4 ms·

Also if you look at the individual companies since their foundation?

gaius 10y ago
That's besides the point. What the govt is paying for with ULA is risk reduction. If you absolutely have to get that satellite up in response to a geopolitical situation, for example. Musk has done great work and SpaceX is definitely cost-competitive but can it deliver that level of certainty? No-one knows.
- thomasahle 10y ago
  My point is that a 100% track record is easy to achieve, if you are allowed to reset the counter just by renaming your company or forming an alliance.
  - gaius 10y ago
    They haven't done that. 106 launches.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - gunshigh 10y ago
      You're missing the point. Lockheed and Boeing had initial failures when each company was started. It's not like Boeing put up rockets on day one without a problem. Then, when each company approaches stability with their launches, they form a new alliance. That new alliance has "zero failures", but that's only because you ignore each company's original problem s.
      - clintonb 10y ago
        I see your point, but it's not exactly relevant. As a purchaser in need of putting a multi-million dollar satellite in space, I could not care less that your company had failures in its infancy. I want to see your most-recent results as evidence of your ability to put my satellite in space. Comparing SpaceX, and whatever its success rate is, to ULA, and it's 100% in 106 launches, is easy. The string of 106 successful launches is what I'm looking at. Just because you're new to the market doesn't necessarily mean you get a pass on quality/success. This is especially true when we're talking about putting expensive objects, that took years to build, in space.
        soared 10y ago
        > I could not care less that your company had failures in its infancy > Just because you're new to the market doesn't necessarily mean you get a pass on quality/success Contradiction?
        dogma1138 10y ago
        No it's not. When SpaceX gets to 100 launches with no failures you could effectively reset their counter if you want. ULA has currently 100% in orbit mission success rate which cannot be overlooked. Now for some it might not be an issue considering SpaceX is considerably cheaper, but if you are putting a new spy satellite into orbit your risk metrics might be different.
        soared 10y ago
        What I meant was if you're willing to allow failure in a company's infancy, doesn't that mean they /do/ get a pass on quality/success?
        mockery 10y ago
        The key point is that you're evaluating both companies TODAY, and they're at different points in their evolution. The fact that ULA/etc. had failures in their infancy is fairly irrelevant because that's the distant past - the fact that SpaceX had failures in its infancy is highly relevant because they're still IN their infancy. The "pass" on quality/success is for things that happened in the distant past because they're less relevant to current performance, not some strange pass for anything that happens "during infancy" regardless of when that was.
        thomasahle 10y ago
        Probably we can all agree, if we just say "30 launch strike" instead of "100% track record". The former is still impressive, whereas the second is a bit deceiving.
      - blackoil 10y ago
        When predicting reliability of next launch, you'll use weighted mean of historical data, not simple mean. And, weight of launches in 60s would be near 0, same for n-100 launches.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- ericd 10y ago
  Is the cost difference between the launches usually less than the cost of building a backup satellite?
  - ncallaway 10y ago
    Yes. Many times yes. The cost of launches is on the order of a few hundred million. Military satellites often cost a few billion. Losing a satellite is, by far, the biggest risk during a launch. The launch cost itself is non-trivial, but a small fraction of the overall mission cost.
    - pravda 10y ago
      > Military satellites often cost a few billion. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the plans for a military satellite cost a few billion? I would assume stamping out a new copy when you have the plans costs just a few tens of millions. I mean, if you wanted one Airbus A380, it would cost you 15 billion dollars. But once you have the plans, you can stamp out additional copies for 100 million or so.
      - gaius 10y ago
        Each one is unique, because they are always being improved.
    - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
      > Military satellites often cost a few billion This needs a reference.
      - mnl 10y ago
        Not really, but here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennan And no, you can't make cheap primary mirrors (in a garage).
Spooky23 10y ago
That's a real goalpost moving exercise. How is a 1960s failure relevant today?

gaius 10y ago

That's besides the point. What the govt is paying for with ULA is risk reduction. If you absolutely have to get that satellite up in response to a geopolitical situation, for example. Musk has done great work and SpaceX is definitely cost-competitive but can it deliver that level of certainty? No-one knows.

thomasahle 10y ago
My point is that a 100% track record is easy to achieve, if you are allowed to reset the counter just by renaming your company or forming an alliance.
- gaius 10y ago
  They haven't done that. 106 launches.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - gunshigh 10y ago
    You're missing the point. Lockheed and Boeing had initial failures when each company was started. It's not like Boeing put up rockets on day one without a problem. Then, when each company approaches stability with their launches, they form a new alliance. That new alliance has "zero failures", but that's only because you ignore each company's original problem s.
    - clintonb 10y ago
      I see your point, but it's not exactly relevant. As a purchaser in need of putting a multi-million dollar satellite in space, I could not care less that your company had failures in its infancy. I want to see your most-recent results as evidence of your ability to put my satellite in space. Comparing SpaceX, and whatever its success rate is, to ULA, and it's 100% in 106 launches, is easy. The string of 106 successful launches is what I'm looking at. Just because you're new to the market doesn't necessarily mean you get a pass on quality/success. This is especially true when we're talking about putting expensive objects, that took years to build, in space.
      - soared 10y ago
        > I could not care less that your company had failures in its infancy > Just because you're new to the market doesn't necessarily mean you get a pass on quality/success Contradiction?
        dogma1138 10y ago
        No it's not. When SpaceX gets to 100 launches with no failures you could effectively reset their counter if you want. ULA has currently 100% in orbit mission success rate which cannot be overlooked. Now for some it might not be an issue considering SpaceX is considerably cheaper, but if you are putting a new spy satellite into orbit your risk metrics might be different.
        soared 10y ago
        What I meant was if you're willing to allow failure in a company's infancy, doesn't that mean they /do/ get a pass on quality/success?
        mockery 10y ago
        The key point is that you're evaluating both companies TODAY, and they're at different points in their evolution. The fact that ULA/etc. had failures in their infancy is fairly irrelevant because that's the distant past - the fact that SpaceX had failures in its infancy is highly relevant because they're still IN their infancy. The "pass" on quality/success is for things that happened in the distant past because they're less relevant to current performance, not some strange pass for anything that happens "during infancy" regardless of when that was.
        thomasahle 10y ago
        Probably we can all agree, if we just say "30 launch strike" instead of "100% track record". The former is still impressive, whereas the second is a bit deceiving.
    - blackoil 10y ago
      When predicting reliability of next launch, you'll use weighted mean of historical data, not simple mean. And, weight of launches in 60s would be near 0, same for n-100 launches.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
ericd 10y ago
Is the cost difference between the launches usually less than the cost of building a backup satellite?
- ncallaway 10y ago
  Yes. Many times yes. The cost of launches is on the order of a few hundred million. Military satellites often cost a few billion. Losing a satellite is, by far, the biggest risk during a launch. The launch cost itself is non-trivial, but a small fraction of the overall mission cost.
  - pravda 10y ago
    > Military satellites often cost a few billion. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the plans for a military satellite cost a few billion? I would assume stamping out a new copy when you have the plans costs just a few tens of millions. I mean, if you wanted one Airbus A380, it would cost you 15 billion dollars. But once you have the plans, you can stamp out additional copies for 100 million or so.
    - gaius 10y ago
      Each one is unique, because they are always being improved.
  - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
    > Military satellites often cost a few billion This needs a reference.
    - mnl 10y ago
      Not really, but here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennan And no, you can't make cheap primary mirrors (in a garage).

Spooky23 10y ago

That's a real goalpost moving exercise. How is a 1960s failure relevant today?