If anything, SpaceX's entire business model is EMBRACING that adage, not disproving it or an exception to it. EDIT: clarified

avmich 3y ago
> The whole point of these two adages is that reusing an existing design is better than a new one. Yes, and that's put in doubt. Starship aims to improve on previous designs - in terms of affordability, that is, making human flights cheaper. This cheapness can't be realized with existing designs, so a new design becomes better in that regard. > SpaceX's REUSABLE rockets are great for a number of reasons yes, but by definition, those are not NEW launch vehicles. I don't know how good definition can exclude reusable rockets from being new. Was Shuttle ever new? Delta Clipper? Reusable Falcon-9? Falcon Heavy? I think this is not a good definition, if, according to it, reusable rockets can't be new. > And when they were new, well, lots of delays and setbacks and costs as they kept accidentallying rockets trying to land them. Do you know the difference between designing and using? In software it's rather clear, and nobody would expect a half-written program to function according to specs. Neither it's the case in aerospace - while Falcon reusability was being designed and tested, nobody should expect it to perform flawlessly as when used "in production". Not cheap, agree (actually, quite cheap by aerospace standards, but still not some typical household-sized money), but I'd argue that was rather quick - just a few years to put reusable first stage into production starting from announcing the idea and building the first "Grasshopper". So, while 39[a] may stand here, your comment doesn't provide a good justification to it. > If anything, SpaceX's entire business model is EMBRACING that adage, not disproving it or an exception to it. SpaceX benefited immensely from using proven solutions, but the results they are showing are still disproving the idea of this law. The ambitions of SpaceX are high compared to the rest of the world launching industry, but so are the results, and we also have genuine "firsts", like putting the reusable first stage into production, or flying reusable spacecrafts to space station, TKSes and Shuttles notwithstanding. Let me try to explain again my main point: SpaceX aims to make human spaceflight significantly cheaper, and the opinion is that it can't be done without radical redesign from scratch. It was attempted several times in the past, with e.g. Shuttle and Energiya, and it still isn't done today, but if you want to risk being put on the "you're currently here" list of SpaceX achievements(1), which were doubted and then happened, I'd at least propose you to think from the basic assumptions and find out why SpaceX won't actually achieve cheaper human spaceflight this time. (1) In Russian that list looked like this before reusable Falcon: https://meduza.io/impro/0ZWeCgCXA4nsWv7dj7CHbSIrsURgOh-qpiUhdRz0Hd8/resizing_type:fit/width:1300/height:0/enlarge:1/quality:95/aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWR1/emEuaW8vaW1hZ2Uv/YXR0YWNobWVudHMv/aW1hZ2VzLzAwMi8y/NTIvNzExL29yaWdp/bmFsL1dTX00xV2FW/VkRIWWRwUUp0bHlL/R0EucG5n.webp https://meduza.io/impro/0ZWeCgCXA4nsWv7dj7CHbSIrsURgOh-qpiUh...

inamberclad 3y ago

That's still going to be late and over-budget.

avmich 3y ago
Late comparing to what? Maybe SpaceX will not make it ready for NASA's return to the Moon flights as it was planned. However those dates don't look too serious to me - what's the justification for them? I suspect they were specified fully understanding they can easily slip right. Over-budget - what's the planned budget? I suspect Elon Musk himself doesn't have pre-approved specific budget to develop Starship, which makes sense, as e.g. it's rather hard to pinpont. As for the overall idea for how much Starship development would cost - how do you know it's missed already or going to be missed?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 3y ago
  So, it's not late because the dates weren't serious to begin with?
  - yellowapple 3y ago
    You can't be behind schedule and over budget if you have neither a schedule nor a budget. rollsafe.jpg
  - avmich 3y ago
    Yes, there weren't a lot of "formal" dates so far with Starship, the agreement to use it for Artemis Moon landing is one of exceptions. No dates - not late.

bryananderson 3y ago

Falcon 9 (plus Dragon) is the definitive counterexample. The jury on Starship remains out.

avmich 3y ago
I'd consider development of Crew Dragon to be rather fast - because, in the condition of a private development, it wasn't done before. Comparing to other spacecraft developments, in late 1950-s there was a race, USA vs. USSR, to put a man in space "soonest", and it took Soviets ~3.5 years from the launch of the Sputnik to send Gagarin to orbit. So, just a few short years... and a large government backing. Still, given that Crew Dragon was developed by a private company and is quite modern judging by performance, I think it's a good result.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Compare the budget of SpaceX to NASA's up to and through Mercury. NASA's experience was one of something never having been done before compared to the experience of SpaceX seeing many others doing it just needing to tweak the formula to make it affordable. Also, without NASA's burden of being a government pork/jobs program rather than being a streamlined process
  - avmich 3y ago
    You may underestimate the complexities and pace of development at SpaceX. And it can similarly be said that NASA's Mercury program was built on the shoulders of previous achievements in parachutes, heat shield, control etc. SpaceX does use the experience gained in the industry over half a century with a lot of efforts, but that doesn't mean they don't push the progress with their own work.
- bryananderson 3y ago
  I think the difference between the “private” development of Dragon and the “government” development of Mercury is exaggerated. Like Dragon, the Mercury capsule was (mostly) designed and (entirely) built by a private contractor, McDonnell Aircraft. Like Mercury, Dragon was designed and built with input and strict oversight from NASA, including a contingent permanently on-site with the contractor. NASA always had total visibility and the final say on everything. There are some important differences in the contracting models of the two programs, but a lot of the “private”/“commercial” framing of the ISS crew/cargo programs is just leftover vibes from the 2000s when ”harnessing the dynamic private sector” was the way to frame a new program that you wanted to get funded.

GuB-42 3y ago

SpaceX never done a human space program, they are purely about making launch vehicles that, after they have seen substantial development, are taken into consideration by NASA for a human space program. Furthermore, Starship is not a launch vehicle in the context of Artemis, it is to be used as a lander. The launcher that will launch humans is still SLS (which fits point 39 perfectly). And SpaceX never was on schedule. Starship development is seriously impressive, but the planned first launch for "BFR" was 2022, and we only got an expectedly failed test flight in 2023. We have absolutely no idea about when it will launch its first payload. Probably not before 2024. The first manned mission (which is not a full manned launch) is planned for 2025 (2 manned launches originally planned for 2024), and is extremely unlikely to make it by that time. Still excellent by space standards, but doesn't contradict point 39.

yellowapple 3y ago
> SpaceX never done a human space program, they are purely about making launch vehicles that, after they have seen substantial development, are taken into consideration by NASA for a human space program. Crew Dragon is not a launch vehicle.
sagarkamat 3y ago
SpaceX is literally US's only domestic way to send humans to ISS right now

hliyan 3y ago

I think this comment is an artifact of its time, kind of like Knuth's "premature optimization" or Spolky's "never, ever rewrite from scratch". They are mostly valid under the circumstances the author uttered them, but by no means universally applicable, and certainly not to be turned into religious commandments. P.S. any engineer who counters my request to take perf into consideration with "premature optimization is the root of all evil" is immediately asked to complete the remainder of the quote. Failing to do so usually results in me ejecting the person from the meeting!