7 ms·

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#2aa33ff63305 https://www.forbes.co

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#2aa33ff63305 https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts... I googled it for you. >"Zuma" satellite is the third payload sitting on a Falcon 9 that has been lost in four years. By way of comparison, United Launch Alliance, SpaceX's sole competitor in the military launch business, hasn't lost a single payload in 12 years and 124 missions. >two recent government reports raise questions bearing upon the reliability of SpaceX products and processes. The first is an evaluation of quality controls among launch-vehicle suppliers to the military space program. That report, prepared by the defense department's Inspector General and dated December 20, found 181 deviations from quality standards at contractor sites. Over a third were "major nonconformities," meaning deviations that might contribute to a failure in quality controls.

rory096 8y ago
Zuma was not a SpaceX failure. This article is FUD by the COO of a think tank linked to the defense industry. https://twitter.com/lthompsonlex https://twitter.com/lthompsonlex http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/boeing-meant-america-centennial-assessment/ http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/boeing-meant-america-cente...
- kadenshep 8y ago
  Okay how does that negate the other payload losses that SpaceX has had, with only half the number of launches as its competitor? SpaceX has 61 launches according to this: http://www.spacex.com/missions http://www.spacex.com/missions You've totally missed the point. Haha, and then you edited your comment to attack the source. Honestly the person could have been North Korea's super extra special space dictator and it wouldn't change the reality that SpaceX has a higher incident rate than comparable companies. Which is what OP basically asked.
  - rory096 8y ago
    ULA is indeed remarkably reliable — that is its main advantage, given its high prices. However, ULA is only the sole competitor to SpaceX in military launch — for commercial and NASA launches several other alternatives exist. Let's take a more thorough review: • Proton-M: 9 failures and 2 partial failures in 102 launches. • Ariane 5: 2 failures and 3 partial failures in 98 launches • Antares: 1 failure in 8 launches (this is SpaceX's competitor in NASA resupply launches) • Pegasus (smallsats): 3 failures and 2 partial failures in 43 launches. Derivative Minotaur-C had 3 failures in 10 launches. • Falcon: 1 failure, 1 partial failure, and 1 non-launch payload loss (Amos-6) in 58 launches (59 campaigns). SpaceX's failure rate is in line with industry norms. While ULA has a perfect safety record since it was formed in 2006, its rockets do not (though they are still impressive). • Atlas V: 1 partial failure in 78 launches. • Delta IV: 1 partial failure in 36 launches. >two recent government reports raise questions bearing upon the reliability of SpaceX products and processes. The first is an evaluation of quality controls among launch-vehicle suppliers to the military space program. That report, prepared by the defense department's Inspector General and dated December 20, found 181 deviations from quality standards at contractor sites. Over a third were "major nonconformities," meaning deviations that might contribute to a failure in quality controls. Bizarrely, the author here attributes nonconformities at all three EELV contractors — including ULA and Aerojet Rocketdyne — to SpaceX. The actual breakdown: • ULA: 21 major, 43 minor • SpaceX : 33 major, 42 minor • Aerojet Rocketdyne: 14 major, 28 minor https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/29/2001862093/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2018-045.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/29/2001862093/-1/-1/1/DOD...
    - kadenshep 8y ago
      >SpaceX's failure rate is in line with industry norms. SpaceX's 93% launch success rate is still below average for ALL launches (94-95%), and has a higher incident rate than its "competitors" in any form. That's what was asked. You don't need to apologize for SpaceX. Some of the rockets in your "thorough" have radically different missions, specifications, and costs than the type of rockets we're discussing. Let's talk about what we're actually comparing. Orbital launch rockets actually beat "industry" averages by a signification margin. And let's talk about failures, unrecoverable ones. * Altas V (actually built by Lockheed Martin, not ULA): 98% successful launch rate. * Delta (entire family): 99% success rate across the ENTIRE family. * H-IIA: 98% success rate * Araine 5: 98% success rate. * Long March (entire family): 98-99% success rate. See a pattern? All of the above families have mission histories of 100+ launches. >the author here attributes nonconformities at all three EELV contractors — including ULA and Aerojet Rocketdyne — to SpaceX No they didn't. Are you just purposefully misreading the article? >The first is an evaluation of quality controls among launch-vehicle suppliers to the military space program. >at contractor sites. Beyond reading comprehension differences, I am not interested in willfully misrepresenting basic facts as some sort of intellectual jerk off exercise. SpaceX is below the industry average and way below the launch success average for the type of work they're doing. That's what the OP asked.

rory096 8y ago

Zuma was not a SpaceX failure. This article is FUD by the COO of a think tank linked to the defense industry. https://twitter.com/lthompsonlex https://twitter.com/lthompsonlex http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/boeing-meant-america-centennial-assessment/ http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/boeing-meant-america-cente...

kadenshep 8y ago
Okay how does that negate the other payload losses that SpaceX has had, with only half the number of launches as its competitor? SpaceX has 61 launches according to this: http://www.spacex.com/missions http://www.spacex.com/missions You've totally missed the point. Haha, and then you edited your comment to attack the source. Honestly the person could have been North Korea's super extra special space dictator and it wouldn't change the reality that SpaceX has a higher incident rate than comparable companies. Which is what OP basically asked.
- rory096 8y ago
  ULA is indeed remarkably reliable — that is its main advantage, given its high prices. However, ULA is only the sole competitor to SpaceX in military launch — for commercial and NASA launches several other alternatives exist. Let's take a more thorough review: • Proton-M: 9 failures and 2 partial failures in 102 launches. • Ariane 5: 2 failures and 3 partial failures in 98 launches • Antares: 1 failure in 8 launches (this is SpaceX's competitor in NASA resupply launches) • Pegasus (smallsats): 3 failures and 2 partial failures in 43 launches. Derivative Minotaur-C had 3 failures in 10 launches. • Falcon: 1 failure, 1 partial failure, and 1 non-launch payload loss (Amos-6) in 58 launches (59 campaigns). SpaceX's failure rate is in line with industry norms. While ULA has a perfect safety record since it was formed in 2006, its rockets do not (though they are still impressive). • Atlas V: 1 partial failure in 78 launches. • Delta IV: 1 partial failure in 36 launches. >two recent government reports raise questions bearing upon the reliability of SpaceX products and processes. The first is an evaluation of quality controls among launch-vehicle suppliers to the military space program. That report, prepared by the defense department's Inspector General and dated December 20, found 181 deviations from quality standards at contractor sites. Over a third were "major nonconformities," meaning deviations that might contribute to a failure in quality controls. Bizarrely, the author here attributes nonconformities at all three EELV contractors — including ULA and Aerojet Rocketdyne — to SpaceX. The actual breakdown: • ULA: 21 major, 43 minor • SpaceX : 33 major, 42 minor • Aerojet Rocketdyne: 14 major, 28 minor https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/29/2001862093/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2018-045.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/29/2001862093/-1/-1/1/DOD...
  - kadenshep 8y ago
    >SpaceX's failure rate is in line with industry norms. SpaceX's 93% launch success rate is still below average for ALL launches (94-95%), and has a higher incident rate than its "competitors" in any form. That's what was asked. You don't need to apologize for SpaceX. Some of the rockets in your "thorough" have radically different missions, specifications, and costs than the type of rockets we're discussing. Let's talk about what we're actually comparing. Orbital launch rockets actually beat "industry" averages by a signification margin. And let's talk about failures, unrecoverable ones. * Altas V (actually built by Lockheed Martin, not ULA): 98% successful launch rate. * Delta (entire family): 99% success rate across the ENTIRE family. * H-IIA: 98% success rate * Araine 5: 98% success rate. * Long March (entire family): 98-99% success rate. See a pattern? All of the above families have mission histories of 100+ launches. >the author here attributes nonconformities at all three EELV contractors — including ULA and Aerojet Rocketdyne — to SpaceX No they didn't. Are you just purposefully misreading the article? >The first is an evaluation of quality controls among launch-vehicle suppliers to the military space program. >at contractor sites. Beyond reading comprehension differences, I am not interested in willfully misrepresenting basic facts as some sort of intellectual jerk off exercise. SpaceX is below the industry average and way below the launch success average for the type of work they're doing. That's what the OP asked.