Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 111 posts

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#101

Post by lbcadden3 »

jameshart wrote: post #52
jamesmcn wrote: post #37

Assuming that the insurance company actually pays out, this seems like a win for both SpaceX and OrbComm. SpaceX got a paying commercial customer, and had an opportunity to test out yet another part of the Falcon stack. OrbComm got a bit of testing time on their new communication platform at less than the cost of a full launch. If the insurance company is structured properly, this is a loss for them, but will average…

Well yes - it's frankly impressive enough that it's possible to get insurance to cover putting your satellite on one of SpaceX's rockets. Speaks well to the future of private space travel that there are institutions willing to take that bet, at a price commercial customers of SpaceX are evidently willing to pay.

You can get insurance for anything if you are willing to pay the premium.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#102

Post by archgoon »

danielweber wrote: post #68
confluence wrote: post #36

> Among the Dragon's cargo was a freezer that will be used to store scientific samples. For the ride up, SpaceX stashed chocolate-vanilla swirl ice cream inside. Just awesome. The mission was a success. The satellite maker's loss was covered with insurance money, the ISS stays up in the sky, engine-out capability proven, subsequent launch contracts remain in place from both NASA/the satellite maker - and the ISS astr…

The primary mission was a success. The secondary mission was a failure. $10 million probably covers Orbcomm's launch costs. SpaceX is awesome, but this isn't an unqualified win. There are groups out for SpaceX's head and they will try (unsuccessfully, I hope) to use this "engine incident" against them. SpaceX did not want this to happen at all.

What groups? I haven't heard of any opposition to SpaceX. Heck, NASA contracts with them.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#103

Post by nkurz »

zachalexander wrote: post #61
nkurz wrote: post #55

Due to the engine shutdown, the Falcon 9 used slightly more fuel and oxygen to reach Dragon's intended 202 mile- (325-km) high orbit. For the ride up, SpaceX stashed chocolate-vanilla swirl ice cream inside. the amount of liquid oxygen "was only enough to achieve a roughly 95 percent likelihood of completing the second burn..." 882 pounds (400 kg) of cargo aboard the Dragon capsule The cynic in my wonders: would they…

Falcon 9: 333,450 kg Dragon: 4,200 kg Cargo: 905 kg Ice cream: Skipping the ice cream would've reduced their total mass by <0.001% or so, at least at launchtime.

Appreciate the response, and think you're probably right. I'd be interested in better numbers, though. It's not the mass of the ice cream that't the problem, but the fuel necessary to get that mass to orbit. I think that's about 10x. And it's the percentage of weight at altitude that matters, since that's where the maneuvering was being done, which brings the weight down by about 90%. That's why I was guessing it was a .1% increase, but don't know for sure.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#104

Post by saraid216 »

codex wrote: post #75
codex wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should; all of the material quotes in this article came from a SpaceX public relations agent and not from independent space analysts. Not exactly objective. The only quote from Orbicomm is practically a tautology.

In looking at this a bit further, it seems that the reliability of the Falcon 9 is not looking so good. It has only flown four times and suffered single engine shutdowns on two of them (the other: http://www.spacenews.com/civil/spacex-acknowledges-falcon-en... ). See also: http://www.americaspace.org/?p=9044 . Simple probability then gives a failure rate of 3%. I have not attempted the Bayesian analysis.

FWIW, they're going to be using a different engine soon.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#105

Post by saraid216 »

revelation wrote: post #89

Can someone clarify this for me? Why does the contract with NASA forbid them to restart the engine unless they have a 99% chance of completing a second burn? Is the problem here that if you start a second burn and have to end it prematurely, you could end up in an orbit intersecting the ISS?

As I understand it, that's exactly what it is.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#106

Post by danielweber »

vl wrote: post #85
danielweber wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't a 95%/99% of the satellite making it; those were the chances that there wouldn't be an incident with the ISS if the upper stage activated. The Falcon 9 ended up in a slightly different position/velocity than was expected, and the primary mission (deliver to the ISS and don't dare run anything into it) took complete priority over the secondary mission of launching the other satellite into a high orbit.

Article says the opposite: if there was not at least a 99 percent chance that the rocket had enough fuel to complete the burn

That simply doesn't make sense. The OrbComm satellite was almost sure to burn up if they didn't launch it from a higher orbit. If the only risk was to the satellite, then go high or go home.

The problem was a (very small, almost surely overstated, but there nonetheless) risk to the ISS. From Orbcomm's press release: "the rocket did not comply with a preplanned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn."

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#107

Post by danielweber »

archgoon wrote: post #102
danielweber wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary mission was a success. The secondary mission was a failure. $10 million probably covers Orbcomm's launch costs. SpaceX is awesome, but this isn't an unqualified win. There are groups out for SpaceX's head and they will try (unsuccessfully, I hope) to use this "engine incident" against them. SpaceX did not want this to happen at all.

What groups? I haven't heard of any opposition to SpaceX. Heck, NASA contracts with them.

http://news.yahoo.com/spacexs-elon-musk-bemoans-opposition-c... talks a bit about it some.

SpaceX is dramatically lowering the cost of space launch. They are eating the lunch of dinosaur space companies who are only too happy to apply FUD that SpaceX is being "too cheap." There's a lot of money on the table being consumed by people who just have to keep on doing what they are doing and don't like competition.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#108

Post by danielweber »

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #74
martinkallstrom wrote: post #5

It is perfectly clear that this is a story of safety margines adhered to in an admirably strict fashion; not allowing short term thinking rule over long term; and certainly not allowing marketing rule over engineering. This is how you move mountains.

Perfectly clear that PR best practices were adhered to in an admirably strict fashion - show beautiful pictures of apparent success on live video, bury the part where the satellite burns up until after hours on a Friday!

Everyone in the industry who was paying attention knew that the satellite was having problems on Tuesday. Anyone who wanted to know about it did.

The satellite burned up when it burned up. It was very probable that it was going to have a short life, but no one really knew how short until re-entry was imminent.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#109

Post by danielweber »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #70
martinkallstrom wrote: post #5

It is perfectly clear that this is a story of safety margines adhered to in an admirably strict fashion; not allowing short term thinking rule over long term; and certainly not allowing marketing rule over engineering. This is how you move mountains.

On the other hand it doesn't explain why they didn't look at another orbit that they did have enough fuel for. Was this a decision that had to be made immediately?

They didn't fire at all because there was a risk that they might have hit the ISS. SpaceX was operating under NASA's rules and NASA had a safety window where the Falcon 9 could/couldn't fire its second stage.

The risk was almost certainly overstated, but NASA is understandably paranoid about things hitting the ISS.

Re: Satellite burns up following SpaceX rocket glitch

#110

Post by samroesch »

confluence wrote: post #36

> Among the Dragon's cargo was a freezer that will be used to store scientific samples. For the ride up, SpaceX stashed chocolate-vanilla swirl ice cream inside. Just awesome. The mission was a success. The satellite maker's loss was covered with insurance money, the ISS stays up in the sky, engine-out capability proven, subsequent launch contracts remain in place from both NASA/the satellite maker - and the ISS astr…

I like how they had a little party to celebrate getting ice cream, but I'm wondering, how much did that ice cream cost to bring to space? I think it's about $10,000 to launch a pound of something into space.

At earth parties, $10,000 gets you a lot of drugs/alcohol. At space parties, it gets you a tub of ice cream.

Post reply on HN