5 ms·

Costs and catastrophic failures:[1] * United Launch Alliance (Boeing and Lockheed Martin): 0 "outright failures" and 83 successful launches, ~$110 million/laun

Costs and catastrophic failures:[1] * United Launch Alliance (Boeing and Lockheed Martin): 0 "outright failures" and 83 successful launches, ~$110 million/launch * SpaceX: 1 failure and 18 successful launches, $60 million/launch If you are looking for someone to launch your assets into orbit, who do you choose? [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-destroyed-in-launch-mishap/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-destroyed...

solomatov 11y ago
>If you are looking for someone to launch your assets into orbit, who do you choose? It heavily depends on the cost of the asset. If a satellite costs close to 1bn, it worth to use $110/launch but more reliable rocket.
- hackuser 11y ago
  True. Also don't forget the opportunity cost of the time lost: 1) building a replacement and waiting for a spare slot in which to launch it, 2) engineering, manufacturing, and other resources which could have been used for (and likely were planned for) something else, but now are used for the replacement, and 3) the project the asset was used for, and its output (revenue, research results, etc.), now put on hold. Many organizations don't have the spare time and capacity to afford all of that; they or their project may simply be done.
  - fbender 11y ago
    Keep in mind that several copies of a satellite will be built during production. Some are mockups of a few subsystems (e.g. structure), some are used for tests (e.g. thermal, electrical, interference), often there's also a "flight spare" which is an exact copy of the satellite in case something goes wrong with the flight hardware (e.g. broken during testing, launch failure). E.g. Curiosity has such a spare (I'm not sure if it's the same as the flight hardware or close enough) which will be sent in a future mission (I think 2017, though I don't have any sources at hand) with (some) different experiments on board.
- damoncali 11y ago
  For some context, that's roughly the cost of a single instrument for the Hubble (~$100M). There's no free lunch in the space business...
  - jimrandomh 11y ago
    But do realize that the replacement cost of an instrument is much lower than the original creation cost; most of the cost of these things is designing and tooling, and not part of the unit cost of the actual article.
  - solomatov 11y ago
    There're much more expensive satellites. See, for example, http://www.space.com/11606-rocket-launches-missile-defense-satellite-geo-1-sbirs.html http://www.space.com/11606-rocket-launches-missile-defense-s...
- 27182818284 11y ago
  And if I recall, some of the SpaceX launches are pricier (though not that level) for the more sensitive payloads--as in there is a Secret-Spy-Satellite optional charge package.
  - greglindahl 11y ago
    The extra charge is due to the paperwork requirement for these launches... which were imposed after a series of launch failures by LM and Boeing rockets carrying very expensive US Government satellites.
    - will_hughes 11y ago
      And the paperwork is (in part) because the US Government doesn't purchase insurance on their launches.
lutorm 11y ago
ULA's record with its current generation of Atlas 5 and Delta 4 boosters is 83 successful launches and no outright failures. This is an impressive reliability record, no doubt about it. However, it is fair to note that this is the "current generation" Atlas and Delta. The first Atlas was used during the Mercury program, so they've had more than 50 years of design refinement to get to that point.
- spdionis 11y ago
  Also what does "no outright failures" mean?
  - lutorm 11y ago
    I assume they mean "failure to accomplish mission", as opposed to "things didn't work correctly but the outcome was still successful."
    - Retric 11y ago
      There is some wiggle room, payload achieved orbit, but not nessisarily the desired orbit.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > it is fair to note that this is the "current generation" Atlas and Delta. The first Atlas was used during the Mercury program, so they've had more than 50 years of design refinement to get to that point. This perspective surprises me. From my perspective, I wonder why it matters to me how long SpaceX has had to design their rocket? Wouldn't I prefer the one with 50 years of refinements? Someone else posted a similar comment. It implies a 'my team is better than yours' competition, rather than a competition over which rocket functions better.
  - demachina 11y ago
    The SpaceX design should be dramatically suprior to the aging Atlas and Delta designs because they are designed to be cheaper to build in the first place and they will be game changing if they manage to land the first stage and immediately turn it around for multiple launches. Atlas and Delta are certainly good platforms for high reliability but they are expensive and they aren't making much effort to bring the costs down. Bringing the costs down would require design revisions that might undo that 50 years of design stability. If SpaceX or someone else comes up with a reliable design at a dramatically lower price point ULA wont be able to sell their launchers unless its to a money is no object customer like the U.S. military. Recovery and rapid turnaround of the first stage could make space access cheap enough many things would become possible and affordable that are not currently, due to high launch costs, like expeditions to Mars or large space structures.
humbledrone 11y ago
Average cost for successful launch: * United Launch Alliance: $110 million * SpaceX: $63.5 million ($60 million * 18 total / 17 successful) So SpaceX saves you $46.5 million per successful launch. If we assume that 1/18 SpaceX launches fail, then in the long run SpaceX wins as long as your typical payload cost is less than $46.5 * 18 = $837 million. If we assume that the cost to replace the payload for a failed launch is less than the original payload (R&D costs are amortized, so it's likely that building a second payload is much cheaper than designing and building the first payload), then the break-even payload cost can be even higher.
- Splendor 11y ago
  One additional variable would be the cost to replace any assets lost on the 1 unsuccessful launch, although I'm not sure who ultimately picks up the tab for that.
  - humbledrone 11y ago
    Yeah, my back of the napkin analysis is probably missing a bunch of important stuff. I just wanted to highlight the fact that simply looking at the failure rates is not enough -- you have to consider the amortized cost of getting your stuff into space successfully. Maybe tolerating a few failures saves money in the long run. (Of course this all assumes a replaceable payload. I am sure the analysis would be quite different for carrying people into space.)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- joezydeco 11y ago
  Does this formula apply to manned spacecraft? What's the payload value of an astronaut? (Not trying to be snarky here, just thinking that the 1/18 vs 0/83 comparison seems moot when you have humans on board)
  - gizmo686 11y ago
    With manned spacecraft, you have to factor in the chance that the crew would survive a failed launch. Specifically, in the press conference following this latest failure, it was stated that the planned crew escape system would have been capable of saving the crew. To my non-expert eyes looking at the event, there seemed to be a fair amount of time between there being an obvious problem, and complete disintigration.
engi_nerd 11y ago
SpaceX still looks better than its direct competition, Orbital ATK: Antares CRS-3 turbopump failure, vehicle FTS was activated and launch vehicle impacted very close to the launch pad. $200 million vehicle lost, approximately $30 million in damage to launch facility. Loss of the $424 million Glory satellite due to payload fairing separation failure. *Loss of the $273 million Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite due to payload fairing separation failure. And I don't think the comparison between ULA and SpaceX is necessarily a fair one. ULA is the beneficiary of inheriting solid engineering teams and practices from very mature programs run by large defense corporations. SpaceX is comparatively very young (I feel this makes their overall record even more impressive).
- hackuser 11y ago
  > I don't think the comparison between ULA and SpaceX is necessarily a fair one. ULA is the beneficiary of inheriting solid engineering teams and practices from very mature programs run by large defense corporations. SpaceX is comparatively very young ... Another commenter said something similar. If I am awarding merit badges, then I agree it's unfair. Otherwise, if I'm looking for someone to launch my satellite, the comparison is perfectly fair (not that 'fair' has anything to do with it).
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    > if I'm looking for someone to launch my satellite If you're looking for someone to launch a satellite, then you have good ideas about how much you have to spend, your willingness to accept risk, and the services you desire. Depending on how you feel about these and other factors, your decision might not be as straightforward as you are portraying here.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    You're focusing on launching a satellite today. Those commenters are looking at satellite launches across the next decade, as ULA reliability doesn't change and SpaceX reliability grows (in theory).
kenrikm 11y ago
What about the ULA rocket that blew up on the pad a few months ago?
- hackuser 11y ago
  Do you mean the Orbital Sciences rocket, last October? Orbital Sciences is a different company than ULA. However, it's very possible that I don't know about the incident you're referring to; I'd be interested because it changes the picture dramatically.
sgnelson 11y ago
Is there insurance for the payloads? I know very little about rocketry and launching satellites, but with the costs so high, I would imagine that there is some form of risk mitigation, but I've never heard of such a thing. edit: If I had read down further, I would have seen a discussion about this very question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9793697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9793697
- shiggerino 11y ago
  Yes, that is if you can afford it. The Zvezda service module for the ISS was launched without insurance or a backup because of financial problems. Embarrassingly they even had to turn to Pizza Hut for help: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pizzahut-00b.html http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pizzahut-00b.html
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>If you are looking for someone to launch your assets into orbit, who do you choose? The first thing you do is be very glad that you have a choice. Then you can start price shopping. If there is only one domestic option, then you either pay what the sole-source wants, or you pursue international options if those are available to you, many times they will not be.

solomatov 11y ago

>If you are looking for someone to launch your assets into orbit, who do you choose? It heavily depends on the cost of the asset. If a satellite costs close to 1bn, it worth to use $110/launch but more reliable rocket.

hackuser 11y ago
True. Also don't forget the opportunity cost of the time lost: 1) building a replacement and waiting for a spare slot in which to launch it, 2) engineering, manufacturing, and other resources which could have been used for (and likely were planned for) something else, but now are used for the replacement, and 3) the project the asset was used for, and its output (revenue, research results, etc.), now put on hold. Many organizations don't have the spare time and capacity to afford all of that; they or their project may simply be done.
- fbender 11y ago
  Keep in mind that several copies of a satellite will be built during production. Some are mockups of a few subsystems (e.g. structure), some are used for tests (e.g. thermal, electrical, interference), often there's also a "flight spare" which is an exact copy of the satellite in case something goes wrong with the flight hardware (e.g. broken during testing, launch failure). E.g. Curiosity has such a spare (I'm not sure if it's the same as the flight hardware or close enough) which will be sent in a future mission (I think 2017, though I don't have any sources at hand) with (some) different experiments on board.
damoncali 11y ago
For some context, that's roughly the cost of a single instrument for the Hubble (~$100M). There's no free lunch in the space business...
- jimrandomh 11y ago
  But do realize that the replacement cost of an instrument is much lower than the original creation cost; most of the cost of these things is designing and tooling, and not part of the unit cost of the actual article.
- solomatov 11y ago
  There're much more expensive satellites. See, for example, http://www.space.com/11606-rocket-launches-missile-defense-satellite-geo-1-sbirs.html http://www.space.com/11606-rocket-launches-missile-defense-s...
27182818284 11y ago
And if I recall, some of the SpaceX launches are pricier (though not that level) for the more sensitive payloads--as in there is a Secret-Spy-Satellite optional charge package.
- greglindahl 11y ago
  The extra charge is due to the paperwork requirement for these launches... which were imposed after a series of launch failures by LM and Boeing rockets carrying very expensive US Government satellites.
  - will_hughes 11y ago
    And the paperwork is (in part) because the US Government doesn't purchase insurance on their launches.

lutorm 11y ago

ULA's record with its current generation of Atlas 5 and Delta 4 boosters is 83 successful launches and no outright failures. This is an impressive reliability record, no doubt about it. However, it is fair to note that this is the "current generation" Atlas and Delta. The first Atlas was used during the Mercury program, so they've had more than 50 years of design refinement to get to that point.

spdionis 11y ago
Also what does "no outright failures" mean?
- lutorm 11y ago
  I assume they mean "failure to accomplish mission", as opposed to "things didn't work correctly but the outcome was still successful."
  - Retric 11y ago
    There is some wiggle room, payload achieved orbit, but not nessisarily the desired orbit.
hackuser 11y ago
> it is fair to note that this is the "current generation" Atlas and Delta. The first Atlas was used during the Mercury program, so they've had more than 50 years of design refinement to get to that point. This perspective surprises me. From my perspective, I wonder why it matters to me how long SpaceX has had to design their rocket? Wouldn't I prefer the one with 50 years of refinements? Someone else posted a similar comment. It implies a 'my team is better than yours' competition, rather than a competition over which rocket functions better.
- demachina 11y ago
  The SpaceX design should be dramatically suprior to the aging Atlas and Delta designs because they are designed to be cheaper to build in the first place and they will be game changing if they manage to land the first stage and immediately turn it around for multiple launches. Atlas and Delta are certainly good platforms for high reliability but they are expensive and they aren't making much effort to bring the costs down. Bringing the costs down would require design revisions that might undo that 50 years of design stability. If SpaceX or someone else comes up with a reliable design at a dramatically lower price point ULA wont be able to sell their launchers unless its to a money is no object customer like the U.S. military. Recovery and rapid turnaround of the first stage could make space access cheap enough many things would become possible and affordable that are not currently, due to high launch costs, like expeditions to Mars or large space structures.

humbledrone 11y ago

Average cost for successful launch: * United Launch Alliance: $110 million * SpaceX: $63.5 million ($60 million * 18 total / 17 successful) So SpaceX saves you $46.5 million per successful launch. If we assume that 1/18 SpaceX launches fail, then in the long run SpaceX wins as long as your typical payload cost is less than $46.5 * 18 = $837 million. If we assume that the cost to replace the payload for a failed launch is less than the original payload (R&D costs are amortized, so it's likely that building a second payload is much cheaper than designing and building the first payload), then the break-even payload cost can be even higher.

Splendor 11y ago
One additional variable would be the cost to replace any assets lost on the 1 unsuccessful launch, although I'm not sure who ultimately picks up the tab for that.
- humbledrone 11y ago
  Yeah, my back of the napkin analysis is probably missing a bunch of important stuff. I just wanted to highlight the fact that simply looking at the failure rates is not enough -- you have to consider the amortized cost of getting your stuff into space successfully. Maybe tolerating a few failures saves money in the long run. (Of course this all assumes a replaceable payload. I am sure the analysis would be quite different for carrying people into space.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
joezydeco 11y ago
Does this formula apply to manned spacecraft? What's the payload value of an astronaut? (Not trying to be snarky here, just thinking that the 1/18 vs 0/83 comparison seems moot when you have humans on board)
- gizmo686 11y ago
  With manned spacecraft, you have to factor in the chance that the crew would survive a failed launch. Specifically, in the press conference following this latest failure, it was stated that the planned crew escape system would have been capable of saving the crew. To my non-expert eyes looking at the event, there seemed to be a fair amount of time between there being an obvious problem, and complete disintigration.

engi_nerd 11y ago

SpaceX still looks better than its direct competition, Orbital ATK: Antares CRS-3 turbopump failure, vehicle FTS was activated and launch vehicle impacted very close to the launch pad. $200 million vehicle lost, approximately $30 million in damage to launch facility. Loss of the $424 million Glory satellite due to payload fairing separation failure. *Loss of the $273 million Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite due to payload fairing separation failure. And I don't think the comparison between ULA and SpaceX is necessarily a fair one. ULA is the beneficiary of inheriting solid engineering teams and practices from very mature programs run by large defense corporations. SpaceX is comparatively very young (I feel this makes their overall record even more impressive).

hackuser 11y ago
> I don't think the comparison between ULA and SpaceX is necessarily a fair one. ULA is the beneficiary of inheriting solid engineering teams and practices from very mature programs run by large defense corporations. SpaceX is comparatively very young ... Another commenter said something similar. If I am awarding merit badges, then I agree it's unfair. Otherwise, if I'm looking for someone to launch my satellite, the comparison is perfectly fair (not that 'fair' has anything to do with it).
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  > if I'm looking for someone to launch my satellite If you're looking for someone to launch a satellite, then you have good ideas about how much you have to spend, your willingness to accept risk, and the services you desire. Depending on how you feel about these and other factors, your decision might not be as straightforward as you are portraying here.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  You're focusing on launching a satellite today. Those commenters are looking at satellite launches across the next decade, as ULA reliability doesn't change and SpaceX reliability grows (in theory).

kenrikm 11y ago

What about the ULA rocket that blew up on the pad a few months ago?

hackuser 11y ago
Do you mean the Orbital Sciences rocket, last October? Orbital Sciences is a different company than ULA. However, it's very possible that I don't know about the incident you're referring to; I'd be interested because it changes the picture dramatically.

sgnelson 11y ago

Is there insurance for the payloads? I know very little about rocketry and launching satellites, but with the costs so high, I would imagine that there is some form of risk mitigation, but I've never heard of such a thing. edit: If I had read down further, I would have seen a discussion about this very question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9793697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9793697

shiggerino 11y ago
Yes, that is if you can afford it. The Zvezda service module for the ISS was launched without insurance or a backup because of financial problems. Embarrassingly they even had to turn to Pizza Hut for help: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pizzahut-00b.html http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pizzahut-00b.html

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

>If you are looking for someone to launch your assets into orbit, who do you choose? The first thing you do is be very glad that you have a choice. Then you can start price shopping. If there is only one domestic option, then you either pay what the sole-source wants, or you pursue international options if those are available to you, many times they will not be.