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

301–310 of 347 posts

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#301

Post by RogerL »

nkoren wrote: post #10

Gods, it feels good to see the future finally arrive. It's been a long time coming. Growing up in the 80s, I became quite bitter about the pace of technological change. Sure, personal computers were nifty , but the heroic age of spaceflight was really what the future should've been about. That age had ended with Apollo 17, three years before I was born. Everything since then looked like a shambolic shuffle into a new…

The company I used to work for (EER) bought his company to get the IP to his rocket (Conestoga) and tried to go into private space launches, but the single launch in 1995 was a failure. It ended up getting sold to L-3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conestoga_(rocket)

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#302

Post by engi_nerd »

hackuser wrote: post #286
engi_nerd wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> if I'm looking for someone to launch my satellite If you're looking for someone to launch a satellite, then you have good ideas about how much you have to spend, your willingness to accept risk, and the services you desire. Depending on how you feel about these and other factors, your decision might not be as straightforward as you are portraying here.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#303

Post by TeMPOraL »

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."

I wonder if "overpressure event" is a significant information, or is it just an euphemism for "explosion"?

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#305

Post by demachina »

hackuser wrote: post #289
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.

> 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 simila…

The SpaceX design should be dramatically suprior to the aging Atlas and Delta designs because they are designed to be cheaper to build in the first place and they will be game changing if they manage to land the first stage and immediately turn it around for multiple launches.

Atlas and Delta are certainly good platforms for high reliability but they are expensive and they aren't making much effort to bring the costs down. Bringing the costs down would require design revisions that might undo that 50 years of design stability.

If SpaceX or someone else comes up with a reliable design at a dramatically lower price point ULA wont be able to sell their launchers unless its to a money is no object customer like the U.S. military.

Recovery and rapid turnaround of the first stage could make space access cheap enough many things would become possible and affordable that are not currently, due to high launch costs, like expeditions to Mars or large space structures.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#306

Post by pacificmint »

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)

For manned space flight, so far 18 people have died out of 430 that went to space. (14 Americans in two shuttle accidents, and 4 Russians in two separate incidents)

That's only slightly lower than 1/18.

The shuttle had a 40% vehicular failure rate (2 out of 5) and a 1.5% flight failure rate. That's better than 1/18, but not by that much.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#307

Post by serf »

kid0m4n wrote: post #96
thecrumb wrote: post #78

Bonus points if any of the debris lands on the barge!

Thats a mighty tasteless thing to say. I am guessing you are on the "we should not be exploring space" camp?

this was the failure of a cutting edge rocket that resulted in no loss of human life. How is it tasteless? I'm personally more saddened by the fact that the ISS is getting schedules pushed back than some billion-dollar company lost a rocket.

I'm very much pro-space exploration, and I thought it was funny. It's just a tongue-in-cheek joking reference as if this was a huge game of lawn-darts.

Lighten up, and stop 'guessing' about what 'camp' people are a part of as part of public discourse. It makes you look rude, presumptive, and (possibly worst of all) wrong.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#308

Post by dwightgunning »

Edmeral wrote: post #297
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.

For me it's the honest follow up about patience that says most.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#309

Post by hackuser »

kenrikm wrote: post #285
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?

Do you mean the Orbital Sciences rocket, last October? Orbital Sciences is a different company than ULA. However, it's very possible that I don't know about the incident you're referring to; I'd be interested because it changes the picture dramatically.

Re: SpaceX – Launch Vehicle Failure

#310

Post by lutorm »

hackuser wrote: post #289
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.

> 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 simila…

My point was that Atlas/Delta have had a lot of time to get their bugs found and fixed, while the F9 has had 20 launches overall. It seems reasonable to me to expect that the reliability of F9 will rise with time as more bugs are found and fixed. So if you wanted to launch something today, you would reasonably consider this record to be a reflection of current risk. But I don't think it makes sense to extrapolate and say this will remain constant in the future.

But then again, I am partial.

Post reply on HN