[avmich]

This is definitely the wisdom of ages, but some points do show some age.

    39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space
    program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.

Recent SpaceX developments, Starship in particular, put some doubts on this one.

[Zandikar]

Err, what? Keyword there: "New".

SpaceX still faces large costs and delays in developing new launch vehicles, including starship, which is delayed and unfinished btw, so no matter how you try to spin it, Starship is not (currently) a good example of SpaceX being an exception to the adage. Artermis 3 isn't exactly cheap afterall, and if you don't know what that is but know what Starship is, that proves the adage this one is refering to:

> 39[a]. Any exploration program which "just happens" to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program.

The whole point of these two adages is that reusing an existing design is better than a new one. SpaceX's REUSABLE rockets are great for a number of reasons yes, but by definition, those are not NEW launch vehicles. And when they were new, well, lots of delays and setbacks and costs as they kept accidentallying rockets trying to land them. Not a slight against SpaceX btw, that's part of rocket science and innovation, but again, not cheap or quick.

If anything, SpaceX's entire business model is EMBRACING that adage, not disproving it or an exception to it.

EDIT: clarified

[DennisP]

> And when they were new, well, lots of delays and setbacks and costs as they kept accidentallying rockets trying to land them.

They were launching just fine, it's just the landings where they blew up.

This wasn't any sort of delay or major cost. Nobody else was landing rockets at all, they were just blowing them up intentionally. This is still the case today for all production orbital rockets other than SpaceX.

[bombcar]

If I recall correctly they had their experience of them blowing up on the go up part, but that is old history now

[DennisP]

Well yeah almost everybody does on their first attempts. NASA tends to be an exception, but making sure you don't blow up the first time turns out to be way slower than just trying to launch and seeing what goes wrong.

[Zandikar]

I'm agreeing with the adage in question (#'s 39 in OP) that designing any new rocket is going to be difficult or expensive, and if viable, it's better to use an existing. You acknowledge as much later in this thread:

> Well yeah almost everybody does on their first attempts.

The above poster I was responding to was saying the opposite. I was asserting that that's not true, that SpaceX is embracing the adage of not only "Don't reinvent the wheel" but "Hell, let's reuse the wheel".

Also, just because someone has the foresight to budget extra time and money for the inevitable failures/complications of an initial prototype, doesn't mean there weren't extra cost or time involved in the development of that product than if it had worked reliably like a mature, proven design would.

SpaceX has been killing it. I'm not criticizing. I'm just acknowledging these are some VERY basic tenants of engineering and product design PERIOD, no matter if you're making a stapler or a death star.

[DennisP]

I guess I'm misunderstanding how SpaceX follows #39 in the form of "Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles," since SpaceX developed the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and is now working on Starship. There's probably been no point in their history when they weren't working on their next launch vehicle. Sure it's difficult, but just saying it's difficult is not the same as "whatever you do, don't do it."

I do think maybe NASA shouldn't develop any more launch vehicles, but I'm sure glad SpaceX is doing it and so are a bunch of newer companies.

[avmich]

> The whole point of these two adages is that reusing an existing design is better than a new one.

Yes, and that's put in doubt. Starship aims to improve on previous designs - in terms of affordability, that is, making human flights cheaper. This cheapness can't be realized with existing designs, so a new design becomes better in that regard.

> SpaceX's REUSABLE rockets are great for a number of reasons yes, but by definition, those are not NEW launch vehicles.

I don't know how good definition can exclude reusable rockets from being new. Was Shuttle ever new? Delta Clipper? Reusable Falcon-9? Falcon Heavy? I think this is not a good definition, if, according to it, reusable rockets can't be new.

> And when they were new, well, lots of delays and setbacks and costs as they kept accidentallying rockets trying to land them.

Do you know the difference between designing and using? In software it's rather clear, and nobody would expect a half-written program to function according to specs. Neither it's the case in aerospace - while Falcon reusability was being designed and tested, nobody should expect it to perform flawlessly as when used "in production". Not cheap, agree (actually, quite cheap by aerospace standards, but still not some typical household-sized money), but I'd argue that was rather quick - just a few years to put reusable first stage into production starting from announcing the idea and building the first "Grasshopper". So, while 39[a] may stand here, your comment doesn't provide a good justification to it.

> If anything, SpaceX's entire business model is EMBRACING that adage, not disproving it or an exception to it.

SpaceX benefited immensely from using proven solutions, but the results they are showing are still disproving the idea of this law. The ambitions of SpaceX are high compared to the rest of the world launching industry, but so are the results, and we also have genuine "firsts", like putting the reusable first stage into production, or flying reusable spacecrafts to space station, TKSes and Shuttles notwithstanding.

Let me try to explain again my main point: SpaceX aims to make human spaceflight significantly cheaper, and the opinion is that it can't be done without radical redesign from scratch. It was attempted several times in the past, with e.g. Shuttle and Energiya, and it still isn't done today, but if you want to risk being put on the "you're currently here" list of SpaceX achievements(1), which were doubted and then happened, I'd at least propose you to think from the basic assumptions and find out why SpaceX won't actually achieve cheaper human spaceflight this time.

(1) In Russian that list looked like this before reusable Falcon: https://meduza.io/impro/0ZWeCgCXA4nsWv7dj7CHbSIrsURgOh-qpiUh...

[Alupis]

None of this is put in doubt though. Your points about SpaceX's potential for future cost savings and efficiencies are hardly realized today - particularly when considering the length of time that has been spent without a capable manned vehicle. If, fast forward a decade or two and SpaceX is still using today's designs (albeit, upgraded) and actually realized massive savings - then we can talk. However, I'd bet they're going to re-design and build brand new models along the way...

There's a reason military aircraft tend to have extreme service lives. It's far cheaper and effective to upgrade and refit/improve existing airframes with modern technology than it is to start from scratch - every single time.

Look at the F-35 program. It's not exactly fair because the design goals are vastly different - but upgrading aging F-15's has kept them on the battlefield for 47 years[1], and today they're still a seriously potent air superiority fighter. The F-15's of today are only similar in shape to the originals, however.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle

[perilunar]

> There's a reason military aircraft tend to have extreme service lives.

Only during peacetime. During war (hot or cold) they often have a rather short service life before becoming obsolete.

[Swizec]

The “No new launch vehicles” adage reads to me as “Don’t develop a new browser when you make a website”

That doesn’t mean we never need or want a new browser. It just means that developing a browser is a separate project and if your fancy websites requires a new browser, it is in fact a browser development project, not a website project.

[bombcar]

I take it as similar to the “never do a massive rewrite” rule for coding. It’s not that it never should be done, it’s that it shouldn’t ever be assumed to be “the easy part”.

[Zandikar]

> I don't know how good definition can exclude reusable rockets from being new

Because you're hung up on trying to tell me that the concept of reusable rockets is new in a grand history since while I'm trying to convey to you that the original Falcon 9 reusable rockets development ended over a decade ago.

> Do you know the difference between designing and using

You're the one struggling with that concept and the semantics around it, because you yet again prove my point while trying to argue it.

> SpaceX benefited immensely from using proven solutions

I'm glad you agree with the core point of my idea. Weird that you're so combative about it.

> Let me try to explain again my main point:

Don't bother, you missed the point of my comment entirely. Have a nice day.

[avmich]

No understanding :) .

[singleshot_]

> In software it's rather clear

In software, I perceive there to be almost no separation whatsoever between design and use. I’m using windows 11 right now, and sometime in the next few days it will silently download software patches that were designed over the last few days to address situations not considered in the original design of windows 11. Software goes back and forth from the design process to active use pretty much continuously these days.

Just an alternate perspective to think about.

[coldtea]

I don't think that's the case, or all of the case.

Windows might download patches and update components but the core OS design, is there for over 15 or more years, and ditto for most of the userland, when it doesn't go back to Windows NT times..

[singleshot_]

I completely agree with you insofaras parts of the design probably go back to NT. SBut some of the design won’t happen until next week. My interpretation of this is that the design process starts before use and continues until the end of the support lifecycle. I agree that there are some components that we think have been completely designed… but there might be a bug tomorrow in a “core” part of the OS that would require more design, and I don’t think this would surprise anyone if it happened.

I’m not saying necessarily that it’s continuous design, simply that we might return to the design phase at any time.

[idlewords]

Let's put this comment in the comment cellar for a few years, to fully develop the tannins, and then see how it has aged. Starship progress is a little ways away from proving this adage wrong.

[bryanlarsen]

It could be argued that Dragon has already proven this wrong. Falcon 9 was developed in the form it was specifically to launch Dragon. SpaceX's original next rocket was going to be a Falcon 5 until they got the Dragon contract from NASA. Yes, the original Dragon was a cargo vehicle rather than a human spaceflight vehicle, but both Falcon 9 and Dragon were developed with the intention of eventually human rating.

[inamberclad]

Both were late, and I wouldn't say that Falcon was built expressly for humans. It spent a decade proving itself before it flew with people. That's not a _new_ launch vehicle.

[avmich]

> Both were late

What was the "determined" date to have them ready? How do you know they were late? Judging by Elon's estimates?

> I wouldn't say that Falcon was built expressly for humans

You know of course that requirements for the rocket to launch people are different from the rocket to launch only cargo? There were cases when non-human-rated rocket became human rated (at least Proton), but these days it's better to plan ahead, like teams working on Arian-5 (and also Dream Chaser, not a rocket) do. I'd assume Flacon-9 developed from the beginning in such a way so at least human-rating would be possible - if not built-in already.

> It spent a decade proving itself before it flew with people. That's not a _new_ launch vehicle.

I'd agree regarding Falcon-9. Starship is another story.

[inamberclad]

> What was the "determined" date to have them ready? How do you know they were late? Judging by Elon's estimates?

Crew Dragon was approximately 3 years late, from the original planned launch date of 2017 to the actual date of 2020. Given that the contract for the missions were awarded in 2014, it's a miracle that things have proceeded at the pace they have.

> You know of course that requirements for the rocket to launch people are different from the rocket to launch only cargo?

I'm well aware of the differences. I work in this industry. That said, SpaceX made the wise decision to cut their teeth and prove their design on cargo first. That's not a new launch vehicle by definition. They were launching rockets regularly for years before they put people on the pointy end. Most other human-rated rockets in recent history have _only_ launched humans. I'm neglecting older, converted ICBMs like Redstone and Titan. The only standout from this list is probably Soyuz (the R-7 derivative launch vehicle), which has been kept going through sheer inertia.

> I'd agree regarding Falcon-9. Starship is another story.

I suspect that Starship will be years behind schedule before it even launches cargo. I suspect that it will miss NASA's planned lunar landing date, but it won't be at fault because other parts of the program will suffer even worse schedule slips. I understand that people are hopeful that this really will revolutionize spaceflight, and I count myself in that group too! Reality has a way of intruding eventually though. I want SpaceX to build, fly, and trash as many unmanned Starships as it takes to make it reliable. That will cause some level of delay because they'll find something new in the testflights that will necessitate a redesign before it kills someone.

[bryanlarsen]

Congress didn't pay SpaceX the agreed upon amounts for the first 3 years of the contract, and Crew Dragon was 3 years late. Coincidence?

[dylan604]

>I suspect that it will miss NASA's planned lunar landing date, but it won't be at fault because other parts of the program will suffer even worse schedule slips.

Could you imagine if NASA mandated that SpaceX be the launch platform for Boeing's capsule?

[bryanlarsen]

A decade is a short period of time by human-rated-spaceflight standards.

[tonyarkles]

I mean… yes and no. The Apollo program started in 1961, had the first manned flight in 1968, and landed on the moon in 1969. Gemini started in 1961 and had two people in ‘65. Don’t get me wrong, I’m perpetually impressed by the things SpaceX is doing, but don’t let the fact that the rest of the industry has slowed down significantly convince you that SpaceX is moving faster than anyone ever has before.

[themadturk]

For what it's worth, the Apollo program only had one bespoke launch vehicle, the Saturn V. Mercury used the Redstone (for sub-orbital flights) and Atlas, and Gemini the Titan, all of which were developed as ballistic missile platforms.

[hannasanarion]

So? Falcon wasn't a human spaceflight program during that time, and it was also over-schedule and over-budget anyway.

The advice isn't "no new launch vehicles should ever be invented ever", it's "if you want your human spaceflight program to be on time and on budget, don't include a new launch vehicle in the plan"

[avmich]

> The advice isn't "no new launch vehicles should ever be invented ever", it's "if you want your human spaceflight program to be on time and on budget, don't include a new launch vehicle in the plan"

And that advice is being questioned. Starship aims at cost reduction which can't reasonably be achieved by incremental improvements to the status quo.

The "on time" part with Starship is what was formally promised to NASA with the Moon landing vehicle. This may - probably will - slip, but I currently doubt it will slip a lot. Other times regarding Starship are in the realm of estimates or wishful statements. The "on budget" part is something which I doubt even SpaceX accountants may answer - just as software engineers have troubles answering the time - and therefore budget - of a system to be delivered.

The law shows its age. On the other hand, it never claimed to be an absolute truth.

[coldtea]

>Starship progress is a little ways away from proving this adage wrong

Yeah, and will perennially be so

[hliyan]

I think this comment is an artifact of its time, kind of like Knuth's "premature optimization" or Spolky's "never, ever rewrite from scratch". They are mostly valid under the circumstances the author uttered them, but by no means universally applicable, and certainly not to be turned into religious commandments.

P.S. any engineer who counters my request to take perf into consideration with "premature optimization is the root of all evil" is immediately asked to complete the remainder of the quote. Failing to do so usually results in me ejecting the person from the meeting!

[GuB-42]

SpaceX never done a human space program, they are purely about making launch vehicles that, after they have seen substantial development, are taken into consideration by NASA for a human space program.

Furthermore, Starship is not a launch vehicle in the context of Artemis, it is to be used as a lander. The launcher that will launch humans is still SLS (which fits point 39 perfectly).

And SpaceX never was on schedule. Starship development is seriously impressive, but the planned first launch for "BFR" was 2022, and we only got an expectedly failed test flight in 2023. We have absolutely no idea about when it will launch its first payload. Probably not before 2024. The first manned mission (which is not a full manned launch) is planned for 2025 (2 manned launches originally planned for 2024), and is extremely unlikely to make it by that time.

Still excellent by space standards, but doesn't contradict point 39.

[yellowapple]

> SpaceX never done a human space program, they are purely about making launch vehicles that, after they have seen substantial development, are taken into consideration by NASA for a human space program.

Crew Dragon is not a launch vehicle.

[sagarkamat]

SpaceX is literally US's only domestic way to send humans to ISS right now

[bryananderson]

Falcon 9 (plus Dragon) is the definitive counterexample. The jury on Starship remains out.

[vannevar]

Far from being a counterexample, Falcon 9 is a great example of the adage's truth. It flew for 10 years before being used for human missions.

[bryananderson]

Human-rating the then-new Falcon 9 launch vehicle was part of SpaceX’s award for Commercial Crew starting in 2011, and the launch vehicle did not delay the program, so I think it counts. Falcon 9 had flown twice when NASA made the initial award, it certainly wasn’t a proven launch vehicle and it’s easy to imagine it tanking the whole program if it went differently.

[vannevar]

Flown twice is still pre-existing---the vehicle had been in development years before the award. If your point is that the Falcon was pre-existing and it still took a long time to get to crewed flight, that's true. But note that the adage doesn't say the launch vehicle is the only source of delay, only that it is generally the most significant one.

A better counterexample would be a crewed program that developed its own launch vehicle and still completed on time and within budget. If you treat the Falcon 9's development time as part of the overall project (which you should if you're maintaining it's a new vehicle per the adage), then you're looking at something like 15 years just to get a crew to orbit. Which is consistent with the rule.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Yep, they didn't develop a new booster or stage 2 for Crew Dragon. No new launch vehicle.

Starship is likely to be similar. Super-Heavy (the launch portion of the combined vehicle) isn't likely to be scrapped for the crew version after the cargo Starship is ready.

[avmich]

I'd consider development of Crew Dragon to be rather fast - because, in the condition of a private development, it wasn't done before. Comparing to other spacecraft developments, in late 1950-s there was a race, USA vs. USSR, to put a man in space "soonest", and it took Soviets ~3.5 years from the launch of the Sputnik to send Gagarin to orbit. So, just a few short years... and a large government backing.

Still, given that Crew Dragon was developed by a private company and is quite modern judging by performance, I think it's a good result.

[dylan604]

Compare the budget of SpaceX to NASA's up to and through Mercury. NASA's experience was one of something never having been done before compared to the experience of SpaceX seeing many others doing it just needing to tweak the formula to make it affordable. Also, without NASA's burden of being a government pork/jobs program rather than being a streamlined process

[avmich]

You may underestimate the complexities and pace of development at SpaceX. And it can similarly be said that NASA's Mercury program was built on the shoulders of previous achievements in parachutes, heat shield, control etc. SpaceX does use the experience gained in the industry over half a century with a lot of efforts, but that doesn't mean they don't push the progress with their own work.

[bryananderson]

I think the difference between the “private” development of Dragon and the “government” development of Mercury is exaggerated.

Like Dragon, the Mercury capsule was (mostly) designed and (entirely) built by a private contractor, McDonnell Aircraft.

Like Mercury, Dragon was designed and built with input and strict oversight from NASA, including a contingent permanently on-site with the contractor. NASA always had total visibility and the final say on everything.

There are some important differences in the contracting models of the two programs, but a lot of the “private”/“commercial” framing of the ISS crew/cargo programs is just leftover vibes from the 2000s when ”harnessing the dynamic private sector” was the way to frame a new program that you wanted to get funded.

[avmich]

> Like Mercury, Dragon was designed and built with input and strict oversight from NASA, including a contingent permanently on-site with the contractor. NASA always had total visibility and the final say on everything.

I think that's not a contradiction to the Dragon being designed by a private company in a different, organizationally, way than Mercury was designed by a private company.

[inamberclad]

That's still going to be late and over-budget.

[avmich]

Late comparing to what? Maybe SpaceX will not make it ready for NASA's return to the Moon flights as it was planned. However those dates don't look too serious to me - what's the justification for them? I suspect they were specified fully understanding they can easily slip right.

Over-budget - what's the planned budget? I suspect Elon Musk himself doesn't have pre-approved specific budget to develop Starship, which makes sense, as e.g. it's rather hard to pinpont. As for the overall idea for how much Starship development would cost - how do you know it's missed already or going to be missed?

[coldtea]

So, it's not late because the dates weren't serious to begin with?

[avmich]

Yes, there weren't a lot of "formal" dates so far with Starship, the agreement to use it for Artemis Moon landing is one of exceptions. No dates - not late.

[yellowapple]

You can't be behind schedule and over budget if you have neither a schedule nor a budget.

rollsafe.jpg