4 ms·
> let's talk about failures, unrecoverable ones. Then why is spaceX at 93%? 2 unrecoverable failures in 59 campaigns equals 96.6% success. All the competitors
by kanox 8y ago
> let's talk about failures, unrecoverable ones.
Then why is spaceX at 93%? 2 unrecoverable failures in 59 campaigns equals 96.6% success.
All the competitors you listed have roots in government space programs going back many decades. Rockets tend to have a lot of "infant mortality" that those programs are way past.
Also, some of your claims are value/wrong: the Delta and Long March families are very large and very old and if you count the earliest attempts of governments to build ICBMs you get reliability figures worse than SpaceX.
Conversely the H-IIA, Delta 4, Atlas 5, Ariane 5 have fewer than 100 launches each.
Good data can be found here: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logsum.html http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logsum.html
- rory096 8y ago(ATLAS ORBITAL 325(46) .86 .86) (ALL ATLAS 582(116) .80 .80) Ouch.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kadenshep 8y ago>the Delta and Long March families are very large and very old and if you count the earliest attempts of governments to build ICBMs you get reliability figures worse than SpaceX. "If you do this thing that you didn't do, you get worse figures." Um, okay.
- kanox 8y agoBut you did write (entire family) for Delta and Long March. Your data is confusing and wrong.
- kadenshep 8y ago...for orbital launches, which is quite literally what 99% of these rockets have been used for. Which also is exactly what we are talking about. It's only confusing if you're wanting to be disingenuous.