Has SpaceX Made Space Flight Look Easy ?

[Jeff Lerner]

Space is hard…we all know that.

And yet, these repeated SpaceX launches coming within days of each other…all successful. Most of them with boosters that have previously flown.

The landings on the drone ships, seemingly so routine…heck, even the NSF Landing bingo disappeared a long time ago.

Dare I say, it’s all become so….routine..

In the early days of aviation, people would flock to fields to see these magnificent men and their flying machines…nowadays a passenger plane flys overhead and few even look up..

Has SpaceX made space flight look easy ??

[waveney]

Yes

[rpapo]

If anything, they have made it look like all their predecessors have been playing the game of "this is really hard, so pay us more."  Which is not entirely true.  After all, SpaceX did not invent the Falcon rockets entirely from scratch.  They had the lessons of the past to take notes from.

[greybeardengineer]

SpaceX has made it look easy but it is still very much isn't. They have very successfully leveraged flight experience and working with NASA to finely hone their hardware and flows/procedures and rigorously stick to the latter to achieve great cadence and success rate. Even their flight failures in SS development are not detracting because the architecture is so novel and SpaceX has tempered expectations so adroitly.

This is a double edge sword for the rest of the industry, especially new entrants. Space is still very hard but SpaceX is the metric by which they are all judged, especially by investors. If they proceed aggressively then failures make them look less than competent. If they proceed with caution and rigorous stepwise serial development and ground testing then they look ponderous and inefficient.

SpaceX has completely revitalized a previously moribund industry and brought back interest from both the public and venture capital and has arguably even lead to a start-up bubble. But they are a really hard act to follow.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, I honestly hate how when some of the new launch startups have launch failures, some people tear them down. Like Astra, for instance.

Spaceflight is extremely hard to get work at all. It takes a while to nail down reliability, too, and there’s ultimately no real substitute for flight experience.

Let companies have launch failures, especially early on (first 5-20 flights). This is a hard business and it’s better for them to launch and fail than to sit on the ground for 4 more years. You learn much less on the ground, especially if you’re playing with models and not actual built hardware. (Aggressive ground testing is super helpful and SpaceX wouldn’t be where they are without it.)

Better to get failures and flight experience before you put people or national security payloads on it.

[VaBlue]

This is a double edge sword for the rest of the industry, especially new entrants. Space is still very hard but SpaceX is the metric by which they are all judged, especially by investors. If they proceed aggressively then failures make them look less than competent. If they proceed with caution and rigorous stepwise serial development and ground testing then they look ponderous and inefficient.

The whole 'proceed aggressively' thing is where they generally fail.  If Boeing started slapping together SLS boosters for a flight test regime, the messaging around the tests would be horribly botched.  SpaceX has thrived because they know how to set expectations (low, with stretch goals) and never seem to get perturbed with a RUD.  Normally, anyone asked is happy that 'goal X' (or whatever) was successfully tested and now they get to learn something new about the cause of the RUD!  Boeing?  LOL!!  Boeing mgmt (ie: <insert Old Space company here>) would bemoan the failure and vow to do better by learning from the mistakes.

It's corporate messaging - which is corporate culture set by the leaders of the company.  Tell me, who would you rather have a beer with - Elon, Torry, or Jeff?  There's your corporate culture with some professional discipline thrown in for good measure.

[woods170]

This is a double edge sword for the rest of the industry, especially new entrants. Space is still very hard but SpaceX is the metric by which they are all judged, especially by investors. If they proceed aggressively then failures make them look less than competent. If they proceed with caution and rigorous stepwise serial development and ground testing then they look ponderous and inefficient.

The whole 'proceed aggressively' thing is where they generally fail.  If Boeing started slapping together SLS boosters for a flight test regime, the messaging around the tests would be horribly botched.  SpaceX has thrived because they know how to set expectations (low, with stretch goals) and never seem to get perturbed with a RUD.  Normally, anyone asked is happy that 'goal X' (or whatever) was successfully tested and now they get to learn something new about the cause of the RUD!  Boeing?  LOL!!  Boeing mgmt (ie: <insert Old Space company here>) would bemoan the failure and vow to do better by learning from the mistakes.

It's corporate messaging - which is corporate culture set by the leaders of the company.  Tell me, who would you rather have a beer with - Elon, Torry, or Jeff?  There's your corporate culture with some professional discipline thrown in for good measure.

Emphasis mine.

Elon en Tory. Definitely not Jeff. But that's just me...

[abaddon]

SpaceX has made space flight routine.  Not easy.

[Nomadd]

It's corporate messaging - which is corporate culture set by the leaders of the company.  Tell me, who would you rather have a beer with - Elon, Torry, or Jeff?  There's your corporate culture with some professional discipline thrown in for good measure.

Emphasis mine.

Elon en Tory. Definitely not Jeff. But that's just me...

No it's not.

[psionedge]

It's corporate messaging - which is corporate culture set by the leaders of the company.  Tell me, who would you rather have a beer with - Elon, Torry, or Jeff?  There's your corporate culture with some professional discipline thrown in for good measure.

Emphasis mine.

Elon en Tory. Definitely not Jeff. But that's just me...

No it's not.

Based on Elon's recent tweets he seems pretty insufferable to be around.


As for making it look easy, SpaceX still barely made it past F1, saved after failures only by a NASA supply contract. They are a capable launcher, as is ULA. The difference is ULA isn't building a bunch of their own payloads to launch, neither are any other launchers off the top of my head (I guess NG launches Cygnus which they now build).

[Redclaws]

The difference is ULA isn't building a bunch of their own payloads to launch, neither are any other launchers off the top of my head (I guess NG launches Cygnus which they now build).

There are just a few other differences.  Just, ya know, a few.  I could list them but you don't need me to.

[zubenelgenubi]

It's corporate messaging - which is corporate culture set by the leaders of the company.  Tell me, who would you rather have a beer with - Elon, Torry, or Jeff?  There's your corporate culture with some professional discipline thrown in for good measure.

Emphasis mine.

Elon and Tory. Definitely not Jeff. But that's just me...

No it's not.

I am concerned 😟 😨 😕 that a beer 🍺 invitation from Jeff is a ruse to capture me in his galactic menagerie.

However, if an undamaged circa 1964 Susan Oliver is included, I might let myself be captured.

You know, for science.

[Nomadd]

Based on Elon's recent tweets he seems pretty insufferable to be around.

As for making it look easy, SpaceX still barely made it past F1, saved after failures only by a NASA supply contract. They are a capable launcher, as is ULA. The difference is ULA isn't building a bunch of their own payloads to launch, neither are any other launchers off the top of my head (I guess NG launches Cygnus which they now build).

Yeah. That's the difference.

[Bob Shaw]

Based on Elon's recent tweets he seems pretty insufferable to be around.

As for making it look easy, SpaceX still barely made it past F1, saved after failures only by a NASA supply contract. They are a capable launcher, as is ULA. The difference is ULA isn't building a bunch of their own payloads to launch, neither are any other launchers off the top of my head (I guess NG launches Cygnus which they now build).

Yeah. That's the difference.

There's another major internal launch market: Amazon - Project Kuiper - Blue Origin.

[alugobi]

Based on Elon's recent tweets he seems pretty insufferable to be around.

As for making it look easy, SpaceX still barely made it past F1, saved after failures only by a NASA supply contract. They are a capable launcher, as is ULA. The difference is ULA isn't building a bunch of their own payloads to launch, neither are any other launchers off the top of my head (I guess NG launches Cygnus which they now build).

Yeah. That's the difference.

Difficult to determine if ULA makes it look easy because they don't do much.

[dror]

To some, SpaceX made space look immensely complex and high risk !!

[Zed_Noir]

Spaceflight was not and still not easy. SpaceX is an outlier from the rest of the space industry. Able to get things done quicker, cheaper and more efficiently. As long as Musk is the driving force of the company and not handicapped as a public company. SpaceX also have the advantage of being able to abandon projects even after substantial investment if it doesn't advance the company's unstated goal of a viable Mars colony for Musk to retired to.

[redliox]

Spaceflight was not and still not easy. SpaceX is an outlier from the rest of the space industry. Able to get things done quicker, cheaper and more efficiently.

Agreed.  In the end it's just another company, but it is a breath of fresh air badly needed for progress.

As long as Musk is the driving force of the company and not handicapped as a public company. SpaceX also have the advantage of being able to abandon projects even after substantial investment if it doesn't advance the company's unstated goal of a viable Mars colony for Musk to retired to.

I sincerely hope their momentum doesn't slow down at least until travel to the Moon, if not also Mars, is more routine than ISS trips today are.  I'd rather not invoke the space shuttle since I remember how, between shuttle disasters mourning astronauts, it was a frequent joke against NASA; a reminder how what SpaceX succeeded at wasn't easy to achieve for traditional NASA means.

Personally, I think what might have made it at least 10% easier is fact SpaceX isn't as tied down by politics as NASA and likewise Boeing and Lockheed.  Being ordered to use parts for company Z in county G tends to ruin good engineering principles and water down what science agendas were intended.  SpaceX basically forced a return to plain-old competition that forces improvements.

[DanClemmensen]

Spaceflight was not and still not easy. SpaceX is an outlier from the rest of the space industry. Able to get things done quicker, cheaper and more efficiently. As long as Musk is the driving force of the company and not handicapped as a public company. SpaceX also have the advantage of being able to abandon projects even after substantial investment if it doesn't advance the company's unstated goal of a viable Mars colony for Musk to retired to.

This is bothers me. You appear to be reflecting an attitude in the US space industry that only the SpaceX weirdos can do this because they are the only ones who can break away from the Old Space model that was apparently handed down from Werner Von Braun or something. Sort of "we cannot do that because it is not THE WAY! Only Elon the heretic can do that!"

My problem: what happens when China decides to build a Starship competitor? Starship is basically a big stainless steel tube with rocket engines at one end. Sure, there is a lot of other stuff, but that other stuff is not radically more advanced than the latest Long March systems. The reason no US competitor is doing this appears to be institutional, not technical.

[Robotbeat]

I am willing to have a $beverage with pretty much anyone haha. I just like getting to know new people. That's why I like making "beer bets" because even if I lose, I win.