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

271–280 of 347 posts

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#271

Post by engi_nerd »

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...

SpaceX still looks better than its direct competition, Orbital ATK:

Antares CRS-3 turbopump failure, vehicle FTS was activated and launch vehicle impacted very close to the launch pad. $200 million vehicle lost, approximately $30 million in damage to launch facility.

Loss of the $424 million Glory satellite due to payload fairing separation failure.

*Loss of the $273 million Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite due to payload fairing separation failure.

And I don't think the comparison between ULA and SpaceX is necessarily a fair one. ULA is the beneficiary of inheriting solid engineering teams and practices from very mature programs run by large defense corporations. SpaceX is comparatively very young (I feel this makes their overall record even more impressive).

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#272

Post by 27182818284 »

solomatov wrote: post #252
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...

>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.

And if I recall, some of the SpaceX launches are pricier (though not that level) for the more sensitive payloads--as in there is a Secret-Spy-Satellite optional charge package.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#273

Post by Splendor »

humbledrone wrote: post #270
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...

Average cost for successful launch: * United Launch Alliance: $110 million * SpaceX: $63.5 million ($60 million * 18 total / 17 successful) So SpaceX saves you $46.5 million per successful launch. If we assume that 1/18 SpaceX launches fail, then in the long run SpaceX wins as long as your typical payload cost is less than $46.5 * 18 = $837 million. If we assume that the cost to replace the payload for a failed launc…

One additional variable would be the cost to replace any assets lost on the 1 unsuccessful launch, although I'm not sure who ultimately picks up the tab for that.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#274

Post by fbender »

david-given wrote: post #228
fbender wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Launch Abort System (LAS) is heavy, and since it requires Dragon V2, which includes more systems only required for human missions, the overall system mass is even higher than "just" the LAS. Heavy is extremely expensive, ergo it does not make sense economically to equip the cargo version with the LAS. Simply said, the chance of failure multiplied with the cost of the cargo is less than the extra cost an LAS on ev…

Although, given that rocket launch failure is a fact of life anyway, then putting the LAS on unmanned payloads means you get a much higher chance of testing it for real. Which means you have a much higher chance of knowing whether it'll work when you are in the Dragon it's attached to, which I reckon is a good thing. Also, I thought the whole point of the Dragon v2 launch escape system was it uses the engines and fue…

Because of the LAS, Dravon v2 has to carry more fuel than v1. And it's not only the rocket motors that are heavy, but the supporting equipment and structure (peak loads are different for some parts of the structure). All of that leads to higher mass. The v2 is not just a v1 + LAS rocket motors, but in large parts a severly altered design.

As for having a chance to test the systems: That's what the recent pad abort test (and subsequent in-flight tests) are for. Plus, the engines, being liquid engines, are each tested prior to installing them on the spacecraft. You'll need to do that anyway, and you are always hoping that you'll never need to use that system (does not fully apply to Dragon v2 since they intend to use the LAS system for landing the capsule with the rockets some time in the future).

I still say it does not make sense to equip a cargo mission with LAS capability. (Disclosure: I'm an aerospace engineering student, M.S., so it's an educated guess rather than a theory on my part)

Sidenote: Solid LAS systems, as used on most other capsule systems, cannot be tested like liquid systems. You'll need a comparative test with built-alike motors but cannot test the same system that will be installed in the spacecraft.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#275

Post by krschultz »

dewarrn1 wrote: post #232
engi_nerd wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So with a 5.5% margin the $1.6 billion contract would be expected to yield $88 million in profit? Given what I'm assuming are large R&D expenditures on top of launch-related costs, I wonder whether the business is sustainable.

The R&D is baked into the contract itself.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#276

Post by [deleted] »

arrrg wrote: post #247
andyl wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over a 10 year period 2003->2013: 2,395,000 car fires causing 4,050 deaths and 13,215 injuries roughly: 656 fires and one death every day http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/vehicle-...

This data is valuable but also slightly I'll-fitted for this purpose. How many relatively recently sold modern gasoline vehicles in a similar category to the Tesla catch on fire? That's the proper number for the comparison.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#277

Post by greglindahl »

lotu wrote: post #178
benihana wrote: post #154

Crazy how little actual conflagration there is. I would have expected a big fireball when that much RP-1 and LOX explodes. I mean the entire second stage's fuel exploded. Edit: Here's a Titan 1, which was fueled with RP-1 and LOX exploding on the pad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBzigaTSPZY

There were pretty close to Main Engine Cutoff so there would have been relatively little fuel left.

It was fueled for a landing, which means 30% extra in the first stage.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#278

Post by humbledrone »

Splendor wrote: post #273
humbledrone wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average cost for successful launch: * United Launch Alliance: $110 million * SpaceX: $63.5 million ($60 million * 18 total / 17 successful) So SpaceX saves you $46.5 million per successful launch. If we assume that 1/18 SpaceX launches fail, then in the long run SpaceX wins as long as your typical payload cost is less than $46.5 * 18 = $837 million. If we assume that the cost to replace the payload for a failed launc…

One additional variable would be the cost to replace any assets lost on the 1 unsuccessful launch, although I'm not sure who ultimately picks up the tab for that.

Yeah, my back of the napkin analysis is probably missing a bunch of important stuff. I just wanted to highlight the fact that simply looking at the failure rates is not enough -- you have to consider the amortized cost of getting your stuff into space successfully. Maybe tolerating a few failures saves money in the long run.

(Of course this all assumes a replaceable payload. I am sure the analysis would be quite different for carrying people into space.)

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#279

Post by [deleted] »

Splendor wrote: post #273
humbledrone wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average cost for successful launch: * United Launch Alliance: $110 million * SpaceX: $63.5 million ($60 million * 18 total / 17 successful) So SpaceX saves you $46.5 million per successful launch. If we assume that 1/18 SpaceX launches fail, then in the long run SpaceX wins as long as your typical payload cost is less than $46.5 * 18 = $837 million. If we assume that the cost to replace the payload for a failed launc…

One additional variable would be the cost to replace any assets lost on the 1 unsuccessful launch, although I'm not sure who ultimately picks up the tab for that.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#280

Post by neurotech1 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #67
NamTaf wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has to be the most awkward sign-off of the webcast ever.

I almost felt like I heard that tension in the announcer's voice.

The SpaceX "announcer" is John Insprucker. He is a senior engineer and Falcon 9 Product Director.
Post reply on HN