Four things SpaceX can do in 2017

[sdsds]

In 2017 SpaceX needs to show they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Walking: routine, reliable flight of F9
Chewing gum: fancy stuff like FH, Raptor tests, satellites, etc.

At. The. Same. Time.

[Lee Jay]

In another thread, HMXHMX said that deep pockets and implacable will are needed to succeed. Hard to maintain implacable will to just do what Ariane and others are doing. Lose sight of Mars, and you lose the implacable resolve. Not just for Musk but for the employees as well. SpaceX isn't able to hire the best and the brightest while working them brutally hard just to launch comm sats. This fact is partly why others have failed and why Europe has not produced a SpaceX.

This can't be emphasized enough.  It's often been mentioned that part of the reason SpaceX undercuts the competition on launch costs is because they pay relatively low wages.  It's employees work very hard for those low wages, not because they're fools, but because their vision to colonize Mars is at least as strong as Musk's is, if not stronger.  Musk CAN'T back off from his Mars aspirations, even if he wanted to (I doubt if he wants to), because in doing that he would lose his workforce. 


Every advantage SpaceX has gained so far is directly due to the fact that there are lots of people besides Musk who want to colonize Mars.  They follow Musk only because he leads them towards their own goals.  If he drops that vision, he might as well give up on the company.

It honestly never occurred to me that this could be the case.  If so, I feel sorry for them.  Inexpensive, safe flying cars have been a similar pipe dream for over 50 years, and they are a far easier nut to crack than the colonization of Mars on chemical rocketry.

I foresee much disappointment if this is the case.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

I foresee much disappointment if this is the case.

Longer-term that may be true but there are a lot of stepping stones on the way, such as flying people to ISS, re-using first stages, Red Dragon etc etc. Plenty to keep people involved and committed for years to come.

Colonising Mars may be an ultimate goal but significantly increasing space activity through reduced costs and increased capabilities, which do seem more achievable, I'm sure would be welcomed and rewarding for Mars advocates too.

[Lee Jay]

I foresee much disappointment if this is the case.

Longer-term that may be true but there are a lot of stepping stones on the way, such as flying people to ISS, re-using first stages, Red Dragon etc etc. Plenty to keep people involved and committed for years to come.

Colonising Mars may be an ultimate goal but significantly increasing space activity through reduced costs and increased capabilities, which do seem more achievable, I'm sure would be welcomed and rewarding for Mars advocates too.

This part is what I can see, and what I always believed about them.  Maybe Mars is like the mechanical bunny at a dog track - they can chase it forever without ever catching it.

[Patchouli]

I get we're all anxious about SpaceX due to 2 major accidents in 15 months and the standdowns. But if anything it was because they were focused on getting F9 to very high performance and also trying to burn down their manifest, NOT because of Mars!

That's part of what got them in trouble concentrating on maximum performance vs getting the reliability and flight rates up.

[vapour_nudge]

In another thread, HMXHMX said that deep pockets and implacable will are needed to succeed. Hard to maintain implacable will to just do what Ariane and others are doing. Lose sight of Mars, and you lose the implacable resolve. Not just for Musk but for the employees as well. SpaceX isn't able to hire the best and the brightest while working them brutally hard just to launch comm sats. This fact is partly why others have failed and why Europe has not produced a SpaceX.

This can't be emphasized enough.  It's often been mentioned that part of the reason SpaceX undercuts the competition on launch costs is because they pay relatively low wages.  It's employees work very hard for those low wages, not because they're fools, but because their vision to colonize Mars is at least as strong as Musk's is, if not stronger.  Musk CAN'T back off from his Mars aspirations, even if he wanted to (I doubt if he wants to), because in doing that he would lose his workforce

Perhaps they're not fools but have been fooled.

[zubenelgenubi]

In another thread, HMXHMX said that deep pockets and implacable will are needed to succeed. Hard to maintain implacable will to just do what Ariane and others are doing. Lose sight of Mars, and you lose the implacable resolve. Not just for Musk but for the employees as well. SpaceX isn't able to hire the best and the brightest while working them brutally hard just to launch comm sats. This fact is partly why others have failed and why Europe has not produced a SpaceX.

This can't be emphasized enough.  It's often been mentioned that part of the reason SpaceX undercuts the competition on launch costs is because they pay relatively low wages.  It's employees work very hard for those low wages, not because they're fools, but because their vision to colonize Mars is at least as strong as Musk's is, if not stronger.  Musk CAN'T back off from his Mars aspirations, even if he wanted to (I doubt if he wants to), because in doing that he would lose his workforce

Perhaps they're not fools but have been fooled.

No disrespect intended regarding Elon or his employees, but this conversation reminds me of the following sage question:

Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

[ZachF]

Priority #1, 2 and 3 should be no RUDs and getting a quick but steady launch cadence going.

[sdsds]

This is not a time in history when it makes any sense to describe people who are actually getting stuff done as "fools."

[Robotbeat]

I get we're all anxious about SpaceX due to 2 major accidents in 15 months and the standdowns. But if anything it was because they were focused on getting F9 to very high performance and also trying to burn down their manifest, NOT because of Mars!

That's part of what got them in trouble concentrating on maximum performance vs getting the reliability and flight rates up.

I believe that's what I said. (Although putting the payload on top during the static test seems to be a streamlining activity, i.e. Increasing flight rate, not a performance-related one... So there are pitfalls for just trying for flight rate).

[Robotbeat]

In another thread, HMXHMX said that deep pockets and implacable will are needed to succeed. Hard to maintain implacable will to just do what Ariane and others are doing. Lose sight of Mars, and you lose the implacable resolve. Not just for Musk but for the employees as well. SpaceX isn't able to hire the best and the brightest while working them brutally hard just to launch comm sats. This fact is partly why others have failed and why Europe has not produced a SpaceX.

This can't be emphasized enough.  It's often been mentioned that part of the reason SpaceX undercuts the competition on launch costs is because they pay relatively low wages.  It's employees work very hard for those low wages, not because they're fools, but because their vision to colonize Mars is at least as strong as Musk's is, if not stronger.  Musk CAN'T back off from his Mars aspirations, even if he wanted to (I doubt if he wants to), because in doing that he would lose his workforce

Perhaps they're not fools but have been fooled.

Musk, being fooled in turn by NASA and Zubrin.

"
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --Shaw

[mme]

They need to do 2 things in 2017:
1. Launch more than in 2016.
2. Not lose a customer payload.

Those two things will give customers the confidence to keep ordering new missions.

In 2018 they need to be delivering crew to the ISS.  I believe they will launch FH this year but I don't see it as a deal breaker.

A lot of people claiming they've chased performance too much.  The performance is required for reusability.  Also the failures don't appear to be from cutting the margins too slim so I don't really see how that assertion holds.

As for Mars as a goal, Gravity forbid people be motivated by a difficult long-shot at contributing something audacious.  I don't know if SpaceX will succeed but I'm glad they're trying.

[Lee Jay]

This is not a time in history when it makes any sense to describe people who are actually getting stuff done as "fools."

If they were getting stuff done, it wouldn't be a problem.

- Falcon 9 1.0 splashed Orbcomm-OG2 during one of its five flights, a 20% failure rate (you can count this as a half failure and do the percentage differently - like one in six - if you like).
- Falcon 9 1.1 splashed CRS-7 in one of its 16 flights, a 6.25% failure rate.
- Falcon 9 1.1 FT splashed AMOS-6 in one of its nine flights, an 11.1% failure rate.
- They demolished one of their pads.
- Their backlog of flights that are late is quite lengthy.
- They are not currently flying.
- They haven't reused much of anything that's been recovered.

This is the stuff that has to get fixed.

- Get flying again.
- Fly a minimum of 25 flights in a row without a failure.
- Get the pad fixed.
- Get at least 40 customer launches done in the next two years, preferably without a failure.
- Reuse at least a few first stages at least once to show the whole idea is at least doable.
- Fly FH demo, successfully.
- Fly crew safely to ISS, and back.

If they can do that, then maybe they can do a Mars flight of some sort in 2020 and I'll start to get excited about their BEO aspirations.  But that's a heck of a lot of hard work for them to work through first.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally and completely rooting for them, and I try to watch every single launch and recovery, start to finish.  I watch the replays when I can't.  But they need to show they can really do this really hard stuff really well if they're going to convince me they can do this really, really, really hard Mars stuff.

[Robotbeat]

Oh please. SpaceX has been getting things done by just about any honest measure.

[Robotbeat]

If SpaceX stops blowing anything up, that's a sure sign they've stopped really innovating.

[sdsds]

they need to show they can really do this really hard stuff really well if they're going to convince me they can do this really, really, really hard Mars stuff.

Basically we're on the same page; thanks for expressing it well!

Recognize though the other possibility. They have been "doing stuff" since the first F1 lift off. Difficult stuff. They have been doing it right at the edge of the envelope and yes, sometimes beyond the edge.

I assert they can succeed by continuing that pattern of doing unprecedented stuff right at the edge of the envelope. But only so long as they develop the (new for them) ability to also do the proven stuff with great reliability.

So I almost would phrase it as the reverse of what you said. The SpaceX culture has already demonstrated its ability to do really really difficult stuff, albeit with a mixed record of success. Now they need to demonstrate that same culture can do just normally difficult stuff with the reliability that requires.

[llanitedave]

In another thread, HMXHMX said that deep pockets and implacable will are needed to succeed. Hard to maintain implacable will to just do what Ariane and others are doing. Lose sight of Mars, and you lose the implacable resolve. Not just for Musk but for the employees as well. SpaceX isn't able to hire the best and the brightest while working them brutally hard just to launch comm sats. This fact is partly why others have failed and why Europe has not produced a SpaceX.

This can't be emphasized enough.  It's often been mentioned that part of the reason SpaceX undercuts the competition on launch costs is because they pay relatively low wages.  It's employees work very hard for those low wages, not because they're fools, but because their vision to colonize Mars is at least as strong as Musk's is, if not stronger.  Musk CAN'T back off from his Mars aspirations, even if he wanted to (I doubt if he wants to), because in doing that he would lose his workforce. 


Every advantage SpaceX has gained so far is directly due to the fact that there are lots of people besides Musk who want to colonize Mars.  They follow Musk only because he leads them towards their own goals.  If he drops that vision, he might as well give up on the company.

It honestly never occurred to me that this could be the case.  If so, I feel sorry for them.  Inexpensive, safe flying cars have been a similar pipe dream for over 50 years, and they are a far easier nut to crack than the colonization of Mars on chemical rocketry.

I foresee much disappointment if this is the case.

Actually, I don't think flying cars carries quite the inspirational power that colonizing Mars does.  It's a convenience, but you'll never be able to cast it as "saving the species".

[llanitedave]

In another thread, HMXHMX said that deep pockets and implacable will are needed to succeed. Hard to maintain implacable will to just do what Ariane and others are doing. Lose sight of Mars, and you lose the implacable resolve. Not just for Musk but for the employees as well. SpaceX isn't able to hire the best and the brightest while working them brutally hard just to launch comm sats. This fact is partly why others have failed and why Europe has not produced a SpaceX.

This can't be emphasized enough.  It's often been mentioned that part of the reason SpaceX undercuts the competition on launch costs is because they pay relatively low wages.  It's employees work very hard for those low wages, not because they're fools, but because their vision to colonize Mars is at least as strong as Musk's is, if not stronger.  Musk CAN'T back off from his Mars aspirations, even if he wanted to (I doubt if he wants to), because in doing that he would lose his workforce

Perhaps they're not fools but have been fooled.

Perhaps they're neither fools nor fooled, but they're taking a long view, and seeing their aspirations actually making forward progress.

[whitelancer64]

This is not a time in history when it makes any sense to describe people who are actually getting stuff done as "fools."

If they were getting stuff done, it wouldn't be a problem.

- Falcon 9 1.0 splashed Orbcomm-OG2 during one of its five flights, a 20% failure rate (you can count this as a half failure and do the percentage differently - like one in six - if you like).
*snip*

This is the stuff that has to get fixed.

- Get flying again.
- Fly a minimum of 25 flights in a row without a failure.
- Get the pad fixed.
- Get at least 40 customer launches done in the next two years, preferably without a failure.
- Reuse at least a few first stages at least once to show the whole idea is at least doable.
- Fly FH demo, successfully.
- Fly crew safely to ISS, and back.
*snip*

To be clear - Orbcomm-OG2 wasn't "splashed" it was put in a lower-than intended orbit. It was operational for about 4 days and Orbcomm did get some good data from it.

-RTF is NET 10 days from now.
-Sounds good. Barring below-spec struts or unexpected materials interactions, should be doable.
-Core reuse is already slated for SES-10, February 2017. If that goes well I'd expect to see several other launches fly with reused cores next year.
-SLC-40 is already being worked on. Per reports floating around here, the damage wasn't as bad as it could have been. I'm hoping we'll see '40 operational again by Autumn.
-See response 2.
-Check again late next year.
-Check again in 2018.

[Lee Jay]

Actually, I don't think flying cars carries quite the inspirational power that colonizing Mars does.  It's a convenience, but you'll never be able to cast it as "saving the species".

Gosh...I'd be a million times more interested in having a personal flying machine in my garage than in living in a desolate wasteland with no people, no services, no life and no air.  I suspect I'm in the 99+% on that demographic.