SpaceX says not and I’m inclined to agree. SpaceX was able to recover from the destruction of Crew Dragon 2 capsule C201 in just a few months, even though the cause was exotic and had to be extensively investigated, because it had several vehicles under construction behind C201 and could designate a new one to take C201’s place fairly expeditiously. Similarly, there are three other Starship prototypes in various stages of construction.

The cause of Mk1’s cryogenic pressure test failure isn’t going to take nearly as long to autopsy in detail as did C201. The only mission Mk1 was slated to fly was the 20 km. “hop” intended to allow testing of the terminal “aerial ballet” landing sequence. SpaceX could still assign this mission to Mk2, nearing completion in FL- assuming it passes its own pressure tests and other pre-flight test procedures. It could also choose to wait until Mk3 and/or Mk4 – the six-engine versions that will be much closer to final operational configuration – are completed. Both are in early stages of construction in TX and FL.

There is even the possibility of quickly running up just Mk3’s tankage and engine section, perhaps using salvaged mechanicals and rear “wings” from Mk1, and mating it to the nearly-completed upper half of Mk1 to make a “Mk2.5” that, perhaps, could fly the 20 km. landing test hop earlier than otherwise possible, though I think this is a long shot. I suspect a clear decision on this issue will await further progress on all three vehicles. Perhaps plans will firm up by, or even before, year’s end.

“The overhead costs will drive per-launch costs through the roof or, if unreasonably low costs are locked in, drive the launch providers out of the business altogether.”

This was the reasoning that caused the formation of ULA in the first place. This resulted in another pricing fiasco that was only relieved when SpaceX got approval to launch Air Force payloads. An advantage of competition.

“Because the market isn’t big enough to sustain more than two providers, and even that’s a stretch.”

The Air Force is not the only customer, anymore. Other customers will help distribute the fixed costs over a larger number of launches so that the price of an individual launch is kept low. An advantage of the free market.

Starship Mk1 is dead! Methane tank has exploded during cryo-tests. R.I.P. Mk1!

Major setback for Musk?

https://i.gyazo.com/93a7ec56047fd30a9cf11bd0aedb29cb.gif

“Because the cost of certification is a multi-year eight- or nine-figure process. There’s no sense in going through that process for only one or a few missions.” Certainly not nine figures, and I’m not sure even 8. It could of course be far less, but that’s been discussed already. In theory once a provider vehicle is certified, they can keep bidding that vehicle for other solicitations and missions. Which of course is the direction we’d love to see it go, certify the vehicles, ideally for far less time/money in the certification process, then bid each launch to the whole group of certified providers. But that’s not the procurement world we live in.

It means they will all have the Air Force as a potential customer.

I don’t think it means that. Only part of Blue Origin’s protest was the selection of only two providers. If I’m reading things correctly, the GAO denied that part — that part and the part about allowing providers to offer a backup vehicle. The only part sustained was the source selection methodology.

I’m still trying to make sense of that. The Space News article makes it sound like the GAO objected to the use of best value. But best value has a long and common tradition of use in aerospace solicitations and, if I recall correctly, the Congress explicitly mandated the use of best value in NSSL solicitations. Something must have gotten lost in translation somewhere.

Why put a limit now on the companies that can bid on launches as far in the future as 2026? Why not instead allow all the launch companies, already certified by the Air Force, to bid when the time comes, thus increasing competition while providing the Air Force the most options?

1) Because the market isn’t big enough to sustain more than two providers, and even that’s a stretch. The original solicitation was for only 25 specific launches over five years (though some sources are now quoting 30 launches). The overhead costs will drive per-launch costs through the roof or, if unreasonably low costs are locked in, drive the launch providers out of the business altogether. That will leave the Air Force with critical space infrastructure sitting on the ground and not serving the warfighter.

2) Because the cost of certification is a multi-year eight- or nine-figure process. There’s no sense in going through that process for only one or a few missions.

Wow. I’d never seen that quote from Elon before.

It certainly has been proven correct, though….

Col Beausabre wrote: “Like so many things inside the Beltway, the problems begin with people we send – and RESEND – to Congress. You want change, get new people in there who want to help drain the swamp.”

How right you are. The responsibility for this mess always falls back to the voters, to ourselves. We get the government we deserve, and right now what we are getting is exactly what the voters have wanted and demanded, for decades. And it isn’t pretty.