4 ms·

People don't even remember the SpaceX failures. SpaceX CRS-1's secondary payload was left in an unstable orbit and ORBCOMM's $10 million prototype burned up in

by eddieh 7y ago

People don't even remember the SpaceX failures. SpaceX CRS-1's secondary payload was left in an unstable orbit and ORBCOMM's $10 million prototype burned up in Earth's atmosphere about 4 days later. CRS-2 had an issue involving the RCS thruster, but was able to recover. CRS-7's launch vehicle catastrophically failed, the cargo capsule ejected, but its parachutes didn't deploy (had it been a crewed mission, the astronauts would have died). The $200 million Amos-6 satellite was lost in a launch pad explosion and Musk, being the paranoid weirdo he is, initially blamed it on imaginary United Launch Alliance saboteurs—for which there was an investigation by the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing at Musk's request. Notably, ULA has a nearly perfect record (they've never lost a vehicle, only one or two payloads didn't reach the correct orbit) and ULA has launched nearly twice as many times compared to SpaceX. While the SpaceX's record is very bad by modern standards.

ceejayoz 7y ago
This is a highly disingenuous post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload > Both SpaceX and Orbcomm were aware, prior to the mission, of the high risk that the secondary payload satellite could remain at the lower altitude of the Dragon insertion orbit, and that was a risk that Orbcomm agreed to take given the dramatically lower cost of launch for a secondary payload. As for this... > CRS-7's launch vehicle catastrophically failed, the cargo capsule ejected, but its parachutes didn't deploy (had it been a crewed mission, the astronauts would have died) Had it been a crewed mission, the parachutes would've been active. It's not standard practice to have a escape rockets or armed parachutes on ascent for cargo flights, SpaceX or otherwise. Standards are different for crewed flights.
- eddieh 7y ago
  For CRS-1 there was a risk of a lower altitude obit, that wasn't the outcome—they lost the satellite. For CRS-7 Wikipedia says "SpaceX officials stated that it could have been recovered if the parachutes had deployed, but the software in the capsule did not include any provisions for parachute deployment in this situation."
  - zlsa 7y ago
    > For CRS-1 there was a risk of a lower altitude obit, that wasn't the outcome—they lost the satellite. No, that was the outcome. The lower orbit has much more atmospheric drag, resulting in deorbit within a few days. SpaceX and Orbcomm both knew this was a possibility. From Wikipedia: "Both SpaceX and Orbcomm were aware, prior to the mission, of the high risk that the secondary payload satellite could remain at the lower altitude of the Dragon insertion orbit, and that was a risk that Orbcomm agreed to take given the dramatically lower cost of launch for a secondary payload."

by eddieh 7y ago

ceejayoz 7y ago

This is a highly disingenuous post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Secondary_payload > Both SpaceX and Orbcomm were aware, prior to the mission, of the high risk that the secondary payload satellite could remain at the lower altitude of the Dragon insertion orbit, and that was a risk that Orbcomm agreed to take given the dramatically lower cost of launch for a secondary payload. As for this... > CRS-7's launch vehicle catastrophically failed, the cargo capsule ejected, but its parachutes didn't deploy (had it been a crewed mission, the astronauts would have died) Had it been a crewed mission, the parachutes would've been active. It's not standard practice to have a escape rockets or armed parachutes on ascent for cargo flights, SpaceX or otherwise. Standards are different for crewed flights.

eddieh 7y ago
For CRS-1 there was a risk of a lower altitude obit, that wasn't the outcome—they lost the satellite. For CRS-7 Wikipedia says "SpaceX officials stated that it could have been recovered if the parachutes had deployed, but the software in the capsule did not include any provisions for parachute deployment in this situation."
- zlsa 7y ago
  > For CRS-1 there was a risk of a lower altitude obit, that wasn't the outcome—they lost the satellite. No, that was the outcome. The lower orbit has much more atmospheric drag, resulting in deorbit within a few days. SpaceX and Orbcomm both knew this was a possibility. From Wikipedia: "Both SpaceX and Orbcomm were aware, prior to the mission, of the high risk that the secondary payload satellite could remain at the lower altitude of the Dragon insertion orbit, and that was a risk that Orbcomm agreed to take given the dramatically lower cost of launch for a secondary payload."