7 ms·

How come we don't see other countries attempting launches at this scale yet?

aa-jv 3y ago
China just did their own return-to-base rocket test, they're not that far behind SpaceX and are rapidly closing the gap.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  That is just patent nonsense. There is a very, very, very big gap between a operational heavy and super heavy rocket that has proven re-usability up to 20 times. What 'China' ie iSpace did was build a tiny hopper, did a mini-hop and demonstrated landing. Those things are totally different dimensions. SpaceX has done test like that in 2012, and that was with far more advanced engine technology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_prototypes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_prototypes China official reusable rocket are even further away. And in fact its not that China is closing the gap, its actually that SpaceX is INCREASING the gap. SpaceX is not standing still, going from landing to doing it 100+ times successful and 20+ times with a single rocket. And in addition SpaceX is already moving on to Raptor engines and Starship, further increasing the gap. So lets be clear about the fact, China is not closing the gap, they are falling further behind.
  - cobbaut 3y ago
    > So lets be clear about the fact, China is not closing the gap, they are falling further behind. SpaceX is rapidly increasing the gap with all (government) space agencies, even the US/NASA and EU/ESA; both SLS and Ariane 6 are decades behind.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      Not just government agencies either.
  - djaychela 3y ago
    Small correction here - the leading Falcon 9 first stage has done 18 missions. Which is still the stuff of Sci-fi, but I checked when you said 20+ as I wasn't sure of that and it is actually 18. (B1058) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage...
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      Correct, but they are certifying for 20. So that's the number I used.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    With their resources, can’t they just steal the designs digitally?
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      Maybe, but designs on paper are a small part of what it takes to actually build many rocket. SpaceX is not using lots of part you can just buy. Its pretty much all costume designs by SpaceX all the way down. Up to SpaceX having their own materials. And the suppliers SpaceX does have are American suppliers that China can't easly buy from. So if China steals everything they still have to reverse engineer everything and then also reverse engineer the manufacturing. And the other thing is, China has its own existing Aerospace industry and government. These people are proud of their own things and NIH is very, very real. The idea that they would just throw away 60 years of China history to copy an US company and spend billions trying to reverse engineer the exact same rocket just isn't gone happen. And of course given that SpaceX is a huge supplier to the US military, such an act could be a huge international relations crisis and the US could retaliate in many way. So China would have to hid the fact that it did so in some way.
      - aa-jv 3y ago
        >US military Therein lies the crux of why we can't have (as a species), nice things. Too bad about that. But on the flip-side it means that when China finally overtakes rocket flight (like its done with manned space station missions), it'll give the US military a reason to exist.
  - aa-jv 3y ago
    I think you're letting your hatred of China blind you to the fact that they are definitely chasing SpaceX's coat-tails - but don't forget that this answer was in response to "is anyone else doing anything like SpaceX in the world today?", and the answer is an emphatic YES: China is watching SpaceX' progress and it is making its own progress, just as SpaceX did 10 years ago, in building reusable rocket systems. Nobody else is catching up as quickly as China, in the new space race. Also don't let the myopia blind you to the fact that whatever SpaceX innovates, others will commercialize. That's the entire point in the first place. Musk has stated multiple times he'd open source everything if he was allowed to ..
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      How exactly do you know I 'hate' China? Because I actually don't. I'm Swiss very natural, China is just another evil empire like the US. > and the answer is an emphatic YES: China is watching SpaceX and it is making its own progress Ok, but I am watching SpaceX too. And so do many other people and agencies. Watching is meaningless. In terms of progress, there are many others that are doing as much. RocketLab and Relativity space are working on things more advanced then anything China is currently working on. Even BlueOrigin is building a more advanced rocket. The iSpace vehicle is barley more advanced then European tests that will launch in the next few years. And that is not much more advanced then what NASA did in the 90s. The rocket the iSpace demonstrator was supposed to be for is already canceled by the way, because the company knew they wouldn't have a market. iSpace also had issues with its smaller launch vehicle. > Nobody else is catching up as quickly as China, in the new space race. Again, everybody is falling further behind. That was my whole point. SpaceX is innovating faster then anybody else is catching up. What I recommend to you is to actually look at what China is actually doing rather then just assuming they are great and fantastic. Because while China is launching a fair amount most of their rockets are not very advanced, mostly copies of former Soviet rocket. The same goes for their human space flight. The rocket engines they are using aren't very advanced. Non of the private space companies in China are particularly advanced either and its not clear they have much of a market. I would say all of them are behind the major US companies, Firefly, Relativity, ABL, RocketLab. Neither US, Europe, Korea, Japan or India wants to launch on rockets from China. Even if these companies had launch capacity. Its a real question if China has enough commercial launches as the state still uses its own rockets for the most part. > Also don't let the myopia blind you to the fact that whatever SpaceX innovates, others will commercialize. That's the entire point in the first place. Well, SpaceX will commercialize it first. And maybe years or decades later others will copy it. Sure eventually these technology will be commodities. But you are moving the goal post. That wasn't the argument I object to. I object to the idea that China was hot on SpaceX heels and catching up fast. And that's simply not the case. > Musk has stated multiple times he'd open source everything if he was allowed to .. Source ...
King-Aaron 3y ago
Not enough eccentric billionaires that own their own orbital launch companies, I guess.
rapsey 3y ago
Because it takes deep pockets and willingness to take big risks. Something gov organizations can not do.
- komali2 3y ago
  > Something gov organizations can not do. From what I understand about space exploration, this is an opposite-world position. Can you expand on what you mean? Governments ("gov organizations") have been defining the term "space exploration" since 1944. First object in outer space, first object in orbit, first human in outer space, first space station, first interstellar space flight, first human on the moon, first man-made objects on mars, venus, all by "gov organizations." I'm super confused why you think the comparatively young private space industry, which has accomplished putting satellites and a car in low earth orbit, is somehow more capable?
  - rapsey 3y ago
    And they did most of it decades ago when the public supported grand endeavours. Now risk aversion is very high and budgets are very limited.
    - komali2 3y ago
      So what? Governments are clearly capable of achieving these things, they've done it before. Private industry, remains to be seen. Worth nothing that it has to be profitable for it to work for private industry - possibly not what we actually want for space exploration. Would private industry have kept the voyager probes going this long?
      - rapsey 3y ago
        I am speaking about willingness to take big risks not ability. You are arguing with me while talking about completely different things.
        soperj 3y ago
panick21_ 3y ago
SpaceX is by far the best organization in terms of rocket engine design, rocket design and rocket operations. Nobody else in the world comes even remotely close. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are already better by a long distance then any other rocket in the world. All other organizations world wide are trying to catch up to that. You only really need huge rockets like this if you are launching some truly massive amount of stuff. This just wasn't a thing until today. The biggest ever was during the moon race, US Saturn V and Soviets N1. However the Saturn V was expensive and NASA wanted to have a reusable Shuttle instead, so they dropped it. The Soviets did the N1 but when they lost the moon race (and a few failures) they didn't want to pay for it anymore. So really since the moon race, rockets of this scale just were not necessary. If you can't reuse the rocket, a rocket of this scale is just to expensive to be practical. It took SpaceX making re-usability real and mega constellations to make it worth considering a rocket like Starship. Just for reference, this thing is far more powerful then the Saturn V or N1. It has almost double the liftoff thrust. So really humanity has never operated this scale of rocket before.
chasd00 3y ago
the Raptor engine series is an extremely high barrier to entry. I would bet 30% of Spacex's innovation lies in that one engine. Its combination of thrust, efficiency, and small size are beyond anything else. The size blows me away, if you took the nozzle off it's about the size of a car engine. Without the engineering breakthroughs to produce something like the Raptor engine launches at this scale just aren't possible. There's other engines with thrust to match Raptor but not the efficiency nor size. For example, there's just no way you can put 33 RS25s under an airframe. from the link below "The SpaceX Raptor 3 was recently test fired and reached 18% more thrust than a Raptor 2. The Raptor 2 had 25% more thrust than the Raptor 1 and it was 20% lighter." it's just crazy what that propulsion team is doing...simply crazy https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/05/spacex-raptor-3-engines-and-beyond.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/05/spacex-raptor-3-engine...
- cryptonector 3y ago
  > I would bet 30% of Spacex's innovation lies in that one engine. Musk often points out that the stage 0 work is harder (and I suspect more innovative) than the rocket (and engine) design. He also often mentions that fabrication is even harder. I.e., all the processes, tools, machines, etc. used to build all those engines and rockets is harder still than stage 0 -- one might even call it stage -1. It's possible that Raptor is not even closed to "30% of Spacex's innovation" :)
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Need a critical mass of experts that are rare and require extremely large populations to pull from.

China just did their own return-to-base rocket test, they're not that far behind SpaceX and are rapidly closing the gap.

panick21_ 3y ago
That is just patent nonsense. There is a very, very, very big gap between a operational heavy and super heavy rocket that has proven re-usability up to 20 times. What 'China' ie iSpace did was build a tiny hopper, did a mini-hop and demonstrated landing. Those things are totally different dimensions. SpaceX has done test like that in 2012, and that was with far more advanced engine technology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_prototypes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_prototypes China official reusable rocket are even further away. And in fact its not that China is closing the gap, its actually that SpaceX is INCREASING the gap. SpaceX is not standing still, going from landing to doing it 100+ times successful and 20+ times with a single rocket. And in addition SpaceX is already moving on to Raptor engines and Starship, further increasing the gap. So lets be clear about the fact, China is not closing the gap, they are falling further behind.
- cobbaut 3y ago
  > So lets be clear about the fact, China is not closing the gap, they are falling further behind. SpaceX is rapidly increasing the gap with all (government) space agencies, even the US/NASA and EU/ESA; both SLS and Ariane 6 are decades behind.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Not just government agencies either.
- djaychela 3y ago
  Small correction here - the leading Falcon 9 first stage has done 18 missions. Which is still the stuff of Sci-fi, but I checked when you said 20+ as I wasn't sure of that and it is actually 18. (B1058) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage...
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Correct, but they are certifying for 20. So that's the number I used.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  With their resources, can’t they just steal the designs digitally?
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Maybe, but designs on paper are a small part of what it takes to actually build many rocket. SpaceX is not using lots of part you can just buy. Its pretty much all costume designs by SpaceX all the way down. Up to SpaceX having their own materials. And the suppliers SpaceX does have are American suppliers that China can't easly buy from. So if China steals everything they still have to reverse engineer everything and then also reverse engineer the manufacturing. And the other thing is, China has its own existing Aerospace industry and government. These people are proud of their own things and NIH is very, very real. The idea that they would just throw away 60 years of China history to copy an US company and spend billions trying to reverse engineer the exact same rocket just isn't gone happen. And of course given that SpaceX is a huge supplier to the US military, such an act could be a huge international relations crisis and the US could retaliate in many way. So China would have to hid the fact that it did so in some way.
    - aa-jv 3y ago
      >US military Therein lies the crux of why we can't have (as a species), nice things. Too bad about that. But on the flip-side it means that when China finally overtakes rocket flight (like its done with manned space station missions), it'll give the US military a reason to exist.
- aa-jv 3y ago
  I think you're letting your hatred of China blind you to the fact that they are definitely chasing SpaceX's coat-tails - but don't forget that this answer was in response to "is anyone else doing anything like SpaceX in the world today?", and the answer is an emphatic YES: China is watching SpaceX' progress and it is making its own progress, just as SpaceX did 10 years ago, in building reusable rocket systems. Nobody else is catching up as quickly as China, in the new space race. Also don't let the myopia blind you to the fact that whatever SpaceX innovates, others will commercialize. That's the entire point in the first place. Musk has stated multiple times he'd open source everything if he was allowed to ..
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    How exactly do you know I 'hate' China? Because I actually don't. I'm Swiss very natural, China is just another evil empire like the US. > and the answer is an emphatic YES: China is watching SpaceX and it is making its own progress Ok, but I am watching SpaceX too. And so do many other people and agencies. Watching is meaningless. In terms of progress, there are many others that are doing as much. RocketLab and Relativity space are working on things more advanced then anything China is currently working on. Even BlueOrigin is building a more advanced rocket. The iSpace vehicle is barley more advanced then European tests that will launch in the next few years. And that is not much more advanced then what NASA did in the 90s. The rocket the iSpace demonstrator was supposed to be for is already canceled by the way, because the company knew they wouldn't have a market. iSpace also had issues with its smaller launch vehicle. > Nobody else is catching up as quickly as China, in the new space race. Again, everybody is falling further behind. That was my whole point. SpaceX is innovating faster then anybody else is catching up. What I recommend to you is to actually look at what China is actually doing rather then just assuming they are great and fantastic. Because while China is launching a fair amount most of their rockets are not very advanced, mostly copies of former Soviet rocket. The same goes for their human space flight. The rocket engines they are using aren't very advanced. Non of the private space companies in China are particularly advanced either and its not clear they have much of a market. I would say all of them are behind the major US companies, Firefly, Relativity, ABL, RocketLab. Neither US, Europe, Korea, Japan or India wants to launch on rockets from China. Even if these companies had launch capacity. Its a real question if China has enough commercial launches as the state still uses its own rockets for the most part. > Also don't let the myopia blind you to the fact that whatever SpaceX innovates, others will commercialize. That's the entire point in the first place. Well, SpaceX will commercialize it first. And maybe years or decades later others will copy it. Sure eventually these technology will be commodities. But you are moving the goal post. That wasn't the argument I object to. I object to the idea that China was hot on SpaceX heels and catching up fast. And that's simply not the case. > Musk has stated multiple times he'd open source everything if he was allowed to .. Source ...

King-Aaron 3y ago

Not enough eccentric billionaires that own their own orbital launch companies, I guess.

rapsey 3y ago

Because it takes deep pockets and willingness to take big risks. Something gov organizations can not do.

komali2 3y ago
> Something gov organizations can not do. From what I understand about space exploration, this is an opposite-world position. Can you expand on what you mean? Governments ("gov organizations") have been defining the term "space exploration" since 1944. First object in outer space, first object in orbit, first human in outer space, first space station, first interstellar space flight, first human on the moon, first man-made objects on mars, venus, all by "gov organizations." I'm super confused why you think the comparatively young private space industry, which has accomplished putting satellites and a car in low earth orbit, is somehow more capable?
- rapsey 3y ago
  And they did most of it decades ago when the public supported grand endeavours. Now risk aversion is very high and budgets are very limited.
  - komali2 3y ago
    So what? Governments are clearly capable of achieving these things, they've done it before. Private industry, remains to be seen. Worth nothing that it has to be profitable for it to work for private industry - possibly not what we actually want for space exploration. Would private industry have kept the voyager probes going this long?
    - rapsey 3y ago
      I am speaking about willingness to take big risks not ability. You are arguing with me while talking about completely different things.
      - soperj 3y ago

panick21_ 3y ago

SpaceX is by far the best organization in terms of rocket engine design, rocket design and rocket operations. Nobody else in the world comes even remotely close. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are already better by a long distance then any other rocket in the world. All other organizations world wide are trying to catch up to that. You only really need huge rockets like this if you are launching some truly massive amount of stuff. This just wasn't a thing until today. The biggest ever was during the moon race, US Saturn V and Soviets N1. However the Saturn V was expensive and NASA wanted to have a reusable Shuttle instead, so they dropped it. The Soviets did the N1 but when they lost the moon race (and a few failures) they didn't want to pay for it anymore. So really since the moon race, rockets of this scale just were not necessary. If you can't reuse the rocket, a rocket of this scale is just to expensive to be practical. It took SpaceX making re-usability real and mega constellations to make it worth considering a rocket like Starship. Just for reference, this thing is far more powerful then the Saturn V or N1. It has almost double the liftoff thrust. So really humanity has never operated this scale of rocket before.

chasd00 3y ago

the Raptor engine series is an extremely high barrier to entry. I would bet 30% of Spacex's innovation lies in that one engine. Its combination of thrust, efficiency, and small size are beyond anything else. The size blows me away, if you took the nozzle off it's about the size of a car engine. Without the engineering breakthroughs to produce something like the Raptor engine launches at this scale just aren't possible. There's other engines with thrust to match Raptor but not the efficiency nor size. For example, there's just no way you can put 33 RS25s under an airframe. from the link below "The SpaceX Raptor 3 was recently test fired and reached 18% more thrust than a Raptor 2. The Raptor 2 had 25% more thrust than the Raptor 1 and it was 20% lighter." it's just crazy what that propulsion team is doing...simply crazy https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/05/spacex-raptor-3-engines-and-beyond.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/05/spacex-raptor-3-engine...

cryptonector 3y ago
> I would bet 30% of Spacex's innovation lies in that one engine. Musk often points out that the stage 0 work is harder (and I suspect more innovative) than the rocket (and engine) design. He also often mentions that fabrication is even harder. I.e., all the processes, tools, machines, etc. used to build all those engines and rockets is harder still than stage 0 -- one might even call it stage -1. It's possible that Raptor is not even closed to "30% of Spacex's innovation" :)

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Need a critical mass of experts that are rare and require extremely large populations to pull from.