A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral • Hacker News Board

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#491

Post by BinaryIdiot » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 2:26 AM UTC

perseusprime11 wrote: post #485

manarth wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The payload was reported at $200 million. Although whether it would cost an additional $200 million to build a second is another question, but I doubt there would be that significant an economy of scale for just one extra unit.

Why does a satellite cost so much? I always thought it was a computer with solar panels orbiting in space using gravitational force?

I think a lot of it is using electronics that are less susceptible to radiation along with needing a clean room to actually build the thing. Not sure if that accounts for the entire $200 million.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#492

Post by kirrent » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 2:45 AM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #129

Symmetry wrote: post #62

The payload was apparently on the rocket at the time[1]. A $200 million loss there, which sucks for the insurance company but better than losing a $2b custom government bird. [1] https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/771352977315684352...

One has to wonder why it was thought to be a good idea to keep an expensive payload onboard during a live-fire test EDIT: Did some research, it seems that those tests (without the payload) already ran successfully, and that this accident happened during the fueling stage at T-3 minutes... that's super unlucky :/

This wasn't launch. It was still a live fire test, but as you say, there are previous tests before integration.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#493

Post by kirrent » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 2:47 AM UTC

BatFastard wrote: post #49

For all developers of anything. Repeat this mantra. This is why we test, this is why we test, this is why we test. It is especially important to repeat this mantra around management types who want last minute builds before going in front of important customers, because the light blue button looks SO much better then the dark blue button...

This was a test which had followed previous testing.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#494

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 2:55 AM UTC

rlanday wrote: post #285

vkou wrote: post #173

Earlier 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.

And one of the Shuttle failures was actually on landing

Interesting question of how you'd classify that.

A design flaw (foam) under launch stress resulted in foam shedding and leading edge wing impacts damaging tiles and ensuring loss of the vehicle on reentry.

I'd argue the failure was in design, triggered during launch, and manifested on reentry. But Columbia was doomed from seconds into flight.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#495

Post by zeeveener » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 2:57 AM UTC

nraynaud wrote: post #456

dogma1138 wrote: post #166

Earlier 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…

Why did they make a contract contingent on factors outside the contractant's influence? that seems counterintuitive.

Based on what others have posted, it's not necessarily a clause like, "If you launch successfully, we go ahead with the deal", but rather a clause like, "If the satellite is operational within X amount of time, we will go ahead with the deal."

This explosion probably put them way past the X amount of time so the deal would fall through.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#496

Post by engi_nerd » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 3:21 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #487

reddog wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I agree. Aside from Challenger (I know -- a pretty big aside), what catastrophic launch failures were there with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo program rockets? Or the Delta 2. And doesn't the old-fashion-can't-even-land-on-a barge Atlas 5 have a perfect launch and mission success record of 62 of 62? It seems like building and launching a rocket that doesn't explode every 14th time is possible but its…

Apollo had 17 missions and at least four failures or near failures that come to mind: * The Apollo 1 launch-pad fire, during a training session, using a 100% pressurised oxygen atomosphere. Three dead. Grissom, White, and Chaffee. I can list them from memory. * Apollo 11 suffered a lunar lander computer crash in the final seconds before landing, was programmed to land on what would have been unsurvivable terrain, and…

Eh, Apollo 11's difficulties were not a computer crash, but the computer throwing up repeated alarms saying "You are asking me to do to much, so I'm going to follow the rules you instilled in me about what tasks are vehicle critical and what tasks can be dropped." AKA the 1202 program alarm. Which happened because the rendezvous radar was left in the AUTO mode for descent, when it was only meant to be used for ascent.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.1201-fm.html

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#497

Post by hyperbovine » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 4:02 AM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #474

hyperbovine wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about thoughtful people is that they dislike being told what to think.

One might expect they also recognize the difference between being told what to think, and not being told what to think.

I'm lost.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#498

Post by mikeash » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 4:02 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #487

reddog wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I agree. Aside from Challenger (I know -- a pretty big aside), what catastrophic launch failures were there with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo program rockets? Or the Delta 2. And doesn't the old-fashion-can't-even-land-on-a barge Atlas 5 have a perfect launch and mission success record of 62 of 62? It seems like building and launching a rocket that doesn't explode every 14th time is possible but its…

Apollo had 17 missions and at least four failures or near failures that come to mind: * The Apollo 1 launch-pad fire, during a training session, using a 100% pressurised oxygen atomosphere. Three dead. Grissom, White, and Chaffee. I can list them from memory. * Apollo 11 suffered a lunar lander computer crash in the final seconds before landing, was programmed to land on what would have been unsurvivable terrain, and…

Apollo 13 also came a few seconds away from blowing up during launch. The second stage center engine began a pogo oscillation that at its peak was vibrating the engine at 16Hz with an amplitude of about three inches. By luck, the intense vibration tripped a fuel sensor and caused the computer to shut the engine down just before it would have ripped the whole thing to pieces.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#499

Post by mikeash » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 4:07 AM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #176

brianwawok wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you would rather pay $600 million per launch with 95% chance of success vs $200 million per launch with 93% chance of success? There is no such thing a 100% chance of success, everyone has a chance of failure. I would not put ESA more than a few % more reliable. Math says your satellite would need to be really expensive for the price difference to be worth it.

Depending on the cost of failure, however for virtually every mission the 600M$ is a winner this is a no-brainer. That "little" difference has huge huge economic repercussions, cost of insurance, ease of financing, and many other things. Not to mention that a satellite going boom can kill an operator if it doesn't have a backup. This isn't an insurance case where you get your money and try again the week after, build…

Given SpaceX's long manifest of scheduled missions, it seems like the people who actually pay for this stuff don't always agree with you. Going with the more expensive option is apparently not a "no-brainer."

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#500

Post by throwanem » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 4:30 AM UTC

hyperbovine wrote: post #497

throwanem wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might expect they also recognize the difference between being told what to think, and not being told what to think.

I'm lost.

I kind of am too. I mean, it sounded as though you were likening someone saying "please don't be rude" to someone telling someone else what to think, but that doesn't even make sense, so...