3 ms·

Vulcan and SLS both just had successful first launches. It's really not that hard if you follow the established component and integration test playbook. Sourc

Vulcan and SLS both just had successful first launches. It's really not that hard if you follow the established component and integration test playbook. Source: I build space shit so I can eat.

panick21_ 3y ago
Well here is the thing, SLS cost 20 billion $ or more. And uses lots of components that existed before SLS was around. Vulcan still cost multiple billions to develop, the engines had to go threw a very demanding air force test and validation program first. The rocket was delayed for years because of issues with both the BE-4 and the Centaur. ULA has established suppliers and established factory, with lots of people that build and launch rockets. Those suppliers are very expensive, but if you have the US military paying you 200+ million $ per launch, you can afford that. To compare those to examples to a tiny startup rocket company is kind of absurd. They simply don't have lots of legacy reliable components. They can't use existing suppliers as those are far to expensive and don't have products for micro launchers. You are comparing rockets that cost 30x or 300x of what Astra priced their rocket at. Generally if you want to understand Astra issues, you have to understand the dynamics of the market. The main problem with Astra was that they were always behind the market. They started with a micro rocket, that was simply to small for most sats. So before they ever made that reliable they made the rocket bigger. And once they had done that it was pretty clear that the market needed even bigger sats. So they iterated again and made their rocket bigger. But that happened again so they gave up that rocket and (in theory) now they are building an even bigger rocket. They never actually settled on a design. The basically launch a new rocket 1-2 times and before they had figured out all the issues were already looking at the next design and those designs had new issues. It was more important for the CEO scam and lie about how brilliant the next rocket was gone be so nobody thought to much about why the last rocket blew up. The companies main product was selling stock to uninformed people. When RocketLab and others strategically moved into space craft, Astra bought a Ion-Engine company just so they can say they do the same thing. When SpaceX had success with Starlink, Astra promised to have an even better global internet. Having a good story was more the priority then having good engineering and good execution. This book is a good read: "When the Heavens Went on Sale: The Misfits and Geniuses Racing to Put Space Within Reach" Its about Planet, Astra, RocketLab and Firefly. Book doesn't make the Astra CEO look great.
- computerdork 3y ago
  Agree with what you said about SLS and Vulcan, and just posted a similar response before seeing yours:) Yeah, not sure how people can say rockets are easy, still extremely dangerous and difficult. ... and Will have to check out "When the Heavens Went on Sale." Recently, read "Lift Off: Elon Musk and the Desperate Early Days That Launched SpaceX." Truly interesting and showed how so much of Falcon 1's development was touch and go, with tons of technical, political and financial set backs. Lots of brillant engineers worked on that rocket.
computerdork 3y ago
Hmm, in my opinion, not great examples of how rockets aren't difficult anymore. Read recently that for Vulcan, ULA reused a lot of existing systems from Atlas V (such as the entire second stage, but also many other system) which obviously have been developed and used in actual flights for decades: https://spacenews.com/ula-to-fly-vulcan-technology-on-atlas-5-to-gain-flight-heritage/ https://spacenews.com/ula-to-fly-vulcan-technology-on-atlas-... And SLS reused old-tech even more so (at least from my understanding). For SLS, NASA used the boosters from the space shuttle for the first stage: https://www.nasa.gov/reference/space-launch-system-solid-rocket-booster/ https://www.nasa.gov/reference/space-launch-system-solid-roc... Yeah, NASA and ULA take the most conservative approach to rockets, using technology that they developed decades ago. ... but maybe that's what you mean by "following the established component and integration test playbook." It's smart and safe, but still, this also means they aren't innovating and, as you know, even for Space X, doing something new took them many, many years of failures, for Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and on into Starship.
colechristensen 3y ago
SLS reused a whole bunch of hardware and launched 6 years late, basically doubling the planned schedule and slipping dozens of times. Obviously a clean first launch can be done, I'm not arguing against that, I'm saying "Basic rocketry isn't all that hard anymore" is nonsense. Nobody looking at the SLS program and its troubles and say that building rockets isn't difficult. You can spend an enormous amount of time and resources while using as much legacy proven hardware as possible to try to never fail... or you can blow up rockets to test them for faster cheaper results.
pclmulqdq 3y ago
Yeah, outside of one company, rockets basically don't fail any more.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  You should maybe consider searching some statistics on the topic ...
hef19898 3y ago
Then I'd say you answered your own question.

Vulcan and SLS both just had successful first launches. It's really not that hard if you follow the established component and integration test playbook. Source: I build space shit so I can eat.

panick21_ 3y ago

Well here is the thing, SLS cost 20 billion $ or more. And uses lots of components that existed before SLS was around. Vulcan still cost multiple billions to develop, the engines had to go threw a very demanding air force test and validation program first. The rocket was delayed for years because of issues with both the BE-4 and the Centaur. ULA has established suppliers and established factory, with lots of people that build and launch rockets. Those suppliers are very expensive, but if you have the US military paying you 200+ million $ per launch, you can afford that. To compare those to examples to a tiny startup rocket company is kind of absurd. They simply don't have lots of legacy reliable components. They can't use existing suppliers as those are far to expensive and don't have products for micro launchers. You are comparing rockets that cost 30x or 300x of what Astra priced their rocket at. Generally if you want to understand Astra issues, you have to understand the dynamics of the market. The main problem with Astra was that they were always behind the market. They started with a micro rocket, that was simply to small for most sats. So before they ever made that reliable they made the rocket bigger. And once they had done that it was pretty clear that the market needed even bigger sats. So they iterated again and made their rocket bigger. But that happened again so they gave up that rocket and (in theory) now they are building an even bigger rocket. They never actually settled on a design. The basically launch a new rocket 1-2 times and before they had figured out all the issues were already looking at the next design and those designs had new issues. It was more important for the CEO scam and lie about how brilliant the next rocket was gone be so nobody thought to much about why the last rocket blew up. The companies main product was selling stock to uninformed people. When RocketLab and others strategically moved into space craft, Astra bought a Ion-Engine company just so they can say they do the same thing. When SpaceX had success with Starlink, Astra promised to have an even better global internet. Having a good story was more the priority then having good engineering and good execution. This book is a good read: "When the Heavens Went on Sale: The Misfits and Geniuses Racing to Put Space Within Reach" Its about Planet, Astra, RocketLab and Firefly. Book doesn't make the Astra CEO look great.

computerdork 3y ago
Agree with what you said about SLS and Vulcan, and just posted a similar response before seeing yours:) Yeah, not sure how people can say rockets are easy, still extremely dangerous and difficult. ... and Will have to check out "When the Heavens Went on Sale." Recently, read "Lift Off: Elon Musk and the Desperate Early Days That Launched SpaceX." Truly interesting and showed how so much of Falcon 1's development was touch and go, with tons of technical, political and financial set backs. Lots of brillant engineers worked on that rocket.

computerdork 3y ago

Hmm, in my opinion, not great examples of how rockets aren't difficult anymore. Read recently that for Vulcan, ULA reused a lot of existing systems from Atlas V (such as the entire second stage, but also many other system) which obviously have been developed and used in actual flights for decades: https://spacenews.com/ula-to-fly-vulcan-technology-on-atlas-5-to-gain-flight-heritage/ https://spacenews.com/ula-to-fly-vulcan-technology-on-atlas-... And SLS reused old-tech even more so (at least from my understanding). For SLS, NASA used the boosters from the space shuttle for the first stage: https://www.nasa.gov/reference/space-launch-system-solid-rocket-booster/ https://www.nasa.gov/reference/space-launch-system-solid-roc... Yeah, NASA and ULA take the most conservative approach to rockets, using technology that they developed decades ago. ... but maybe that's what you mean by "following the established component and integration test playbook." It's smart and safe, but still, this also means they aren't innovating and, as you know, even for Space X, doing something new took them many, many years of failures, for Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and on into Starship.

colechristensen 3y ago

SLS reused a whole bunch of hardware and launched 6 years late, basically doubling the planned schedule and slipping dozens of times. Obviously a clean first launch can be done, I'm not arguing against that, I'm saying "Basic rocketry isn't all that hard anymore" is nonsense. Nobody looking at the SLS program and its troubles and say that building rockets isn't difficult. You can spend an enormous amount of time and resources while using as much legacy proven hardware as possible to try to never fail... or you can blow up rockets to test them for faster cheaper results.

pclmulqdq 3y ago

Yeah, outside of one company, rockets basically don't fail any more.

panick21_ 3y ago
You should maybe consider searching some statistics on the topic ...

hef19898 3y ago

Then I'd say you answered your own question.