I'm rooting for SpaceX because no one else in the world is even attempting to do what they're doing.
Every single time SpaceX has set a goal, there were detractors who claimed they would never accomplish it. And along the way, there were plenty of failures that almost proved the detractors right. But every time--so far at least--SpaceX persevered and eventually succeeded.
When SpaceX decided to re-use their boosters, most people thought they were idiots. They would never be able to do it, and even if they did, it would never make financial sense. Even today, SpaceX is the only company to fly with "flight-proven" boosters, but no one is skeptical anymore. Almost every new launch vehicle, including several Chinese ones, are designed to be re-usable.
When SpaceX decided to build the Falcon Heavy, with 27 first-stage engines, many people thought it would fail. "Remember the N1," they said, which was doomed from the start because they could never get all its engines to work together. But the Falcon Heavy worked and gave us those indelible views of twin boosters landings.
When SpaceX decided to build Starlink, many people thought it was crazy. 5,000 satellites!? Are you crazy? How are you going to manufacture, much less launch that many satellites? Today they have 7,500 working satellites and they are literally launching more twice a week. Starlink has changed the communications satellite industry (there are at least 3 serious competitors).
I remember the first Starship launch, when 5 of its 33 engines failed almost immediately. Skeptics thought the Raptor engine was dead on arrival. Too complicated compared to the proven Merlins and way too unreliable to power Starship. They will never get it to work. And yet, in later flights, all 33 engines worked perfectly all the way to ascent. No one worries about the booster anymore.
When I first heard they were going to catch a returning booster at the launch tower I thought they were mad. I thought that was a long-term plan that might happen sometime in 2030, after they refined the system. But no, they went ahead and caught it on Flight 5. Since then they have caught two other boosters and have reflown one in Flight 9.
People who don't follow the space industry don't yet realize how revolutionary Starship it. It is not just the largest rocket in history; its crazy goal is to be able to launch, land, and then launch again with minimal refurbishment and minimal cost.
If all they wanted to do is launch something to orbit and discard the rocket, SpaceX could have done it on their first flight with a much less ambitious design. The reason it's taking so long (and will continue to take so long) is because their ultimate goal is something no one has come close to achieving: a rocket that can be reused like an airliner.
Musk once quipped that SpaceX is good at turning 'impossible' into 'late'. It's true that they have missed almost every single deadline they have ever set. But it's also true that the things SpaceX has done were once deemed to be impossible.
And that's why I'm rooting for them, no matter how many ships they blow up.
F9 was on paper conservative tech, seen as technically possible, but operationally difficult / economically not feasible for startup. Starship pushing so many boundaries, it is indeed revolutionary, many critics thinks it's a technical moonshot. I want it to work, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't, or very, very late.
Empirically, you're right. Starship has taken much longer than F9 just to reliably put something in orbit.
What I don't know--because I'm not in the field--is whether that's because of design complexity (size, need for header tanks, etc.) or because the Starship team is not as tight (larger team, weaker leaders, distracted Musk).
It was conservative in that IIRC the criticism against F9 at the time, landing/1st stage reuse was seen as technically feasible, but economically not. VS criticisms of starship (even before people starting hating on Elon)... it's not technically impossible, but Starship stacked with multiple F9 resuable tier generation leap in requirements. It's another level of difficulty in terms of undertaking.
IMO economically, F9 + starlink pretty good business model. Starship + _____? It's not Moon or Mars. IMO once DoD gives SpaceX a few 100 billions in Golden Dome contracts, starshipwill start to seem much more viable / inevitable once it's fate is tied to strategic space weaponization. On topic DoD, let's not forget there's probably trillions $$$ of wasted technically feasible / moonshot prototypes from US MiC over the decades. Starship might end in that pile, but I'm optimistic it won't be, not because space but weapons in space.
> IMO economically, F9 + starlink pretty good business model. Starship + _____?
I think the best business model is Starship + Starlink. Starship can launch a lot more and larger satellites than Falcon 9.
I wouldn't bet on other big Starship customers, defense spending, space tourism, Mars plans etc. Those are highly speculative. But satellite Internet has a clear use case and a huge market.
That's a separate evolution though. The original/basic F9 was (by the standards of the time) an economically viable rocket without first stage reusability.
People rooting against SpaceX are just rooting against Musk TBH. That's why all these launches have so much negativity these days. And these people are very online. But viewed through a neutral lens, it's a clear positive for humanity that these rockets are being developed. I wouldn't let the online discourse put a bad taste in your mouth.
> through a neutral lens, it's a clear positive for humanity that these rockets are being developed
Musk's cuts at USAid have caused an ongoing humanitarian crisis and some 300,000 deaths, mostly children[0]. I think if you're coming from a neutral, utilitarian point of view then SpaceX's role in this atrocity outweighs any realistic estimate of benefit to humanity.
I guess by that line of thinking, everyone who has ever been involved with Musk has a "role in the atrocity". Everyone who ever bought a Tesla, everyone who ever used PayPal. Now that I think about it... SpaceX launches US government satellites... and the US is a democracy... that means every single person in the US is culpable. Thank you for opening my eyes, I hate everyone and everything now.
You’re deflecting. You can’t claim to be objective and negate the fact this man alone by his totally insane actions has been causing tremendous harms by preventing people from getting life saving drugs just .. for no reason than showing he could do it.
Ok, sure man. Musk bad. That's what you wanted me to say, right? Anyway, I'll continue rooting for SpaceX and Starship, because I've loved space and sci-fi ever since I was a kid and this is the only organization that seems to be moving us toward that future.
It's probably impossible to get a neutral take on Musk or any of his companies' operations anymore. The guy's a lightning rod for the extremes of both sides. There is too much breathless, gushing fandom (OP's comment), too much negative detraction and belittling, and very little actual neutral engineering talk that happens in any of these forums.
It's a shame to me because I don't really give a damn about the guy, I just like space and think rockets are cool, but we have a situation where a potentially revolutionary rocket is being overshadowed by the CEOs antics to the point that people are rooting for the rocket to fail. It's tragic, in a way.
I should also say that HN is much more positive on SpaceX than, e.g. ArsTechnica. There’s no point in reading the comments over there. At least here the criticism of SpaceX is interesting and well-thought-out (usually).
In general, the opinion on SpaceX among space enthusiasts seems to be overall very positive, and it is usually only people who are not very interested in space that comment negatively on SpaceX -- but only since Musk got involved with the Republicans. Or at least that's the case on Ars Technica, which tends to be pretty partisan.
Ah, yes, of course. I wasn't trying to make quite the esoteric point. More specifically that currently, if starship succeeds, it will be good business for SpaceX and enable them to launch many more satellites around earth at a cheaper cost but greater scale. I don't think this will be much of a positive for humans in general (beyond the current state).
Now if the lofty goals of enabling Mars and Moon habitation come to fruition, I would take a different view. For now I consider achieving that goal to be science fiction, but hopefully that changes in my lifetime.
Every single time SpaceX has set a goal, there were detractors who claimed they would never accomplish it. And along the way, there were plenty of failures that almost proved the detractors right. But every time--so far at least--SpaceX persevered and eventually succeeded.
When SpaceX decided to re-use their boosters, most people thought they were idiots. They would never be able to do it, and even if they did, it would never make financial sense. Even today, SpaceX is the only company to fly with "flight-proven" boosters, but no one is skeptical anymore. Almost every new launch vehicle, including several Chinese ones, are designed to be re-usable.
When SpaceX decided to build the Falcon Heavy, with 27 first-stage engines, many people thought it would fail. "Remember the N1," they said, which was doomed from the start because they could never get all its engines to work together. But the Falcon Heavy worked and gave us those indelible views of twin boosters landings.
When SpaceX decided to build Starlink, many people thought it was crazy. 5,000 satellites!? Are you crazy? How are you going to manufacture, much less launch that many satellites? Today they have 7,500 working satellites and they are literally launching more twice a week. Starlink has changed the communications satellite industry (there are at least 3 serious competitors).
I remember the first Starship launch, when 5 of its 33 engines failed almost immediately. Skeptics thought the Raptor engine was dead on arrival. Too complicated compared to the proven Merlins and way too unreliable to power Starship. They will never get it to work. And yet, in later flights, all 33 engines worked perfectly all the way to ascent. No one worries about the booster anymore.
When I first heard they were going to catch a returning booster at the launch tower I thought they were mad. I thought that was a long-term plan that might happen sometime in 2030, after they refined the system. But no, they went ahead and caught it on Flight 5. Since then they have caught two other boosters and have reflown one in Flight 9.
People who don't follow the space industry don't yet realize how revolutionary Starship it. It is not just the largest rocket in history; its crazy goal is to be able to launch, land, and then launch again with minimal refurbishment and minimal cost.
If all they wanted to do is launch something to orbit and discard the rocket, SpaceX could have done it on their first flight with a much less ambitious design. The reason it's taking so long (and will continue to take so long) is because their ultimate goal is something no one has come close to achieving: a rocket that can be reused like an airliner.
Musk once quipped that SpaceX is good at turning 'impossible' into 'late'. It's true that they have missed almost every single deadline they have ever set. But it's also true that the things SpaceX has done were once deemed to be impossible.
And that's why I'm rooting for them, no matter how many ships they blow up.