Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
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: ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?202… 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.
Bimfred@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
Bimfred@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
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.
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.
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.
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: www3.nasa.gov/…/option-a-source-selection-stateme… (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.
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.
Bimfred@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
Blue Origin had (and still has) no experience with human-rated capsules. The Dynetics lander had a negative mass margin. It was literally too heavy to do the job it was proposed for. Meanwhile, SpaceX proposed a derivative of what they were already working on.
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.
They needed a lander contract. 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.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
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
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.