SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#291

Post by joezydeco » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 9:05 PM UTC

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…

Does this formula apply to manned spacecraft? What's the payload value of an astronaut?

(Not trying to be snarky here, just thinking that the 1/18 vs 0/83 comparison seems moot when you have humans on board)

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#292

Post by Havoc » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 9:05 PM UTC

51Cards wrote: post #179

From Elon just now via Twitter: "There was an overpressure event in the upper stage liquid oxygen tank. Data suggests counterintuitive cause. That's all we can say with confidence right now. Will have more to say following a thorough fault tree analysis."

>Data suggests counterintuitive cause.

What does this sentence mean?

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#293

Post by greglindahl » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 9:06 PM UTC

Havoc wrote: post #292

51Cards wrote: post #179

From Elon just now via Twitter: "There was an overpressure event in the upper stage liquid oxygen tank. Data suggests counterintuitive cause. That's all we can say with confidence right now. Will have more to say following a thorough fault tree analysis."

>Data suggests counterintuitive cause. What does this sentence mean?

It means that the cause was surprising, not one that your intuition would think of.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#294

Post by CamperBob2 » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 9:07 PM UTC

Havoc wrote: post #292

51Cards wrote: post #179

From Elon just now via Twitter: "There was an overpressure event in the upper stage liquid oxygen tank. Data suggests counterintuitive cause. That's all we can say with confidence right now. Will have more to say following a thorough fault tree analysis."

>Data suggests counterintuitive cause. What does this sentence mean?

It's sort of like "Prepare for unforeseen consequences."

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#295

Post by shiggerino » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 9:09 PM UTC

sgnelson wrote: post #287

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

Yes, that is if you can afford it. The Zvezda service module for the ISS was launched without insurance or a backup because of financial problems. Embarrassingly they even had to turn to Pizza Hut for help:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pizzahut-00b.html

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#296

Post by gizmo686 » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 9:18 PM UTC

joezydeco wrote: post #291

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…

Does this formula apply to manned spacecraft? What's the payload value of an astronaut? (Not trying to be snarky here, just thinking that the 1/18 vs 0/83 comparison seems moot when you have humans on board)

With manned spacecraft, you have to factor in the chance that the crew would survive a failed launch. Specifically, in the press conference following this latest failure, it was stated that the planned crew escape system would have been capable of saving the crew. To my non-expert eyes looking at the event, there seemed to be a fair amount of time between there being an obvious problem, and complete disintigration.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#297

Post by Edmeral » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 9:23 PM UTC

dcposch wrote: post #290

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…

"Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work." I got goose bumps reading Elon's response at the end of the article.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#298

Post by ams6110 » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 9:24 PM UTC

joezydeco wrote: post #291

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…

Does this formula apply to manned spacecraft? What's the payload value of an astronaut? (Not trying to be snarky here, just thinking that the 1/18 vs 0/83 comparison seems moot when you have humans on board)

Clearly, manned vehicles demand a higher level of reliability than cargo carriers. However spaceflight even after decades of experience is still pretty risky. From a life safety perspective, non-manned, robotic missions are preferable. But our drive as a species to explore and populate new territories means that we'll need vehicles safe enough to travel in, and/or people who want to do it regardless of the risk. 1/18 is still probably decent odds compared to the ones facing people 300 years ago, who set out in wooden sailing ships to explore the unknown.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#299

Post by ams6110 » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 9:27 PM UTC

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.

5.5% profit, if reliably realized, is sustainable. It's comparable to a conservative investment return. That said, most businesses strive for more than that.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#300

Post by dgregd » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 9:30 PM UTC

SuperChihuahua wrote: post #118

mdumic wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russians can lift anything in matter of days if need be.

Didn't a Russian rocket with supplies to ISS explode not long ago? Edit: One exploded in May: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/soyuz-2-1a-third-stag... It seems like they are going to launch again with supplies to ISS in July

This might be just a coincidence. But I have a strange filling that secret services were involved in both cases.

How hard is to sabotage Falcon 9 mission?