SpaceX Starship: payload ??? pounds, ???% reusable, ??? estimate per reuse, hasn't flown once
Taking Elon numbers for what Starship might one day be and comparing it to the SLS which is actually working right now is entirely misplaced.
If and when the numbers turn out to be true, then I will join in congratulating an extraordinary accomplishment from SpaceX. We are nowhere close to that though at the moment, so let's reserve judgement of how Starship may or may not compare to SLS.
Elsewhere in this discussion thread there's also cynicism as to why NASA isn't using cheaper / more efficient SpaceX hardware. I won't go into arguing all the criticism that's thrown at the edges, but instead simply point out that NASA has awarded SpaceX a $1.15b contract for second Artemis mission. https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-spacex-1-15-billion-contra...
They pretend that NASA/Congress would just say "whee, full tilt SpaceX" right away if SLS failed, and I don't see the evidence.
SLS Development started in 2011, I suspect decision to build was way before (budget had to be allocated after all). SpaceX first F9 launch was June 2010 and landing was Dec 2015. On 2011 they were awarded contract to develop launch escape system for Dragon for preparation of crew launch.
I mean at the time SLS was planned everyone was laughing Elon off at the idea of landing a rocket. SpaceX was new kid on the block and not yet as trusted and reliable as we view them today. I think it wouldn't have been a wise decision to: "No, let's not develop a rocket for us to go to moon, let's wait maybe some commercial launcher will have so much success and resources that we will do it so much cheaper after 10-15 years."
So, what I want to say - SLS looks like an old-time-space participant, and if capabilities will be here (I sure think so), it will be much cheaper to achieve moon landings.
1. Efficiency is not an American value. The society almost always chooses decentralization over efficiency. For good and ill, the SLS project looks like America.
2. I don't think SpaceX is lacking talent at this point. Their primary constraint is time, not money. The Starship will fly when it's ready.
3. Three Falcon Heavy rockets can't launch the same payload as a single SLS. Cost per payload mass is only one factor. Maximum payload and the physical dimensions of the fairing are often equally important constraints. And those, rather than the price, are the main reasons why the Starship looks so promising.
AFAIK the former is a shipping product while the latter, the Starship, hasn’t shipped yet, right?
> Even if you take the argument that Starship has not flown and the prices are not there yet- 3 falcon heavy rockets can lift the same payload today at a fraction of the cost.
If that’s true, why would SpaceX develop a whole new craft for the intended payload if they could do it with existing hardware (the 3 falcon rockets you cite)?
So if I were you I would shut up, just in case, given that SLS flew 7 years later than expected and Bolden was destroyed for his laughable interview.
Falcon heavy is delivering real payloads, Starship will do the same soon, SLS will maybe fly another time of two before retirement.
I can’t wait to see your post next time that SLS will fly.
I have a hard time understanding the stance of “if it’s not ready exactly when SLS launches then it’s not comparable.” We are talking about decade spanning technologies and investments here
It's not a flying rocket, and it may yet need significant adjustments before it gets there - especially given that SpaceX has a very iterative development model.
Also remember that the current Starship design requires a completely unproven technology (in-orbit refueling) to be able to reach the moon - it can't do so in a one-shot manner like SLS will hopefully succeed today. That piece of the mission alone may significantly alter the capabilities and costs.
These are decades long investments and technologies. The next Artemis doesn’t launch for something like 2 years. Starship/Superheavy will be flying by then. I don’t see the point of declaring non-compete just because it’s not flying at exactly this moment.
SpaceX’s refueling for approach may need iteration but they have shown incredible ability to iterate. It’s also cheaper by orders of magnitude.
If you were running a business and deciding on a 5 year vendor contract, would you just ignore the vendor who had a 10x better product but required you to wait a bit (and you were not in a rush?)
That is the Starship module part. I edited out a portion where I indeed incorrectly claimed that Starhsip module hasn't been tested, and replaced by pointing out that the combination of launch vehicle (super heavy booster) + starship hasn't been tested. When comparing "Starship" with SLS, we actually mean the whole two-stage rocket, not simply the part of it named Starship.
> The next Artemis doesn’t launch for something like 2 years. Starship/Superheavy will be flying by then.
This remains to be seen. It was supposed to be flying this year, or even last year in some older estimates. As we've seen from SLS itself, (6) years of delay for these types of subjects are not surprising.
> SpaceX’s refueling for approach may need iteration but they have shown incredible ability to iterate.
Absolutely, but iteration necessarily implies changes in the current design - which is why I'm saying we don't actually know what the final version of Starship will support.
> If you were running a business and deciding on a 5 year vendor contract, would you just ignore the vendor who had a 10x better product but required you to wait a bit (and you were not in a rush?)
It depends on how confident I can be, and in how little of a rush I am. If I think they will deliver the first copy of the 10x better product 5 years from now, I may well award a 5 year contract to the vendor of the 0.1x product today, and have something to work with for the next 5 years.
Unless I missed something, it seems to me that NASA is being highly strategic and practical, in contrast to theoretical debate.
> As of 2019, only three full-flow staged combustion rocket engines had ever progressed sufficiently to be tested on test stands; the Soviet Energomash RD-270 project in the 1960s, the US government-funded Aerojet Rocketdyne Integrated powerhead demonstration project in the mid-2000s,[6] and SpaceX's flight capable Raptor engine first test-fired in February 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle
If you want to learn more
A little under half the cost of destroying Twitter?
It's not an accurate cost for the SLS, you don't come up with the cost of a SpaceX launch by taking into consideration their whole operating budget. Even your Starship cost is inaccurate by half, a single Starship launch can only get it to low Earth orbit with just enough fuel to land. To get anywhere interesting a Starship needs to refuel in-orbit, a capability SpaceX has yet to demonstrate even at the small scale. So every Starship launch needs a second buddy launch to refuel in orbit.
The SLS is not a perfect launch system but it's actually flying right now. Starship is still years out and requires unproven and as-yet undeveloped technology. It'll be interesting when it flies but it's a lot of undelivered promises at the moment.
This is genuinely one of the most vile and disgusting things I've read on this thread so far. Cheering on the hypothetical destruction of people's hard work to create a significant engineering and technological milestone is so fundamentally antithetical to the hacker ethos that I can't believe you found it acceptable to put that into writing in such a crass manner.
> Imagine what SpaceX could have produced for $21b
Considering the vast majority of SpaceX's technical achievements are built on the back of the American taxpayer (through use of public-domain NASA documentation and blueprints as well as government contracts), likely not much. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, SpaceX's strengths lie in their crack team of software engineers for which you can credit their advances in reusability, not necessarily their hardware.
It's extremely tiresome to see individuals so cynical that their bias against government-funded research and technology manifests in such an ugly way, especially against the backdrop of such a magnificent success story despite overwhelming odds. Good night.
Re-linking my earlier response about Raptor engines: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33620423
They are the only current player building with stainless steel.
Software alone doesn’t let you catch a rocket out of the air when it lands.
We literally just pulled out old shuttle engines from storage for today’s launch. And new ones will cost 146M a pop. And they aren’t as sophisticated as the SpaceX Raptor.