-
#840
by
MattMason
on 09 Dec, 2015 18:52
-
One "solution" I haven't heard discussed (maybe I've missed it) is that if the Dragon is capable of rescuing the payload, then SpaceX could tolerate a higher percentage of failed launches.
Please see this thread on that subject so we can stay on RTF, since this isn't a CRS flight. Future cargo Dragons will have software that attempts to save the spacecraft. However, this requires a Dragon to be accidentally flying free like CRS-7. It didn't and can't eject itself as a Crew Dragon.
-
#841
by
Danny452
on 09 Dec, 2015 19:25
-
Is publication of the agreed/approved CRS-7 incident report a prerequisite for RTF?
-
#842
by
SVBarnard
on 10 Dec, 2015 04:06
-
There is no way SpaceX can tolerate a higher percentage of failed launches. They cannot count on 0, but they have clearly said they want the most reliable launch vehicles of all providers. I believe them.
Uh but ULA can count on 0 so whats your point? They've had over 100 launches without a single failure. It would seem Elon's ego has finally caught up with him.
-
#843
by
sublimemarsupial
on 10 Dec, 2015 04:09
-
There is no way SpaceX can tolerate a higher percentage of failed launches. They cannot count on 0, but they have clearly said they want the most reliable launch vehicles of all providers. I believe them.
Uh but ULA can count on 0 so whats your point? They've had over 100 launches without a single failure. It would seem Elon's ego has finally caught up with him.
Not true, both Atlas and Delta have failed to put their payloads in the contractually specified orbit.
-
#844
by
rcoppola
on 10 Dec, 2015 04:51
-
There is no way SpaceX can tolerate a higher percentage of failed launches. They cannot count on 0, but they have clearly said they want the most reliable launch vehicles of all providers. I believe them.
Uh but ULA can count on 0 so whats your point? They've had over 100 launches without a single failure. It would seem Elon's ego has finally caught up with him.
100 Launches is an incredible accomplishment. It is most certainly something to be proud of and a testament to all those that design, manufacture and operate those systems.
We should also be proud that SpaceX has brought back domestic commercial launch competitiveness. Something we lost years ago because those 100 launches, while impressive, also came with a very expensive price tag.
None of this is a zero sum game. And they are just really getting started. So let's give them all a break and hope this RTF is successful, including our first returned core.
As for ego, I don't see how you set out to disrupt the kinds of industries he has without one.
-
#845
by
LastStarFighter
on 10 Dec, 2015 05:02
-
One "solution" I haven't heard discussed (maybe I've missed it) is that if the Dragon is capable of rescuing the payload, then SpaceX could tolerate a higher percentage of failed launches.
There is no way SpaceX can tolerate a higher percentage of failed launches. They cannot count on 0, but they have clearly said they want the most reliable launch vehicles of all providers. I believe them.
These companies always say they want the most reliable launch vehicle because no one wants to fly on a rocket where company says they are alright at reliability. But its meaningless with out the stats to back it up. I want to believe them too... But their record says otherwise. But they will still get plenty of launches... One thing that Proton, Sea Launch and SpaceX have reliably proven over the years is that to satellites... cost always trumps reliability and schedule.
-
#846
by
guckyfan
on 10 Dec, 2015 06:33
-
These companies always say they want the most reliable launch vehicle because no one wants to fly on a rocket where company says they are alright at reliability. But its meaningless with out the stats to back it up. I want to believe them too... But their record says otherwise. But they will still get plenty of launches... One thing that Proton, Sea Launch and SpaceX have reliably proven over the years is that to satellites... cost always trumps reliability and schedule.
If you are aiming for 100 reuses as SpaceX does for BFR/MCT the launch vehicle needs to fly 100 times without RUD. Very high reliability is essential for their aims. There will be failures, as ULA can also have a failure with their next launch. 100 launches are not statistical proof there won't be failures. Though no doubt their record is a proud one.
-
#847
by
LouScheffer
on 10 Dec, 2015 12:51
-
There is no way SpaceX can tolerate a higher percentage of failed launches. They cannot count on 0, but they have clearly said they want the most reliable launch vehicles of all providers. I believe them.
Uh but ULA can count on 0 so whats your point? They've had over 100 launches without a single failure. It would seem Elon's ego has finally caught up with him.
Even ULA (and Ariane) cannot "count on" zero failures. This is a tough business and ULA has gotten lucky a few times (one, the orbit was short but the payload could compensate; another they had a thrust chamber leak but on a low-requirement mission. If it needed full performance it would have failed.)
Also, given that hardware and procedures mature as flaws are found and corrected, perhaps a better comparison is the initial history of each rocket. Atlas G and I, from 1984-1997, failed 5 times in its first 18 flights. But it became the Atlas-II, which was reliable. Likewise, Centaur was quite unreliable at first, and had several failures more than 25 years into its life. But it is relatively reliable now (though both close calls on Delta were Centaur issues). The Atlas-V first stage has been excellent (no failures yet), a credit to its experienced designers (and proven engine design, which has its own (political) problems). The Vulcan first stage will be the next test, and i can't imagine anyone counting on zero failures.
-
#848
by
WHAP
on 10 Dec, 2015 13:01
-
There is no way SpaceX can tolerate a higher percentage of failed launches. They cannot count on 0, but they have clearly said they want the most reliable launch vehicles of all providers. I believe them.
Uh but ULA can count on 0 so whats your point? They've had over 100 launches without a single failure. It would seem Elon's ego has finally caught up with him.
Even ULA (and Ariane) cannot "count on" zero failures. This is a tough business and ULA has gotten lucky a few times (one, the orbit was short but the payload could compensate; another they had a thrust chamber leak but on a low-requirement mission. If it needed full performance it would have failed.)
Also, given that hardware and procedures mature as flaws are found and corrected, perhaps a better comparison is the initial history of each rocket. Atlas G and I, from 1984-1997, failed 5 times in its first 18 flights. But it became the Atlas-II, which was reliable. Likewise, Centaur was quite unreliable at first, and had several failures more than 25 years into its life. But it is relatively reliable now (though both close calls on Delta were Centaur issues). The Atlas-V first stage has been excellent (no failures yet), a credit to its experienced designers (and proven engine design, which has its own (political) problems). The Vulcan first stage will be the next test, and i can't imagine anyone counting on zero failures.
Centaur doesn't fly on Delta, and DCSS isn't the same as Centaur.
-
#849
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Dec, 2015 13:07
-
This one seems to be wandering a lot.
I think this is more interesting, from the update thread:
Elon made the official announcement:
"Aiming for Falcon rocket static fire at Cape Canaveral on the 16th and launch about three days later"
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/674885173838680064
Let's not ruin this discussion thread with SpaceX vs ULA
-
#850
by
Beittil
on 10 Dec, 2015 13:21
-
Man, window opening at 20:25 local is gonna mean i'll have to find out about the result the next morning
Not gonna wake up in the middle of the night for this
-
#851
by
Hugo-norway
on 10 Dec, 2015 13:33
-
Man, window opening at 20:25 local is gonna mean i'll have to find out about the result the next morning
Not gonna wake up in the middle of the night for this
"20:25 local" dont give a lot of information unless you know where local is. This forum has users all across the world, so please use timezone, UTC,GMT or EST
H
-
#852
by
Earendil
on 10 Dec, 2015 13:36
-
-
#853
by
abaddon
on 10 Dec, 2015 13:36
-
Man, window opening at 20:25 local is gonna mean i'll have to find out about the result the next morning
Not gonna wake up in the middle of the night for this
"20:25 local" dont give a lot of information unless you know where local is. This forum has users all across the world, so please use timezone, UTC,GMT or EST
H
Local is launch site timezone, and I would hope most of the folks on this forum would know where that is...
-
#854
by
Hugo-norway
on 10 Dec, 2015 13:46
-
I know that florida is UTC-5, but maybe others dont
H
-
#855
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Dec, 2015 14:11
-
Window is 20:25 to 23:25 local (to the launch site) time for the 19th.
That's 01:25 to 04:25 UTC (Ugg).
02:25 to 05:25 Norway Time
-
#856
by
Beittil
on 10 Dec, 2015 14:22
-
-
#857
by
ElGuapoGuano1
on 10 Dec, 2015 15:03
-
Any word on either RTLS to LC-13 X-1 or another ASDS try?
-
#858
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Dec, 2015 17:05
-
Any word on either RTLS to LC-13 X-1 or another ASDS try?
Not yet. SpaceX wants to try land landing, but there's FAA requirements and a decision may be made as late as on the day (the weather conditions etc).
-
#859
by
Jakusb
on 10 Dec, 2015 17:49
-
Man, window opening at 20:25 local is gonna mean i'll have to find out about the result the next morning
Not gonna wake up in the middle of the night for this
And miss out on this potential historic (land)landing of first stage? Hell no!
I am already as excited as if I drank too much coffee.
I so hope this RTF goes flawless with an historic touch as bonus...
Even ungodly hours won't stop me from wanting too experience this live..
