4 ms·
Looks like 95.5% success rate. I don't know if there is anything better with that much payload capacity and as long a track record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
by pkaye 5y ago
Looks like 95.5% success rate. I don't know if there is anything better with that much payload capacity and as long a track record.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5
- ceejayoz 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V have essentially perfect records. The IV had a lower-than-expected orbit on a non-payload test flight, and the V had a lower-than-expected orbit that the payload was able to fix.
- colechristensen 5y agoYou have to take statistics like this with a grain of salt. Sometimes less than perfect reliability is by design, sometimes development details (like how different the "new" rocket that earned that name is from previous designs) hide failures in earlier rockets with different names.
- ceejayoz 5y agoSure, but if anything, Ariane 5 is a good example of that; it blew up because of reused software from the Ariane 4.
- wumpus 5y agoNROL-30 on Atlas 5 apparently had a shorter lifetime after the "fix", and that is normally considered a "partial failure".
- richardwhiuk 5y agoSuccess rate isn't very interesting. If a random 1/20 rockets fail, then that's very bad. If your first 10 rockets failed, and then you next 190 succeed, that's likely to be a much better rocket.
- wumpus 5y agoSpaceX F9 has 106 successful launches after their last failure. Ariane 5 has 106 launches since their last full failure. (1 partial failure in there.) Of course, F9 is a little smaller, everything other than Delta IV Heavy is a little smaller, so your statement including "with that much payload capacity" is true by construction.
- shakezula 5y agoWow, that's a much better continuous success rate than I would've guessed on either account.
- wumpus 5y agoYes, it's amazing how the numbers pile up over time -- Ariane 5 was a great market fit for a long time until recently, and SpaceX has a crazy high F9 launch cadence.
- xoa 5y agoA few small expansions, not to take away from your overall point: >SpaceX F9 has 106 successful launches after their last failure. Ariane 5 has 106 launches since their last full failure. Worth noting given these rockets' history (and also your mention of cargo), both have had a number of major variants (as well as minor evolutions). The only operational F9 is the current Block 5 (first launched in 2018) and for the Ariane 5 the ECA (first flown in 2005). F9 Block 5 has flown 75 times and all have been successful. Ariane 5 ECA has flown 77 times with 1 failure. They're reliable rockets, though the F9 has obviously had a higher cadence as well as the distinction of human flight. >Of course, F9 is a little smaller, everything other than Delta IV Heavy is a little smaller It's a little more complicated in terms of cargo. F9 expended (which I think is fair given the Ariane 5 is expended) actually does slightly more mass to LEO (22.8t vs 22t). But the A5 is more optimized given its staging around mass to GTO, where it beats out F9 (8.3t vs 10.9t). F9 of course loses quite a bit when reused (LEO: 15.6t, GTO: 5.5t), but at massively less cost so not quite the same thing. Also when you say "everything other" you've completely forgotten about Falcon 9 Heavy :). That does 63.8t to LEO and 26.7t to GTO, and of course vastly outmasses either the F9 or A5.