4 ms·

Completely different case, though most reporting doesn't make that clear. The first time you build a physical rocket and test sending it up, it's almost certai

Completely different case, though most reporting doesn't make that clear. The first time you build a physical rocket and test sending it up, it's almost certain to fail. Seeing how and why it explodes is pretty much the purpose of launching it!

supportengineer 2y ago
I could say the same thing about software
skissane 2y ago
> The first time you build a physical rocket and test sending it up, it's almost certain to fail. That's not true. Many launch vehicles have succeeded on their first flight: Titan II: Apr 8, 1964 (Gemini 1) Saturn I (Block 1): Oct 27, 1961 (SA-1; only 1st stage active, 2nd and 3rd stage were present but disabled) Saturn I (Block 2): Jan 29, 1964 (SA-2; only 1st and 2nd stage active; 3rd stage was present but disabled) Saturn IB: Feb 26, 1966 (AS-201; first Saturn 1 flight with all 3 stages active) Saturn V: Nov 9, 1967 (Apollo 4) Space Shuttle: Apr 12, 1981 (STS-1, Columbia) Atlas V: Aug 21, 2002 Falcon 9: Jun 4, 2010 (Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit test; the first stage disintegrated on re-entry, but that's irrelevant to success of the payload) Falcon Heavy: Feb 6, 2018 (test flight; center core recovery failed, although again that arguably doesn't count) Vulcan Centaur: Jan 8, 2024 (Peregrine lunar lander; the lander failed, but for reasons unrelated to the launch vehicle) Indeed, I'd even say the norm is for success on first flight. And even when they do fail, most of the time it is a partial failure not a complete RUD – e.g. Delta IV Heavy's first flight reached orbit, but a lower orbit than planned; Ariane 6 reached the desired orbit, but the second stage failed to relight a second time for its deorbit burn. What SpaceX has been doing with Starship is very novel – deliberately flying very early in development, when failure is more likely than success. This is different from traditional launch vehicle design process, in which you spend years doing extensive on-the-ground analysis, simulation and component testing, resulting in a high probability of success on the very first flight. I think a lot of people are being misled into thinking SpaceX's way of doing things is the industry norm, when it isn't. Conversely, many other people misunderstand that SpaceX is intentionally doing something different, and are judging Starship's (expected) failures by the standards of earlier programs in which they aren't expected (failure after years of exhaustive on-the-ground development is a sign either of incompetence or really bad luck).
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  Thanks, I learned a few things there!
- Animats 2y ago
  > What SpaceX has been doing with Starship is very novel It's not novel. It's just not NASA. It was the norm in the early days of ICBM-type rockets. The original V-2 had about 700 failures before they hit a target. The original Atlas booster failed about half the time. "Nearly every component in the Atlas managed to fail at some point during test flights, from the engine combustion chambers to the tank pressurization system to the flight control system, but Convair engineers noted with some pride that there had never been a repeat of the same failure more than three times."[1] The military was fine with a high rate of failure at first in exchange for faster development. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas
  - skissane 2y ago
    > It's not novel. It's just not NASA. It was the norm in the early days of ICBM-type rockets. Relatively novel. But also, more than just not NASA – it is also not contemporary ULA or Arianespace. It is also not Falcon 9/Heavy-era SpaceX, given both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy completed their primary mission objectives flawlessly on their first flight.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  > That's not true. Many launch vehicles have succeeded on their first flight: > Titan II: Apr 8, 1964 (Gemini 1) Titan II failed several times during development and there was considerable drama between the Air Force and NASA getting the Titan II man-rated because of this. The man-rated version, Titan II GLV, never failed, but by a similar token man-rated Starships have never failed (nor ever flown.). If we're comparing apples to apples, then Titan II had numerous failures if Starship has.
  - skissane 2y ago
    > Titan II failed several times during development I was counting "Titan II the launch vehicle" separately from "Titan II the ICBM". However, if we are talking about Titan II the ICBM, here's what Wikipedia [0] has to say about its first launch: "The first Titan II launch, Missile N-2, was carried out on 16 March 1962 from LC-16 at Cape Canaveral and performed extremely well, flying 5,000 miles (8,000 km) downrange and depositing its reentry vehicle in the Ascension splash net." So, for the purpose of an ICBM, the first launch was a success. Now, it is true that the second launch failed to reach its target due to a problem with the second stage. But I was responding to the claim that first launches normally fail, so I don't think a failure on the second launch, when the first launch was successful, is directly relevant to that claim. > and there was considerable drama between the Air Force and NASA getting the Titan II man-rated because of this. As Wikipedia notes, Titan II had a lot of problems with vibration. However, for the ICBM use case, these problems were not an issue – a nuclear warhead can handle a lot more vibration than a crewed space capsule can. I don't think we should classify the first launch of a rocket as a "failure" if it has issues which would interfere with planned human-rating but not with the success of its primary uncrewed use case. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C_Titan_II#Launch_history_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C_Titan_II#Launch_histor...

supportengineer 2y ago

I could say the same thing about software

skissane 2y ago

> The first time you build a physical rocket and test sending it up, it's almost certain to fail. That's not true. Many launch vehicles have succeeded on their first flight: Titan II: Apr 8, 1964 (Gemini 1) Saturn I (Block 1): Oct 27, 1961 (SA-1; only 1st stage active, 2nd and 3rd stage were present but disabled) Saturn I (Block 2): Jan 29, 1964 (SA-2; only 1st and 2nd stage active; 3rd stage was present but disabled) Saturn IB: Feb 26, 1966 (AS-201; first Saturn 1 flight with all 3 stages active) Saturn V: Nov 9, 1967 (Apollo 4) Space Shuttle: Apr 12, 1981 (STS-1, Columbia) Atlas V: Aug 21, 2002 Falcon 9: Jun 4, 2010 (Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit test; the first stage disintegrated on re-entry, but that's irrelevant to success of the payload) Falcon Heavy: Feb 6, 2018 (test flight; center core recovery failed, although again that arguably doesn't count) Vulcan Centaur: Jan 8, 2024 (Peregrine lunar lander; the lander failed, but for reasons unrelated to the launch vehicle) Indeed, I'd even say the norm is for success on first flight. And even when they do fail, most of the time it is a partial failure not a complete RUD – e.g. Delta IV Heavy's first flight reached orbit, but a lower orbit than planned; Ariane 6 reached the desired orbit, but the second stage failed to relight a second time for its deorbit burn. What SpaceX has been doing with Starship is very novel – deliberately flying very early in development, when failure is more likely than success. This is different from traditional launch vehicle design process, in which you spend years doing extensive on-the-ground analysis, simulation and component testing, resulting in a high probability of success on the very first flight. I think a lot of people are being misled into thinking SpaceX's way of doing things is the industry norm, when it isn't. Conversely, many other people misunderstand that SpaceX is intentionally doing something different, and are judging Starship's (expected) failures by the standards of earlier programs in which they aren't expected (failure after years of exhaustive on-the-ground development is a sign either of incompetence or really bad luck).

BurningFrog 2y ago
Thanks, I learned a few things there!
Animats 2y ago
> What SpaceX has been doing with Starship is very novel It's not novel. It's just not NASA. It was the norm in the early days of ICBM-type rockets. The original V-2 had about 700 failures before they hit a target. The original Atlas booster failed about half the time. "Nearly every component in the Atlas managed to fail at some point during test flights, from the engine combustion chambers to the tank pressurization system to the flight control system, but Convair engineers noted with some pride that there had never been a repeat of the same failure more than three times."[1] The military was fine with a high rate of failure at first in exchange for faster development. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas
- skissane 2y ago
  > It's not novel. It's just not NASA. It was the norm in the early days of ICBM-type rockets. Relatively novel. But also, more than just not NASA – it is also not contemporary ULA or Arianespace. It is also not Falcon 9/Heavy-era SpaceX, given both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy completed their primary mission objectives flawlessly on their first flight.
lupusreal 2y ago
> That's not true. Many launch vehicles have succeeded on their first flight: > Titan II: Apr 8, 1964 (Gemini 1) Titan II failed several times during development and there was considerable drama between the Air Force and NASA getting the Titan II man-rated because of this. The man-rated version, Titan II GLV, never failed, but by a similar token man-rated Starships have never failed (nor ever flown.). If we're comparing apples to apples, then Titan II had numerous failures if Starship has.
- skissane 2y ago
  > Titan II failed several times during development I was counting "Titan II the launch vehicle" separately from "Titan II the ICBM". However, if we are talking about Titan II the ICBM, here's what Wikipedia [0] has to say about its first launch: "The first Titan II launch, Missile N-2, was carried out on 16 March 1962 from LC-16 at Cape Canaveral and performed extremely well, flying 5,000 miles (8,000 km) downrange and depositing its reentry vehicle in the Ascension splash net." So, for the purpose of an ICBM, the first launch was a success. Now, it is true that the second launch failed to reach its target due to a problem with the second stage. But I was responding to the claim that first launches normally fail, so I don't think a failure on the second launch, when the first launch was successful, is directly relevant to that claim. > and there was considerable drama between the Air Force and NASA getting the Titan II man-rated because of this. As Wikipedia notes, Titan II had a lot of problems with vibration. However, for the ICBM use case, these problems were not an issue – a nuclear warhead can handle a lot more vibration than a crewed space capsule can. I don't think we should classify the first launch of a rocket as a "failure" if it has issues which would interfere with planned human-rating but not with the success of its primary uncrewed use case. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C_Titan_II#Launch_history_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C_Titan_II#Launch_histor...