4 ms·

how come people with sliding rulers and navigation computers 'knitted' by local grannies have lost 0 Saturn rockets. But now an explosion is an expected outcom

how come people with sliding rulers and navigation computers 'knitted' by local grannies have lost 0 Saturn rockets. But now an explosion is an expected outcome for your million dollar hardware. That approach works in software dev.

pixl97 3y ago
Because Saturn rockets cost 1.3 billion dollars EACH. A test starship is nowhere near that, though we don't have exact numbers. Probably closer to $100 million. Also SpaceX is trying to solve a much harder problem. If you would have asked that Saturn team "Also, land all the stages of the rocket", the likely answer you would have got is "Screw off, you're insane" or "Give me 100 billion dollars".
- XorNot 3y ago
  Also getting Raptor engines to work. The second Starship test was a massive achievement because the SuperHeavy Raptors all worked. That's an engine design with numerous advantages which wasn't practical when the Russians tried it, but might now be practical (certainly looks to be from the test) because control systems technology is small and powerful enough (i.e. similar to how modern fighter jets fly in aerodynamically unstable regimes requiring active computer control - we have them now because we have the computers which can do it).
jzombie 3y ago
If you're exploding million dollar hardware w/ your software development, maybe it's time to change careers.
ceejayoz 3y ago
> how come people with sliding rulers and navigation computers 'knitted' by local grannies have lost 0 Saturn rockets. The fuck? NASA lost people in production hardware multiple times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_6 "The damaged third-stage engine failed to restart for trans-lunar injection... Despite the engine failures, the flight provided NASA with enough confidence to use the Saturn V for crewed launches..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaste... Here's a fun one: They tested the Saturn crew escape system. The booster was supposed to blow up, and demonstrate the crew would survive... but the test went wrong, and it blew up early, when it shouldn't have. The crew abort worked, so test failed successfully. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ
- angiosperm 3y ago
  Apollo 1 was very much not production hardware. "The Vintage Space" channel on YT has a good rundown, "Duplicate Apollo Spacecraft". They didn't lose any crew on production hardware, although 13 was close.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    AS-204 was absolutely production hardware. The later hardware was different because three people died. They died in rehearsal for an actual mission. > Apollo 1, initially designated AS-204, was planned to be the first crewed mission of the Apollo program. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1
    - angiosperm 3y ago
      The second version was already starting production when three people died. There was never any intention to build any more of the first one, or to send it beyond low Earth orbit.
      - mulmen 3y ago
        Changes were made based on the fire. The capsule was “production” in the sense that it was going to carry people. It doesn’t need to be mass produced to be “prod”. It’s prod like “this instance matters”.
        angiosperm 3y ago
        Apollo 1 should have been production like it mattered. But instead the first prototype was pressed into service because the real one wasn't ready yet. The fire was proof.
        mulmen 3y ago
        “In service” and “production” are synonymous in this case.
philwelch 3y ago
Every Saturn rocket was lost.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  We know right where each came down.
inglor_cz 3y ago
a) Those people with sliding rulers and navigation computers also had 2.5 % of American GDP annually at their disposal, which is several orders of magnitude more than anyone now has. (Be it SpaceX or Boeing or whoever...) b) The Apollo program actually cost not just money, but human lives = a much worse outcome than just losing a test rocket. And Apollo 13 crew was very lucky to have returned to Earth alive. c) Losses of test hardware can only really be somewhat prevented by being extremely careful and pedantic during development, which takes time, and guess what? More time spent obsessing about every single detail = more money spent on development. It is entirely possible that the "hardware is expendable" approach is much cheaper than what you would like to have.

pixl97 3y ago

Because Saturn rockets cost 1.3 billion dollars EACH. A test starship is nowhere near that, though we don't have exact numbers. Probably closer to $100 million. Also SpaceX is trying to solve a much harder problem. If you would have asked that Saturn team "Also, land all the stages of the rocket", the likely answer you would have got is "Screw off, you're insane" or "Give me 100 billion dollars".

XorNot 3y ago
Also getting Raptor engines to work. The second Starship test was a massive achievement because the SuperHeavy Raptors all worked. That's an engine design with numerous advantages which wasn't practical when the Russians tried it, but might now be practical (certainly looks to be from the test) because control systems technology is small and powerful enough (i.e. similar to how modern fighter jets fly in aerodynamically unstable regimes requiring active computer control - we have them now because we have the computers which can do it).

jzombie 3y ago

If you're exploding million dollar hardware w/ your software development, maybe it's time to change careers.

ceejayoz 3y ago

> how come people with sliding rulers and navigation computers 'knitted' by local grannies have lost 0 Saturn rockets. The fuck? NASA lost people in production hardware multiple times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_6 "The damaged third-stage engine failed to restart for trans-lunar injection... Despite the engine failures, the flight provided NASA with enough confidence to use the Saturn V for crewed launches..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaste... Here's a fun one: They tested the Saturn crew escape system. The booster was supposed to blow up, and demonstrate the crew would survive... but the test went wrong, and it blew up early, when it shouldn't have. The crew abort worked, so test failed successfully. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ

angiosperm 3y ago
Apollo 1 was very much not production hardware. "The Vintage Space" channel on YT has a good rundown, "Duplicate Apollo Spacecraft". They didn't lose any crew on production hardware, although 13 was close.
- mulmen 3y ago
  AS-204 was absolutely production hardware. The later hardware was different because three people died. They died in rehearsal for an actual mission. > Apollo 1, initially designated AS-204, was planned to be the first crewed mission of the Apollo program. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    The second version was already starting production when three people died. There was never any intention to build any more of the first one, or to send it beyond low Earth orbit.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      Changes were made based on the fire. The capsule was “production” in the sense that it was going to carry people. It doesn’t need to be mass produced to be “prod”. It’s prod like “this instance matters”.
      - angiosperm 3y ago
        Apollo 1 should have been production like it mattered. But instead the first prototype was pressed into service because the real one wasn't ready yet. The fire was proof.
        mulmen 3y ago
        “In service” and “production” are synonymous in this case.

philwelch 3y ago

Every Saturn rocket was lost.

angiosperm 3y ago
We know right where each came down.

inglor_cz 3y ago

a) Those people with sliding rulers and navigation computers also had 2.5 % of American GDP annually at their disposal, which is several orders of magnitude more than anyone now has. (Be it SpaceX or Boeing or whoever...) b) The Apollo program actually cost not just money, but human lives = a much worse outcome than just losing a test rocket. And Apollo 13 crew was very lucky to have returned to Earth alive. c) Losses of test hardware can only really be somewhat prevented by being extremely careful and pedantic during development, which takes time, and guess what? More time spent obsessing about every single detail = more money spent on development. It is entirely possible that the "hardware is expendable" approach is much cheaper than what you would like to have.