"39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule:
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles."
Notably, SpaceX did not develop the Falcon 9 as part of their human spaceflight program, and it was in fact not rated for carrying humans for many years. They instead developed their launch vehicle as part of a standalone "launch vehicle program" then later committed to building a human spaceflight program on top of their existing rocket.
Starship _is_ being developed as part of a human spaceflight program, and we have yet to see whether this violation of Akins Laws will be justified.
I had the opposite thought. SLS/Artemis is a “new human space program” that includes a new launch vehicle and it is hopelessly unaffordable and off schedule. SpaceX developed one of the most affordable human launch systems ever made, in a reasonable amount of time, by using their pre-existing cargo launch vehicle. Even Boeing will likely have Starliner, which also uses an existing workhorse launcher, flying humans before SLS launches anything.
SLS reuses almost everything (with modifications) from the shuttle program. These are 40 year old designs. Falcon Heavy reused a 10 year old design (Falcon 9).
edit: If we count back to the first successful propulsive landing, the technology was only 5 years old. Falcon Heavy had been planned since way back in 2005.
This is not really the case. Everything about SLS was specified by Congress to be similar enough to Shuttle to require all of the same contractors, but different enough to require everything to be redesigned from scratch. No part of it should be thought of as having flight heritage.
The central tank is kind of like Shuttle’s, to justify building it in the same factory in Louisiana, but it’s a different diameter, so it had to be a clean-sheet design and all of the tooling had to be created from scratch. The solid rocket boosters are similar to Shuttle (the good Senator from Utah, with all his engineering expertise, required SLS to use solid fuel boosters that only one company in Utah can make), but a different number of segments in length, requiring them to be designed from scratch.
Early in the process of SLS (under its original name, Ares V), a group of NASA engineers lobbied for a true Shuttle-derived version, which would have been much cheaper and quicker to create, with the benefit of lots of flight heritage. Of course they got nowhere, because none of that was why SLS was the way it was. Everything about SLS is designed for the sole purpose of funneling the maximum amount of money to the right contractors in the right states for as long as possible. Thus, it is acceptable that it has never flown even after so many years and so many billions—indeed it’s desirable! If the costly design phase goes on for as long as possible, the money spigot will dispense much more than if it proceeded into operations.
But, just in case, SLS will undergo two costly redesigns after coming into service: a whole new upper stage and new boosters. That should keep the gravy train running for a good long while.
In addition to the Shuttle-industrial complex which must be kept running with make-work, there is now a Station-industrial complex which must receive the same treatment, in the form of an utterly useless lunar-orbit station called Gateway. I’m not sure if you can tell but I’m fairly bitter about all this.
Not mentioned in the above link was an amateur group developing VTVL tech around the San Francisco bay area in the 90's. IIRC, it was EPRS. FWIW, they also invented a multi-rotor platform to test their conrol system that evolved into the modern drone.
Valid point. Also, if one wants to stretch the envelope, Harold Graham, flying the Bell Rocket Belt, performed the first rocket powered landing, April 20th, 1961 at Bell Aerospace, upstate New York. This development footage opens with that flight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxmxbMdToR4
Not quite, spacex changed quite a few things every launch or at least every version, that's why the first falcon 9 is very different compared to one from today. The one carrying humans is called block 5 of the full thrust version (version 1.2).
SpaceX was neither affordable nor on schedule. If you wanted someone up there cheaply and on time 5 years ago, you should just buy a seat on a Soyuz.
However, #39 doesn't say “don't ever develop new launch vehicles”, rather “don't develop new launch vehicles if staying in budget and on timeline is your priority”.
SpaceX did not develop a new launch vehicle for a human space program. SpaceX developed two new reusable launch vehicles for transfering cargo, whilst not cutting the corners that could not be cut if it were used for a human space program. Then when it came time to put humans on it, it already had a legacy.
Starship, however, is in fact designed for humans. But it is not part of a "human space program", rather it is a multi-purpose vehicle. It is yet to be seen towards which human space programs it will be applied, but even with the Artemis bid many aspects of Starship were clearly designed without the Artemis bid as a specific target.
Starship is intended to be a dual-purpose cargo and human flight vehicle and Falcon 9 + Dragon were iteratively improved through many cargo launches before Dragon 2 for human flight.
What has likely changed is that there is sufficient demand for cargo flights to bootstrap an affordable human flight program on top of it.
"39. (alternate formulation) The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles."