Different design paradigms. In 1969, they had one shot to get everything right, and prepared accordingly (not to mention, they had a massive budget since the space race was all part of the cold war).
SpaceX is taking a different approach, fail fast and cheap. They are taking an iterative approach that allows them to learn from previous failures, rather than anticipating what all those failures could be and then over engineering the rocket to prevent that.
They are different approaches, and each has their own pros and cons. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That’s a great summary, I appreciate it. Do you think the new approach has been worth it so far? The Artemis 1 launch was successful first try.
The Artemis 1 launch was also staggeringly expensive, and yet to be repeated.
In the time it’s taken to develop that rocket, SpaceX has gone from it’s very first real flight (by which I mean actually achieving something, rather than a pure test flight) to launching far more every year than the entire rest of the world combined. Note that by that definition, Artemis hasn’t had a single “real” flight yet.
SLS did a lap around the moon flawlessly and returned safely.
Starship, a scale model of the empty shell that HLS might one day sit in, when it is finally developed, can’t even land without exploding.
According to a recent speech by musk, it wasn’t even the real shell. IFT3 was a 40ton-to-LEO craft, where HLS will have to be around 100, which would take the as of yet unflown and (mostly?) unbuilt “Starship 2”.
And where SLS will simply have to do a repeat of what it has already done for Artemis 2.
HLS will have first be actually built, get launched, get refueled by a tanker craft that also doesn’t exist yet, an unknown number of times (probably 12), fly to the moon, land there, take off, come back, land on earth and then do ALL of that again in time for Artemis 3 where it will have people on board.
SLS is 1 for 1, and if Starship IFT4 does everything right tomorrow, HLS is still at 0. And if it does everything right, I will buy a hat and eat it.
SLS is also ridiculously expensive. They hope, with time, to bring the cost down to $1 billion per launch. And the first one took 6 years longer than expected. If we’re going to get to the moon more than one more time before I die, this isn’t the vehicle I’m going to pin my hopes on.
SLS is currently priced at 4b per launch, based on its one launch.
Starship-HLS has cost at least the 2.9b from the NASA contract, and doesnt exist yet.
SLS is a disposable product based on existing technology. Starship intends to be reusable and is an evolution based on tech developed in the last 20 years.
Neither private companies nor the DoD is interested in using the SLS once it has been proven in the Artemis project, and given the project is based on the time-honored tradition of government pork, it’s doubtful it will ever be economical. Every indication I can see is that the Blue Origin and SLS contract are to hedge bets in case Starship fails. After all, we know SLS will work, but it will always be cost-ineffective just based on the nature of the beast. Blue Origin might work out, but they’ve been around as long as SpaceX and have achieved suborbital flights so far. Meanwhile, SpaceX has had 332 successful launches in 14 years, with 2 failures. Their team seems to know what they’re doing.
As I say elsewhere, Starship is a scale model of an empty shell into which the HLS might one day be built. HLS has not been built. HLS doesn’t even exist as a non-functioning mockup. HLS has not even been designed. The vehicle to carry HLS into space has not been built. The vehicle that will refuel HLS when it eventually has been built, has not been built.
HLS has so far cost 3 billion, and doesn’t exist even slightly. All that exists is a scaled down model of an empty shell and a scaled down model of the booster that has not lifted even a single pound of simulated cargo off the ground.
I’m not saying Starship won’t be a great heavy-lift craft for LEO or maybe GEO cargo one day, but HLS does not exist in any way other than CGI renders, and it has cost 3 billion government dollars so far, and many more other funds.
And that’s not to say I don’t think Falcon isn’t a great machine. It’s a machine that runs entirely on unsustainable artificial demand, but I’m a massive proponent of burning the private venture capital of overly-rich idiots to fund useful spacetravel.
They have completely different goals. If SpaceX wanted to throw out the Starship and Booster sections every time, they’re already as capable as the Artemis launcher. But they are looking longer term, and want to also be 1000x cheaper.
It took them dozens of launches to be able to re-use a Falcon9. They’ll get there eventually.
Nobody thought they’d get Falcon 9 to launch, and they did. Nobody thought they’d get Falcon 9 to land, and they did. Nobody thought they’d be able to re-use a Falcon 9 enough to make it worth the investment, and they did.
Doesn’t mean they’ll succeed, but it does mean they have a good track record.
To put it in context, Artemis did many fully destructive tests but typically on the ground. Artemis had and spent an overhaul budget that was likely close to a hundred times that of what SpaceX is spending in today’s dollars.
And even better representation, all the fully destructive tests of SpaceX have carried out have costs less than a single successful shuttle launch. And it has a much larger payload.
Even with the destructive tests, of which are planned this way, not only is SpaceX is far cheaper than any past space program, they are advancing fairly rapid.
Well, they’ve produced the first, (and only so far), truly reusable rocket.
And starship is slated to be the second.
Easy answer. Far less money is being given today to NASA:
Further, that NASA budget includes all the extra planetary science happening (multiple Mars rovers, Deep Space network, LEO space station operations, deep space probes like DART, Juno, OSIRIS-REx, etc, plus all of the atmospheric flight stuff like the low noise supersonic flight experiments. This also includes all of SLS which is a SECOND rocket being made for Moon exploration.
To answer your second question: yes, reuse is worth it. We didn’t do it during Apollo because it would have been even more expensive. Because we didn’t have it, any flight was just as expensive as the first. So we had to stop going unless the crazy amount of money would stay, which it wouldn’t.
Plus SpaceX squanders far less money than the contractors that have sucked off the government teat via NASA for 50+ years.
Those bloated companies are part of the military-industrial complex and finance lobbying to push projects (especially cost-plus) which they can then “compete” for.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t blame NASA, this is a problem of politicians and grubby bastards in companies like Boeing, General Dynamics, etc. NASA is controlled by congress and whoever is providing financing - the shuttle development history demonstrates these problems very clearly (competing requirements from Air Force, NSA, etc, who were providing funding).
At a high level, NASA, (like many government projects) have traditionally used more of a “Waterfall” project management approach, while SpaceX has used an iterative Agile-like approach. This means SpaceX can be more nimble while learning along the way, enabling them to change direction when they discover a fundamental misunderstanding. The first launch of Starship demonstrates this approach perfectly.
NASA was also different in 1960’s.
People said they could have meeting with supplies and make changes in the meeting. Now it seems like everything is a huge ballache to change anything.
Several reasons.
1 - SpaceX is a startup company. They run on venture capital, and unlike NASA who gets a big bag of taxpayer money, SpaceX has to promise new investors something better every year. And since SpaceX hasn’t come close to turning a profit, they need to do it by making spectacle. Launching Rockets is spectacle. Traditional companies can take their time to get it right, but SpaceX can’t draw in the venture capital they need to survive based on one succesful launch every other year. But they can get money with slightly less shitty failures.
2 - SpaceX is using an entirely new type of engines, burning liquid methane instead of kerosine or hydrogen, and making rocket engines is… well… rocket science. The problem is mostly that it’s really really hard to get engines to relight when you don’t have gravity, and especially hard when it’s methane you’re burning. This is why Apollo used hypergolic engines (fuel that will burn when it touches, instead of needing to be lit) for everyone but the main launch.
3 - SpaceX only got the contract for the lunar lander because the head of the lunar lander program, Kathy Lueders, gave them (and not the other parties) a private call to tell them the exact budget available. Then she awarded the contract to SpaceX, for being the only party to submit a bid within the budget. (Source: https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cv1695-77-0 the court opinion where they spell out this was legal, and say nothing on wisdom or ethics, pdf alert). Incidentally she now has a cushy and well-paid job at SpaceX.
4 - NASA recently paid a second party, blue Origin, to also develop a lunar lander, so feel free to take that as you will. It’s probably not a sign of trust in SpaceX… so I’m willing to say that point 5 is that either SpaceX is shit at this (unlikely, since Falcon 9 is pretty awesome) or they’re just not taking it seriously.
Point 1: SpaceX’s entire development philosophy is “test early, test often and learn from failures”. This is a much quicker pace than simulating every imaginable failure scenario and leads to faster progress in development. With the Falcon 9, that process proved wildly efficient and successful, culminating in a launch vehicle so reliable that it’s cheaper to insure a payload on an F9 that already has multiple launches under its belt than a brand new booster. And they’re turning enough of a profit to develop the Starship largely on internal funds, seeing how the early Raptor flight tests were before the HLS contract.
Point 2: Just adding, the Raptor engine is the first full-flow staged combustion engine to ever get off a testing stand and actually fly. The engineering complexity of these things is on the level of the Shuttle’s RS-25.
Point 3: SpaceX were the only ones with more than designs and mockups to present, and they had a reliable track history from working with NASA on the commercial resupply and crew projects. And I see no problem with awarding a contract to a bid that actually fits into the budget.
Point 4: Multiple options was always part of the plan. NASA wants redundancy, so that if one of the providers runs into problems, the other provider can continue (and perhaps even take up the slack) instead of everything coming to a grinding halt. For a perfect example, look at the Shuttle and Commercial Crew programs. The Shuttle got grounded and since it was NASA’s only manned launcher, they had to bum rides from the russians. In contrast, the CC contract was awarded to Boeing and SpaceX. With Starliner’s continued issues, SpaceX has picked up the slack and fulfilled more than their initial contract in launches, instead of NASA having to bum rides from the russians again. The initial HLS contract was supposed to go to two providers, until the budget got cut. Blue’s bid was always the favorite for the second pick.
SpaceX’s entire development philosophy is “test early, test often and learn from failures”. This is a much quicker pace than simulating every imaginable failure scenario and leads to faster progress in development.
This is a catchy statement, not an actionable philosophy. There’s many ways to do it, and it’s entirely possible that SpaceX is doing it poorly.
There’s a lot of value in brainstorming every imaginable failure scenario. It’s industry standard to do so in fact with HAZOPs. There’s failures that you may not necessarily see in testing – especially those that are rare but catastrophic. This is a field that should be acutely aware of that given past events.
There’s also a right way to do testing and a wrong way to do testing. You typically consolidate tests and do several at a time, depending on the stage in the project. And you don’t typically risk precious equipment in doing so.
From the sounds of it, they don’t have a robust safety program, and they’re hemorrhaging money and resources through poor testing philosophies.
There’s a point at which you learn more from actually building something and putting it through its paces than simulating. It’s a tough balance to strike , no argument there. Simulating until you’ve covered every conceivable edge case and failure mode is ludicrously costly and time consuming. Relying entirely on yeeting shit and seeing how it fails risks missing the edge cases. But so far, I’ve seen little reason to doubt that SpaceX has found a working balance between simulation and practical testing. They’re certainly progressing faster than the industry historically has and the F9 has had no failures, even partial ones, in over 200 flights. That’s a track record that most launch vehicles can’t meet. It’s definitely possible there’s a 1/1000 flaw in the Falcon 9, but until it actually happens and they lose a rocket and/or a payload (gods willing it won’t be crew), it’s nothing but a hypothetical “but what if…” scenario.
SpaceX’s entire development philosophy is “test early, test often and learn from failures”. This is a much quicker pace than simulating every imaginable failure scenario and leads to faster progress in development.
Is it? Starship has been in development since at least 2012-ish (as the “mars colonial transport” or “its” or “bfr” or a few other names). It hasn’t done a succesful mission yet. ULA’s Vulcan was anounced in 2014, and it works just fine. So I don’t really think it’s actually faster or better, but it IS more showy.
They’re turning enough of a profit to develop the Starship largely on internal funds
No they’re not.
SpaceX has reported 1 quarter in 2023 with positive cashflow of 55million dollars out of 1.5b in revenue, and has then gone completely silent again. SpaceX has done 33 commercial launches and 63 starlink launches. Some very basic math shows that there is no way Starlink can pay for that (63 launches times 62 million per launch divided by 2.6 million subscribers = 1500$ per user per year, which is every single subscription dollar). So two-thirds of SpaceX launch income comes from a company that itself is unsustainable and operating on purely on venture capital.
Point 3: SpaceX were the only ones with more than designs and mockups to present
Absolute and complete lie. Its exactly the opposite. SpaceX did not, and still DOES NOT have a solid design or mockup of HLS. Dynetics and Blue Origin had both.
I see no problem with awarding a contract to a bid that actually fits into the budget.
The problem is that SpaceX had a bid at the same level of the others, but they lowered it when Kathy Lueders gave them a call (and not the other parties) to lower it. This is spelled out in NASA’s own document: https://www3.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf (note how it’s fully written in the first person by Kathy herself). This is primary basis, massive favoritism by a NASA employee who then immediately started working for SpaceX. I’ll leave the motivations of her doing these things as an exercise to the reader.
When the other two parties found out, they offered not just to match SpaceX bid, but beat it. Of course, since Kathy Lueders didn’t show them the same favoritism, they didn’t find out till after the bidding process closed.
Multiple options was always part of the plan.
No, the contract stated that anything between zero and three were options, based on funding. They said the goal was two, but then budget was reduced. Nobody was told this. The number of contracts was also reduced to one as a result. Nobody was told this. And then Kathy Lueders gave SpaceX a call, and not the others, to share this information.
Is it? Starship has been in development since at least 2012-ish (as the “mars colonial transport” or “its” or “bfr” or a few other names). It hasn’t done a succesful mission yet. ULA’s Vulcan was anounced in 2014, and it works just fine. So I don’t really think it’s actually faster or better, but it IS more showy.
The first time Starship was spoken of was in 2012, yes. The very first idealistic designs of it. The design that’s actually being tested is from 2018. So 5 years to go from “Alright, this is what we’re gonna do” to full stack flight testing. Roughly on pace with their previous rockets, the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 took about 4 years.
Absolute and complete lie. Its exactly the opposite. SpaceX did not, and still DOES NOT have a solid design or mockup of HLS. Dynetics and Blue Origin had both.
Blue Origin had (and still has) no experience with human-rated capsules. Their proposed lander had to be assembled in lunar orbit or launched on another SLS. The Dynetics lander was over its own mass budget. It was literally too heavy to do the job it was being proposed for. Meanwhile, SpaceX proposed a derivative of what they were already working on. Blue and Dynetics had no practical development done on their landers, they would’ve relied on the HLS award to even get started on actual development.
The problem is that SpaceX had a bid at the same level of the others, but they lowered it when Kathy Lueders gave them a call (and not the other parties) to lower it. This is spelled out in NASA’s own document:
SpaceX’s bid was just under 3B. Blue Origin bid at a bit under 6B. Dynetics wanted 9B. This information is freely available online. SpaceX was also given the least in design development funding, with 135 million versus Blue’s 579 million and Dynetics’ 253 million. It’s not terribly shocking that a company with a good track record and the lowest bid wins a contract.
No, the contract stated that anything between zero and three were options, based on funding. They said the goal was two, but then budget was reduced. Nobody was told this. The number of contracts was also reduced to one as a result. Nobody was told this. And then Kathy Lueders gave SpaceX a call, and not the others, to share this information.
They needed a lander contract. The entire Artemis project was already fucked when it comes to the timetable, but delaying the HLS contract would’ve made things even worse. And when the budget got cut, they negotiated with the one bidder who was deemed most likely to still get the job done with the lower budget, as opposed to the other two whose bids were wildly over what NASA could give them. SpaceX bid at 2.94 billion and the final award was 2.89 billion. Again, BO bid 6 billion and Dynetics bid 9 billion. Losing 50 million is an easier pill to swallow than getting half or a third of what you need.
Meanwhile, SpaceX proposed a derivative of what they were already working on. Blue and Dynetics had no practical development done on their landers, they would’ve relied on the HLS award to even get started on actual development.
Seeing how SpaceX had neither a design or a mockup, they had no development done on their lander. Their lander STILL does not exist, not even as a mockup. They are STILL behind Blue Origin today when it comes to the lander. Blue Origin entered the HLS bid with a full mockup, that was compatible with existing technology. SpaceX entered with no mockup and entirely undeveloped technology, but was somehow judged equal (By Lueders) to Blue Origin based on
SpaceX’s bid was just under 3B.
AFTER being told to do so. That’s the entire problem. Blue Origin and Dynetics both came forward and said they’d gladly match that bid, but since they didn’t get the special information that was only given to SpaceX, they couldn’t know this. BO also clearly said they would gladly develop out of pocket, but they weren’t given the special info. Because, again, the lady currently enjoying a cushy, well-paid contract at SpaceX, only gave new information to SpaceX.
Let me repeat that one more time: The contract was unawardable to two of the parties, because those parties had NOT been given the unknown information that Lueders gave to SpaceX.
SpaceX didn’t need a mockup to present. They had prototypes of the base vehicle and a proposal for necessary modifications to perform the contract duties and an established track record of developing ambitious rocket engines and launch vehicles. BO had bits and pieces of other things they were gonna bolt together and a pretty model of how it’ll look like, we swear, scout’s honor. But if you’re talking about the Blue Moon that eventually won the secondary bid, that’s not what they initially proposed.Blue Moon Mk2 is a variant of a lander that’s been in development since 2016, so two years longer than SpaceX’s Starship prototypes. The one that’s planned for a lunar landing this year, Blue Moon Mk1, isn’t the one they bid for HLS. It’s a robotic lander, smaller than the HLS’s Mk2. So fancy that, they won a HLS contract when they bid a variant of something they were already working on, much like SpaceX did. And remember, BO is developing a lander. SpaceX is developing a fully reusable super heavy lift rocket, an interplanetary transport craft and a lunar lander as part of the same package.
AFTER being told to do so. That’s the entire problem. Blue Origin and Dynetics both came forward and said they’d gladly match that bid, but since they didn’t get the special information that was only given to SpaceX, they couldn’t know this.
Finish reading my post. SpaceX’s initial bid was 2.94 billion and the final award was 2.89 billion. Again, they agreed that they can do the job for 50 million less than what they originally bid. BO’s and Dynetics’ proposals would’ve suffered a much larger hit. And sure, BO got the secondary contract for 3.4 billion, after rethinking their entire proposal. So why did they not submit that one in the first place? If they had, they might have gotten a similar call.
SpaceX didn’t need a mockup to present. They had prototypes of the base vehicle
No they didn’t. They had, a mockup of an empty shell into which they might eventually fit the vehicle. And they still have that.
And remember, BO is developing a lander. SpaceX is developing a fully reusable super heavy lift rocket, an interplanetary transport craft and a lunar lander as part of the same package.
NASA isn’t paying SpaceX for the rocket or transport though, they’re paying for a lander and getting it on and off the moon. But I fully agree that SpaceX developing a booster and LEO-transport is exactly why the lander doesn’t exist yet.
Finish reading my post. SpaceX’s initial bid was 2.94 billion
I did read your post, but what you’re failing to understand is that this 2.94 billion dollar bid was already AFTER they were informed of the budget changes.
And sure, BO got the secondary contract for 3.4 billion, after rethinking their entire proposal. So why did they not submit that one in the first place? If they had, they might have gotten a similar call.
I doubt minimizing corporate loss was Lueder’s motivation there. Presumably neither Steve Cook or Jeff Bezos offered Lueders a
large enough bribejob matching her qualifications.Ugh, you had me defending the ethical sense of Jeff Bezos. I need to go rinse my mouth now.
No they didn’t. They had, a mockup of an empty shell into which they might eventually fit the vehicle. And they still have that.
Blue Origin: “Here’s renders and a papier-mâchė model of what our lander will look like. It’s assembled together in lunar orbit, from an automated cargo ship, our own lander and another Orion.” Note that this isn’t what they won the option b proposal with.
SpaceX: “Here’s renders of what our lander will look like. We have a full scale prototype out in Boca and we’re blowing it up to see if our math and simulations are right on how much pressure the tanks can take. It’ll require some modifications, such as larger landing legs and dedicated landing engines.” And their HLS proposal isn’t a vehicle carried in the Starship’s cargo bay, it is the Starship.
what you’re failing to understand is that this 2.94 billion dollar bid was already AFTER they were informed of the budget changes.
I can find no source for SpaceX’s initial bid being higher, let alone 2x higher (to meet your claim that they bid on the same level as BO, not even gonna consider Dynetics).If you have one, I’d like to see it. And if it is the case that SpaceX was picked because they were willing to slash their bid in half, then I would expect BO’s follow-up litigation to be based around that. Instead, BO focused on the claim that NASA didn’t give their proposal proper evaluation and consideration.
I doubt minimizing corporate loss was Lueder’s motivation there. Presumably neither Steve Cook or Jeff Bezos offered Lueders a large enough bribe job matching her qualifications.
That wasn’t my point. The point was that if their proposal had been closer to the budget set aside for the award, as opposed to being double the budget, they might have been contacted to see if they could complete the contract for the lesser amount.
Remember how Reagan and Thatcher told your parents that private corporations are (somehow) “more efficient” than state run organisations?
Yeah… they lied.
They are more efficient.
-
They are more efficient moving money from the bottom to the top and making investors and CEOs rich.
-
They are more efficient at making the minimum product for the price while suppressing labor, reducing customer service, and enshittifying the product as the lifespan of the company progresses in order to do #1.
Well… since you put it that way - I’ll just have to concede.
-
We privatized anything related to space exploration.
To add on to what everyone else is saying, compared to the Apollo capsules, Starship is fucking HUGE. Apollo 11’s capsule was 10 feet tall by 13 feet in diameter. Starship is 180 feet tall not including the launch vehicle.
Edit to add: Mercury was literally just an ICBM with a dude strapped on top, with Saturn V being based on that design. We’re only now beginning to make designs that are actually made just for space travel.
Also… Starship absolutely got into orbit, and could have completed the orbital insertion part of an Apollo style single use mission.
They just haven’t finished troubleshooting the re-use part yet. It’s already more powerful and cheaper than a Saturn V.
The technology from the Apollo program is gone. It was destroyed and can be developed again but that takes time. Now couple that with the fact that private companies are trying to create a completely new tech with reusable rockets that return to earth intact and you have several engineering hurdles to say the least.
I have to admit it’s a beautiful thing seeing it happen! We’re going to get there again! We must explore space or become stagnant as a species.
What do you mean the tech was destroyed?
There was no need to produce the items in question, so we lost the expertise and the underlying manufacturing facilities/experience/etc. Stuff like: The company that made the windows no longer exists. The company that made the panels still exists, but they can no longer source the strictly defined % alloys as that company no longer exists. Stuff like that.
Also to add to the other person the literal paper files were accidentally destroyed when they were in storage in NASA.
Other commentor answered very well. I’ll just add that if China or Russia starts sending successful ships to the moon/mars and/or starts making real steps for a moon base, then you can bet your ass the US government will pour all their resources into our space program. In other words, the Cold War boosted the space program in the 60s because Russia scary. During “peace-time”, the US government purposely under funds the living shit out of NASA. That’s why private corporations are doing it now, like SpaceX.
I agree, but I’m afraid these days they’d just farm it out to a private business instead of doing it themselves with the goal of doing it right like they did in the 60’s. Today they’d overpay some billionaire hugely for worse results because greed for profit = overcharging and substandard parts and oversight.
I don’t know for sure but if it started to suck after 1980, it was Reagan’s fault.
Safety, scope of mission, budget
The first moon missions were extremely risky. Many people died during development and/or during those missions. As NASA evolved, they reprioritized safety and that changed the demands of the vehicle.
The scope of the missions are also different. The first moon missions were, mostly, about just getting there. Taking moon samples back and doing science experiments were limited. The mission now is for a larger group of people to stay on the moon for week/weeks.
Budget has been a huge issue since the 80s. Once the allure of new and exciting space things died down after the first landing on the moon, public perception and federal budgets got moved to other things. The reason NASA is using the SpaceX rocket isn’t because they couldn’t make something better. But SpaceX has done a lot of the development on their own dime. Getting a moon-worthy rocket without an additional decade of funding and research ensures reasonable timeframes for the new moon missions.
In the early 70s it was a risky and expensive one-time deal. Starship is doing it sustainably and will completely revolutionize space travel. I wouldn’t say they’re struggling they’re just still developing it.
The capabilities of starship are orders of magnitude more payload and for orders or magnitude less money at the same time.
Turns out it’s a bad idea to totally scrap a billion dollar rocket every time you use it.
I may have missed it in another comment, but I believe part of it is the cost of lives. During the space race someone dying would’ve just been part of the risk. Now we are using more automation and a human fatality might risk a company’s ability to continue its pursuit.
modern companies use “Agile” development
Because politicians cared more about it back then, nowadays they’re too concerned about making the other political party “lose” than doing stuff to actually benefit the country’s citizens
.
