5 ms·

this might be 20th-century thinking. if you can build enough copies of a rocket cheap enough, maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper

lesuorac 2y ago
Who pays when the payload disintegrates?
nordsieck 2y ago
> if you can build enough copies of a rocket cheap enough, maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper The problem with that idea is that you won't be legally allowed to launch again until you root cause and fix the failure, which can take months (or years if you're Blue Origin). Also, your insurance rates tend to go up a lot when your rockets blow up regularly, which tends to push customers away. In practice it doesn't work. Notes: Astra said they were going to pursue this strategy. It was not well received by potential customers and they basically had to walk it back.
- schmidtleonard 2y ago
  Doesn't work? It seems to be working great for the industry leader.
  - nordsieck 2y ago
    > Doesn't work? It seems to be working great for the industry leader. What are you talking about? SpaceX's Falcon 9 is arguably the most reliable rocket ever made. They've launched hundreds of times in a row without failure. If your point is that they're blowing up Starship prototypes, well... they're in the middle of a development program and they're not flying customer payloads.
    - gus_massa 2y ago
      They blow up a few of the early Falcons, and the explosions got a lot of news coverage. Now they are launching an landing[1] safetly, but it's boring and the news show a cute puppy instead. So for most people the rate of explosions vs launching is skewed. [1] It's crazy that landing rockets is boring now.
- ReptileMan 2y ago
  >The problem with that idea is that you won't be legally allowed to launch again until you root cause and fix the failure, Only if you want to launch from US. I guess with a 160 countries there will some with the right area for a launch pad with way laxer requirements.
  - nordsieck 2y ago
    > I guess with a 160 countries there will some with the right area for a launch pad with way laxer requirements. Good luck with that. Exploding rockets are a very serious public safety risk since they're >90% propellant. Even Russia grounded Soyuz until they root caused its launch failure. From what I can gather China has the same policy, although they're very quiet about any launch failures that happen, so it harder to tell.
locococo 2y ago
from the rocket perspective, sure, but not so much from the perspective of your cargo. In many cases the cargo is more precious than the rocket so you need reliable rockets.
ruined 2y ago
this works for munitions, but not for payloads that anyone cares about.
- switchbak 2y ago
  Not sure exploding rockets on their launch platform is such a good thing when they're carrying a bunch of highly explosive / fragmentary warheads (in addition to the rocket itself, which is plenty dangerous). Unless this was something like a cruise missile dropped at altitude where a failure isn't a big deal.
  - gridspy 2y ago
    I'm sure even in this case, risking the air-frame of the bomber or friendlies on the ground below is not ideal. Bear in mind cruise missiles are usually launched from friendly territory. Also, failures might reduce the accuracy of the missile, leading to potential civilian causalities.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    >> cruise missile dropped at altitude where a failure isn't a big deal. If failure isn't a big deal, then the weapon should no have been used. An ALCM costs millions. The destruction it causes is part of a larger battle plan. Should it not work properly then friendly forces may die. Should it work properly then enemy forces may die. The effectiveness of such a weapon is never not a big deal.
    - DrFalkyn 2y ago
      If it’s that critical then they aren’t launching one cruise missile. If system A costs 1k quid but only works 50% of the time, while system B works 99% of the time but costs 10k quid, system A actually makes a lot more sense. On average you are going to spend a lot less money for the same outcome.
      - fragmede 2y ago
        What's the price on weapons technology falling into enemy hands? A dud is a gold mine of data for an enemy's reverse-engineers.
fullspectrumdev 2y ago
The issue isn’t the rocket: it’s what you have affixed to it (the payload). The rocket itself is purely a delivery system for a payload after all.
sandworm101 2y ago
>> maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper But it isn't about destroying a bunch of them. Cut corners on checks and you very quickly blow up all of them. Any slight increase in the failure rate of individual parts, saving a few pennies, multiplies exponentially across the entire rocket into total system failure. So the money-saving approach is actually to test test and retest, to cram down the failure rates so low that the cumulative rate become acceptable (about 1%).
risenshinetech 2y ago
Right, because as one of your rocket customers, I'm totally fine with you disintegrating my one-of-a-kind payload
Iwan-Zotow 2y ago
what about payload? ready to build many Webb telescopes?
BobaFloutist 2y ago
So what you're saying is instead of inspecting the parts, you just try to launch the rockets and try again when they explode. Production is your testing ground. Statistically speaking, if a specific design succeeds a few hundred times in a row, it's probably sound? If it crashes, you just push a patch? Day 1 patches for space travel? Thanks, I hate it.

lesuorac 2y ago

Who pays when the payload disintegrates?

nordsieck 2y ago

> if you can build enough copies of a rocket cheap enough, maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper The problem with that idea is that you won't be legally allowed to launch again until you root cause and fix the failure, which can take months (or years if you're Blue Origin). Also, your insurance rates tend to go up a lot when your rockets blow up regularly, which tends to push customers away. In practice it doesn't work. Notes: Astra said they were going to pursue this strategy. It was not well received by potential customers and they basically had to walk it back.

schmidtleonard 2y ago
Doesn't work? It seems to be working great for the industry leader.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > Doesn't work? It seems to be working great for the industry leader. What are you talking about? SpaceX's Falcon 9 is arguably the most reliable rocket ever made. They've launched hundreds of times in a row without failure. If your point is that they're blowing up Starship prototypes, well... they're in the middle of a development program and they're not flying customer payloads.
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    They blow up a few of the early Falcons, and the explosions got a lot of news coverage. Now they are launching an landing[1] safetly, but it's boring and the news show a cute puppy instead. So for most people the rate of explosions vs launching is skewed. [1] It's crazy that landing rockets is boring now.
ReptileMan 2y ago
>The problem with that idea is that you won't be legally allowed to launch again until you root cause and fix the failure, Only if you want to launch from US. I guess with a 160 countries there will some with the right area for a launch pad with way laxer requirements.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > I guess with a 160 countries there will some with the right area for a launch pad with way laxer requirements. Good luck with that. Exploding rockets are a very serious public safety risk since they're >90% propellant. Even Russia grounded Soyuz until they root caused its launch failure. From what I can gather China has the same policy, although they're very quiet about any launch failures that happen, so it harder to tell.

locococo 2y ago

from the rocket perspective, sure, but not so much from the perspective of your cargo. In many cases the cargo is more precious than the rocket so you need reliable rockets.

ruined 2y ago

this works for munitions, but not for payloads that anyone cares about.

switchbak 2y ago
Not sure exploding rockets on their launch platform is such a good thing when they're carrying a bunch of highly explosive / fragmentary warheads (in addition to the rocket itself, which is plenty dangerous). Unless this was something like a cruise missile dropped at altitude where a failure isn't a big deal.
- gridspy 2y ago
  I'm sure even in this case, risking the air-frame of the bomber or friendlies on the ground below is not ideal. Bear in mind cruise missiles are usually launched from friendly territory. Also, failures might reduce the accuracy of the missile, leading to potential civilian causalities.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  >> cruise missile dropped at altitude where a failure isn't a big deal. If failure isn't a big deal, then the weapon should no have been used. An ALCM costs millions. The destruction it causes is part of a larger battle plan. Should it not work properly then friendly forces may die. Should it work properly then enemy forces may die. The effectiveness of such a weapon is never not a big deal.
  - DrFalkyn 2y ago
    If it’s that critical then they aren’t launching one cruise missile. If system A costs 1k quid but only works 50% of the time, while system B works 99% of the time but costs 10k quid, system A actually makes a lot more sense. On average you are going to spend a lot less money for the same outcome.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      What's the price on weapons technology falling into enemy hands? A dud is a gold mine of data for an enemy's reverse-engineers.

fullspectrumdev 2y ago

The issue isn’t the rocket: it’s what you have affixed to it (the payload). The rocket itself is purely a delivery system for a payload after all.

sandworm101 2y ago

>> maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper But it isn't about destroying a bunch of them. Cut corners on checks and you very quickly blow up all of them. Any slight increase in the failure rate of individual parts, saving a few pennies, multiplies exponentially across the entire rocket into total system failure. So the money-saving approach is actually to test test and retest, to cram down the failure rates so low that the cumulative rate become acceptable (about 1%).

risenshinetech 2y ago

Right, because as one of your rocket customers, I'm totally fine with you disintegrating my one-of-a-kind payload

Iwan-Zotow 2y ago

what about payload? ready to build many Webb telescopes?

BobaFloutist 2y ago

So what you're saying is instead of inspecting the parts, you just try to launch the rockets and try again when they explode. Production is your testing ground. Statistically speaking, if a specific design succeeds a few hundred times in a row, it's probably sound? If it crashes, you just push a patch? Day 1 patches for space travel? Thanks, I hate it.