SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

Post by damoncali » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 7:35 PM UTC

engi_nerd wrote: post #258

damoncali wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work for Orbital as a NASA contractor. I never dealt with the business end of things, but the margins were small and very stable so long as there was work to be done (i.e. a giant (sub)contract on some huge NASA project). It wasn't exactly a pressure cooker of a work environment. The government stuff was a very different atmosphere than the commercial side.

I too am a former Orbital employee. I worked on the sounding rocket program. It was very much a pressure cooker because of the incessant pressure to work more overtime and do more missions in less time. I always heard that other parts of the company were far more laid back. Wish I had worked in one of those parts.

Post by spdionis » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 7:39 PM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #256

hackuser wrote: post #249

Costs and catastrophic failures:[1] * United Launch Alliance (Boeing and Lockheed Martin): 0 "outright failures" and 83 successful launches, ~$110 million/launch * SpaceX: 1 failure and 18 successful launches, $60 million/launch If you are looking for someone to launch your assets into orbit, who do you choose? [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-destroyed...

ULA's record with its current generation of Atlas 5 and Delta 4 boosters is 83 successful launches and no outright failures. This is an impressive reliability record, no doubt about it. However, it is fair to note that this is the "current generation" Atlas and Delta. The first Atlas was used during the Mercury program, so they've had more than 50 years of design refinement to get to that point.

Post by lutorm » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 7:41 PM UTC

spdionis wrote: post #263

lutorm wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ULA's record with its current generation of Atlas 5 and Delta 4 boosters is 83 successful launches and no outright failures. This is an impressive reliability record, no doubt about it. However, it is fair to note that this is the "current generation" Atlas and Delta. The first Atlas was used during the Mercury program, so they've had more than 50 years of design refinement to get to that point.

Also what does "no outright failures" mean?

Post by fbender » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 7:51 PM UTC

hackuser wrote: post #254

solomatov wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you are looking for someone to launch your assets into orbit, who do you choose? It heavily depends on the cost of the asset. If a satellite costs close to 1bn, it worth to use $110/launch but more reliable rocket.

True. Also don't forget the opportunity cost of the time lost: 1) building a replacement and waiting for a spare slot in which to launch it, 2) engineering, manufacturing, and other resources which could have been used for (and likely were planned for) something else, but now are used for the replacement, and 3) the project the asset was used for, and its output (revenue, research results, etc.), now put on hold. Man…

Post by jedikv » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 7:56 PM UTC