Author Topic: SpaceX customers' views on reuse  (Read 88642 times)

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1703
  • California
  • Liked: 1283
  • Likes Given: 1879
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #360 on: 12/01/2017 02:33 AM »
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.

Lol.  You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date.  I strenuously recommend the ISO format for datesYYYY-MM-DD.

So, instead of 15/06/17 (which is ambiguously possible to read as either June 15, 2017 or June 17, 2015) you use 2015-06-17.  Based on column width in the table it looks like there is enough room to switch to 4 digit years without any issues. This also avoids any contention over whether US (mm/dd/yy) or Euro (dd/mm/yy) dating convention should be used.

Otherwise, it's a great list and I heartily thank you for putting it together (and scdavis for recommending it, great idea)!  I already learned 2 things I had either missed or forgotten earlier. 

My only other suggestion would be to consider using a different color (maybe on the dates since links will remain blue) to highlight either the first actual reuse launch for any given customer OR highlight any given customer's initial statement that they will/plan to reuse.

edit: including highlight suggestion
« Last Edit: 12/01/2017 02:47 AM by deruch »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7478
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3257
  • Likes Given: 949
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #361 on: 12/01/2017 06:15 AM »
Iíve 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.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7892
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4131
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #362 on: 12/01/2017 06:26 AM »
Iíve 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.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline octavo

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #363 on: 12/01/2017 07:03 AM »
Iíve 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.

So today is 0 December? Sounds good to me.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7892
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4131
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #364 on: 12/01/2017 07:12 AM »
Iíve 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.

So today is 0 December? Sounds good to me.
The months will be designated 0..B of course.

Thus: 2017B0
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline octavo

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #365 on: 12/01/2017 07:33 AM »


Iíve 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.

So today is 0 December? Sounds good to me.
The months will be designated 0..B of course.

Thus: 2017B0

0x7E1B0 you mean? If we're going hex, might as well do the year too!

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7892
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4131
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #366 on: 12/01/2017 07:35 AM »


Iíve 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.

So today is 0 December? Sounds good to me.
The months will be designated 0..B of course.

Thus: 2017B0

0x7E1B0 you mean? If we're going hex, might as well do the year too!
Can't do the year in hex since the whole business of B.C. and A.D. just confuses the hell out of everyone.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline NathanR

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #367 on: 12/01/2017 09:50 AM »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12945
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3695
  • Likes Given: 634
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #368 on: 12/01/2017 11:33 AM »
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.
It is objective for me, because I follow a rule.  The rule is this.  If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure.  The Orbcomm payload reentered instead of reaching 350 x 750 km.  The reason doesn't matter (if the Merlin hadn't failed, NASA rules would not have been employed).  I don't include AMOS 6 in my regular list because, as you note, it was not actually launched, but since the payload was destroyed, it makes sense to include it as a "launch campaign failure" during some comparisons.  I did it here because the post to which I was responding included that as a failure.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/01/2017 11:37 AM by edkyle99 »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Liked: 3092
  • Likes Given: 4419
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #369 on: 12/01/2017 12:15 PM »
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.
It is objective for me, because I follow a rule.  The rule is this.  If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure.  The Orbcomm payload reentered instead of reaching 350 x 750 km.  The reason doesn't matter (if the Merlin hadn't failed, NASA rules would not have been employed).  I don't include AMOS 6 in my regular list because, as you note, it was not actually launched, but since the payload was destroyed, it makes sense to include it as a "launch campaign failure" during some comparisons.  I did it here because the post to which I was responding included that as a failure.

 - Ed Kyle

I appreciate your tabulations and consistency.  I was responding to your post which violated your own rules that are indeed a good effort at maintaining objectivity.  No matter the reason, it does still come down in many cases to (subjective) judgement calls -- giving V1.0 a 100% failure score when it was anything but -- that have impact in small number statistics. 

"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline speedevil

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Fife
  • Liked: 288
  • Likes Given: 262
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #370 on: 12/01/2017 01:18 PM »
It is objective for me, because I follow a rule.  The rule is this.  If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure.  The Orbcomm payload reentered instead of reaching 350 x 750 km.  The reason doesn't matter (if the Merlin hadn't failed, NASA rules would not have been employed).  I don't include AMOS 6 in my regular list because, as you note, it was not actually launched, but since the payload was destroyed, it makes sense to include it as a "launch campaign failure" during some comparisons.  I did it here because the post to which I was responding included that as a failure

By that strict method, surely you would also count all scrubs as launch failures, as they fail to attain the specified orbit.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Liked: 3092
  • Likes Given: 4419
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #371 on: 12/01/2017 01:34 PM »
It is objective for me, because I follow a rule.  The rule is this.  If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure.  The Orbcomm payload reentered instead of reaching 350 x 750 km.  The reason doesn't matter (if the Merlin hadn't failed, NASA rules would not have been employed).  I don't include AMOS 6 in my regular list because, as you note, it was not actually launched, but since the payload was destroyed, it makes sense to include it as a "launch campaign failure" during some comparisons.  I did it here because the post to which I was responding included that as a failure

By that strict method, surely you would also count all scrubs as launch failures, as they fail to attain the specified orbit.

That is a silly interpretation.

On the other hand, a launch that meets Ed's rule...(i.e., drops off its payload short of the intended orbit)

Quote
If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure.

... but happens to be carrying a payload that has the ability to make up the difference (several examples from 'perfect track record' launchers), this is counted as a 100% success.  Also, when a launcher first stage fails to deliver the second plus payload to 'this rule's intended orbit' (recent Atlas v launch for Orbital that had first stage cut out five seconds early) -- but the second stage has the oomph to deliver the payload in spite of this launch vehicle failure -- it is credited as a 100% success.

The lesson here is that being 'objective' in treating data is always in the eyes of the beholder* to some degree.
IMO, Ed is doing an honest and effective job of attempting to be objective, but that is not truly possible for anyone.
All statistics must be treated skeptically, to be used for what story they can tell and not to be used beyond that.

* That is, subjective.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2017 03:18 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4799
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3440
  • Likes Given: 1122
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #372 on: 12/01/2017 03:45 PM »
Thank you for the feedback on the 1st post summary list.

Iíve hopefully addressed the comments raised. Iíve gone with colouring the launches as they are different from and, IMHO, more significant than many of the other entries. I think itís also interesting to see how other events and announcements relate to launch dates.

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1703
  • California
  • Liked: 1283
  • Likes Given: 1879
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #373 on: 12/01/2017 05:54 PM »
Thank you for the feedback on the 1st post summary list.

I’ve hopefully addressed the comments raised. I’ve gone with colouring the launches as they are different from and, IMHO, more significant than many of the other entries. I think it’s also interesting to see how other events and announcements relate to launch dates.

Nice.  That's what I preferred as well.  My only further note would be that I think the purple color is very hard to distinguish from the black of normal text.  In a list with lots of colors it would probably stand out, so in the (near) future when there are lots of customers flying on reused boosters this wouldn't really matter.  But for SES and maybe the first few it might be pretty hard to notice.  Not sure what to use instead though.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2017 05:55 PM by deruch »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Liked: 380
  • Likes Given: 1248
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #374 on: 12/01/2017 08:04 PM »
It is objective for me, because I follow a rule.  The rule is this.  If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure. 

What about that Soyuz launch in july that flew >70 smallsats in addition to the primary payload. Several of those ended up in wrong orbits. Total failure?

Online Eagandale4114

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #375 on: 12/01/2017 08:21 PM »
Iridium released a video with their views on it


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12945
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3695
  • Likes Given: 634
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #376 on: 12/01/2017 08:34 PM »
It is objective for me, because I follow a rule.  The rule is this.  If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure. 

What about that Soyuz launch in july that flew >70 smallsats in addition to the primary payload. Several of those ended up in wrong orbits. Total failure?
My information says that several cubesats stopped transmitting and that a spokesman for Glavkosmos said there was "no evidence that rocket problems cause the cubesat failures".
http://spacenews.com/glavkosmos-denies-launch-vehicle-caused-cubesat-failures/

So not a launch vehicle failure based on currently-available information.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/01/2017 08:36 PM by edkyle99 »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4799
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3440
  • Likes Given: 1122
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #377 on: 12/01/2017 08:41 PM »
My only further note would be that I think the purple color is very hard to distinguish from the black of normal text.

I went with purple as on my (iPad) screen itís legible, different enough from black and not too strong that it overpowers the green. I tried several other colours and they seemed rather worse to me. My only other suggestion would be to use red for first re-use and green for subsequent ones.

Does anyone else find purple not distinct enough and/or have alternative suggestions?

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Liked: 380
  • Likes Given: 1248
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #378 on: 12/01/2017 08:53 PM »
http://spacenews.com/glavkosmos-denies-launch-vehicle-caused-cubesat-failures/

So not a launch vehicle failure based on currently-available information.

 - Ed Kyle

From your own link: "one of Spireís Lemur satellites was injected into the wrong orbit."

By your own definition - a failed launch. No?

Online Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1028
  • Liked: 417
  • Likes Given: 569
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #379 on: 12/02/2017 12:27 AM »
Since the title of this thread is "customer views", let's hear NASA call that v1.0 flight a 100% failure.

Or, why not just score based on mass and/or payload value?

Tags: