SpaceX vs ULA.

[Kerbal01]

There has been many discussions on various boards around the Internet bashing SpaceX because they take long to launch other things after launching a mission and their rockets aren't terribly reliable. I have two rebuttals for these: 1: SpaceX is learning, just as lockeed Martin and Boeing did back in the early days of the space race, SpaceX needs time to catch up, then they will be cheaper and more reliable than ULA. 2:the reliability rating takes into account the falcon 1 and falcon 1.0, the falcon 1 had many serious launch failures, but is not used anymore, so the reliability rating should be recalculated. Thoughts on these points?

Source:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/06/02/spacex-versus-the-air-force-the-other-side-of-the-story/?partner=yahootix

Edited June 8, 2014 by DarthVader

[Albert VDS]

the reliability rating takes into account the falcon 1 and falcon 1.0, the falcon 1 had many serious launch failures, but is not used anymore, so the reliability rating should be recalculated.

Exactly. That's like new Ford cars having low safety ratings because the T-ford didn't have an airbag.

[Kryten]

2:the reliability rating takes into account the falcon 1 and falcon 1.0, the falcon 1 had many serious launch failures, but is not used anymore, so the reliability rating should be recalculated. Thoughts on these points?

Using the standard way of predicting rocket reliabilty, falcon 9.1 still comes out with pretty a low figure-83%-due to the very low sample size.

[R0cketC0der]

Using the standard way of predicting rocket reliabilty, falcon 9.1 still comes out with pretty a low figure-83%-due to the very low sample size.

What do you mean by "standard way of predicting rocket reliability"? Until now both falcon 9 and 9.1 had a 100% success rate.

[Guest]

SpaceX!!! It's better.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

ULA, why? It's Boeing. And Lockheed Martin. Those are 2 huge aerospace enginnering companies. They can make a spaceplane if they wanted

[Albert VDS]

Using the standard way of predicting rocket reliabilty, falcon 9.1 still comes out with pretty a low figure-83%-due to the very low sample size.

How do you calculate that?

[Kryten]

What do you mean by "standard way of predicting rocket reliability"? Until now both falcon 9 and 9.1 had a 100% success rate.

They didn't, falcon 9 had a partial failure. Leaving that aside, that's empirical rate, not the same thing. Prediction is a bayesian method that starts with assuming a 50-50 chance for the first flight, and then modifying that assumption based on subsequent flights-thus rockets that have a perfect record purely due to low number of launches are distinguished from ones with real proven reliability.

EDIT: The actual equation is just (k+1)/(n+2), where k is the number of successful events (launches in this case) and n is the number of trials (i.e. launch attempts).

Edited June 7, 2014 by Kryten

[R0cketC0der]

They didn't, falcon 9 had a partial failure. Leaving that aside, that's empirical rate, not the same thing. Prediction is a bayesian method that starts with assuming a 50-50 chance for the first flight, and then modifying that assumption based on subsequent flights-thus rockets that have a perfect record purely due to low number of launches are distinguished from ones with real proven reliability.

The partial failure was an engine failure of a first stage engine which required both stages to burn a little bit longer. Due to this the estimate of NASA for a successful insertion of the secondary payload sunk from 99% to 95%. Because NASA was the primary contractor, they didn't allow SpaceX to insert the secondry payload in it's intended orbit, so it was left in a quickly decaying orbit. However it's still likely that if they were allowed, they would have successfully inserted the secondary payload into it's inteded orbit. Also, by ULA definitions, that launch was a perfect success.

[Kryten]

Also, by ULA definitions, that launch was a perfect success.

Sorry, try telling that to Orbcomm.

[xenomorph555]

From what I have seen Musk launches more court cases then actual rockets!

[Psycix]

Sorry, try telling that to Orbcomm.

The fate secondary payload was covered in the contract, NASA's payload simply took priority over it. Orbcomm got a HUGE discount on the launch to begin with because of these risks. They didn't lose *that* much really.

Note that despite the engine faillure the F9 was physically able to have finished the job and deliver BOTH payloads to their correct orbits, but NASA regulations wouldn't allow it.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/orbcomm-craft-launched-by-falcon-9-falls-out-of-orbit

Orbcomm requested that SpaceX carry one of their small satellites (weighing a few hundred pounds, vs. Dragon at over 12,000 pounds)... The higher the orbit, the more test data [Orbcomm] can gather, so they requested that we attempt to restart and raise altitude. NASA agreed to allow that, but only on condition that there be substantial propellant reserves, since the orbit would be close to the space station. It is important to appreciate that Orbcomm understood from the beginning that the orbit-raising maneuver was tentative. They accepted that there was a high risk of their satellite remaining at the Dragon insertion orbit. SpaceX would not have agreed to fly their satellite otherwise, since this was not part of the core mission and there was a known, material risk of no altitude raise.

---

ULA, why? It's Boeing. And Lockheed Martin. Those are 2 huge aerospace enginnering companies. They can make a spaceplane if they wanted

The only thing they can make are monopoly situations for their self-benefit rather than cheap space acces for the human race.

Musk has ideals. ULA has a craving for profit.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Psycix

[Kryten]

A failure to place payloads into the correct orbit is a partial failure, regardless of circumstances. Atlas' own failure involved a mechanical problem that's now been completely fixed, but it's included in the reliability figure just like Spacex's, which could potentially recur on any COTS flight.

[Reddragon]

Space X has a purpose which I support. ULA is much more business driven.

[Psycix]

A failure to place payloads into the correct orbit is a partial failure, regardless of circumstances. Atlas' own failure involved a mechanical problem that's now been completely fixed, but it's included in the reliability figure just like Spacex's, which could potentially recur on any COTS flight.

But as I said: They were physically able to complete both the primary and secondary objectives. They were simply not allowed to by NASA. The loss of the secondary payload was because of bureaucratics, not physics.

If you want you can hold on to 'a faillure is a faillure', but given the relative tinyness of the 500 pound secondary payload versus the 12,000 pound dragon capsule, the mission should be considered 96% successful (1/25th faillure) - and that doesn't count the massive discount Orbcomm got.

I think it is silly to consider the entire mission as a faillure because of the loss of a heavily discounted piggyback payload worth 4% of the weight.

So we could calculate that over 9 launches from which 8 were 100% succesful and one 96% succesful, the Falcon 9 has thus far achieved a 99,556% success rate. (By weight, still not counting in the discount.)

Edited June 7, 2014 by Psycix

[Kryten]

I think it is silly to consider the entire mission as a faillure because of the loss of a heavily discounted piggyback payload worth 4% of the weight.

The Atlas V mission ended up with both payloads being able to reach the correct orbit; it's still considered a partial failure. Why are people so hung up about this one flight? Atlas V beats Falcon 9 predicted even if it's treated as a success, so it doesn't make any real difference anyway.

[Psycix]

The Atlas V mission ended up with both payloads being able to reach the correct orbit; it's still considered a partial failure.

Primary payload <> discounted piggyback payload. Quite a big difference. The ULA payload had to expend stationkeeping fuel to reach the intented orbit, and the sattelite's lifetime was reduced.

Also, just in the view of ethics, SpaceX always states exactly what is going on, while ULA initially stated their AV-009 flight was a success ('The payload reached it's desired orbit'), until 8 hours later the news came out that it actually didn't. Were they trying to cover it up?

The reason why I believe the Falcon 9 is a better rocket is the price tag.

An Atlas V 541 costs ~$226 million, for 17,44 metric tons to LEO

A Falcon 9 v1.1 costs ~$61 million, for 13,15 metric tons to LEO

And this price is not counting on F9 first stage reusability at all, which might happen soon and slash the SpaceX price tag in half or even as low as tenfold. If they don't, the F9 is still cheaper.

Have faith in the Muskinator.

[Kryten]

Primary payload <> discounted piggyback payload. Quite a big difference. The ULA payload had to expend stationkeeping fuel to reach the intented orbit, an 91d the sattelite's lifetime was reduced.

Again, it doesn't really matter. Pretending that was a success, the predicted ratio for Falcon 9 becomes 91%, as opposed to 95% for Atlas 5.

[Albert VDS]

You know that translates to: safety of a car is the combination of crash tests and the desicions of the driver.

[R0cketC0der]

Let's just be honest, there is no way of telling how reliable the falcon 9 is yet because it got so little launches. We will have to wait another year or two before we can tell any meaningful conclusion about its reliability. However we can definitely tell that the falcon 9 is far cheaper than any other currently existing launch system. Also, if SpaceX manages to reuse the first stages quickly without any loss in reliability, they will be even cheaper than now and it will be almost impossible to have a better launch price without reusability.

Even before the falcon 9 and paid launches, no one has ever gotten to space this cheap before. They have gotten into orbit while they still had expended less than $1B, including development of the falcon 1 and the three failed falcon 1 launches.

[Faark]

Both! I'm a fan of SpaceX's goals, but spaceflight needs any competition it can get to promote R&D. And they better come up with some crazy cheap / efficient rockets, since i want to see a mars city grow within my lifetime! Thus i'm not very happy about the announced cuts to CCDev, even in case SpaceX wins the next round.

[Nibb31]

For some irrational reason, SpaceX has attracted a fan following that the older aerospace corporations simply have never had, although those companies have done more for space flight than SpaceX ever has. This is probably more due to Elon Musk's rockstar status than to their actual technological or commercial accomplishments. He has a Tony Stark vibe about him that the CEOs of other companies simply don't have.

As good as it is to see people get enthusiastic about space travel whenever Elon tweets about going to Mars, we really need to step back a second a look at some of the challenges here.

First of all, SpaceX is not a space program. It's a launch provider. They provide transport from the ground to LEO to people who pay. They are not competing with NASA or funding their own exploration program out their own pockets. If they do go to Mars one day, it will be because someone pays them to.

As a launch provider, they are on an extremely competitive market which is already saturated. A dozen of launch providers are competing for a limited number of flights.

On the other hand, they are scaling their company for a huge amount of launches. Their production facilities, launch sites and the potential for reusability are all assuming that lowering launch costs will allow the emergence of new markets. They are unrealistically oversized for current launch rates.

Musk is taking a huge risk here, because if those new markets fail to materialize, he's going to be stuck with huge fixed costs and his reusable rockets simply won't be viable. We all know that reusability is only viable as a cost reduction measure if launch rates are high.

[Albert VDS]

For some irrational reason, SpaceX has attracted a fan following that the older aerospace corporations simply have never had, although those companies have done more for space flight than SpaceX ever has. This is probably more due to Elon Musk's rockstar status than to their actual technological or commercial accomplishments. He has a Tony Stark vibe about him that the CEOs of other companies simply don't have.

Just because you seemingly don't share the same enthusiasm about SpaceX doesn't mean you need to call it irrational. To me it's not about Elon Musk, but the ideas and drive the company has.

It's their to the point attitude that gives them my vote. Why does SpaceX exist? Because they want to make us a multiplanitary species. To reach that goal they need and want to reduce the launch costs.

I'm sure there are people at ULA that think the same way, but I don't see those companies as a whole expressing that idea.

As good as it is to see people get enthusiastic about space travel whenever Elon tweets about going to Mars, we really need to step back a second a look at some of the challenges here.

First of all, SpaceX is not a space program. It's a launch provider. They provide transport from the ground to LEO to people who pay. They are not competing with NASA or funding their own exploration program out their own pockets. If they do go to Mars one day, it will be because someone pays them to.

Of course they aren't a Space agency, if they were they couldn't have their current goals. NASA isn't in the business of selling rides and creating colonies on other worlds.

SpaceX is a launch provider to become good at space travel and ultimately use that knowledge to sell their product to customers like you and me.

As a launch provider, they are on an extremely competitive market which is already saturated. A dozen of launch providers are competing for a limited number of flights.

On the other hand, they are scaling their company for a huge amount of launches. Their production facilities, launch sites and the potential for reusability are all assuming that lowering launch costs will allow the emergence of new markets. They are unrealistically oversized for current launch rates.

Musk is taking a huge risk here, because if those new markets fail to materialize, he's going to be stuck with huge fixed costs and his reusable rockets simply won't be viable. We all know that reusability is only viable as a cost reduction measure if launch rates are high.

Reusablity is everything, even if you only have a few launches launch cost would go down dramatically. Lower launch cost would make it affordable to more and more companies, people, etc.

Which in terms brings it down even more.

I could even see them selling seats on the Dragon V2, 1 seat for SpaceX personal and 6 for customers.

At current launch costs 1 seat would be worth 10 million, now if it's reusable and used 6 times then a seat would be worth 1.67 million.

However which way you look at it, I think it's fair to use commercial aviation as an comparison.

At the beginning of powered flight it was viewed as a novelty and it would have practical use.

After that it was only for the rich and now anyone can afford to fly.

[Kryten]

Reusablity is everything, even if you only have a few launches launch cost would go down dramatically.

That's the same mindset that bought us the space shuttle; just look how well that turned out.

[Kerbal01]

Article source added to OP.