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

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

#521

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 9:11 AM UTC

reddog wrote: post #501

dredmorbius wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right. Like I said, no catastrophic launch failures. They did build things robustly back when the US still had a manned space program. I wonder how well a SpaceX rocket would do if it was struck by lightning as it left the pad. Then again, Apollo 11 couldn't land on a barge. However it could land on the moon with two humans on board and then take off again and return then safely to earth. 47 years ago.

There's a hierarchy of severity that's expected in industrial accidents, as I've recently learned running across a reference to the concept. The work was done a long time ago -- ~1930s - 1950s, and I think the earlier part of that period. It's used fairly heavily in the insurance industry still, from what I understand.

(I'm being a little vague because I can't immediately turn up that reference, I'll take a look for it.)

The upshot is that if you've got a base incident / accident / failure rate, you can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy the likelihood of major accidents -- fatalities, major injuries, or catastrophic to plant and equipment.

(Now to see if I can find that.)

Here: H. W. Heinrich, Industrial accident prevention: a scientific approach (1959)

The publication date is later than I'd thought, but the data were collected much earlier -- 1931.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/industrial-accident-preventio...

Which I'd originally turned up ... through a NASA accidents presentation: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/accident/accident.pdf

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

#522

Post by makomk » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 9:14 AM UTC

dingo_bat wrote: post #489

Animats wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the Space Shuttle, the flight termination system had two huge 10KW transmitters to send the signal. That would get through despite damaged receiving antennas, noise, or jamming.

10kW? That sounds like a lot of energy to dump into air. Certainly unhealthy for operators or people near the tx site.

Less than the typical TV or FM broadcast tower, and remember there's a lot of empty space around the launch sites. Even ham radio operators in the US can run at 1.5kW peak.

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

#523

Post by thewisenerd » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 10:23 AM UTC

trothamel wrote: post #228

Here's good video of the test/failure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s

What exactly happened at 1m14s - 1m15s where the _big ball of fire_ seemingly exploded again ?

p.s. skip forward to 1m21s to see AMOS-6 burn (in case you dislike facebook _very_ much).

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

#524

Post by tripzilch » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 10:31 AM UTC

superman_ wrote: post #472

stock_toaster wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that a bird flying in the background right as the explosion occurred? If so, it must have really scared the crap out of it!

That was me. Sorry I couldn't save it in time, I was held up trying to find a phone booth.

Honestly? Such tremendous superpowers, and out of all the good you could be doing for the planet, you're wasting your time playing dress-up and trying to save a rocket?

Check your privilege, Superman. Here's some ideas for you http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305

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

#525

Post by jnbiche » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 10:36 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #511

mikeash wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As an engineer, I am utterly astounded that the Apollo launches were so successful. Nobody had bigger balls than the astronauts who got in them.

> Nobody had bigger balls than the astronauts who got in them.

Yeah, they were really outsize personalities in every way (in a good way). Very unique time in American history.

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

#526

Post by colomon » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 10:42 AM UTC

JohnStrange wrote: post #170

300bps wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're advocating the Broken Window Fallacy. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fal...

I'm kind of skeptical about this alleged fallacy, where I have to admit that I'm not an economist. The usual formulations of it seem to be something crucial missing. I've heard that many producers of goods deliberately introduce failure points, e.g. in electronics by using cheap solder or capacitors with a limited lifetime. Buttons also fail way too easily. Or think of batteries that cannot be replaced. Do they all c…

Broken window fallacy is talking about the total (net) economy. It's perfectly possible for one person to come out ahead while the economy as a whole goes nowhere or even down.

For instance, if you are the only window repair person in town and you go around breaking other people's windows, you will certainly profit. But the amount you profit will be completely offset by the window owners' loss. (Presuming you do not go to jail, of course.)

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

#527

Post by tristanguigue » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 11:00 AM UTC

brianwawok wrote: post #159

kuschku wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ESA’s Ariane also has a far better successrate than SpaceX’s Falcon, and if I’d send a satellite to space, unless it would be a really cheap one, I’d likely not use the Falcon as delivery vehicle.

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.

Someone already answered about the price, regarding the success rate, there is a much bigger difference than this:

Space X has had 29 launches, 2 failures and 1 partial failure (F9-004) so a success rate of 89.6%.

Ariane on the other hand hasn't had a single failure or partial failure since 2002 so if you compare since Space X started its services it has a success rate of 100%. If you take the whole history of Ariane it has indeed a success rate of 95.2% or 95.4% for the Ariane 5 version but the fact that Ariane has flown 72 consecutive missions without failure (2002 - Present) compared to 14 for Space X (2012 - 2015) says a lot about their reliability.

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

#528

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 11:10 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #264

jakub_h wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That's why you always build two." Unless you're a Raman. Then you'll build three.

Preppers often say, you don't have it, unless you have two of it, and you don't have a backup until you have three.

They all say that so that people overstock useful items, so when nuclear zombie virus apocalypse hits and normals all die, there's lot of supplies stockpiled and easily accessible for the survivors.

s/

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

#529

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 11:22 AM UTC

DickingAround wrote: post #351

anigbrowl wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's sad about it? They have insurance, it's just hardware. Nobody died or was even injured, so it's merely an invoncenience.

Lives were lost, just incrementally; person-hours in building things that will never add value.

Not completely; person-hours involved in building satellites, which are ultimately unique things, add a whole lot of experience to people involved in the building and handling, as well as for the organization. Sure it's not as much as a successful launch, but not totally wasted.

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

#530

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 11:31 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #452

JohnStrange wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm kind of skeptical about this alleged fallacy, where I have to admit that I'm not an economist. The usual formulations of it seem to be something crucial missing. I've heard that many producers of goods deliberately introduce failure points, e.g. in electronics by using cheap solder or capacitors with a limited lifetime. Buttons also fail way too easily. Or think of batteries that cannot be replaced. Do they all c…

> I've heard that many producers of goods deliberately introduce failure points There are a lot of apocryphal claims like this, but little evidence. Most manufacturers design for an expected life of the product, and making it last longer than that is a waste of money and resources. For example, you could design a computer to last for 20 years, but what would be the point? Computers go hopelessly obsolete in about 5 y…

> Products that are useful long term are usually made to last, like tools.

Except they rarely are nowadays either. Lightbulbs would be a common example, but so would be cheap construction tools, kitchen tools, knives, etc. all designed to last for few uses and then break, so that people buy a replacement. The argument of "waste of money and resources" only holds for a single company, but not for the economy as a whole - it doesn't factor in the costs (and energy waste) of replacement and of dealing with the garbage, nor does it factor in the ecological damage created by unnecessary manufacturing.

It all boils down to the standard short-term, greedy optimization (in algorithmic sense) of the market economy, giving you perfectly legitimately sounding reasons to keep being stuck in a crappy local minimum.