6 ms·

As far as I know, ULA's track record for reliability is much better. Last I read, maybe a few months ago, SpaceX launches had failed 1 in ~19 times, and ULA's f

As far as I know, ULA's track record for reliability is much better. Last I read, maybe a few months ago, SpaceX launches had failed 1 in ~19 times, and ULA's failed zero in ~85. I wonder how the Air Force addressed this issue. Perhaps the cost of failure is less than the premium for reliability; perhaps they evaluated reliability based on something other than the track records (e.g., an engineering review); and of course it's political - McCain, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is reputedly a strong advocate for SpaceX.

qaq 10y ago
It's very easy to address even if you assume 5.5% failure rate will remain constant and not decline Space X is still significantly cheaper.
- hackuser 10y ago
  It depends on the costs of the payloads.
  - sounds 10y ago
    Launch insurance is also included, and for a very good reason.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      It's included in SpaceX's/ULA's/whoever's bid? Insurance doesn't reduce the costs of (whatever event you're insuring), it just evens them out. Instead of paying for (e.g.) 1 failure every 25 launches, you pay for 0.04 failures on every launch (plus the insurance company's profit). So the payloads' costs still apply.
      - maaku 10y ago
        For the price differential we're talking about, it works out in the customer's benefit.
    - Mvandenbergh 10y ago
      I don't think government buys launch insurance and if they do, they shouldn't.
      - jessriedel 10y ago
        Even if an entity is large enough to self-insure, it can make sense to buy insurance if you don't have the internal capacity to estimate the risk accurately. Yes, it might be better to simply hire the risk assessors from the insurance company, but there might be incentive issues. It can also help for external transparency: If the project fails and is self-insured, then people can question whether the risk assessment was correct.
  - qaq 10y ago
    Sure does but avg payload cost would need to be 990,000,000 for it to no longer hold true.
- neurotech1 10y ago
  The NRO sometimes has a spare satellite in production, so if one failed somehow, the replacement could be ready relatively quickly, if it was vital to national security. The NRO has transferred surplus hardware to NASA for science missions. Google Terra Bella (aka Skybox) uses SmallSat (~100 Kg) imaging satellites, and the NRO could use a similar for priority uses where a launch failure wouldn't be as painful as loosing a $1Bn spy satellite. A SmallSat wouldn't be as capable as the larger ones, but has advantages. The purpose of the EELV program is more about assured access to launch vehicles to get to space, than individual missions being near 100% success.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
Atlas V had a partial failure in 2007, cutting down the operational life of the satellites. The most recent Cyngus mission was also nearly a failure when MECO occurred 5 seconds prematurely, but Centaur was able to make up the difference. Atlas I and II also had a healthy number of failures, so the question is whether you consider III and beyond a new vehicle, or a continuation of a single development program. CRS-7 was certainly a blow to SpaceX. There's no sugar-coating that, but there's no such thing as certainty in space. Even with the stellar Atlas V record, there's still risk. Also, for this mission, no justification needed to be made, as ULA did not submit a bid. And yes, Falcon 9 went through a lengthy certification process.
Symmetry 10y ago
If I was launching a $10 billion dollar satellite ULA's very impressive track record would make me strongly consider going with them. SpaceX's reliability going forward is probably going to be better than their reliability up to this point but there's essentially no way they won't lose a single satellite over their next 100 launches. But these GPS satellites are only in the $100m dollar range according to the internet so it just doesn't make sense to pay an extra $50m to go from 97% reliability to 99.7%.
- kilroy123 10y ago
  Plus they have insurance on it. If something goes wrong, they'll still be ahead. I'd bet money, the insurance is far less than the savings by switching to SpaceX. The only problem would be a long delay....

qaq 10y ago

It's very easy to address even if you assume 5.5% failure rate will remain constant and not decline Space X is still significantly cheaper.

hackuser 10y ago
It depends on the costs of the payloads.
- sounds 10y ago
  Launch insurance is also included, and for a very good reason.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    It's included in SpaceX's/ULA's/whoever's bid? Insurance doesn't reduce the costs of (whatever event you're insuring), it just evens them out. Instead of paying for (e.g.) 1 failure every 25 launches, you pay for 0.04 failures on every launch (plus the insurance company's profit). So the payloads' costs still apply.
    - maaku 10y ago
      For the price differential we're talking about, it works out in the customer's benefit.
  - Mvandenbergh 10y ago
    I don't think government buys launch insurance and if they do, they shouldn't.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      Even if an entity is large enough to self-insure, it can make sense to buy insurance if you don't have the internal capacity to estimate the risk accurately. Yes, it might be better to simply hire the risk assessors from the insurance company, but there might be incentive issues. It can also help for external transparency: If the project fails and is self-insured, then people can question whether the risk assessment was correct.
- qaq 10y ago
  Sure does but avg payload cost would need to be 990,000,000 for it to no longer hold true.
neurotech1 10y ago
The NRO sometimes has a spare satellite in production, so if one failed somehow, the replacement could be ready relatively quickly, if it was vital to national security. The NRO has transferred surplus hardware to NASA for science missions. Google Terra Bella (aka Skybox) uses SmallSat (~100 Kg) imaging satellites, and the NRO could use a similar for priority uses where a launch failure wouldn't be as painful as loosing a $1Bn spy satellite. A SmallSat wouldn't be as capable as the larger ones, but has advantages. The purpose of the EELV program is more about assured access to launch vehicles to get to space, than individual missions being near 100% success.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago

Atlas V had a partial failure in 2007, cutting down the operational life of the satellites. The most recent Cyngus mission was also nearly a failure when MECO occurred 5 seconds prematurely, but Centaur was able to make up the difference. Atlas I and II also had a healthy number of failures, so the question is whether you consider III and beyond a new vehicle, or a continuation of a single development program. CRS-7 was certainly a blow to SpaceX. There's no sugar-coating that, but there's no such thing as certainty in space. Even with the stellar Atlas V record, there's still risk. Also, for this mission, no justification needed to be made, as ULA did not submit a bid. And yes, Falcon 9 went through a lengthy certification process.

Symmetry 10y ago

If I was launching a $10 billion dollar satellite ULA's very impressive track record would make me strongly consider going with them. SpaceX's reliability going forward is probably going to be better than their reliability up to this point but there's essentially no way they won't lose a single satellite over their next 100 launches. But these GPS satellites are only in the $100m dollar range according to the internet so it just doesn't make sense to pay an extra $50m to go from 97% reliability to 99.7%.

kilroy123 10y ago
Plus they have insurance on it. If something goes wrong, they'll still be ahead. I'd bet money, the insurance is far less than the savings by switching to SpaceX. The only problem would be a long delay....