[userbinator]

and the forces involved here are genuinely new

I remember growing up with things proudly advertised as "space-age technology"... which largely meant the 1950s and 1960s, and of course it's what got us to the moon, multiple times. Yet more than a half a century later, new rockets just don't seem that impressive in comparison.

[swiftcoder]

> Yet more than a half a century later, new rockets just don't seem that impressive in comparison

We have 15x reduction in payload-to-orbit costs, 20x increase in launches/year, significantly increased reliability during missions (test explosions like this one are tests for a reason), and reliable vertical landings with reusable lower stages.

The current crop of rockets may not be as visually impressive as a Saturn 5, but they are well on their way to making orbital space flight a commodity rather than a risky experiment

[adev_]

> and reliable vertical landings

We know how to do reliable vertical landing since the DCXA in 1991. Meaning more than 25y ago [1]

> reliability during missions (test explosions like this one are tests for a reason)

Static fire tests are routine since the 60s, nothing new here either [2].

> We have 15x reduction in payload-to-orbit costs

This is about manufacturing optimization and it has very little to do with rocket safety.

> hey are well on their way to making orbital space flight a commodity

They are not. It is at best marketing speech. The access to space is at best cheaper but will never be commodity.

The parent post is right on point: Rockets todays are still fundamentally the same giant bomb filled at 85% with explosive that we were making in the 60s. And this is unlikely to change and unlikely to ever be safe.

There is very valid reasons to that: we still did not find anything better than chemical propulsion to go in the last 80 years. It is the only 'working' solution in term of the energy density required to bring us there:

- Ion thrusters have amazing Isp but nowhere the Thrust/Weight ratio required to launch from Earth.

- Nuclear propulsion is good on paper but controversial in practice for pretty obvious reasons.

So we are still stuck. Stuck with burning 1'000t of highly inflammable Ergols in few minutes to just push any blob in orbit. With very thin engineering margins, way thiner than in airplane manufacturing or currently pretty any other domain.

And that make it unlikely to ever be really "safe" and accessible to the mass.

At least, not before we find a better solution to the problem.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBar3FyI_cA

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rP6k18DVdg

[MarkusQ]

>> and reliable vertical landings

> We know how to do reliable vertical landing since the DCXA in 1991. Meaning more than 25y ago

One could argue the applicability of "reliable" given the project's track record, but it's not really relevant in any case since that program only got up a few kilometers and nowhere near orbital velocity.

[hgoel]

Really not convincing that you know what you're talking about if you're taking the DCX prototypes flying up to 3km as meaning that we had landing orbital class boosters sorted out in 1991. That was a hopper vehicle comparable to the original SpaceX Grasshopper prototype.

[adev_]

> that we had landing orbital class boosters sorted out in 1991

SpaceX first stage boosters are not orbital class.

They reach around Mach 6 (Up to my knowledge) at top course and around Mach 3 on descend before the landing burn.

Valid criticism however would be that the DC-X was intended for a return head first with a belly flip. Not tail first like SpaceX boosters.

As such, it is much more similar to Starship spacecraft.

[hgoel]

An orbital class booster isn't a booster that goes to orbit, it's a booster that is part of an orbital rocket stack.

The important distinction is that the DC-X prototype was, at best, supersonic given the low altitude and flight time record, while any efficient booster powering an orbital spaceflight is easily going hypersonic by the time it's returning to Earth.

[m4rtink]

Still, you ideally just want to launch people and some complex machinery from Earth & produce about everything for in space use from local resources. That makes it possible to heavily optimize Earth to LEO craft for safety and reliability, alleviating most of these concerns.

[TheOtherHobbes]

If I had a few hundred billion lying around, I'd be spending a couple of billion a year on grants for new physics research.

Hire all those smart people who waste their lives being quants and steer them in the direction of something useful.

[notahacker]

This is fair but I'm not sure the low hanging fruit is going to be developing technology that can reach earth escape velocity without being extremely sensitive to how well built and prepared the system applying the enormous amount force required is. Even the hypothetical stuff like Spin Launch and space elevators is going to have catastrophic failure modes....

[adev_]

> If I had a few hundred billion lying around, I'd be spending a couple of billion a year on grants for new physics research.

Unfortunately, this is not the way the world is going right now.

Physics research, and generally speaking fundamental research, is publicly funded.

Meaning, most of the time, under funded.

[NetMageSCW]

Falcon 9 is as reliable and safe as an airliner flight - what more do you want?

[adev_]

Not even close by 3 order of magnitude.

Falcon has an accident rate of 2/640.

Airlines are about ~1.3 / 10^6

[m4rtink]

Arguably the first Starship launch for example (the one with concrete rain) was pretty impressive, at least on this end of the webcast! :)

[areoform]

Our species is pretty young, around ~2 million years old, give or take a few million / hundred thousand years depending on whom you're talking to.

We've had this technology for ~70 years. That's 0.0035% of our species lifetime. That's pretty new.

We're used to thinking of things in human time scales, but it took us how long to master fire? And then smelt metals? And then learn mathematics...? These things take time for a species to master.

[xboxnolifes]

Personally, I'm impressed with just how unimpressed I am. Or rather, rocket launches feel like they really are becoming more and more commoditized. To the point that routine trips to the moon doesn't feel like a crazy future.

[maaaaattttt]

The contrast in my opinion comes more from the fact that 50 years prior to the space age people rode horses as a standard mean of transportation (more or less). It’s underwhelming to not see the line going from horse to rocket continue on the same path 50 years later.

[wongarsu]

We went to the moon in the late 60s as a massively expensive cold-war propaganda campaign, after the Soviet Union humiliating America for years when it came to firsts in space. It was a question of honor and showing that capitalism is better than communism.

Then it took roughly 50 years of progress to make space flight cheap enough that the economics make sense. With a couple setbacks a long the way that might have cost us a decade or two