6 ms·

>The internal NASA attempts to derail the program were the most difficult to overcome As much as SpaceX owes to NASA, from talking to someone directly working

>The internal NASA attempts to derail the program were the most difficult to overcome As much as SpaceX owes to NASA, from talking to someone directly working on SLS, it seems apparent that this is still the case and there is a dismissive mindset towards SpaceX and their potential. A moon orbiting space station in 2028 still seems to some, the obvious next step

Klathmon 8y ago
I can see their point though. If you ignore cost, SpaceX still has a lot to prove. They are doing amazing things and I personally wouldn't bet against them, but the people they are fighting against have a lot higher success rate at this point, and a LOT more experience. SpaceX is changing the game, and reducing the cost of getting to space might be what causes the next great age in humanity, but at the same time I have to say that I'm relieved that the James Webb telescope is going up on Ariane 5. And if you worked at NASA and really want the absolute best, I can see why you'd want to avoid the "cheap" option, even if you agree that they might one day be better.
- aplummer 8y ago
  I think you said it yourself in the middle, it will never be worth sending me to space on an Ariane X, but maybe I can afford a spot on the falcon 25. That’s what I find so exciting about the cheap version.
  - Klathmon 8y ago
    I agree, but at the same time, I don't know if I'd want to go up on a Falcon 9...
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      NASA is about to human-rate Falcon 9/Dragon 2. Perhaps you'd rather have flown on the Shuttle?
      - marvin 8y ago
        It certainly had a bigger, well-paid crowd standing behind it an telling everyone that it was safe.
      - Klathmon 8y ago
        I meant that in the past tense (which rereading my comment was not how I wrote it!), I'm super excited for F9 to start taking people to ISS!
- blago 8y ago
  Looking at their wikipedia pages, the Ariane 5 has had a total of 5 (partial and full) failures out of 99 launches. This is a 95% success rate. Falcon 9 has 3 failures out of 61 launches. Their success rate is actually slightly better.
  - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
    >Between April 2003 and December 2017, Ariane 5 flew 82 consecutive missions without failure, but suffered a partial failure in January 2018. And the satellites still made it to the proper orbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Launch_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Launch_statistics
    - blago 8y ago
      Now we are picking timeframes and deconstructing the meaning of "failure" (BTW, that too is not that much more favorable to Ariane 5). The upshot is that their reliability is not dramatically different, they are comparable.
      - hef19898 8y ago
        In terms of percentage, yes. But also mean time to failure, in that case to launch failure, is the really interesting point. So the better comparison would be the last 60+ launches. And then you get 3 failure for SpaceX vs. 0 for the Ariane 5. I did not double check the numbers myself, just the values stated above.
        blago 8y ago
        Picking n = 60 compares Falcon's first n attempts with Ariane's best stretch. It conveniently ignores Ariane's initial mis-steps that every complex system is prone to. By the same token I can cherry-pick n=30 and claim victory :-) Neither is a fair comparison. Honestly, I think it's remarkable that Falcon has had only 5% failure rate considering that the launch vehicle has undergone constant tweaking for reusability. I am not familiar with Ariane's evolution but I would be surprised it it's seen similar amount of change. Maybe we should wait until Falcon catches up with the total number of launches and compare apples to apples then?
- nickik 8y ago
  > but the people they are fighting against have a lot higher success rate at this point, and a LOT more experience. I just don't think this is true outside a few areas. SpaceX has built a team that did a lot of these things and not that long ago. Most people working on the Ariane, SLS were not around when these rockets and engine were built originally. Remember that SLS is just a lot of old parts stitched together a different way (with the explicit goal that this would be cheaper, ironically). So in terms of building new rockets I think its absolutely clear that SpaceX has the most experience of anybody. > SpaceX is changing the game, and reducing the cost of getting to space might be what causes the next great age in humanity, but at the same time I have to say that I'm relieved that the James Webb telescope is going up on Ariane 5. I mean while that is a fair sentiment, we are comparing on of a rocket that has virtually not evolved for a very long time against a rocket that was created by a company that didn't even exist for most of the time Ariane 5 flew. The more interesting question is if you would put more trust in the Ariane 6 and I think not, that rocket will have to show that it can build the same kind of reliability history. > And if you worked at NASA and really want the absolute best, I can see why you'd want to avoid the "cheap" option, even if you agree that they might one day be better. But that is one very, very specific mission, I see absolutely no issue with Falcon 9 launching most NASA payloads. They already have launched stuff like TESS for example. I mean the reality of the situation is that Falcon 9 is a human rated rocket, the Ariane 5 or Ariane 6 will both not be human rated and that would indicate Falcon 9 has some additional safety requirements.

Klathmon 8y ago

I can see their point though. If you ignore cost, SpaceX still has a lot to prove. They are doing amazing things and I personally wouldn't bet against them, but the people they are fighting against have a lot higher success rate at this point, and a LOT more experience. SpaceX is changing the game, and reducing the cost of getting to space might be what causes the next great age in humanity, but at the same time I have to say that I'm relieved that the James Webb telescope is going up on Ariane 5. And if you worked at NASA and really want the absolute best, I can see why you'd want to avoid the "cheap" option, even if you agree that they might one day be better.

aplummer 8y ago
I think you said it yourself in the middle, it will never be worth sending me to space on an Ariane X, but maybe I can afford a spot on the falcon 25. That’s what I find so exciting about the cheap version.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  I agree, but at the same time, I don't know if I'd want to go up on a Falcon 9...
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    NASA is about to human-rate Falcon 9/Dragon 2. Perhaps you'd rather have flown on the Shuttle?
    - marvin 8y ago
      It certainly had a bigger, well-paid crowd standing behind it an telling everyone that it was safe.
    - Klathmon 8y ago
      I meant that in the past tense (which rereading my comment was not how I wrote it!), I'm super excited for F9 to start taking people to ISS!
blago 8y ago
Looking at their wikipedia pages, the Ariane 5 has had a total of 5 (partial and full) failures out of 99 launches. This is a 95% success rate. Falcon 9 has 3 failures out of 61 launches. Their success rate is actually slightly better.
- ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  >Between April 2003 and December 2017, Ariane 5 flew 82 consecutive missions without failure, but suffered a partial failure in January 2018. And the satellites still made it to the proper orbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Launch_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Launch_statistics
  - blago 8y ago
    Now we are picking timeframes and deconstructing the meaning of "failure" (BTW, that too is not that much more favorable to Ariane 5). The upshot is that their reliability is not dramatically different, they are comparable.
    - hef19898 8y ago
      In terms of percentage, yes. But also mean time to failure, in that case to launch failure, is the really interesting point. So the better comparison would be the last 60+ launches. And then you get 3 failure for SpaceX vs. 0 for the Ariane 5. I did not double check the numbers myself, just the values stated above.
      - blago 8y ago
        Picking n = 60 compares Falcon's first n attempts with Ariane's best stretch. It conveniently ignores Ariane's initial mis-steps that every complex system is prone to. By the same token I can cherry-pick n=30 and claim victory :-) Neither is a fair comparison. Honestly, I think it's remarkable that Falcon has had only 5% failure rate considering that the launch vehicle has undergone constant tweaking for reusability. I am not familiar with Ariane's evolution but I would be surprised it it's seen similar amount of change. Maybe we should wait until Falcon catches up with the total number of launches and compare apples to apples then?
nickik 8y ago
> but the people they are fighting against have a lot higher success rate at this point, and a LOT more experience. I just don't think this is true outside a few areas. SpaceX has built a team that did a lot of these things and not that long ago. Most people working on the Ariane, SLS were not around when these rockets and engine were built originally. Remember that SLS is just a lot of old parts stitched together a different way (with the explicit goal that this would be cheaper, ironically). So in terms of building new rockets I think its absolutely clear that SpaceX has the most experience of anybody. > SpaceX is changing the game, and reducing the cost of getting to space might be what causes the next great age in humanity, but at the same time I have to say that I'm relieved that the James Webb telescope is going up on Ariane 5. I mean while that is a fair sentiment, we are comparing on of a rocket that has virtually not evolved for a very long time against a rocket that was created by a company that didn't even exist for most of the time Ariane 5 flew. The more interesting question is if you would put more trust in the Ariane 6 and I think not, that rocket will have to show that it can build the same kind of reliability history. > And if you worked at NASA and really want the absolute best, I can see why you'd want to avoid the "cheap" option, even if you agree that they might one day be better. But that is one very, very specific mission, I see absolutely no issue with Falcon 9 launching most NASA payloads. They already have launched stuff like TESS for example. I mean the reality of the situation is that Falcon 9 is a human rated rocket, the Ariane 5 or Ariane 6 will both not be human rated and that would indicate Falcon 9 has some additional safety requirements.