Do you count the September explosion as a launch (attempt)?I do not. (For me the Iridium-1 flight was flight #29, 28 of those were successful.) Nor do SpaceX, ot his booster should have been at LEAST #30.
Quote from: Hauerg on 01/15/2017 03:08 pmDo you count the September explosion as a launch (attempt)?I do not. (For me the Iridium-1 flight was flight #29, 28 of those were successful.) Nor do SpaceX, ot his booster should have been at LEAST #30.I count the September explosion as a launch vehicle failure, defined below (written by myself and subject to change without notice :-). What I am interested in is how the launch vehicle performs in delivering its payload, not just the act of launch itself. This includes how the vehicle performs with the payload prior to launch. If the vehicle destroys its payload prior to actual launch, I count that as a launch vehicle failure.Launch Vehicle Failure: The launch vehicle fails to deploy the payload into a usable orbit.Launch Vehicle Partial Failure: The launch vehicle fails to deploy the payload to the specified orbit, but deploys the payload into a usable orbit.Launch Vehicle Success: The launch vehicle deploys the payload into the specified orbit.Specified Orbit: An orbit defined by perigee, apogee, inclination, longitude of ascending node, argument of periapsis and true anomaly, including any specified range of these parameters.Usable Orbit. The specified orbit, an orbit outside the specified orbit that can be used by the payload or an orbit from which the payload can maneuver from so as to reach the specified orbit or an orbit that can be used.
This is more than sufficient to wipe them out as a business. Example - they have an BFR misfortune that wipes out a significant portion of Florida due to liability. Unlikely but still present.
It may prove better than Proton in the long run, but it is still too soon to say for certain. Proton M/Briz M has 9 failures in 89 flights (0.89 LaPlace point estimate reliability [1]).
Quote from: OnWithTheShow on 01/16/2017 04:18 amAny idea what the audible gasp from the crowd right around fairing sep was about? Also interesting they didn't show fairing sep on either feed. Perhaps it wasn't clean? Agreed, faring separation was conspicuous by its absence.
Any idea what the audible gasp from the crowd right around fairing sep was about? Also interesting they didn't show fairing sep on either feed. Perhaps it wasn't clean?
To reiterate, SX is losing customer payloads for no good reasons. They can innovate and use agile - that's fine. But to do so w/o the unacceptable LOM means you have to do far better than they are doing.And I'm certain Musk himself would agree with me on this point. Ask him.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 01/16/2017 04:33 amQuote from: OnWithTheShow on 01/16/2017 04:18 amAny idea what the audible gasp from the crowd right around fairing sep was about? Also interesting they didn't show fairing sep on either feed. Perhaps it wasn't clean? Agreed, faring separation was conspicuous by its absence. Not showing it indicates a difference they did not want to show. Means it was anticipated and not a surprise.
Quote from: guckyfan on 01/16/2017 07:02 amQuote from: wannamoonbase on 01/16/2017 04:33 amQuote from: OnWithTheShow on 01/16/2017 04:18 amAny idea what the audible gasp from the crowd right around fairing sep was about? Also interesting they didn't show fairing sep on either feed. Perhaps it wasn't clean? Agreed, faring separation was conspicuous by its absence. Not showing it indicates a difference they did not want to show. Means it was anticipated and not a surprise.Good observation.There was some confusion around sage separation time now that I think about it.
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes 53m53 minutes agoCEO Desch @IridiumComm: TBD but we may be able to cut @SpaceX launch interval to < 60 days as from our 3d launch. https://www.spaceintelreport.com/iridium-next-launch
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 01/16/2017 05:08 amQuote from: Hauerg on 01/15/2017 03:08 pmDo you count the September explosion as a launch (attempt)?I do not. (For me the Iridium-1 flight was flight #29, 28 of those were successful.) Nor do SpaceX, ot his booster should have been at LEAST #30.I count the September explosion as a launch vehicle failure, defined below (written by myself and subject to change without notice :-). What I am interested in is how the launch vehicle performs in delivering its payload, not just the act of launch itself. This includes how the vehicle performs with the payload prior to launch. If the vehicle destroys its payload prior to actual launch, I count that as a launch vehicle failure.Launch Vehicle Failure: The launch vehicle fails to deploy the payload into a usable orbit.Launch Vehicle Partial Failure: The launch vehicle fails to deploy the payload to the specified orbit, but deploys the payload into a usable orbit.Launch Vehicle Success: The launch vehicle deploys the payload into the specified orbit.Specified Orbit: An orbit defined by perigee, apogee, inclination, longitude of ascending node, argument of periapsis and true anomaly, including any specified range of these parameters.Usable Orbit. The specified orbit, an orbit outside the specified orbit that can be used by the payload or an orbit from which the payload can maneuver from so as to reach the specified orbit or an orbit that can be used.Thanks for explaining, Steven, but I would not consider AMOS 6 a launch vehicle failure since it was not launch day. Who would want to say that Iridium-NEXT F1 was the 30th Falcon 9?You don't have to side with my opinion. Please believe what you think.
I've also been wondering about the orbit. Some pre-launch discussion described a planned 667 km insertion orbit. The tracked orbit was more like 620 km.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 01/16/2017 02:32 pmI've also been wondering about the orbit. Some pre-launch discussion described a planned 667 km insertion orbit. The tracked orbit was more like 620 km.Iridium CEO tweeted before the launch (couple weeks ago?) that the parking orbit was 625km.