Has SpaceX Made Space Flight Look Easy ?

[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