Space X Explosion

Ouch... It looks like the umbilical tower is still standing. I bet that sat payload is a total loss.
 
Bummer. I like what SpaceX is doing too. They will figure it out I am sure.

Payload may not be a loss if it wasn't loaded yet.
 
ARFlyer said:
Ouch... It looks like the umbilical tower is still standing. I bet that sat payload is a total loss.
Click to expand...
ya but....they are usually built in pairs or triplets....so there is probably another payload that could be readied quickly.
 
It's amazing to me that even after 60 years of huge $ expenditures and millions of hours of work by very smart, hard working people, getting a payload into space is still pretty difficult. And not a sure thing.

Gravity ain't no joke!
 
Got the notification over the CNBC app on my phone. Sad news, you know many many many many working hours went into that.
 
Is it just me or does this outfit fail at a higher rate than the rest of the "agency's"?
 
Acrodustertoo said:
Is it just me or does this outfit fail at a higher rate than the rest of the "agency's"?
Click to expand...
They are pioneering very low cost lifting devices and ultimately want to pioneer "affordable" colonization of Mars. They do amazing things at amazingly low cost. They will expierce a lot of failure in the beginning for sure but they tend to work it out.

Reusable primary boosters are an amazing development that they have tested and failed on but in the end they landed one.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
Is it just me or does this outfit fail at a higher rate than the rest of the "agency's"?
Click to expand...

It's just you. They've had three* launch related failures. The rest of the "failures" were related to landing testing. They've launched 29 rockets. So you're looking at a 90% success rate for a company that's only been doing commercial launches for 6 years.


*one failure was a secondary payload. Primary payload delivery was successful
 
Last edited:
According to Wiki, they are showing 11 Failures of the Falcon 9 from Spacex. Most are recover as you said.
 
When Orbital had a launch failure, spacex were real asses about it. It's the rocket business, stuff goes kaboom.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
According to Wiki, they are showing 11 Failures of the Falcon 9 from Spacex. Most are recover as you said.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Those 8 recovery failures I don't count as real failures in my book. Those strike me as concept testing since they're not a requirement of the launch or the customer. It's a desire on the part of SpaceX.
 
ircphoenix said:
Yeah. Those 8 recovery failures I don't count as real failures in my book. Those strike me as concept testing since they're not a requirement of the launch or the customer. It's a desire on the part of SpaceX.
Click to expand...
I remember back in the late 50's and '60s. These things were blowing up all over the place. Or at least it seemed like it.
 
JOhnH said:
Then again, it was Facebook's payload.
Click to expand...
205560-facebook_thumb_down_180_original.jpg
 
ircphoenix said:
It's just you. They've had three* launch related failures. The rest of the "failures" were related to landing testing. They've launched 29 rockets. So you're looking at a 90% success rate for a company that's only been doing commercial launches for 6 years.


*one failure was a secondary payload. Primary payload delivery was successful
Click to expand...

That's actually not that good. ULA has had three "launch anomalies" that affected the payload, and none was a total loss. That's over twice the time period as SpaceX.

They are doing intentionally higher risk development, so not surprisingly, the risks are higher.

Losing a payload is a BIG deal for those whose careers depend on that payload.
 
MAKG1 said:
That's actually not that good. ULA has had three "launch anomalies" that affected the payload, and none was a total loss. That's over twice the time period as SpaceX.

They are doing intentionally higher risk development, so not surprisingly, the risks are higher.

Losing a payload is a BIG deal for those whose careers depend on that payload.
Click to expand...

But then you look at a company like Orbital Sciences who has 1 RUD in 5 launches... 80% success rate. But still double the failure rate of SpaceX.

And it's not quite fair to use ULA as a comparison since they're using rockets that first left their launch pads in the 50's.
 
RalphInCA said:
It's amazing to me that even after 60 years of huge $ expenditures and millions of hours of work by very smart, hard working people, getting a payload into space is still pretty difficult. And not a sure thing.
Click to expand...
"There's a fine line between a rocket and a bomb. The finer the line, the better the rocket...."
(Attributed to Werner Von Braun)

Chemical rockets are ugly, UGLY things to use, but right now we have no other options. This is one reason I'm skeptical about the "Space Tourism" business; the rich riders are going to want more than 99% safety.

The next X-prize should be a completion to develop a non-chemical propulsion system that would provide enough thrust for earth launch.

Ron Wanttaja
 
ircphoenix said:
But then you look at a company like Orbital Sciences who has 1 RUD in 5 launches... 80% success rate. But still double the failure rate of SpaceX.
Click to expand...
Meaningless, with such a small sample size and so early in the developmental life. Pegasus (the air-launched system) had a bunch of failures early on, but the reliability straightened itself out.

I had a payload (BATSAT) that rode to orbit in the late '90s. We all were given space on the vehicle to write our own particular messages to go into orbit with the spacecraft. Mindful of the recent Pegasus failures, I wrote, "If you can read this, you are one smart fish!"

Ron Wanttaja
 
ircphoenix said:
But then you look at a company like Orbital Sciences who has 1 RUD in 5 launches... 80% success rate. But still double the failure rate of SpaceX.

And it's not quite fair to use ULA as a comparison since they're using rockets that first left their launch pads in the 50's.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's fair. The point is to get stuff into orbit or beyond. If older stuff does it better, it's better.
 
ircphoenix said:
And it's not quite fair to use ULA as a comparison since they're using rockets that first left their launch pads in the 50's.
Click to expand...

But when ULA loses one it goes in a big way. Look up Atlas and Delta launch vehicle failures.
 
MAKG1 said:
Sure, it's fair. The point is to get stuff into orbit or beyond. If older stuff does it better, it's better.
Click to expand...

Comparing the success of a rocket design that had been around for 50 years before ULA even came into existence to a rocket design that has only been carrying commercial payloads since 2010 isn't exactly fair. The first 10 years of the Delta and Atlas series rockets weren't exactly stellar performances. =D But then again SpaceX has the benefit of learning from those engineering failures too.
 
ircphoenix said:
Comparing the success of a rocket design that had been around for 50 years before ULA even came into existence to a rocket design that has only been carrying commercial payloads since 2010 isn't exactly fair. The first 10 years of the Delta and Atlas series rockets weren't exactly stellar performances. =D But then again SpaceX has the benefit of learning from those engineering failures too.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's fair.

This is not a county fair, it's a method for getting stuff into orbit or beyond. You judge a project's effectiveness by how well it accomplishes a goal, given all of its conditions, including its maturity.

The equation may be different in a few more years, but right now, SpaceX is reaping the consequences of their decision to go higher risk, and they don't have all the bugs out yet.

Right now, a Delta/Titan/whatever is a safer choice for your payload than a Falcon.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
ya but....safer is mo spensive....:eek:
Click to expand...

BUT United Launch Alliance is dropping costs and prices to compete with SpaceX. But their least expensive launch still lists for about 160 mil. SpaceX's list price is 61.4 mil. I wonder how many replacement satellites you could buy for that delta. Also, anyone know if the launch companies offer insurance on launches?
 
Wonder if future test engine runs are going to be sans payload...
 
ircphoenix said:
BUT United Launch Alliance is dropping costs and prices to compete with SpaceX. But their least expensive launch still lists for about 160 mil. SpaceX's list price is 61.4 mil. I wonder how many replacement satellites you could buy for that delta. Also, anyone know if the launch companies offer insurance on launches?
Click to expand...
I wish I had saved it but a year or two ago I found a great article comparing spacex to the european rivals. Sure the spacex is cheaper on the surface of it but the european launch companies could cary much more payload. IE; 4-5 satelites versus 1-2 for spacex so when it was all said and done it was cheaper to use the foriegn. It was something to that effect so don't quote me on the specifics but that was the gist of it(i think, I guess I am getting old or not enough sleep)
 
Acrodustertoo said:
I wish I had saved it but a year or two ago I found a great article comparing spacex to the european rivals. Sure the spacex is cheaper on the surface of it but the european launch companies could cary much more payload. IE; 4-5 satelites versus 1-2 for spacex so when it was all said and done it was cheaper to use the foriegn. It was something to that effect so don't quote me on the specifics but that was the gist of it(i think, I guess I am getting old or not enough sleep)
Click to expand...

But again, isn't that an apples to oranges comparison? ULA has heavy lift vehicles too that can launch whatever you want to sling up into orbit. That's the purpose of the future Falcon Heavy rocket. ULA's cost per metric ton on the low end is 25-34 mil. Arianespace is 20mil/metric ton. SpaceX is 11.3mil/metric ton.
 
Musk is tweeting that an upper stage payload let loose when fueling LOX.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Musk is tweeting that an upper stage payload let loose when fueling LOX.
Click to expand...

That's certainly what it looks like. The explodey bit starts high. I liked watching the end where the payload kinda lazily falls over and explodes when it hits the ground only because in my mind it's like "Well maybe it surv-- nope."
 
Are those birds tweeting in the background?
 
Stingray Don said:
I think it know what happened here....

It came from together. Or it might have been a rapid unplanned disassembly. Yeah, definitely one or the other.
Click to expand...
It done come from together fer sure and it might have been an unplanned rapid disassembly. Get it right if'n yer gonna be guessin'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top