6 ms·

Completely agree. I've worked in "old space" and the fundamental problem is that they can't afford to experiment. SpaceX has the option to physically test an id

Completely agree. I've worked in "old space" and the fundamental problem is that they can't afford to experiment. SpaceX has the option to physically test an idea that's holding them up before investing in fully bringing it up to production quality, only to have to redo all that work next iteration. That's why they can make new things and do it cheaper and faster.

Retric 4y ago
Except SpaceX’s failure rates are similar with every other successful launch system. Rather than looking at failure as a constant rate you need to consider these numbers change with every flight. Initially major design flaws are identified and workers become more skilled at a process, eventually new errors creep in etc etc. They have greatly benefited from being able to use modern tools and seen where other systems failed. Many rocket companies have failed when trying to go fast and break things because it isn’t an easy shortcut. Instead SpaceX has used the normal approach used by other successful organizations and simply executed it well.
- nunuvit 4y ago
  This isn't a production flight so why are you treating it at one? What if I told you that you can't compile your code until you deploy it for the first time and you don't get to change it much after that? I'll leave you to contemplate that thought experiment yourself.
  - Retric 4y ago
    I am not treating this as anything but a test flight. Several government test flights have similarly achieved core objectives while failing to achieve every objective.
    - nunuvit 4y ago
      I guess I'm not sure what point you're making. If you consider a test flight failure to be part of the overall failure rate, then you're treating it the same as a "real" flight. The government is constrained to less experimentation on every level from a daily basis up through test flights. Overall they do less useful engineering and more unnecessary work.
- iso1631 4y ago
  > Except SpaceX’s failure rates are similar with every other successful launch system Really? I make is 189 successful F9 launches since the last issue in 2018 (there's a couple of landing failures, but given that everyone else apart from the space shuttle has a 100% loss...) If you look at the "finished product" of block 5 that makes 162 launches and zero failures. That's reliability far beyond any other launch system, including the space shuttle and Ariane 5 which are the only ones to come close in numbers of launches. Ariane 5 is certainly a reliable system as far as spaceflight goes, but it flies 3 times a year, Falcon 9 flies 3 times a month
  - Retric 4y ago
    Sure, ignoring past failures can always make someone on a winning streak look invincible. But calculating the underlying odds to hit even a 200 long winning streak with the observed failure rates on other systems wouldn’t be particularly unlikely. These systems all are quite good, and they have tended to get better over time.
    - iso1631 3y ago
      There's no evidence that anything other than Ariane 5 and Falcoln 9 are "quite good"
  - gridspy 4y ago
    > (there's a couple of landing failures, but given that everyone else apart from the space shuttle has a 100% loss...) Landing the shuttle is like landing the Dragon Crew capsule. SpaceX landed the booster, where shuttles ditch theirs into the ocean. So even shuttles have a pretty high loss rate :)
    - Retric 4y ago
      Hardly, landing on launch pad had a lower success rate and requires significant fuel so many otherwise perfectly reusable boosters were sacrificed for a higher launch payload. They got great publicity from it, but landing vertically is a major compromise.
- ggreer 4y ago
  > Except SpaceX’s failure rates are similar with every other successful launch system. Falcon 9 has the record for most consecutive successful orbital launches. Their last failure was AMOS-6 in September of 2016. Since then they've had 189 successful launches in a row.[1] In that same time Soyuz has had 113 launches with 3 failures. Soyuz's longest success streak was 100 launches from 1983 to 1986.[2] The US's Delta II had 100 consecutive successes from 1997 to 2018, though it has since been retired. A total of 155 Delta IIs were launched with 2 failures. Falcon 9's current successful landing streak of 110 missions exceeds the competition's best launch streak. By any metric one can measure, SpaceX has the most reliable rocket. 1. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He... for the list of launches and outcomes. 2. https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/spacexs-falcon-9-rocket-has-set-a-record-for-most-consecutive-successes/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/spacexs-falcon-9-roc...
  - Retric 4y ago
    You can always slice and dice data to make one side look better. The actual number of successes vs partial successes vs launch failures vs fatalities are the best data we have. Throwing away any of that data because it makes you look worse isn’t a good idea. Similarly we needs to understand that there’s a huge difference between risk and what actually happens. People get lucky in Vegas every day, what matters to most of us is the accuracy of the estimate of underlying odds not just the exact outcomes out to seven decimal places.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > actual number of successes vs partial successes vs launch failures vs fatalities are the best data we have Current vehicles are vastly different from the originals. What we’re trying to do is predict the probability of the next launch failing. Equally weighting far historicals and recents is bogus statistics.
      - 4y ago
travisporter 4y ago
Ironically, "old old space" = Soviet space was so damn good at innovating it probably would have made SpaceX look old-fashioned. Really I don't think there's a fundamental reason why we can't have two SpaceX's (Spaces X?) so why is there no other?
- nunuvit 4y ago
  Haha I had a feeling someone would bring this up. To me, old space isn't farther back in time in the golden age of space, but rather what the space industry eventually calcified into. New space is like a Renaissance. There are other new space companies, but they're just not as good.

Retric 4y ago

Except SpaceX’s failure rates are similar with every other successful launch system. Rather than looking at failure as a constant rate you need to consider these numbers change with every flight. Initially major design flaws are identified and workers become more skilled at a process, eventually new errors creep in etc etc. They have greatly benefited from being able to use modern tools and seen where other systems failed. Many rocket companies have failed when trying to go fast and break things because it isn’t an easy shortcut. Instead SpaceX has used the normal approach used by other successful organizations and simply executed it well.

nunuvit 4y ago
This isn't a production flight so why are you treating it at one? What if I told you that you can't compile your code until you deploy it for the first time and you don't get to change it much after that? I'll leave you to contemplate that thought experiment yourself.
- Retric 4y ago
  I am not treating this as anything but a test flight. Several government test flights have similarly achieved core objectives while failing to achieve every objective.
  - nunuvit 4y ago
    I guess I'm not sure what point you're making. If you consider a test flight failure to be part of the overall failure rate, then you're treating it the same as a "real" flight. The government is constrained to less experimentation on every level from a daily basis up through test flights. Overall they do less useful engineering and more unnecessary work.
iso1631 4y ago
> Except SpaceX’s failure rates are similar with every other successful launch system Really? I make is 189 successful F9 launches since the last issue in 2018 (there's a couple of landing failures, but given that everyone else apart from the space shuttle has a 100% loss...) If you look at the "finished product" of block 5 that makes 162 launches and zero failures. That's reliability far beyond any other launch system, including the space shuttle and Ariane 5 which are the only ones to come close in numbers of launches. Ariane 5 is certainly a reliable system as far as spaceflight goes, but it flies 3 times a year, Falcon 9 flies 3 times a month
- Retric 4y ago
  Sure, ignoring past failures can always make someone on a winning streak look invincible. But calculating the underlying odds to hit even a 200 long winning streak with the observed failure rates on other systems wouldn’t be particularly unlikely. These systems all are quite good, and they have tended to get better over time.
  - iso1631 3y ago
    There's no evidence that anything other than Ariane 5 and Falcoln 9 are "quite good"
- gridspy 4y ago
  > (there's a couple of landing failures, but given that everyone else apart from the space shuttle has a 100% loss...) Landing the shuttle is like landing the Dragon Crew capsule. SpaceX landed the booster, where shuttles ditch theirs into the ocean. So even shuttles have a pretty high loss rate :)
  - Retric 4y ago
    Hardly, landing on launch pad had a lower success rate and requires significant fuel so many otherwise perfectly reusable boosters were sacrificed for a higher launch payload. They got great publicity from it, but landing vertically is a major compromise.
ggreer 4y ago
> Except SpaceX’s failure rates are similar with every other successful launch system. Falcon 9 has the record for most consecutive successful orbital launches. Their last failure was AMOS-6 in September of 2016. Since then they've had 189 successful launches in a row.[1] In that same time Soyuz has had 113 launches with 3 failures. Soyuz's longest success streak was 100 launches from 1983 to 1986.[2] The US's Delta II had 100 consecutive successes from 1997 to 2018, though it has since been retired. A total of 155 Delta IIs were launched with 2 failures. Falcon 9's current successful landing streak of 110 missions exceeds the competition's best launch streak. By any metric one can measure, SpaceX has the most reliable rocket. 1. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He... for the list of launches and outcomes. 2. https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/spacexs-falcon-9-rocket-has-set-a-record-for-most-consecutive-successes/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/spacexs-falcon-9-roc...
- Retric 4y ago
  You can always slice and dice data to make one side look better. The actual number of successes vs partial successes vs launch failures vs fatalities are the best data we have. Throwing away any of that data because it makes you look worse isn’t a good idea. Similarly we needs to understand that there’s a huge difference between risk and what actually happens. People get lucky in Vegas every day, what matters to most of us is the accuracy of the estimate of underlying odds not just the exact outcomes out to seven decimal places.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > actual number of successes vs partial successes vs launch failures vs fatalities are the best data we have Current vehicles are vastly different from the originals. What we’re trying to do is predict the probability of the next launch failing. Equally weighting far historicals and recents is bogus statistics.
    - 4y ago

travisporter 4y ago

Ironically, "old old space" = Soviet space was so damn good at innovating it probably would have made SpaceX look old-fashioned. Really I don't think there's a fundamental reason why we can't have two SpaceX's (Spaces X?) so why is there no other?

nunuvit 4y ago
Haha I had a feeling someone would bring this up. To me, old space isn't farther back in time in the golden age of space, but rather what the space industry eventually calcified into. New space is like a Renaissance. There are other new space companies, but they're just not as good.