So true.

Success is not the absence of failure. Many people are confused about that. Indeed, real success is the willingness to risk failure.

The main risk here is not rockets blowing up, but SpaceX trying to operate inside a regulatory environment where failure is punished. Witness the FAA holding them back, and the environmental lawsuits.

Mike C.

So true.

Success is not the absence of failure. Many people are confused about that. Indeed, real success is the willingness to risk failure.

The main risk here is not rockets blowing up, but SpaceX trying to operate inside a regulatory environment where failure is punished. Witness the FAA holding them back, and the environmental lawsuits.

Mike C.

planning to explode, failing and development are very different things.

What would have been learned if it hadn't of blown up? It could very well still be a failure if no development goal was reached other than running an engine.

Elon is designing the way Cannons were designed. they blew up until they didnt'.

Fail faster, succeed sooner.

Only if you call "Trial and Error" a design tool.

My take on the root problem is that technology has become too complex to manage well. When I started at a national lab 35 years ago, a really good engineer / scientist could have an understanding of ever facet of a major proejct. They might not know the details but they could know enough to make good decisions.

Today that just isn't true. Projects are so complex that no one understands them, so no one can make effective decisions, trade-offs etc.

SpaceX did very well by optimizing a conventional rocket design, with the addition of fly-back landing - ending up with Falcon - a really excellent launch vehicle. Whether they can make the much larger BFR work will be interesting to see.




NASA and Boeing have lost that ability, and hence they are unable to compete, or even get a system operational at any cost.

Sadly, it is not just NASA and Boeing, it is all of government and most of the Fortune 500 companies.

Small companies and innovators like SpaceX could fix many of corporate America's failings, but corporate America has bought and paid for the government, so they work together to make sure there are unlimited barriers to entry and success.

As for the government, I have no idea how we fix that.

Only if you call "Trial and Error" a design tool.

Science is the art of the unknown. Theory is what people seem to hate the most but also demand for the answers it gives.

Engineering is the art of extrapolating from the the known. That's why they pay Engineers the "big bucks".

There is a difference between; "we've never done this before; and the cutting edge of known engineering".

I think that Elon Musk wants to be the Steve Jobs of space.

https://youtu.be/ew6fv9UUlQ8?si=LtMdpkb0Qwz2OvzR

Artemis delayed another year.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/c ... ut-a-year/

Further delays and cost overruns should be expected.

I'm will be surprised (but very happy) if the moon landing actually happens. Too many reasons to kick the can down the road and let the next administration take the risk of failure.

I really really hope I'm wrong

It will happen, the lander will say SpaceX on the side...

Maybe, but only if the government is funding it. The moon is not on SpaceX's to-do list, and right now Starship's development schedule is a large reason for the delay.

Seems like it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS

They just recently demonstrated the elevator.

https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/nasa ... ar-lander/

Mike C.

Cost issues aren't any surprise. It's my understanding that the Congressional requirement to use antiquated technologies from the Space Shuttle era were uniquely onerous to both cost and development time.

I work with a fair share of technologies from the 1990s that aren't well documented enough to be duplicated without significant investment in R&D to re-invent the thing. I assume one-off space systems designed in the 1970s have been even more difficult to accommodate.

NASA funded programs (at APL, JPL, and others) have gotten very good over the past three decades designing and building uncrewed systems for discovery outside of Earth's orbit, and probably should have maintained those mission profiles. The engineers who designed the last NASA crewed launch system are most certainly retired and most likely dead of old age, and the few exceptions were hired by SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others.