Quote from: tdperk on 11/29/2017 01:23 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 11/28/2017 10:24 pmI'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?That's the disconnect. My apologies for not making my PoV clearer. I had thought it obvious from the context of my comments, but obviously not. I will have to work on making them more comprehensible to you in future.And your disconnect is that since the current build of Falcon became current, they have 16 of 16 successes.That's 100% success rate.To the extent there are known unaddressed issue with the current build, which may be legacy from previous builds, you have a fair point to make. So, no known point to make.Long runs of consecutive successes are, of course, required for a launch system to be considered reliable. They are not, however, indicators or guarantees of a 100% success rate. R7 once ran up a string of 133 consecutive successes, then did it again a few years later. F7 still ranks among the world's most reliable launch vehicles. Nevertheless, R7 failures still occur. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: john smith 19 on 11/28/2017 10:24 pmI'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?That's the disconnect. My apologies for not making my PoV clearer. I had thought it obvious from the context of my comments, but obviously not. I will have to work on making them more comprehensible to you in future.And your disconnect is that since the current build of Falcon became current, they have 16 of 16 successes.That's 100% success rate.To the extent there are known unaddressed issue with the current build, which may be legacy from previous builds, you have a fair point to make. So, no known point to make.
I'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?That's the disconnect. My apologies for not making my PoV clearer. I had thought it obvious from the context of my comments, but obviously not. I will have to work on making them more comprehensible to you in future.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 11/28/2017 10:24 pmI'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?And because of this F9 might be able to acquire Category 3 certification from NASA. Not sure NRO and USAF have the same standards, but they were looking at collaborating with NASA on this. Bottom line the explosion at this point is probably a non-issue. Certification is what matters, and we presently don't know what the certification matrix will be for a reusable F9 or a FH. This is what will tell us what future missions might be available and how these customers truly feel about reuse.EDIT: WAG they are waiting for reusable F9 Block 5 to get Category 3 certification. This could help getting the same certification for FH and BFR easier.
I'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/935910448821669888QuoteNASA’s Bill Gerstenmaier confirms SpaceX has approved use of previously-flown booster (from June’s CRS-13 cargo launch) for upcoming space station resupply launch set for Dec. 8.It's probably NASA that gave the approval and the booster was from CRS-11, but here it is.
NASA’s Bill Gerstenmaier confirms SpaceX has approved use of previously-flown booster (from June’s CRS-13 cargo launch) for upcoming space station resupply launch set for Dec. 8.
Ultimately, NASA will consider flying on used Falcon 9s on a case-by-case basis going forward, the space agency said.
So, while it's true that they could have kept going back to delta-cert the vehicle I think they are just waiting to Block 5 and doing it all then.
Perhaps this thread could benefit from a running list of actual data:Date Customer Name Pertinent Event--------- ---------------- ----------------- Where a pertinent event might be* Announcement of plan to accept reused boosters* Customer comment they will never use reused boosters, or not until X time* Link to article quoting customers about experience with reuse* Flights of reused boosters* Responses to flight successes/failures that affect customer view of reuseIt could be interesting to see a flow of customer decisions over time.
And your disconnect is that since the current build of Falcon became current, they have 16 of 16 successes.That's 100% success rate.To the extent there are known unaddressed issue with the current build, which may be legacy from previous builds, you have a fair point to make. So, no known point to make.
You keep saying this, but not a single 2nd stage (the ones that actually exploded) have been inspected post flight. Because 2nd stages are not recovered. So there is no opportunity for reuse to directly improve 2nd stage reliability.
First stages have been recovered, and not a single M1D 1st stage has failed.So where is the disconnect? You can't criticize reuse for not improving the reliability of expendable hardware.
You CAN criticize the flight record of F9 versus other launchers, but it's not relevant to a reuse thread. Except to maybe show that expendable hardware is less reliable than reusable hardware?
Quote from: Norm38You CAN criticize the flight record of F9 versus other launchers, but it's not relevant to a reuse thread. Except to maybe show that expendable hardware is less reliable than reusable hardware?Actually give number of flights flown Vs success rate the revers is being demonstrated so far.That's what I do not understand.
Bottom line, the F9's failures are fully decoupled from reuse. Where did anyone lead you to believe that the 2nd stage would magically be made more reliable?
“We get the equivalent reliability of the reused booster that we would expect from a new booster,” he said.(Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations.)
As is the the 100% rate of Ariane 5 for the last 80+ flights or the Atlas V at 60+F9 should be better.So far it is not.
Quote from: tdperk on 11/30/2017 03:14 pmThe Falcon 9 family overall has a success a rate of 94.3 percent, 41.5 successes out of 44 intentions to launch. This includes Amos6 as a failure.If Amos 6 is included, I come up with the following. It seems to me that v1.0 was much different than v1.1 and v1.2, so I've grouped the latter two together for some comparisons. Different engines, different thrust section, etc. We'll have to revisit the Stage 1 reflight numbers in a year or so.Variant Successes Raw Point 95% /Failures Rate Estimate C/I----------------------------------------------v1.0 4/5 0.80 0.71 0.36-0.98v1.1 14/15 0.93 0.88 0.68-1.00v1.2 24/25 0.96 0.93 0.79-1.00----------------------------------------------v1.1+1.2 38/40 0.95 0.93 0.83-1.00v1.1+v1.2 Stg1 Only 40/40 1.00 0.98 0.92-1.00Stg1 Refly 3/3 1.00 0.80 0.47-1.00TOTAL 42/45 0.93 0.91 0.81-0.98Ed Kyle
The Falcon 9 family overall has a success a rate of 94.3 percent, 41.5 successes out of 44 intentions to launch. This includes Amos6 as a failure.
Variant Successes Raw Point 95% /Failures Rate Estimate C/I----------------------------------------------v1.0 4/5 0.80 0.71 0.36-0.98v1.1 14/15 0.93 0.88 0.68-1.00v1.2 24/25 0.96 0.93 0.79-1.00----------------------------------------------v1.1+1.2 38/40 0.95 0.93 0.83-1.00v1.1+v1.2 Stg1 Only 40/40 1.00 0.98 0.92-1.00Stg1 Refly 3/3 1.00 0.80 0.47-1.00TOTAL 42/45 0.93 0.91 0.81-0.98
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/30/2017 04:23 pmQuote from: tdperk on 11/30/2017 03:14 pmThe Falcon 9 family overall has a success a rate of 94.3 percent, 41.5 successes out of 44 intentions to launch. This includes Amos6 as a failure.If Amos 6 is included, I come up with the following. It seems to me that v1.0 was much different than v1.1 and v1.2, so I've grouped the latter two together for some comparisons. Different engines, different thrust section, etc. We'll have to revisit the Stage 1 reflight numbers in a year or so.Variant Successes Raw Point 95% /Failures Rate Estimate C/I----------------------------------------------v1.0 4/5 0.80 0.71 0.36-0.98v1.1 14/15 0.93 0.88 0.68-1.00v1.2 24/25 0.96 0.93 0.79-1.00----------------------------------------------v1.1+1.2 38/40 0.95 0.93 0.83-1.00v1.1+v1.2 Stg1 Only 40/40 1.00 0.98 0.92-1.00Stg1 Refly 3/3 1.00 0.80 0.47-1.00TOTAL 42/45 0.93 0.91 0.81-0.98Ed KyleAgain, thanks for a more robust treatment of the statistics. It is clarifying to note that the 3-for-3 success rate of the reused boosters still yield a much lower confidence interval than the numbers that include failures.Issues: 1) Your call that there is one v1.0 'failure' is a significant judgement call when the primary payload was delivered, and the secondary waved off due to NASA ground rules. There was a very high likelihood that the second stage would have delivered the secondary to proper orbit (90+ percent IIRC) in spite of the booster engine failure on ascent. The ground rule failed, not the rocket. Calling this entire launch a flat failure is inaccurate at best.2) AMOS was a test procedure failure that destroyed a rocket and payload. That's very bad, or even very stupid, but even the insurance companies didn't call that one a launch failure (since it obviously wasn't).Changing these two cases or their weighting significantly changes the bottom line*.Bottom line is that statics tell a subjective tale, not (necessarily) an objective one. Those who believe otherwise are naive.Mark Twain (possibly originally by Disraeli):Quote"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."* The change to the bottom line would be in my subjective judgement a much more accurate representation of launcher reliability -- but still subjective.
I’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/01/2017 12:19 amI’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.Lol. You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date. I strenuously recommend the ISO format for dates: YYYY-MM-DD.
Quote from: deruch on 12/01/2017 02:33 amQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/01/2017 12:19 amI’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.Lol. You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date. I strenuously recommend the ISO format for dates: YYYY-MM-DD.Emphasis mine.As someone working in the IT industry I strongly endorse this recommendation.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/01/2017 06:15 amQuote from: deruch on 12/01/2017 02:33 amQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/01/2017 12:19 amI’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.Lol. You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date. I strenuously recommend the ISO format for dates: YYYY-MM-DD.Emphasis mine.As someone working in the IT industry I strongly endorse this recommendation.As someone who used to program , I also endorse this format, but I also advocate for zero indexing the days of the month.