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

SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 347 posts

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#133

Post by arrrg »

JackWebbHeller wrote: post #66

So what's going to happen to the astronauts aboard the ISS - this was a resupply mission. How much longer can they stay up there with their current supplies?

They are stocked for months. As you can imagine, if your delivery mechanisms have a somewhat higher than usual risk of failure you don’t really go for just in time delivery.

There are several ways of supplying the ISS, though the very reliable Russian Progress (which also did have a failure recently – not a good year for cargo shipments to the ISS) is certainly the workhorse in terms of cargo shipments. (Though there is also the Japanese HTV and the – also recently failed – Cygnus.)

Any one or even couple failures of cargo vehicles in a row can’t do much to the supply situation. There are multiple redundancies built into the process. However, since really no one wants to abandon the ISS (just deserting it and coming back a couple months later is always risky with something as complex as the ISS that does require constant upkeep) that better be the case.

There will probably be quite some rescheduling and changing of plans happening. (I know that after the last cargo failure three people actually got to stay up in space a couple days longer, for whatever complicated scheduling related changes in plans.)

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#134

Post by rorykoehler »

mikeash wrote: post #128
engi_nerd wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both SpaceX and Orbital ATK carry insurance policies on their ISS resupply launches to protect against this sort of thing, although the policies are not absolutely comprehensive (Orbital's policy had a bothersome gap related to damages caused to the launch facility, owned by a third party). I do not know what the SpaceX vehicle's cost is, but I do know that the Antares rocket that Orbital ATK lost last year was itsel…

According to the One True Reliable Source of All Knowledge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services ), SpaceX got $1.6 billion for 12 resupply missions, so that's about $133 million for the Falcon 9, the Dragon, and all the work involved in shooting them into space. I have no clue what their profit margin would be on that, but that at least gives us an upper limit.

Every failed launch must be very painful. There doesn't seem to be much margin for error at those figures.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#136

Post by bsilvereagle »

mikeash wrote: post #128
engi_nerd wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both SpaceX and Orbital ATK carry insurance policies on their ISS resupply launches to protect against this sort of thing, although the policies are not absolutely comprehensive (Orbital's policy had a bothersome gap related to damages caused to the launch facility, owned by a third party). I do not know what the SpaceX vehicle's cost is, but I do know that the Antares rocket that Orbital ATK lost last year was itsel…

According to the One True Reliable Source of All Knowledge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services ), SpaceX got $1.6 billion for 12 resupply missions, so that's about $133 million for the Falcon 9, the Dragon, and all the work involved in shooting them into space. I have no clue what their profit margin would be on that, but that at least gives us an upper limit.

Those costs don't include the cost of the payload itself, which is mainly handled by NASA or any third party wishing to run an experiment in space (but even then, NASA will subsidize).

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#137

Post by bmiranda »

51Cards wrote: post #111

So in a case like this, would it be possible to have the pad abort system kick in? It could potentially pull the cargo module away and make an attempt to parachute it back for recovery? I doubt it could overcome the speed of the rocket but it might have a chance to separate it from the debris cloud?

Cargo dragon doesn't have a pad abort system.

Dragon 2 would be able to escape just fine, though. Cargo dragon could _technically_ survive if didn't get blown up too much.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#138

Post by myth_buster »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #115

Good that nobody was hurt. that reminds me that Elon Musk said that Antares rockets are junk, so now his own spacecrafts are exploding. Space tech has its problems. Maybe that will teach him to be a bit more humble. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/10/iss-bound-gear-...

I won't jump so fast to shame him. There was reason why he said Antares was junk. From the initial report, the falcon self destructed due to non-nominal path. Which ain't same thing though same outcome.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#139

Post by Osmium »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #115

Good that nobody was hurt. that reminds me that Elon Musk said that Antares rockets are junk, so now his own spacecrafts are exploding. Space tech has its problems. Maybe that will teach him to be a bit more humble. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/10/iss-bound-gear-...

I think that article might be a bit disingenuous. Elon Musk didn't say that in response to the Antares explosion, he said it several years earlier, and the part that's quoted is pretty accurate to be fair.

When a failure does happen, nobody goes around celebrating it, whether they're competitors or not, and honestly I believe that includes Elon Musk. I believe that on a human level, but even on a business level it's bad, because it reduces public faith in space transportation generally. Nobody likes to see this happen.

:(

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#140

Post by engi_nerd »

mikeash wrote: post #128
engi_nerd wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both SpaceX and Orbital ATK carry insurance policies on their ISS resupply launches to protect against this sort of thing, although the policies are not absolutely comprehensive (Orbital's policy had a bothersome gap related to damages caused to the launch facility, owned by a third party). I do not know what the SpaceX vehicle's cost is, but I do know that the Antares rocket that Orbital ATK lost last year was itsel…

According to the One True Reliable Source of All Knowledge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services ), SpaceX got $1.6 billion for 12 resupply missions, so that's about $133 million for the Falcon 9, the Dragon, and all the work involved in shooting them into space. I have no clue what their profit margin would be on that, but that at least gives us an upper limit.

There is a lot of money thrown around in commercial space, but it is not a particularly high-margin business. http://spacenews.com/39492orbital-eyes-broader-antares-busin... This cites Orbital Sciences (now Orbital ATK) CEO David Thompson as saying that the profit margin on CRS was about 5.5% and they hoped to reach 6% with CRS-3.
Post reply on HN