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

281–290 of 347 posts

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#281

Post by greglindahl »

mabbo wrote: post #50

As the ship exploded, the words on the screen were something to the tune of "At this point, the ship is under the highest aerodynamic pressure".

This launch, the feed from SpaceX had all of those events marked in a timeline - a new feature. From the large number of people speculating about the timing of these events, it would seem that you were all watching some other livestream? Perhaps the NASA one?

Might want to check out the SpaceX stream next time.

Edit: the SpaceX website doesn't appear to have a recording of their live stream available.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#282

Post by greglindahl »

arjunnarayan wrote: post #214
italophil wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can Dragon abort and separate at Max Q? If I recall correctly the Space Shuttle had several flight periods at which it wouldn't have been able to separate from the boosters and / or tank.

Yes. Later this year they're doing an in-flight abort test not-quite-at-max-Q, but close enough. Source: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/01/spacex-ready-crewed-d...

It's worth noting that that's Dragon V2.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#283

Post by krschultz »

daphreak wrote: post #206
gus_massa wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An important lesson for the kids is that cutting edge technology is hard. Rocket science is hard. Like a 10% chance of explosions in an unmanned flight and a 2% chance of explosion in a manned flight chance hard. (Protip: Only put the humans in the safer rockets, and be sure that they are going to so something useful up there, and anyway explain them that this is dangerous.) Probably in 20, 50 or 100 years this will…

Not sure SpaceX rockets count as cutting edge technology. They are based on rather mature technology developed by NASA. This does highlight the difficulty of manufacturing a complex system in small quantities without the opportunity to do an end to end test before use.

I always find this opinion infuriating. It's a liquid fueled rocket, we've had those for 50 years, so it's not cutting edge! It's like saying a modern Formula-1 car isn't cutting edge because we had the Lotus 77 40 years ago that looked a hell of a lot like it.

You have no idea what parts of it are or are not cutting edge. I guarantee you many of the parts and pieces in the rocket required pushing boundaries. All the little bits of material science, modern computational analysis, and advanced manufacturing techniques are cutting edge.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#284

Post by vlasev »

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #204
jerf wrote: post #110

So, the advantage of a weekend launch is that I could show my kids (boys 7 & 4), right? Facepalm . In the last few minutes, over a dozen K-Nex rockets have lifted off and exploded shortly after takeoff. Sigh. Not the best introduction to the second Space Age for them.... ah well, we'll try again later. At least nobody was aboard.

Aye, it's a good thing no one was aboard. On my 12th birthday, I watched the Challenger explosion happen right in front of my eyes. Me and the rest of the kids from Indian Harbour Beach watched the pieces of the shuttle slowly fall out of the sky. Some speculated that one of the pieces was an escape pod, but one of the kids whose dad worked on the shuttle said there wasn't an escape pod. We just couldn't believe it.…

Did you know that the shuttle was mostly intact after the disintegration [1]?

"The crew cabin, made of reinforced aluminum, was a particularly robust section of the shuttle. During vehicle breakup, it detached in one piece and slowly tumbled into a ballistic arc. NASA estimated the load factor at separation to be between 12 and 20 g; within two seconds it had already dropped to below 4 g and within ten seconds the cabin was in free fall. The forces involved at this stage were likely insufficient to cause major injury."

So, in a way there was a pod...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas...

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#285

Post by kenrikm »

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...

What about the ULA rocket that blew up on the pad a few months ago?

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#286

Post by hackuser »

engi_nerd wrote: post #271
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…

> 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 ...

Another commenter said something similar. If I am awarding merit badges, then I agree it's unfair. Otherwise, if I'm looking for someone to launch my satellite, the comparison is perfectly fair (not that 'fair' has anything to do with it).

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#287

Post by sgnelson »

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...

Is there insurance for the payloads? I know very little about rocketry and launching satellites, but with the costs so high, I would imagine that there is some form of risk mitigation, but I've never heard of such a thing.

edit: If I had read down further, I would have seen a discussion about this very question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9793697

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#288

Post by greglindahl »

27182818284 wrote: post #272
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.

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.

The extra charge is due to the paperwork requirement for these launches... which were imposed after a series of launch failures by LM and Boeing rockets carrying very expensive US Government satellites.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#289

Post by hackuser »

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.

> 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.

This perspective surprises me. From my perspective, I wonder why it matters to me how long SpaceX has had to design their rocket? Wouldn't I prefer the one with 50 years of refinements?

Someone else posted a similar comment. It implies a 'my team is better than yours' competition, rather than a competition over which rocket functions better.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#290

Post by dcposch »

I watched the launch live this morning. It reminded me of one of the best interviews ever. Elon Musk after SpaceX's first three launches all exploded: http://archive.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa

I read that in high school, and it's part of the reason I became an engineer.

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." --Teddy Roosevelt

Post reply on HN