5 ms·

? Isn’t the norm not crashing and succeeding? it’s only space x who normalized so many failures to “move fast”?

ternnoburn 2y ago
IMO, there are too few entrants to meaningfully draw any conclusions about "the norm" in this industry.
myself248 2y ago
Exactly as OP said, launcher failures happen and then you drive down their frequency. Landing failures are still quite expected, especially on the first few tries. It's weird that they even tried on the first launch, but I don't even think of it as a try, I think of it as a "let's gather some data, and in the freakishly unlikely occurrence that everything goes perfect on the way down, we might as well load the landing software too".
- zitterbewegung 2y ago
  I read about spaceship on one of their launches is that they attempted everything that it could possibly do on one of their boosters because you basically have the next iteration built so why not attempt anything for the telemetry.
sebzim4500 2y ago
Firefly, Rocket Lab and Astra spring to mind as having failed to reach orbit on their first attempt.
- WWLink 2y ago
  Astra drifted on the launch pad before taking off lol
DiggyJohnson 2y ago
Space shuttle had some harrowing early missions too, just didn’t explode.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Shuttle got very lucky. On the first flight, STS-1, an overpressure caused by the ignition of the SRBs forced the orbiter's body flap into an extreme angle which could have destroyed the hydraulic system controlling it. Had John Young know this had happened, he and Robert Crippen would have ejected, which would have destroyed the orbiter on its first flight.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    You could eject from the Space Shuttle? At what speed and altitude? What was the mechanism?
    - o11c 2y ago
      There were only 2 ejection seats, enough for the crew of test flights but not the larger crew of operational flights. The seats were only installed in Enterprise (the prototype, used only for suborbital tests) and Columbia (only enabled for STS-1 through STS-4 test flights, disabled for STS-5 the first operational flight) The seats would only work at low altitude and speed (I've seen differing numbers cited). For the Challenger disaster they would've theoretically been useful (ignoring all the other factors), but they would've been useless for Columbia due to speed. And it's not clear ejection would have actually been successful with the SRBs still active and right there.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      As o11c mentioned, they only existed for the first few flights, the ones that only had two crew. It wasn't possible to have the election seats with the full shuttle crew so they were removed. The ejection seats were essentially the same as those used in the SR-71, so they were survivable at shockingly high speeds and altitudes.
Symmetry 2y ago
ULA is pretty remarkable for it's run of new rockets not blowing up. Looking at ESA, JAXA, RosCosmos, ISRO, etc too is how I'm setting the par. A history like the Ariane 5 is pretty typical where flights 1 and 14 failed.
- throw5959 2y ago
  Wouldn't really consider that NewSpace. These are as old as space industry gets...
  - dmix 2y ago
    China's various new rockets are another example.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      What are you talking about? They'll launch of their own volition! "Chinese rocket static-fire test results in unintended launch and huge explosion" (30 June 2024) <https://spacenews.com/chinese-rocket-static-fire-test-results-in-unintended-launch-and-huge-explosion/ https://spacenews.com/chinese-rocket-static-fire-test-result...> <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=IlQkeKa4IKg https://yewtu.be/watch?v=IlQkeKa4IKg> (Shakeycam video)
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        TBF: that wasn't an unsuccessful launch attempt, but a failure to not launch. Which affirms parent in that they seem to have work out all the kinks out during development.
        dredmorbius 2y ago
        that wasn't an unsuccessful launch attempt, but a failure to not launch. My point exactly.
        2y ago
numpad0 2y ago
Norm is something like 3 rescheduling within a week from launch, 3 auto-aborts or equipment NoGo, 2 wayward boats, and 0.15-0.3 kaboom per launch. The fact that SpaceX haven't been letting wayward boats/planes for a while is remarkable by itself.
crowcroft 2y ago
My perception is that SpaceX do in fact move fast, curious why you feel the need to put that in inverted commas?

IMO, there are too few entrants to meaningfully draw any conclusions about "the norm" in this industry.

Exactly as OP said, launcher failures happen and then you drive down their frequency. Landing failures are still quite expected, especially on the first few tries. It's weird that they even tried on the first launch, but I don't even think of it as a try, I think of it as a "let's gather some data, and in the freakishly unlikely occurrence that everything goes perfect on the way down, we might as well load the landing software too".

zitterbewegung 2y ago
I read about spaceship on one of their launches is that they attempted everything that it could possibly do on one of their boosters because you basically have the next iteration built so why not attempt anything for the telemetry.

sebzim4500 2y ago

Firefly, Rocket Lab and Astra spring to mind as having failed to reach orbit on their first attempt.

WWLink 2y ago
Astra drifted on the launch pad before taking off lol

DiggyJohnson 2y ago

Space shuttle had some harrowing early missions too, just didn’t explode.

lupusreal 2y ago
Shuttle got very lucky. On the first flight, STS-1, an overpressure caused by the ignition of the SRBs forced the orbiter's body flap into an extreme angle which could have destroyed the hydraulic system controlling it. Had John Young know this had happened, he and Robert Crippen would have ejected, which would have destroyed the orbiter on its first flight.
- mmooss 2y ago
  You could eject from the Space Shuttle? At what speed and altitude? What was the mechanism?
  - o11c 2y ago
    There were only 2 ejection seats, enough for the crew of test flights but not the larger crew of operational flights. The seats were only installed in Enterprise (the prototype, used only for suborbital tests) and Columbia (only enabled for STS-1 through STS-4 test flights, disabled for STS-5 the first operational flight) The seats would only work at low altitude and speed (I've seen differing numbers cited). For the Challenger disaster they would've theoretically been useful (ignoring all the other factors), but they would've been useless for Columbia due to speed. And it's not clear ejection would have actually been successful with the SRBs still active and right there.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    As o11c mentioned, they only existed for the first few flights, the ones that only had two crew. It wasn't possible to have the election seats with the full shuttle crew so they were removed. The ejection seats were essentially the same as those used in the SR-71, so they were survivable at shockingly high speeds and altitudes.

Symmetry 2y ago

ULA is pretty remarkable for it's run of new rockets not blowing up. Looking at ESA, JAXA, RosCosmos, ISRO, etc too is how I'm setting the par. A history like the Ariane 5 is pretty typical where flights 1 and 14 failed.

throw5959 2y ago
Wouldn't really consider that NewSpace. These are as old as space industry gets...
- dmix 2y ago
  China's various new rockets are another example.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    What are you talking about? They'll launch of their own volition! "Chinese rocket static-fire test results in unintended launch and huge explosion" (30 June 2024) <https://spacenews.com/chinese-rocket-static-fire-test-results-in-unintended-launch-and-huge-explosion/ https://spacenews.com/chinese-rocket-static-fire-test-result...> <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=IlQkeKa4IKg https://yewtu.be/watch?v=IlQkeKa4IKg> (Shakeycam video)
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      TBF: that wasn't an unsuccessful launch attempt, but a failure to not launch. Which affirms parent in that they seem to have work out all the kinks out during development.
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        that wasn't an unsuccessful launch attempt, but a failure to not launch. My point exactly.
        2y ago

numpad0 2y ago

Norm is something like 3 rescheduling within a week from launch, 3 auto-aborts or equipment NoGo, 2 wayward boats, and 0.15-0.3 kaboom per launch. The fact that SpaceX haven't been letting wayward boats/planes for a while is remarkable by itself.

crowcroft 2y ago

My perception is that SpaceX do in fact move fast, curious why you feel the need to put that in inverted commas?