4 ms·

Actually, the largest cost is building a whole new structure. With a fully reusable rocket (as SpaceX is going to use), the only costs are fuel and maintenance,

by natep 14y ago

Actually, the largest cost is building a whole new structure. With a fully reusable rocket (as SpaceX is going to use), the only costs are fuel and maintenance, which is more expensive than an airplane (~$50k per flight, IIRC), but negligible compared to the initial cost of designing and building the structure. Could you imagine if airplanes were single use? There would no way Southwest could achieve a 45-minute turnaround time And reliability numbers for man rated parts don't come out of nowhere. They come from extensive simulations and tests, which are then extrapolated. It's not the same guarantee as running thousands of end-to-end missions, but it's better than you imply.

ballooney 14y ago
> With a fully reusable rocket (as SpaceX is going to use) This is the sort of thing where you need to be careful with what you infer, the the sort of thing that often causes engineers to be overconfident in performance and reliability estimates.In reality, they're doing some very initial experiments in vertical landing with a view towards exploring reusability. That is different to your implication that reusability is a done deal. > They come from extensive simulations and tests, which are then extrapolated. It's not the same guarantee as running thousands of end-to-end missions, but it's better than you imply. And that's the problem. Notice you're talking about man rated 'parts' and I'm very deliberately not. Many of the mission failures or anomalies in launch vehicles so far have come from parts that work fine on the bench as individual subsystems. It's the lack of full-scale, realistic tests of complete systems that cause problems. There's just not the money for it nowadays. For example, Orion's crew vehicle had budgeted 2 aeroplane parachute drop tests. Apollo's landing module had over 230. Interestingly, they recorded anomalies on over 210 of those. As for simulations, well one of the catch-phrases in the rocket engine business is 'plumbing never leaks in simulations'. As for extrapolation, as a datapoint related to a field I have worked in (parachutes for space systems), quite a few of the high profile parachute failures were colloquially summarised as 'they extrapolated without a license'. All the Mars landers the USA have landed so far have used disc-gap-band parachutes of the same design and size that were explored in a set of very expensive and extensive tests performed at high altitudes for the 70s Viking Lander. It's called the 'viking box' and people at JPL know you do not just 'extrapolate' out of it because they've seen what happens when smart, well intentioned engineers do. That's why they called it a box :) Going back to simulation for a moment, I am familiar with the state of the art of parachute simulation (and fluid-structure interaction simulation in general), and so are they people in charge of the space missions, and that's why they stick to the Viking box. We can barely match that viking data in sims, let alone start wondering out of it into unexplored territory. Finally a little anecdote from Charles 'Chuck' Lowry, the guy who designed the apollo landing systems, about testing. On Apollo 15 reentry, one of the 3 parachutes failed, the first and only recorded failure of an apollo chute during operations. It was traced back to being because the landing module thrusters had vented their fuel out before landing, but this had ignited on the still hot nozzles on the way out, causing a load of burning fuel to go fly up into the chute and destroy it. Thank god, he said, that it only caught the one and not a second one, else it could have ended very badly. The parachute system tested perfectly, and the thrusters performed admirably during their entire qualification program and all previous flights. But the combination of these two systems, under real conditions, interacted in such that the consequences were a significant risk to life. 'You ain't tested it till you've tested it', he said. HN is full of similar examples of outages of things like AWS due to an interaction of failures of parts, systems, and bob the technician not putting the circuit breaks back in exactly the right place after routine maintenance. The space of possible failures rises exponentially with the number of parts, when you consider all the ways they can interact. It's a hard problem to solve and the people at the top are under no illusions about the reliability numbers, they're made for congress and journalists.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  It's the lack of full-scale, realistic tests of complete systems that cause problems. There's just not the money for it nowadays. For example, Orion's crew vehicle had budgeted 2 aeroplane parachute drop tests. Apollo's landing module had over 230. Interestingly, they recorded anomalies on over 210 of those. I would argue that modern designs that learn from the mistakes of past designs require less testing. Maybe it takes 230 drops to understand the aerodynamics of a falling capsule, but once the knowledge is obtained, it only takes 2 to verify a new capsule works as good as the old one. As for simulations, well one of the catch-phrases in the rocket engine business is 'plumbing never leaks in simulations'. So why not simulate leaky plumbing? Computer modeling has come a very long way over time. 'You ain't tested it till you've tested it', he said.... The space of possible failures rises exponentially with the number of parts, when you consider all the ways they can interact. True, but each new failure requires a series of events more complex than previous failures. You're using a bunch of examples of old failures to imply that new designs will fail in the same way, when the reality is that new designs have the benefit of learning from every single previous failure, and every subsequent failure further increases the reliability of the system. I'm reminded of Asimov's essay, The Relativity of Wrong[0]. Despite your experience in the field, it seems you're too eager to assume that every new idea can be just as wrong as the previous one. Sure, new space vehicle designs like those from SpaceX may fail in ways we couldn't predict, but that is completely different from saying that they'll be less safe or less reliable than their predecessors, or that they have to fail in all the same ways as their predecessors first in order to prove their success. [0] http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  - btilly 14y ago
    First of all, what do you think you're arguing against? The argument isn't that SpaceX can't do better than existing designs. It isn't that they aren't trying. It isn't that they aren't going around this the right way. It is simply that we do not have data right now to have any real idea how well they actually will do. Do you have anything to counteract that? As for the rest, do you have any idea how ridiculous your position is? Based on a misinterpretation of a popular essay about basic science, you conclude that experimental data is less important now than previously. And you're doing this when arguing with an expert in parachute design who is well aware of the current limits of simulations, and several examples of what has happened when actual engineers tried to extrapolate from past designs and models to predict what would happen with a future design. Furthermore you're doing this with willful ignorance of the fact that every area of technology where people actually achieve high reliability, it is done by people who place a lot of emphasis on actual data from experiment. Simulations are a supplement, not a replacement for that. Finally your claim, new designs have the benefit of learning from every single previous failure is plain wrong. Anyone who studies this stuff will tell you that people keep making the same types of boneheaded mistakes over and over again. And, people being people, it is hard for us to recognize when we've made that particular type of error again. Therefore we create procedures to automatically catch errors that our organization has proven to have a tendency to make. Those procedures need to include live tests. Furthermore our expectation should be that we will continue to screw up in similar ways to what we have done before, and not that we've learned from the past and now only make more exotic errors. All of that said, let me repeat. The people working at SpaceX absolutely know this. They seem to be on course to potentially do better than has been done in the past. But until they accumulate an accident record, we won't know how well they've done. (And at this point their designs are in sufficient flux that it will be years before we really can establish a good baseline.)

by natep 14y ago

ballooney 14y ago

> With a fully reusable rocket (as SpaceX is going to use) This is the sort of thing where you need to be careful with what you infer, the the sort of thing that often causes engineers to be overconfident in performance and reliability estimates.In reality, they're doing some very initial experiments in vertical landing with a view towards exploring reusability. That is different to your implication that reusability is a done deal. > They come from extensive simulations and tests, which are then extrapolated. It's not the same guarantee as running thousands of end-to-end missions, but it's better than you imply. And that's the problem. Notice you're talking about man rated 'parts' and I'm very deliberately not. Many of the mission failures or anomalies in launch vehicles so far have come from parts that work fine on the bench as individual subsystems. It's the lack of full-scale, realistic tests of complete systems that cause problems. There's just not the money for it nowadays. For example, Orion's crew vehicle had budgeted 2 aeroplane parachute drop tests. Apollo's landing module had over 230. Interestingly, they recorded anomalies on over 210 of those. As for simulations, well one of the catch-phrases in the rocket engine business is 'plumbing never leaks in simulations'. As for extrapolation, as a datapoint related to a field I have worked in (parachutes for space systems), quite a few of the high profile parachute failures were colloquially summarised as 'they extrapolated without a license'. All the Mars landers the USA have landed so far have used disc-gap-band parachutes of the same design and size that were explored in a set of very expensive and extensive tests performed at high altitudes for the 70s Viking Lander. It's called the 'viking box' and people at JPL know you do not just 'extrapolate' out of it because they've seen what happens when smart, well intentioned engineers do. That's why they called it a box :) Going back to simulation for a moment, I am familiar with the state of the art of parachute simulation (and fluid-structure interaction simulation in general), and so are they people in charge of the space missions, and that's why they stick to the Viking box. We can barely match that viking data in sims, let alone start wondering out of it into unexplored territory. Finally a little anecdote from Charles 'Chuck' Lowry, the guy who designed the apollo landing systems, about testing. On Apollo 15 reentry, one of the 3 parachutes failed, the first and only recorded failure of an apollo chute during operations. It was traced back to being because the landing module thrusters had vented their fuel out before landing, but this had ignited on the still hot nozzles on the way out, causing a load of burning fuel to go fly up into the chute and destroy it. Thank god, he said, that it only caught the one and not a second one, else it could have ended very badly. The parachute system tested perfectly, and the thrusters performed admirably during their entire qualification program and all previous flights. But the combination of these two systems, under real conditions, interacted in such that the consequences were a significant risk to life. 'You ain't tested it till you've tested it', he said. HN is full of similar examples of outages of things like AWS due to an interaction of failures of parts, systems, and bob the technician not putting the circuit breaks back in exactly the right place after routine maintenance. The space of possible failures rises exponentially with the number of parts, when you consider all the ways they can interact. It's a hard problem to solve and the people at the top are under no illusions about the reliability numbers, they're made for congress and journalists.

nitrogen 14y ago
It's the lack of full-scale, realistic tests of complete systems that cause problems. There's just not the money for it nowadays. For example, Orion's crew vehicle had budgeted 2 aeroplane parachute drop tests. Apollo's landing module had over 230. Interestingly, they recorded anomalies on over 210 of those. I would argue that modern designs that learn from the mistakes of past designs require less testing. Maybe it takes 230 drops to understand the aerodynamics of a falling capsule, but once the knowledge is obtained, it only takes 2 to verify a new capsule works as good as the old one. As for simulations, well one of the catch-phrases in the rocket engine business is 'plumbing never leaks in simulations'. So why not simulate leaky plumbing? Computer modeling has come a very long way over time. 'You ain't tested it till you've tested it', he said.... The space of possible failures rises exponentially with the number of parts, when you consider all the ways they can interact. True, but each new failure requires a series of events more complex than previous failures. You're using a bunch of examples of old failures to imply that new designs will fail in the same way, when the reality is that new designs have the benefit of learning from every single previous failure, and every subsequent failure further increases the reliability of the system. I'm reminded of Asimov's essay, The Relativity of Wrong[0]. Despite your experience in the field, it seems you're too eager to assume that every new idea can be just as wrong as the previous one. Sure, new space vehicle designs like those from SpaceX may fail in ways we couldn't predict, but that is completely different from saying that they'll be less safe or less reliable than their predecessors, or that they have to fail in all the same ways as their predecessors first in order to prove their success. [0] http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
- btilly 14y ago
  First of all, what do you think you're arguing against? The argument isn't that SpaceX can't do better than existing designs. It isn't that they aren't trying. It isn't that they aren't going around this the right way. It is simply that we do not have data right now to have any real idea how well they actually will do. Do you have anything to counteract that? As for the rest, do you have any idea how ridiculous your position is? Based on a misinterpretation of a popular essay about basic science, you conclude that experimental data is less important now than previously. And you're doing this when arguing with an expert in parachute design who is well aware of the current limits of simulations, and several examples of what has happened when actual engineers tried to extrapolate from past designs and models to predict what would happen with a future design. Furthermore you're doing this with willful ignorance of the fact that every area of technology where people actually achieve high reliability, it is done by people who place a lot of emphasis on actual data from experiment. Simulations are a supplement, not a replacement for that. Finally your claim, new designs have the benefit of learning from every single previous failure is plain wrong. Anyone who studies this stuff will tell you that people keep making the same types of boneheaded mistakes over and over again. And, people being people, it is hard for us to recognize when we've made that particular type of error again. Therefore we create procedures to automatically catch errors that our organization has proven to have a tendency to make. Those procedures need to include live tests. Furthermore our expectation should be that we will continue to screw up in similar ways to what we have done before, and not that we've learned from the past and now only make more exotic errors. All of that said, let me repeat. The people working at SpaceX absolutely know this. They seem to be on course to potentially do better than has been done in the past. But until they accumulate an accident record, we won't know how well they've done. (And at this point their designs are in sufficient flux that it will be years before we really can establish a good baseline.)