“The reason a lot of people perceive this to be unusual is that this is not the typical way that we have historically tested rockets,” Whitman Cobb says.
“This is not the typical way that we have historically tested rockets.” SpaceX has chosen a different path, in which it tests, fails, and iterates frequently.
“I don’t see SpaceX as putting its money where its mouth is,” Whitman Cobb says.
I believe their engineering is good enough that they will make Starship work,” Whitman Cobb says.
That’s decades,” Whitman Cobb says.
As the ambitious heavy rocket exploded once more during this week’s failed Starship test, you might have a good feeling that SpaceX’s luck is finally running out.
But according to Wendy Whitman Cobb, a space policy expert with the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, this level of failure during a development process isn’t actually uncommon, particularly when testing new space technology as complicated as a large rocket. But the slow, steady pace of development we’ve grown accustomed to from the space industry is significantly different from the Starship tests.
“This is not the usual way that we have historically tested rockets, which is why a lot of people think this is unusual,” Whitman Cobb says.
In the past, space organizations such as NASA and established aerospace firms like United Launch Alliance (ULA) have developed rockets slowly and haven’t conducted tests until they are certain of a successful outcome. This remains true today for significant NASA projects like the Space Launch System (SLS) development, which has been dragging on for more than ten years. Whitman Cobb asserts, “They will take as much time as necessary to ensure that the rocket will function and that a launch will be successful.”.
Rockets have not normally been tested in this manner in the past. “”.
SpaceX has taken an alternative route, testing, failing, and iterating often. Its success has been largely attributed to that process, which enables the business to quickly develop innovations like the reusable Falcon 9 rocket. But it also means frequent and highly visible failures, which have led to the company clashing with regulatory bodies and complaints about environmental damage in the vicinity of the launch site. Elon Musk’s political connections to the Trump administration and his undemocratic control over federal regulation of SpaceX’s operations are also major causes for concern.
Even with SpaceX’s “move fast and break things” strategy, however, the Starship’s development has seemed disorganized. Starship has a far more uneventful record than the Falcon 9 rocket’s development, which had many setbacks but a generally obvious path from failing frequently to failing less and less as time went on.
Earlier advancements were more gradual, proving the rocket’s soundness before tackling more complicated problems like the booster or first stage’s reusability. It wasn’t until several years into testing that the company even tried to salvage and repurpose a Falcon 9 booster.
That isn’t how starships work. Whitman Cobb claims that the company is attempting to launch a completely new rocket with new engines and make it reusable all at once, saying, “They are trying to do everything at once with Starship.”. It’s a really tough engineering problem. “.”.
They are using Starship to try to do everything at once. “.”.
The Starship’s Raptor engines are a particularly difficult engineering problem to solve because there are many of them (33 per Starship, all grouped together) and they must be able to accomplish the challenging task of reigniting in space. Engine relighting has been a point of failure on some of the earlier Starship test flights, but it has also been successful on others.
Musk’s intense focus on reaching Mars is the reason SpaceX is aiming so high and so quickly. Theoretically, a mission could be sent to Mars using current rockets, such as the Falcon 9, but the sheer number of personnel, supplies, and equipment required for a Mars mission is enormous. A much larger rocket, such as NASA’s SLS or the Starship, is required in order to transport a significant amount of mass in a single launch, which is necessary to make Mars missions even remotely affordable.
By creating its own heavy launch rocket and assisting with the development of Starship, NASA has previously been hedging its bets. However, given recent funding cuts, it appears increasingly likely that the SLS will be scrapped, leaving SpaceX as the sole company in the market to support NASA’s Mars plans.
To get Starship to a point where significant plans for crewed missions can even be made, however, a great deal of work remains.
“They’re not going to put anyone on that at this time. “.”.
Whitman Cobb remarks, “I think it’s completely delusional,” referring to the fact that SpaceX has not seemed to be seriously considering issues like adding life support to the Starship or making concrete plans for Mars habitats, launch and landing pads, or infrastructure. Musk stated this week that he is aiming for a crewed test to occur as soon as 2028, with a Starship test to Mars taking place by 2026.
Whitman Cobb states, “I don’t see SpaceX as putting its money where its mouth is.”. “It will be uncrewed if they make it to the launch window next year. They are not going to put anyone on that at this time. And I’m pretty sure they won’t make it. “.”.
That does not, of course, imply that Starship will never reach Mars. “I think SpaceX will figure out a way to get out of it. Whitman Cobb says, “I think they have enough engineering to make Starship work.”. However, launching an uncrewed rocket to Mars in the next ten years is far more feasible than doing so the following year.
But putting humans on the rocket is a completely different story. According to Whitman Cobb, “if they’re looking to build a large-scale human settlement? That’s decades.”. It’s uncertain if I’ll live to witness that. “.”.
