10 ms·
Unfortunately, it's 2 for 29. But if you look at the FT version, it's 1 for 8. 1. What kind of insurance will be needed on a billion dollar NSA satellite? $10
by nixos 10y ago
Unfortunately, it's 2 for 29.
But if you look at the FT version, it's 1 for 8.
1. What kind of insurance will be needed on a billion dollar NSA satellite? $100 million? $125 million? It's not so cheep anymore, and considering delays etc. It's not such a great deal anymore.
2. They probably should have a "stable" platform and a "beta" platform, with a discount offered for beta.
Unfortunately, the "move fast and break things" attitude doesn't work with rockets.
- vel0city 10y agoWell, the moving fast part is pretty important in rockets. Breaking things on the other hand...
- dredmorbius 10y agoThats's what the explosive bolts are for.
- rbanffy 10y agoSince until now rockets have been of the throwaway kind, they are all broken by the time we finish using them.
- jfoutz 10y agoWell, the whole origin of rocketry was about moving fast and breaking things. Less glib, I'm not so sure. In shed development, you spend a lot to make perfect things. Aston Martin or Rolls Royce are great examples of this. In factory development, you spend a lot to make perfect systems. I'd hold up Toyota or Honda as good examples. I'm not an expert in SpaceX technology, but i thought their big supposed advantage was tons of automation. With bespoke development, it's tough to bring down the failure rate. you just keep testing and verifying more. With a defined system, you fix the system to avoid those errors. There's obviously a spectrum, and SpaceX isn't that far out on the automation scale, but i do think that's the intention. If they can survive long enough to reap those benefits, their launches will be cheaper and more reliable. In the mean time, lots of cheap, risky, attempts are probably better for debugging than thinking real hard and building the perfect thing.
- WalterBright 10y ago> Unfortunately, the "move fast and break things" attitude doesn't work with rockets. Rocket technology has never advanced without catastrophic failures. "Breaking things" is the only way forward with it. Rockets, of necessity, have to push designs to their limits, or they'll never lift off the pad.
- reddog 10y agoI don't know if I agree. Aside from Challenger (I know -- a pretty big aside), what catastrophic launch failures were there with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo program rockets? Or the Delta 2. And doesn't the old-fashion-can't-even-land-on-a barge Atlas 5 have a perfect launch and mission success record of 62 of 62? It seems like building and launching a rocket that doesn't explode every 14th time is possible but its not cheap. The US has been doing it since the 60's. SpaceX may turn out to be OK for delivering Tang to the ISS, but let's let something else carry the Webb into orbit.
- OrwellianChild 10y agoThe whole of rocketry has been fraught: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac...
- WalterBright 10y agoThe Mercury rockets had a lot of catastrophic failures before the first manned launch.
- reddog 10y agoFair enough. According to Wikipedia of the 26 Mercury program missions there were 6 pre 1962 Mercury program launch failures before the 6 successful manned missions. 5 of the 6 failures were test flights without payload.
- dredmorbius 10y agoApollo had 17 missions and at least four failures or near failures that come to mind: * The Apollo 1 launch-pad fire, during a training session, using a 100% pressurised oxygen atomosphere. Three dead. Grissom, White, and Chaffee. I can list them from memory. * Apollo 11 suffered a lunar lander computer crash in the final seconds before landing, was programmed to land on what would have been unsurvivable terrain, and had fewer than 30 seconds of fuel left when it finally touched down. * Apollo 12 was struck by lightning as it left the launch pad, knocking out much of the electrical system, which had to be reset. Fortunately they built things robustly. * Apollo 13 had an oxygen tank explode as it was en route to the moon. The mission was aborted, though orbital mechanics meant that the astronauts still had to orbit the Moon, then return to Earth. Any of 11, 12, or 13 could have ended with fatalities. One scenario for the command module pilot (Michael Collins in Apollo 11) was, if needs be, to leave his two crew members on the lunar surface and to return to Earth alone.
- sangnoir 10y agoSpeaking of insurance: the type of insurance policy that was taken on this unfortunate payload would only kick in at launch (ignition). Test firing was not covered. 1. https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409983074426881 https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409983074426881
- jsprogrammer 10y agoLook at the later response: https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771410879770456064 https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771410879770456064 Pre-launch was covered by a different policy.
- troyastorino 10y agoInsurance policies for rocket launches typically expect 1 in 10 rockets to blow up on the pad. ULA's 100% success rate is unusual for the industry. Elon and SpaceX are obviously shooting for higher reliability than the industry standard, but I don't think you should chalk this up to 'move fast and break things' causing substandard reliability.