https://www.independent.com/2024/12/12/chinese-citizen-arrested-for-allegedly-flying-drone-over-and-photographing-vandenberg-space-force-base/?amp=1

So cool. Also, you can approximate the speed in Mach number by the angle of those shockwaves if you wanted

Grok tried

At this point, my *only* conclusion is that ULA is full of a bunch of non-serious people. Yikes.

After correctly predicting the non-viability of rocket reuse, ULA is now confidently forecasting that Starship is not a serious rocket. pic.twitter.com/2RottqFGT1

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) December 15, 2024

I typed the ULA engineer's post into Grok for analysis; here's the reply. (side note LLMs are freaking incredible and are going to change the world even moreso than the internet itself.)

Starship, as capable today, is exactly what the guy said. The viability of Starship depends on the regular occurrence of something that's never been done before, so some skepticism is merited, imo.

It is what the guy said, by design, not because of failure. The point is, keep betting against Elon at your own risk...

Elon is definitely not perfect, the cyberyruck has proved how piggishly hard headed and myopic he CAN be when he wants to be.

This is not one of the times I'd bet on him being wrong though. EOR and docking are not knew, and while not easy, they're common enough to be fairly good bets. The author ofnthat article sounds like he's stuck in the shuttle era.

Cybertruck tech better than any car on the market by a mile, literally innovative in so many ways.

Starship will not cost 800 million to launch 8-10 rockets, more like 80 million. Also payload is already set to increase with a taller Starship.

It seems Elon weighed in on this:

This person is extremely dumb

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 15, 2024

Also, someone posted a screenshot of their (op's) experience showing they worked at SpaceX from like 2015-2019, but they could have faked that though

TexAgs91 said:

---

Now do SLS costs

---

According to Google AI:
SLS dev cost - $11.8B
Starship - $5-10B

I think that person at ULA is tired of SpaceX getting all the attention.

AtlAg05 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Now do SLS costs

---

According to Google AI:
SLS dev cost - $11.8B
Starship - $5-10B

I think that person at ULA is tired of SpaceX getting all the attention.

---

According to Wiki, NASA has already spent $26B on SLS development and has only achieved 1 uncrewed flight.

That probably factors in all the predecessor programs that were cancelled leading up to the current iteration. It costs something like $3 billion per launch, and they can only do 2 launches per year (in theory). And in truth, they are well north of $50 billion in appropriations now, net, so I guess it just depends what one counts as 'development' costs.

Hell, they are paying $146 million for each engine (which is then summarily dumped into the ocean).

4 billion is the most recent number being quoted.

They also still can't produce new engines for it.

Starship is not the most efficient vehicle for lunar insertion, true. It is currently the only product on the market that appears have any medium to long term path to viability however. SLS is basically a failed system. I have no idea what it would take to get it to a point of viability. I also have no faith that anyone involved in that program is capable of getting it there as it stands. I want as many launch systems as possible. I just don't think SLS in its current form is capable of being that on a consistent basis.

I think the ULA guy is being too simplistic. If Starship were to be designed without the "reusability" components, the weight would drop drastically, increasing the thrust/weight ratio, and basically transforming it into Saturn V 2.0. You have two options to get 100 tons to the Moon...not to LEO, but the Moon:

1) You build the biggest mother-loving rocket the world has ever seen and do it like Apollo

2) You build a reusable ship, get the 100 tons to LEO, then refuel it to get to your destination, which is what Starship is doing.

Apollo, and by extension SLS, would have taken forever to get that much mass to the Moon, and would have increased the expense exponentially because you would need a new Saturn V for every launch. It would take over a decade of an impossibly high launch cadence for that system to get a lunar base up and going. Starship, on the other hand, because of its design for reusability and rapid (relatively, anyway) turnaround, is going to drop the launch cost and probably quantity required to do the same thing.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

I think the ULA guy is being too simplistic. If Starship were to be designed without the "reusability" components, the weight would drop drastically, increasing the thrust/weight ratio, and basically transforming it into Saturn V 2.0. You have two options to get 100 tons to the Moon...not to LEO, but the Moon:

1) You build the biggest mother-loving rocket the world has ever seen and do it like Apollo

2) You build a reusable ship, get the 100 tons to LEO, then refuel it to get to your destination, which is what Starship is doing.

Apollo, and by extension SLS, would have taken forever to get that much mass to the Moon, and would have increased the expense exponentially because you would need a new Saturn V for every launch. It would take over a decade of an impossibly high launch cadence for that system to get a lunar base up and going. Starship, on the other hand, because of its design for reusability and rapid (relatively, anyway) turnaround, is going to drop the launch cost and probably quantity required to do the same thing.

---

Yeah, this is what that guy is missing. If SLS is basically setup to be able to do 2 launches per year when operational, and Starship is doing 7-10 per week (assuming launches from both Starbase and Canaveral) when into full tempo launches, that talking point about needing 8 launches for refueling is a nothing burger. Theoretically, SpaceX could send Starship to the moon a dozen or more times a year in the same timeframe that SLS might go twice. And SpaceX will do it for1/10th to 1/100th of the SLS cost.

Yeah anyone criticizing Starship for something like "no mass to Lunar/Mars" orbit from launch is basically telling on themselves. It's like attacking the subway system in NYC for not getting you to LA.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

I think the ULA guy is being too simplistic. If Starship were to be designed without the "reusability" components, the weight would drop drastically, increasing the thrust/weight ratio, and basically transforming it into Saturn V 2.0. You have two options to get 100 tons to the Moon...not to LEO, but the Moon:

1) You build the biggest mother-loving rocket the world has ever seen and do it like Apollo

2) You build a reusable ship, get the 100 tons to LEO, then refuel it to get to your destination, which is what Starship is doing.

Apollo, and by extension SLS, would have taken forever to get that much mass to the Moon, and would have increased the expense exponentially because you would need a new Saturn V for every launch. It would take over a decade of an impossibly high launch cadence for that system to get a lunar base up and going. Starship, on the other hand, because of its design for reusability and rapid (relatively, anyway) turnaround, is going to drop the launch cost and probably quantity required to do the same thing.

---

The heat shield system alone for Starship is 23000lbs. Although there are a number of reasons Elon went with stainless steel, the big one is the heat for reentry, both for the booster and the ship. Change either or both to a carbon fiber structure with cyanate ester matrix and you'll be able to fly further with more payload.

Comparing Sekai-Ichi apples to Chiquita bananas...

The only way to really make SLS viable would be a replacement engine that already exists and can be mass produced, force them to abandon the MLS crawlers/towers for a fixed permanent structure built to handle all planned upgrades, and find an alternative for the SRBs.

Do that, but most importantly, move every bit of it to a fixed cost contract, with fixed deadlines. Give them a sub billion dollar a launch maximum cost, and put penalties in place for missing major deadlines.

That would keep them launching for a few years, despite not being the most efficient system.

I still have a strong belief we will see an very heavy lift variant of starship/SH that will use a disposable upperstage at some point, just to put up payloads requiring very large diameters, or that are willing to pay for an all up performance launch.

If only someone invented and tested an engine more flexible, modern, and powerful than the RS-25. I wouldn't trust it unless the impossible case of being launched 20+ of them at a time. And there would have to be proof it lights at sea level, in the atmosphere, and in vacuum.

Oh well, guess we'll never see that.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Do that, but most importantly, move every bit of it to a fixed cost contract, with fixed deadlines. Give them a sub billion dollar a launch maximum cost, and put penalties in place for missing major deadlines.

---

May not have a lot of players with that kind of structure.

Then it needs to die. That's just the simple truth of the matter... either deliver for a fixed cost and mostly on time, or drop it. I don't understand why that's so revolutionary and repulsive to certain industries.

My guess is you'll see multiple versions of SH/SS that will be ready before SLS. For instance an unmanned reconfigurable SS for use as a space station component and tanker stations. Will be very curious to see what they can do.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Then it needs to die. That's just the simple truth of the matter... either deliver for a fixed cost and mostly on time, or drop it. I don't understand why that's so revolutionary and repulsive to certain industries.

---

That's not the way government contracts work. They are designed to keep big companies in cash, not to be competitive.

Until the government gets out of massive cost plus contracts this won't change.

I agree. Especially as you start seeing raptors coming up on the end of their usable repair/refurbish/refit life span, I could see them transferring them into a disposable stage system. There will definitely be demand if orbital manufacturing continues to evolve. Even if the weight requirements aren't there, the volume offered by that size of fairing volume would be beyond anything ever seen before. If the engines are already heading to the scrappers, throwing them away on a barebones upper stage should be a relatively low cost means to the occasional end.

I look for 5 distinct variants of the upperstage: tanker, cargo, crew, lunar/mars lander and disposable.

Oh I know. Im not saying it will or could, the poster asked how it could be made viable. The shorter answer would have been "it can't"

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Then it needs to die. That's just the simple truth of the matter... either deliver for a fixed cost and mostly on time, or drop it. I don't understand why that's so revolutionary and repulsive to certain industries.

---

There are times when fixed price contracts are not the best choice and to me, development of a brand new space vehicle that has never been flown is one of them. Fixed price contracts during development lead to cutting corners and design compromises in the name of price savings or they lead to long delays while the contractor fights over modifications to pay for things HASA asked for that were not in the original spec. Once you get it developed and proven, then you can ask for fixed price manufacturing and operations contracts. But there is a ton of easy cutting that could go on at NASA that would not affect the safety or quality of a space program a bit.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Oh I know. Im not saying it will or could, the poster asked how it could be made viable. The shorter answer would have been "it can't"

---

Yeah. There was a time when only a government with deep pockets could afford designing and launching men into space. There will be a time when the technology is so mature that it no longer requires any government assistance and commercial entities will compete with each other in the open market. Right now we are in between those points in time.

The question is how long we will be in the middle between the two eras.

txags92 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Then it needs to die. That's just the simple truth of the matter... either deliver for a fixed cost and mostly on time, or drop it. I don't understand why that's so revolutionary and repulsive to certain industries.

---

There are times when fixed price contracts are not the best choice and to me, development of a brand new space vehicle that has never been flown is one of them. Fixed price contracts during development lead to cutting corners and design compromises in the name of price savings or they lead to long delays while the contractor fights over modifications to pay for things HASA asked for that were not in the original spec. Once you get it developed and proven, then you can ask for fixed price manufacturing and operations contracts. But there is a ton of easy cutting that could go on at NASA that would not affect the safety or quality of a space program a bit.

---

Funny, spacex succeeded in producing a brand new, never before flown spacecraft on a fixed cost contract. For less than their competition has failed with.

They developed one of( and will be the sole) best launch vehicles in history as a private firm.

It's funny that one company can do it, but legacy contractors can't.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Then it needs to die. That's just the simple truth of the matter... either deliver for a fixed cost and mostly on time, or drop it. I don't understand why that's so revolutionary and repulsive to certain industries.

---

There are times when fixed price contracts are not the best choice and to me, development of a brand new space vehicle that has never been flown is one of them. Fixed price contracts during development lead to cutting corners and design compromises in the name of price savings or they lead to long delays while the contractor fights over modifications to pay for things HASA asked for that were not in the original spec. Once you get it developed and proven, then you can ask for fixed price manufacturing and operations contracts. But there is a ton of easy cutting that could go on at NASA that would not affect the safety or quality of a space program a bit.

---

Funny, spacex succeeded in producing a brand new, never before flown spacecraft on a fixed cost contract. For less than their competition has failed with.

They developed one of( and will be the sole) best launch vehicles in history as a private firm.

It's funny that one company can do it, but legacy contractors can't.

---

I am not making an argument for traditional NASA contracting, as most of their contractors are hot garbage when it comes to cost control. But having a multi-billionaire running the development as a privately held company means he can gloss over extra costs and not hold up the project, where a publicly held firm has a much harder time "doing things for free" to keep the contract moving. It also helps when NASA is less involved in the development because they add in lots of useless requirements that end up stacking cost when you have to add them in halfway through the process.

I am all for Elon's suggestion of milestone based fixed price contracts. That is how DOD has been doing most of their environmental remediation contracts for the last 20 years and it gives companies great motivation to get sites closed. But using a fixed price contract for the initial investigation of an environmental waste site is a lot like developing a rocket under one. With the waste site, you incentivize somebody to look just hard enough that they can claim to have looked, and once you get into the remediation phase, you are crippled by all the things they didn't find that prevent the remedy from being successful. The same is true for rockets designed to meet a minimum spec. You are creating a huge financial incentive to develop a rocket that will only do the bare minimum to satisfy the milestone instead of delivering a robust design that can
be adapted to fulfill more varied missions in the future.

The FAA will host in-person public meetings on Jan. 7, Jan. 9 and virtually on Jan. 13 to discuss the potential environmental impacts of @SpaceX's revised proposal to increase Starship/Super Heavy Vehicle operations in Boca Chica, TX. Meeting materials: https://t.co/nqmmKrVMcB pic.twitter.com/0YFp92bS7j

— The FAA ✈️ (@FAANews) December 16, 2024