How do you even extinguish that kind of fire? Is there any value in salvaging parts before they completely burn out? Anybody who can chime in the protocol for such fires?
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral
441–450 of 560 posts
Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
The shuttle was a vehicle with vastly different capabilities, and technical challenges to overcome, compared to a Falcon rocket. There have been 133 successful shuttle launches, and 2 failed ones. There have been 27 successful Falcon launches, and 2 failed ones.
While true, NASA was able to have the shuttle program be so successful because of the things that they learned in the previous space programs. This is SpaceX's first space program. Don't compare a "senior" program to a "freshman" program.
Which is great advice - that should temper everyone's expectations of the firm (Which were sky-high a few days ago, when Musk was promoting his 'flight-tested' reused rockets.)
Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upper stage, so, unrelated to the reused first stage. Rocketry is hard... And very unforgiving.
Unfortunately, it's 2 for 29. But if you look at the FT version, it's 1 for 8. 1. What kind of insurance will be needed on a billion dollar NSA satellite? $100 million? $125 million? It's not so cheep anymore, and considering delays etc. It's not such a great deal anymore. 2. They probably should have a "stable" platform and a "beta" platform, with a discount offered for beta. Unfortunately, the "move fast and break…
Well, the moving fast part is pretty important in rockets. Breaking things on the other hand...
Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a deal breaker most likely, the terms of the deal were based on AMOS-6 becoming operational by march 2017. There has been high level of criticism in Israel about the deal as many seen this as giving up it's sovereignty over its space platforms even tho under the deal the all operations of spacecom platforms would be still handled from Israel proper, I'm sure the r/conspiracies is already booming with sabotage th…
So sabotage could be a factor?
This is in the realm of conspiracy theory. No evidence points to this. Nothing the parent comment said suggests it. I think you are filling in the blanks with your own hypotheses but they're accusatory shots in the dark at this point. It's possible, sure, but so are a lot of things.
Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upper stage, so, unrelated to the reused first stage. Rocketry is hard... And very unforgiving.
Unfortunately, it's 2 for 29. But if you look at the FT version, it's 1 for 8. 1. What kind of insurance will be needed on a billion dollar NSA satellite? $100 million? $125 million? It's not so cheep anymore, and considering delays etc. It's not such a great deal anymore. 2. They probably should have a "stable" platform and a "beta" platform, with a discount offered for beta. Unfortunately, the "move fast and break…
Well, the whole origin of rocketry was about moving fast and breaking things.
Less glib, I'm not so sure. In shed development, you spend a lot to make perfect things. Aston Martin or Rolls Royce are great examples of this. In factory development, you spend a lot to make perfect systems. I'd hold up Toyota or Honda as good examples.
I'm not an expert in SpaceX technology, but i thought their big supposed advantage was tons of automation. With bespoke development, it's tough to bring down the failure rate. you just keep testing and verifying more. With a defined system, you fix the system to avoid those errors.
There's obviously a spectrum, and SpaceX isn't that far out on the automation scale, but i do think that's the intention. If they can survive long enough to reap those benefits, their launches will be cheaper and more reliable. In the mean time, lots of cheap, risky, attempts are probably better for debugging than thinking real hard and building the perfect thing.
Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't say that all mistakes are worthwhile just because they reach us that we shouldn't make those mistakes... We already knew that. That wasn't research, it was a prelaunch test, and it failed.
That's not what we're learning. We're learning how not to make those mistakes. That yields: 1) Lower risk launches in the future through better process and better design 2) Possibly cheaper/better hardware redesigned due to the issues uncovered today. Yes, it is probably lower ROI than that payload getting into space, but it does mean it's not a total loss and not simply a broken window fallacy. It's more akin to if…
There's no way to get around making mistakes no matter how careful you are. It's inevitable for non omniscient beings.
Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does every satellite have to be custom made like this? Without knowing anything about it, it seems as though most communications satellites do pretty much the same thing?
> Without knowing anything about it Sometimes it's wise to stop, read what you just wrote, then hit "back" rather than post a comment.
If I don't know something, it's far better to acknowledge that and ask than to just hide in ignorance.
Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upper stage, so, unrelated to the reused first stage. Rocketry is hard... And very unforgiving.
Unfortunately, it's 2 for 29. But if you look at the FT version, it's 1 for 8. 1. What kind of insurance will be needed on a billion dollar NSA satellite? $100 million? $125 million? It's not so cheep anymore, and considering delays etc. It's not such a great deal anymore. 2. They probably should have a "stable" platform and a "beta" platform, with a discount offered for beta. Unfortunately, the "move fast and break…
> Unfortunately, the "move fast and break things" attitude doesn't work with rockets.
Rocket technology has never advanced without catastrophic failures. "Breaking things" is the only way forward with it. Rockets, of necessity, have to push designs to their limits, or they'll never lift off the pad.
Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral
#449Looks like they had a payload go with it. Sad. > "SpaceX confirm Amos-6 was aboard the Falcon 9 and was lost in the explosion." https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/77135388623807283...
I know nothing about space - why are they doing tests, where the rocket could possibly explode or fail, with the payload on board?
Because losing the payload amortized by the chance of its loss is less expensive than the 100% dead expense of a test rocket.