5 ms·

Maybe the words "success" and "failure" are too difficult to shoehorn into describing these tests, especially with the first two tests. "Great progress" is a g

Maybe the words "success" and "failure" are too difficult to shoehorn into describing these tests, especially with the first two tests. "Great progress" is a good intermediate.

HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
When you write a test case, you define what "Passed" means. If this test flight overall meets SpaceX's definition of "Passed", then it was a success, regardless of what anyone else thinks it should mean.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  If your test case for left pad passes when it outputs a string of the right length, your boss is going to judge whether it's a good test case. Since this is all being done on federal grant money, it's legitimate to have higher expectations. This test was good, though - the previous two were disappointing.
  - f-securus 3y ago
    Holy cow. How are people downplaying something so revolutionary. Without those other tests SpaceX wouldn’t have done what it did today and they show progress each step. They are doing what nasa couldn’t (send stuff to space orders of magnitude cheaper) because they aren’t afraid to blow stuff up.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      They haven't gotten to the revolutionary part yet (fuel tankers in orbit, raptor relight, reusable first stage, reentry).
      - f-securus 3y ago
        Re-using rockets isn't revolutionary?
        jordanb 3y ago
        I think it might have been back when the shuttle did it in 1981.
        f-securus 3y ago
        The shuttle that cost 450 million per launch? (And disposable boosters)
        paledot 3y ago
        The boosters parachuted to the ocean and were reused. Only the external fuel tank was not reusable. However, you're correct that the Shuttle failed utterly to realize the point of reusability, that being low cost and quick turnaround.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Moving the goalposts. I didn't say it wasn't revolutionary either, just that they haven't gotten to that part yet.
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      Nobody has done anything revolutionary and nobody has gotten to space an order of magnitude cheaper. The best estimates of SpaceX's cost advantage per kilo put it at 30-50% better than a Soyuz. The Starship program so far has soaked up as much money as SLS, and hasn't even left orbit.
      - jiggawatts 3y ago
        They did several revolutionary things with starship: Full-flow staged combustion metholox engines. Stainless steel construction. Biggest rocket to have ever flown. Highest thrust at launch of any rocket by a factor of two or so. Live streaming of reentry via a space Internet network. Etc…
        pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Those all sound like incremental technology advances to me that have yet to deliver any real advances in capabilities. Which is nice - don't get me wrong - but not exactly worth rolling out the aircraft carrier for.
        jiggawatts 3y ago
        Someone else in this thread pointed out that Starship could get the ISS built in just 3 launches! It originally took dozens. Quantity has a quality all of its own. You should be familiar with this from IT: there’s nothing fundamentally different about the first computer that I’ve ever used to the one I have right now, other than the factor of a million difference in performance!
        pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Starship today can't launch anything. Saying that it can launch the ISS in 3 launches is what Elon Musk says it can do. I don't trust Elon Musk's word for things until I see what someone does with those words. Generally, he is off by a factor of 10-100 on his promises.
  - zer0c00ler 3y ago
    I think each test served exactly its purpose and it's incredible to see the rapid progress. Unclear why you believe the first two were not a success at all? Did you expect a novel vehicle like this would just work the first time?
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      I do. SLS, Vulcan, and most other rockets from reputable space companies have worked first time.
      - macintux 3y ago
        Those are also: - More expensive than Starship, or - Took longer to develop than Starship, or - Are significantly less ambitious than Starship (and those are definitely not exclusive ORs)
        pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Going by total program cost, both of those are cheaper than Starship. SpaceX does this sleight of hand where they don't count their R&D cost in their calculations, but they do count it in other peoples' programs when comparing. SLS so far is about $2 billion in, and Starship seems to be at $2-3 billion. Vulcan is way cheaper than both.
        sobellian 3y ago
        - Source for Vulcan total program cost? All I can find is their per-launch pricing. Tory Bruno himself apparently said that "new rockets typically cost US$2 billion, including US$1 billion for the main engine." - Not sure where you're getting the SLS number, the GAO report at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105609.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105609.pdf claims, "Since 2011, NASA has spent $11.8 billion to develop the initial SLS capability." - I think the marginal cost is a fair question. The whole party line out of NASA was that this time Moon exploration would be sustainable. If each trip costs > $1B before you even put a payload on the rocket that's a big problem.
  - bandyaboot 3y ago
    The test flights have been right in line with how spacex does development and testing. I’m confident that everyone involved with granting them that money knew this going in.
    - jordanb 3y ago
      It's fine that they've not yet completed any stated launch objectives in three tests and have, amongst them, 5 independent catastrophic vehicle loss events because that's what we expect out of SpaceX.
  - thinkcontext 3y ago
    > Since this is all being done on federal grant money Its true that SpaceX has gotten federal money contract for landing on the moon to the tune of $2.9B. But the Starship program is going to cost a lot more than that, Musk estimated $10B and has done stock offerings to raise money. And you have to take into account that the federal money has to support 100% of the moon specific parts of development. So, its true that the feds are helping w/ Starship development but "all" is not accurate.

Maybe the words "success" and "failure" are too difficult to shoehorn into describing these tests, especially with the first two tests. "Great progress" is a good intermediate.

HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago

When you write a test case, you define what "Passed" means. If this test flight overall meets SpaceX's definition of "Passed", then it was a success, regardless of what anyone else thinks it should mean.

pclmulqdq 3y ago
If your test case for left pad passes when it outputs a string of the right length, your boss is going to judge whether it's a good test case. Since this is all being done on federal grant money, it's legitimate to have higher expectations. This test was good, though - the previous two were disappointing.
- f-securus 3y ago
  Holy cow. How are people downplaying something so revolutionary. Without those other tests SpaceX wouldn’t have done what it did today and they show progress each step. They are doing what nasa couldn’t (send stuff to space orders of magnitude cheaper) because they aren’t afraid to blow stuff up.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    They haven't gotten to the revolutionary part yet (fuel tankers in orbit, raptor relight, reusable first stage, reentry).
    - f-securus 3y ago
      Re-using rockets isn't revolutionary?
      - jordanb 3y ago
        I think it might have been back when the shuttle did it in 1981.
        f-securus 3y ago
        The shuttle that cost 450 million per launch? (And disposable boosters)
        paledot 3y ago
        The boosters parachuted to the ocean and were reused. Only the external fuel tank was not reusable. However, you're correct that the Shuttle failed utterly to realize the point of reusability, that being low cost and quick turnaround.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Moving the goalposts. I didn't say it wasn't revolutionary either, just that they haven't gotten to that part yet.
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    Nobody has done anything revolutionary and nobody has gotten to space an order of magnitude cheaper. The best estimates of SpaceX's cost advantage per kilo put it at 30-50% better than a Soyuz. The Starship program so far has soaked up as much money as SLS, and hasn't even left orbit.
    - jiggawatts 3y ago
      They did several revolutionary things with starship: Full-flow staged combustion metholox engines. Stainless steel construction. Biggest rocket to have ever flown. Highest thrust at launch of any rocket by a factor of two or so. Live streaming of reentry via a space Internet network. Etc…
      - pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Those all sound like incremental technology advances to me that have yet to deliver any real advances in capabilities. Which is nice - don't get me wrong - but not exactly worth rolling out the aircraft carrier for.
        jiggawatts 3y ago
        Someone else in this thread pointed out that Starship could get the ISS built in just 3 launches! It originally took dozens. Quantity has a quality all of its own. You should be familiar with this from IT: there’s nothing fundamentally different about the first computer that I’ve ever used to the one I have right now, other than the factor of a million difference in performance!
        pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Starship today can't launch anything. Saying that it can launch the ISS in 3 launches is what Elon Musk says it can do. I don't trust Elon Musk's word for things until I see what someone does with those words. Generally, he is off by a factor of 10-100 on his promises.
- zer0c00ler 3y ago
  I think each test served exactly its purpose and it's incredible to see the rapid progress. Unclear why you believe the first two were not a success at all? Did you expect a novel vehicle like this would just work the first time?
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    I do. SLS, Vulcan, and most other rockets from reputable space companies have worked first time.
    - macintux 3y ago
      Those are also: - More expensive than Starship, or - Took longer to develop than Starship, or - Are significantly less ambitious than Starship (and those are definitely not exclusive ORs)
      - pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Going by total program cost, both of those are cheaper than Starship. SpaceX does this sleight of hand where they don't count their R&D cost in their calculations, but they do count it in other peoples' programs when comparing. SLS so far is about $2 billion in, and Starship seems to be at $2-3 billion. Vulcan is way cheaper than both.
        sobellian 3y ago
        - Source for Vulcan total program cost? All I can find is their per-launch pricing. Tory Bruno himself apparently said that "new rockets typically cost US$2 billion, including US$1 billion for the main engine." - Not sure where you're getting the SLS number, the GAO report at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105609.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105609.pdf claims, "Since 2011, NASA has spent $11.8 billion to develop the initial SLS capability." - I think the marginal cost is a fair question. The whole party line out of NASA was that this time Moon exploration would be sustainable. If each trip costs > $1B before you even put a payload on the rocket that's a big problem.
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  The test flights have been right in line with how spacex does development and testing. I’m confident that everyone involved with granting them that money knew this going in.
  - jordanb 3y ago
    It's fine that they've not yet completed any stated launch objectives in three tests and have, amongst them, 5 independent catastrophic vehicle loss events because that's what we expect out of SpaceX.
- thinkcontext 3y ago
  > Since this is all being done on federal grant money Its true that SpaceX has gotten federal money contract for landing on the moon to the tune of $2.9B. But the Starship program is going to cost a lot more than that, Musk estimated $10B and has done stock offerings to raise money. And you have to take into account that the federal money has to support 100% of the moon specific parts of development. So, its true that the feds are helping w/ Starship development but "all" is not accurate.