[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?

[inamberclad]

If a manned spaceflight program proceeded to its first flight on time, the universe might just implode.

[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.

[tonyarkles]

And that's kind of the point of the rule :).

>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.

Given that SpaceX wanted to make a more affordable launch vehicle, they obviously needed to design one. But it certainly didn't make their human space flight programme go faster compared to past endeavours.

[avmich]

Not counting Saturn-I AND Saturn-IB?

[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.