4 ms·

> They will be finding problems in this thing until the day it's taken out of service. Is this similar to how they developed the Falcon 9 platform?

gpm 3y ago
No. The falcon 9 succeeded on it's first launch. It has only* failed once, on its nineteenth flight. * It did suffer engine failures on flights 4, 83, and 108, but compensated flawlessly with the other 8 as designed. They also blew one up on the test stand (which would have been flight 29). Additionally the satellite on flight 47 was supposedly lost due to an issue with the payload adapter (not built by SpaceX), but pretty much all information about the launch is classified.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Merlin had many flight proofs before Falcon 9 though so it’s not a great comparison to starship.
- justinclift 3y ago
  Wasn't the Falcon 9 developed through a long process including earlier models, which did fail (a lot) in the early development phase?
  - gpm 3y ago
    The falcon 1 immediately preceded the falcon 9 and was the only prior orbital spacex rocket, it had 3 failures and then 2 successes... The falcon 1 was much smaller than the falcon 9 (literally 1/9th the engines on the first stage), and they intended the very first falcon 1 launch to work. I'm not sure that those failures really support the claim that falcon 9 had a similar development model to starship where they are intentionally blowing up starships to develop starship (edit:) and they have already blown up more than 3 starship prototypes.
- justrealist 3y ago
  The landings failed repeatedly before they perfected that process.
- MadnessASAP 3y ago
  F9 was a much more conventional rocket. It's first party trick, the Merlin engine was iterated on heavily and destructively independent of the rocket. It's second and main party trick, the landing and reuse of a booster was definitely iterated on destructively many times before they got consistent performance out of it. They're plan is to mass produce Starship and work towards operating them continuously like a 737 to space. Blowing up the first few generates great data for identifying problems and helps get that production line rolling.
- MPSimmons 3y ago
  And yet, problems were constantly found and fixed and improved. No two falcons were ever built exactly the same until Block 5 or so (and honestly, I'd be surprised if there weren't changes between rockets coming off the line now, but the changes are much smaller and more iterative, I would guess). It's basically the software development process, just with hardware. Falcon 9 is a mature product at this point, so most of what's happening are maintenance changes.

gpm 3y ago

No. The falcon 9 succeeded on it's first launch. It has only* failed once, on its nineteenth flight. * It did suffer engine failures on flights 4, 83, and 108, but compensated flawlessly with the other 8 as designed. They also blew one up on the test stand (which would have been flight 29). Additionally the satellite on flight 47 was supposedly lost due to an issue with the payload adapter (not built by SpaceX), but pretty much all information about the launch is classified.

kortilla 3y ago
Merlin had many flight proofs before Falcon 9 though so it’s not a great comparison to starship.
justinclift 3y ago
Wasn't the Falcon 9 developed through a long process including earlier models, which did fail (a lot) in the early development phase?
- gpm 3y ago
  The falcon 1 immediately preceded the falcon 9 and was the only prior orbital spacex rocket, it had 3 failures and then 2 successes... The falcon 1 was much smaller than the falcon 9 (literally 1/9th the engines on the first stage), and they intended the very first falcon 1 launch to work. I'm not sure that those failures really support the claim that falcon 9 had a similar development model to starship where they are intentionally blowing up starships to develop starship (edit:) and they have already blown up more than 3 starship prototypes.
justrealist 3y ago
The landings failed repeatedly before they perfected that process.
MadnessASAP 3y ago
F9 was a much more conventional rocket. It's first party trick, the Merlin engine was iterated on heavily and destructively independent of the rocket. It's second and main party trick, the landing and reuse of a booster was definitely iterated on destructively many times before they got consistent performance out of it. They're plan is to mass produce Starship and work towards operating them continuously like a 737 to space. Blowing up the first few generates great data for identifying problems and helps get that production line rolling.
MPSimmons 3y ago
And yet, problems were constantly found and fixed and improved. No two falcons were ever built exactly the same until Block 5 or so (and honestly, I'd be surprised if there weren't changes between rockets coming off the line now, but the changes are much smaller and more iterative, I would guess). It's basically the software development process, just with hardware. Falcon 9 is a mature product at this point, so most of what's happening are maintenance changes.