4 ms·

All the cases you bring up are not "proofs": a conjecture is very much not one, it's just that nobody bothered to refute this particular one even if there were

All the cases you bring up are not "proofs": a conjecture is very much not one, it's just that nobody bothered to refute this particular one even if there were results proving it isn't (cited in the paper). Similarly, ULA had no "proof" that this would be economically infeasible: Musk pioneered using agile ship-and-fail-fast for rocket development which mostly contradicted common knowledge that in projects like these your first attempt should be a success. Like with software, this actually sped things up and delivered better, cheaper results.

vkou 2y ago
Also, SpaceX was exactly one failed launch (with every prior one being a failure) from bankruptcy. Had that one also been a failure, he wouldn't be running the US government and we'd all be talking about how obviously stupid reusable rockets were.
- necovek 2y ago
  Had they received the same grant money as Boeing ($4.2b vs $2.6b), it wouldn't have been such a close call. I'd also note that they were also late by 3 years or so: this did not produce miracles, it was just much cheaper and better in the end than what Boeing is still trying to do.
  - Manabu-eo 2y ago
    He is talking about Falcon 1, not CCDev. There was no close call at CCDev, nor any grant money for Falcon 1.
    - necovek 2y ago
      Thanks for the correction/clarification. Still, I would be surprised if SpaceX did not greatly benefit from knowledge gained in Falcon 1 development when building their Falcon 9 rocket and then optimizing it for reusability — they started development of Falcon 9 while Falcon 1 was still operating.
- NateEag 2y ago
  This illustrates beautifully how stupid labeling ideas stupid is. To know that that an idea or approach is fundamentally stupid and unsalvageable requires a grasp of the world that humans may simply not have access to. It seems unthinkably rare to me.
WalterBright 2y ago
On the other hand, I knew from the beginning that the Space Shuttle design was ungainly, looking like a committee designed it, and unfortunately I was right. (Having a wing, empennage and landing gear greatly increased the weight. The only thing that really needs to be returned from space are the astronauts.)
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Let alone on launch. It's amusing that NASA is supposed to be this highly conservative safety-first environment, yet went with a design featuring two enormous solid rocket boosters. We knew better than this even during the Saturn era was very much a move fast and break things period of development.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    There is nothing wrong with solid rocker boosters for that application. The issue is they failed to figure out figure out the limits and launched when it was too cold. (they also should have investigated when they saw unexpected non-fatal seal issues) Solid boosters are more complex and so Saturn could not have launched on time if they tried them. So for Saturn with a (arbitrary) deadline not doing them was the right call. Don't confuse right call with best call though: we know on hindsight that Saturn launched on time, nobody knows what would have happened if they had used solid boosters.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      I wasn't referencing Challenger in particular. I'm speaking more generally. SRBs are inherently fire and forget. This simply increases the risk factor of rockets substantially, and greatly complicates the risks and dangers in any sort of critical scenario. In modern times when we're approaching the era of rapid complete reuse, they're also just illogical since they're not meaningfully reusable.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        The SRBs were resued. Like everything on the shuttle there was far more rebuilding needed before they were reused, but they were resued.
somenameforme 2y ago
The Apollo missions, of which Boeing was a key player, were also a 'ship and fail fast' era. It led to some humorous incidents like the strategy for astronaut bathroom breaks to simply be 'hold it' which was later followed up by diapers when we realized on-pad delays happen. Another one was the first capsule/command module being designed without even a viewport. Of course it also led to some not so humorous incidents, but such rapid advances rarely come for free. In any case Musk definitely didn't pioneer this in space.
- necovek 2y ago
  Sure, it's better to frame it as "reintroduction": for those early attempts to be succesful with Soviets pushing on the other side as well, it is a strategy that works the fastest. Thanks for the funny incidents as well, and my empathy for the not so funny ones!
- eru 2y ago
  > Of course it also led to some not so humorous incidents, but such rapid advances rarely come for free. Luckily, you can run a lot higher risks (per mission) when going unmanned, and thus this becomes a purely economic decision there, almost devoid of the moral problems of manned spaceflight. Manned spaceflight has mostly been a waste of money and resources in general.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Eventually you cannot run high risks in unmanned. If a rocket fails getting a satellite to orbit just build a new one. However missions to the outer planets are often only possible once every several hundred years (when orbits line up) and so if you fail you can't retry. Mars you get a retry every year and a half (though you get about a month). If you want to hit 5 planets that is a several hundred year event. And the trip time means if you fail once you reach the outer planet all the engineers who knew how the system works have retired and so you start from scratch on the retry (assuming you even get the orbits to line up)
    - eru 2y ago

vkou 2y ago

Also, SpaceX was exactly one failed launch (with every prior one being a failure) from bankruptcy. Had that one also been a failure, he wouldn't be running the US government and we'd all be talking about how obviously stupid reusable rockets were.

necovek 2y ago
Had they received the same grant money as Boeing ($4.2b vs $2.6b), it wouldn't have been such a close call. I'd also note that they were also late by 3 years or so: this did not produce miracles, it was just much cheaper and better in the end than what Boeing is still trying to do.
- Manabu-eo 2y ago
  He is talking about Falcon 1, not CCDev. There was no close call at CCDev, nor any grant money for Falcon 1.
  - necovek 2y ago
    Thanks for the correction/clarification. Still, I would be surprised if SpaceX did not greatly benefit from knowledge gained in Falcon 1 development when building their Falcon 9 rocket and then optimizing it for reusability — they started development of Falcon 9 while Falcon 1 was still operating.
NateEag 2y ago
This illustrates beautifully how stupid labeling ideas stupid is. To know that that an idea or approach is fundamentally stupid and unsalvageable requires a grasp of the world that humans may simply not have access to. It seems unthinkably rare to me.

WalterBright 2y ago

On the other hand, I knew from the beginning that the Space Shuttle design was ungainly, looking like a committee designed it, and unfortunately I was right. (Having a wing, empennage and landing gear greatly increased the weight. The only thing that really needs to be returned from space are the astronauts.)

somenameforme 2y ago
Let alone on launch. It's amusing that NASA is supposed to be this highly conservative safety-first environment, yet went with a design featuring two enormous solid rocket boosters. We knew better than this even during the Saturn era was very much a move fast and break things period of development.
- bluGill 2y ago
  There is nothing wrong with solid rocker boosters for that application. The issue is they failed to figure out figure out the limits and launched when it was too cold. (they also should have investigated when they saw unexpected non-fatal seal issues) Solid boosters are more complex and so Saturn could not have launched on time if they tried them. So for Saturn with a (arbitrary) deadline not doing them was the right call. Don't confuse right call with best call though: we know on hindsight that Saturn launched on time, nobody knows what would have happened if they had used solid boosters.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    I wasn't referencing Challenger in particular. I'm speaking more generally. SRBs are inherently fire and forget. This simply increases the risk factor of rockets substantially, and greatly complicates the risks and dangers in any sort of critical scenario. In modern times when we're approaching the era of rapid complete reuse, they're also just illogical since they're not meaningfully reusable.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      The SRBs were resued. Like everything on the shuttle there was far more rebuilding needed before they were reused, but they were resued.

somenameforme 2y ago

The Apollo missions, of which Boeing was a key player, were also a 'ship and fail fast' era. It led to some humorous incidents like the strategy for astronaut bathroom breaks to simply be 'hold it' which was later followed up by diapers when we realized on-pad delays happen. Another one was the first capsule/command module being designed without even a viewport. Of course it also led to some not so humorous incidents, but such rapid advances rarely come for free. In any case Musk definitely didn't pioneer this in space.

necovek 2y ago
Sure, it's better to frame it as "reintroduction": for those early attempts to be succesful with Soviets pushing on the other side as well, it is a strategy that works the fastest. Thanks for the funny incidents as well, and my empathy for the not so funny ones!
eru 2y ago
> Of course it also led to some not so humorous incidents, but such rapid advances rarely come for free. Luckily, you can run a lot higher risks (per mission) when going unmanned, and thus this becomes a purely economic decision there, almost devoid of the moral problems of manned spaceflight. Manned spaceflight has mostly been a waste of money and resources in general.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Eventually you cannot run high risks in unmanned. If a rocket fails getting a satellite to orbit just build a new one. However missions to the outer planets are often only possible once every several hundred years (when orbits line up) and so if you fail you can't retry. Mars you get a retry every year and a half (though you get about a month). If you want to hit 5 planets that is a several hundred year event. And the trip time means if you fail once you reach the outer planet all the engineers who knew how the system works have retired and so you start from scratch on the retry (assuming you even get the orbits to line up)
  - eru 2y ago