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.

[AJW]

To put looking easy into perspective, yesterday NASA/Michaud finished an aft lox barrel for SLS.   They stopped, took photos of the assembly crew in front of the barrel, and wrote up a press release.   Can you imagine SpaceX stopping production and doing a press release every few days every time three or four SS/SH rings are assembled?

[alugobi]

The reason no US competitor is doing this appears to be institutional, not technical.

I think that that's exactly what he's getting at.

[greybeardengineer]

To put looking easy into perspective, yesterday NASA/Michaud finished an aft lox barrel for SLS.   They stopped, took photos of the assembly crew in front of the barrel, and wrote up a press release.   Can you imagine SpaceX stopping production and doing a press release every few days every time three or four SS/SH rings are assembled?

Those who build a vehicle per year have a very different idea of milestones than those who build a vehicle a week. For some it is a momentous achievement, for others it is Tuesday.

[tyrred]

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.

Unstated goal of a viable Mars colony... C'mon.

It has been stated over and over.

Musk is never retiring. He will work himself in to the grave.

[woods170]

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.

Emphasis mine.

Correct. That is the sole reason why no legacy US competitors are attempting to do the same. You know: Old Space.
More recent competitors, such as RocketLab, are a different kind. Like SpaceX they are not hindered by institutional reasons or "we cannot do it because it is not THE WAY".

[kevin-rf]

I would argue argue no legacy competitors have attempted what SpaceX is doing because most companies do not like uncertainty and risk. What SpaceX has done in many ways was a huge gamble, with huge risks, that they managed to get to work. When you have a large company, with a large number of employees, it is very hard to take such a risk that might put them all on the unemployment line. Musk is willing to gamble. Well that's not fair, he's willing to do things without closing the business case. Risk aversion is what kills innovation, and why small startups are nimble and can usually out perform a large entrenched rival. A large number of startups also fail.

That said, I still get a huge pit in my stomach every time a Falcon 9 goes up. Things can still go wrong. Relief occurs when the payload(s) are deployed to the planned orbits.

[JayWee]

I would argue argue no legacy competitors have attempted what SpaceX is doing because most companies do not like uncertainty and risk.

Not trying to defend Old Space too much, but there was a period in the 90ties where people dreamed up megaconstellations (Telesdic) which did not pan out. So they didn't want to try and fail again. It took another 20 years of technology development to get there. SpaceX got very lucky that several completely independent areas (ISS, computers, internet, ... ) lined up perfectly.

[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.

Unstated goal of a viable Mars colony... C'mon.

It has been stated over and over.

Musk is never retiring. He will work himself in to the grave.

A viable Mars colony have been stated. A Musk Martian retirement home not so much.

There is no reason why Musk couldn't work from Mars before his possibly very brief retirement.

[Robotbeat]

I would argue argue no legacy competitors have attempted what SpaceX is doing because most companies do not like uncertainty and risk.

Not trying to defend Old Space too much, but there was a period in the 90ties where people dreamed up megaconstellations (Telesdic) which did not pan out. So they didn't want to try and fail again. It took another 20 years of technology development to get there. SpaceX got very lucky that several completely independent areas (ISS, computers, internet, ... ) lined up perfectly.

SpaceX made their own luck by choosing to create demand to justify their RLV.

[JAFO]

I'm reading a book right now called "A Short History of Seafaring" by Brian Lavery, highly recommend it. At almost 400 pages it's not exactly short, but is very well written. It's been a great reminder of how hard seafaring was, and the cost it took on those early pioneers when many vessels never came back, or one boat from a flotilla and only a handful of starving men.

SpaceX has made spaceflight routine, but insiders know it's is not easy.

[Robotbeat]

I'm reading a book right now called "A Short History of Seafaring" by Brian Lavery, highly recommend it. At almost 400 pages it's not exactly short, but is very well written. It's been a great reminder of how hard seafaring was, and the cost it took on those early pioneers, when many vessels never came back, or one boat from a flotilla and only a handful of starving men.

SpaceX has made spaceflight routine, but insiders know it's is not easy.

Yeah, super easy to take for granted.

[Danderman]

Things will get interesting when and if there is a comparable competitor to Falcon.

[steveleach]

Things will get interesting when and if there is a comparable competitor to Falcon.

Is it looking likely that will happen before SpaceX themselves make Falcon obsolete?

[SpeakertoAnimals]

Things will get interesting when and if there is a comparable competitor to Falcon.

Is it looking likely that will happen before SpaceX themselves make Falcon obsolete?

Falcon will be launching Dragon for a while after SS/SH takes over Falcon's other functions.

[DanClemmensen]

Things will get interesting when and if there is a comparable competitor to Falcon.

Is it looking likely that will happen before SpaceX themselves make Falcon obsolete?

Falcon will be launching Dragon for a while after SS/SH takes over Falcon's other functions.

But those F9 launches are not competing with services from new launchers for almost all payloads, only crewed payloads and CRS payloads. Furthermore, Starship may (I'm guessing) become available for CRS and crewed missions in the same timeframe as other new launchers.

[SpeakertoAnimals]

Things will get interesting when and if there is a comparable competitor to Falcon.

Is it looking likely that will happen before SpaceX themselves make Falcon obsolete?

Falcon will be launching Dragon for a while after SS/SH takes over Falcon's other functions.

But those F9 launches are not competing with services from new launchers for almost all payloads, only crewed payloads and CRS payloads. Furthermore, Starship may (I'm guessing) become available for CRS and crewed missions in the same timeframe as other new launchers.

I see I wasn't clear. Starship will take over most Falcon satellite launches first. Its first crewed flights will involve traffic between LEO and the moon. Starship will probably also do some station duty. The last flights Falcon will do will probably be crewed launches and reentry for NASA and for docking to ISS, as NASA will be hesitant to dock something as large as Starship to ISS.

[Surfdaddy]

Things will get interesting when and if there is a comparable competitor to Falcon.

Given the glacial pace of BO and the early stage of other companies like Rocketlab, SpaceX is 10-20 years ahead of its competitors.

[DanClemmensen]

Things will get interesting when and if there is a comparable competitor to Falcon.

Is it looking likely that will happen before SpaceX themselves make Falcon obsolete?

Falcon will be launching Dragon for a while after SS/SH takes over Falcon's other functions.

But those F9 launches are not competing with services from new launchers for almost all payloads, only crewed payloads and CRS payloads. Furthermore, Starship may (I'm guessing) become available for CRS and crewed missions in the same timeframe as other new launchers.

I see I wasn't clear. Starship will take over most Falcon satellite launches first. Its first crewed flights will involve traffic between LEO and the moon. Starship will probably also do some station duty. The last flights Falcon will do will probably be crewed launches and reentry for NASA and for docking to ISS, as NASA will be hesitant to dock something as large as Starship to ISS.

SpaceX will want to retire F9 as soon as it is feasible so it can retire the expensive infrastructure. They will also want to provide crew transportation and cargo to LEO stations, eventually including ISS if it is still operating. If those stations are (understandably) unwilling to allow a behemoth to dock with them, then SpaceX will need to provide small taxi craft that stay in orbit near each station to transfer crew and cargo the last kilometer.

[docmordrid]

SpaceX will want to retire F9 as soon as it is feasible so it can retire the expensive infrastructure. They will also want to provide crew transportation and cargo to LEO stations, eventually including ISS if it is still operating. If those stations are (understandably) unwilling to allow a behemoth to dock with them, then SpaceX will need to provide small taxi craft that stay in orbit near each station to transfer crew and cargo the last kilometer.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the shuttle craft permanently docked at the stations, then moving to the Starship as needed? Otherwise, maintaining them in orbit will require constantly monitoring their relationship to each other and extra propellants for station keeping.

[DanClemmensen]

SpaceX will want to retire F9 as soon as it is feasible so it can retire the expensive infrastructure. They will also want to provide crew transportation and cargo to LEO stations, eventually including ISS if it is still operating. If those stations are (understandably) unwilling to allow a behemoth to dock with them, then SpaceX will need to provide small taxi craft that stay in orbit near each station to transfer crew and cargo the last kilometer.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the shuttle craft permanently docked at the stations, then moving to the Starship as needed? Otherwise, maintaining them in orbit will require much fuel for station keeping and constantly monitoring their relationship to each other.

Certainly. I was sloppy. I meant that the taxi would not be brought up to orbit with each Starship flight, but would instead remain at the station.

[Ludus]

Boeing and Airbus made commercial aircraft look easy. A measure is that they have little competition. SpaceX hasn’t gotten there yet based on the large number of potential competitors still trying to get into orbit with their own rockets from scratch.

At the point SpaceX hopes to be at by the end of the 2020’s with thousands of Starship launches per year, there won’t be anymore garage startups trying to build orbital launchers. Much of the competition for that will have evaporated but there will be much more Capital and many more startups taking advantage of SpaceX Starship to build other businesses in Space. At that point SpaceX will have made Spaceflight = Earth Orbit launch look easy. The goalposts for what’s hard about Space will have moved elsewhere.

[rpapo]

Boeing and Airbus made commercial aircraft look easy. A measure is that they have little competition. SpaceX hasn’t gotten there yet based on the large number of potential competitors still trying to get into orbit with their own rockets from scratch.

At the point SpaceX hopes to be at by the end of the 2020’s with thousands of Starship launches per year, there won’t be anymore garage startups trying to build orbital launchers. Much of the competition for that will have evaporated but there will be much more Capital and many more startups taking advantage of SpaceX Starship to build other businesses in Space. At that point SpaceX will have made Spaceflight = Earth Orbit launch look easy. The goalposts for what’s hard about Space will have moved elsewhere.

Quite possible, but I think that certain state actors (and perhaps some commercial) will invest in building Starship wannabes.  You need look no further than some of the posts we've been seeing about China of late.  Between their engineering studies and corporate logos that looks almost identical to SpaceX's, they are giving a whole new view of "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

Their biggest problem will be making something equivalent to the Raptor.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

With CRS-25 I’ve just realised that within the next 2 years there will have been more Dragon flights  (v1 + v2, cargo & crewed) to the ISS than there were shuttle flights (36?). Similar timescales too, shuttle ISS flights were over about 12.5 years (Dec 1998 to Jul 2011), first Dragon to ISS was May 2012.

I’m not sure about looks easy (CRS-7 …), but - as others have said - definitely looks routine.

Edit to add: if CRS-25 successfully docks, I make it the 32nd Dragon flight to visit ISS

[laszlo]

With CRS-25 I’ve just realised that within the next 2 years there will have been more Dragon flights  (v1 + v2, cargo & crewed) to the ISS than there were shuttle flights (36?). Very similar timescales too, shuttle ISS flights were over about 12.5 years (Dec 1998 to Jul 2011).

I’m not sure about looks easy (CRS-7 …), but - as others have said - definitely looks routine.

How many Dragon flights does it take to equal the cargo and crew capacity of one Shuttle, though? Not only was the Shuttle taking up (and bringing down) crew and cargo, it also took up most of the ISS, too.

Of course, to be fair, one also needs to compare price per mass unit to orbit (and back).

[libra]

It certainly has made space discussion forums more annoying (and polarized).   

I wonder if SpaceX could cure cancer, end hunger and poverty in the world, and bring worldwide peace ? and also makes unicorns real ? And I'd like a pony, too.

(P.S: before savaging me, it is just the thread title I find irritating - I was poking some fun at it).

[TEAMSWITCHER]

The first step to every space disaster is complacency.  After the modifications from the Challenger accident, the Space Shuttle program operated for 15 years without a serious incident.  We all know how that went.

Given the recent unplanned explosion at the base of Booster 7 (also Atmos 6, CRS-7, & Dragon 2 Explosion) it's clear that SpaceX has a pattern of explosive mistakes.  I pray this pattern stays away from the Falcon 9/Dragon 2 program to ferry humans to and from ISS.

[ZachF]

it's clear that SpaceX has a pattern of explosive mistakes.

 
Falcon 9 is probably the most reliable LV ever made at this point

[Cherokee43v6]

The first step to every space disaster is complacency.  After the modifications from the Challenger accident, the Space Shuttle program operated for 15 years without a serious incident.  We all know how that went.

Given the recent unplanned explosion at the base of Booster 7 (also Atmos 6, CRS-7, & Dragon 2 Explosion) it's clear that SpaceX has a pattern of explosive mistakes.  I pray this pattern stays away from the Falcon 9/Dragon 2 program to ferry humans to and from ISS.

Incidents that occur during a testing program for a completely different vehicle have little bearing on the operation of a separate system where the operational parameters are known.

Equating what happened during the Booster7 Spin Test with 'operational complacency' on Falcon9 is the worst sort of straw-man argument.

Should SpaceX have known such a conflagration was possible during the test?  Maybe.  Hindsight is always 20/20 but foresight... well as Yogi Berra said, "The problem with predicting the future is that it is very hard."

In years past, when incidents like what occurred during the B7 test happened, one of the first statements SpaceX has made is "This is why we test."  You learn the limitations and the out of margin activities so that in the future you better understand what you can and cannot do.

Never equate a test program to an operational one.  If you have operational examples that imply complacency, please list them.  Quite frankly I have yet to see anything that implies anything of the sort.  In fact, SpaceX has a very well established track record of learning from any issues and implementing improvements to mitigate against those issues going forward.

[spacenut]

Shuttle could deliver a maximum of 16,050 kg to the ISS which includes crew.  Dragon II can deliver 6,000 kg of pressurized and 500 kg of unpressurized cargo to ISS.  A second Dragon II with crew would have to be launched to = a shuttle launch. 

Cost of Shuttle flight was over $1 billion per flight.  Cost of Dragon II is about $150+ million per flight.  Cost of a Dragon II with crew is $250 million+.   

Add the two SpaceX flights together for a crew + cargo similar to shuttle to be say $500 million vs $1 billion+ for a Shuttle flight.  So SpaceX is cheaper, especially with a used booster.  So SpaceX's cost is at least half the cost of a shuttle. 

I am just guessing based on various threads here.  Actual shuttle costs may have been higher.  Someone with actual figures may chime in with actual costs. 

Shuttle made space flight look easy with the exception of the two shuttle losses.  SpaceX is now doing the same.  Hopefully there will be no crew losses.  Early on SpaceX lost a cargo launch.  A shuttle loss was far more expensive to overcome. 

[DanClemmensen]

Shuttle could deliver a maximum of 16,050 kg to the ISS which includes crew.  Dragon II can deliver 6,000 kg of pressurized and 500 kg of unpressurized cargo to ISS.  A second Dragon II with crew would have to be launched to = a shuttle launch. 

Cost of Shuttle flight was over $1 billion per flight.  Cost of Dragon II is about $150+ million per flight.  Cost of a Dragon II with crew is $250 million+.   

Add the two SpaceX flights together for a crew + cargo similar to shuttle to be say $500 million vs $1 billion+ for a Shuttle flight.  So SpaceX is cheaper, especially with a used booster.  So SpaceX's cost is at least half the cost of a shuttle. 

I am just guessing based on various threads here.  Actual shuttle costs may have been higher.  Someone with actual figures may chime in with actual costs. 

Shuttle made space flight look easy with the exception of the two shuttle losses.  SpaceX is now doing the same.  Hopefully there will be no crew losses.  Early on SpaceX lost a cargo launch.  A shuttle loss was far more expensive to overcome.

And if you needed to deliver a new big piece of the ISS today, you could use a Falcon Heavy for less than the cost of a Shuttle flight, so even that capability of the Shuttle is covered.

[TEAMSWITCHER]

The first step to every space disaster is complacency.  After the modifications from the Challenger accident, the Space Shuttle program operated for 15 years without a serious incident.  We all know how that went.

Given the recent unplanned explosion at the base of Booster 7 (also Atmos 6, CRS-7, & Dragon 2 Explosion) it's clear that SpaceX has a pattern of explosive mistakes.  I pray this pattern stays away from the Falcon 9/Dragon 2 program to ferry humans to and from ISS.

Incidents that occur during a testing program for a completely different vehicle have little bearing on the operation of a separate system where the operational parameters are known.

Equating what happened during the Booster7 Spin Test with 'operational complacency' on Falcon9 is the worst sort of straw-man argument.

Should SpaceX have known such a conflagration was possible during the test?  Maybe.  Hindsight is always 20/20 but foresight... well as Yogi Berra said, "The problem with predicting the future is that it is very hard."

In years past, when incidents like what occurred during the B7 test happened, one of the first statements SpaceX has made is "This is why we test."  You learn the limitations and the out of margin activities so that in the future you better understand what you can and cannot do.

Never equate a test program to an operational one.  If you have operational examples that imply complacency, please list them.  Quite frankly I have yet to see anything that implies anything of the sort.  In fact, SpaceX has a very well established track record of learning from any issues and implementing improvements to mitigate against those issues going forward.

Atmos-6 and CRS-7 were not testing programs.  The Dragon 2 explosion was a test, but also happened very late in the development of the spacecraft, catching everyone by surprise, delaying the Commercial Crew program, and raising more that a few eyebrows in the process.

So, I don't think your argument holds any water.

[Cherokee43v6]

The first step to every space disaster is complacency.  After the modifications from the Challenger accident, the Space Shuttle program operated for 15 years without a serious incident.  We all know how that went.

Given the recent unplanned explosion at the base of Booster 7 (also Atmos 6, CRS-7, & Dragon 2 Explosion) it's clear that SpaceX has a pattern of explosive mistakes.  I pray this pattern stays away from the Falcon 9/Dragon 2 program to ferry humans to and from ISS.

Incidents that occur during a testing program for a completely different vehicle have little bearing on the operation of a separate system where the operational parameters are known.

Equating what happened during the Booster7 Spin Test with 'operational complacency' on Falcon9 is the worst sort of straw-man argument.

Should SpaceX have known such a conflagration was possible during the test?  Maybe.  Hindsight is always 20/20 but foresight... well as Yogi Berra said, "The problem with predicting the future is that it is very hard."

In years past, when incidents like what occurred during the B7 test happened, one of the first statements SpaceX has made is "This is why we test."  You learn the limitations and the out of margin activities so that in the future you better understand what you can and cannot do.

Never equate a test program to an operational one.  If you have operational examples that imply complacency, please list them.  Quite frankly I have yet to see anything that implies anything of the sort.  In fact, SpaceX has a very well established track record of learning from any issues and implementing improvements to mitigate against those issues going forward.

Atmos-6 and CRS-7 were not testing programs.  The Dragon 2 explosion was a test, but also happened very late in the development of the spacecraft, catching everyone by surprise, delaying the Commercial Crew program, and raising more that a few eyebrows in the process.

So, I don't think your argument holds any water.

Both of your Falcon examples are from very early in the program and modifications were made to the launcher.  There have been no incidents like those since.

As to the Dragon test explosion, once again, modifications were made to the vehicle to eliminate the potential for the problem to occur.  The source of said problem being a residual system left-over from the original plan for propulsive landing (reusable valves).  Again, no similar issue has occurred.

Again, I ask you to point to something that shows complacency rather than teething problems in operational development.

[AmigaClone]

Shuttle could deliver a maximum of 16,050 kg to the ISS which includes crew.  Dragon II can deliver 6,000 kg of pressurized and 500 kg of unpressurized cargo to ISS.  A second Dragon II with crew would have to be launched to = a shuttle launch. 

Cost of Shuttle flight was over $1 billion per flight.  Cost of Dragon II is about $150+ million per flight.  Cost of a Dragon II with crew is $250 million+.   

Add the two SpaceX flights together for a crew + cargo similar to shuttle to be say $500 million vs $1 billion+ for a Shuttle flight.  So SpaceX is cheaper, especially with a used booster.  So SpaceX's cost is at least half the cost of a shuttle. 

I am just guessing based on various threads here.  Actual shuttle costs may have been higher.  Someone with actual figures may chime in with actual costs. 

Shuttle made space flight look easy with the exception of the two shuttle losses.  SpaceX is now doing the same.  Hopefully there will be no crew losses.  Early on SpaceX lost a cargo launch.  A shuttle loss was far more expensive to overcome.

And if you needed to deliver a new big piece of the ISS today, you could use a Falcon Heavy for less than the cost of a Shuttle flight, so even that capability of the Shuttle is covered.

The Shuttle launch costs are not adjusted for inflation, which would make the price difference even greater.

New Station modules delivered via the Falcon Heavy would likely require new (longer) fairings.

[alugobi]

it's clear that SpaceX has a pattern of explosive mistakes. 

Which pattern is that?

[rpapo]

it's clear that SpaceX has a pattern of explosive mistakes. 

Which pattern is that?

I don't know what TEAMSWITCHER's list will look like, but for SpaceX there are two kinds of explosions: in testing, and in production.  SpaceX is famous for its explosions in testing, but many people think that such things give SpaceX a black eye.  In reality it is their favored approach to testing: "If we aren't blowing up anything, we aren't testing hard enough."

But in terms of failures in production, there are very few:
(1) One Merlin 1C engine failed on CRS-1, but the rocket made it to orbit anyhow.
(2) AMOS-6 blew up during a tanking test.
(3) CRS-7 blew up in flight.
(4) A couple of boosters have failed to return since booster recovery was declared standard procedure.

[DanClemmensen]

Shuttle could deliver a maximum of 16,050 kg to the ISS which includes crew.  Dragon II can deliver 6,000 kg of pressurized and 500 kg of unpressurized cargo to ISS.  A second Dragon II with crew would have to be launched to = a shuttle launch. 

Cost of Shuttle flight was over $1 billion per flight.  Cost of Dragon II is about $150+ million per flight.  Cost of a Dragon II with crew is $250 million+.   

Add the two SpaceX flights together for a crew + cargo similar to shuttle to be say $500 million vs $1 billion+ for a Shuttle flight.  So SpaceX is cheaper, especially with a used booster.  So SpaceX's cost is at least half the cost of a shuttle. 

I am just guessing based on various threads here.  Actual shuttle costs may have been higher.  Someone with actual figures may chime in with actual costs. 

Shuttle made space flight look easy with the exception of the two shuttle losses.  SpaceX is now doing the same.  Hopefully there will be no crew losses.  Early on SpaceX lost a cargo launch.  A shuttle loss was far more expensive to overcome.

And if you needed to deliver a new big piece of the ISS today, you could use a Falcon Heavy for less than the cost of a Shuttle flight, so even that capability of the Shuttle is covered.

The Shuttle launch costs are not adjusted for inflation, which would make the price difference even greater.

New Station modules delivered via the Falcon Heavy would likely require new (longer) fairings.

Shuttle was a magnificent system with great capabilities. I was just trying to show that there was nothing that Shuttle could do that cannot be done more cheaply today. The earlier post had covered crew and cargo to ISS, so I was attempting to fill in the remaining gap.

I think that each major new station module for an LEO station would be a major piece of custom engineering and a custom project. New fairings for the launch vehicle are a fairly minor part of that project in time and cost. In this regard, an FH launch imposes fewer design constraints on the module than a Shuttle launch.

[AmigaClone]

it's clear that SpaceX has a pattern of explosive mistakes. 

Which pattern is that?

I don't know what TEAMSWITCHER's list will look like, but for SpaceX there are two kinds of explosions: in testing, and in production.  SpaceX is famous for its explosions in testing, but many people think that such things give SpaceX a black eye.  In reality it is their favored approach to testing: "If we aren't blowing up anything, we aren't testing hard enough."

But in terms of failures in production, there are very few:
(1) One Merlin 1C engine failed on CRS-1, but the rocket made it to orbit anyhow.
(2) AMOS-7 blew up during a tanking test.
(3) CRS-7 blew up in flight.
(4) A couple of boosters have failed to return since booster recovery was declared standard procedure.

Since Block 5 was introduced in May 2018, there have been 105 booster landing attempts after Falcon 9 launch. with 101 successful landings (1 attempt failed to land on the landing zone 1 and 3 missed their drone ship).

The Falcon Heavy using Block 5 boosters attempted 6 landings so far with the four side boosters all landing successfully on the landing pads. The core booster of the first FH Block5 launch landed on a drone ship but tipped over while returning to port. The core booster of the second FH Block5 launch missed the drone ship.

[rpapo]

it's clear that SpaceX has a pattern of explosive mistakes. 

Which pattern is that?

I don't know what TEAMSWITCHER's list will look like, but for SpaceX there are two kinds of explosions: in testing, and in production.  SpaceX is famous for its explosions in testing, but many people think that such things give SpaceX a black eye.  In reality it is their favored approach to testing: "If we aren't blowing up anything, we aren't testing hard enough."

But in terms of failures in production, there are very few:
(1) One Merlin 1C engine failed on CRS-1, but the rocket made it to orbit anyhow.
(2) AMOS-6 blew up during a tanking test.
(3) CRS-7 blew up in flight.
(4) A couple of boosters have failed to return since booster recovery was declared standard procedure.

Since Block 5 was introduced in May 2018, there have been 105 booster landing attempts after Falcon 9 launch. with 101 successful landings (1 attempt failed to land on the landing zone 1 and 3 missed their drone ship).

The Falcon Heavy using Block 5 boosters attempted 6 landings so far with the four side boosters all landing successfully on the landing pads. The core booster of the first FH Block5 launch landed on a drone ship but tipped over while returning to port. The core booster of the second FH Block5 launch missed the drone ship.

Now if we really want to go into the deep, dark past, there are the three Falcon-1 failures.

My point remains: SpaceX may be "explosive" at times, but those times are almost entirely relegated to R&D or QA.  The customer has only had to suffer the consequences three times so far, and the most recent of those incidents was AMOS-6, which accident occurred in September 2016.  And SpaceX made it up to them.

There have been 136 good launches since then.

[Stan-1967]

.....

Never equate a test program to an operational one.  If you have operational examples that imply complacency, please list them.  Quite frankly I have yet to see anything that implies anything of the sort.  In fact, SpaceX has a very well established track record of learning from any issues and implementing improvements to mitigate against those issues going forward.

Atmos-6 and CRS-7 were not testing programs.  The Dragon 2 explosion was a test, but also happened very late in the development of the spacecraft, catching everyone by surprise, delaying the Commercial Crew program, and raising more that a few eyebrows in the process.

So, I don't think your argument holds any water.

I think you changed the argument that Cherokee was responding too.  The response was to not compare testing failures to operational failures when trying to link "complacency" as a cause within SpaceX culture.   Please cite any evidence from the accident investigations & failure root cause of AMOS-6 or CRS-7 that point to complacency?   Same goes for the testing in BC or McGreggor.  Please also cite your access to any NASA audits, industry audits, or your own personal access & positions within SpaceX to make a statement on "complecency culture" so that your judgement can be evaluated.    Can you produce something like an "Augustine report" that is model document for supporting allegations of this nature.

As an FYI, rockets in general are kind of explody type of machines.  Spend 20 minutes on youtube watching all the exploding rockets throughout history.  It happens.  SpaceX's failures have been a very small fraction of all the global failures throughout history.  Even just comparing the against current era peers they are doing just fine in operational flights. 

[steveleach]

Chill guys

[DanClemmensen]

Atmos-6 and CRS-7 were not testing programs.  The Dragon 2 explosion was a test, but also happened very late in the development of the spacecraft, catching everyone by surprise, delaying the Commercial Crew program, and raising more that a few eyebrows in the process.

So, I don't think your argument holds any water.

Yep, it's terrible how the Dragon 2 explosion delayed CCP. A real space company using the proper tried-and-true deliberate development methodology would never have such a setback. Look at Starliner as a shining example.

The Boeing Starliner and SpaceX Crew Dragon contracts were awarded simultaneously in 2014 with both companies expected to fly their crewed flight tests in 2017. Crew Dragon was almost three years late. By contrast, Starliner will only be five years late, if they fly successfully in December.

[Stan-1967]

The Boeing Starliner and SpaceX Crew Dragon contracts were awarded simultaneously in 2014 with both companies expected to fly their crewed flight tests in 2017. Crew Dragon was almost three years late. By contrast, Starliner will only be five years late, if they fly successfully in December.

I would add to this that CCP showed that space flight is not easy, even if you are SpaceX or Boeing.  Both have had their challenges, whether they be financial/budgetary, technical, or culture & others. 

I don't think the explosion of crew dragon on a test stand was an easy problem to solve.  I recall Musk stating sometime before being awarded the CCP contract that a CRS capsule could carry a passenger if i just had some SCUBA style O2 tanks & CO2 scrubber.   It didn't quite get executed that way.  Boeing also had a huge legacy of experience to draw from, but that didn't seem to help them.  They are slogging through tough integration issues that will probably get resolved, but at very high cost to the program. 

I think about all the other "new space" and old space companies that don't even try crewed flight, and that speaks volumes to how difficult it is.  Even the crowded field of "new space" launch providers has more failures than successes in just getting to orbit.

So does SpaceX make it look easy?  I'd say thats a big "NO!", they are a rare example  of success, and their story of how they got there is highly interesting.  I think it can only look easy to the uninformed observer.  Similar to how some lay people can understand how a walkie talkie works , but understanding the inner workings of a digital 5G smartphone?  No way even an above average lay person understands all the technology needed to make a smartphone.

[alugobi]

I would add to this that CCP showed that space flight is not easy, even if you are SpaceX or Boeing. 

And what really separates those two is this:  when SX blows something up, we in the community expect a couple of tweets and then not long thereafter some photos of new or changed hardware components start showing up and going to a test stand.  In that regard, they don't disappoint.

They don't screw around and they're not afraid of tossing out a design.  They collectively act like they have a mission.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SpaceX has taken 30 people to space in less than 2.5 years, notably more than anyone else:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/since-crew-dragons-debut-spacex-has-flown-more-astronauts-than-anyone/

Since Crew Dragon’s debut, SpaceX has flown more astronauts than anyone
"Thank you for an incredible ride up to orbit and an incredible ride home."

ERIC BERGER - 10/14/2022, 10:57 PM

From the article marking Crew-4s return:

In a little more than two years, SpaceX has surpassed the total number of astronauts launched into orbit by China, whose human spaceflight program dates back to 2003; and in the time Crew Dragon has been operational, it has exceeded even the Russian Soyuz vehicle in terms of the total number of people flown into space during that period.

Even assuming Starliner comes on-line in the next few months, I don’t see SpaceX’s crewed flight rate dropping (with non-NASA missions for Polaris and Axiom). Hard to see who else will achieve a similar rate?

[catdlr]

SpaceX has taken 30 people to space in less than 2.5 years, notably more than anyone else:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/since-crew-dragons-debut-spacex-has-flown-more-astronauts-than-anyone/

Since Crew Dragon’s debut, SpaceX has flown more astronauts than anyone
"Thank you for an incredible ride up to orbit and an incredible ride home."

ERIC BERGER - 10/14/2022, 10:57 PM

From the article marking Crew-4s return:

In a little more than two years, SpaceX has surpassed the total number of astronauts launched into orbit by China, whose human spaceflight program dates back to 2003; and in the time Crew Dragon has been operational, it has exceeded even the Russian Soyuz vehicle in terms of the total number of people flown into space during that period.

Even assuming Starliner comes online in the next few months, I don’t see SpaceX’s crewed flight rate dropping (with non-NASA missions for Polaris and Axiom). Hard to see who else will achieve a similar rate.

Over the course of 30 years, the Space Shuttle flew 355 humans.  That would bring the rate to 29 humans every 2.5 years.  So Dragon and Space X is doing a little better for now and will eclipse that rate in the future with passenger Starships.  Source

[gsa]

Over the course of 30 years, the Space Shuttle flew 355 humans.  That would bring the rate to 29 humans every 2.5 years.  So Dragon and Space X is doing a little better for now and will eclipse that rate in the future with passenger Starships.  Source

355 is number of different humans. Total number of flyers is 852 (from the same source). It's about 70 humans every 2.5 years. On the other hand, it is quite hard do compete on this parameter with a system that flies 7 people at once and can not spend more than two weeks in space.

[Robotbeat]

It is too bad Dragon went down to 4 from 7. But again, we’re just waiting for Starship which ought to blow all these out of the water in a few years.

[gsa]

It is too bad Dragon went down to 4 from 7. But again, we’re just waiting for Starship which ought to blow all these out of the water in a few years.

It's neither bad nor good. It's the capacity not needed right now. Those seven people need to have a destination to go to. There is none at the moment for so many at once.

[Robotbeat]

It would be useful for the ISS Axiom missions, ie surge capacity at ISS like Shuttle did.

[Hog]

It is too bad Dragon went down to 4 from 7. But again, we’re just waiting for Starship which ought to blow all these out of the water in a few years.

852 humans from 0 to 25k aboard Starship, that'll be the day. I wonder how long we'll have to wait?  It's going to be a fascinating journey regardless.

[Zed_Noir]

It is too bad Dragon went down to 4 from 7. But again, we’re just waiting for Starship which ought to blow all these out of the water in a few years.

852 humans from 0 to 25k aboard Starship, that'll be the day. I wonder how long we'll have to wait?  It's going to be a fascinating journey regardless.

If SpaceX introduces a 18 meter diameter inspace vehicle (Mars Colonial Transporter) sometime in the future. Then conceivably a Starship passenger LEO ferry variant could also be introduces to bring up to 300 passengers for transfer to the inspace vehicle.

Inspace as not for reentry back to Earth. But probably can land and take off from Mars.

[Hog]

Shuttle could deliver a maximum of 16,050 kg to the ISS which includes crew.  Dragon II can deliver 6,000 kg of pressurized and 500 kg of unpressurized cargo to ISS.  A second Dragon II with crew would have to be launched to = a shuttle launch. 

Cost of Shuttle flight was over $1 billion per flight.  Cost of Dragon II is about $150+ million per flight.  Cost of a Dragon II with crew is $250 million+.   

Add the two SpaceX flights together for a crew + cargo similar to shuttle to be say $500 million vs $1 billion+ for a Shuttle flight.  So SpaceX is cheaper, especially with a used booster.  So SpaceX's cost is at least half the cost of a shuttle. 

I am just guessing based on various threads here.  Actual shuttle costs may have been higher.  Someone with actual figures may chime in with actual costs. 

Shuttle made space flight look easy with the exception of the two shuttle losses.  SpaceX is now doing the same.  Hopefully there will be no crew losses.  Early on SpaceX lost a cargo launch.  A shuttle loss was far more expensive to overcome.

And if you needed to deliver a new big piece of the ISS today, you could use a Falcon Heavy for less than the cost of a Shuttle flight, so even that capability of the Shuttle is covered.

There's more than getting that big piece up to orbit.  Shuttle capability NOT covered.

[Robotbeat]

You can use the capability of Dragon as a tug to get that piece up there (as Orion is planning for Gateway).

The capability of Shuttle that hasn’t been covered yet is the ability to return large things.

[gsa]

It would be useful for the ISS Axiom missions, ie surge capacity at ISS like Shuttle did.

They would need much more living space to accommodate additional people. Shuttle had its own.
Look, I'm not saying 7-seat Dragon would never be needed. Just that it's not needed right now.

[Zed_Noir]

It would be useful for the ISS Axiom missions, ie surge capacity at ISS like Shuttle did.

They would need much more living space to accommodate additional people. Shuttle had its own.
Look, I'm not saying 7-seat Dragon would never be needed. Just that it's not needed right now.

Think either the Axiom modules or less likely a modified Cygnus pressurized cargo module will increase the ISS accommodation capacity.

[DanClemmensen]

It would be useful for the ISS Axiom missions, ie surge capacity at ISS like Shuttle did.

They would need much more living space to accommodate additional people. Shuttle had its own.
Look, I'm not saying 7-seat Dragon would never be needed. Just that it's not needed right now.

Use an Orion. May as well get something useful out of it.

[testguy]

Yup, to date.

[libra]

It would be useful for the ISS Axiom missions, ie surge capacity at ISS like Shuttle did.

They would need much more living space to accommodate additional people. Shuttle had its own.
Look, I'm not saying 7-seat Dragon would never be needed. Just that it's not needed right now.

Use an Orion. May as well get something useful out of it.

It is so damn heavy, and expensive. Nothing a Falcon 9H can't handle however; as for cost... IDK, but it's Lockheed, and a NASA contract, so won't be cheap, even if some more are build.

[AmigaClone]

It is too bad Dragon went down to 4 from 7. But again, we’re just waiting for Starship which ought to blow all these out of the water in a few years.

The reason for the change is that, once SpaceX had discarded propulsive landing, concerns were raised within NASA about the g-forces crew members might experience during splashdown. This led to NASA deciding to change the specification for the angle of the ship’s seats for landing.

To avoid additional delays while Dragon 2 was completely redesigned to accommodate seven seats meeting the new NASA specification, SpaceX decided to reduce the number of available seats to 4.

Could SpaceX design and build a 'Dragon 3' capable of handling a crew of 7 (8?) using seats that would meet NASA's requirements? I suspect that might be possible - although the theoretical 'Dragon 3' likely would be larger than Dragon 2.

Would that be likely to happen when taking into account the expected number of Crew Dragon flights before it (and the Falcon 9) are  retired?  No.

Having said that,I suspect the if the following happened we might see what I called 'Dragon 3'.

1) A customer came to SpaceX's headquarters asking about a version of Crew Dragon capable of at least 7 people that also meets NASA's requirements.
2) Said  customer pays SpaceX for it to conduct an initial study on what it would take to design and develop the crew version of 'Dragon 3', including potential cost for that design.
3) if SpaceX determines it's viable, customer pays for SpaceX to complete the the design.
4) While 'Dragon 3' is being designed, the customer orders and pays for enough missions using that new design for SpaceX to justify building at least two of the Crew Dragon 3 capsule.

[gsa]

It would be useful for the ISS Axiom missions, ie surge capacity at ISS like Shuttle did.

They would need much more living space to accommodate additional people. Shuttle had its own.
Look, I'm not saying 7-seat Dragon would never be needed. Just that it's not needed right now.

Think either the Axiom modules or less likely a modified Cygnus pressurized cargo module will increase the ISS accommodation capacity.

Sure. But as of right now, there aren't any of them flying.